Three Critical Observations about the Aftermath of the Hezbollah-Israel War
A commentary by Cecil E. Maranville
United Church of God Elder, Glendale, AZ
There are three specific observations in the wake of the 2006
Hezbollah-Israel War that point in the direction of future events. Before
going into them, we need to acknowledge that the historic divisions of
the region have survived this latest war.
Israel does not feel safe, in spite of the fact that the rocket attacks
from the north have stopped. Hezbollah emerged stronger in the eyes of
Lebanese and virtually heroic to their cousin terror group in Palestine,
Hamas. There can be no doubt that Hezbollah's Iranian masters are
also pleased with the group's performance, guaranteeing a continued
river of money and war materiel.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said Israel's bombs set
Lebanon back 20 years, and much of the world responded with gifts to
rebuild its infrastructure. Yet, little publicity has been given to the
fact that Israelis will be looking at the scars of this war for a generation
to come. Or to the fact that the Israeli economy lost an estimated $100
million dollars in revenues per day throughout the war—not
counting the cost of the military itself. Moreover, it will take 50 years
and much work to restore the land Hezbollah's rockets destroyed
in northern Israel.
The war only deepened the wounds between the people of the region,
as well as highlighted the sad inability of the world community to think
and to act with a single mind for the good of all concerned, in a way
that encourages peace.
Comedian Jay Leno joked recently, "Germany has offered to send
troops to the Lebanon border. You can bet Israel's breathing a sigh of
relief there. Because nothing makes Jewish people feel safer and more
secure than having the German army marching on their border."
In fact, there is no joke. As strange as it might seem, Israel urged
Germany to join the peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon—and
Germany refused. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a formal request
to Germany that it contribute troops to the UN force patrolling southern
Lebanon. Germany declined, saying it did not want its soldiers in a position
of facing and perhaps having to shoot Israeli soldiers.
The first observation is that this is a much different world than the
post-WWII era in which Israel would never have considered such a proposal
from any authority, much less make the request itself. In the present
climate, we might well see alliances that only a few years ago seemed
impossible. Germany is sending 2400 members of its navy and air force
(not ground troops), second only to Italy's commitment of 3000
military to UNIFIL.
The second observation comes from The Jerusalem Post report
on the request for German troops. Shimon Stein, the Israeli ambassador
to Germany, observed, "Based on a reading of UN Security Council
Resolution 1701, it is clear that this peace-keeping force must be
a strong force, not merely a UNIFIL force with no teeth and no will" (Eetta
Prince-Gibson, "German Troops," Sept. 3, 2006, emphasis added).
UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was created "…in
1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore international
peace and security and assist the Lebanese Government in restoring its
effective authority in the area" (UNIFIL, www.un.org). In fact,
UNIFIL continues to operate, only under the new resolution, with an expanded
mandate. Even so, Ambassador Stein's point about it needing to
be much more than it was echoes the sentiment of many nations.
The EU historically shies away from a strong military. The French government's
approach illustrates this. After seeming to take the lead, it limply
promised only a few hundred advisors to the new UNIFIL. However, reality
demanded that this approach would change. France eventually acquiesced
and increased its commitment.
It is unlikely in this writer's opinion that the international
force will use teeth in southern Lebanon just yet. Nonetheless, the winds
of change are unmistakable. The world is tiring of political half-measures,
which leave the Middle East perpetually explosive.
The third observation is that the strong forces cannot be from or sponsored
directly by the United States or Great Britain. While these brothers
stood shoulder-to-shoulder in liberating Iraq from tyranny, mistakes
that they made, an effective counter-insurgency by Islamic radicals and
strangely, a carnivorous press in America and Britain have combined to
ensure that their forces are less welcome in the world's trouble
spots than ever.
  To understand where these significant shifts in international
attitudes may lead—when one considers the unique perspective that only the
Bible affords toward this pivotal region—just request or download
our two free booklets: You Can Understand Bible Prophecy and The
Middle East in Bible Prophecy.
|
