Exercising Restraint

Although the United States has not in any way altered or modified its stance of complete public support for Israel's incursions into the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, there are clear, if subtle, signs that Washington and Tel Aviv are, in fact, not entirely on the same page in the current crisis.

Consider this comment by Prime Minister Olmert following the attack from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon on Wednesday night and Thursday morning: “I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act, but an act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason. The government of Lebanon, of which Hezbollah is a part, it trying to shake the stability of the region.” In essence, this is the justification for Israel’s reach to Beirut.

Compare that with President Bush’s remarks yesterday during a press conference in Germany with Angela Merkel. “My attitude is this: There are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace. And those of – who are peace-loving must work together to help the agents of peace – Israel, President Abbas, and others – to achieve their objective.” Such talk is standard for Bush. But who, exactly, are the “terrorists”? Later on in the conference, Bush shed some light: “[W]e – whatever Israel does, though, should not weaken the Siniora government in Lebanon. We’re concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We’ve been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hezbollah.”

This is quite different from Olmert’s position. And, proving that it wasn’t a case of Bush mixing his words up, Secretary of State Rice said, in regard to Lebanon: “It is extremely important that Israel exercise restraint in its acts of self-defense.” It is true that the United States routinely offers such advise whenever Israel begins to do whatever it wants, but this time the caution was directly related to the incursion into Lebanon. So, what is going on?

Both the United States and Israel are united in placing the ultimate blame for the current crisis in Damascus and Tehran. More precisely, because of Iran’s nuclear ambitions (which Israel fears much more than Katyusha rockets), Tehran is the central hub of the enemy, while Damascus is but a way-point to Lebanon and the Occupied Territories. Validating this view in the public consciousness, President Ahmadinejad told President Assad during a telephone conversation: “If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response.”

Despite the agreement on this matter, it appears that Washington’s policy of strengthening the anti-Syrian coalition within the Lebanese government is being undermined by Israel’s incursion. According to Joshua Landis at Syria Comment, Israel’s policy of using punitive measures across Lebanon to drive a wedge between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people will backfire. Threats to re-occupy southern Lebanon, “will only re-legitimate Hezbollah, which claims it is a legitimate Lebanese resistance movement fighting occupation. The bombing of the Beirut Airport will also serve to undermining (sic) the Lebanese government, not isolate Hezbollah. By attacking the central government, Israel will push ordinary Lebanese onto Hezbollah’s side, not deepen the divide between the two.”

Explaining why the US is not taking a more forceful role in attempting to halt the spiraling violence in the region, Landis quotes Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group (from a Washington Post article): “By cutting off its relations with states such as Syria and Iran, [the US] has very little ability to convince them to do favor for Washington… They have cornered themselves out of leverage on Iran. They have cornered themselves out of a lack influence on any of the parties that are driving this – Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran. Counseling restraint or condemning actions is pretty meager when you think of the influence the United States should be wielding.”

And unless one has swallowed hook, line and sinker the notion that the current conflict is a fight against terrorism (which would authorize whatever degree of conflict Israel chooses), then it becomes obvious that a regional war involving Syria and/or Iran is beyond Washington’s ability to handle at the moment. In a very real sense, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon brushes dangerously close to the edge of what the United States is capable of controlling in the region. Thus do we witness the rare spectacle of the United States actually meaning what it says when it tells Israel: exercise restraint.

None of this is to say that Israel will inevitably go over the edge, or that Israel and the United States are not ultimately uncritical allies with one and other, and will not work together to find a mutually acceptable way to assert their interests. But their opponents have shown surprising strength. As with unilateral withdrawal (from the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon), refusal to engage with the Hamas government, the government of Syria or Hezbollah in Lebanon has not isolated or weakened them. Rather, it has consolidated all power and legitimacy on the very fringes of militant resistance. At the moment, the role of the United States is to remind Israel (whose civilian leadership is spectacularly testy at the moment) just how powerful those opponents, in fact, are.