The War in Lebanon – It’s not between nations

The current conflict in Lebanon has been touted by the news media as a conflict between Israel and Lebanon, or Hezbollah, or sometimes even between Islam and Judaism and Christianity. Although on the surface, these seem like viable arguments to some degree or another, I think the answer lies deeper.

First, a quick look at the history of the conflict in the Mideast as it pertains to Israel. The key players are Yasser Arafat (since deceased, but nonetheless important) leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Ask yourself, what was the occupation of each of these people prior to their rise in their respective political parties and movements? Some might guess that Ariel Sharon was a military officer, few would know that Yasser Arafat was an Engineer. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has been a religious leader and involved in Hamas most of his life, since his options were severely limited due to an injury at age 12. What is important, is that all of these people were relative nobody’s in the world. Their sense of importance and self-worth was tied to conflict between Israel and the Arab world.

So what do these three people have in common? They come from different backgrounds, with seemingly opposing goals; however, their goal is unified and simple. They want war.

Without a war to fight, their purpose in life would be void, and they would be relegated to the relative anonymity of a retired wartime leader, or even worse, a return to their pre-war obscure occupations. Of course, the victorious would be revered and respected, but they would have only a small fraction of their previous power. Because these three are wartime leaders, or ‘Hawks’, they have the ability to consolidate their power as a result of war.

Now that the war has turned into a ceasefire, leaders in the US have attempted to analyze who was the winner and who was the loser. The simple answer is that Israel is the loser, but so is Lebanon.

Terrorism is not a rich mans conflict. Aside from a notable Saudi, a vast majority of ‘terrorists’ are poor, with nothing to lose. With Israel’s destruction of Lebanon’s safety, security, and infrastructure, they have ensured that the next 40 years will bring a new generation of attacks from more 20 year old kids with nothing to lose.

Israel also lost the peace. On the nightly news, many of the Arabs interviewed clearly state that Hezbollah, or Hamas, or any of the other radical organizations are providing money and support in the form of food and shelter. To the Arab involved in the conflict, it shows who the ‘good guys’ are. The ‘good guys’ are the ones who will look out for their families and their welfare, which currently these organizations are doing, and Israel is not.

The simple fact, is that Israelis were kidnapped, and the Israeli hawk leadership decided that a special operations mission to retrieve them would not achieve the political goal of keeping the hawk leaders in power. The radical leaders in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, obviously understood that a war with Israel would allow them to consolidate power in the region and ensure that it would stay that way for many years to come. They understood that it would only take a token offense to spark a war, and that would benefit them, providing they survive the conflict.

To make things abundantly clear, the enemy is not Lebanon, nor is it Israel, nor even Hezbollah or Iran, but the leadership of all parties who would ensure their stay in power by walking over the dead bodies of their countrymen.