Deja vu — Judith Apter Klinghoffer
JOSCHKA FISCHER ON "THE WAR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL"
My Danish friend Anders brought this July 25th article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung to my attention by the former German Foreign Minister. Though it is a few days old, I believe it to be a significant contribution to the current debate on the war. For those who do not read German, here is a translation. The subtitle is:
Perhaps this war against the existence of Israel will provide an opportunity to achieve finally a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
Haifa and Beirut and many other Lebanese and Israeli cities and villages are under fire. Who would have considered it possible only a few weeks ago? Certainly Hezbullah’s possession of a very large number of Katyusha rockets and long range guided missiles has been well-known for a long time. And the fact that the Hezbullah runs a state within a state in Lebanon, and that it has a highly motivated private army in addition to terror structures, has been anything but a secret. The Hezbullah (and not the Lebanese government and their army) has controlled the Lebanese-Israeli border since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
And although it holds several ministries in the Beirut government and has representatives in its parliament, the Hezbollah does not follow primarily the Lebanese public interest. Instead, it depends rather completely and crucially on Damascus and particularly on Teheran, from which it also receives most of its weapons. In this Proxy war in Lebanon, the foreign control of Hezsbullah is the primary and crucial reason for the present Lebanese tragedy, which is caused by the war being, in reality, a "proxy war". This war is not a war of the Arabs against Israel, but a war of radical Rejectionists to reconciliation with Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Palestinian side and by Hezbullah in Lebanon, Syria and Iran.The Rejectionists sought escalation for three reasons: first, in order to escape the internal-Palestinian pressure on the Hamas to recognize Israel; second, in order to block the Lebanese democratization process; and third, in order to push the developing conflict around the Iranian atomic program into the background and provide the west with the "tools" for a possible conflict. The moderate Arab governments understood that this conflict concerns the Syrian wish to increase its hegemony in the area (Syria over Lebanon/Palestine) as well as Iran’s regional ambitions. These interests are reflected on the “proxy” Lebanese battleground. The attack and the abuse of Israel is the instrument. The Palestinian and Lebanese victims are the legitimizing agents. But the strategic intentions of the participants in the background go far beyond them.
More to the point, the shifting goals of war in southern Lebanon led to German comments of its being "a question of lives and death." The goal of the Conference in Rome is cessation of hostilities. Certainly, by itself, this strategy which consists of an attack on Israel and a war in Lebanon and Gaza may prove a miscalculation. By the rocket bombardment of Haifa, the third biggest city of Israel, a line was crossed and that will have far reaching consequences. It has immediately been understood that the war no longer revolves predominantly around territory, return of lands or occupation, or even around a conflict between one or two Middle Eastern states. Instead, the strategic threat to Israel (its existence as such) has come to the fore. The Rejectionists underestimated the Israeli determination and deterrence ability. It also proved the impossibility of a return to the status quo ante in Lebanon. And it made the hegemonic ambitions, above all of Teheran, visible.
This miscalculation will become more visible first, if Israel remains within the limited goal of substantial deterrence and will not be pulled into a land war in Lebanon. Second, if the war will not end with a return of Lebanon to the status quo ante, but with the disarmament (with the assistance of the international community) of all militias in accordance to UN resolution 1559. Third, if the existing anti-hegemonic coalition between the moderate Arab states (including moderate Palestinians) is converted into a serious peace initiative. Fourth, if the Middle East Quartet, as previously mentioned by USA, becomes engaged in a permanent political solution which include economic and military guaranties.
Therefore, Israel plays a key part. Twice, the country has withdrawn behind its internationally recognized borders (from south Lebanon and Gaza). Twice, force over the borders was the answer. Land for war, and not Land for peace, was the answer. Providing Israel with indispensable and effective independence and security guarantees would permit a durable internal re-organization of Lebanon. The map is crucial and it is crucial now – right now! – Is it not of crucial importance to try to play the Syrian map and offer President Assad a way to normalization? Israel holds the crucial map in its hand with the Golan. Without Damascus, Tehran would be completely alone.
And, finally, are the Palestinians - a hopeless case? No. In the Israeli prisons among prominent Palestinian prisoners a new consent between Fatah and Hamas developed, based on a Palestine within the borders from 1967. In addition, this crisis may have led to greater Palestinian realism. However, if one means to be serious, for both sides, nothing will go past the crucial date of June 1967.
And Israel? Wouldn't the realization of a new strategic threat introduce a new thinking, which will make some controversies about land and settlements appear outdated after this war? This war is directed against the existence of Israel as such. Therefore, wouldn't strategic and thus regional security gain a substantially greater importance in the future? Wouldn’t a chance for peace define Israel’s security in the future? Wouldn’t it best be served by superior deterrence, by strategic depth through political solutions, and a regional security structure? Israel would be well advised to use also the political possibilities of this war and come out with an initiative from a position of the strength: with a comprehensive peace offer to all those, which are ready to recognize Israel not only in words, but particularly in acts and embark on durable program of disarmament. Think big! This applies, however, not only to Israel, but also and directly to the USA and Europe. The war opens a chance for the peace, which should not be scuttled.
News
- Breaking News
- History Buzz
- Historians in the News
- Political Highlights
- Washington DC
- Obituaries
- History on TV
Hot Topics
- Black History Month
- China Rising
- The Olympics
- Haitian Earthquake
- Did You Know?
- Health Care Reform
- HNN Polls: Rate Obama's State of the Union!
- Important State of the Union Addresses in History
- Did You Know?
- HNN Polls: Massachusetts Senate Election
Features
- Top Young Historians
- Doyens
- Books About History
- On This Day in History
- This Week in History
- Quote/Unquote
Roundup
HNN Blogs
- History Blogroll
- Cliopatria
- Liberty & Power
- Judith Apter Klinghoffer
- How Stupid?
- Mark A. LeVine
- Allan Lichtman
- Tim Furnish
- Gil Troy
Etc.
