Augustus Richard Norton, Professor of Anthropology and International Relations at the Department of International Relations, Boston University
“(…) Since 2006, there has been an uncommon solidarity within the Shiite community and Hizbullah has been the beneficiary. I argue that the solidarity of the Shiite community is an aberration, it is an artifact of the recent war, as well as the fear that another war looms. This is a war that Hizbullah claims it does not seek, but that Israel is expected to launch. Preparations for that war are under way on both sides.
During the late 1990s, while the Israeli occupation continued, Hizbullah’s full-time military cadre numbered about five hundred and was supplemented through a reserve system (in some ways similar to Israel’s). By 2006, that number had doubled. Today, the standing military force is measured in the thousands. There is no way for a civilian researcher to reliably estimate the size of Hizbullah’s arsenal, but by the group’s own estimates its store of arms is far more robust and more sophisticated than it was in 2006.
Despite the fears of war, the Israeli-Lebanese border has been very quiet since the 2006 war. UNIFIL, bolstered under Security Council Resolution 1701, has provided an effective buffer. While it has stopped Hizbullah from publically displaying weapons in the border region, it has not, however, impeded Hizbullah’s ability to rearm.
Unless Hizbullah can be decisively defeated by Israel – defeated in detail, in military parlance – the effect of another war would be to bolster Hizbullah, and to once again validate its narrative.
For a variety of reasons, I believe that it is unlikely that Israel is capable of decisively defeating Hizbullah’s hardened forces. The level of civilian casualties, probably on both sides, would be dreadful, and would prompt a fierce backlash in the Muslim world. Equally important, Israeli soldiers would have to go toe to toe with Hizbullah fighters who know the difficult terrain of
Lebanon intimately and have a strong incentive to protect the home front. The Israeli Army’s comparative advantages, especially technical sophistication, largely disappear in close combat.
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to explain the solidarity that currently exists within the Lebanese Shiite community to the benefit of Hizbullah. Yet, there are a variety of divisions with the community as well. These include secular and clerical opponents of Hizbullah, and, of course, the longstanding rivalry with Amal. In addition, there are strong feelings in some quarters that Hizbullah is too closely aligned with Iran, and that the community’s interests are better served through Arab as opposed to Persian ties. We see variants of these views in Iraq. These latent divisions will remain submerged as long as so many Shiite feel that their community faces an existential threat. One key to reducing Hizbullah’s mass appeal may be to reduce the threat of war, rather than heighten it. So long as the threat prevails, Hizbullah will be a prime beneficiary.”
www.dailystar.com.lb, June 10, 2010
Leave a Reply