Israel’s Dual Onslaught On Lebanon And Palestine

by Gilbert Achcar interviewed by Paola Mirenda

Q. Since last Wednesday, the Israeli Army has been
imposing a siege on Lebanon and bombarding the country
as a result of the abduction of two of its soldiers and
the killing of seven others by a Lebanese Hezbollah
commando unit. Israel’s reaction was predictable, even
in its disproportion. What are the political and
strategic reasons that can be seen behind this action
by Hezbollah?

Achcar: The explanations that Hezbollah has given for
its action are many. The first reason invoked is to try
to obtain the release of prisoners — there are
several Lebanese believed to be held in Israeli
custody, although only two are officially detained by
Israel (in addition to close to 10,000 Palestinian
prisoners) — as well as to act in solidarity with the
struggle of Hamas in Palestine, which is animated by a
similar inspiration to that of Hezbollah, and to react
to the ongoing onslaught on Gaza. Of course, it was
logical to expect this violent retaliation on Israel’s
part, in light of what it did to Palestine in reaction
to the abduction of another soldier.

In this crisis, there are many dimensions involved:
international observers have discussed the possible
role of Syria and, above all, Iran in what is
occurring, and what calculations there are regarding
the regional balance of forces. Tehran, whose relation
to Hezbollah is similar to that of Moscow to the
communist parties at the time of the "international
communist movement," has been engaged for some time in
an anti-Israeli bidding game against rival Arab
governments in order to win over Sunni Muslim opinion.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s provocative statements
since his election one year ago were part of this game,
which fits in with Tehran’s strategy facing the USA, at
a time when American pressure on the nuclear issue is
in full escalation. But, whatever the case, it can be
said that what Hezbollah did has prompted a test of
strength that risks costing them a great deal, as it is
costing the whole of Lebanon very much already.

Q. A test of strength against Israel or within Lebanon?

Achcar: The test of strength is primarily against
Israel, because Israel tries through its actions,
whether in Palestine or in Lebanon, to crush the
resistance movements. The recent events have been
seized as pretexts to crush both Hezbollah and Hamas,
and the violence of the Israeli military onslaught is
to be read in that context. Israel takes entire
populations hostage; it has done so with the
Palestinian population and is doing the same now with
the Lebanese. It has bombed Beirut’s airport and
imposed a blockade on Lebanon: all that for an action
claimed by one Lebanese group, not by the Lebanese
state. In fact, Israel holds hostage an entire
population in a disproportionate reaction that aims at
pulling the rug from under the feet of its opponents
and at pressuring local forces to act against them. But
if this is indeed Israel’s calculation, it could
backfire, as it is possible that a military action of
such a scope could lead to the exact opposite and
radicalize the population more against Israel than
against Hezbollah. The murderous brutality of Israel’s
reaction, the closure of the airport, the naval
blockade, all are acts that could unite the population
in a revolt against Israel.

I don’t know for sure what Hezbollah’s real political
calculation has been, but they certainly expected a
large-scale reaction on the part of Israel, which has
already invaded Lebanon several times before. For this
reason, it seems to me that their action entailed an
important element of "adventurism," all the more that
the risk they have taken involves the whole population.
They have actually taken a very big risk in initiating
an attack on Israel, knowing its huge military power
and brutality, and the population could hold them
responsible for a new war and a new invasion, the cost
of which the Lebanese people will have to bear.

But having said that, it is necessary to stress that
the principal responsibility for the deterioration of
the whole situation falls on Israel. It has lately
reached new peaks in its utterly revolting behavior,
especially with regard to Gaza. After the abduction of
the soldier by a Palestinian group, the Israeli army
has killed dozens and dozens of Palestinian civilians.
Israel can abduct and detain with impunity Palestinian
civilians, but when some Palestinians kidnap one of its
soldiers in order to use him for an exchange, it
resorts to unrestricted violence, taking a whole
population hostage, bombing the densely populated Gaza
strip in the midst of general world indifference. This
is the main source of destabilization in the region —
this violent and arrogant behavior of Israel that is in
full harmony with the equally arrogant and violent
behavior the United States displayed in Iraq.

Q. What is the Lebanese government’s position facing
Hezbollah’s action? Israel has decided to consider this
action as being the responsibility of the whole
government despite the Lebanese Prime Minister’s
denial.

Achcar: Israel’s policy consists exactly in holding
entire populations hostage, as I said. It has done so
with the Palestinians; in the Lebanese case, it is even
more evident because, while it is true that Hezbollah
is part of the government, its participation is minimal
and it stands actually in the opposition. The Lebanese
government is dominated by a majority that is allied
with the United States, and they can now take the full
measure of the Bush administration’s hypocrisy that
claims to be very much concerned by the fate of the
Lebanese people only when it is a matter of opposing
Syria. To hold the present Lebanese government
responsible for Hezbollah’s action, even after this
government has officially taken its distance from that
action, is a demonstration of Israel’s diktat policy on
the one hand, and on the other hand the indication of
Israel’s determination to compel the Lebanese to enter
into a state of civil war, as it tries to do with the
Palestinians. In each case, Israel wants to compel one
part of the local society — Fatah in Palestine and the
governmental majority in Lebanon — to crush Israel’s
main enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, or else they be
crushed themselves.

Q. What relates the Hezbollah and Hamas movements?

Achcar: They have similar ideologies and a radical
opposition to Israel. Hamas are Sunni Muslims, while
Hezbollah are Shiite Muslims, but both of them are
allied to Syria and Iran. It is a sort of regional
alliance against Israel. Hezbollah was born after the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and Hamas at the
time of the first Intifada in 1987-88. The fundamental
reason for the existence of both is opposition to
Israel, the national struggle against the occupier of
their territories, the struggle against a common enemy
identified as Israel, as well as the United States
behind it.

The division between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is due
to domestic factors peculiar to the country, but is not
otherwise important in the whole region. This division
appeared also in Lebanon this last year, though in a
much less virulent fashion, when the majority of the
Sunni community, led by Hariri who is allied with the
Saudis and the U.S., found itself in opposition to the
majority of Shiites led by Hezbollah allied with Syria.
But this division could hardly become an important
factor in countries where the two communities, Shiites
and Sunnis, are not both present, as they are in Iraq
and Lebanon. In Palestine, there are hardly any
Shiites.

The relation of solidarity that Hezbollah has with
Hamas it did not have either with the PLO or the
Palestinian Authority when the latter was led by
Arafat. Hezbollah never had any sympathy for Arafat and
even less so for Mahmoud Abbas, in whom they don’t
recognize the same radical opposition to Israel that
they see in Hamas, when they don’t accuse them of
betraying the Palestinian cause. The rise of Hamas’s
clout in Palestine has been perceived by Hezbollah and
by Iran as a victory, and Iran was the first state to
offer compensatory funding to the Palestinians when
Western funds were cut from them.

Q. How will the Lebanese population react to what is
happening? Will Hezbollah get their solidarity or will
it be held responsible for their suffering?

Achcar: The popular base of Hezbollah is Shiite, of
course (Shiites are the largest minority among
Lebanon’s communities, none of which constitutes a
majority). But certainly many among the Sunni minority
approve its action as a gesture of solidarity with
Hamas and the Palestinians, whereas the brutality of
Israel’s reaction increases this solidarity. On the
other hand, it is probable that the enmity to Hezbollah
among major parts of the Lebanese minorities other than
the Shiites — the Christian Maronites, the Sunnis, the
Druzes, etc. — will be reinforced because they feel to
have been put at risk by Hezbollah’s unilateral choice
and consider that they will be made to pay the cost of
this choice. The risk, obviously, is that the sectarian
divisions deepen within Lebanon and that this leads
eventually to a new civil war. The decisive question is
whether the Lebanese governmental majority will yield
to the Israeli diktat at the cost of a new civil war,
or decide that the priority is to oppose the Israeli
aggression and preserve the country’s unity. For the
time being, this second option seems to be prevailing.
One can only hope that it will remain so. The
international protest against the dual Israeli
onslaught can contribute strongly to the reinforcement
of the option of common resistance.

This interview was conducted by Paola Mirenda on July
15, 2006, for the Italian daily Liberazione, the
newspaper of the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista
(PRC).

Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon and teaches political
science at the University of Paris-VIII. His most
recent works are Eastern Cauldron (2004), The Israeli
Dilemma (2006) and The Clash of Barbarisms (2d ed.
2006); a book of his dialogues with Noam Chomsky on the
Middle East, Perilous Power, is forthcoming from
Paradigm Publishers.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...