Doug Henwood Talks

Seven Questions: The Fight for Lebanon http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3531

Posted July 19, 2006

As the conflict between Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinians
escalates, FP spoke with Rami Khouri, editor at large of the Daily
Star, Beirut’s largest English-language newspaper, for some
perspective on Hezbollah’s tactics, Iran’s role in the crisis, and
whether there’s any end to the fighting in sight. FOREIGN POLICY: You’re stuck in Amman trying to get back into
Lebanon. What have you heard from your colleagues at the Daily Star
about the situation in Beirut?

Rami Khouri: The whole civilian infrastructure is being knocked out.
Many roads and power plants are being destroyed. Normal life is
pretty impossible. Electricity is being cut, transport is stopped,
and normal commercial systems are not working well. But most people
in Beirut are not in danger of being killed in their homes.

FP: The Israelis have said that they want to destroy Hezbollah in
Lebanon. Is that possible, without destroying Lebanon itself?

RK: I’m not sure what they mean when they say they want to destroy
Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not like a Rotary Club, where you can get
their files and destroy their meeting place. Hezbollah is a mind-set
more than anything else. And when things quiet down, they will just
go back to doing what they were doing before.

FP: How much of the current situation in Lebanon is a result of
Iran’s desire to create a distraction from its nuclear program by
pulling on its strings with Hezbollah?

RK: I think this idea is pretty standard Israeli spin-doctoring,
which is repeated, parrot-like, in the United States. Clearly,
there’s a relationship between Hezbollah and Iran. Nobody doubts it.
They’ve been very close for many years, and the relationship is a
complex one. But Hezbollah is primarily a Lebanese organization. Iran
has some influence on it‹there’s no doubt about that‹in the same way
that the United States has influence on some of its smaller allies.
This is how power relationships work. The idea that Iran could just
order Hezbollah to [attack in order] to divert attention is
simplistic. But being simplistic is a tradition of American analysis
of the Middle East, unfortunately.

The reality, I think, is more complicated. Iran has been getting
stronger. It’s got allies that it works with in the Middle East, of
whom Hezbollah is an important one. It probably feels that creating
more pressure for the United States and Israel is something that is
good for Iranian foreign policy. I’m sure that’s the thinking going
on in Tehran. But Iran is not stupid. If Hezbollah gets beaten badly,
Iran’s position suffers. They don’t want to weaken their assets; they
want to strengthen them.

FP: Israel has said that it is doing the job the Lebanese government
can’t, in “ridding Lebanon of Hezbollah.” What’s your reaction to
such a statement?

RK: That’s nonsense. Right now, the Lebanese government can’t just go
and take over the south of Lebanon and tell Hezbollah to go home. The
Lebanese government is weak, in large part because of the policies of
Israel. Israel has been attacking Lebanon for the last 30 years,
destroying its airport, attacking its water systems, roads, bridges,
schools, and hospitals. That’s why Hezbollah was created by the
Lebanese people in the south, to protect themselves, because the
Lebanese government couldn’t do it.

FP: Is any blame for the current fighting being placed on Hezbollah
by people in Lebanon‹or is it all directed at Israel?

RK: The majority of people blame Israel more. They say if Hezbollah
kidnapped two Israelis, then let Israel kidnap two Hezbollah guys.
Nobody would have had a big problem with that. But the massive
overreaction by Israel is really seen as too much. You do get
criticism of Hezbollah, and people are speaking out more and more
about it.

FP: Will Israel agree to a prisoner trade?

RK: It will at some point. There’s intense diplomatic efforts going
on now, and we’ll probably see some kind of deal in the next week. It
will likely include elements of a cease fire, an international
military presence between the warring parties, and the release of
prisoners. The Israelis are going to have to realize that their
overwhelming use of military power is increasingly less effective
over time. They’ve used tremendous power and destroyed much of
Lebanon’s civil infrastructure, and all they’ve done is gotten more
and more Lebanese angry at them. Of course, some people will also say
Hezbollah has no right to bring about this kind of Israeli
retaliation. Hezbollah will certainly get criticized.

But I think Israel will have to switch to a political strategy at
some point‹and address the core issue, which is Palestine. Any
successful diplomacy has to take a look at the bigger picture and
figure out how to combine the short-term efforts of a cease fire with
the longer-term diplomatic solution of achieving a comprehensive
settlement.

FP: How can the peace process be restarted?

RK: You have to look for the point at which the futility of
fighting‹on both sides‹gives way to a more rational appreciation for
the need to engage in diplomatic solutions. In the end, this is a
political problem; it’s not a military problem. What we’re talking
about here is political conflict: about land, about rights, about
identity, about nationhood. And that can only be resolved politically.

The only way to resolve it politically hasn’t been tried yet, which
is to have a negotiating process predicated on the equal rights of
both sides. That means the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the
Israelis must be treated with exactly the same rights. If Israel’s
security is the predominant focus of such negotiations, they aren’t
going to work.

Rami Khouri is a syndicated columnist and editor at large of the
Daily Star in Beirut.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 20th, 2006 at 7:44 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.