An up-to-date Analysis by Marcel Rebiai   

pdf for download (102 KB)

Israel's entry into south Lebanon last summer and the war against the Hizbullah terror organization (labelled "liberation" soldiers by others) unfortunately caused many civilian casualties, as in every war. This caused such worldwide agitation that the outraged fellowship of nations, in outrage and anger, soon forced a premature truce on Israel. In the eyes of the Islamic world, primarily Hizbullah, Iran and Syria, this designated Israel the defeated party, because the truce pressed Israel to cease hostilities before achieving its goals. To Israel, the kidnapped soldiers' liberation, the disarming of Hizbullah, as well as secure borders had been promised. Actually, none of these goals were accomplished because no one wanted to get scorched through involvement with Hizbullah. That Israel nevertheless agreed to this deal sheds light on the state's real inner weakness, a frailty born of her three generations under pressure, slander and accusation; under the ongoing tactic of being constantly worn down.
The Hizbullah war also kindled Christian incomprehension; their questions, annoyance and even open criticism or accusation of Israel. Media pictures of dead women and children, of destruction of a basic civilian level of existence, incensed emotions and ignited judgementalism. Israel was branded simply as a violent, inconsiderate and less-than-human aggressor. Israel's opponents, in this case Hizbullah, were presented as an assaulted and hard-pressed victim deserving help. The perception that the Lebanese suffered injustice and that Israel was the source of this injustice manipulated emotion, with precious few pinpointing reality. The issue of the cause of war and thus whether the war was justified was rarely questioned. It was not asked because this would have necessitated a study of the historical and political context, which could not be contained in simplistic slogans; less marketable than passing suffering and misery.
Let's question the cause of war: Was Israel the aggressor?

Israel's desire for peace

If we look at the history of the past 13 years, we encounter an Israeli desire for peace and a resolution to this conflict. With the Oslo accords of 1993 Israel agreed to the path of negotiation and dialogue in order to resolve this conflict; to create permanent peace in the Near East. The PLO leaders were allowed to return to the Palestinian areas, and the world expressed its satisfaction and hope of success by giving both Rabin and Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize. The fact is that in the succeeding years, terror in Israel springboarded to previously unknown levels.
Whenever signs of a breakthrough in the negotiations loomed, one Palestinian- Islamic group or another responded with terror attacks. The terror increased to such gargantuan proportions that Israel was often constrained to close the West Bank borders. This had grave economic consequences for the Palestinian people, engendering a climate of frustration which in turn triggered the second intifada. The Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat had neither disarmed the terror groups, as required by the Oslo accords, nor spoken out against terrorism. Indeed, he himself was the instigator of the Palestinian terror.
Israel began building the security fence in an attempt to restrain the terror, even though the fence was in many ways a catastrophe for the Palestinian people. Israel sometimes took drastic measures, but only as a reaction to terror, or provocation such as kidnapping and murdering Israeli citizens or smuggling and producing illicit weapons. Meanwhile Israel never tired of seeking a way out of the tragedy. Sharon certainly demonstrated such willingness at painful cost by evacuating the Gaza strip. This was an obvious expression of his desire for the path of peace.
The response was through the terror organization Hamas, which assaults Israel and refuses to recognize its right to exist. Hamas was elected to the government because it succeeded in persuading Palestinians that it had forcibly managed Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Even though the West frowned and denounced them, Hamas, could neither be forced to compromise nor to deviate from its own personal goals and strategies. Hamas left no doubt that resistance and terror had weakened Israel and that it would therefore continue its aggression and terror until all of Palestine was liberated.
Last year Dr. Zahar, the first Hamas Foreign Minister, was asked whether Hamas saw a way to make peace with Israel. He replied, "There is no Israel to be recognized, with which one could make peace. There are only occupied Palestinian cities such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Nazareth."

The intentions of Israel's opponents

Prime Minister Olmert, in commitment to Sharon's vision, proclaimed that he would turn over large parts of the West Bank to Palestinian authority as soon as possible. The Israeli government's willingness to do everything which might bring peace finally went further than much of the population could bear. The Islamic reaction to this was rocket attacks, provocation and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, both by Gaza and by Hizbullah in the north. It was not Israel which attacked Hizbullah, but Hizbullah which attacked Israel at a moment when Israel was about to give up further territory.
The tactic is transparent: Israel has enemies who have absolutely no interest in reducing world pressure on Israel nor in allowing Israel to be seen as peace-loving. Israel's image as aggressor and violent occupier (an image created by many one-sided media reports) must be upheld and inflated at every opportunity. This is not only a matter of isolating and wearing Israel down, but also of strengthening the world's aversion toward Israel. This tactic is increasingly successful. There is growing anti-Semitism in Europe and other countries. The purpose of Israel's opponents is ultimately to make the nations of the world into their allies in the mutual struggle against Israel.

The role of Syria and Iran

There is an additional reason for staging the Lebanon war. It is clear to everyone that Israel's opponents are not merely Hamas or Hizbullah. These two are in reality just the extended arms of Iran and Syria, even of the whole Islamic world. We should not forget that for the Islamic world it is still a disgrace and a mortifying invasion of their feelings of self-worth and Islamic identity that it is the Jews, of all people, who occupy what they see as holy Islamic land, i.e. Palestine. These Jews are considered the plague and scum of the earth, whom Allah himself turned over to Islamic society to judge. We must not harbor illusion. Apart from Israel's cold peace with both Egypt and Jordan, there is no single Islamic country which officially recognizes Israel.
On the contrary, the question of the Islamic world's leadership ultimately depends on which country will be capable of eliminating this disgrace in the Islamic world's midst. And this brings us to the current situation. Even under Bashir Assad's father, Syria always displayed megalomania enough to be number one in the Arab world, if not in the entire Islamic world. But Assad's problem was that he unfortunately belonged to a small Islamic sect, the Alewites, rather than the Sunnites who make up 85% of all Moslems; such as in Egypt, Syria's great rival. Because its opponent and rival Egypt carried greater political weight in the Arab world, Syria created and supported terror groups in an attempt to destabilize other Arab governments and promote terror in the West. Syria is the real home anchorage for much of the Hamas leadership.
Syria's occupation of the formerly Christian Lebanon was not only a matter of striving for power and influence. By arming, strengthening and radicalizing Hizbullah, Syria also attacked courtesy of a third country. Through ongoing provocation, Syria sent this message to the Islamic world: Syria is looking after Islamic affairs. The presence of UNO peace troops changed nothing, for the so-called peace troops' sympathies were clearly not with Israel.
Behind Syria is its old similarly motivated friend: Iran. Iran, the centre of the Shiites (who comprise only 12% of all Moslems) had always fought as a minority for influence and leadership in the Islamic world. Khomeini brought to Iran massive prestige within the Islamic world. To remind you: Eliminating Israel was an indisputable goal for Khomeini, also. Who can be surprised that Khomeini's pupil Nasrallah returned to Lebanon in order to work for the realization of his leader's goals?
Iran's current president cannot be compared with his two predecessors who, although religious, were nevertheless leaders who desired in some degree to integrate Iran into world society. No, Ahmadinejad sees himself as the spiritual heir of Khomeini, whose legacy and visions he intends to realize. If we listen to his speeches and observe his behaviour, we can grasp both his strategy and purpose. By eliminating Israel and driving the Jews out of Palestine he means to establish his leadership in the Islamic world. For, according to Islamic perception, whoever eliminates the "disgrace" has earned the right to reign from the summit.
A second intention is to conquer the unbelieving world. This was not so just under Khomeini. According to the Islamic view it is an irrefutable mandate. Once the "house of war" (=non-Moslems) is dealt with, only the "house of peace" (=Islam) would remain. Thus "final peace" could come to the whole world. The main obstacle to the realization of this concept is the existence of Israel. And don't forget the committed Christians. The latter are an offence to Islam with their confession that Jesus alone is the way, the truth and the way; thus they must likewise be eliminated.

Future outlook

What is the future political outlook for the Near East? Sadly I have to say that Israel cannot hope for any cooperation from the Islamic world. The reasons above clarify that recognizing and making peace with Israel are not among Islam's objectives. Israel is not only battling for its own survival, but is also engaged in a proxy struggle on behalf of the West against the power of terrorism. Unfortunately, Israel is inevitably weakened from many years of terror. We saw this in last year's Hizbullah war when Israel had to retreat without achieving any of its goals. Through terror, as well as economic and political pressure on the West, the Islamic world forced additional concessions and compromises on Israel.
But the Islamic world always interprets concessions and compromises as weakness; concessions bolster Islamic resistance, their will to fight and the appetite for more. I consciously use the term "Islamic world" because not only the groups who actually carry out terror, but also those who finance and arm it collaborate in the resistance. And this includes many Islamic governments and countries.

The West's fear

The strategy of wearing down and intimidating peoples and nations in order to make them compliant has proven successful, especially in the West. If we look at the results of the outbreak of terror since September 11, we have to conclude that the Islamic terrorists' strategy is bearing fruit. The outcome is not only Bush's battle against terrorism. Western leaders together declare Islam a religion of peace, to whom respect and recognition are due. In the West, Islam has gained ground in acceptance as well as in its claims within society. But with the strengthening of Islam's self-confidence and influence in the West, terror has not subsided. It has increased!
And it will continue to increase. Why? Because all the West's concessions to Islam are interpreted by Islam as weakness, which in turn whets the appetite for yet more. Islam knows that the West, fearing for its own democratic survival, will eventually turn against the "guilty"; against the "originators" of the terror unleashed against us - namely Israel and the Jews.
This calculation is proving correct. The more terror there is in the West, the more fear grows - hand in hand with both anti-Israelism and anti- Semitism. The two reporters kidnapped by a Palestinian group in August last year and set free only when - with a gun pointed at their heads- they converted to Islam, speaks volumes about Islam's tactics. And the reaction to Pope Benedict's quote during his lecture in Regensburg reveals the true face of Islam. The fact that the pope dared to quote three sentences from a 15thcentury text declaring Mohammed's message (i.e. Islam) violent and destructive sent the whole Islamic world into such a rage that verbal and physical violence was poured out upon Christian people and institutions - especially within geographical Islamic areas.
Against rage and violence, not only the pope but the whole West and the Christian world itself will ultimately be forced to apologize and to acknowledge Islam as a religion of peace - even though the reaction to the quote actually confirms its content in a frightening way! The West, and perhaps the pope as well, will bow down in order to placate the rage, offering concessions and compromises, in order to reduce tension and avert further violence. This is more than understandable. But it once again underlines Islam's aspirations, namely to make the world compliant through violence and threats. As we read in the Bible, "Whoever loves his own life will lose it..."
To conclude: God is the lord of history. He is holding the future of Israel, his church and also Islamic peoples in his hand. If we do not fear for our lives, we also have nothing to fear from Islam. We can take our place loyal alongside Israel because we are standing up for God's plans with his people. But we will also fearlessly approach Moslems and tell them they are not our enemies because the gospel of Jesus Christ is just as much for them as for us, because God loves them and wants to give them freedom through Jesus' life. The Bible tells us (Rev. 12:11) that we overcome through the blood of the lamb and with the word of our testimony; rather than by fearing death.

©Community of Reconciliation-COR
P.O. Box 134
CH- 8411 Winterthur
+ (0)44 935 47 51