Log in

View Full Version : Lebanon: a failure for imperialism



Severian
15th August 2006, 11:45
So far, the cease-fire appears to be mostly holding. Hezbollah has reserved the right to fight against Israeli forces still in Lebanon - and the UN resolution doesn't require Israel to wholly cease fire, just to cease "offensive operations". But both are being restrained so far.

The war may well be over - and what are the results so far?

Thousands of south Lebanese villagers (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060815.wreturn0815/BNStory/Front) are returning to their homes en masse, many waving flags or giving the "V" sign.

For weeks, both Israel and Washington rejected an immediate cease-fire on any terms. Because they know they can't hope to accomplish through negotiations, anything they fail to accomplish on the battlefield.

And they have failed to smash Hezbollah - or even its capacity to launch rockets deep into Israel. Bizarrely, Israel seemed to hope, initially, that they could do this from the air. Then they launched a poorly-prepared ground offensive, which only gave Hezbollah fighters a chance to try out their antitank missiles.

Neither the Lebanese army nor the UN force will try to take on Hezbollah in combat, where the IDF failed. (As their spokesmen have made clear, if the relationship of forces didn't make it already clear enough.) Bush is trying to declare victory, saying these forces will replace Hezbollah's "state within a state"...but it's unlikely that will happen in any way that benefits Washington.

Some negotiated agreement might result in Hezbollah's withdrawal from the southern part of Lebanon, or who knows, its merger with the Lebanese army. Neither development would be any reason for working people to feel disappointed....or much reason for Tel Aviv or Washington to celebrate.

The imperialists have also failed to exploit Lebanon's deep religious-sectarian divisions. They hoped that members of other sects would blame Hezbollah for precipitating the conflict. (As if this wasn't a pre-planned U.S.-Israeli war in search of an excuse.) Some initial responses from Arab regimes, especially the Saudi monarchy, seemed to vindicate that hope. But it didn't last.

Instead, support for Hezbollah has risen in Lebanon and other Arab countries, as measured by opinion polls. Everyone has seen Hezbollah's militia remains the one armed force capable of blunting an Israeli invasion. Lebanese Christians and others have given shelter to the refugees, mostly Shi'a Muslims. If anything, this conflict has tended to reduce the sectarian divisions in the Arab countries, which have been fanned by events in Iraq, among other things.

And of course, people stubbornly persist in thinking that governments are responsible for their actions. So when Israeli jets flatten their houses, destroy bridges and trucks, leave people stranded without food....the Israeli government is responsible for that.

The Israeli ruling class is well aware that they've failed to acheive their goals - and unlike Bush, is barely trying to deny it.

Washington Post- Olmert accepts blame for operations "failings". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401266.html) The Israeli army brass is also coming in for criticism for failing to supply soldiers, for underestimating its opponent, etc.

More bitter recriminations in the Israeli parliament (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15273211.htm)

Those are not the voices of a victorious ruling class.

Phugebrins
15th August 2006, 14:20
You're saying it's imperialism, but you're not measuring the result by the goals of imperialism. Olmert is not out to win the hears and minds of the Lebanese people, it's the Israelis themselves, and the international community at large, that are the intended target. First, this shows that Kadima, though a new party, is 'tough'. Second, it is a nice little justification exercise for the US equipment: 'we need all this stuff because we can lay siege to a country we have but a 30 mile border with'. Third, it now has the age-old claim of a military on the brink of success open: 'we could have got rid of Hezbollah when we invaded, but the UN stopped us, therefore if there are any further problems with Hezbollah, we'll ignore the UN and annex about ten miles' worth of territory'. Fourth, it puts Hezbollah more firmly in control of South Lebanon, and, from the Litani southwards, where that control may be threatened by international mediators, it will have support. The stronger Hezbollah is, and the fresher the wounds on Lebanon's people and country, the stronger Hezbollah's rhetoric will be, and the easier the Israeli people will be persuaded of the need for parties like Kadima.

Severian
15th August 2006, 22:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:21 AM
You're saying it's imperialism, but you're not measuring the result by the goals of imperialism. Olmert is not out to win the hears and minds of the Lebanese people, it's the Israelis themselves, and the international community at large, that are the intended target.
Can't say they've been particularly successful there either. Initially, there was widespread support for the Israeli attacks by European governments - and, as I mentioned, even some Arab governments blaming Hezbollah. That's much less the case now.


First, this shows that Kadima, though a new party, is 'tough'.

The opposite is true. See the links I gave earlier on the debate in Israeli bourgeois politics. Kadima is clearly a loser here, pilloried by left and right - blamed for the failure of the war.


Third, it now has the age-old claim of a military on the brink of success open: 'we could have got rid of Hezbollah when we invaded, but the UN stopped us, therefore if there are any further problems with Hezbollah, we'll ignore the UN and annex about ten miles' worth of territory'.

The age-old claim of militaries that lose wars, from post-WWI Germany to post-Vietnam U.S. to post-Angola South Africa.


Fourth, it puts Hezbollah more firmly in control of South Lebanon, and, from the Litani southwards, where that control may be threatened by international mediators, it will have support. The stronger Hezbollah is, and the fresher the wounds on Lebanon's people and country, the stronger Hezbollah's rhetoric will be, and the easier the Israeli people will be persuaded of the need for parties like Kadima.

Hmmm...so Israel's goal was to strengthen Hezbollah? Sounds conspiracist.

In any case, I don't see Hezbollah could have been more firmly in control of South Lebanon than it was before. If anything, the reverse is likely to be true; while it probably won't be disarmed it may have to redeploy northwards and may not remain the de facto governing authority of southern Lebanon, able to enforce Islamic law and so forth.

That's the strongest point Bush had for why this was a victory - but it's far from enough.

Ander
16th August 2006, 03:10
So what about the billions of dollars worth of damage? Is that a victory? And the lives lost? A victory as well, I suppose?

Vanguard1917
16th August 2006, 07:07
Lebanon: a failure for imperialism

What about the 15,000 strong UN occupation of southern Lebanon that is part of the terms of the resolution - the largest ever UN occupation in Lebanon's post-independence history, and one that will also be heavily militaristic?

Some of the left in the West has been calling on the 'international community' to intervene in the war ever since it started. This intervention can only be a blow to the right of the Lebanese people to self-determination, and a victory for imperialism.

A good article worth reading. (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1482/)

Severian
16th August 2006, 10:11
Certainly. But will the French-led, UN-flagged force be able to accomplish what the IDF couldn't? Seems unlikely, for reasons I gave earlier.

Jamal
18th August 2006, 10:03
No body can accomplish what Israel failed to do. First because Hezbollah is too well prepared and second because an army of 15000 UN troops are nothing compared to the invasion that happened earlier!

Martin Blank
18th August 2006, 11:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:12 AM
Certainly. But will the French-led, UN-flagged force be able to accomplish what the IDF couldn't? Seems unlikely, for reasons I gave earlier.
Quite unlikely. The French simply outmaneuvered that neanderthal Bolton (the U.S. representative) in the Security Council, and had the "multinational" force join UNIFIL under a Chapter Six deployment, which does not authorize a mandatory disarmament of Hizb'allah, only a "pacific settlement of disputes".

Miles

Severian
18th August 2006, 12:02
Right. They don't want to lead the charge. They're saying the Lebanese army can take point, which is a joke.

But I wouldn't assume Washington's been outmaneuvered. Consider what happened to the various European-led, UN-flagged "peacekeeping" forces in Bosnia.

Washington sabotaged 'em all, then came in at the end with a force it led, to show 'em how it's done....and reinforce its position as the strongest military power in Europe.

The obvious difference is that Washington is unlikely to send its own forces into Lebanon. But that might not keep 'em from setting their rivals up for failure and humiliation.....