Lebanese Nation & Resistance, the Winners of Israel’s Failed Adventurism

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Heidar Soheili Esfahani

Two years have passed since Israel’s 33-day war against Lebanon. True that this war ended in the battlefield but it never ended in the political arena. The important point about this war was that the Lebanese Resistance and nation were the only winners of this botched adventurism.

A look at the outcome of this war over the past couple of years will remind even skeptical readers that the Lebanese war proved to all its strategists that not always the militarily stronger side would emerge victorious in the course of wars. It so happened in the last few days of the 33-day war that Israel could not be the winner party. Why? Perhaps the most important reason was that basically this war had been waged out of desperation and the Israeli officials had entered the battlefield out of their fear of defeat.

Who won the war? This question was first raised by the mass media on the morning of 34th day of the Lebanese war in 2006. The dusts of the war were still in the air but the meaningful silence of the Israeli leaders at least proved they were not winners of the war. Meantime, the celebrations of the Lebanese people on the other side of the war front showed that they thought the war had ended in their favor. But this is only the appearance of the story!

One thousand victims, mostly civilians from the Lebanese side and hundreds of casualties, mostly military from the Israeli side to some extent proved the opinion of pacifists that war usually has no winner. However, it was the political consequences of the Lebanese war which assumed a wider dimension and led to a relatively extensive diplomatic war. It was here that the theory held by “Clausewitz”, the first strategist in the contemporary era who believed “diplomacy was the end of the war” or the contrary “war was the end of diplomacy”, came under question mark. It would be better to say that the Lebanese war, before anything else, was a diplomatic war and perhaps a military diplomacy!

The aim of the Hizbollah seemed so simple: attempt to secure the release of the Lebanese prisoners! Some other objectives could perhaps be considered for this movement but they are accusations rather than objectives and are leveled by opponents rather than impartial experts!

When the Hizbollah attacked Israeli patrols in Shaba farmlands no one said it was an organized plan by the Hizbollah. The Hizbollah Secretary General Seyed Hassan Nasrollah who is known for his honesty and commitment to words by friends and foes, stressed on those days that there were no organized plan with long-term goals behind the blitzkrieg on the Israeli patrols. He said the aim of the attack was that with the continued occupation of parts of South Lebanon that could one day be annexed to the Israeli territory, and with the continued captivity of Lebanese nationals in Israeli jails, one should not let the question of resistance be forgotten in the midst of politics.

On the opposite side, however, the situation was totally different: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert felt that he needs a swift victory to make up for his repeated defeats. Was he too ambitious? There is little doubt about this. But this is not the whole story. Sometimes, politicians are caught amidst glittering slogans and colorful clichés which is a big scourge for politics.

Shimon Peres, former Israeli prime minister (and current head of the regime) attacked Lebanon at the peak of the so-called Middle East Peace Process. During the 10-day blitz which led to a huge massacre of the Lebanese people in Kfar Qanaa Village in 1996, he ruined the peace process unknowingly. The political scene in Israel took a severe turn towards extremism and within a short period of time he paid for the cliché he had built up. Now he is politically a dead body: a body who was forced to work with a current different from his ideology in order to remain in the political scene. A big cliché which had covered Ehud Olmert’s eyes was a general theory called a bigger Middle East. The Neo-Cons and the American Zionist current practically succeeded in persuading Olmert that they are capable of changing the equations in the Middle East region and fill the entire region with obedient servants of the US and Israel in a short period of time. The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan took place to this end. The next scheme to be carried out by Israel was to annihilate the Hamas Movement in Palestine and the Hizbollah in Lebanon.

This plot, more than anything else, had been designed by those who were as ignorant about political science as they were about political action! It was reminiscent of European politicians in the mid-nineteenth century who tried to change the map of Europe to the liking of the powerful kings of the continent. Nevertheless, numerous revolutions in Europe, including the wide-scale revolution of labor in 1848 warmed them to know their limitations and place. Yet they did not learn a lesson and as a result two destructive world wars occurred which totally changed the political face of Europe. Eventually, it was the people of Europe who took control of the continent to the extent that today politicians regard themselves as servants of the people.

If the leaders of the ruling establishment in America had studied history they would not try to take over the entire region through simple and predictable Napoleonian actions.

The US assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan had so extensive repercussions that overshadowed the entire globe. But in a final analysis, it was the Americans who lost the game. As Olmert was awaiting an excuse to wage an all-out war against Lebanon and Gaza Strip to carry out another portion of the new Middle East plan, he actually started the countdown for his own annihilation.

Today two years have passed since the war:

1.    The fact-finding committee known as Vinograd has officially admitted the defeat of Israel in this war.

2.    The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has formally admitted that the plan of a greater Middle East has failed.

3.     The economic crisis in America is to some extent rooted in the huge costs spent on wars in the Middle East by the US administration.

4.    Israel has turned to a defeated regime from an undefeatable regime. Everyone knows about the weak points of Israel and that it is exposed to great insecurity from two fronts: the North and Gaza Strip.

5.    And finally, Israel eventually agreed to hand over all the prisoners and bodies of the Lebanese Resistance and close the file of the POWs and MIAs. Serious words are heard from inside the Occupied Palestine about the handing over of Shabaa farms to the United Nations. This situation has persuaded the most pessimistic persons just the way it has convinced the most optimistic individuals that the war of July 2006 (known as Tamuz war) had just one winner, namely the Lebanese nation and the Resistance… History repeat itself; victory goes to people again!


طراحی و توسعه آگاه‌سیستم