History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I truly want this to be a discussion backed with facts. Please link your answers to appropriate sources.
PS July 22: The expanding scope of the war indicates that Israel is now waging a war against Lebanon as well as Hezbollah.
Actually I was hoping for the same. While many good people have brought important information and thought to this particular entry, I do wish a few more with strong relevant scholarship had dropped in.
I agree with you there -- the sources I'd hope to see would date from before the current action. Again, such things are only hypothetical to me, but I'd suspect that Israeli foreign policy analysis exists in periodicals and speeches by at least some of the current actors. Surely someone who'd followed Israeli domestic debates about foreign policy would be able to shed clearer light on the subject than we can come up with through speculation.
David
Fair enough. History can be misused to support a cause, both consciously and unconsciously.
Do you believe that it can be used well here?
I agree: Nathanael's comment about the rigidity of the concept could well be expanded to note, for example, that the hard-edged definition of centralized nation-states with clear boundaries and undivided sovereignty within those boundaries is a relatively recent invention in human affairs, and not terribly applicable in a lot of situations.
As I am trained in modern British history, I heard a faint echo when an Israeli soldier was kidnapped by Sunni Palestinian militants and two other Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Shiite Lebanese militants. The echo reverberated from 1947 when Zionist militants kidnapped two British sergeants Martin and Paice and later hanged them (booby-trapping the two corpses). This is not to criticize the Israeli government of 2006. History is always selective. Which UN resolutions are sacred and which are to be ignored? Is it more important that the ancient Israelites lived in what is now the modern state of Israel or that Arabs and only a few Jews lived there in the nineteenth century and many preceding centuries? Are today’s “facts” the appropriate basis for drawing boundaries or those of a favorite yesterday or those of a possible tomorrow? The Arabs and their sympathizers criticize the Israelis as “settler colonizers” (and consequently bad as defined at this moment of history, analogous to the Afrikanners in South Africa), but the Arabs have wandered quite a distance from the Arabian peninsula. I recall attending a lecture by Edward Said who said (if my memory is correct) that there are Christian Lebanese who claim to be descendants of the Phoenicians and not of Arab newcomers. Certainly Europeans and Americans who sniff about Israel being a settler society forget that Angles, Franks, Lombards, and Euro-Americans created settler societies at the expense of peoples who preceded them. There are also two related topics, inequality in armaments and disproportionate casualties. Warfare has never been a chess match in which adversaries start with the same number of fighters with identical fighting capacities. In World War II the British were not embarrassed about having suffered fewer military and civilian casualties than the Germans. Nor did the Americans feel awkward about killing more Japanese, whether in uniform or civilians, than Japan inflicted on the USA. History is a wonderful attic stuffed with all sorts of evidence for whatever contemporary argument. Just don’t look too thoroughly or you may see evidence that you don’t like.
As a lawyer, I generally find discussions of "international law" to be singularly unhelpful. People usually raise it, not to aid in the analysis or understanding of a complex issue, but to cut off further debate by tendentiously asserting that their ideological position is required by "international law."
I agree with all three of your numbered points. Certainly, my slight contribution did not envisage a legal discussion, but hoped to progress a reasonable political, policy discussion.
From a "legal" standpoint, I find very few legal terms to have precise definitions. It seems to me that the controlling "law," so to speak, is Security Council Resolution 1559. That resolution calls on foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon, calls for the disbanding and disarmament of militias and the territorial integrity of Lebanon.
Since Lebanon could not control its southern border and Hezbollah increased its military power over the area rather than disbanding, Lebanon could be considered a "failed State" in that it could not exercise sovereignty over a portion of its territory. In fact, I saw reports that a Hezbollah controlled area of Beirut was off limits to Lebanese police and military.
It seems to me that international law recognizes the right of a country to self defense whether an attack comes from the military of a neighboring country or an uncontrolled militia in that country. Furthermore, since Lebanon was a "failed State" prior to Israel's response to Hezbollah's attack, discussion of Israel's intent seems irrelevant from a strictly legal standpoint. A "failed State" does not become a more "failed State" legally.
Obviously, from a political, policy standpoint that issue has great importance because degrees of "failure" have important policy implications.
Personally, I think the more interesting, difficult and useful issues are the public policy, political ones that the parties face rather than any strictly "legal" ones.
I know of no such legal definition of "failed state" either.
On the phenomena of the failed state in general, I found Nathaniel Robinson's comment near the top of the responses particularly enlightening.
I've never heard the term "failed state" described as a legal term of art before. There's no specific difference that I know of in international law between actions which do or don't topple governments or, as in the case of many failed states, merely make them obviously ineffectual.... but I could be wrong about that.
Hi Chris. good to hear from you, too.
I would love to see more of a legal--as in international law--component to this debate, but I make no apologies for the political approach.
1. Even in domestic law, many controversial cases have political dimensions and politics may determine interpretation.
2. International law, when it comes to war and nation-state behavior at the highest level, has few effective forms of punishment. I have focused this question on Israel's actions, but consider the actions of Hevbollah in this light. Did Israel have a choice other than to attack Hezbollah in some manner once they started this round of conflict? What enforcement authority could they have turned to?
3. In the absence of enforcement, international laws become guidelines, and guidelines tend to be followed on the basis of political considerations, both internal and external.
"failed state"
it can be a political term...meaning that we have a bunch of politically based scholars talking about something that means something decidedly different within their own ideological reality...or it can be a more precise legal term dependent upon the exact legal definition of a state and the precedent conditions necessary to consider it "failed." Regarding the culpability of the Israelis, one then has to determine whether it is premeditated, an acknowledged byproduct that was known beforehand, or something that any reasonable person (a highly subjective legal term) should have know (something that is easily proven in this instance).
At any rate...even if Israel can claim that there was no SPECIFIC intent to create a failed state, it can be easily demonstrated that displacing thousands, targeting infrastructure, etc, results in conditions that make it nearly impossible to maintain the political and economic integrity of an undeniably weak state (i don't think anyone will disagree with that assessment).
But I already know that most of you don't deal in logical things such as law and instead choose to have these discussions on a political level which gets us nowhere since it is one person trying to convince the others that his/her ideological interpretation is correct...so i will just point out the difference above and leave you to your remonstrations...
CP
Yes and, if Israel invades Lebanon, its army will probably join Hezbollah in opposition to the invasion.
It looks as if PM Siniora of Lebanon is claiming a distorted translation with regard to his recently reported remarks about the need for help in disarming Hezbollah.
The question of the stability of the Lebanese government is not just from the 1970's onward, but much earlier. Let's not forget that US Marines were patrolling the streets of Beirut already in 1958. According to reports of an interview in an Italian newspaper, the PM of Lebanon is now calling for help with the disarming of Hezbollah, something which I don't think we were hearing even last week. I think that Israel knows that it can't solve the problem all by itself and does not want an failed state north of the border, which in a sense is what has been in Southern Lebanon. They know there are only a few days left, hence the increased use of ground troops in Southern Lebanon engaging Hezbollah in fierce infantry fighting.
Thanks for the responses. you would put words above actions in determining intent. While that is logical in many situations, I'm not sure that public diplomatic announcements in time of war constitutes one of those situations.
I think the question could be raised whether 'failed state' is too rigid a category to describe the Lebanon that it sees and would like to see. The current dynamic has evolved to resemble relationships between Great Lake states, in which the real security concerns about genocidaires in Kivu and Ituri in Easter Congo are used as a pretext by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi to weaken popular and national sovereignty in those areas. In some sense, a "soft" failure is desired, eliminating the threat without allowing full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty.
Mind you, I'm not saying that analysis of Israel's actions and their likely consequences is useless when judging intent, just that -- as with what our own good sense would dictate -- it should rank below words as evidence of intent.
"Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, UAE and the Palestinian Authority seem to object more to Hezbollah's actions than Israel's."
I agree (except perhaps for the Palestinians). But I would not take their desire to see Hezbollah rooted out to have any tinge of concern for the the Lebanese in it. They do not suffer greatly if Lebanon is sent back to the 1980s. So that fact is not particularly important in indicating a belief that Israel is targeting Hezbollah narrowly.
As far as Israeli targets are concerned, perhaps it is "coincidental," but they seem to include many aspects of the infrastructure rebuilt since the Civil War. This makes those attacks resonate beyond the physical damage.
I put "concidental" in quotes because, if my memory is correct, the Israelis also targeted points of pride in dismatling the Palestinian controlled areas in the second Intifada. In that case, it was clearly meant as blows to that pride.
In a sense Lebanon was already a failed State. It failed to control its sourthern border as envisaged by Security Council Resolution 1559. Hezbollah built a state within a State and brought 13,000 rockets plus other arms into Lebanon. It attacked Israel for its own purposes rather than Lebanon's.
The reality is that Hezbollah could have acted against the legitimate government of Lebanon at any time.
Israel's action may ultimately improve Lebanon's chances to act as a successful government. Israel has complete control of the skies over Lebanon. It can bomb anything it wants. If it wanted to destroy Lebanon or its government, it could easily do so.
Its attacks appear to have been limited to Hezbollah targets and transportation choke points such as the airport's landing strips and various bridges. The attacks on infrastructure appear intended to prevent the resupply of Hezbollah with even more rockets and potentially the isolation of Hezbollah units in the south.
Apparently, most Arab governments seem to agree that Hezbollah needs to be stopped. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, UAE and the Palestinian Authority seem to object more to Hezbollah's actions than Israel's.
Obviously, Israel's actions may weaken the Lebanese government. However, creating a failed State in Lebanon does not help Israel in any way.
However, if one focuses on their actions as opposed to either their words or to what we consider good sense
I'm not challenging the legitimacy of the question at all -- and my apologies if it came across that way -- but I have trouble with the notion that analysis of "actions as opposed to words" is the best way to determine intent.
There are so many possibilities for actions like Israel's attacks to be a mismatch for their intent -- incompetence, unforseen consequences, "all you have is a hammer" syndrome -- that the actions and their effects are especially untrustworthy guides to intent. I'd certainly view an argument that Israel intends to create a failed state more convincing if it were supported by quotations from Israeli politicians, military strategists, or editorialists than if it were supported by a post-facto analysis of why bombing a Christian neighborhood in Beiruit is counterproductive. I'd hope that the former sort of sources would be the ones your respondents would quote, on either side of the argument.
We'll need to be told what state other than Israel is launching those rockets and dropping those bombs on Beirut.
Yawn.
Basically, yes. It is a tragedy that the Paris of the Mideast has been turned into an war torn mess. I would just say it wasn't Israel's doing. This is a repeat of 1982 with Iran as the instigator.
Think about your felt need to put your ignorance on display for all to see on the internet. The attention it gains you is not admiration.
Grant, Just to clarify. Is your argument that Lebanon was already a failed state?
"Not knowing what he is talking about has never stopped Grant Jones...I'd suggest that you educate yourself before you engage with grownups."
This is the Ralph Luker version of correcting someone on matters of fact.
Here is another relevant link on this subject, an interview of Bridgett Gabriel:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/07/19/brigitte-gabriel/
Her website is here:
http://americancongressfortruth.com/
I know you resent being corrected on matters of fact, but it isn't bad manners on my part to correct you. I'd suggest that you educate yourself before you engage with grownups.
Is this an example of Ralph Luker's vaunted manners? I believe so.
I goofed on the 1948 war, however after that Lebanon wasn't involved in 1956, 1967 or 1973. So, my basic point remains unchanged.
Another useful link providing historical background:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2006/07/history-lesson.html
Everyone seems to assume I think that I know the answer. I don't. I agree that it makes little sense for them to want that. However, if one focuses on their actions as opposed to either their words or to what we consider good sense, I think that their attacks have been sufficiently wide ranging--as KC notes-- that the question can be raised legitimately.
Certainly many Lebanese are wondering what the Israelis expect to leave behind. I can't blame them. As best as I can tell their well being is not on the mind of the Israelis, the US, Hezbollah's leaders, or any of the other Arab states. The Israeli leadership has made it clear that they consider Lebanese citizens culpable for the presence of Hezbollah.
Consider this by the Israeli Foreign Minister:
“Terrorists use the population and live among them,” Ms. Livni said. “It’s difficult to target like a surgery. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists.” Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.
“When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.”
Not knowing what he is talking about has never stopped Grant Jones yet: "Prior to that Lebanon had never been involved in the Arab-Israeli wars." Lebanon was a partner of other Arab states in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.
The origins of Lebanon as a failed state stem from when the PLO was booted out of Jordan. Arafat moved his thugs to Lebanon and proceeded to destroy that country. Prior to that Lebanon had never been involved in the Arab-Israeli wars. Syrian occupation of parts of Lebanon should also not be forgotten.
It is logical to assume that Israel is taking the action it deems necessary to protect its citizens from unprovoked attack. Why this and not the genocidal goals of Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are considered the source of the problem is perplexing.
Some links:
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368686/Jordan
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_plo.php
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Syria's_role_in_Leb.html
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3763
I agree. This conflict certainly has featured infrastructure attacks that I wouldn't have expected--such as the bombing of Beirut Airport and various bridges, etc. Yet a pretty clear military reason existed for such attacks--to prevent Hezbollah from smuggling the two kidnapped soldiers out to Iran.
I suppose a case could be made that Israel, from a strategic standpoint, should have risked sacrificing the soldiers' lives to help ensure Lebanese stability. But relatively few democratically elected governments are going to be willing to make such a decision.
It seems to me that Ben asks a very fair question, Oscar. We have no evidence that Israel intends to target agencies of the Lebanese state, but to damage beyond repair Hezbullah's enclaves within Lebanon that operated beyond the control of the Lebanese state. In any act of war, there's likely to be collateral damage, but it is collateral. Surely Israel would be more satisfied if the Lebanese state controlled all of Lebanon.
An unsourced comment about the framework of the question:
Is there a reason any Israelis would want a failed state on their northern border? If not, then it's hard to assume Israel intends to do something that no decisionmakers actually desire.