Violence Impacts Lebanon, Israel

Evacuations Underway; Civilian Toll Increases

Nick Pelham , senior analyst for the International Crisis Group who is currently in Jerusalem, was online Friday, July 21, at noon ET to discuss the latest developments as fighting continues in Israel and Lebanon.

Read full coverage of the conflict in the Middle East.

For more on the humanitarian issues affecting the region, see our discussion with Dorothea Krimitsas of the International Red Cross.

The transcript follows.

Nick Pelham is Senior Analyst with the Middle East Program of the International Crisis Group. Pelham has spent 20 years traveling, writing and broadcasting in the Middle East for The Economist , BBC Middle East Times and other organizations. He is currently conducting research in Israel.

____________________

Richmond, Va.: Bush has made it very clear that the U.S. is NOT an "honest broker" in the Middle East. Is there anyone at all who could take on that role?

Nick Pelham: The problem is less that the U.S. is not an honest broker, than that it's not a broker at all. In previous crises, U.S. envoys shuttled across the region seeking diplomatic solutions, but Washington and Brussels have both have self-imposed restrictions on interacting with many of the warring parties, and have not only disengaged but have pressed others to follow suit. There is no umpire, no referee... not even a linesman.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Can you give us your best-case scenario and your worst case scenario for the outcome of all of this? What would you say the odds are for each?

Nick Pelham: The best case: an immediate cease fire and an exchange of prisoners, leading to diplomatic engagement between the warring parties on ratifying recognized borders between Lebanon and Israel and open border crossings between Israel and Gaza, underwritten by the return of Syria to the negotiating table with Israel.

The worst case: an entry of a western-backed international stabilization force which becomes bogged down in a battle to disarm Hezbollah, leading to the spillover of conflict into Syria to curtain supply lines. Tehran enters the conflict directly providing backing to Syria, and Israel sides with coalition forces, sparking a regional war.

International inertia is likely to prevent either from being realized.

Nick Pelham: The best case: an immediate ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners, leading to a political process between the warring parties focused on ratifying recognised borders between the Lebanon government, of which Hezbollah is a member, and Israel; and open border crossings between Israel and Gaza, underwritten by the return of Syria to the negotiating table with Israel.

The worst case: an entry of a western-backed international stabilization force which becomes bogged down in a battle to disarm Hezbollah, leading to the spillover of conflict into Syria to curtain supply lines. Tehran enters the conflict directly providing backing to Syria, and Israel sides with coalition forces, sparking a regional war.

International inertia and general disengagement from the region is likely to prevent either from being realised.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Nick,

Below is part of an email I got from a friend in Beirut several days ago. Have you heard similar reports about these types of weapons being used?

"Israel is using chemical and phosphoric weapons (illegal weapons), and some new other weapons (strange ones) which create dark clouds and consequently cover houses in the south as if they are painted with a black color (several citizens in many villages reported this type of weapons)."

Nick Pelham: Similar allegations were recently made by doctors in Gaza operating on those wounded by Israeli shelling. To the best of my knowledge, no UN agency of international NGO - of which there are many in Gaza - has corroborated the claims.

_______________________

London, UK: Mr. Pelham,

America has not only torpedoed calls for an immediate cease-fire through its repeated endorsements of Israel's actions: it has also done everything it could to make the task of reaching a future cease-fire more difficult. (Cue John Bolton's various statements.)

At the same time, the IDF begins to warn of heavy losses against a very well armed and trained guerilla force whose capabilities have been severely underestimated.

What is your assessment of the likelihood of a cease-fire over the coming days or weeks, with America opposed or abstaining?

Nick Pelham: In terms of US support for a ceasefire, much will depend on Israel's assessment of its progress in fulfilling its objectives by force of disarming Hezbollah of its missiles and forcing its retreat from the border - which are also objectives shared by the U.S. and UN resolution 1559.

So far the air strikes have not prevented Hezbollah's continued firing of missiles. Its commanders have reportedly exhausted their prepared list of targets and must now assess whether to deploy a major ground offensive, which could prove costly and could lead to Israel again becoming bogged down in Lebanon. The dilemma facing its leaders is whether to act like Bush senior - and stop short of attempts at regime change with a march on Baghdad, or to act like the current U.S. president and seek regime - or in this case Hezbollah - change by force.

If they decide on the latter or decide the war is not meeting its declared objectives, the U.S. could lend its backing to an early ceasefire.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: So, your best case scenario does not include Hezbollah disarmament? And what are the "recognized borders" after the U.N. accepted the blue line as the border between Israel and Lebanon? This sounds more as the "best case" for Hezbollah...

Nick Pelham: It assumes that attempts at forceful disarmament are liable to backfire generating greater conflict, and that the transformation of Hezbollah from a military force to a political force will require an internal Lebanese as well regional diplomatic solution. Lebanon is littered with botched attempts - at great cost - of outside players who thought they could change the political map by force.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How can Israel be criticized for not wanting to have a surrogate terrorist army on its border controlled by its arch-enemies Iran and Syria? No other country in the world would be expected to tolerate such a situation. Doesn't eliminating this army increase the chances of peace in the Middle East?

Nick Pelham: Your question assumes that Hezbollah can be eliminated without sparking far greater unrest in the region. Israel has not been criticized for the principle of seeking to defend an internationally recognised border, but the means with which it has chosen to do it. There is a great risk that escalation will such in more players, leading to more instability not less. The political track has been allowed to subside for years, prompting a regional return to seek military solutions instead.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I would like to know your opinion on the long term effects of the Israeli bombing in Lebanon. Do you think that in long term this will really weaken the influence and support of Hezbollah in Lebanon or create greater support and therefore more insecurity for Israel? (especially if Israel moves troops in). Also why has there been no mention of the Sheba Farms in the press as one of the areas of dispute between Hezbollah and Israel? Most stories say Israel pulled out of all of Lebanon in 2000, but Sheba Farms are still occupied (and have been since 1967).

Nick Pelham: Short of mission fully accomplished, Hezbollah will emerge from this round of fighting with Israel with some, perhaps most, of its stockpiles and command structure in tact. Without the engagement of Syria by western powers, its supply lines are also likely to remain open enabling it to rearm.

Moreover, Hezbollah's support base may not be as susceptible to military pressure as say Hamas's. It relies heavily on a single confession, and may not feel too pressured by other Lebanese sects who had a greater stake in Lebanon's reconstructed economy. With Shia, Lebanon's largest sect, feeling victimized by Israeli bombardment, its own grassroots may also rally behind its political leaders much as Israelis rallied to their leaders when they came under bombardment.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The EU seems to be currently focusing on a ceasefire which guarantees civilian safety via an international force. Given that Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon was contingent on a similar arrangement, which failed to provide the requisite security, what changes to this strategy could be made that strategy that would give Israel (and the Lebanese civilians Hezbollah hides behind) a sense that this time things will be different?

Nick Pelham: Israel wants any force to be mandated to implement UN Resolution 1559 disarming Hezbollah and have a UN Chapter VII mandate allowing it do so. It remains deeply skeptical however of the political will to pay for a force of some 15,000 troops it estimates would be required, and the resolve of its component members to risk their lives when faced with local opposition. Some politicians fear it would go the way of coalition forces in Iraq, as one by one its members withdraw.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: This doesn't seem like a war between Israel and Hezbollah rather, a continuation of the civil war in Lebanon. Rather then have Israel do the attacking, why did the U.S. and Israel just not provide money, weapons, and advisers to the Lebanese military that could be trusted and have them disarm Hezbollah, It seems like more people in Lebanon want peace and the elimination of the terrorists, Iranian/Syrian influence then those that want to see Israel wiped off the map. A civil war isn't finished if one side still holds military control over a region of the country.

Nick Pelham: The Lebanese army is drawn from the country's constituent sects, of which the Shias are the largest. In the event of a Lebanese Army order to disarm Hezbollah, it is unclear whether its ranks would obey. In a country where power is distributed according to sect, many people have divided loyalties between their confession and their state.

In addition, Hezbollah is not alone in maintaining a confessional-based force.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Egypt and Jordan both have strong militaries (thanks to U.S. military aid) and neither is engaged in any kind of conflict nor has Israel pointed a finger or laid blame to them for the current crisis (big surprise). Has anyone approached them about contributing troops to an international peace keeping force in Lebanon?

Nick Pelham: Given current tensions in the region, it is highly unlikely that Jordan and Egypt would be seen Lebanon's constituent parts as neutral players. Jordan's king has promoted the notion of the rise of a threatening Shia crescent extending from Tehran via Iraq to South Lebanon, and his intervention together with one of the traditional bastions of the Sunni world could be seen by Lebanon's Shia as highly partisan and thus destabilising - not to mention that they would be open to accusations - no doubt fanned from pulpits - that as recipients of US aid they were merely doing Israel's and America's dirty work. Just as Arab states have been reluctant to send forces to Iraq, so too in Lebanon.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: Did the Palestinians cut off their nose to spite their face by electing Hamas? Can any reasonable person believe that the Palestinians are capable of governing themselves without a Mafia-style power struggle within its factions?

Nick Pelham: Hamas elected by Palestinians to a large extent as a protest vote against Fatah which had led the PA since its inception in the 1990s. During this period living standards declined markedly, as did Palestinian freedom of movement, as a result of settlement expansion and the construction of the separation barrier. Fatah was widely perceived by its people as failing to deliver. Hamas fought an election campaign on domestic issues of anti-corruption, clean government. They also signaled their intent to continue the ceasefire which they had largely maintained since Spring 2005. Had they been allowed to govern - which they considered the right of an democratically elected government, they would have likely done so.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com:

Washington, D.C.: Do you agree with the suggestion that Hezbollah undertook its initial operation against Israel, anticipating harsh reprisals, as a ploy to weaken (if not destroy) the new, largely anti-Syrian Lebanese government? Or, do you think it had more to do with the organizations ideological commitments, ie. Palestinian solidarity, commitment to fight Israel?

Nick Pelham: Hezbollah saw an opportunity to increase its leverage in the region: mediation over a prisoner exchange and a possible ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian factions in Gaza had stymied primarily on timing, and Nasrallah believed that he could project his influence by capturing Israelis and using them as bargaining chips for a broader prisoner release. Previous Israeli administrations - including Olmert's predecessors Barak and Sharon - and he probably anticipated that the current Israeli government would act likewise, thus bolstering his image - and those of his allies - as players with clout, domestically, vis-a-vis Israel, and regionally.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.