Lebanon Offers No Unilateral Solution

‘Israeli Politicians Compete to Set a Date for Israeli Withdrawal From Lebanon” was the typical headline in the Arab press last week, describing the Israeli reaction to mounting casualties in Lebanon. It was a subtle version of the headline that would announce unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon: “Israel Evacuates Territories When Faced by Force.” The unstated fear that such headlines would mobilize militants, especially in the Palestinian territories, may be the primary reason why Israel hesitates to pull out without a negotiated settlement. Israel’s continuing freeze on withdrawals from parts of the West Bank, mandated by last year’s Wye agreements, would undermine the ability of Palestinian moderates to respond.

Although Israeli politicians are feverishly proposing solutions to Israel’s dilemma in Lebanon, none has urged unilateral withdrawal without engaging Syria. Conventional wisdom is that no Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon can take place without some agreement with Syria, because Damascus, having extraordinary influence in Lebanon, would block any bilateral Israeli-Lebanese pact.

Israel’s continuing presence in Lebanon is certainly an asset for Syria in its relations with Israel. Each Israeli casualty is an added incentive for Israel to reach agreement with Syria over the Golan Heights. Accordingly, Syria is in no rush to help Israel disentangle itself from the Lebanese quagmire.

Still, Israel could unilaterally withdraw from Lebanese territories. This option has two problems, both surmountable. The first is that Israel cannot simply abandon the South Lebanese Army that it helped create. Israel can absorb its officers, small in number, and their families, many of whom are already employed in Israel.

The second problem is obtaining “security guarantees” from Lebanon and Syria. Although this is desirable, it is unlikely that Israel’s security would be any worse off if its forces in Lebanon redeployed just inside Israeli borders without any such guarantees. After all, Hezbollah’s attacks have primarily occurred within Lebanon. If its forces follow Israeli troops into Israel, not only would their attacks prove more difficult to mount, but if successful, they would help foster more sympathy and support for Israel.

So why isn’t Israel rushing to pull out unilaterally? The primary reason is the consequences for Israel’s strategy of deterring violence against its people and military, especially in the absence of full peace with the Palestinians. This was also the Israeli fear during the Intifada, when many army generals called for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in the face of mounting casualties, but the government preferred to wait for a negotiated agreement. In other words, Israel fears that a unilateral pullout from Lebanon would revive the intifada and increase militancy among Palestinians.

The 1993 Oslo accords offered an alternative: Territorial compromise is possible only through negotiations. This is the principle that Israel hoped to establish when it began returning the Sinai to Egypt following the Camp David accord. It is the principle guiding Israel’s partial withdrawals from parts of the West Bank and Gaza. But delaying additional withdrawals does not bolster this principle.

The Israeli government has done what previous Israeli governments have done when faced with mounting casualties: strike back. But military escalation will not resolve the Lebanon problem, since it can only increase Israeli casualties without the promise of an exit.

Politically, escalation would be problematic for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Unlike Shimon Peres, who hoped to lure center-right voters by ordering huge military operations in Lebanon on the eve of the 1996 elections, Netanyahu needs to attract center-left support. Moreover, Peres was hurt by the escalation of force, because many Arab citizens, who normally vote for Labor Party candidates, abstained in protest. A new escalation would surely mobilize Israeli Arabs to vote against Netanyahu.

Only by pushing forward to implement negotiated agreements can Israel reduce its diplomatic dilemmas and open the door for a comprehensive peace between it and all its neighbors.