[WCUSP] Informative article on Hizbollah

[Tura Campanella Cook]

Austin American Statesman
COMMENTARY
Bodman: Hezbollah aims to defend, rebuild Lebanon
Whitney S. Bodman, AUSTIN PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Wednesday, August 16, 2006

As Israel unleashed its terrible swift sword against Hezbollah and the 
people of Lebanon, its goals gyrated from vows of complete destruction 
of Hezbollah to some lesser political settlement and around again. 
Hezbollah has shown itself to be a fierce and effective army. Israel 
learned that it does not have the ability to destroy Hezbollah, 
something it learned before, but seemed to have forgotten.

What, or who, is Hezbollah? The popular image of Hezbollah is of an 
Iranian proxy or an extension of Syria, but this is a critical 
misunderstanding of Hezbollah. To be sure, it is heavily financed, 
trained and armed by Iran. Hezbollah would not be what it is were it 
not for Iranian and Syrian support. However, its agenda is of Lebanon 
and for Lebanon.

It is, first of all, a defender of Lebanese sovereignty against Israel. 
Israel has invaded Lebanon four times since 1978, and occupied Lebanese 
territory for at least 18 years. Hezbollah was born in that occupation 
and, in the minds of many Lebanese, is the only force that can deter a 
recurrence.

As Daniel Sobelman of the Jaffee Center of Tel Aviv University has 
documented, since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, 
Hezbollah and Israel had tacitly established "rules of operation" to 
maintain a tense but mutual deterrence from precisely the kind of 
eruption that occurred on July 12.

In the spectrum of the past six years, Hezbollah's July cross-border 
raid was marginally within the rules. Hezbollah had announced its 
intention to seek prisoners to trade for Lebanese in Israel's prisons, 
and it had attempted such snatches before, even succeeding twice. 
Mutual deterrence worked, passably, for six years. It was not peace, 
but both sides operated within recognized boundaries of provocation. It 
is not clear why this had to change on July 12.

Secondly, Hezbollah has been the representative and defender of the 
Shiites of Lebanon. Lebanon, like Iraq, was created by the European 
colonial powers after World War II, carved out of Syria as a nation in 
which Christians, then a majority, could dominate politically. 
Currently, it is the Shiite Muslims that are the largest community in 
Lebanon, but they continue to be deprived of adequate government 
representation and social services. Hezbollah built schools, clinics, 
sewer lines and community buildings, not just for Shiites, but for 
everyone in southern Lebanon.

When Israel, in repeated invasions, destroyed homes and infrastructure, 
Hezbollah rebuilt them. For many Lebanese, especially those in the 
south, it is not the Lebanese army that has defended them, nor the 
Lebanese government that has supported them; it has been Hezbollah.

Since 1989, Hezbollah has become an active participant in Lebanon's 
politics, working with Christians, Druze and Sunni Muslims in the 
complex structured administration of Lebanon's city councils and the 
Parliament.

A third aspect of Hezbollah's identity is its fierce denunciation of 
Israel, expressed clearly in its 1985 Open Letter to the Oppressed of 
Lebanon and the World. This should not be surprising, since Hezbollah 
was birthed under the guns of Israel. Combined with significant 
weaponry, this represents a clear threat to Israel.

The irony of this, though, is that though the rhetoric of Hezbollah has 
called for Israel's destruction, its actions show no effort to bring 
this about. Its military structure is defensive, not offensive. It is 
dug in on Lebanese soil. So, which should we believe — the rhetoric or 
the actions?

If Hezbollah is not really about the destruction of Israel but the 
defense of Lebanon, and the Shiites within Lebanon, then Israel's 
attempt to root it out is bound to failure. So also is any 
international intervention that seeks to remove Hezbollah. Hezbollah is 
part and parcel of the fabric of Lebanon, not a cancer to be excised, 
but flesh of its flesh and bone of its bone.

So, what have we gained at the end, if it is the end, of this month of 
carnage? Perhaps a robust force that might protect Lebanon and Israel 
from each other. Israel may stop sending jets into Lebanese airspace. 
Hezbollah will be distanced from the border. It is not clear that a 
month of brutality was necessary to achieve this.

And maybe — maybe — Israel will get serious about actually negotiating 
resolutions to the various conflicts instead of relying on its military 
to solve everything. That includes resolving Shaba'a Farms with 
Lebanon, resolving the Golan Heights with Syria, and, most importantly, 
resolving the Palestinian issue, even if it means talking with Hamas.

Enough death. Enough carnage. Enough excuses.

This was a war of choice, not necessity.

It is time to choose to talk.

Bodman is assistant professor of comparative religion at Austin 
Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas.


**********************************************************************
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
 - Jeannette Rankin

Join WILPF!  Volunteer for WILPF's Middle East campaign:
"Women Challenge U.S. Policy: Building Peace on Justice in the Middle 
East"
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom:
	www.wilpf.org
	www.wilpf.int.ch

  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6566 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20060821/f241b154/attachment.bin