The more havoc Israel wreaks, the more resistance it will face, writes Serene Assir It's only a question of time before Israel, as other colonial-settler states have before, implodes. Throughout history, there have been attempts by foreign powers or waves of settlers to expropriate land and to cleanse it of its inherent identity embodied in its indigenous population. Of this, Israel is the epitome, not the exception. For not only has Israel appropriated the land, it has also renamed it, while its colonisers have famously sought to teach their children that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land." The brazenness with which the Zionist project has redrawn geopolitical maps according to its own strategic interest -- while simultaneously abusing international goodwill and distorting truth in portraying Israel to Western public opinion as the perpetual victim -- is amazing. But much as we would like the world to be different, politics is still decided by might and not right. Few states, however enlightened their populace may be, willingly give credence to the weak. To medium or smaller states on the whole, the powerful, industrially advanced and wealthy nations -- see, for instance, the unrivalled United Nations Security Council permanent members -- are better allies than the weak. Even fewer nations, especially in our globalised world, will pledge support to those unable or, worse, unwilling to invest in capital ventures, massive arms sales or multi-billion dollar deals. Only if, through endurance, the weak overcome the strong do the heroes and villains of school textbooks reverse roles. What the textbooks tend to miss out, however, is the overall shifting of political parameters against the interests of settlers and a given colonial idea that takes place in the meantime. Another historical truth, according to one Al-Ahram 's Centre of Political and Strategic Studies analyst: the more violently a given power behaves, the more violent, diverse and effective resistance movements become. This is especially true in the case of occupation. "The fundamental historical pattern that Israel, the United States, Europe and even most Arab states have failed to comprehend," Diaa Rashwan told Al-Ahram Weekly, "is that occupation creates resistance. And the more violent the occupation, the further the resistance is catalysed. With examples ranging from the American war of independence to Algeria and Vietnam, history proves that no occupation lasts for ever." True, the insidiousness of Israeli occupation policy appears to surpass that used by previous empires. The lexicon expounded both by its leaders, past and present, and by those of the states to which it is allied seems to suggest a kind of permanent, or, rather, divine right over the territories it claims. But according to Rashwan, there is another critical anomaly in the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon crisis that both the US and Israel have sought to grant credence to, and that is the propagation of the belief that resistance movements can be defeated. "Resistance movements are part and parcel of the phenomenon of occupation," he said. "The way the US and Israel discuss Hizbullah and Palestinian movements in the media are foolishly erroneous when they indicate that they believe that they can actually defeat it." It is not hard to understand just why an occupying power would want to create such a cover-up, for sympathy for Israel today is key to minimising the historical value of a potential defeat, hence the appropriately disproportionate media coverage of global protests in support and condemnation of Israel's raging attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. However, it is important to redress the balance and to come to terms with the fact that while a highly militarised Israel would need a victory as a face-saving exit solution in Lebanon, all Hizbullah needs to do, by nature of it being a resistance movement, is to survive. So far, despite soaring civilian casualties, Hizbullah seems to be doing just that. "Israel set out to rid Lebanon of any capacity to resist," Hassan Nafaa, professor of political science at Cairo University, told the Weekly. "Three weeks into the aggression, however, Hizbullah continues to resist." But as the indiscriminate bombardment of Lebanon continues, it is becoming clearer that Israel is working very hard to bring the Lebanese -- and not just Hizbullah -- to their knees, hence work towards the disarmament of Hizbullah. One key to understanding Israeli policy and actions is to invert the rhetoric it expounds on the so-called targets it attacks. For example, when Israel says it's going to bomb terrorist targets, rest assured that what it really wants to do is terrorise civilians. The massacre at Qana is all too dark an example of this. In Lebanon, when Israel says it is going after Hizbullah, it is in fact seeking to wreak as much destruction, chaos and death as it possibly can, hence to try and weaken support for Hizbullah from within. The concept, well worn while the British Empire was at its zenith, is called "divide and rule". And because colonial war is precisely about terrorising civilian populations, as well as potential dissidents, into submission, Israel knows its war in Lebanon is not so much about Hizbullah as it is about trying to make sure that no Arab -- Lebanese, Palestinian or otherwise -- is left with even an urge to lift a finger against it ever again. Its regionally unparalleled military might, its nuclear capacity, the leeway its destructiveness is granted by the United States -- the world's only superpower -- and its ruthlessness, are sufficient, Israeli leaders believe, to ram the required doses of fear down the throats of potential dissenters and freedom fighters. They're wrong, again. Judging by the dominant mood in the Arab world, Israel's strategy is having the diametrically opposite effect. In Cairo, street protests against Israel's crimes in Lebanon are frequent and passionate, albeit not massive. But even many of those who are loath to participating in street politics are very clear about where they stand when it comes to Israel. "On the one hand it is shocking to see what is happening in Lebanon," says Amr, who works in a baladi coffee shop in Cairo. "However, this is how Israel behaves, and it's time we acknowledge that. Were it not for our Arab regimes that work collaterally with Israel, the Arab world's response to Israel's aggression would have been very different." As for the potentiality of the political survival of Hizbullah per se, numerous views are being expounded as the current crisis continues to hang in the balance. For Amr Elchobaki, also an analyst at Al-Ahram 's Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, "Hizbullah will have to adapt to a new set of realities by the time the bombardment eases. Lebanese politics cannot sustain the existence of a military force which is unaccounted for by the government." Elchobaki added that, most likely, the end of the Israeli aggression will augur a new era for Hizbullah, whereby it gets totally integrated into the traditional Lebanese system of government. "Resistance against Israel will not stop, but no doubt the dangers of an Iraq-style chaos in Lebanon would help to rein Hizbullah into the political fold." For Nafaa, however, "All factors seem to indicate that Hizbullah will continue. Israel committed a major blunder when it placed its bets on Lebanon turning against Hizbullah immediately. The longer the bombardment continues the less likely that is. In fact, Israel's actions have granted greater credibility to Hizbullah's arguments in defence of maintaining a resistance force in Lebanon." As Israel calls on residents of areas south of the Litani River to evacuate their towns, there are increasing signs that it intends to enforce a security zone in south Lebanon -- yet again. The plan echoes Israel's long-established tactics, not least those used in Palestine in 1947-48. Should the plan of creating a buffer zone in the south materialise, this will by definition be met with resistance, and it hardly matters in that case whether Hizbullah will continue to lead that resistance. The end of the PLO leadership in Palestine, for instance, was augured by their readiness to integrate, whereby they were forced to enter negotiations pitted against the Palestinian people they sought to represent. No doubt Hizbullah understands this lesson well.
