Lebanese leaders have been busy the past few weeks warning European capitals that Israel is dangerously flirting with another war with Hezbollah. Beirut is not saying it’s inevitable. That is precisely why Europe should listen this time around unless they want a disastrous and unpredictable sequel to the 2006 war that left thousands of victims.
Europe, already preoccupied with its economic woes and internal fractures, shouldn’t reshuffle its priorities because the strategic balance has shifted and significantly more is at stake. Unlike four years ago, Lebanon and Syria are on the same side, with the support of both Arab countries and Iran.
For decades it has been the case that Europeans are either strong supporters of American policy in the Middle East or a complicit mute. But European indifference this time around would render it ultimately irrelevant in the Middle East, and dangerously affect its own economic and political interests.
Lebanon’s message is clear and it’s speaking for the entire Middle East: Israel is preparing for war. Its enemies are not sitting idly either. Actions could quickly overtake rhetoric, Beirut warns, and the consequences will be felt from China to oil markets, but especially in Europe. The stakes have been building for years. Any military showdown involving Israel could easily drag in neighbors, risk the global economic recovery, and derail any hope of regional stability.
The diplomatic flurry sent Prime Minister Saad Hariri recently to Spain, which currently holds the six-month European Union presidency, and to Italy, the Mediterranean diplomatic heavyweight. Madrid currently commands UN peacekeeping troops separating Israel and Lebanon, and Rome still has the second biggest contingent. Former president General Michel Aoun, seen as a reliable partner by all sides, also met with top Spanish diplomats soon after Hariri, which is hardly a coincidence. These visits mirror similar Syrian diplomacy across the Middle East, Europe and even the US.
Not surprisingly, Israel’s provocative, right-wing hawk Avigdor Lieberman followed only days later to give Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero his version. Lebanon is warning Europe that Israel can’t be allowed to unilaterally use Lebanese territory once again for its proxy battles against Syria and Iran. Tel Aviv wants to finish off Hezbollah, the argument goes, under the pretext that Syria sent it advanced scud missiles, a claim Damascus and Beirut have both vehemently denied.
What is mind-boggling is that the outcome of this intense diplomacy, at least publically, is a vigorous endorsement of the status quo. European officials simply rehashed their useless statements of concern over the situation, backed US peace initiatives, and made their standard requests to both Israel and Syria and friends. General Aoun in Madrid said that Tel Aviv is simply not contemplating peace offers. And he asks: “Does Europe understand” that Israel is heading toward its own 100 Years War? It should. Intervening forcefully, either as member states or as the EU, is in its own interest. It stands to lose a lot more than the US if war breaks out.
Washington has been cautious, warning Damascus that if the arms transfer took place, its diplomatic rapprochement would come to an end. But there is so far no evidence to back up the claim. Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, appear to have accepted Syrian and Lebanese assurances, especially those coming from Hariri, who blames Syria for ordering the assassination of his father.
Hariri went so far as to compare Israel’s claims to those of Iraq’s phantom weapons of mass destruction. At first glance, it would seem ludicrous that Syria would give Israel such a blatant excuse to pick a fight with Hezbollah. It would indeed ruin its years-long successful campaign to improve relations across the globe, especially with Arab countries.
Scuds are also hardly concealable. Israel would not have missed a chance to destroy anything remotely resembling a huge missile or an enormous launching pad vehicle; not to mention that it would imply an unbelievable shift for Hezbollah into a conventional force, and that Israeli air defenses could easily shoot down scuds anyway.
Then again, Syria and Iran both want to strengthen their deterrent in case Israel wants to attack their countries. But it would be harder for them to handle scuds than the irregular warfare they are trained for. Whether Syria is supplying scuds, or whether Israel is intentionally spreading around rumors to divert attention away from its differences with the US or its own internal division, should be beside the point anyway, at least for Europe.
It’s Israel’s ongoing march toward its ultimate battle with Iran and its allies that demands a unique and forceful European reaction. The excuse used won’t matter much in the end. Washington’s historic ties to Israel make it less likely to be able to contain Tel Aviv should it decide to attack. Europe’s ability is even more limited, in practice. But it can surely make it more costly, considering much of Israel’s exports head to Europe. It can use trade as a weapon or seek additional diplomatic venues.
Europe also risks being shunned thereafter in the Middle East for not preventing another civilian bloodbath, no matter how many useless calls for ceasefire it issues while Israeli F-18s bomb Beirut. And it would face an angry Arab League that has already drawn its line on the sand: Tel Aviv can’t continue to act without consequences. But then again, are European leaders listening?
Andres Cala – Madrid-based freelance journalist
