I have been thinking of the Altalena incident myself, way back in th summer of ‘48, as a viable example of a weak, fledgling, endangered regime, riddled with internal discord, setting out the rules quite clearly, and very bravely, from the outset. As the Israeli Foreign Ministry puts it: “Despite the remaining bitterness, the incident made it clear that no “dissident” armed force would be tolerated.”The Telegraph article Imshin quotes from uses the Irish Free State as its example:As I see it, Altalena and the extremely unpopular dismantling of the Palmach, round about the same period - however one may feel about these two events, and whatever narrative of the events one may choose to adopt - were paramount to the survival of the State of Israel.
If the provisional Israeli government of the time could do it - and remember, we were in the middle of an awful, bloody war against the armies of five sovereign states who were out to destroy us, and we were armed with, more or less, sticks and stones - then the Lebanese government can too. No excuses.
Israel's frontier with Syria is relatively stable and secure, despite Syria's undisguised loathing for its neighbour. Why? Because Syria, as a sovereign state, will not tolerate uncontrolled militias within its borders. This places it in a different category from the Palestinian and Lebanese administrations, whose writ does not run throughout their own territories. . . . . A parallel can be drawn with the first government of the Irish Free State, which acted more brutally against the IRA than Britain has ever done. It did so not out of love for Britain, or enthusiasm for the existence of Northern Ireland, but because it was determined that there should be only one legitimate army in the state.I posted on this three years ago, in connection to the then Palestinian government avoiding the challenge of confronting and disarming Hamas. (Ah, the days when anyone talked about disarming Hamas . . . )
It provoked some controversy, which I linked to in updates to my post. There are still many Jews who think Ben Gurion was traitorous to his own people to sink the Altalena.
I'm sure this kind of internal war was also controversial in Ireland, and will be so in Lebanon. But Imshin is right, and the consequences of letting independent militias roam free have been demonstrated repeatedly, in many national struggles. Even libertarians who aren't complete anarcho-capitalists understand that one of the few necessities of government is to have a monopoly on the use of force.
I always ask the Lebanese when I visit their blogs "Where are the Lebanese MEN? Why don't the MEN of Lebanon drive out the Hizbollah?"
I never get an answer.
I guess there are no MEN in Lebanon.
Jordan and Israel work closely together to prevent cross border attacks. When one happens the Jordanians and the Israelis work together to capture and punish the perpetrators. Supposedly the Lebanese are smart and sophisticaed. How come they can't do what the Jordanians do? How hard could it be?
How Hard Can It Be?
Most revolutionary states this challenge. What they do determines whether they stay in business. For the Irish Free State, the equivalent of the Altalena incident was the bombardment of the Four Courts of Dublin, which the anti-Treaty forces had occupied. Michael Collins knew that using force agaist the holdouts would probably be his death warrant, which it was soon enough.
For the American Revolution, it was the Whiskey Rebellion -- the first insurrection against the government created by the Constitution. Washington called out more men to suppress that than he ever had under his command during the Revolution.
So far the Palestinians have not had their Altalena or Four Couts moment. They may never. As they say, the Palestinians have never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity.
"Supposedly the Lebanese are smart and sophisticaed. How come they can't do what the Jordanians do? How hard could it be?"
Smart and sophisticated is not hard and practical. I mean, you can be both, but most cultures aren't.
Speaking of Jordan, last month there was a news item quoting King Abdullah to the effect that it would be a very bad idea for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. Uh huh.
Yehudit,
No one wants the Palis. Jordan has enough of them already (pun intended).
BTW I was being a smart ass with the question.
Actions can be impossible if you have no will to do them.
IIUC correctly Abdullah was opposing a unilateral Israeli withdrawl, so in some sense he was just parroting the Arab League line that only a negotiated withdrawl is acceptable. From another POV he wants Israel to stay in the West Bank (at material, human, and political cost to Israel) to protect HIM from the Pals. Which may be in his interest, but may not be in Israel's. If he cares so much to stop unilateral Israeli withdrawl, then he needs to do more to help Israel to make continued Israeli presence less costly to Israel.
Could you see the Lebanon War as an Altalena challenge to the United States?
Part of the challenge when the United States is engaged in direct military conflict in the Middle East is this matter of the monopoly of violence. While Israel is generally regarded as an ally, it is a fiercely independent actor in what it regards its own security interests, and it not only seeks to respond vigorously to attacks on its people but to not rely on any patron state for its security.
Famously in the Gulf War, Saddam started dropping missiles on Israel. Forget that the missiles were remarkably ineffective and their whole purpose was political -- to goad Israel into a response and thus fracture the U.S. lead Coalition. The way things work in Israel is that one missiles are raining down you do something about it; there was a great deal of tension between U.S. and Israel over this monopoly of violence question; Norman Scharzkopf complained about SCUD hunting when he should be fighting Saddam, and the Israelis exercised what for them was unprecedented restraint in not pursuing their own independent SCUD hunts (there arguments were that since their civilians were targets, Israeli pilots would hunt SCUDs more aggressively and risk greater losses).
Anyway, Israel disengaged from Gaza, whatever faction in Gaza didn't play nice and attacked Israel, Israel fights back in Gaza -- America has no dog in that fight. Israel and you-know-who in Lebanon have been in a kind of 38th Parallel standoff for years, Israeli soldiers are attacked in the sort of incident that flares up on that border, and two soldiers are taken prisoner. Israel stomps on Lebanon (OK, OK, targets Mr. Naa-naa-naa). America has a dog in that fight because the Cedar Revolution, the disengagement(I suppose partial) of Syria from Lebanon, the Iraq War, the confrontation with Iran -- all part of American grand strategy.
At the risk of drawing ill-chosen moral equivalence, to the extent that we view non-state actors like Hezbollah as proxies for Iran and Syria, the other side regards Israel as a client state of America -- far from true but doesn't change perceptions. If we set aside what "they" think about Israel or the U.S., there is still the problem on whether an Israel invasion of Lebanon fits in with U.S. grand strategy, considering the fight we are in and the fight we are contemplating (Iran).
The monopoly of violence question may require us to exercise more influence over Israel -- the Gulf War was a precedent fo this.
Israel in the Altalena incident, and Ireland in the Four Courts incident, we able to claim a monopoly of force because they could in return guarantee the security of their citizens. If the US were to demand absolute control over Israel's use of force, it would have to take absolute responsibility for Israel's security, which it does not do today. The only really credible such guarantee would be to make Israel a state of the Union, which neither the US nor Israel would be willing to do.
"From another POV he wants Israel to stay in the West Bank (at material, human, and political cost to Israel) to protect HIM from the Pals."
That was my reading. :-)
"No one wants the Palis."
That is their tragedy. The people who use their suffering as an excuse to start wars and stir up rage against Israel, treat them worse than Israel ever has, including not letting them in their countries. Or else giving them special treatment which makes them hated (Saddam's free housing for Palestinian workers - as soon as the Iraq War was over, Iraqis kicked them out.)
No wonder they are so screwed up. Imagine growing up in a crazy-making family who kicked you around and at the same time provoked fistfights all over the neighborhood claiming they were provoked by your suffering.
A parallel can be drawn with the first government of the Irish Free State, which acted more brutally against the IRA than Britain has ever done. It did so not out of love for Britain, or enthusiasm for the existence of Northern Ireland, but because it was determined that there should be only one legitimate army in the state.
The first government of the Irish Free State was fighting IRA soldiers who they had trained. The IRA in those days was a conventional militia who fought the old-fashioned way, by targeting combatants. It wasn't a terrorist organization and it wasn't supported by powerful neighboring states, as Hezbollah is.
Lebanon is a lesson for Europe. States that can't militarily defend themselves aren't really viable states, even if they do have a thriving tourist industry and great cafes.
Europe is also allowing Islamist paramilitary groups to set up camp in their cities, and their governments have shown that they're not always able to protect themselves or their citizens from these groups. Europe really has to get serious about self-defense.