“Israel” wonders aloud: did Lebanon pullout prefigure intifada?
source: AFP, 23-5-2001
summary: " One year after extracting itself from its bloody occupation of south Lebanon, "Israel" finds the example of the Lebanese Hizbullah guerrillas is transforming the Palestinian territories into a new quaqmire.
"What now bleeds like Lebanon, sounds like Lebanon and looks like Lebanon will end like Lebanon," read an editorial in the top-selling "Israeli" daily Yediot Aharonot.
Rightly or wrongly, a growing portion of the "Israeli" public and the country`s leadership now perceive "Israel's" unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon last May 24, ending 22 years of occupation, as helping to inspire the ongoing fighting in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In an interview Tuesday with the Haaretz daily, "Israeli" Defence (War) Minister Binjamin Ben Eliezer hypothesized that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat "was impressed by what happened in Lebanon and Kosovo and wants to replicate those models here."
Ben Eliezer was alluding to the success of Hizbullah`s guerrilla campaign against "Israel" in occupied south Lebanon and the ability of Albanian guerrillas to attract international intervention on the behalf of Kosovar Albanians in Yugoslavia in 1999.
Evidence of the Hizbullah influence in the occupied territories can now be seen at any anti-"Israel" demonstration or funeral for an intifada victim where Hizbullah flags are often held aloft.
In face of the Palestinian uprising, many "Israelis" now question the wisdom of then prime minister Ehud Barak`s decision to withdraw from south Lebanon before the end of his first year in office in July 2000, as he had promised during his election campaign.
Originally, Barak had hoped to exit Lebanon as part of a peace deal with Syria, the main power broker in Beirut. But when peace talks broke down, Barak viewed a unilateral pullout as a way to stop Damascus from pressuring "Israel" in south Lebanon.
Nonetheless, the "Israeli" military worried that a unilateral withdrawal would make "Israel" appear weak in the eyes of the Arab world and some officers advised Barak not to withdraw.
Retired general Effi Eitam, who commanded a battalion in south Lebanon, told Haaretz Wednesday about warning Barak on the imminent dangers.
"I told him (Barak), `it`s not that you`re taking the IDF* ("Israeli" Army) out of Lebanon, you`re bringing Lebanon into "Israel's" territory," Eitam said.
"The immediate result is what we see today in Judea, Samaria and Gaza," he added, using the "Israeli" names for the West Bank.
In Yediot Aharonot, General Antoine Lahad, the former chief of "Israel's" Lebanese proxy army in south Lebanon, called the retreat a huge mistake.
"I often warned: `don`t make a unilateral withdrawal, don`t appear to be fleeing Lebanon without an agreement," Lahad said. "Whatever you do against Hizbullah without an agreement will cost you dearly with the Palestinians.`
He added: "That was a bad precedent. After all, both Lebanon and the territories get `inspiration` and funding from the Iranians, and Syria`s fingerprints are also evident."
For the Arab world, the lesson of the May 24 departure was the "Israeli" army, considered the region`s most powerful, could be defeated by a tiny guerrilla force, although its retreat was precipitated by the collapse of Lahad`s South Lebanon Army.
Raanan Gissin, spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told AFP he considered the retreat strategically sound, but he believed it had helped convince the Palestinians to renew their armed struggle.
Lebanon was "a model to be emulated," Gissin said.
Using Lebanon as a template, the Palestinians think "if they continue to put pressure on "Israel", to use violence, perhaps they can drive "Israel" out of the West Bank, out of the settlements, remove the settlements," Gissin said.
