Regional uprisings inspired hope among Palestinians- Senior US expert

A senior US political expert believes that regional uprisings caused Palestinians to think change is possible

A senior US political expert believes that the ongoing uprisings in the Middle East and the North Africa have left a psychological impact on the Palestinians, causing them to think that change is possible.

Interviewed by Qudsna, Ramzy Bazroud, author and editor for the Palestine Chronicle in Seattle, believes the regional uprisings have torn apart the previously-held image of Arab nations as ineffective, irrelevant players in the world political arena.

Asked about the current Israeli situation and the effects of the regime’s failure against Hezbollah during the 2006 war on Lebanon, Baroud said the failure broke an equation between Israel and Arabs under which Israel could achieve anything from the Arab side through military intimidation.

The senior US expert believes the 2008 war on Gaza was aimed to make up for the defeat in Lebanon war. He touched on the Hariri assassination case and warned that Israel and its allies were seeking to weaken and demoralize the Lebanese resistance from within, using the constant political crises that often polarize Lebanese society. He believes a new Israeli war on Lebanon was inevitable in light of the growing Hezbollah power.

The text of the interview follows.

- How the ongoing uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa might affect the Palestinian issue? How would you forecast the future of the Palestinian issue and the likely trend of developments?

An arbitrary conventional wisdom has defined the Middle East for many years, which saw the Arab peoples as ineffective, irrelevant players in a political reality, which is determined, if not dictated largely by the US, Israel and Arab regimes. Uprisings in some Arab countries are now flittering with the very foundation of that logic: if a fundamental change is not achieved as a result of these uprisings, at least a major rethink of the old status quo paradigm is surly to occur.

Palestine has been the core issue of all Arab grievances. The fate of Palestine has been historically determined by the three players above: the US, Israel and Arab rulers. A movement of democratization that may result from Arab revolts could accurately reflect the genuine solidarity that Arab peoples have towards Palestine and the Palestinians. If that movement prevails, and not significantly derailed by outside interferences, a major shift in the balance of power between Israel and the Palestinians is a valid possibility.

Aside from all of that, there is the psychological impact that will surely affect the collective consciousness of most Arabs, one that will empower ordinary Arabs, including Palestinians, that real change is possible, and that the fate of the people is never sealed by their oppressors. In the post-Oslo political culture in Palestine, a new ‘pragmatic’ wisdom has lowered people’s moral, and infused an air of defeatism among some elitist segments of Palestinian society.  In times of revolution, even collective psychology can be challenged and fundamentally altered.

- We are on the eve of anniversary of 33-day Israeli war on Lebanon. Five years after the war, how would you see the situation of Israel?

Israel has defined its relations to its weaker Arab foes based on a straightforward rationale: what cannot be achieved through political intimidation, can be exacted through military muscle. To sustain that formula, Israel, using US and western support, attempted and succeeded at maintaining a political edge over Lebanon’s and other Arab countries’ and a military advantage as well. The 2006 war on Lebanon brought a temporary end to that equation, although it is yet to replace it with another. Thanks to the prowess of Lebanese resistance, Israel has learned that military hardware has its limitations. While some experts agree that there were no real winners or losers in military terms as a result of that war, others content that considering Israel’s relative military might when compared to Hezbollah, and the fact that Israel attacked Lebanon with clear objectives that were not achieved, the Lebanese resistance emerged and remains the real winner.

For the last five years, Israel has been wrangling with that ‘defeat’. The issue is a constant irritant to Israeli political and military elites. In fact, the war on Gaza (2008-09) was to a degree an effort at closure, a desperate attempt at a military ‘victory’, any victory, to redeem the losses experienced in Lebanon.

Politically, Israel and its allies have been mobilizing to weaken and demoralize the Lebanese resistance from within, using the constant political crises that often polarize Lebanese society, to their advantage. The murder of PM Rafik Harirri, for example, and the special international court supposedly looking into the circumstances and investigating that murder, have also been used and manipulated in the Israeli quest to alienate the resistance, fragment Lebanon even more in preparation for future military adventures.

The regional upheaval, of course, will leave its mark on Lebanon. With Syria, one of Hezbollah’s main supporters, being consumed with its ongoing uprising, Israel must be eyeing new opportunities at intervention in Lebanon, whether politically or militarily.

Nonetheless, the fact that Hezbollah and its allies are now majority in the new Lebanese government, provides Hezbollah with a huge moral and political boast. That said, Israel is never satisfied with a no-win situation; the Israeli military continues to be irked by its failures in Lebanon. A confrontation between Israel and the Lebanese resistance is surly in the cards; the question is not if, but when.