Will The Israel-Lebanon Border Blow Up?

The situation on Israel's northern border seems to be on the verge of erupting again.  The details don't particularly matter, although it seems pretty clear that the Lebanese army instigated the latest violence. The good news is that this time the situation was contained and it appears possible, even likely, that the Middle East will be spared another summer war.

Israeli-Syrian relations are also simmering.  But war is less likely to erupt because both Israelis and Syrians tend to prefer the current situation to the alternatives — although the Assad government desperately wants the Golan Heights back.

I tend to be unmoved by Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights.  The Syrian people do not suffer because this small piece of the homeland no longer is theirs.  Without the government-controlled Syrian media telling Syrians that they yearn for the Golan, they might have gotten over it decades ago.

More to the point, the Syrians are not the Palestinians.  They did not see their land supplanted by another country.  They did not lose every inch of Syria to Israel, as the Palestinians did, and no great historic injustice will be resolved if the Syrians get the Golan back.  

The eradication of Palestine as an entity not only produced 60-plus years of Palestinian suffering, but is the reason Israel's legitimacy is questioned in so many quarters.

A successful peace process — one that ends with full Palestinian sovereignty over the 22 percent of Palestine that was under Arab control prior to the 1967 war — would resolve an historic injustice and is the only way to ensure the security of both Israelis and Palestinians.  And, as General Petreaus reminded us, it would end a conflict that endangers US interests — most significantly, US forces — worldwide. 

As for Lebanon, I do indeed wish the Israelis would leave the Lebanese alone. Every few years, Israel decides to "teach Lebanon a lesson" and inflicts pain and agony on a country that is targeted because various miscreants use it as a base against Israel.  

The latest thugs using Lebanon for their own purposes are Hizbullah.

Yes, Hizbullah is a Lebanese organization, rather than being outsiders who use Lebanon as a mere staging ground for attacks on Israel. Nonetheless, it is a violent and radical organization — viciously anti-Israel — that has managed to overwhelm the traditional Lebanese political groupings.

Lebanon, and especially Beirut, has traditionally been the most tolerant and live-and-let-live spot in the whole Middle East with the exception of its twin, the Tel Aviv-Haifa megalopolis.  That era passed following two Israeli invasions and the creation of Hizbullah as a reaction to those invasions.  Like it or not, Hizbullah is now a legitimate part of Lebanon's democratic government.

It would be wonderful if Hizbullah would go away rather than continuously increase its role in Lebanon's affairs. Instead, it continues to build up its arsenal, thereby increasing the possibility that Israel will attack Lebanon.

Israel claims the right to attack at any time of its choosing to deter the Hizbullah threat.  Its military aircraft overfly Lebanon whenever it wants to, which is almost all the time, with no respect for Lebanon's sovereignty.  Nor has it even provided the Lebanese government with maps showing where its thousands of cluster bombs (embedded during the last war) are located, meaning that any Lebanese can have their limbs blown off (or their lives blown away) because Israel refuses this most elementary act of humanity.

In fact, Israel insists on its right to hit any Arab (or, in the case of Iran, Muslim) country if and when it deems necessary.

If Iran gets the atomic bomb, which it hopefully will not, Israel will lose some of that freedom, which is the primary reason it so vehemently opposes a nuclear Iran.

Despite the propaganda, no serious Israelis believe that Iran would simply "nuke" Israel for the fun of it, thereby committing national suicide.  Only the lobby here and its Congressional acolytes pretend to believe that.

Everyone else understands that Israel's goal is ensuring that its regional hegemony remains unchallenged by anyone, sort of an Israeli Monroe Doctrine. Even Turkey, a country far larger and more powerful than Israel, and a NATO member, is expected to respect that Israel is the regional superpower.  How much longer can that last?

In any case, the situation on Israel's northern border is dangerous, and it is infinitely complicated by the close relationships between Hizbullah, Syria, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Hamas.  That is why Israeli-Syrian negotiations are necessary before the whole situation blows up.

That is the conclusion reached by the International Crisis Group, a mediation organization composed of former top American diplomats. After multiple meetings with the key players in the area, it concluded that although the "balance of fear" prevents all-out war from breaking out, it would be "mistaken and foolhardy" to count on that for long.

At bottom, the ICG concludes, "the only hope for a real and durable solution lies in credible peace negotiations — and ultimately, agreements — between Israel on the one hand and Syria and Lebanon on the other."

And Syria is the key.

As I noted earlier, the Golan Heights is not an issue of justice, but achieving its return to Syria (combined with ironclad security guarantees for Israel) is critical to reaching an agreement. The good news is that achieving a Golan agreement should not be that hard. In fact, in 1999, during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's previous term as prime minister, he sent a message to then Syrian President Hafez Assad saying that he was willing to exchange the entire Golan for peace. (The language Netanyahu sent Assad is here.) 

Netanyahu's term in office ended before any deal could be completed.   But it was a good offer then (the Syrians thought so, too) and it's a good offer now.  Netanyahu, of course, is no great enthusiast for peace with Syria (or any place else) these days.  But Defense Minister Ehud Barak is and Netanyahu himself once was eager for a deal.  (Daniel Levy points out here that Netanyahu, for all his bluster, has demonstrated far less taste for war that his bellicose recent predecessors: Peres, Barak, Sharon and Olmert.)

Unfortunately, as the ICG notes, "what is lacking is high-level, [US] presidential engagement" and the sense that an agreement is "a US priority."

But why not?  Other than fear of arousing the usual suspects who go ballistic at the idea of any US initiatives related to Israel, a push for an Israeli-Syrian agreement is a total winner, and not just for Israel, Lebanon and Syria. 

As Israeli-American NYU professor Alon Ben- Meir explains:

Changing Syria's strategic interests will have a direct impact on Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah's behavior. Syria has served as the linchpin between the three and by removing Syria's logistical and political backing, which will inadvertently result from an Israeli-Syrian peace, Hamas and Hezbollah will be critically weakened.

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are direct by-products of the Israeli occupation, and only by ending its hold on the Golan will Israel be in a position to begin effectively to deal with Arab extremism. Peace with Syria will change the center of gravity of Syrian politics in the region, which is shaped by Damascus' strategic interests. 

Whereas Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear program may not be completely mitigated by an Israeli-Syrian peace, it will certainly force Tehran to rethink its strategy toward Israel.

The irony is that while Israel continues to hype up the Iranian nuclear threat, and perhaps for good reason, it has lost focus on how to change the regional geopolitical dynamic and weaken Iran's influence in the region.

Peace with Syria will under any circumstances reduce the prospect of using force against Iran to resolve its nuclear threat....

Sounds good.  So what is Obama waiting for?

The feeling in Washington is that President Obama, once burned by the lobby (over the settlements), is now timid about applying any pressure to Israel.

He shouldn't be.  It is true that the very thought of Obama exerting leadership on the Middle East enrages AIPAC and hence terrifies the House and Senate Democratic campaign finance committees.  But, even with a right-wing government, the Israelis are far more open to a deal with Damascus (and its allies) than the Washington power mongers.  After all, it would be Tel Aviv and Haifa and not Bethesda or McLean that might have to be evacuated in another major war in the north.  Not to mention much of Lebanon.

This is no game.  Lives are at stake.  And so is this President's reputation as a peacemaker rather than as a champion of the deadly international status quo.