'If Nasrallah had any honor, he would resign'
New York Times columnist, author Thomas Friedman, says Hizbullah is real loser of Second Lebanon War
WASHINGTON - While Israeli officials are busy seeking those responsible for the failures of the Second Lebanon War, and after the publication of the Winograd Commission's partial report, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman feels that Hizbullah is the real loser of last summer's battles.
Friedman, the author of an influential column, and dozens of books on the Middle East, wrote on Wednesday that if an Arab League inquiry commission were appointed to investigate the war, it would demand Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah's resignation.
In his article titled 'The Arab Commission,' Friedman pointed out that "Nasrallah made a remarkable statement last week. He praised Israel for conducting an inquiry into last year's war with Hizbullah.
"Mr. Nasrallah was quoted by the BBC as saying Israelis 'study their defeat in order to learn from it,' in contrast with the Arab regimes that 'do not probe, do not ask, do not form inquiry commissions as if nothing has happened.' One has to be impressed by his honesty, but he did not take it all the way, since the Arab leader who most needs to be probed is Mr. Nasrallah himself."
Friedman wrote that by kidnapping Israel Defense Force soldiers at the border, Nasrallah started a war in which 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis were killed, adding that if there were an honest Arab League inquiry commission into the war, its report would read:
"The Arab League Commission finds Mr. Nasrallah guilty of a serious failure of judgment, responsibility and prudence - for the following reasons:
1. Mr. Nasrallah demonstrated a total failure to anticipate Israel's response to his raid. He assumed Israel would carry out the same limited retaliation it had with previous raids. Wrong. He failed to take into account… the fact that a new chief of staff of the Israeli Army, a new prime minister and a new defense minister had just taken office and all felt they were being tested, triggered an enormous Israeli response.
2. In unilaterally launching a war against Israel, without a vote of the Lebanese cabinet - of which Hizbullah is a member - the militia did grievous harm to Lebanon's fragile democracy and democratization in the Arab world. All the fears that if you let an Islamist party into government it will not respect the rules of the game were fulfilled by Hizbullah.
Strategic loss for Hizbullah
"When the war started," wrote Friedman, "Hizbullah's fighters were sitting right on the border with Israel, operating freely. This was a real threat to Israel. As a result of the war, Hizbullah was pushed off the border by Israel and, in its place, the UN inserted a new peacekeeping force of some 10,000 troops, including a big European contingent, led by France and Italy.
"Yes, Hizbullah still has fighters in the area, but it has lost its military infrastructure, and can't attack Israel now without getting embroiled with France and Italy - a huge strategic loss for Hizbullah."
Another claim made in Friedman's article, showing that Hizbullah was the real loser, was that "Lebanon has had to rely on Arab and Iranian charity to rebuild. Israel, by contrast, suffered relatively minor damage and, after the war, its economy enjoyed one of its greatest growth spurts ever, as foreigners invested a record amount in Israel's high-tech industry."
Friedman concluded by saying that "Nasrallah may have won popularity for himself and Hizbullah by fighting Israel But so what? Today, less than a year after a war that Hizbullah called a ''divine'' victory, Lebanon is weaker and Israel is stronger. That's what matters. And that is why, if the Hizbullah leader had any honor, he would resign."
