Israel's "new reality" is more of the same

by MC12

The end of Israel's formal occupation of southern Lebanon does not represent as 
big a change as it has been cooked up to be. A "senior administration official" 
told the press, "Well, obviously, it's created a new reality. No matter how you 
slice it, in the Middle East there is a new reality. Israel is out of Lebanon. 
It will mean that one of the Security Council resolutions, as often cited, will 
have, in fact, been implemented. So it creates a new reality."(1)

The UN Security Council resolution was 425, passed in March 1978, ordering 
Israel to withdraw from Lebanon unconditionally and immediately. The U.S. 
somehow never got around to imposing economic sanctions against Israel and 
bombing Israeli civilians to enforce the will of the "international community," 
as they have in the Iraq case (even after the "international community" has 
started to turn against the sanctions there).

So why did Israel get out now? The "senior administration official" said that 
both Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority leader Arafat are 
prepared to "seize the moment" and move forward in their negotiations on 
"permanent status issues," or a final Palestinian misleadership capitulation. 
The withdrawal from Lebanon, a campaign promise by Barak, removes one 
justification for attacks against Israel, and helps the Israeli public with 
their "Vietnam syndrome" in Lebanon -- the perception that they were wasting 
money and (Israeli) lives without gaining much with the 22-year occupation. One 
leading Israel-booster said having a "clear-cut border will only leave Israel 
with a tighter fist and a more unified public, ready to protect what is really 
important."(2)

There is no doubt that the stiff resistance by the Lebanese against the 
occupation played a big part in Israel's decision to withdraw. Despite more than 
two decades of bombing, killing tens of thousands of civilians and displacing 
hundreds of thousands more, the Lebanese were no closer to accepting Israeli 
domination passively. That is what made Barak's decision to withdraw justifiable 
as a military strategy. Now there will be less popular support in Lebanon for 
attacks on Israelis. Barak and many others think this is a better military 
strategy. Rather than fight a guerilla war, Israel can defend a fixed border. 
And don't forget that Israel was not shy about bombing Lebanon before the 
occupation began in 1978, just as they routinely attacked outside of the 
"security zone" when it suited Israel. The expressed intention now is to 
retaliate against Lebanon and Syria as "needed" if guerilla attacks against 
northern Israel continue. The Israeli goal is to transform that losing guerilla 
war into a "legitimate" war between states that it can win if necessary.

In the post-Iraq-war Middle East, there is less reason for u.$.-backed Israel to 
practice outright expansion into Lebanon. The attacks on Lebanon have mostly 
been aimed at Palestinian refugee guerillas -- and the civilian population who 
naturally supported them. With U.$. power relatively unchecked in the Middle 
East, the U.$. neo-colonial system is replacing the open warfare terror system, 
of which Israel was the principal implement. Noam Chomsky, with whom we have 
fundamental disagreements, correctly said in 1996: "Washington's long-term goal 
is to integrate Lebanon and Syria into the Middle East system based on U.S. 
client states. Palestinians in the occupied territories are to be reduced to a 
minor annoyance, with local administration under general Israeli control. The 
refugees [including many Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon] are to be 
forgotten."(3)

The withdrawal, and the Israeli/Palestinian Authority "seizing" of "the moment" 
are in the service of developing that client-state system, with a new 
Palestinian sub-state under Israeli domination and with Lebanon and Syria drawn 
under Amerikan domination economically. The Clinton administration is applying 
pressure to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority now to get some agreements 
set up before Clinton leaves office -- the "legacy" goal. But the Amerikan-
Israeli strategy is well established, and we doubt a change of party in power in 
either the U.$. or Israel would seriously alter the course of events in the 
Middle East in the near term. The future for the Lebanese and Palestinian people 
will depend on the course of their own anti-imperialist struggles. MIM will 
continue to support the oppressed nation masses in their struggles for self-
determination by exposing the Amerikan role in national oppression and using our 
newspaper and other media to build support for those struggles within Amerika.

Notes:

1. White House Press Briefing, 30 May 2000, www.whitehouse.gov.

2. Thomas Friedman in New York Times, 2 June 2000.

3. Noam Chomsky, "Israel, Lebanon, and the Peace Process." April 23, 1996. 
http://www.lbbs.org/chomsky/other/9604-israel.html