Israels Lebanon Invasion Of 1982 - Case Study Example

Israel’s Lebanon Invasion Of 1982 Introduction In the modern era of political redefinitions, the conflict between Israel and Lebanon has emerged as a book marking episode. The grimness of American political pressure insisted Israel’s the then Prime Minister Begin for setting back with his Litani River Operation Forces from Southern Lebanon. The border sharing province was much tensed as the two countries had their fights for domination over each other. Therefore the UN deployed a special team to monitor the safety of the zone with a rather impartial team UNIFIL with intent to support Lebanon to form a government for its administrative feasibilities (Palestine Facts). United Nation’s stern movement loaded a huge lot of pressure on Begin as he withdrew his team without waiting for PLO’s removal from the frontiers of Israel which added to his embarrassment. A self styles monarch he was, Begin could not bear the shame for being forced to quit his political master brain regions. This added fuel to the burning political tug of war between the so far-so-good neighbors. Various are the reasons to be identified as motivational factors causing the political friction that resulted in an ultimate invasion in 1982. As history links reasons and cause-effect relationships stronger enough to build platforms for an aggravated dispute references of the past events need to be reached at. Ensuring security to the land area became a serious responsibility for Israel with the intervention of Palestine guerrilla groups with armed forces firing at the border regions of Israel along the southern province of Lebanon (Bard, n.d.). A rage between countries that had seen a great rampage on either side lasted over two decades but the spotlight of the war was brought to light only when the open fight hit the screens in 1982 when Israel literally made its invasion of Lebanon. Political indifference of Lebanon and the advantage of geographical conditions of the country aided the activities of outside forces working and operating from Lebanon to hit the soil of Israel. Political Isolation of Israel This feature can be better explained only if the references go much far in the past where religious implications and cultural variations played an important role in the separation of Israel from most other countries of the Middle East. As it is well known to all, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the domineering religions over the area. Jews, who were considerably outspoken, were viewed as alienated group of people in the religiously designated region of the world. Israel’s political views were ethically connected to its religious policies of Judaism. This stance separated them from the mainstream of the cultural prospect of the Middle Eastern countries to a great extend. With this separation, it became an identical unit of people with considerably challenging mindset. The resisting political attitude and diplomatic isolation grew the country’s spirit to emerge as a great force in the world; the dream like development of Israel in the field of technology and sciences was an example to reinforce this opinion. Growing in isolation and political depression became habit of Israel; it developed sufficient amount of arms with improved effect to be forced on enemies at a given time of operation. From the religious point of view, the emerging abilities and iconic political identity of Israel caused irritation to the diplomatic unity of the Middle East countries, which were on the Muslim point of view. Palatine and Lebanon became its logical enemies within very short time. The ambience of a sibling rivalry grew more intensified until it resulted in boarder wars. These conditions were taken as advantages by several religiously motivated politically disintegrated units in the boarder region, PLO being the most prominent of them (Porat 2008 p. 12). Hence any reference about the history of the propagated Israeli invasion of Lebanon, factional units have to be demonstrated as playing the most vital role in the political disorders among those neighbors. PLO’s Terror Profiles The PLO or Palestine Liberation Organization, founded jointly by Egypt and the Arab League in 1964 was a politically organized rebel groups that used destructive guerrilla warfare methods to deploy the regions of Israel. Al Fattah led the PLO with Yasir Arafat as the chairman of the organization from 1969 with his embossing literature on the views and operation of the formidable force. Palestine was able to diplomatically unite Syrian squad As Saiqa and the Marxist oriented PFLP that stood against the will of Israel. Destruction of Israel was the foremost objective of the organization at the time of its formation (Schrodt & Gerner 1993). When the organization was on the verge of a massive destruction of Israeli townships and population, it adopted the cursive way of helping Palestine in its attacks on Israel. The strikes for liberation of Palestine from Israel lasted until 1974 when it got recognition as a political organization by the /United Nations. The years later than its recognition brought the emphatically destructive changes in the formulation of external operations of the organization. The Palestine political stance was religiously acceptable to the Arabs as they considered Jews as their arch rivals. The PLO’s emergence as an approved group of political renaissance was greatly supported by the Arab unions (ibid). Christians of both Lebanon and Israel felt the heat of the war as they were targeted by the special means of attack designed and executed by the PLO. Therefore it is clear that religious implications played a vital role in deciding the fate of the harmony among the potential neighbors where political factors were overshadowed by a typically constructed Christian-Shiite coalition. From 1974, almost all Arab countries supported the formation of a special free zone under the PLO’s control and the banks of the Jordan River were recognized as the political domain of the PLO. As Sucharov (2005 p. 89) states, Lebanon war of 1982 was ‘an offensive operation’ from the part of Israel which was of less inevitability as compared to Israel’s past wars. However, the PLO’s institutional format of offensive means to trouble the political well being of Israel was not a seasonal agenda (Schrodt & Gerner 1993). Lebanon’s unshakeable financial stability during and later the WW-II had drawn the attention of neighboring countries. Christians, who were the prominent religious group, were forced to run away from the country following the crucial span of the civil war that had taken several thousands of lives of the countrymen. While the civil war was at its peak, the economic format of the country was ruining with the interference of Moslems of Lebanon and the demolishing powers of Syrian invaders. Rebel groups of the southern regions of neighbor countries of Israel became the intelligence hub for a rather formidable rebel group which named itself the PLO (Porat 2008, p.12-13). By the end of 1976 the PLO energized as a terror outfit operating from different hideouts along the southern provinces of Lebanon. Israelis sensed the danger in the new format of alliance of Christian groups with Shiite Muslims of the Arab regions and they restricted the coalition by a diplomatic movement in which Israel drew a specific geographical border line for its separation. More than a majority of the Lebanese population was in fact aided by Israel during the time from 1976 when the PLO started severe militant operation against the Lebanese who supported the enterprising stance to join the Christian population in Israel. Syrian approach was pragmatic with their immediate interference to aid the operations of PLO against Israel with a hidden objective of occupying the rich provinces of Lebanon. However, the PLO was indiscriminate of its operation and started destructing the assets of most areas of affluent Lebanon. It was by then a defensive military force was set up by Saad Hadad, a Lebanese army major for the protection of the home affairs and an objective control over the devastations caused by the joint attacks of the PLO and Shiites (Bar-On p.118). By 1977, the impact of local terror had damaged much of the property of Christian dominated Lebanese provinces over the south. Overpowering effects of shelling and firing from the PLO forced most of the residents to run away; a resistive unit of Christian population was later supported by Israeli troupes for the reconstruction of their lost wealth. Israel sent in their men to repair the damages caused to houses, schools and water supply systems in Lebanon in the massive shell strikes of the PLO over the past one year. Syrian war role The interference of Syria in the war forefront was marked by the presidential election of Elias Sarkis in 1976 in succession of President Franjiyah. The moderate Christianity mindset of the new president was not forceful for the protection of the people from attacks of the Muslim terror groups. Problems persisted in almost every part of the country as the PLO had started its operation against Israel by settling its guerrilla forces along the southern coast of the country. Palestine, which was of the view that Israel could damaged collaterally only with geographical association of Lebanon, deployed secret mission groups to settle and operate war against Israel. This external force became a problem with rather destructive intensity as a home affair for the Lebanese administration. Indiscriminate attack policies of the PLO damaged property and lives of Lebanese people at a large scale. On this regard, the Christian militia leader, Major Saad Haddad formed SLA (south Lebanese Army) with intent to cop up the conditions and protect the lives of Christians of Lebanon from the hands of Muslims (ibid p.118). He negotiated with Israel and promoted a joint movement against the Muslim attacks. Syrian interference was depicted as a political reconstruction on an emergency basis for the co-heartedness among Christians in Lebanon. As a result they entered with their army in the pretext of helping the Christians in 1976. As it has been stated by Salem (n.d.), Kissinger, who was on search of a fine time for the Syrian interference, motivated the spirit of Christian feelings against the attack on Muslims. Arafat’s trials for generalization Yasir Arafat of the PLO and other leaders form both Muslim-Arabic and Christian regions of the Middle East who ailed the anti-Israeli breath rushed the frequency of their visit to Moscow in search of support from the Soviet Union. Expected magnitude and intensity of the war were much above the PLO could resist. The support system for a war-booting was not dependable for Syria, Palestine or the Arab co-allies. The movement against Israel was almost set for trial by 1976 itself but the Syrian administrative system was waiting to let things happen in a way that would call the attention of the United States and the UN against the advancement of Israel. For this regard, they wanted to procure enough ammunition for setting the tracks ready for a retaliating strike against the possible attack from Israel. Since America was unapproachable and Ronald Reagan had his independent stand, the Christian forces and the PLO were forced to undertake pretentious demonstrations in front of the Soviet Union. Their Christian-protective approach to defense pleased the Soviet Union which granted them materials and ammunitions sufficiently. Presentation style of the disclosure of the political conditions prevailing in the respective countries that involved in the massive civil war in support of the interest of Christianity was effective enough to influence the Soviet Union. The PLO leaders successfully narrated the total infrastructure of the political scenario of the neighborhood with an imposing anti-Israeli effect on the Soviet Union. Amply aided by the supporting nation, PLO started its operation with added effect of a terrorist outfit. With the weapons they gathered from Soviet Union, they filled the artilleries of Arabian countries. Most importantly they developed the problematic mindset that stood against the occupation of Israel with the objective of supporting the Christians in Lebanon. Economic motivations behind the new track-alignment of Lebanon, the unquestionably potential and then one of the wealthiest countries among the Middle East regions, were all on conditional bases. It can be analyzed that huge amount of wealth and mineral deposits in the country must have attracted the invaders. But the matter remained concealed as their motives were covered by the religious sentiments they pretended to show for the suffering Christians in Lebanon. Arab countries, prominently Islamic, improved their political affinity and supported the operation of the PLO within Lebanon with the same intention. According to Katz et al (1985 pp. 3-4), Arafat found Lebanon as PLO’s most potential base of operation against Israel and against all other international targets. This was the scene when a peace-intent Syria entered the no man’s land. Syrian orthodox looking Catholic approach meant a trial to balance the strength of Christianity in the minority regions among Arab countries where Muslims were the decisive lot. Syrian invasion to Lebanon was a crucial scene in the history of the great civil war with their role taking a diplomatic stream away from the main motives of the other two groups. Now the issue, more interestingly, can be seen that the fighting teams at the forefront were not Lebanese at all. In fact, social conditions of Lebanon became all the more worse with the entry of Syria which subjugated the Lebanese with Christianity and forced them to adopt Syrian culture and policies. Resistance shown by the indigenous population was suppressed by their power on different fields. This worsening effect was advantageous to the PLO which strengthened its operation along the bank of River Jordan while the internal conditions of the country were such that Lebanon had become a stage for socio-religious clashes. Ultimately, the interface of the PLO with Syria was projected as a combined effort to protect the Lebanese Christians. But Yasir Arafat had his concerns for the Arabs as they supported him for a separate political identity of Palestine under his leadership. The formidable combination of the three differently powered groups became thus an observational factor for Israel for its political stability and defense. Israel could only view the joint movement of the outlanders in support of Lebanese Christians as their diplomatic step to use the disputed land as an anchoring location to wage an emergency war against it. Immediate causes for the invasion Clear lines of observations find the fact that the UN was ineffective in dealing the issues of the PLO in Lebanon. Despite repeated news telecasts and information on Israel’s concern of the problems, they operated on from Lebanon. The worse thing happened when they ambushed an Israeli bus with all its occupants in 1978. This incident left a force on Israel to react and an army was sent to Lebanon with the mission of destroying all PLO forces in the country. But the response came soon from the UN demanding Israel to withdraw its army from the Litany river basin. The UN sent mission team UNIFIL proved no match for the PLO which relished clashing with the UN forces. The ravaging effect of the PLO forces subdued the powers of UNIFIL which was circumstantially forced to evacuate major posts occupied by the PLO (Bar-On 2004, pp. 188-89). This was the condition that forced Israel to move against the PLO with the only objective of capturing Beaufort Castle in which the Israeli forces succeeded after giving the lives of many army men. Yasir Arafat’s administrative abilities of governing the critical affairs of the PLO were appreciable as he was able to obtain the support from two rival giants. While he obtained weapons and war-booting equipments from the Soviet Union (Szulc 1979, p. 65), he had his secret mission to approach the United States for diplomatic support. With the formidable weapons he obtained from the Soviet Union, he started indiscriminate firing at the Israeli regions. As a retaliation mission, Israel executed massive bombings on the prospective PLO regions along Lebanon in 1981. Unexpected and devastating Israeli strike was beyond cognition for Arafat who appealed his Arabian patrons for immediate help. They acted on behalf of the PLO and sought help from the United States for negotiation. In an emergency response, America demanded Israel for ceasefire. Much effective was the order from America that Israel was forced to withdraw with immediate effect but only after having forced heavy blow on Arafat’s team. The interval of ceasefire was consumed as the reconstruction time by the PLO which started strikes against Israeli constructions along the Jordanian territory within a year. Apart from the border terrorism, PLO took chances to attack all possible Jewish locations in Europe for which they had a claim saying that the ceasefire was limited only to border regions. The strongest reaction forced on Israel was with the assassination of Yaacov Bar-Simanatove, a Jewish diplomat in France. This attack was drawing Arafat’s fate line worse against him. An immediate strike was called for and several PLO installations were destroyed by Israeli forces within a short span. Israel’s attack on Lebanon was thus formulated by the PLO as it settled its forces in Lebanon for easy operation against Israel. Israel’s attempt to reinstate peace in Galilee became the route cause for the total destruction of Lebanon. In 1982, Israel put out the hopes of the PLO and Syrian forces by striking massively on their forces on the Lebanese soil. The Israeli strike was also forced by the diplomatic interference of America forcing it to withdraw from River Litany with logical exemption granted to the PLO for its continuous operation. However, though Lebanon had no role in attacking Israel, the shelter it grated for the strangers forced it to pay the heaviest price for a political failure. Air strikes and massive bombarding of Israel on Syrian troops and PLO forces gave the political effect of Lebanon being invaded by Israel. Therefore it can be conclude that the Israeli attack on its rivals caused heaviest damages to Lebanon for merely being the facilitator for a war base to the PLO and Syria without knowledge and concern for the impact of such a heavy battle and its effect on the political and economical structure of the country. In fact, Lebanon was the recipient of the impact by default. References Bar-On, M 2004, A Never-ending Conflict: a guide to Israeli military history, Greenwood Publishing Group, US. Bard, M. n.d. The Lebanon War, Jewish Virtual Library, Accessed 28 Nov 2010 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Lebanon_War.html Katz, SM, Russel, L & Volstard, R 1985, Armies in Lebanon 1982-84, Edition 7, Osprey Publishing, UK. Porat, GB 2008, Israel Since 1980, Cambridge University Press, New York. Sucharov, MM 2005, The International Self: Psychoanalysis and the Search for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. State University of New York Press, Albany. Salem, PE n.d., “Super Powers and Small States: An overview of American Lebanese Relations”, accessed 28 Nov 2010 http://www.lcps-lebanon.org/pub/breview/br5/psalembr5pt2.html Schrodt, PA & Gerner, DJ 1993, Validity Assesment of a Machine-Coded Event Data Set for the Middle East, 1982-1992, American Journal of Political Science, vol 38, No:3, pp.10-12. Szulc, T 1979, From Russia with Love, New York Magazine, Vol 12, No 37, New York Media LLC. Why Did Israel Invade Lebanon in 1982? Palestine Facts, accessed 28 Nov 2010 http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_198x_backgd.php Read More