 |
| Volume VIII, March 2001, Number 1 |
| |
| ABSTRACT: Israel’s Retreat from South Lebanon: Internal and External Implications |
| |
| Fawaz A. Gerges |
| |
Dr. Gerges, who holds the
Christian A. Johnson Chair in international ffairs and Middle East
studies at Sarah Lawrence College, New York, is a MacArthur fellow and a
visiting scholar at the American universities in Beirut and Cairo. His most recent
book is entitled America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures Or
Clash of Interests? (Cambridge
University Press, 1999).
This article examines Israel's forced decision to
retreat from southern Lebanon and its implications on Arab-Israeli peace
making, the Arab political order, and internal politics in Lebanon.
A new attitude has emerged within the ranks
of the Israeli military-civilian elite regarding the inherent limits of
militarism. In the wake of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, Israelis have begun
openly to discuss the unwarranted display and efficacy of their country's armed
power that has so informed its strategic raison d'etre for the last fifty
years.
In the eyes of many Arabs, however, many Israeli
myths were shattered as a result of the liberation of south Lebanon; this
dramatic development has convinced many Arabs that Israel can be deterred and
its ambitions contained when the appropriate conditions for resistance exist.
The most important of these conditions is the presence of sociopolitical
groups, such as Hizballah, that have the will and inclination to confront the
powerful Israeli army.
More than anywhere else, the Lebanese example has
had a direct effect not only on the Palestinian negotiating strategy but also
on Palestinian public opinion. On the one hand, President Yasser Arafat's
refusal to make further concessions on the negotiating table is one very important
result of the Israeli army's forced retreat from southern Lebanon. Hizballah's
achievement and its aftermath appear to have changed the dynamics of
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Arafat knows full well that tampering with
legitimate Palestinian rights, as they are preceived by the general Palestinian
and Arab public, given what happened in Lebanon, would lead to a further
polarization of relations between the Palestinian Authority and its powerful
opposition.
On the other hand, in their current intifada,
Palestinian youths have tried to imitate the symbols and methods of Hizballah
fighters, notwithstabding Israel's brutal crackdown and heavy Palestinian
casualties. Hizballah's resistance has influenced Palestinians' thinking and
action.
Despite the structural weakness of the Arab
political order, Israel's withdrawal appears neither to weaken its legitimacy
nor to endanger its stability. The Arab state system has proved to be resilient
and durable, notwithstanding its frequent crises. In the case of
Lebanon, the challenge of political-economic development facing the country is at
least as daunting as the military confrontation with Israel. Can, for example, Hizballah's
rank and file be fully integrated into Lebanese civil society, and through what
means and institutions? Will Hizballah devote its energy to politics and
gradually shed its paramilitary character? Furthermore, Israel's retreat from southern Lebanon complicated
Syrian-Lebanese relations and brought about many calls in Lebanon for
restructuring these relations along lines based on respect for one another's
sovereignty and indepedence. A consensus is gradually emerging in Lebanon
regarding the need to reduce and even eliminate Syria's intervention in its
domestic politics.
All in all, Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon has had
a multiplicity of effects on the Arab-Israeli peace process and regional
politics as well.
|
| |
|
