With its military intervention in southern Lebanon and its bombings of southern Beirut, the State of Israel intends to pursue a security policy characterized by overt colonial violence while asserting its regional hegemony, regardless of the cost to the Lebanese civilian population. ---- On March 2, four days after the start of the war between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other, Israel launched a new offensive in Lebanon. The stated objective this time: to occupy a 30-kilometer strip in southern Lebanon to protect settlers in northern Israel from Hezbollah attacks. This type of operation aligns with the Israeli military doctrine of "mowing the lawn," as they put it, meaning conducting frequent military operations to destroy the military capabilities of organizations opposed to Israel. This was the default doctrine applied to Gaza, which thus suffered, in addition to the blockade beginning in 2007, Israeli military operations in 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014.
This military doctrine is presented by the Israeli army as preventive self-defense. Thus, Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon would never have occurred without the existence of Hezbollah. This refrain has been echoed internationally and by the French state, which condemned Israel's methods while reaffirming that it was Hezbollah that should disarm to end the conflict. In short, the same type of reactions we have observed in the face of the situation in Gaza.
A doctrine that gave rise to Hezbollah
The parallel doesn't end there, since these reactions ignore the very reasons for Hezbollah's existence. Hezbollah was founded in 1982 when Israel invaded southern Lebanon, forcing the Shiite population living there into exile. Aided by Iran, Hezbollah gradually gained legitimacy through its ability to resist offensives by the Zionist state and its allies. Its tactical alliances with left-wing anti-imperialist forces did not prevent it from acting sporadically against them, particularly the Lebanese Communist Party, to assume leadership of the Lebanese resistance. Hezbollah's position was further strengthened when it succeeded in repelling another Israeli invasion in 2006.
The disarmament of Hezbollah as a condition for Israel's withdrawal is all the more hypocritical given that this solution had already been tested by the Lebanese government. To end Israel's 1982 occupation of southern Lebanon, presented at the time as a security measure aimed at dislodging the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Lebanese state pursued a policy of military dismantling of the Palestinian resistance. Defeated militarily at the end of a particularly brutal civil war, the PLO left Lebanon in 1991. This had... no effect on the occupation. Indeed, Israel only left Lebanon in 2000 under pressure from the Lebanese resistance, composed primarily of communist forces and Hezbollah.
The Workers' Party, the NPA-Revolutionaries, and the Libertarian Communist Union called for demonstrations against the war on April 17, demanding an immediate end to the Israeli-American intervention in Iran and Lebanon.
Credits: UCL Paris Nord-Est
This legitimacy acquired by Hezbollah stems from the Lebanese army's inability to act against Israeli invasions. This is hardly surprising, however. Since the country's independence, the Lebanese army has been shaped by foreign interests, particularly Syrian and Western. The objective was to maintain a Lebanese state capable of asserting its authority over its territory, but vulnerable to foreign intervention. Lebanese political leaders thus chose to build an army that served "diplomatic" objectives by satisfying the various demands of global and regional imperialist powers. This policy continues today, as the Lebanese state has signed a roadmap with the United States to dismantle the militias operating within its territory. It has not yet been implemented, primarily due to internal resistance within the Lebanese army.
A colonial logic
If this invasion replicates the structural causes that led to the formation of Hezbollah, why is Israel carrying it out? As we saw earlier, this intervention is part of a military doctrine that prioritizes sporadic military interventions over any diplomatic relations. Since its establishment, Israel has waged preemptive wars to ensure its security. Peace is not an option when pursuing an aggressive colonial policy; it is necessary to strike first and project power in such a way that the war disproportionately affects the opposing civilian population. This doctrine is coupled with a certain opportunism, as we are currently seeing in Syria, where Israel took advantage of the overthrow of Assad to extend its illegal occupation beyond the Golan Heights. Any new territory whose capture has been justified to ensure Israel's security can be colonized, thus justifying the next invasion.
Another consequence of the Zionist state's policy of permanent war is the need for regional hegemony. Since war is Israel's means of ensuring its security, there must be no power potentially capable of rivaling it. Even though Israel possesses nuclear weapons, its greatest fear is that Iran will also possess them, thus creating an unacceptable strategic balance. This desire for hegemony, however, extends far beyond the nuclear domain. We can therefore understand the almost immediate breakdown of the ceasefire with Iran through renewed bombings in Lebanon: the war waged with the United States is Israel's means of weakening its last rival militarily and economically.
These bombings in Lebanon, which in a single day resulted in more than 350 civilian deaths and 1,000 injuries, also highlight the horror of Israeli military strategy. The genocide in Gaza is not an exception. To achieve its military objectives, Israel is prepared to continue massacring civilian populations. Despite an anti-war movement that defies repression, over 93% of the population supports the war against Iran and thus the opening of a fifth front (after Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon). Here we can see the concrete effects of what Aimé Césaire called the "decivilization of the colonizer," because this barbaric vision of an Israeli state that can only be secure through the massacre of the peoples of the Middle East has now permeated the entire population.
Corentin and Laurent (International Relations Committee, UCL)
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Liban-Israel-ou-la-guerre-permanente
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten