Home > Mabruk, Israel
Wars and conflicts International
By Imad Shakur
Israel had been a temporary state until 1967. After the decisive victory in that war, it stopped being one, but - and I say this in sorrow - it has failed to internalize that fact.
The main difference between a regular state and a temporary one is that the latter does not believe it can survive a military defeat.
And here we are, a month after Israel declared war on Lebanon, and regardless of the circumstances and conditions of the declaration, a military defeat is visible to all who open their eyes. Only those who suffer from arrogance and pigheadedness will fail to admit it. Nevertheless, no real immediate existential danger for the State of Israel is visible on the horizon. There is even no real Arab threat against Israel.
The Israel Defense Forces are defeated, but the State of Israel is not. And the IDF defeat comes from the fact that it did not, and could not, have achieved the goals it set for itself in this war. On the other hand, the state is not defeated, it lives on. Hence it is time for greetings: Mabruk.
If Israel had been an "army that has a country," as is often said, it would have ceased to exist. Now it has been proved beyond doubt that Israel is a country that has an army. And this army can achieve victory, or suffer defeat. The country will know how to celebrate a victory, just as it will know to grieve a defeat. In both cases, it will carry on living, kicking, marching on. This is the first and most important lesson this unfinished war has to offer. But it is not the only one.
The second lesson is that the IDF, with its enormous capacity for destroying, pounding and obliterating from afar, which relies on a vast arsenal of conventional, as well as unconventional, weapons unequaled in this region, and with the full support of the United States guaranteeing its continued supremacy over all the Arab armies combined - this IDF cannot ensure Israel’s control over any Arab country. This was proved by the Palestinians and Lebanese, two of the smaller people in the Arab world.
The third lesson is that Israel is a powerful state, but only within the 1967 borders, not beyond. From this day on, following the terrible bombardment of Lebanon and Gaza and following massive civilian killings, Israel has lost its ability to fill any regional role.
Indeed the area is approaching a change. Israel’s interest is to bring a resolution to the burning issues, first being the Palestinian one. It would be an awful error by Israel if it continues to try and profit from the Palestinian side’s weakness. This temporary weakness is a result of the weakness of a Hamas government that espouses a reactionary ideology, and Abu Mazen’s inability to practice the aims for which he was elected - primarily the fulfillment of the Palestinian people’s national objectives. These are weaknesses that are mainly a result of subjective, rather than objective, reasons.
The objective truth is the strength and existence of the Palestinian people, who agreed to the formula of two states for two peoples, since that is the beginning of the formula. It ends with real sustainable peace.
The writer is a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council