Thoughts of Terror

This past week has seen some very scary developments in the Middle East and South Asia, and the recent historical trends all point to even more frightening possibilities. I'm focusing here on the Middle East, but South Asia is on my mind and will probably be the subject of another post.

In the Middle East the unexcusable kidnapping of a young Israeli soldier by Hamas set tensions aflame. Ehud Olmert does not have the hardline credentials of someone like Ariel Sharon, and thus really had no political choice other than to strike hard and fast. That's not to say he did not do the right thing or something that Sharon would not have done; but his options were limited in a time when limited options are not a good thing. The Israeli incursions into Gaza in fact were probably a bit premature -- I still believe that Hamas can be talked out of increasing hostilities, or at least that Israel should have tried. Isolating Hamas economically and politically, as the US and Israel have done since it came to power, has done almost nothing constructive. In fact, it's led to increased Palestinian poverty overall, increased anti-Israel and anti-US sentiment on the Gaza streets, and a near complete collapse of the PA. All of these things actually serve to strengthen the one element that we want to see die off -- the viscious and militant extremist groups in Gaza and the West Bank.

Of course, this was all compounded by the horrible killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. The timing of this attack is pretty significant, as well as the act itself. The kidnapping is somewhat unusual. It has been done in the past, and Israel has set a rationally dubious precedent by agreeing to free hundreds of prisoners in exchange for 1 or 2 captured soldiers. But there has not been a kidnapping for a while, in fact Hizbullah's activity in recent years has been toned down signficantly after the Israeli pullout, and it appears to be focusing more on integrating with the Lebanese government. This is also partly due to the "Cedar revolution" and the Lebanese backlash against the Syrian instigated assasination of their former leader, since it's well knows that Hizbullah is Syria's (and Iran's) proxy in Lebanon. As a result, it's been much quieter on the southern front. But not anymore. So why now? And why such a provacative move?

It can't be a coincidence that this occured so soon after Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier. It's also not an easy thing to do -- sources have confirmed that this has been planned for months (clearly with Iran/Syria's tacit, if not explicit, approval). The need to plan this months in advance, and the timing directly after Hamas, speaks to a level of coordination between Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran that has got to be very scary for Israel. The problem, of course, is what to do about it.

Israel is currently engaged in very heavy attacks against Lebanon. They are bombing the heck out of that country, destroying everything from bridges and buildings to major airports. This is silliness. The Israeli calculation is basically the following: they can't get Hizbullah very easily, since they are so integrated into Lebanon as a whole. If Israel could simply target the Hizbullah bombers and fighters and take them out, along with their amazing stockpile of missles, I have no doubt they'd do just that. But they can't. And so they do the next best thing -- they punish the country and people that harbors and protects Hizbullah in order to send a clear message that this will not stand. They are clearly going after military installations which Hizbullah uses, but the bottome line is that they are hurting/killing ordinary civilians to a greater degree than they are hurting/killing Hizbullah fighers. But this is strategy of punishing the country is based on two problematic assumptions.

First, it assumes that if the Lebanese government wanted to do get rid of Hizbullah, it could do so. This is not a matter of willpower - Hizbullah is better armed, organized, and funded than the Lebanese government or their military. They would win, and that would not be good. Second, it assumes that making the population pay a heavy price will act as a deterrent against future attacks. This very well might happen, but it could just as easily go the other way and radicalize the population against Israel. We've seen both in the Middle East, and I really don't think anyone has a clear idea of how the Lebanese people will react to this (other than just praying for some peace and quiet. i can imagine most people would be happy with that.) The leader of Hizbullah in Damascus, Mr. Nasrallah, declared "open war" against Israel. Why is he doing this? To what point and purpose? I don't think he wants open war, and neither do Syria/Iran, as that would cause them more harm than good. But he wants to bait Israel into more useless incursions into Lebanon.

Also, veering further into speculation, I do think that to some degree these attacks are messages from Iran and Syria to the United States. They are basically saying "Don't threaten us. We know you can't do anything to us while mired in Iraq. But we can do something to you. So back off." Clearly that's not the only reason this is all going on, but I do think to some extent that they are both getting a chuckle at Israel's inability to get to Hizbullah and the US's inability to do anything at all except issue strong language.

Of course, in the face of hundreds of innocents on both sides dying, this is a reprehensible position to take. Iran and Syria need to be reigned in. I just don't know how to do it.