Israel Needs New Rules of Engagement With Regard to Hezbollah

By: Don Sutherland
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:24:15
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

On Wednesday, armed elements belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organization crossed into Israel, seized two soldiers from Israel, and then disappeared back over the Israel-Lebanon border with their hostages. Immediately afterward, Hezbollah demanded that Israel release Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the abducted soldiers. Hezbollah’s crossing Israel’s border was a naked act of aggression and its seeking to use the hostages for political extortion constitutes a war crime according to the Laws of War. Appeals based on International Law, however, are not a remedy for this problem and the continuing threat Hezbollah poses. Israel needs to develop new rules of engagement to secure its borders and deter aggression by Hezbollah.

The problem at hand is highly complex. In addition to Hezbollah, it involves a number of governments. Iran and Syria remain active state sponsors and hosts of terrorist organizations. Lebanon is a host of the Hezbollah terrorist organization and its Government permits the Hezbollah terrorist organization to hold seats and offices.

Hezbollah is a largely Shia-comprised terrorist entity that was established in the 1980s with Iranian financing. Hezbollah has successfully penetrated Lebanese society and politics by gaining seats in Lebanon’s Government, providing social services and health care, and by running a television network over which it has disseminated its positions. As a result, Hezbollah has increased its capacity to survive in Lebanon. With its standing secure, Hezbollah has been able to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel with complete impunity in Lebanon.

At the same time, Syria and Iran continue to provide arms and money to Hezbollah. For Syria, Hezbollah serves as a critical proxy through which it can extend its geopolitical reach. The BBC explained, “The movement has long operated with neighboring Syria's blessing, protecting Damascus' interests in Lebanon and serving as a card for Damascus to play in its own confrontation with Israel…”

Whether or not Syria or Iran played an indirect role in the most recent act of aggression launched by Hezbollah remains to be seen. Certainly, Hezbollah could have been attempting to open a “new front” against Israel to complicate its operations in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, Syria could have had motivation to “punish” Israel for the recent Israeli Air Force flight over President Assad’s summer home. Iran could have motivation to shift the world’s focus away from its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities and failure, to date, to accept the “5+1” Group’s proposal on that issue.

In any case, the United Nations has proved unable to address the problem of Hezbollah’s role in creating Middle East instability and its initiating periodic hostilities against Israel. United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1373 declares that “all states shall…refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists” and “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens.” UN Security Council Resolution 1559 called for Lebanon to disarm “militias” including Hezbollah. To date, the UN Security Council has made no effort to enforce these resolutions. No meaningful effort to enforce these resolutions has been forthcoming.

As a result, Israel has had to deal with the issue on its own. With regard to the current situation, Israel will need to exercise its sovereign right of self-defense to change Lebanon’s dynamics that currently provide Hezbollah with a hospitable base of operations. Only when Lebanon is no longer able to provide Hezbollah with sanctuary will the Hezbollah’s capacity for aggression be diminished. To succeed, Israel will need to sever the link between Lebanon’s Government and Hezbollah and make Lebanon an unwelcoming environment for Hezbollah.

Toward that end, Israel will need to establish among the following new rules of engagement:

• Israel should hold the governments that sponsor and aid terrorist organizations responsible for acts of aggression against Israel and its citizens. Political office should not provide governments or their top leaders with immunity from the consequences of their decisions.

• Israel should refrain from negotiating with Hezbollah or granting concessions in exchange for its terrorist acts. Otherwise, Israel could continue to be perceived as “weak” and “pliable” and further abductions and attacks could be initiated by Hezbollah.

• Israel should create a fairly expansive military buffer zone in southern Lebanon to preclude any further ability for Hezbollah to infiltrate across Israel’s northern border or to reach Israel’s northern communities with Katyusha rockets. Israel should not withdraw from that buffer zone until the threat of aggression has been eliminated. In 2000, Israel withdrew fully from Lebanon—a withdrawal that was certified as complete by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan—yet Hezbollah never disbanded. Instead, it continued to launch attacks against Israel.

• Israel should insist that the Lebanese Government facilitate the return of its abducted soldiers, turn over those responsible for the abduction—including Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah who declared, “We kept our promise to kidnap soldiers [to secure] the release of prisoners, and therefore are calling the attack 'Operation Promise Fulfilled’”—remove Hezbollah from the Government, and dismantle that terrorist entity. Until Lebanon’s Government takes the necessary steps to preclude aggression against Israel—and so long as it remains a partner in carrying out such acts by permitting Hezbollah to participate in governance and allowing it free rein within Lebanon’s borders—it should be held accountable.

• In the interim, if Lebanon’s Government fails to cooperate in purging Hezbollah and its infrastructure from Lebanese soil, Israel should seek to apprehend or target Hezbollah’s leadership and operatives and strike its infrastructure. Priority should be given to dismantling Hezbollah’s propaganda mouthpiece, the Al-Manar TV station.

The time has arrived for Lebanon’s Government to choose between peace and stability with Israel or Hezbollah. If it chooses to continue to embrace Hezbollah, Israel should take such steps as are necessary against both the Lebanese Government and the Hezbollah terrorist organization to mitigate Hezbollah's ability to attack Israel's cities and people.

Many in the international community are likely to oppose such a robust approach. However, the restrained approach repeatedly counseled by the International Community, along with its failure to insist that Lebanon dismantle Hezbollah following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, led to the current situation. “Today’s events demonstrate the failure of the international community, in particular, the U.S. and Europe to address Hezbollah’s capabilities and impact on regional stability,” Professor Gerald Steinberg, Senior Research Associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies explained. “The U.S. and the UN are in no position to influence Israel’s decision-making, to call for Israel’s restraint or to act as mediators,” he added.

He is right. Now, Israel must act. In part, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” With respect to Hezbollah, the UN Security Council has chronically failed to take the “measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” in the face of Hezbollah's continuing acts of terrorism. Hence, Israel should act strongly to bring about a post-Hezbollah Middle East. The new rules of engagement I suggested would constitute a good start in that direction.

Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Article source: Expert Articles