Fighting Hizbollah
Fighting Hamas and Hizbollah is not like fighting a regular army. Although Hamas gives the appearance of a disciplined organization, its military wing, Iszzadin al Kassem (named after an early Islamic Palestinian nationalist) is really made up of a series of terrorist cells that hardly cohere. But, Hamas was persuaded to adopt the tactics of Hizbollah, namely relying on rockets and hit and run tactics, and so their attack on Kerem Shalom was very successful, and they achieved their aim of killing IDF soldiers and capturing one. But, Hamas is bottled up in Gaza, where they are vulnerable to the IDF.
Hizbollah is a much more military-like organization, larger and with more armaments. Also in parades through the streets of Beirut they look much more disciplined and professional. On several occasions they have managed to carry out well organized attacks on the IDF and have killed and captured IDF soldiers. However, they are far from the capability of a proper well organized army such as the IDF.
The problem the IDF faces in fighting Hizbollah is exemplified by previous attempts, such as 1982, when as the IDF advances from the south of Lebanon, Hizbollah melts away before them, like a classical guerilla army. Then when the IDF withdraws, as it finally must, they simply return and retake their positions. In order to defeat them, the IDF must first enter central Lebanon south of Beirut, cut-off their escape routes (remember that Lebanon is very mountainous), and then catch them between the two arms of the pincers. But, this requires the IDF to be inserted across central Lebanon prior to or coincident with a push from the south, and this is very difficult to do, since the international community will shout about "disproportionate force" and "civilian casualties" etc. Yet I fear that unless the IDF uses these tactics, Hizbollah will merely fade away, only to return again in force again as soon as the pressure is off. This is why it is necessary as a secondary menas for the IAF to hit these routes in central Lebanon to try to bottle up the Hizbollah operatives before they can escape. In an irony, the more the Hizbollah thinks of itself as a regular army and the more it tries to confront the IDF, the more likely it is to be defeated.
Why doesn't the Lebanese Government take over control of south Lebanon from Hizbollah? If they mustered the public support to remove Syria from Lebanon as they did in 2005, you'd think they could do that too. But, its no so simple. First of all the Lebanese Army is very weak, and is no match for a dedicated force like Hizbollah. Second, the Lebanese Army has soldiers from all of the many ethnic groups in Lebanon and the Government can't afford to have it split if some of them refused to obey orders to fight Hizbollah. Finally, the power of Hizbollah comes from the Shia areas of south Beirut and south Lebanon, where the Government's control is marginal at best.
Nevertheless, the UN SC resolution 1559, that called for the withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon, also equally required the Lebanese Government to extend its control to the Israeli border, and this they have not done. The UN also ratified the Israel-Lebanon border, and certified that Israel had withdrawn from ALL Lebanese territory. But, to give Hizbollah an excuse to continue attacking Israel for its "occupation" Syria transferred sovereignty of the Shebaa Farms region on the border between Israel, Lebanon and Syria to Lebanon. Now this was such a transparent trick, that even the UN refused to accept it, and according to international law the Shebaa Farms region (a very small area) still remains part of Syria.
Whether or not the IDF will have enough time to achieve its objectives in Lebanon before a Security Council resolution imposes a ceasefire is uncertain. This time, as opposed to the past, the UN is in principle on Israel's side, and the blatant, deliberate and cynical act of aggression by Hizbollah is also more clear-cut than previously. So there has been a longer delay before the Security Council meets and they have approved an investigative committee sent by the Secty. General to visit the area and report back. This gives Israel valuable time, and as long as it can justify its attacks as being against Hizbollah targets it will not be censured. But, if the IDF can continue for longer, nevertheless, the tendency is to freeze the situation and then we are back to the status quo ante, where neither Lebanon (with international pressure) nor Israel have been able to disarm or defeat Hizbollah. No one gains from this except Iran and Syria.
Hizbollah is a much more military-like organization, larger and with more armaments. Also in parades through the streets of Beirut they look much more disciplined and professional. On several occasions they have managed to carry out well organized attacks on the IDF and have killed and captured IDF soldiers. However, they are far from the capability of a proper well organized army such as the IDF.
The problem the IDF faces in fighting Hizbollah is exemplified by previous attempts, such as 1982, when as the IDF advances from the south of Lebanon, Hizbollah melts away before them, like a classical guerilla army. Then when the IDF withdraws, as it finally must, they simply return and retake their positions. In order to defeat them, the IDF must first enter central Lebanon south of Beirut, cut-off their escape routes (remember that Lebanon is very mountainous), and then catch them between the two arms of the pincers. But, this requires the IDF to be inserted across central Lebanon prior to or coincident with a push from the south, and this is very difficult to do, since the international community will shout about "disproportionate force" and "civilian casualties" etc. Yet I fear that unless the IDF uses these tactics, Hizbollah will merely fade away, only to return again in force again as soon as the pressure is off. This is why it is necessary as a secondary menas for the IAF to hit these routes in central Lebanon to try to bottle up the Hizbollah operatives before they can escape. In an irony, the more the Hizbollah thinks of itself as a regular army and the more it tries to confront the IDF, the more likely it is to be defeated.
Why doesn't the Lebanese Government take over control of south Lebanon from Hizbollah? If they mustered the public support to remove Syria from Lebanon as they did in 2005, you'd think they could do that too. But, its no so simple. First of all the Lebanese Army is very weak, and is no match for a dedicated force like Hizbollah. Second, the Lebanese Army has soldiers from all of the many ethnic groups in Lebanon and the Government can't afford to have it split if some of them refused to obey orders to fight Hizbollah. Finally, the power of Hizbollah comes from the Shia areas of south Beirut and south Lebanon, where the Government's control is marginal at best.
Nevertheless, the UN SC resolution 1559, that called for the withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon, also equally required the Lebanese Government to extend its control to the Israeli border, and this they have not done. The UN also ratified the Israel-Lebanon border, and certified that Israel had withdrawn from ALL Lebanese territory. But, to give Hizbollah an excuse to continue attacking Israel for its "occupation" Syria transferred sovereignty of the Shebaa Farms region on the border between Israel, Lebanon and Syria to Lebanon. Now this was such a transparent trick, that even the UN refused to accept it, and according to international law the Shebaa Farms region (a very small area) still remains part of Syria.
Whether or not the IDF will have enough time to achieve its objectives in Lebanon before a Security Council resolution imposes a ceasefire is uncertain. This time, as opposed to the past, the UN is in principle on Israel's side, and the blatant, deliberate and cynical act of aggression by Hizbollah is also more clear-cut than previously. So there has been a longer delay before the Security Council meets and they have approved an investigative committee sent by the Secty. General to visit the area and report back. This gives Israel valuable time, and as long as it can justify its attacks as being against Hizbollah targets it will not be censured. But, if the IDF can continue for longer, nevertheless, the tendency is to freeze the situation and then we are back to the status quo ante, where neither Lebanon (with international pressure) nor Israel have been able to disarm or defeat Hizbollah. No one gains from this except Iran and Syria.
posted by Jack Cohen at 6:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home