JERUSALEM — The deaths of seven Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon in just 11 days have reawakened a frantic debate over whether Israel should withdraw.
Intimately linked to this debate is the question of how to deal with Syria, which, with tens of thousands of soldiers in Lebanon, is the undisputed power broker there.
Indeed, whenever the fighting heats up in southern Lebanon, political analysts shift their gaze toward Syrian President Hafez Assad, who allows the shipment of armaments from Iran through Syria to their ultimate destination — the Hezbollah gunmen who are trying to drive Israeli troops out of the nine-mile-wide security zone carved out of southern Lebanon.
In the wake of the Israeli deaths — caused by what has become Hezbollah’s most effective weapon, roadside bombs — demonstrations took place outside the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem over the past week and outside the army high command in Tel Aviv demanding that Israel withdraw from the Lebanese quagmire.
Israel’s ministers and generals were meanwhile grappling with the same problem that has occupied them for years: After Israel established the security zone more than a decade ago, when would the proper time come to leave?
Defenders of Israel’s presence in Lebanon say it is necessary to protect Israel’s northern communities until comprehensive agreements are reached with Syria and Lebanon.
Critics of the policy have argued that it only leads to more casualties. “It isn’t a security zone,” Labor Knesset member Yossi Beilin declared in the legislature on Monday. “It’s a death trap.”
Beilin’s remarks prompted a sharp rebuke from Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai. But Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon, who is eyeing renewed talks with Syria, took the lead in the cabinet this week advocating for a phased, unilateral withdrawal
According to reliable sources here and abroad, there are indications that Assad wants to resume negotiations with Israel, which were suspended in March 1996.
Most experts maintain that Israel’s problems in southern Lebanon are inextricably linked to the Golan Heights, which Syria demands as part of any peace accord with Israel.
They say that the Syrian presence in Lebanon — and Syrian domination of Lebanese politics — means that Israel must deal with Damascus if it hopes to extricate itself from southern Lebanon.
The Syrian connection is the main argument given by those in the cabinet and the Israel Defense Force who oppose a unilateral withdrawal.
They contend that such a withdrawal must come in the context of an agreement or at least an understanding with Syria — or else Hezbollah will likely follow the withdrawing troops and launch its next attacks from the border fence itself.
The contrary argument is that, once it is out of Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Force will have wider options to strike back — and to enjoy international approval — if Israeli territory comes under Hezbollah attack.
The key question, therefore, is whether Israel, under its present leadership, is prepared to negotiate with Syria over withdrawal from the Golan — since all acknowledge that Syria will accept no less than total or near-total withdrawal from the Golan as its price for a peace that would include the pacification of the Israeli-Lebanese border.
Under former premiers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Israel did come close to offering all of the Golan.
But Assad, in what many felt was his myopic obstinacy, dug in over security arrangements and the nature of the peace provisions until it was too late.
The Likud’s victory in 1996 effectively put an end to the terms of those negotiations.
Assad has since demanded that if the talks resume, they must start from the point at which they left off — that is, with the previous Labor offer regarding the Golan.
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, until now, has just as insistently balked at that demand.