• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Monday, April 29, 1996

Regional history and politics help shed light upon recent Israeli actions in southern Lebanon

In a school where people are so passionate about their political beliefs that they often block traffic to express them, I am hesitant to delve into the emotional realm of politics. Since I am too lazy to schlep all the way to Wilshire and Westwood, I guess expressing my views in the Daily Bruin is my next best option.

While the lay Bruin would rather immerse himself in his sheltered world of mufflers on steroids and fluorescent pagers, cases often arise in which real-world concerns transcend petty commentary on Bruin society (see my last column).

One such case is the current Israeli-Hezbollah war. For the past few weeks, Israeli shells have rained upon the cities of southern Lebanon and Beirut. Reports of slaughtered women and children elicit cries of outrage from the short-memoried American public. News clips focus their so-called analyses on the bungling and heartless Israeli army, out on a merciless crusade to destroy the people of Lebanon without discriminating in their attack between soldier and child. There has been a concomitant plunge in the usually unwavering support of the American public for the Jewish state.

While the death of innocent women and children is tragic, the American public should realize the current political climate and historical context in Israel which prompted this Israeli action. It is a history which involves Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Israel. To view the bombing raids as simply the merciless acts of an overly paranoid nation inevitably leads to the type of gross misperception which currently plagues most Americans. This series of events has adversely affected both Israel-Lebanese and Israel-Syrian relations.

The root of the Israeli conflict traces back to Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Israel sought to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization in the southern part of the country which had organized numerous deadly terrorist attacks. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) would lob grenades into Israel, conduct suicide bombings and even raid Israel's beaches and slaughter sunbathers. The PLO at the time posed a major threat to Israel's sense of security.

Guerrilla warfare tactics by the PLO quickly reduced the invasion to a Vietnam-like quagmire, in which both sides incurred huge losses. Total Israeli withdrawal meant humiliation, so Israel kept a nine-mile buffer zone between the two countries to deter further PLO terrorism. Hezbollah (Party of God) was founded for the purported purpose of reclaiming this land for Lebanon. Following the tradition of Islamic fundamentalism, Hezbollah engaged in its own jihad (holy war) against Israel.

For years, Israel restrained from engaging in an aerial onslaught due to the close proximity of the Hezbollahs to a United Nations base. Israeli deaths have exceeded 150, and over 600 rockets have been launched into Israel by Hezbollah gunmen. This restraint on Israel's part clearly shows Israel's dedication to peace at virtually all costs. Yet, due to the guerrilla style of the Hezbollah, it has been difficult to pinpoint the terrorists.

Shimon Peres, Israel's Prime Minister and a member of the Labor Party, has engaged in a fierce campaign race with the hard line Likud Party, with the elections taking place in just under a month.

The consequences of a Peres defeat in the election would be disastrous for the peace process. The Likud Party has outwardly condemned the peace process and says it will refuse to support many of Israel's treaties with its neighbors. However, the recent allure of the Likud Party is not surprising. The Likud Party feels it can bring a sense of security back to Israel by alienating the Arab nations and the PLO, which many perceive have stolen it.

Peres' rating plummeted after the series of gruesome Hamas suicide bombings. In an effort to garner public support and to re-establish a sense of security, Peres initiated the bombing attack on the Hezbollah.

Yet Syria also plays a major role in the equation. It is part of Syrian President Hafez Assad's plan to make Lebanon part of greater Syria. After almost 15 years of bloody civil war in Lebanon, Syria sent 35,000 troops to stop the fighting. It worked, yet Syria retained great control over Lebanon's affairs, partially due to Lebanon's lack of any real government. Thus, Hezbollah exists only if Assad allows it to exist. Even though Hezbollah gets monetary and military backing from Iran, without Assad's permission, there is no Hezbollah.

Therefore, the fate of Hezbollah, possibly the Israeli election and the Golan Heights are all inextricably linked and dependent on Hafez Assad. Why is this concept important? Israel has received a lot of flak for its tenacity with regard to the Golan Heights. For the lay Bruin, the Golan Heights is a huge plateau that extends across the Israel-Syria border. Before Israel captured it in the War of 1967, Syria used it as a sniper's perch, and launched rockets at Israeli schools and businesses. Also, the Golan Heights is Israel's water source, and per foot, has one of the highest crop yields in the world.

People claim that Israel should be far more conciliatory towards Syria. These people argue that it is Iran, not Syria, who supports the militant fundamentalists. They claim that Assad, although he has had his lapses of sanity, has been cordial enough toward Israel to warrant the return of the Golan. This opinion leads people to view Israel in a poor light.

In short, this argument falls flat on it's face. These aforementioned people do not see Assad's clear link to the Hezbollah attacks which have terrorized Israel for the past decade. The fact of the matter is that Assad has given Israel absolutely no foundation upon which to build an everlasting peace. While it is true that Hezbollah gets all of its arms from Iran, Syria is clearly in the driver's seat. Assad could eliminate Hezbollah with merely a phone call.

In order to get a better grasp of the situation, one must look at the issue from an Israeli perspective. Syria is a terrorist nation led by a stubborn psychotic who has no conception of how a democracy functions. This psychotic has directly and indirectly supported the destruction of Israel.

In the wars of '67 and '73, Assad devoted his military to the destruction of Israel. Since then, he has permitted terrorist activity towards the state of Israel. Last Tuesday, he refused to see U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who made a special flight to Damascus for that purpose.

Also, a pact with a despotic ruler lasts only as long as the ruler himself. In a region in which assassination is not unusual, Assad's imminent death is not out of the realm of possibility. His replacement could conceivably misuse the military capabilities of the Golan Heights once again. In light of this knowledge, how likely would you be to give your most militarily essential outpost to Syria? Your honor, the defense rests.

How does the Golan Heights relate to the Israeli election on May 28? Public opinion in Israel is strongly opposed to the return of the Golan Heights. Ergo, Peres would commit political suicide if he were to return the Golan Heights to a psychotic who has endorsed the slaying of over 150 Israelis in the past decade. It is clear that Assad has done little, if nothing, to earn the trust and confidence of the Israelis, and therefore he does not deserve the Golan Heights.

One must remember that the Peres administration and the previous Rabin government have fought for peace at all costs. They have sacrificed most of the occupied territories and have made ground-breaking efforts to establish business ties between Israel and its neighbors. In other words, Israel wants peace, and, after almost 50 years of carnage, it deserves peace. Israel's intentions are crystal clear. It holds no vendetta against any of its neighbors. Therefore, logic and reality both point to Assad as the failure in these negotiations, not Israel.

However, public opinion as of late has pointed to quite the contrary. In order to understand what Israel is doing in Lebanon, one must look at all of these factors. People should not rush to condemn Israel for the recent deaths in Lebanon, for as analysis reveals, Syria and Hafez Assad have infinitely more blood on their hands.

White is a first-year political science and French student. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.