|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel News Digest
David Dolan, Christian Friends of Israel, Jerusalem
THE LION’S LAST ROAR The month of June produced more dramatic news in the tumultuous Middle East. Israeli forces had just barely completed their hasty late-May retreat from southern Lebanon when Syrian dictator Hafez Assad dropped dead of a heart attack. His sudden death -- certain to alter the face of this crisis-prone region to some extent -- came as peace talks with the Palestinians produced far more acrimony than agreement, and as Israel’s wobbly coalition government tottered on the brink of collapse. In Arabic, Hafez al-Assad translates as "Hafez the Lion." Indeed, the late Syrian strongman, who died on June 10, at age 69, ran his country like a lion rules the jungle -- through brute force and threatening intimidation. Very few of his subjects dared to challenge his totalitarian police-state regime, headquartered in Damascus for three decades. Those few who hazarded to cross his path -- like thousands of Sunni Muslim fundamentalists did in the town of Hama in 1982 -- ended up quite dead. Similar fates awaited those Lebanese patriots who publicly challenged his smothering occupation of their mountainous homeland. Given his sordid rule, very few Israelis grieved over Assad’s sudden passing. After all, he had roared at the Jewish State more than once. He was a prime mover in the 1973 surprise Yom Kippur attack -- Israel’s greatest military challenge so far. He unleashed his terrorist squads against Jewish targets around the world. He helped establish, train and arm the Hizbullah militia in Lebanon. He vehemently opposed the Camp David peace accords, along with the various Oslo agreements. Still, most Israelis realize that prospects for imminent peace with Syria -- already slim after March’s failed Clinton-Assad summit in Geneva -- have dimmed still further with Assad’s death. Almost all Mideast analysts expect that his son and designated heir, Bashar, will need to spend considerable time consolidating his domestic rule. The young dictator will find it nearly impossible to gamble on a risky peace deal during such a process, they agree. This is good news for the many Israelis who strongly oppose a Golan Heights withdrawal. But it is yet another blow to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who promised voters in 1999 that he would bring an end to the Israel-Syria conflict, and its burdensome Lebanon appendage. Even if Bashar is willing to restart peace negotiations with Israel, as he claims, he has already made clear that he will not deviate from his father’s intransigent positions. In an interview with an Egyptian newspaper shortly before his father’s death, he said that peace for Syria means "not giving up a single grain of land." Clarifying that he considers the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee as sovereign Syrian territory (even though the area was never legally part of Syria but was captured from Israel in military clashes before 1967) he added that he intends to "force Israel to accept a full withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 border as a basic precondition for the Syrian side to accept the peace process." He added that Syria would only be willing to pull out of Lebanon "if asked to do so by the Lebanese government." This is, of course, extremely unlikely since Beirut is under complete Syrian domination. GREATER WAR THREAT? Israeli political and military leaders have been busy assessing the impact that Assad’s death might have on the region. The main questions revolve around the prospects for fresh military confrontations with Syria or its Lebanese puppet state (the latter may include Palestinian guerrillas being trained by Syria to carry out attacks on northern Israel). The initial assessments are that full-scale war is unlikely in the immediate future. It is expected that the mild-mannered, computer-savvy Bashar Assad will be preoccupied trying to prove that he really deserves -- and can handle -- the role of Syrian strongman. That being the case, he will certainly refrain from initiating any risky military adventures.However, several other factors could lead to conflict. The untested Bashar has already been challenged by his devious uncle, Rifaat, the man who carried out the regime’s murderous campaign against rebellious Sunni Muslims in 1982, and attempted to seize power from his ailing brother in 1983. In a message broadcast by his London-based "Arab News" satellite network on June 12, the exiled billionaire pledged that he would launch a "new corrective movement" in his homeland. His late brother used the same term when he seized power in a bloodless coup in 1970. Since Rifaat is known to command a small militia based in northern Syria, and has many friends in high places in Damascus, such a challenge could produce significant internal instability, which analysts say has the potential to spill over into an armed clash with Israel. Another challenge to Bashar’s rule might come from his powerful brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, who heads the military’s clandestine intelligence branch. An even more likely prospect for conflict comes from the radical Hizbullah militia. Even though the Lebanese Shiite mini-army was founded and is funded by Iran, it dared not cross the lion of Damascus. However, it is far less likely to fear or respect his young successor, meaning it may strike out at Israeli targets whether Bashar likes it or not. Indeed, any instability in Syria may give Hizbullah a virtual free hand to do whatever it pleases. A power struggle in Damascus could also unleash simmering ethnic and religious tensions in the troubled Land of the Cedars. It is no secret that Hizbullah’s Iranian sponsors are violently opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace process. This was demonstrated again on June 3 when supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei said that "Hizbullah’s victory shows that all of occupied Palestine may be returned to the Palestinian people in several years time." He accused Palestinian Authority leaders of being "agents of America and Israel" who must be overthrown by the Palestinian masses. Given such hostile sentiments, there is a very real threat that Iran may command its Lebanese surrogates to again lash out at Israel. Iranian leaders probably care very little that -- in light of Barak’s statements that he will now hold Syria directly responsible for any further Hizbullah aggression -- such attacks could result in a full-scale war between Israel and Syria. Indeed, such a conflict may be exactly what Tehran wants, being the hoped-for final nail in the peace process coffin. Israeli analysts predict that the summer months will probably be fairly quiet on the northern front. They point out that Hizbullah is busy consolidating its political control and setting up new military positions in "liberated" portions of south Lebanon -- while officials in Beirut look the other way. However, once this phase is completed, many expect renewed cross-border attacks from the heavily armed militia. Some analysts anticipate that renewed assaults will coincide or follow Yasser Arafat’s expected declaration of Palestinian statehood later this year, which is certain to produce heightened tensions in the region. HIZBULLAH EXCUSES Basking in its widely perceived military triumph over mighty Israel, the Muslim militia continues to lay the groundwork for future strikes at the "Zionist enemy." Speaking at a rally with visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi -- the first foreign official to visit south Lebanon following the Israeli pullout -- Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said peace will only come to the Middle East "when Israel disappears." He called the Jewish State "the root of all evil in the region" and demanded that Israeli Jews "go back to where they came from" (a majority were born in Israel). Kharrazi replied that the swift Israeli pullback "shows that resistance based on principles can impose difficult conditions on the occupier to force him to retreat in fear from the lands he occupies."Two days later, the jubilant Hizbullah leader poured unprecedented scorn on Israel: "They may own nuclear bombs and heavy weaponry, but by Allah I say that they are weaker than a spider’s web." The comment evoked ecstatic cheering from his 30,000 listeners in the border town of Bint J’bail. Vowing that his jihad fighters will keep their arms, including artillery and Katyusha rockets, he boasted that "we Arabs don’t need tanks and planes to liberate land. With the example of martyrs, we can impose our demands on the Zionist aggressors." Hizbullah’s immediate excuse for continuing its "holy war" struggle is a piece of contested land in the western foothills of majestic Mount Hermon. Known as the Shaba Farms in Arabic and Har Dov (Bear Mountain) in Hebrew, the area was captured by Israeli forces from Syria during the Six Day War. But Hizbullah claims the rugged terrain was originally part of Lebanon, and therefore must be evacuated before the Israeli army pullout can be considered complete. Sensing a legal loophole that would give his proxies the right to continue their "armed struggle," the late Hafez Assad indicated that the area indeed belongs to Lebanon (why not say so since Syria now effectively occupies all of Lebanon anyway?) His son is expected to take the same position. Israeli leaders are not eager to give Hizbullah any excuse to launch future cross-border attacks. Still, PM Barak said Israeli and United Nations maps show that 90% of the area is not part of Lebanon, and will therefore not be abandoned as part of the army pullout. He condemned Syria’s stand on the issue, saying it was "playing a dangerous game" by renouncing legal title to the area. Israeli Armed Forces chief Shaul Mofaz said his men are preparing for future Hizbullah attacks in the hilly area, confirming that he has redeployed crack units from south Lebanon there and is "ready for action." LET’S SHOUT, WE’RE OUT! The United Nations finally certified on June 16 that Israel had fully complied with Resolution 425 by completely pulling out of Lebanon, whatever Hizbullah maintains. The on-site verification process was held up by hundreds of Hizbullah fighters and supporters who massed along the border to taunt and stone Israeli soldiers, provoking an armed response on several occasions. Palestinian refugees also gathered along the fence to speak with long-unseen relatives in Israel -- a phenomenon that is likely to increase pressure on Arafat to bring the over 700,000 Palestinians in Lebanon into his emerging state. The Beirut government also held up UN certification by quibbling over a few Israeli outposts alleged to be partly located on Lebanese territory.Meanwhile, the political and emotional reverberations from Israel’s hasty military withdrawal are still being felt in the region. Even the most enthusiastic Barak supporters admit the pullout left considerable upheaval in its wake and damaged Israel’s deterrent credibility. Naturally, those most affected are the nearly 7,000 Lebanese -- most of them former South Lebanese Army (SLA) soldiers and their families -- who fled into Israel with very few possessions. Also suffering are some who stayed behind to face Hizbullah’s wrath, along with hundreds of SLA soldiers who were captured or surrendered and have now been sentenced to up to 15 years in jail for association with the "traitorous militia." SHAME South Lebanese Army commanders and soldiers remain extremely bitter over how the Israeli army evacuation was conducted. While orders were being verbally passed down for an imminent withdrawal, Shaul Mofaz told political reporters on May 22 that "the pullback is still weeks away." After secretly ordering a complete overnight pullout the next day, PM Ehud Barak told Army Radio that "we will redeploy in the next few days."SLA commanders understood that the false or misleading statements were meant to throw off advancing Hizbullah gunmen. Still, they also misled Israel’s Lebanese partners, who were assured by local Israeli officers that they still had "a few days" to decide whether or not to stay in their homes. In the end, the Security Zone collapsed within hours of the pullback’s start on May 23, with Hizbullah fighters sweeping into abandoned areas. With some SLA men surrendering to the Shiite invaders, most of the rest were forced to make a mad dash to several border crossing points into Israel -- many leaving with barely one suitcase and without having a chance to bid farewell to frightened friends and relatives. Perhaps most bitter of all was former SLA commander General Antoine Lahad. "The manner in which the retreat was carried out was unfair and unreasonable," he told reporters in the northern Israeli border town of Metulla. "Israel destroyed in 24 hours relations which were built over 24 years" (Israel first came to the aid of beleaguered south Lebanese Christians in 1976). He pointed out that "we worked hand in hand, but suddenly Israel pulled back its hand and shook us off." Capping his anguished critique, Lahad said that the rapid pullout "gave Hizbullah a victory it had never dreamed of." Similar sentiments were expressed during a special Knesset session two days later, called for by opposition politicians who were highly critical of the way the evacuation was conducted. Former SLA official Etienne Saker accused the Barak government of "real betrayal." He said that when SLA officers were suddenly told to flee on May 23, their underlings instantly followed suit and "everything fell apart within two hours." He maintained that most SLA soldiers were "willing to stay and fight against the Hizbullah for another 10 years, but you ordered us out." Several Knesset members expressed remorse over the withdrawal’s disastrous effect on Israel’s erstwhile friends. "We are sorry, ashamed, and ask forgiveness for the way you were treated," said Likud Knesset Member Tzippi Livni. Pointing out that heavy weaponry, including some tanks and rocket launchers, were abandoned during the rapid retreat -- giving the strong impression that Israel was indeed fleeing Lebanon in a state of panic -- several opposition leaders said the pullout was further proof that the Barak government needs to come to its own swift end. THE REAL STORY? Several Israeli military and political analysts said they doubted that the seemingly hasty withdrawal was actually unplanned. They noted that military and political leaders had been working on details of a pullout since the beginning of the year. They speculated that Barak decided to speed up the evacuation -- and make it appear to be hasty -- in order to deliberately cause the collapse of the SLA. Although it was not the Premier’s personal desire to crush Israel’s faithful ally, it was deemed essential after the United Nations made it clear in early May that it would not consider the Israeli withdrawal complete if the SLA continued to function. Analysts said this stand forced Barak to choose between his emotional commitment to the SLA and the certainty that fighting would continue along Israel’s northern border if the Lebanese force remained intact.This view was strengthened by a careful analysis of the army retreat. Israeli forces pulled out first from the central sector of the Security Zone, which is mostly populated by Shiite Muslims. Thus, they abandoned the weakest part of the buffer zone first, which was bound to lead to the rapid collapse of SLA battalions in the area. With Hizbullah forces predictably rushing in to occupy the evacuated area, the central sector quickly folded. This in turn caused panic to sweep through stronger SLA units in the eastern and western sectors, leading to a fast disintegration of the Security Zone and the resulting flight to Israel of many SLA fighters. Several Israeli analysts also commented on the extremely stern warnings to Syria issued by Barak, Foreign Minister David Levy, Shaul Mofaz and others after the withdrawal. The Israeli officials made clear that targets in Damascus itself would not be considered off limits if Syria’s Hizbullah ally renews hostilities across the border. American Vice President Al Gore backed up the warnings, saying the US government will hold the Syrian regime directly responsible for any military aggression originating from Syrian-controlled Lebanon. Some commentators felt that the intensity of the Israeli and American warnings may signal that Barak and US President Bill Clinton are fed up with Syrian intransigence at the peace table. "After the Geneva disaster, both leaders have finally concluded that Syria is not really serious about peace with Israel," said one Israel TV analyst. With full support from America, he speculated that Barak may actually be ready, if not eager, to take on Damascus in the near future. Although there is always the danger that fighting could escalate into a full-blown war, the goal would be to harm Syria just enough so that its leaders would finally realize that they must compromise on their maximalist land demands. DEADLINE LOOMS The preliminary Oslo peace accords, signed in 1993 and amended in 1995, 1998 and 1999, officially come to an end on September 13. Although the Palestinians agreed to two extensions so far, Yasser Arafat has indicated he will not do so again. This guarantees that the coming weeks will be pivotal, and possibly dangerous ones for the struggling Israel-Palestinian peace process.As the deadline nears, negotiations have remained virtually frozen. Ehud Barak blames Arafat for the stalemate, saying the Palestinian Authority (PA) leader has failed to present serious proposals for resolving the huge issues dividing the two sides. These include final borders, the nature and size of a Palestinian state, the fate of several million Palestinian refugees and also of the 160,000 Israelis living in disputed territory. In addition there are the important matters of water rights and control over eastern Jerusalem. Appealing to President Clinton for help, Arafat claims it is Barak who is holding up the process by refusing to give in to "legitimate" Palestinian demands. He is especially upset that Barak is refusing to evacuate most of the former West Bank before signing a final peace accord. Meeting in Cairo, eight Arab foreign ministers backed Arafat’s contention, saying, "The peace process is in danger because of Israeli intransigence." They also condemned "Israeli threats against Syria and Lebanon," adding that Israel would be "responsible for any escalation in the region." Most analysts agree that Arafat’s hand has been greatly strengthened by the swift retreat from south Lebanon. In fact, some argued that Barak seriously blundered by carrying out the withdrawal just as Final Status peace talks are entering their last phase, since the pullout was predictably going to buttress the hard-line Muslim rejectionist position. Sure enough, Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters have been trumpeting the "glorious Hizbullah victory" almost daily. One example was a rally of 5,000 people held -- not coincidentally -- in Bethlehem’s Manger Square on June 17. Greetings were read from Hizbullah leader Nasrallah, who urged Palestinian jihad warriors to "fight like we did, until all of Palestine is liberated." Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin told the gathering by telephone that "we will not give up until we are victorious or are martyred." With Muslim fanatics breathing down his neck, Arafat is hardly in a position to compromise on his oft-stated negotiating demand that Israel withdraw from "every centimeter" of land captured from Jordan in 1967, including Jerusalem’s walled Old City and surrounding areas. Nor does he show any inclination to do so. Instead, he repeated his earlier veiled threat to resume the Arab war of annihilation if all of his demands are not met. "Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state whether they like it or not," he said on June 4, adding threateningly that, "If they don’t like it, they can go and drink the Dead Sea." Driving the Jews "into the sea" was the PLO’s official goal until the peace accords were signed in 1993. With his government coalition on shaky ground, Barak is also unable to bend on his core positions -- that many of the settlements remain in place, that few if any Arab refugees be allowed to return to their former homes inside Israel, and that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. How President Clinton, or anyone else, will resolve these apparently unbridgeable positions in the coming months is a huge mystery, to say the least. IN THE DARK Ehud Barak came under intense fire from some of his senior cabinet colleagues during June. They complained that he has left them completely in the dark concerning his negotiating positions. Interior Minister Natan Sharansky decried the fact that he was forced "to listen to Israel television" to find out what the Premier was offering at the peace table. This complaint was echoed by Center Party leader Amnon Lipkin-Shahak (who recently assumed the leadership post after former party leader Yitzhak Mordechai resigned over a sexual harassment scandal). Sharansky expressed particular concern about unconfirmed press reports that Barak had offered to hand over most of the Jordan Valley to Arafat, which would give his PA land continuity with neighboring Jordan and its majority Palestinian population. The worry is that Arafat will eventually topple Jordan’s untested new King and come into possession of the country’s developed infrastructure and modern armed forces.As prospects dim for a final Israel-Palestinian peace accord, both sides are preparing for more violence ahead. Israeli army commanders told the cabinet and Knesset that a new round of PA-initiated armed clashes is likely in the coming weeks. They said the army "will know how to deal" with the situation if shooting breaks out, as it did in mid-May, stating that helicopter gunships and other heavy weapons will be rapidly brought into play this time. Bassem Abu Sharif, a senior Arafat advisor, replied that "not one tank will leave Ramallah intact" -- indicating that the Palestinians are also gearing up for heavy combat. Senior Israeli security officials were widely quoted in the media as warning that Arafat is rapidly establishing a functioning army in his PA zones. The unnamed officials said that "in recent months, there has been a sharp increase in the conversion of the various Palestinian security units into a regular military force that carries out maneuvers, conducts battle exercises, and holds regular live fire drills." The emerging army even travels in military convoys, said the anonymous officials. Other reports revealed that small Palestinian sabotage squads are being readied to attack strategic Israeli targets, such as highway bridges, airports, army bases and water sources, in time of conflict. TOWARD THE ABYSS Facing potential armed conflicts in the disputed territories and along the border with Lebanon, PM Barak had another war to fight during June: a last-ditch struggle to save his battered government coalition. Things came to a head after three coalition parties voted in favor of a proposal to hold early elections, despite warnings from Barak that their ministers would be automatically fired if they did so. But with no viable alternative to the 26 seats that the three parties represent -- apart from a national unity government involving the 19 seat Likud party -- Barak was forced to back down on his threat. Negotiations were resumed with the largest partner, the 17-man Shas party, which demanded that its bankrupt private school system be bailed out by the treasury, that its private radio stations be legalized, and that it be granted a greater say over the government’s peace process policies.After several weeks of intense negotiations, Shas -- unhappy that all of its demands had not yet been met -- turned the tables on Barak and announced that all of its ministers were resigning from the government. As we went to print, in a surprising turn of events, three Meretz ministers submitted their resignations: Education Minister Yossi Sarid, Industry and Trade Minister Ran Cohen, and Agriculture Minister Haim Oron. Meretz said its decision was aimed at forcing Shas back into the government. The Meretz party will, however, remain in the coalition, as it does not want the government to collapse. After Meretz announced its decision, Shas issued a statement that said: "The road has been paved for Shas to return to coalition negotiations." Whatever occurs, analysts agree that Barak’s waning authority has already been further eroded by the coalition crisis, leaving him less room for maneuvering as the pummeled peace process nears its climax. However, there is some consolation for battle-fatigued Israelis: It is not Ehud Barak who sits upon Israel’s eternal throne, but David’s greater Son, King Messiah! "The Lord sat as King at the flood; Yes, the Lord sits as King forever!" (Psalm 29:10)
© 2000 Christian Friends of Israel. Used with permission. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
|
|
