ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR A SUCCESSFUL END TO THE SOUTH LEBANON CONFLICT

April 19, 1996 

The on-going conflict in South Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah has reached an explosive level threatening to derail the peace process and undo the progress made in the past five years. A prolonged conflict would accomplish the exact opposite of the initial intent of the Israeli movement towards peace and would result in precisely what the enemies of peace hope for. 

The continued bombardment of Lebanon and the resultant carnage are raising public sentiment throughout the Arab world and would ultimately force Arab Governments into positions that are anti-Israeli and detrimental to the Peace process if the conflict is not brought to a quick conclusion. 

All parties concerned have, so far, been attempting to address the situation with the same approach that has proven untenable in the past. A return to the status quo is neither beneficial nor attainable at this juncture. If the international community is seriously interested in defusing the conflict and preventing a repeat of the current hostilities in the near future, the realities of the region must be dealt with. The misconceptions about the true intentions of the parties to the conflict must be dispelled. 

The international community that has an interest in a lasting peace in the Middle East and that has an interest in stemming terrorism and hostilities must act in accordance with the realities on the ground and stop the type of wishful thinking that has brought us to this tragic conclusion. 

THE HEZBOLLAH OBJECTIVE

For Hezbollah, a prolonged conflict is the best thing they can hope for. The destruction being reeked upon Lebanon, does not affect it, neither does it pressure it into a negotiated settlement. Hezbollah does not operate under the auspices of the Lebanese public opinion, it acts purely on behalf of its Syrian and Iranian overlords. Hezbollah has not yet felt threatened and would not voluntarily disband. In fact, the effect of the continued bombing of Lebanon and the killing of civilians will strengthen the position of Hezbollah, specially if it fails to extract its operatives from Lebanon. 

In addition, Hezbollah is determined to undo the peace process and end all negotiations with Israel. Its main objective from fighting Israel is to prevent the peace negotiations from moving forward. As such, a prolonged conflict which forces Arab Governments to condemn Israel and at the very least delay the conclusion of peace is in Hezbollah's best interest.

THE IRANIAN OBJECTIVE

The Iranians, who have been requested to use their influence to rein in Hezbollah, also have everything to gain from a prolonged conflict and everything to lose from ending it. Iran like its Hezbollah vasal, is intent on derailing the peace process and sees in this latest conflict a perfect opportunity to alter the Arab public sentiment and rekindle old hatreds for the U.S. and Israel. The sight of innocent Lebanese casualties of Israeli bombs serve this objective perfectly. 

THE SYRIAN OBJECTIVE

The Syrians have a slightly different objective than Iran and Hezbollah, but come close, in so much as their interests are also served through a prolonged conflict. The Syrians are also not affected by the short term economic and human damage incurred by Lebanon and thus do not feel compelled to negotiate a settlement. 

The Syrians committed to the peace process in 1991, under the assumption that they would lead the Arab world into peace. Assad, believed that he could maintain united negotiations between Israel and all its neighbors under his supervision, which would precede any openness between other Arab countries and Israel. Under this assumption, Assad would have established Syria and himself as the uncontested leader of the Arab world and the champion of peace. Instead, the peace process progressed in a direction that is quite contrary to what Assad had envisioned. Jordan and the PLO have signed separate agreements with Israel and many of the other Arab countries have already initiated diplomatic and economic ties with Israel, leaving Assad to trail the rest of the region rather than lead it. 

Assad has an interest in undoing the developments of peace and re-establishing himself as the champion for peace. Through his control over Lebanon, Assad has maintained the option to do so without any real risk. He has maintained a war machine capable of striking at Israel and destabilizing the process when it is not to his liking, while protecting himself from the blame that would come if those attacks had been initiated from Syria. 

Assad would like nothing better than a prolonged conflict that would force the Arabs to rally behind his cause of protecting Lebanon from Israel and thus re-establish his role as a key negotiator in the region. In this light, expecting Syria to rein in Hezbollah and deprive itself from this weapon and the possibility of regaining regional hegemony, would not be reasonable. The support for Hezbollah and continued re-armament through the Damascus Airport are proof of this Syrian intent. 

THE ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE 

Israel on the other hand has everything to loose from a prolonged confrontation and everything to gain from a successful end to the hostilities. The Arab governments , which in recent years have opened up to Israel would be forced by public sentiment to reverse their policies in light of the rising loss of civilian lives in Lebanon.

On the other hand a unilateral cessation of hostilities by Israel would mean a definite victory for Hezbollah, since the conflict would have only inflicted damage on Lebanon and not resulted in any changes in the security situation. Hezbollah would have gained a moral victory in that it survived the worst Israeli offensive and would gain a propaganda war in portraying Israel as vengeful and intent on inflicting harm on innocent civilians. 

Thus, although Israel has all the incentives to terminate the conflict it cannot at this time do so without having accomplished an improved security situation and improved prospects for peace. This would require a reciprocal willingness on the part of Syria and Iran, which will not be forthcoming. 

THE MODERATE ARAB STATE'S PERSPECTIVE

The moderate Arab states that have so far been conciliatory to Israel and supportive of the peace initiative are directly affected by the developments in South Lebanon. Those countries are caught between two forces. The first being their commitment to peace and their own fears of Iranian sponsored terrorist. This leads those states to support the end of Hezbollah operations and the minimizing of Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere. The second force has to do with the public sentiment of their people. The continued reports about innocent Lebanese civilians will no doubt raise public anti Israeli sentiment to the point that forces the Arab countries to stand with Hezbollah against Israel. Many Arab countries are already responding to such pressures. 

In addition, no Arab country could bring itself to state that Hezbollah should disband before the Israelis leave South Lebanon. Although, they are threatened by the Hezbollah activity and their attempts to undo the peace process, those Governments could not reconcile themselves with a decision to support the continued presence of Israel in Lebanon. 

THE LEBANESE PERSPECTIVE

The Lebanese, are the true victims in this drama being played out on their land. The Lebanese had long sought to disarm Hezbollah and prevent their country from becoming a breading ground for international terror and a battleground for competing regional forces. However, they have not been allowed to do so. The international community has through the Taif Accord of 1989, which was sponsored by the US and Europe, forcefully imposed a de facto Syrian overlordship of Lebanon. The agreement which was implemented inspite of the Lebanese at a great cost in lives, has lead to Lebanon's inability to independently act against the forces which have been granted the authority to control the country. 

The present situation was brought about by the international community that wished to appease Syria so as to gain favor for further negotiations. Lebanon was made a vasal of Syria with its main resistance groups disarmed and disbanded in the hopes that Syria would join the movement for peace. This hope has long been shattered. Syria, instead of joining the peace effort has used Lebanon to try to scuttle the progress.

The Lebanese would like nothing better than to see an end to the hostilities and an end to all occupations. However, Lebanon today cannot accomplish this daunting task alone, without the support of the international community. 

THE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The international community, specifically the U.S., Europe and most Arab countries have an interest in terminating the hostilities in South Lebanon before they escalate to the point where they would seriously harm the peace process and the future of the Middle East and the world. Those countries also have an interest in not allowing the anti-peace coalition a victory that could be used to destabilize the region and create further hostilities. A victorious Hezbollah, that could show that the international community is unable to stop it would gain unprecedented momentum in its drive to infiltrate and destabilize other countries in the region. 

A prolonged conflict would fracture the peace coalition that has formed in the wake of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting and would deprive it of its ability to seriously deal with the issues of terrorism. Signs of this fracture are already beginning to appear as the world responds to the latest bombings. 

CONCLUSION

The end to the hostilities must address the concerns of all parties. It must be based on the realities on the ground and address them accordingly. A solution that overlooks any of the above stated facts is doomed to fail. 

Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian overlords knew precisely what they were initiating. They knew that no Arab country would support their removal while Israel remains in Lebanon and they new that the Israeli Government could not survive a withdrawal prior to Hezbollah removal. This, they believed would guarantee a prolonged conflict that would effectively kill the peace process. 

The only solution that would be acceptable for all would be one that guarantees the withdrawal of all forces from Lebanon. The Israelis would be willing to withdraw from Lebanon if the Syrians, Iranians and their clients, including Hezbollah are removed from Lebanon. The moderate Arab states would be willing to support an effort to remove all foreign forces, since it would entail the removal of Israeli forces and an end to the nettlesome Fundamentalist base, as well as an end to Assad's ability to blackmail those regimes with his control of the terrorist network. 

The international community would gain from a renewed peace thrust, in which Lebanon would be a willing and independent partner and in which Syria would be more willing to discuss peace once it has lost its cost free alternative of waging war from Lebanon.