13 February 2010
No Comment
Israel and the Changing Balance of Power in the Middle East: Is War The Next Inevitable Step?
By Seyed Safavi and Hanan Nasser
International Peace Studies Centre (peace-ipsc.org)
Note: Misunderstanding is one of the main causes of conflict in the Middle East and around the world. It appears that this article has been misunderstood by some to be “beating the drums for war”. This is an unfortunate Misunderstanding. On the contrary, the article calls for resuming negotiations in pursuit of peace, a stop to the language of war and violence and highlights why another war in the region, which is the direction Israel seems to have adopted based on their recent posturing, will fail, will not solve any problems, and will even further deteriorate security and stability in the region and the possibility of the much needed and vital peace in the region.
We stress that war is not and has never been the solution to the problems in the Middle East, the only solution is abstaining from war and from using the language of war, and instead engaging in open and honest dialogue without preconditions, with both sides taking the interests and view points of the other into consideration. Peace is achievable but not in one day, and not by engaging in monologues, it is a long process of positive and constructive dialogue on the basis of understanding the other and adhering to justice. War only causes destruction, promotes distrust, and as proven by history will never lead to Peace, security or stability.
Recent Developments
A war of words between Israel and Syria, Lebanese concerns over a new Israeli aggression, calls from Iran’s president to his Syrian counterpart to confront any Israeli attack and stepped up security on the Israeli and Lebanese fronts have increased fears that the region must brace itself for the possibility of another war.
Last week, Syria accused Israel of pushing the region toward a new war after Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned on February 1 that in the absence of a future peace agreement with Syria “we might find ourselves in a forceful conflict that could lead to an all-out war.” Meanwhile Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in an interview with the BBC this week described Israel’s increased violations of Lebanese airspace a “very dangerous situation”. In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad that his country possessed “reliable information” that Israel was trying to find a “way to compensate for its ridiculous defeats from the people of Gaza and Lebanon’s Hezbollah”. He then told Assad that should Israel launch a military operation in the region “then it must be resisted with full force to put an end to it once and for all”, signalling a call on Iran’s major ally to open a joint war front in case Israel wages an attack on the Islamic Republic.
Heightened tensions in the region have not been limited to the exchange of threats and warnings, military movements on the ground have exacerbated fears that Israel is preparing itself for military engagement at least on one of the fronts – Lebanon.
The Israeli government last week decided not to deploy the new rocket-interceptor system, Iron Dome, near the Gaza Strip to counter Qassam and Ketyusha rockets as originally planned but will keep them on standby for use on Israel’s northern front instead.
The Israeli Haaretz newspaper reported a senior source in the General Staff as explaining that these expensive systems “were expected to counter much bigger rockets … like the Fajr-5” in reference to the Iranian-made missiles in possible attacks by Hezbollah. Haaretz wrote in an editorial that Hezbollah’s “bigger rockets… may present a greater potential threat”.
In the meantime, Israel has increased its daily over-flights in the Lebanese airspace in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 amid press reports last month that Hezbollah has gone on high alert as Israeli troops amassed along the border. A report in the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat also said that Syria “has begun calling up its reserve units”.
On the Palestinian front, Israeli attacks have not abated. On Wednesday, Israeli warplanes carried out two missile strikes in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, near the Egyptian border.
Furthermore, the rising tension between Israel and all three fronts – Iran, Lebanon and Syria – cannot be seen in isolation of this week’s developments in the Iranian nuclear file as the West moves toward imposing harsher sanctions on the Islamic Republic amid continuous calls by the Israeli state to keep the military option on the table.
Analysis
Based on these recent developments, it is very possible that Israel will engage in yet another act of war this year either against, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran, however it is highly unlikely that it will attack either Syria or Iran as it will have no western support for such a move, and the price of such a venture would be very high.
Israel’s current aggressive stance and the possibility of it engaging in war can be attributed to three issues:
1. The shift in the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of the resistance which is formed by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. There are several factors that have contributed to this shift in the balance of power, amongst which are: the failure of the US and her allies in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict, the waning influence of Arab governments particularly Saudi and Egypt in the Muslim world, the failure of the Israeli regime to achieve any of its self stated objectives in either the 2006 war with Hezbollah or the 2008 military attack on Gaza and which was tantamount to the defeat of Israel, the breaking of the visage of its military force as invincible and the continued western oppression throughout the Middle East.
The war government in Israel was in large elected by the Israelis in order to stop and reverse this change in the balance of power. An Israeli decision to attack Lebanon or Gaza will be actively supported not only by segments of the Israeli public but also by both the Saudi and Egyptian governments, as they both supported the 2006 war against Lebanon and the war on Gaza (Egypt’s Rafah crossing with Gaza continues to remain closed, and its decision to erect a steel wall along its border with Gaza intensifies the siege and further deteriorates the condition of its people). The Saudi and Egyptian governments’ stance on this matter, is due to the rising influence not only of Iran, but also of, Syria and Hezbollah, in spheres of power traditionally occupied by the two.
2. The Israeli government considers Iran as the greatest threat to itself. The Iranian nuclear program is regarded by Israel as an existential threat, and Israel has repeatedly threatened Iran with a military strike against its nuclear installations. However, any attack on Iran will result in an Iranian response, which will most likely take place in the form of ballistic missile attacks from Iran on Israel, and an opening of a second and third front against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas. Thus, the Israelis are of the opinion that prior to attacking Iran, they need to neutralise Hamas and most importantly Hezbollah.
3. The Israeli government needs to restore the trust of the Israeli public in its military force. As mentioned the defeat of Israel against Hamas and particularly Hezbollah destroyed the myth that the Israeli military is an invincible force. A report by the Winograd Commission, formed to investigate the 2006 war, concluded that the 2006 offensive “failed to achieve its military objectives”. It criticised the Israeli military’s performance, and levelled strong criticism of the handling of the operation on both the military and political levels. Therefore, on the home front, the Israeli government faces the challenging task of winning back the public’s confidence in Israel’s military capabilities. Therefore, Israel sees a return to Lebanon or Gaza as a means of achieving this end.
Since the 2006 war and 2008 war both Hezbollah and Hamas have emerged stronger particularly Hezbollah, which not only increased its military capabilities but has also gained crucial political advantages in Lebanon and in its position in the Muslim world in general. An Israeli war against either Hamas or Hezbollah is an asymmetrical war, which Israel’s conventional army, as proven by their failure in 2006 and 2008, is incapable of winning. Further, such a war will not alleviate Israel’s deteriorating political condition.
Israel’s current positioning only serves to isolate it further not only in the region but also in international public opinion. After the Gaza war of 2008 two important developments occurred, first, the Goldstone report’s highlighting of Israel’s war crimes and second, the condemnation of Israel in world public opinion and its perception as a criminal state that unjustifiably attacked a civilian population, which it holds under absolute siege.
The international community might not have the will to hold Israel accountable for its actions. Further, the US and her allies are likely to continue their tradition of unconditional support for Israel, and silence in the face of its continued siege on the Palestinian population and violation of their basic human rights and of international law, which brings under question the very legitimacy of the UN and other international bodies. In the age of globalisation and citizen media, which marks the decline of the influence of corporate media, world public opinion is crucial, and has turned against Israel.
Based on the current political climate in such a conflict Israel is at risk of considerable losses, for not only will the calls and resolve for the prosecution of those responsible for Israeli war crimes intensify, but also the possibility of peace in the Middle East will even be further undermined, if not lost. Israel more than ever needs to come to the negotiations table, and recognise that the language of violence, or rather, disproportionate violence that it has spoken till now, will not resolve its problems or alleviate its concerns. The only path forward is that of ‘just’ negotiations, which are on the basis of mutual understanding, dialogue, and not the language of power but that of justice. The existential threat to Israel, is not Iran or anyother movement or country, the Existential threat to Israel is Israel itself.
Related posts:
Write a Comment