Israeli pullout strengthens Hizbullah and leaves unresolved problems

WHEN the Israeli cabinet announced in March its intention to withdraw its forces from south Lebanon unilaterally, Syria reacted strongly and warned the Jewish state of adverse consequences if the pullout preceded a peace agreement between Syria and Israel. But today Syria describes the awaited Israeli pullout as a "victory to the Lebanese resistance." However, Damascus maintains that it "highly doubts Israel's sincere desire to make peace." 

Most observers agree that Syria was surprised with the Israeli decision despite the fact Israeli officials were discussing a withdrawal for some time. Apparently, Damascus did not expect the Israeli cabinet to contravene the wishes of the Israeli army command and endorse Prime Minister Ehud Barak's plan to remove Israeli forces from south Lebanon by next July, even without a prior peace deal with Syria. Moreover, Syria seems to have believed that Washington, the co-sponsor of the Middle East peace process, did not wish to upset the status quo and avoid a serious escalation that could sink the peace process. 

Thus, Damascus expected the US Administration to exert pressure on Tel Aviv to keep its troops in Israel's self-proclaimed 'security zone' in south Lebanon until a comprehensive peace settlement was reached. But Washington backed the Israeli cabinet's decision to implement United Nations Resolution 425, which calls for the unconditional pullout of Israeli forces from south Lebanon. 

In Lebanon, where 35,000 Syrian troops are deployed under an Arab League peacekeeping mandate, the confusion caused by the Israeli decision was clear. Beirut, which has been calling for the implementation of UN Resolution 425 ever since 'Operation Litani' in 1978, found itself urging Israel to postpone the pullout until a settlement was reached. 

The Lebanese people, as well as the international community, were puzzled and shocked by the position of the Lebanese government. The Lebanese President Emile Lahoud indirectly warned in a letter to the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that cross-border attacks against northern Israel may resume if the latter withdrew its forces before resolving the problem of the Palestinian refugees. This was seen as an attempt by Lebanon to link the implementation of Resolution 425 to a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. 

It's worth noting that Israel set up the 'security zone' in 1978 to limit cross-border guerrilla attacks by Palestinian factions against its northern settlements. However, the Lebanese government has recently softened its stance and has adopted a similar position to Syria, calling the Israeli pullout a "triumph to the Lebanese resistance operations." But why were Syria and Lebanon so anxious, and what caused their recent change in position?

Lebanese resistance operations against Israel, spearheaded by the Shi'ite fundamentalist group Hizbullah, have been regarded as Syria's strongest bargaining chip at the negotiating table with Israel. Hizbullah attacks against Israeli troops and their allied South Lebanon Army militiamen in the 'security zone' have been very successful. 

The scale of this success might have exceeded Syria's expectations. The guerrilla assaults had a profound impact on the Israeli public, which ultimately forced the Israeli premier to pledge the withdrawal within a year of taking office. A pullout from south Lebanon would strip Syria of its 'pressure tool' and undermine its efforts to strip Israel of the entire Golan Heights until the 1967 demarcation lines, including the northern bank of Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee). 

The Palestinian card
Syrian and Lebanese officials tried to outmanoeuvre the Israelis by divulging information that Palestinian factions could launch guerrilla attacks out of south Lebanon. Media crews were called to the Ain el-Hilweh refugee camp near the southern port city of Sidon to observe 'new Palestinian recruits' training for future attacks against Israel. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad had earlier announced its intent to carry out attacks out of south Lebanon, and later claimed responsibility for a couple of minor and ineffective assaults on Israeli positions in the 'security zone'. Syria has also encouraged Hizbullah to declare its intention to continue its operations against Israel until all Arab territories occupied in the 1967 War are freed. 

Few observers believe that Syria cannot go ahead with either threat. Most of the Palestinian opposition factions have been weakened over the past few years, many of them having joined the Palestinian Authority under Yassir Arafat. The remaining effective groups are the Islamic factions which include the Islamic Jihad and Hamas. However, most analysts agree that Syria would not be willing to allow these groups to operate freely for fear of their effect on local Islamic groups. The ruling secular Baath Party fought two vicious wars in the 1960s and 1980s against local Islamic factions, and many doubt it would let any Muslem Sunni faction operate freely on its territory or in Lebanon. (Both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are Sunni factions.) Hizbullah, however, is a Shi'ite group that could constitute no danger to the Syrian regime. 

Hizbullah's stance
As for Hizbullah's plans, sources close to the party believe that if the Israeli pullout proves to be 'complete', it intends to 'cease' military operations. Speaking to IAA, one well-informed source, who asked not to be identified, claims: "Hizbullah is not willing to give up its public support and political status by seeking a military adventure that could bring about the destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure." He was referring to Israel's warning that any attack on its borders following the pullout would result in a massive retaliation. "The Lebanese people would not accept Hizbullah's justification for an attack under the pretext of liberating Palestinian or Syrian territory." The source notes that this stance has already been conveyed to Damascus.

A senior security figure, who also requested anonymity, goes further and suggests that Syria does not want an escalation that could lead to a possible war with Israel. Consequently, he continues: "Hizbullah has scaled down its Katyusha attacks, and has avoided hitting populated areas in northern Israel, which it had frequently hit in the past." 

The Lebanese and Arab media have added to the pressure on Syria not to escalate the situation in the south. The independent Lebanese paper An-Nahar published an open letter to Bashar al-Assad, son and expected heir of Syrian President Hazef Assad, asking for the pullout of Syrian forces from south Lebanon following an Israeli withdrawal from the south. 

Foreign influences
Another important factor that influenced Syria's position was the Arab stance, especially Egypt's. Many analysts view Cairo as the present centre of the Arab world. Egypt has announced its support for an Israeli pullout and regarded any "surrender of Arab territory by Israel" as a major development that must be welcomed. It even urged Lebanon and Syria to ensure that the Israeli pullout is carried out peacefully, and therefore free of attacks by Hizbullah. Moreover, Iran, Hizbullah's founder and financer, is experiencing an internal struggle between reformers and conservatives. Iranian President Khatami is attempting to end two decades of international isolation by showing more openness to the West. 

Syria also feels that it has lost two important allies at the UN Security Council; France and China. The French Socialist government has moved much closer towards Israel in the past few weeks, and China, which is seeking advanced Israeli military technology, is no longer expected to side with Syria against Israel. This has left Syria with its traditional ally, Russia, which no longer holds the same political weight as during the Cold War.

Internal affairs
Some analysts believe that Syria has another reason for wanting an Israeli pullout to follow an agreement with Israel. Such an agreement would ensure Syria's future status in Lebanon and guarantee a smooth transition of power inside Syria. Syrian sources say that during the latest round of meetings, Syria and Israel have agreed to stay out of Lebanese affairs and accept Syria's political hegemony over Beirut's central government. As for the transition of power, Bashar Al-Assad has consolidated his position inside Syria. 

Therefore, an Israeli unilateral pullout would not only strip Syria of its 'pressure tool', it would also force Syria to speed up political and economic reform to facilitate the transition of power to Bashar. "One thing the Syrian regime, and particularly Assad, do not like, is to rush matters. They like to take their time," one Syrian analyst claims. Now, the Syrians have to move fast to keep the peace talks alive, double their effort to maintain their control on Lebanon, and proceed towards introducing further changes inside Syria. 

There is a strong sense within Syria that they are moving towards Arab and international isolation that could have adverse consequences on the regime and its status inside Lebanon. Any escalation on their side would not receive backing from the international community, Arab world or even Lebanese public, and could lead to a war, which Syria is not ready for and cannot win. 

That's probably why Syria has softened its stance and resumed dialogue about the possibility of reaching a peace deal with Israel. It seems that the only thing that Syria still has is the renowned brinkmanship of Hafiz Assad to get out of this dilemma which could determine the future of Syria and Lebanon and maybe the entire region.