It seems, however, that Israel's reassurances that it is not intending to attack are not being taken seriously in Syria and Lebanon, which have been carefully monitoring its military exercises. News from both countries has reported movements of three Syrian military divisions and a heightened state of alertness in Hezbollah, which has, on various occasions, made clear its readiness to deal with any fresh Israeli aggression in the same way as it did in the July 2006 war. Nasralla even mentioned in one of his speeches that any possible war with Israel may reshape the face of the whole Middle East. Naturally, wars usually shape the geopolitics of the countries involved, with the '48 and '67 wars serving as good examples. Although it is difficult to assess to what extent any coming war would affect the region, what is surely obvious to any observer that the times when destruction was visited on the Arab side alone have most certainly gone.
One possible war scenario suggested is that Israel could initially strike Iran's nuclear facilities in direct or indirect coordination with the USA. According to this scenario, this war, if it occurred would then expand to include the Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian fronts and its results would be devastating for the whole region including the state of Israel.
The second scenario suggests that, if Hezbollah were to avenge its military leader, believed to have been assassinated by Israel, Israel might make use of this incident in the same way it did in 1982 when it used the ambiguous attack on the Israeli ambassador in London to justify launching a full scale war against the PLO in Lebanon.
However whether the war would initiate according the first scenario or the second the question is how to define war in this context. If the war to use a generalized definition is to achieve political goals what political goals Israel aims to achieve? In earlier wars such as 48, 56, 67, 78, 82 Israel troops moved to occupy Arab areas under the title of security of Israel which has been the excuse for all its wars against Arabs, and in most of these wars Israel was met with little resistance. It does not seem that future wars would take this course for various reasons, firstly, the resistance which Israeli troops would face if it tries to invade. Some military analysts go further, suggesting that in the coming war the Israeli tanks would not be able to move without encountering heavy resistance; after all, it was very effectively proven in 2006 that small anti-tank units are capable of doing more effective work than larger, more cumbersome army units used in the classical military way.
The second reason is the difficulty to hold control on more populated Arab areas as it suffers already of having to control millions of Palestinians, and the third reason is that the Israeli depth will be likely under attack a matter that has been referred to in regards to the Israeli exercises. The last war with Hezbollah undoubtedly drew the lines of any future wars which will basically be ballistic in nature. Military analysts assume that in the coming war it could be the first time the Israeli pilots flying to bomb Arab countries would not be sure of returning to a safe base or to a safe home. Political analysts assume that the coming war will not witness any absolute winners and losers, since destruction would be shared between both parties, although, taking Israel's position into consideration; it would be the political loser regardless of any result. A recent picture showing Avi Ditcher, the Israeli minister for security, running from Qassam rockets has no doubt reinforced the view that the Israeli army and probably the Zionist state itself are aging.
This makes one come to the conclusion that the Israeli expansion wars has become history for practical reasons and not because Zionism based on the philosophy of power has changed. Its aim now is to maintain its position in the near east and to force Palestinians and Arabs to give up their remands in restoring their rights as formulated by the UN resolutions. The second alternative is that Israel uses its air power to bomb Syria and Lebanon, with a political goal to “soften” the position of Syria, this too would be almost certainly retaliated and in the end Israel would probably find itself in need of another vinograd which questions not only its policy but perhaps would be the beginning of a revision to the whole Zionist ideology. The question, here, if Israel is aware that the picnic wars have become a history would it launch a war only for restoring its prestige though there is no assurance that it would achieve it? This is not an easy question to answer because we have seen in history wars that have occurred for various reasons. Yet what one must not forget that the history of the state of Israel demonstrates that it would not hesitate thanks to the American protection to launch a war if it knows that it serve its interest. (In the Zionist point view and not necessarily in the interest of the Israeli population) .The last war against Lebanon is the best example of the dog watch role which Israeli obviously played for the imperial power. And even without going into many details in this matter the major problem still lies in the Zionist mind which does not have learnt the golden lesson that the power of guns makes truce but no peace.
Yet the major question is: to what extent would the possible defeat of Israel influence the shape of the region's political geography? Would a possible defeat for Israel confirm Ben Gurion's prophecy that this will be the beginning of its end, or would it open more eyes in the state of Israel to the fact that a just peace is the only assurance for Israelis? It is perhaps early to predict what might happen but until now there is no indication that an Israeli Declerk is appearing on the political scene. The two major political thinking in the state of Israel, do not recognize the right of Palestinians for self determination though of the slight difference between the likud which still believe in the pure power and the Kadima/labor party which moved very few steps but not to the extent to recognize Palestinian rights.
Regardless of all the possible scenarios, however, it is difficult to predict what could happen in the potential war because nobody until now is sure that it is coming, but at the same time it is equally difficult to predict that it is not.
What is 100% clear is that the 60-year-old Israeli policy based on the philosophy of maintaining power over the whole region is diminishing, and it does not take any great intellectual brilliance to work out that this policy was the best recipe to feed the 10-plus major and minor regional wars in the past and will, if it is maintained, continue to feed more wars in the future.
* Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region. |
