QuicksearchNewsletterLanguageLinks
Mots clésabbas abdallah abdallah II accords d'oslo affaires étrangères afghanistan afrique du sud ahmadinejad AKP al qaida al-arabiya al-fayed al-qaida algérie allemagne america anavad ankara ansar dine antisémitisme antisemitism apartheid aqmi arabe arabes arabes israéliens arabie saoudite arafat armée arméniens ashkenazy assad assyriens atatürk auschwitz autorité palestinienne azawad économie église égypte élections état états-unis évangéliques bachman baker bangladesh banlieues barack obama barak bayrou begin beilin belgique benoît xvi bible biden bill clinton blancs blood libel brésil brzezinski burke bush canada carter Castro cfr chaldéens Chavez cheney chiites chine chirac chrétiens christianisme chypre cisjordanie claude guéant clinton cnn colin powell columbia communauté confréries congrès conseil de sécurité conservative conservatives consistoire constitution contestation cookery coptes corée du nord crif crise sociale cuba cuisine culture daniel pearl démocrates démocratie démographie de gaulle demographics dhimmis dhimmitude dieudonné dinard dollar droite droits de l'homme eateries eisenhower election elections emanuel empire ottoman ena enderlin enfants erbakan erdogan espagne etat ethnic EU eurabia euro europe exode fatah fayçal ferhat fethullah gülen fifth republic fillon flandre flotille fmi food foreign policy france franco gates gauche gaza génocide géopolitique geopolitics george soros george washington gingrich giscard d'estaing goldstone grèce grecs-catholiques grecs-orthodoxes guérilla guerre gurfinkiel halutz hamas herzl hezbollah hillary clinton histoire history hitler hollande holocauste huntsman hurvah ibn saoud identité nationale iforas immigration implantations inönü inde internet interview irak iran islam islamisme islamistes islamists israël israel j call j street jabotinsky jérusalem jean paul II jerusalem jews jihad jihadists john mccain jordanie judaïsme juifs juppé kabylie kadhafi kadima kassam kemal kennedy kerry kgb khamenei khomeini kippour kissinger knesset kosher kosovo le monde le pen liban libéraux libye liebermann likoud links livni livres louis xvi maccain mahmoud abbas mali mao marine le pen maroc maronites massortis mavi marmara médias mélanchon mccain medias mein kampf melkites meretz merkel mexique missiles mitterrand mnla mohamed merah monarchie monde arabe monod montauban montesquieu moubarak muslims musulmans napoléon naqba nasser national front nations unies nato neo-french netanyahu nethanyahu new york review of books new york times nicolas sarkozy nixon noël nobel noirs norvège nucléaire obama occident olmert olp onu orient orthodoxes oslo otan ottomans pacifisme pakistan palestine palestiniens palin pape paris pétrole peres petraeus pogrom politique pologne poutine présidentielles presidential election primaires proche-orient protestantisme PS pundak quai d'orsay rabin rahm emanuel raid rasmussen réformés républicains révolution reagan religion restaurants revolution riots rogers romney ron paul roosevelt royal royaume-uni russie sadate sahara salem al-fayed santorum sarkozy savir ségolène royal sénat scandale SDN shalit sharon shas shoah shops sionisme socialists société society sondages ss staline stratégie sunnites syrie terror terrorisme thatcher time torah totalitarisme toulouse tourisme travaillistes trilatérale truman tsahal tunisie turkey turquie tv ue UMP un union pour la méditerranée unrwa URSS usa védrine ve république vichy vietnam violence washington post yemen
|
Tuesday, February 13 2007Middle East/ The Hezbollah War
" The destruction of Israel is to Arab or Islamic totalitarian regimes like Syria and Iran what the destruction of the Jews was to Nazi Germany or the destruction of West was to Soviet Russia : the drug that holds the whole operation together. "
By Michel Gurfinkiel. The Yale Israel Journal devoted its Winter 2007 Roundtable to the Hezbollah War in 2006. Paul Liptz (Tel Aviv University), Michel Gurfinkiel (The Jean Jacques Rousseau Institute), Dennis Ross (Former United States Middle East Coordinator), Eyal Zisser (The Moshe Dayan Center and Tel-Aviv University), and Michael Rubin (The Middle East Quarterly) took part in the discussion. Here are Gurfinkiel's answers. The full text of the Roundtable is available at <www.yaleisraeljournal.com>.
Is Israel right in calling Hezbollah’s attacks an act of war by Lebanon? More generally, should an attack by a non-state actor be considered an act of war by its host state? MICHEL GURFINKIEL. Lebanon as a State is responsible for whatever military or terrorist operation undertaken by any Lebanese group against Israel or any other country. All the more so when Hezbollah actually sits in the cabinet. In order to alleviate its responsability, Lebanon should either take steps to curb Hezbollah or exclude it from the cabinet. Neither step has been taken as of last July. The fact that Hezbollah threatens and blackmails the Lebanese government is no excuse. Either a government is a functioning government, i. e. can enforce its decisions over at least part of the territory, or it is not. If it is not, it is not responsible. However, it should be ignored as an international player by the same token, suspended from the UN, etc. This is true of course of any other country in the world beside Lebanon. If a government acts as a " host " to a non-State military or terrorist organization, either by tolerating its activities or by including it in the cabinet, it is responsible for this group’s operation. If it denounces the non-State organization as a rebel and an alien intruder, then the State is responsible only for that part of the territory which it still controls. International law is a bit unclear about " acts of war " and whether they imply only governments or non-States organizations as well. By and large, there is an understanding that one defines war by the nature of the combat, rather than by the identity of the combattants, and that any party, either State or non-State, which engages in war activities is ipso facto subjected to the international conventions that regulate military conflict. Being a de facto war party, Hezbollah is responsible for its activities, and can be targeted for relaliation by any enemy party within any part of Lebanon that it controls. Any Lebanese institution (as the army) or facility (as roads, airports, harbors, power facilities) that is used by Hezbollah or supports Hezbollah is deemed to be under Hezbollah control as well. Was Hezbollah’s entrenched position in Lebanon a sign of failed Israeli strategy and foresight since the May 2000 troop pullout from Lebanon? MG. Israel knew about Hezbollah’s entrenched position and its growing military potential. It clearly characterized Hezbollah as a major strategic threat. The IDF was briefing foreign strategic experts about it. It had drawn contingency plans for sweeping anti-Hezbollah operations. Why did Israel wait until July, 2006, to act ? Until then, it was simply busy with the Palestinian front (the Second Intifada, Operation Defensive Shield, building the security fence, withdrawing from Gaza) and reluctant to open a second front. What is a striking failure for Israel, however, is the whole management of the July-August war. What are Syria’s and Iran’s goals in supporting Hezbollah? Is their main aim the ultimate destruction of Israel or is it a more complex political goal? MG. The destruction of Israel is to Arab or Islamic totalitarian regimes like Syria and Iran what the destruction of the Jews was to Nazi Germany or the destruction of West was to Soviet Russia : the drug that holds the whole operation together. Still, both Syria and Iran have more complex goals in supporting Hezbollah (and Hamas) against Israel : - being established as the leaders of the Islamic camp against Israel and the Christian West, and thus achieving regional supremacy ; - inasmuch as Israel will react, casting it as a villain again, and deleting the impact of Sharon’s far-reaching concessions ; - protecting themselves against US or international intervention related to Lebanon or the nuclear build-up, since such intervention would appear as merely acting in the interest of Israel ; - winning a further delay regarding the Iranian nuclear buildup ; - helping Russia to earn much more oil-related money and getting more Russian weapons or systems. How should nations deal with states that fund non-state terrorist entities? For example, how should the US respond to Iran’s funding of Hezbollah, which enabled it to attack Israel, a vital regional ally, and cause major destabilization in Lebanon? MG. Support for non-State entities engaging in terrorist or military activities should be characterized as an act of war. It is highly revealing that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is explicitly threatening the European Union countries as well as Israel. Should Israel be satisfied with the contents of UN Resolution 1701 and the deployment of a larger UNIFIL force? What additional strategies should Israel pursue against Hezbollah’s main backers and to ensure Hezbollah doesn’t threaten Israel again? MG. UN Resolution 1701 is probably Israel’s worst diplomatic disaster. It turns the previously irrelevant Unifil into a huge stumbling block for any Israeli self defence operation in the future, without providing any measure of security. In addition, it turns the Sheba Farms issue as an international law problem, something it was not until now. Israel’s priority is to get rid of the incompetent political and military leadership that has emerged after Sharon’s illness and the 2006 election. No competent leadership ? No strategy to speak about. (New Haven, October 23, 2006.) © Michel Gurfinkiel & Yale Israel Journal, Winter 2007 Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
#1
Manu
(Homepage)
on
2007-02-24 13:56
(Reply)
Interesting article although I don't agree with your analysis on the lebanese responsibility of Hizbullah's acts. It is clear that the Lebanese government neither could counter nor did know about Hizbullah's operation, but do you think that, as you suggested, ignoring it as an international player could solve any problem ? Personnally I don't since this is what has been done concretely for the past fifteen years and it did not prevent the situation from degenerating. A true solution could be to treat the problem from the source : Syria and Iran. This is why I was shocked and became sceptical about Israel's true intentions concerning the operation when I saw an Israeli official state, the first day of the operation that Syria was not going to be targeted. If the goal was to neutralize Hizbullah, Syria should have been the only target.
Add Comment
|
English
Français
ARTICLE
TOOLS
