A key aspect of winning any war is to define the goals. This is especially true of the current fighting in Gaza and Lebanon. By trying to do too much -- or believing that one can achieve more than is possible -- the result can be failure and certainly will be disappointment.
In this case, the mistake is to think that Israel can destroy Hezbollah or eliminate it as a political and military entity. To claim otherwise plays into the hands of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, which want to define their victory as Hezbollah's survival.
Defining victory as merely survival is a pattern often typical of Arab (and Iranian) politics, and it is simultaneously disastrous and sensible. It is disastrous because it courts defeat by attacking superior forces: the 1967 Six Day War, former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's challenge to the US and his attack on Iran, former Palestinian president Yasser Arafat's fighting an endless battle in which he was always defeated, and so on. The Arab side is left with tremendous losses in casualties and material, as is once again happening in Lebanon and with the Palestinians.
But what is to a large extent a defeat in practical and military terms also can be considered a political victory. The Arabs never "lose" because they never surrender. Thus they do not formally give up anything. The leaders that brought on failure and the groups that did not triumph become heroes for being able to claim that they courageously fought the enemy without being crushed. The important points for them are that they gained revenge by inflicting damage, showed that they were real men, did not buckle under, and survived.
Such a pattern is a formula for endless conflict and endless defeat. Yet defeats do not force new attitudes, policies or leaders. The pragmatic "lesson" remains unlearned because those who take this view perceive a different lesson.
That is why the kind of tactics that work well in conflicts elsewhere in the world do not function in the Middle East. The rules of the game are supposed to be like this: The side that loses recognizes that it is weaker and makes a deal involving concessions to avoid another costly conflict. The stronger side then gains deterrence, because recognition of its power stops the other side from going to war in the first place. Wanting to avoid war, all sides solve disputes by compromise, end the conflict forever and move onto other things.
Instead, Hezbollah and Hamas thrive on fighting as an end in itself. Moreover, Hezbollah and its friends present themselves as absolute victors no matter what happens. And millions of Arabs and Muslims, given regime and media propaganda, believe them.
The underlying cause of conflict is not that Hezbollah or Hamas have grievances against Israel so much as that they view Jews as prophet-murdering, devil-aiding, imperialistic sub-humans whose state must be wiped off the map. Formal ceasefires or political solutions are inconceivable. At the same time, the conflict gives them money, power and glory. Any losses or suffering that occurs as a result -- except perhaps to the leaders personally -- are a matter of indifference.
For its part, Israel will win an objective military and political victory but is not able to destroy Hezbollah for several reasons. First, Hezbollah has the support of most Lebanese Shiites, who make up roughly 40 percent of the population. The Shiites back Hezbollah because it appeals to their communal pride, represents their interests domestically and stirs their religious passions. The current fighting will not erode that support, which regards resistance to Israel as a victory in itself.
Second, Iran and Syria will keep backing Hezbollah because doing so gives them prestige, influence in Lebanon and a way to hit Israel, all without cost. Their backing includes not only arms, but also financial subsidies that enable Hezbollah to buy popular support.
Finally, a lot of Hezbollah's resources and forces are outside Israel's range. Thus, only strong action by Lebanese groups could destroy Hezbollah. But they won't act because they fear civil war and opportunistically use Hezbollah to promote their own goals or ambitions. For example, the current Christian leadership is a political ally of Hezbollah, even though the former opposed and the latter favored Syria's continuing occupation of Lebanon.
Naturally, most other Lebanese are unhappy that Hezbollah's adventurism has dragged their country into war and inflicted great destruction on it. Many secretly want Israel to crush Hezbollah and rid them of their problem. Yet they will do nothing themselves to help, thus ensuring that the problem continues.
There are, however, two realizable goals that Israel can achieve. The first is to keep Hezbollah away from the border. Ideally, Lebanon's army and government would enter the area and run it as part of their country. Alternatively, another international force may be able to accomplish more than its predecessors, which mostly waved at the terrorists as they passed. But even if international institutions or Lebanon do nothing, Israel will attack any Hezbollah forces trying to get close enough to cross the border or fire rockets at Israeli civilians.
The second attainable goal is to impose such a high price on Hezbollah as to be an effective deterrence in practice. Hezbollah will keep insisting publicly that it yearns for another confrontation, shout defiance and claim victory. At the same time, though, it will confine its threats mainly to the verbal level. More than this cannot -- and should not -- be expected.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, Interdisciplinary University, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US