Lebanon”s response to Netanyahu”s threats must go beyond denunciation
The latest bluster by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears some scrutinizing. Lebanese policy-makers should recall his remarks as they engage in the process, such as it is, of forming a new cabinet. Netanyahu said on Sunday that "we consider the Lebanese Cabinet a sovereign entity, and any attack launched from the Lebanese territory is by the government and its approval." The threat is stark, and ironic for anyone who”s heard such messages before.
First of all, there”s the glaring disconnect with the way the world dealt with Lebanon in the past. Hizbullah entered the government for the first time in 2005, after the Hariri assassination and later parliamentary elections. Irrespective of who Israel threatened with reprisal in the past, the 2006 war showed that Israel held all of Lebanon responsible for an operation by Hizbullah in the south.
In fact, we”ve heard such Israeli threats dozens, if not hundreds of times before. They”re fairly easy to recite from memory: the Lebanese government is responsible for Hizbullah operations, and should expect to be "hit" if something happens.
But what is the difference between hitting the entire south and "hitting the state," as people might say in daily conversation? Don”t the attacks against the south serve to weaken this government, and this state? They certainly don”t strengthen the authorities here.
What”s the difference between occupying territory in the south for decades, and not hitting the government? What”s the difference between Israel”s systematic destruction of communities, and not striking at state targets? In fact, Israel has systematically weakened our government and always sought to keep our army weak; this has changed recently, although the Lebanese Army remains severely constrained in what kind of weapons it can acquire.
Our response to Netanyahu”s reminder of what Israel seeks for our political and military authorities should include two things: recognizing the urgency of the competition between Netanyahu and Ehud Barak over the country”s foreign policy direction, and generating our own policy initiative.
The Israelis would prefer Damascus as their "address" for dealing with Hizbullah, and a weak Lebanese government, so that Syria can re-assume responsibility for political decisions here.
As for our response, it should include a policy initiative by the president, speaker, prime minister-designate and Hizbullah, to provide a shock absorber for this critical period. We”ve heard threats from the south before, but the Israelis would like nothing better now to avoid moving ahead with peace with the Palestinians; Iran remains a convenient target. The Israelis prefer to create conditions in which the Obama administration, for example, declines to engage Syria. Statements of denunciation of Netanyahu should be made, but our new governing team also needs a serious policy stance on how to pre-empt, and thereby prevent, Israeli adventurism.