1. The Israeli blitzkrieg on Lebanon, which has killed hundreds of people, made hundreds of thousands homeless and smashed up the country and its infrastructure, has stalled a few miles inside Lebanese territory. The resistance put up by Hizbollah fighters has been many times greater than had been expected by the Israeli military. Massive and indiscriminate air power has not had the expected effect. Israeli losses in hand-hand fighting have been far higher than expected.
After two weeks of war Hizbollah resistance has not diminished and their rockets are still landing on northern Israel. In this sense Hizbollah has already marked up a significant victory. The invincible Israeli military machine is not so invincible after all, when confronted by a highly organised and motivated non-conventional force. It is the same limitation displayed by US forces in Iraq.
At the same time Israel has already lost the propaganda war both in the region and in most of the rest of the world. And for every Hizbollah fighter they manage to kill dozens more will flock to the cause.
2. This war of collective punishment that Israel has been waging against the people of Lebanon, replicating their murderous and continuing assaults on the people of Gaza, is even more vicious than the barbarism of their occupation of Lebanon for 18 years from 1982.
The campaign of shock and awe prioritised the infrastructure of the country – roads, bridges, ports, communications in order to prepare a new invasion of the south that is currently taking place.
Any idea that Israel wanted to avoid civilian targets or attempt to separate the fighters of Hezbollah from the population as a whole is shown to be a lie from the numbers of deaths of people fleeing the south, as instructed by Israeli leaflets, including the destruction of at least one Red Cross ambulance.
Given the level of support for Hezbollah particularly in the south of Lebanon, any aspiration that Israel and its allies have for subduing them can only be carried through by genocidal actions by the occupation forces. It is an outrage, albeit not a surprise, that in this barbaric war they have the full support and encouragement of US imperialism and of the British government that continues to cling tightly to Bush’s coat tails.
3. Israel has waited for an opportunity like this ever since they were driven out of most of Lebanon in 2000 by the forces of Hezbollah. As Gilbert Achcar argues, Hezbollah is an organisation that is “permanently defying Israel by its very existence, its very presence”. Even when the occupation ended, Israel retained a small part of Lebanon that had been seized in 1967. A low intensity war has continued across the border ever since.
In 2004 they were able to get the UN security council to adopt a resolution calling not only for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon but for the disarmament of armed groups in the country. In seizing this opportunity, Israel ignores the fact that it is seriously damaging the weak Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora, which despite the presence of Hezbollah ministers, is a pro-US force. Siniora came to office in 2005 following elections after the so-called Cedar revolution which forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country.
4. The kidnapping by Hezbollah of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, during a battle in which eight other Israeli soldiers were killed, was a legitimate military action, and one which sought to solidarise with the Palestinian people and take the heat off their collective punishment in Gaza.
The Israeli state has engaged in prisoner exchanges with Hezbollah in the past – a fact that it now wants the world to forget.
Hezbollah became the main political organisation representing the Shiite community, the largest minority in Lebanon – a country with no majority – following the 1982 occupation by Israel. As Achcar explains: “ It was born after the invasion and its rise was associated with its success in the fight against occupation.”
The role they have played, in common with other similar groups in the region, notably Hamas, as a welfare provider in a region where the state rarely does anything to provide for the needs of poor and marginalized communities, has also been key to strengthening its implantation.
Hezbollah translated the support it had built through the resistance into political representation by taking part in the elections in Lebanon in May-June 2005. It won 14 seats out of 128 in the Parliament and has two ministers in the government. So even before the present war, no one in Lebanon saw Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation but as a legitimate political force. What has happened since has massively strengthened its influence both inside and outside Lebanon.
While we have important differences with Hezbollah, not only on tactics, but also on bigger questions of programme and strategy, we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in trying to roll back the Israeli offensive and to oppose the support given to that offensive by both the US and Britain. Hezbollah is waging a legitimate national resistance struggle that should be fully supported by socialists everywhere.
5. The decision to impose collective punishment on the people of Lebanon for the kidnapping of the soldiers and to invade the country was taken by the Israeli state. However US imperialism stands full square behind them.
Britain has as usual been fast on its coat tails and the US seemed completely unperturbed for at least the first two weeks of the war by its isolation from the rest of the world including the UN and EU who were demanding a cease-fire.
Statements by leading US figures are illustrative of the political significance and meaning of the present conjuncture. John Bolton in responding to calls for a cease-fire or negotiations from the UN and the European Union asked, “tell me when negotiating with terrorists worked”
This question shows how far the post 9/11 world has travelled since the so-called peace process in Oslo between Israel and the PLO, and the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland. While we were and remain deeply critical of those processes, the balance of forces was such that imperialism was forced to negotiate with resistance movements.
There is no split between Britain and the US on this question. Britain was the only country to back the US and Israel at the beginning of the war. In the first stages, Blair was as usual acting as Foreign Secretary with resounding silence from Margaret Beckett. On Lebanon, as on Iraq, Blair continues to ignore the opinion not only of the international community but of public opinion at home which continues to be deeply critical of this slavish subservience to Bush.
6. As a result the Rome summit on July 26 failed to call for an immediate cease-fire, blocked by the US and Britain. However, the proposal to send an international force in principle is a deeply problematic one, which we oppose. In this context, whatever the details and despite Israel’s apparent willingness to give back the territory seized in 1967, such a force would be an aggressor against Lebanon and Hezbollah. Lebanon experienced a UN force during the 18 year Israeli occupation of the country and this was in no way a “peace keeping force”.
We say: cease fire now, no imperialist troops to Lebanon!
7. For the United States, Israel’s war against Lebanon is a proxy for wars against Syria and most crucially against Iran. The White House had hoped to follow its intervention in Iraq, in which local politics dictated that to some extent it supported Shiite forces in order to topple Sadaam Hussein, with the second act of its “dual roll-back” strategy – the destruction of the Iranian regime.
In this second campaign it had hoped not only to see Israel in the leading role but to cast the friendly Arab regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia, in bit parts which were nevertheless crucial. But as usual it underestimated the strength of its opponents, the military and political strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Furthermore Hezbollah’s resistance to Israel is deepening their mass support in the region and thus limit the room for manoeuvre of the Arab ruling classes, fearing for their own necks.
While the US has been able to use the present situation to get a new UN security council against Iran on the nuclear issue, in military terms both the continued resistance against the occupation of Iraq and the relative stalling of the Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon makes military action against Iran even less likely than before.
8. While the spotlight rightly remains on the situation in Lebanon, the Palestinians are still suffering a war waged against them in Gaza by the Israeli state with even greater impunity than before. The population remains under a bloody siege, which saw 25 Palestinians slaughtered in two days between July 26-28 including 3 children and a 75-year-old woman and farmland, power lines and telephone cables have been destroyed.
While continuing to highlight the unspeakable suffering of the Palestinian people and to demand the recognition of Hamas as their legitimate representative, we also point out that the need to politically defeat Zionism is greater than ever today. The reality is that the two-state solution is utopian. The only variety of this slogan that is acceptable to the current Israeli state has been tried and failed over the last couple of years, with horrendous consequences for the Palestinians. We need to step up propaganda for a one-state solution, while separating ourselves from those who raise this slogan with an anti-semitic content.
9. The antiwar movement in Britain and internationally has been right to respond to this war of invasion by Israel with the backing of US and British imperialism and to make it a priority for mobilisation.
As the invasion of Lebanon is part of the so-called war on terror, then the task of responding to the atrocities committed in its name lies with the anti-war movement. New organisations will be prepared to sponsor activities in this context, as was the case on the successful London demonstration on July 22, which a number of Lebanese organisations mobilised for. The action also seemed to partially revitalise the movement and bring in other new forces.
National and local solidarity actions will be called at short notice over the weeks ahead and these should be a major priority for our militants.
The question of the war against Lebanon should be a key theme for the demonstration in Manchester on September 23 at the opening of Labour Party conference, which should become easier to build in the current context. This demonstration will be a national mobilisation for the organisation.
International Socialist Group 30/07/2006