The fate of Lebanon is heart-rending. It should be one of the glories of the Levant and of Mediterranean civilisation. At ground level, the Lebanese have always had an appetite for a good time: every vice imaginable can be found in Beirut. But there’s one problem. The pleasures of dolce far niente are likely to be drowned out by ancestral voices prophesying war.
One is often astonished by the resilience of the Lebanese. When the shelling stops, they emerge from their shelters. One group of kids will gather up brass shell-casings, another one will have cardboard boxes full of oranges. If Lebanon, like us, had been on an island with its ancient enemy more than 20 miles away by sea, goodness knows what the Lebanese might have achieved in a long and successful history. As it is, their enemies are legion; the tragedy endless.
The recent strike on Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie talkies arouses a mixed reaction. It is hard not to admire the Israelis’ ultra high-tech skills. How did they do it? Could any other nation rival that prowess? On which subject, it is impossible not to smile at the thought that many seem to have that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) will suffer because the UK is cutting off a tiny proportion of our arms exports to Israel. Indeed, it is reassuring to know that the IDF still thinks that some of our kit is worth buying. One might have thought that it would be the other way around.
But – a very large but – where is this all leading? Obviously, although Hezbollah took casualties, some of the footage of exploding devices was not showing black-bearded militants, but ordinary Lebanese buying vegetables at market stalls. One can see why the Israeli Government wants to break Hezbollah’s grip on southern Lebanon, thus allowing Israelis to return to their homes and farms. But what is the cost in suffering and rage? Palestinian and Shia militancy are Hydra-headed. The Israelis – and the West – are dealing with an enemy who does not appear to fear death.
This disjunction between Israeli might in war and incoherence in diplomacy can be dated to the aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967. Israel was assailed on three fronts. Could it survive? Within hours, the first battle-scores came through. The Egyptians and the Syrians claimed to have destroyed the Israeli Air Force. Israel declared that it had returned the compliment. There was a widespread assumption that all sides were exaggerating. Not so. The Israelis had indeed wiped out the Arab air forces, mainly on the ground. They had lost only a small number of planes. In every sphere, the Israels had triumphed. There was widespread admiration for plucky little Israel. The Jews were no longer the helpless victims of the Holocaust.
Alas, Israel was about to start on a long march from victimhood to a regional superpower which would regularly be accused of bullying. Before the war, Israel had been a small country, almost wasp-waisted: only 12 miles across at the narrowest point. In theory, it could have been cut in half by a tank thrust. One can understand why the Israelis wanted security and they would never have been willing to surrender the Old City of Jerusalem. But there was an opportunity to turn most of the West Bank into a Palestinian state.
It was not taken. A lot of Israeils were tempted to expand their own territory. Was it really necessary to hand over all the West Bank?
There would also have been a difficulty over Gaza. It had never been regarded as part of historic Israel, the Egyptians did not want it, and it was economically unviable. But the West Bank was the real issue and it became more so as the Israelis yielded to the lure of new settlements on the West Bank.
This was greeted with widespread condemnation. The Israelis were regularly accused of breaching international law and sometimes even pretended that they cared. More often, they would wait until everyone else – especially America – was looking the other way and then grab a few more acres. Thus it has continued. The Israelis have altered facts on the ground: 700,000 of them, in the form of Israeli settlers. Throughout the international community, there is almost universal agreement on the need for a two-state solution with a Palestinian state on the West Bank. To which there can be one further question. How? Hard-line Israeli right-wingers have their reply off pat. There already is a Palestinian state, called Jordan. The rest of the Palestinians should move there. One suspects that this is Mr Netanyahu’s true opinion, even if it is still partially covert.
That is a route to endless conflict, regular outbreaks of terrorism and chronic instability spreading throughout the region, and beyond. Hamas and Hezbollah will see all that as a road leading to the eventual destruction of the state of Israel. As for the blood-letting in the interim, for them, that is a price worth paying.
So what is the solution? After thinking about the Middle East for more years than I would care to admit to, I will deliver my conclusion. I have no idea.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
