Israel's Attack on Lebanon Signals Major U.S. Policy Change

By Paul Findley

It is reasonable to believe that Israel's assault on southern Lebanon had the tacit if not explicit approval of senior officials within the United States government. The approval, I am sure, was never placed in writing or perhaps even stated precisely in conversation. It was more likely conveyed in the words "we understand," and even that thought may well have been expressed entirely through sympathetic silence, not words.

I reach this conclusion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it fits the new "dual containment" doctrine recently announced, although unofficially, by a top hand in the U.S. State Department. Samuel Lewis, U.S. ambassador to Israel for eight years, who was brought back from retirement to be the Clinton administration's new head of policy planning at the State Department, in a remarkable burst of candor several weeks ago confirmed what should have been obvious to all: U.S. policy in the Middle East is not evenhanded.

Then he added a bombshell: "It consists of two main objectives: keeping Israel militarily strong on one hand, and, on the other, maintaining a dual containment policy, namely against Iran and Iraq."

It was an astounding statement, as it represented a profound change from past policy. In recent years, the U.S. government has tried to play Iran and Iraq against each other, supporting Iraq when Iran became too expansionist and vice versa. Now, according to Lewis, U.S. policy is to contain them both simultaneously through the application of U. S. resources both directly and via a militarily strengthened Israel.

Second, Israel explained its assault on Lebanon by blaming guerrillas within that country, mainly Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah (Party of God) units, for firing the first shots. Official Jerusalem said the assault was retaliation for rocket fire Hezbollah lobbed across the border onto Israeli territory. It was a deliberate deception, but it was not challenged by the U.S. media. The truth is that Arabs in southern Lebanon (including Hezbollah units) kept their attacks within the part of southern Lebanon illegally occupied by Israeli forces. There were no Israelis killed in Israel until after Israeli howitzers began killing Lebanese civilians.

Third, the Clinton administration did not lift a finger to halt or moderate Israel's assault. On the contrary, the U.S. blocked efforts to call an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council where the attack could have been debated.

During his latest diplomatic foray into the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher characterized the Israeli assault as a blessing in disguise that may stimulate the so-called peace process.

Responding to a newsman's question about the assault, President Bill Clinton said, "I don't think we should allow Hezbollah and all these terrorist groups in the Middle East to derail the peace process by what they do."

Fourth, the Clinton administration has done nothing to force Israel to return nearly 400 Muslims marooned on a hilltop in southern Lebanon.

They were abducted by Israeli forces and taken there last December. In carrying out the expulsion, Israel claimed the Muslims were radical troublemakers. One of the last initiatives of the administration of President George Bush was to castigate Israel for the expulsion. He supported a resolution in the U.N. Security Council demanding the swift and safe return of those expelled.

On taking office, the Clinton administration reversed U.S. policy. It blocked efforts by the Security Council to impose sanctions against Israel and has shown no interest in the plight of those expelled. When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had his initial White House conference, President Clinton did not mention the episode. Instead he pledged a continuation of undiminished aid to Israel, despite pressure on the U.S. budget, and left a strong hint that the aid level will increase. He also spoke of a "strategic partnership" in which the United States and Israel would cooperate to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the region and, significantly, to meet the threat from Iran and Iraq.

At the time the term "dual containment" had not surfaced in public, but the significance of Clinton's comment is now clear. During that meeting, Israel and the United States became partners in the containment of both Iraq and Iran.

A New Enemy Needed

Fifth, needing a new enemy against which to warn the United States now that the Soviet threat had disappeared, Israel has been working assiduously—and with considerable success—to convince the American people that Islam poses a threat to Western values as ominous as the one formerly presented by Moscow.

Listening to Israeli officialdom, one cannot escape the conclusion that the threat comes on two main tracks. On one is the danger of military conquest posed by Baghdad, on the other, religious revolution exported by Teheran.

Dr. David Killion, a professor at Scripps College in Claremont, California, even suggests that, in attacking Lebanon, the Israelis were following the U.S. Lead, not the other way around. In a commentary published in The Washington Post, Killion writes that dual containment reverses "a traditional approach of U.S. foreign-policy makers in which they seek to balance traditional enemies Iran and Iraq, one against the other, by supporting whichever power is vulnerable at a given time."

Killion adds, "After three days of bombardment, it became clear that Israeli strategy was not only to attack Hezbollah positions but also to forcibly depopulate the entire southern region of Lebanon and to destroy the infrastructure and housing in southern villages so that repopulation would be difficult. The Israelis appear to see the Shi'i Muslim population in southern Lebanon as enemies, since Israelis believe these people are 'sympathetic' to Hezbollah, providing 'cover' to the 'terrorist' group."

The U.S. relationship to Israel's assault has an interesting echo from the past. In depopulating and destroying villages, Israel went beyond what the United States expected or wished, just as Israel's 1982 Lebanese war went beyond what Washington expected or wished.

In both 1982 and 1993, the U.S. administration gave an initial green light to Israeli aggression. President Ronald Reagan wanted the PLO rooted from Lebanon, but objected to Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Beirut. President Bill Clinton wanted Hezbollah and other radical units removed from southern Lebanon, but objected when the assault killed more than 130 civilians, wounded 500 others, flattened villages, and forced 250,000 to flee. But neither Reagan nor Clinton was concerned enough at these excesses to use the presidential levers that could have forced Israel to stop.

Whether dual containment is the invention of Israel or the United States is unimportant. What is important are the dangers for the United States this new policy entails. By assuming this task and accepting Israel as a strategic partner, the U.S. will pay a heavy price.

First, the new axis makes the United States the common enemy of both Iraq and Iran and will promote cooperation, not conflict, between these traditional enemies. The result: a threat from these countries more menacing than before.

Second, it will erode what remains of goodwill for the United States throughout the Islamic world, and particularly the Arab states. The new United States-Israel axis will intensify suspicions aroused by Israel's broad public relations campaign to defame Islam. In this campaign, Israel has sought to portray itself as a bulwark defending Western civilization against the "threat" of Islam. Muslim countries may well conclude that containment of Iraq and Iran by U.S.-Israeli forces is just a screen for a new brand of Western imperialism in the Middle East.

Former Congressman Paul Findley is chairman of the Council for the National Interest.