HIZABALLAH THREAT TO ISRAEL'S POWER OF DETERRENCE: 27.9.06

1. One of the reasons that Israel launched its military campaign against the Hizballah in July was to restore its power of deterrence in face of Hizballah's bellicose and aggressive actions including the flagrant violation of Israeli sovereign territory and the unprovoked use of violence against its soldiers and civilians. After the ceasefire with the Hizballah it seemed that this power of deterrence had to a degree been restored particularly in light of the fact that Hizballah positions were no longer being manned a few meters from Israel's border and that Hassan Nasrallah was in hiding for fear of his life.

2. Two related events however occurred last week which may be the portent of worse to come and a signal that Israel's restored power of deterrence will be put to the test soon.

In one incident a large group of Hizballah supporters (some of whom were said to be armed) stoned an Israeli military vehicle situated on the Israeli side of the border. The complete lack of an Israeli response - immediate or otherwise- to this taunting of its soldiers is what is worrying.Neither tear gas, water cannon or shots in the air were even fired in order to transmit a message of deterrence to the Hizballah. Whilst restraint is an admirable trait (at least in the West) in this particular case it will be seen by the Hizballah as being an act of weakness - it is almost a given cetainty that soon a similar but more brazen act against Israeli troops will be undertaken because the Hizballah logic will be that if Israel did not react to this provocation it may not act to the next one and so on.

The second portentous event was the giant Hizballah "victory" rally in Beirut where some 800,000 people saw and heard Hassan Nasrallah speak. There had been speculation that Israel may target him for assassination at the rally but even less forceful actions were not undertaken such as for example breaking the sound barrier over Beirut whilst Nasrallah was proclaiming victory. In his speech, Nasrallah mocked the tears of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Siniora during the war. Such derision of sensitivity only demonstrates how what is sometimes perceived as being admirable in the West is viewed as a weakness in the Middle East. Nasrallah's appearance showed his supporters that here he was appearing in public for all to see and not hiding in some bunker.

3. The upshot of the border fence stone throwing incident and of Nasrallah's unhindered public appearance in Beirut are both a blow to Israel's power of deterrence. Had Israel used a measure of force to deal with these two provocations then a clear message - do not try us - would have been sent out to the Hizballah and its followers. Alas, the message that has been transmitted to the Hizballah is to continue to provoke Israel and failing any Israeli action the pre-war status quo will slowly but surely be restored - something which is obviously to Israel's detriment.

ANSWERING THE IRELAND-PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN

Professor James Bowen of the National University of Ireland and chairman of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign recently wrote an article entitled "Making Israel take responsibility"(published in Haaretz on 15.9.06). Professor Bowen criticizes Israel for using anti-Semitism to "excuse its expulsion of Palestinians in 1948, its discrimination against Palestinians who managed to remain inside the Green Line, and its territorial expansionism after 1967". Anti-Semitism was a major reason behind the burning need to re-establish the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel, if this homeland had been reestablished prior to the rize of the Nazis, half the then World Jewish population would have been saved from extermination. Anti-Semitism was and is an integral part of the Jewish-Israeli psyche.But it has little to do with Professor Bowen's allegations. Rather, Professor Bowen's criticism of Israel reflects the Palestinian victim narrative which resolutely refuses to accept any blame for the situation of the Palestinian people to-day. Interestingly, Professor Bowenwhilst lauding Irish Jewish relations forgets to mention IRA support for Nazi Germany.

1. If the Palestinians were as Bowen puts it "expelled" (most fled in a cowardly fashion unlike the Jewish Population who stood to fight for their homeland), then this was after they (and not the Jews who accepted the UN Plan) rejected the UN Partition Plan for dividing the land between a large Arab State and a smaller Jewish one. Five Arab armies invaded the newly born Jewish State with the intention of throwing the Jews into the sea. Which ever way one looks at the 1948 War the fact is that the Arab nations declared war on Israel and lost - this fact cannot be disputed by Professor Bowen. The Palestinian flight or expulsion or whatever you term it was a result of the War which was not started by Israel but was won by it (after losing 1% of its population during that War). Bitter a pill as it may be to swallow the Palestinians have only themselves to blame for not accepting the UN Partition Plan and for taking up arms against Israel.

2. In referring tp Israel's "territorial expansion after 1967", Professor Bowen is probably alluding to Israel gaining control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in the 1967 Six Day War.This "expansion" was a result of Jordan's decision to attack Israel in 1967 - once again a case of an Arab defeat brought about by a belligerent decision to go to war against Israel.

3. One view I share to a degree with Professor Bowen is in his allegation of discrimination against Palestinians living within Israel's 1967 borders (the Green Line). Although these Palestinians have the right to vote and enjoy full civil rights they do suffer from un-official discrimination which is inexcusable even if their political leaders (Palestinian members of the Israel's Parliament) openly side with Israel's enemies (for example by professing open support for suicide bombers and for the Hezbollah). Such discrimination however pales into insignificance when compared to the apartheid like conditions under which Palestinians in Lebanon live.

Professor Bowen claims that Jews who "migrated to Palestine since 1882" should not have more entitlement to the land than the Palestinians. If Professor Bowen wants to play the historical date justification game I have no objections. In the 1880s Jews started their return to the land of Israel from which they were expelled in 70AD by the Romans some 560 years before the Arab Armies conquered the land at the Battle of Yarmuk in 638 AD. And what of other countries?By Professor Bowen's view Protestants would have less of claim to Northern Ireland than Catholics just because they gained political power there following the Battle of the Boyne in 1688 when the Catholics had been in Ireland since early Gaelic and Celtic days.

What matters is the present. The fact is that because Palestinians have always chosen violence as their best option ( witness Yasser Arafat's decision to prefer launching the second intifada instead of accepting Israel's offer of a Palestinian state in 95% of Judea and Samaria) they have very little to show for themselves.

Professor Bowen advocates sanctions being imposed on Israel something which only reinforces the view that the Palestinians and their supporters seek Israel's destruction as a Jewish State instead of realizing that unlike those Palestinians who ran away in 1948 the Jewish people have no other national home and will not relinquish their hold on their homeland. When the Palestinians realize this fact and demonstrate a genuine recognition of Israel they will surely find themselves in a far better position than they have been for the last hundred years. Professor Bowen and his colleagues in the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign would serve the Palestinians far more by advocating such recognition and moving away from victim mode.