Definition Of Insanity
The saying goes that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity. Writing in USA Today, Dennis Ross seems to be suggesting doing it all again.
As someone who helped to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Hezbollah battles in 1993 and '96, when Katyusha rockets forced the public in northern Israel into bomb shelters and the Israeli military destroyed Lebanese infrastructure and forced Lebanese to flee the south, I can say that the Lebanese crisis is unlikely to be resolved without the Syrians deciding to bring it to an end. Israel will not be able to stop Katyusha fire on its own; it could not in 1993 or '96, and today, the Iranians have supplied Hezbollah with as many as 13,000 such rockets.In one of those paradoxes that so often seem to characterize the Middle East, Hamas and Hezbollah have acted to provoke an Israeli reoccupation of Gaza and extensive military operations in Lebanon. Israel might not want to be in either place, but with cross-border attacks and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, Israelis feel the need to impose a price and show such attacks come with consequences.
The problem, of course, is that for Israel it is much easier to get into Gaza and Lebanon than to get out. And that does not seem to bother either Hamas or Hezbollah. Though both claim to oppose Israeli occupation, Israeli withdrawal denies them their basis for resistance. Now with Israel back in Gaza and acting militarily in Lebanon, they have something to fight. For these Islamists, it is the cause, not humanity, that matters. And while they have always been sensitive to the public mood and support, the impact of Palestinian and Lebanese public opinion will play less of a role in ending these crises because of the pervading influence of Iran and Syria.
His solution? More negotiation.
The Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and others seem to recognize that Iran is manipulating Hezbollah and Hamas for its purposes, and they appreciate the threat that poses not just to Israel and the United States but to non-Islamist Arab governments as well. Tough Saudi criticism of Hezbollah's "reckless" behavior is unprecedented and an indication of what the Saudis and others feel is at stake.
Now is the time for the United States to work with those who could create an "Arab umbrella" for bolstering the Lebanese government, its prime minister, Fuad Saniora, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Such an Arab umbrella could justify, support and assist in deploying the Lebanese army to Israel's border.
Helping to establish security on the Lebanese-Israeli border and the Israeli-Gaza border in a way that ends rocket fire from areas that Israel has left might not only end the current crisis but also pave the way to a more hopeful future.
I noted (with surprise) the Saudi denunciation of Hezbollah, so there is an element that is different from the past few rounds of negotiations. However, it is instructive to see how the situation is seen from the viewpoint of one who lives in the war zone. Mohammed at Iraq the Model has this to say:
Iran proved that it's able to drag the region into a state of chaos by maneuvering its tools in Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas and the militias in Iraq. Iran knows that such a conflict directed by militias that blend with civilians will lead to long-lasting chaos and represents a half-solution that debilitates the other powers and at the same time it's not a costly tactic for Iran! A 100 million dollars in the hands of gangs are enough to cause a lot of destruction that cannot be cured by billions in reconstruction, and it always costs less to destruct than to build.
The key point in this strategy is to keep the half-solution alive. This method proved successful in keeping the despotic regimes in power for decades and these regimes think this strategy is still valid. What makes them this way is their interpretation of international comments which came almost exactly as they always do; calls for restraint and urging a cease-fire which they (Iran and her allies) think will mean eventually going back to negotiations which they know very well how to keep moving in an empty circle.
That was clear from Nesrallah's earlier speech when he said "whether today or a month or a year from now, the Israelis will sooner or later find themselves forced to negotiate…"
Of course Nesrallah did not talk about the rest of his hidden policy which is provoking another crisis once the first one cools down.
The half-solution. Negotiating what is really only a temporary solution. It leaves the major questions open, leaving an opportunity for the Hezbollahs and the Hamas to rearm and get ready to resume the fight later.
Trying to play the same scenario and adopt the same policies over and over again will bring undesirable outcomes for Iran this time and I can see that there's an Israeli determination to break the cycle; the thing is that Israel does not have to deal with the problem that America has to deal with; Israel does not have the political brakes that view the war in different ways. I mean to Israel this war is about existence and that's why Israel is going to go as far as it takes to secure this existence while the geographically-distant America view it differently and the attitude of some Americans who feel that this war is not that serious is understood.
But I do think that it is time to be decisive for one important reason; those who direct the conflict in the region do not seek a solution and even if America looks geographically far right now one should not forget that technology will not allow her to remain so in the future and I think dealing with conventional arsenals today is better than to deal with nukes in the future and that's the threat the world is going to face as long as religion mixes with politics in the middle east.
So the question becomes, how to move forward? The same old way, or a different way.
Which fits the definition of insanity? Maybe that should be the guide?
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Sometimes I believe that the purpose of articles like this is job security. People probably make a good living on negotiations and anaysis of conflicts and producing white papers and building think tanks and creating an entire industry around conflict. At some point real peace is a threat to their industry. How many of these people would be out of work if there really were peace in the Middle East?
Maybe it is in their interest to keep things simmering. Never quite resolve things, but keep things “negotiated” with little flare-ups now and again that require more negotiation to “fine tune” things. It begins to look as if there is a personality type that is addicted to drama and this is where they all find work. So for these people the answer is always more negotiation. We must never had a judgement of “right and wrong” and we must under no circumstances ever really address the basic underlying issues that are the bed of coals that result in these flareups. Instead we address the symptoms of those causes taking care never to tell one side they are simply fundamentally wrong … it is as if we simply damp the fire and close down the oxygen supply so it isn’t roaring out of control but it isn’t exactly out either.
In my opinion, that’s stupid.