Hezbollah would not even exist had it not been for Ariel Sharon’s crazed policies in 1982. Hezbollah would not be in its current position of strength had it not been for various counterproductive Israeli policies. That’s the view of many analysts within the IDF and intelligence services, not just my own. Again, hardly controversial.

Moving on to the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah. Leaving aside the many Lebanese civilians kidnapped by the IDF (a far worse crime than capturing military troops), do you really believe that the massive destruction of southern Lebanon was a result of the capture of two Israeli soldiers? The best informed analysts were of the opinion, as they were of the 1982 invasion (after Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to London), that this was simply a pretext for a long-planned invasion. I may well be wrong, but I’m in the company of Israel’s leading military and intelligence analysts.

Israelinurse, “Israel has never had territorial designs on southern Lebanon.” Now that is certainly not true, now, is it? That was not Ariel Sharon’s or Menachem Begin’s view, nor was it that of the “doves”. But there is a long history of having designs on southern Lebanon:

“The Achilles’ heel of the Arab coalition is Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A Christian state ought to set up there, with its southern frontier on the river Litani. We should sign a treaty of alliance with this State. Then, when we have broken the strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out Transjordan; after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt dared to make war on us, we would have settled the account with Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our ancestors.” Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, 1948.

Elsewhere, the designs go back to the very concept of the state:

“We do not suggest that we announce now our final aim, which is far reaching – even more so than the Revisionists who oppose partition.” David Ben-Gurion, 1936, having “accepted” the recommendations of the Peel Commission on the partitioning of Palestine.

Continuing with a Herut spokesman: “We have never said that we renounce our right to [Jordan], though in the context of negotiations with Jordan we might agree to certain concessions in Eastern Transjordan.” Deputy Prime Minister Roni Milo and Likud chairman at Herut meeting, 3 January 1984, Ma’ariv. (Herut’s slogan itself is that Jordan is part of Israel. Herut is a major group within Likud. It may or may not be still be the major grouping. You’re in a better position to say.)

Reiterated by the ever untactful but surprisingly honest Ariel Sharon: “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization, or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” 15 November, 1998, Agence France Presse.

Scores of such damning evidence, from before the founding of Israel right through to the present, can be found in the “revisionist” histories of Simha Falapan, Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, etc, as I pointed out in an earlier thread on this blog. The above are just the ones off the top of my head.

Every country’s history is unpleasant, with Israel coming out smelling of roses in comparison to, say, the UK. But comparisons are not the issue. Many of the politicians certainly know the truth – Ben Gurion, Dayan, Sharon, etc – but weave a web of distortion around their policies to fool the public. That’s universally true, and we should not be fooled.

Or as Ben Gurion put it: “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. Politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.”

We can’t do anything about the past, but the future is another matter. An Israel on the 1967 borders (with withdrawl, preferably full, from the settlements). To assuage Israeli fears – those of the citizens, that is, the politicians know better – there must be a fully demilitarised West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, etc. A return of Palestinian refugees is an impossibility, and must be accepted as such. Recognition by all Arab states of Israel, with full diplomatic, travel and trade relations, etc. This is the only way forward and the basis of a real peace. It will also have the great advantage of cutting the ground under all religious parties in the region. With the religious mania in the region getting more and more extreme, the sooner a full peace can be signed, the better.

1. Syria does not dispute that the Chebaa farms is Lebanese territory. So the UN’s decision is irrelevant.

2. There are still some Lebanese prisoners and Israeli prisoners.

3. Paul Frenkel is under the bizarre impression that I’ve tried to “kidnap Israeli soldiers”. I’ve never done any such thing and have no idea where he would get such a wild notion. I’m for non-violent resistance, as far as is humanly possible. But presumably Mr Frenkel is referring to Hezbollah’s retaliatory capture of Israeli soldiers *after* Israel kidnapped Lebanese civilians, thus giving a pretext for the last Israeli assult on southern Lebanon, which then, and only then, elicited Hezbollah rocket fire. The story ends with Hezbollah victorious and stronger than ever. Relating the facts is not being pro-Hezbollah. Presumably Mr Frenkel believes that Israel’s top brass and leading military analysts are also pro-Hezbollah. I’m saying nothing very different from them.

Mr Frenkel is living in a fantasy world. Israel has repeatedly tried to either conquer south Lebanon (the most conspicuous being Sharon’s 1982 invasion and subsequent twenty mile “buffer”) or crush Lebanese resistance. Hezbollah has come out far stronger on each occasion. The unfortunate lesson learned is that Israel will only relinquish occupied territory by force, although I think direct engagement with Israel’s Jewish community would be a far more efficacious strategy in dampening suspicion and hostility.

Mr Frenkel gets very excited at the thought that south Lebanon will “cease to exist”. It will be there whatever Israel does, as will the Shia population, which grows in size and influence each year. The question is whether Hezbollah’s influence and strength will decrease or increase among the Shia population. That’s a decision for Israel, and it has consistently, but inadvertently, insured that Hezbollah comes out far stronger after each engagement. Any engagement, by definition, strengthens Hezbollah.

No need to relate to all the flagrant nonsense. Dear Tawfiq, you and your friends should remember that the next time you come and try and kidnap our soldiers and shell our towns, south Lebanon will cease to exist. That’s all.

Good questions. Hezbollah’s bluff should be called: relinquish the Chebaa farms and ensure a release of all Lebanese and Israeli prisoners. Even Hezbollah’s most extreme Lebanese enemies agree with them on this – not only because it’s the right thing to do but it also might pull the rug under some of Hezbollah’s most persuasive arguments!

The question of a peace agreement once these two questions are resolved would be how to guarantee the security of southern Lebanon. There is always justified concern about the security of northern Israel, but never any corresponding concern about the far more immediate and important issue of guaranteeing the security of southern Lebanon. Possibly a demilitarised zone on both sides of the border might help. Tens of thousands of Lebanese, predomiantly Shia, have died in the last few decades. They and Hezbollah are not going to just disarm without any guarantees to the safety of southern Lebanon because of a few warming words to the effect that Israel will behave itself in future.

Hezbollah’s militia is a very hard problem to resolve, and it’s not going to be resolved by saying it should disarm – it won’t! This is a longterm issue, and we’ll just have to accept that it will exist until the Lebanese Shia feel safe enough for it to voluntarily disband. This will ultimately mean the Lebanese army either becoming powerful enough to repel any invasion – something that won’t happen for a decade or more. A very unpleasant but perhaps practical and possible stop-gap would be the incorporation of Hezbollah into the Lebanese army until Lebanon can protect itself.

Look, there is no easy solution. An involuntary disarming of Hezbollah – that is, by force – would spell the end of Lebanon. The Shia make up 40% of the population (they are the biggest “minority” group in a Lebanon made up of “minorities”) and much of this population supports Hezbollah and Amal. It would be a civil war on a nightmarish scale. Before we even get to the issue, the first thing we must accept is that Hezbollah should *not* be involuntarily disarmed.

After all, as I said, who’s going to do it? Let’s enter the realms of fantasy and assume a US and Israeli invasion (only because no one else can do it). You think they’d be able to disarm Hezbollah? The US can’t even handle the Taliban, for pity’s sake, let alone the most effective guerrilas in the world. And then you’d have to be talking the Sri Lankan campaign against the Tamil Tigers. Is that what we want, when things are pretty peaceful? You have to ask yourselves who is pushing this ultimately counterproductive lunacy of forcibly dismantling Hezbollah?

Coming with a policy of “all options are on the table” or “disarmament” means civil war on an almost unimaginable scale. Tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) dead on an issue that the Lebanese say is not the international community’s business because it is an internal matter to be resolved by the Lebanese communities. And they’re right.

I know this is a pro-Israel blog, but if Israel’s “supporters” refuse to see the other side’s position, ultimately it will be Israel that suffers, not just its enemies. Hezbollah’s militia will evntually disband. It just needs the right atmosphere to prevail. As hard as it is for many to believe, Hezbollalh is a nationalist – albeit theocratic – movement. As long as Lebanon’s security is guaranteed, Israel has nothing to fear. Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. Forcibly disarm Hezbollah and the result will be much worse than a Shia version of Al Qaeda. (By the way, according to the leading terror experts, Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda-style terrorism is no longer the big problem. Bin Laden-style terror is considered the past. Zarqawi-style terror is the future. And that, the experts say, is what is coming our way because of the petri dish that was Iraq. It has spawned a jihadi ideology, with the murderous skills gained in Iraq, that will dwarf anything seen to date.)

Is Lebanon stuck with an armed Hezbollah militia no matter what Israel does (short of dissolving itself)?