JOSHUA FRANK: The People’s Struggle In The ME -- Ramzy Baroud Interview

[Tace]

By Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

Sept. 4, 2006 -- Ramzy Baroud is a U.S. author and journalist, currently based in London. He is the author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, 2006). He is also the Editor-in-Chief of PalestineChronicle.com. Here Baroud talks with Joshua Frank about the latest crisis in the Middle East and how it threatens U.S. and Israeli international prowess.

Joshua Frank: So Ramzy, how long is this Lebanon/Israeli ceasefire going to last? Who won, anyway?

Ramzy Baroud: To begin with, one must emphasize that Israel doesn’t believe in ceasefires; its understanding of the concept has little to do with the commitment it makes to the international community and more to do with tactical reasoning. This was true with Israel’s earliest ceasefire in 1948 when Zionist gangs agreed to stop their onslaught against Palestinian villages and their fleeing inhabitants, yet resumed killing at will without adhering to dates or the law of war whenever convenient. The latest ceasefire in Lebanon is no exception. For the first time in its history, Israel suffers a wide scale military setback. I am cautious not to use the word “defeat,” although in many aspects it was a defeat. Not only did Israel discover the limitations of its military prowess (similar to the unpleasant discovery of America’s military limits in Iraq), but it has provided Hizbollah, and any aspiring Arab resistance groups in the future, with its own David and Goliath anecdote, which will cement the argument that was slowly fading among Arabs, that Israel only understands the language of force, and that a peace treaty without strength to back it up, is simply signing terms of defeat. Ironically, Syria’s Bashar Assad reiterated a similar notion in his fiery speech following the war; his self-assured words were paralleled with Ehud Olmert hesitant admission of failure before the Israeli Knesset.

JF: So, Israel has the power to end much of the violence?

RZ: Right. The ceasefire shall last as long as Israel gets set to reengage Hizbollah. The opportune moment to do this would be to take on a weakened Hizbollah at the internal Lebanese front. The United States and Israel are already leading this planning campaign, with the help of their loyal friends dotting the Lebanese political landscape. If Hizbollah is weakened enough (not necessarily disarmed), and if the Lebanese army (who has little or no real chance in defending Lebanon’s border, no matter how well intended) is deployed in areas that Hizbollah had customized to fit its war tactics, then Israel might be foolish enough to give war another shot. It would then be a war of different objectives, one that is almost solely aimed at renewing Israel’s national pride and the people’s confidence in their once ‘invincible army,’ for the Israelis understand well that their state had been established, conquered and subdued their foes using tanks and bullets; if such tools are marginalized, then Israel has very little to justify its arrogance, its dominance. In a sense, this was the main achievement of Hizbollah: 1,200 lightly armed men defending their country successfully against 30,000 fully geared Israeli soldiers using the best war technology American money can buy.

Israel, no matter how desperate its future military adventures will be, must realize that its military advantage over its neighbors is neither a guarantee of peace nor of security, even if America’s unconditional aid and loan guarantees increase by ten fold.

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/content/view/76/331/lang,en/

[mike_c]

1. "...the best war technology American money can buy."

Not in my name!