Israeli-Hezbollah Conflicts: The Insensibilities of War Essay

The world has witnessed again the hostilities of war this year. The terrorist group Hezbollah initiated the spate of violence in the Middle East by sending raiders into Israel from Lebanon. This attack killed eight Israeli soldiers and two others kidnapped, while they launched missiles into northern Israel. Not taking this action sitting down, Israel retaliated by bombing Beirut’s airports, roads and Hezbollah hangouts, killing innocent civilians in the process. It was in June this year that the Hezbollah gained 80 percent of the votes in the Lebanese parliamentary elections in southern Lebanon. This will mean that the group will cover 35 seats in the 128-member national assembly. Despite their popularity in Lebanon, Hezbollah had been involved in the 1982 Israeli invasion and the subsequent U. S. military intervention, engaging in a series of kidnappings and assassinations of Americans as well as the deadly truck bombings of the U. S. embassy and a Marine barracks (Zunes 21). As an organization, Hezbollah essentially means â€Å"Party of God†. Their history emanated to help the Islamic Revolutionary Guards fight active opponents who demonstrated in the streets. The name was used as early as 1973 by Ayatollah Mahmood Ghaffary in Iran. It was resurrected in 1978 in one of the revolution’s slogans: â€Å"Our Party Is the Party of Allah and Our Leader Is Ruh Allah. † The so-called party consisted of a thousand young thugs who infested Tehran’s poor neighborhoods. For a modest monthly allowance, they waged street battles against members of more sophisticated political groups. In contrast to its beginning, the â€Å"party† today boasts a membership of more than one million adherents in Iran alone. Its offshoots in Muslim countries, Europe, and America act as operatives and as a vanguard for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Lebanon, the party also has a powerful military wing that has bombed Israel and given assistance to militant groups like Hamas in the Gaza Strip (Hoveyda 94). Acclaimed for their notoriety, Zune indicated that: For more than a decade, however, the Hezbollah militia had restricted its armed activities to fighting Israeli occupation forces, initially in southern Lebanon and then — following Israel’s withdrawal in 2000—in a disputed border region with Syria still under Israeli control. Attacks against foreign occupation forces have traditionally been recognized as legitimate acts of self-defense and not as acts of terrorism, a term usually restricted to deliberate attacks against civilian targets (21). Hezbollah’s leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah declared war on Israel because had no option. They could disarm and participate more fully in Lebanon’s government, but that would have meant giving up â€Å"the resistance,† the ideology so central to Hezbollah that it functions as a national founding myth. Their resistance is, first and foremost, an ongoing guerrilla war against Israel, which occupied southern Lebanon until its withdrawal in 2000. Hezbollah had weapons to defend their land—rockets, Iranian-made missiles, and drones. It is the source of fierce pride for Hezbollah, the only Arab force to succeed in ousting Israel from its land. But, before anything else, the resistance was a political movement, born decades ago, of empowerment for Lebanon’s eternally despised Shia. In Hezbollah’s collective mind, the Shia have finally emerged on top after being put down for so long, and now they want to prove that they can do what no other Arab country has done: defeat Israel. â€Å"You do not know today who you are fighting,† declared Nasrallah on July 14. â€Å"You are fighting a people who possess strength of faith that no one else has on the face of this Earth† (Ciedlo 14). Due to their own misgiving, Israel is now dealing with crises on two fronts. First, it was carrying out an operation in the Gaza Strip to rescue Corporal Galid Shalit, who had been captured by Palestinian militants. This triggered an ongoing conflict between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants taking place in Gaza. After that, a second operation into Lebanon was launched to rescue Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev — the two soldiers captured by Lebanon-based Hezbollah. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming task of fighting on two fronts, Prime Minister Olmert ruled out any negotiations with Hezbollah, just as it had foreclosed the discussions with Hamas. Additionally, his government filed a complaint with the United Nations, calling on the Security Council to enforce an existing resolution that required the Lebanese government to disarm militias (Coleman, 29 July 2006). In fairness to the Lebanese government, it denied that they had no previous knowledge of Hezbollah’s activities and would not take responsibility for the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers. To this end, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said, â€Å"The government was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international border† (Al Jazeera, 7 July 2006). Experts on the ground in Lebanon also pointed to the fact that despite the existence of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, the country simply was not in the position — politically or militarily — to disarm Hezbollah on its own. With the ongoing scuffles, Lebanese government represented by Social Affairs Minister, Naila Mouawad, called for the two Israeli soldiers to be returned home. She also reiterated Lebanon’s previously-noted position that her government was neither aware of Hezbollah’s plan, nor supported it. With that statement, Mouawad criticized Israel’s response for being too heavy-handed, particularly with regard to the lives of Lebanese civilians. She warned that Lebanon was experiencing a catastrophe and explained that her government could not disarm Hezbollah by force (Coleman, 29 July 2006). Naturally, the reaction around the globe was intense woes that these conflicts might sprout in something bigger, many countries already had requested for restraint from all parties involved. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned both the abduction of the Israeli soldiers as well as the resulting offensive by Israeli forces into Lebanon. Russian, France and the European Union expressed the view that Israel’s response to the capture of two soldiers was disproportionate. But Israeli spokesman, Mark Regev, said that Israel was simply responding to an â€Å"unprovoked act of aggression. † Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, voiced out that Israel should ensure its own security, it should do so in a way that avoided civilian deaths. The Vatican later added its condemnation of the situation – calling for the release of the soldiers by Hezbollah and decrying Israel’s strikes against the sovereignty of Lebanon. On the U. S. government’s part, President George W. Bush characterized Hezbollah as terrorists and supported Israel’s right to defend itself. However, he also warned that whatever action Israel took, it should be mindful of the stability of the Lebanese government. With all these bombings here and there, the head of the emergency relief agency for the United Nations, Jan Egeland, characterized the damage caused by Israeli strikes on Beirut as â€Å"horrific. † He lambasted the demolition job caused by Israel’s retaliatory action against Hezbollah, calling it excessive. He also condemned Hezbollah for â€Å"cloaking itself among the civilian population†, which is causing the rise in civilian casualties. With damages continuing to heighten, Egeland called on both sides to cease their attacks and noted that humanitarian aid would begin arriving shortly in Lebanon. In that latter regard, he appealed for safe access of all civilian evacuees caught between the warring parties. He also said that the United Nations would be launching an appeal for humanitarian aid amounting to $150 million dollars (USD). Egeland arrived in Beirut on the heels of an Israeli strike against the Hezbollah-dominated portion of Lebanon’s capital city. In Beirut, there were four injuries when one strike hit a mosque. While Hezbollah said the facility was used only for prayer, Israel contended that it was one of several legitimate targets used not only for conventional purposes, but also by Hezbollah for its activities (Coleman, 29 July 2006). Israel’s aerial bombing of southern and eastern Lebanon continued. The Israeli strikes had already caused Lebanese engineers, who had been attempting to repair impassable roads, to retreat for safety reasons. The southern town of Sidon several people seeking safety were hit by Israeli strikes. Not spared, the historic city of Tyre was the site of action from both sides. It was one of several places from which some Hezbollah militants were firing missiles and, as such, Israel made it a target of retaliatory strikes. There were eight deaths reported across Lebanon. They included a young boy, a photographer, three people fleeing in a minibus, as well as three Hezbollah fighters. On the other side of the border, two Israelis died in Haifa and over twenty people were injured as a result of repeated Hezbollah rocket attacks. United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in July 24, 2006 for talks regarding the crisis in between Lebanon and Israel. Before arriving in the Middle East, Rice mentioned to reporters that the United States still had an embassy in Syria. Her statement was interpreted by some as a reminder that the United States and Syria still shared diplomatic relations that could be leveraged, if necessary. Her first stop was Lebanon where she met with Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. In that meeting, she expressed concern for the Lebanese people, while also making clear that Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel from within Lebanese territory could not be permitted to continue. In the backdrop of these developments, the White House announced that it had authorized humanitarian aid to be sent to Lebanon. Secretary Rice, and later President Bush, both conveyed the view that the only possible solution to the conflict was a sustainable ceasefire and enduring peace. The United States’ stance has been that a ceasefire might result in only Israeli compliance, thus subjecting Israel to future attacks. Clearly, this view has not been shared by many world leaders and foreign policy chiefs who have called for an immediate ceasefire, arguing that continued hostilities were untenable, regardless of optimal long-term objectives. Many Middle Eastern experts have further said that no long-term objectives can be achieved, at all, without addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Coleman, 29 July 2006). In an article in the New Republic, Lawrence Kaplan declared that Bush has spent many more hours encouraging Israel than constraining it. This could be analyzed as the US government seems has no more use for Hezbollah than Israel does. â€Å"And, while the organization may not pose the existential threat to the United States that it does to Israel, the administration views it as a crucial proxy for Iran. Critics delight in faulting the Bush administration for viewing the international scene through a ‘state-centric’ lens. But, when it comes to Hezbollah—which boasts verifiable return addresses in Tehran and Damascus—what other lens is there? † In my opinion, the Israeli government is doing more harm than good. Rescuing two soldiers, while endangering hundreds of lives is really irrational. They should have sought the U. N.’s help rather than waging a war that intruded the normal living conditions of innocent Lebanese civilians. War should be the last option rather than an initial response. Now, Israel is seemingly suffering the brunt of all of its actions because of the retaliatory attempts that the Hezbollah troops are waging in Israel’s areas. The U. N. , on the other hand, as well as countries like the U. S. , should have taken proactive measures to put a stop in these conflicts. As stated above, long-term solutions should be delineated from their mediation to avoid the further destruction of both countries. As we all know, there is no long term solution that could be resolved through bombs and guns. We cannot, of course, repeat history by neglecting these conflicts that are costing the lives of many people. Countries cannot repeat the errors in history, where wars had lost not only lives, but properties and the freedom of people. War could not fully reconstruct people’s experiences. We certainly cannot feel other people’s sufferings, although we can empathize with them because we have general knowledge, and many unfortunately have some experience of suffering. The suffering of the victims, especially the innocent ones, is enough reason why Israel and Hezbollah should hold a ceasefire and negotiate about their scuffles. If they cannot understand the destruction they are causing, people around the globe should knock some sense out of these leaders who cannot feel the suffering of the victims. Works Cited Al Jazeera Website. â€Å"Hezbollah Captures Israeli Soldiers,† (July 12, 2006). Acquired 30 July 2006 at http://www. aljazeera. com/me. asp? service_ID=11629 Ciedlo, Anna. â€Å"Entombed† (cover story). New Republic, 235. 5 (July 31, 2006): 13-15. Coleman, Denise Youngblood. â€Å"Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah Mired in Violent Conflict,† CountryWatch Forecast, (July 29, 2006). Acquired 30 July 2006 at http://forecast. countrywatch. com/fc_moreon. aspx Hoveyda, Fereydoun. The Broken Crescent: The â€Å"Threat† of Militant Islamic Fundamentalism. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. Kaplan, Lawrence F. â€Å"Other Means,† New Republic, 235. 5 (July 31, 2006): 12-13, Zunes, Stephen. â€Å"U. S. Rhetoric about Hezbollah Blurs Reality. † National Catholic Reporter, 41. 33 (July 1, 2005): 21-21.