top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This...

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This development, confirmed by high-ranking party insiders, follows the realization that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) effectively ceded its claims on the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) to protect the alliance, facilitating a “Mumbai for BJP, Kalyan for Shinde” power-sharing formula. The compromise marks a complete role reversal between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Both the political parties were in alliance with each other for over 25 years before 2017 civic polls. Back then the BJP used to get the post of Deputy Mayor while the Shiv Sena always enjoyed the mayor’s position. In 2017 a surging BJP (82 seats) had paused its aggression to support the undivided Shiv Sena (84 seats), preferring to be out of power in the Corporation to keep the saffron alliance intact. Today, the numbers dictate a different reality. In the recently concluded elections BJP emerged as the single largest party in Mumbai with 89 seats, while the Shinde faction secured 29. Although the Shinde faction acted as the “kingmaker”—pushing the alliance past the majority mark of 114—the sheer numerical gap made their claim to the mayor’s post untenable in the long run. KDMC Factor The catalyst for this truce lies 40 kilometers north of Mumbai in Kalyan-Dombivali, a region considered the impregnable fortress of Eknath Shinde and his son, MP Shrikant Shinde. While the BJP performed exceptionally well in KDMC, winning 50 seats compared to the Shinde faction’s 53, the lotter for the reservation of mayor’s post in KDMC turned the tables decisively in favor of Shiv Sena there. In the lottery, the KDMC mayor’ post went to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The BJP doesn’t have any such candidate among elected corporatros in KDMC. This cleared the way for Shiv Sena. Also, the Shiv Sena tied hands with the MNS in the corporation effectively weakening the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s alliance with them. Party insiders suggest that once it became clear the BJP would not pursue the KDMC Mayor’s chair—effectively acknowledging it as Shinde’s fiefdom—he agreed to scale down his demands in the capital. “We have practically no hope of installing a BJP Mayor in Kalyan-Dombivali without shattering the alliance locally,” a Mumbai BJP secretary admitted and added, “Letting the KDMC become Shinde’s home turf is the price for securing the Mumbai Mayor’s bungalow for a BJP corporator for the first time in history.” The formal elections for the Mayoral posts are scheduled for later this month. While the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA)—led by the Shiv Sena (UBT)—has vowed to field candidates, the arithmetic heavily favors the ruling alliance. For Eknath Shinde, accepting the Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai is a tactical retreat. It allows him to consolidate his power in the MMR belt (Thane and Kalyan) while remaining a partner in Mumbai’s governance. For the BJP, this is a crowning moment; after playing second fiddle in the BMC for decades, they are poised to finally install their own “First Citizen” of Mumbai.

Israel’s Long War in Lebanon: From Sharon’s ‘Mailed Fist’ to Precision Strikes against Hezbollah

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Israel’s Long War in Lebanon

Israel’s tangled tryst with Lebanon has been one long, dark waltz in the violent ballroom of the Middle East. Once known as the ‘Paris of the Middle East’ before being consumed by the flames of a horrific civil war, Lebanon, for much of the mid-20th century, coexisted with Israel in a state of relative calm.

Unlike other Arab countries, cosmopolitan Lebanon had refrained from participating in the major wars against Israel that defined the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Despite the broader Arab-Israeli animosity, Lebanon - a mosaic of Christians,


Sunni and Shia Muslims, and Druze - kept its distance from open conflict with its southern Jewish neighbour.


However, by the 1970s, that fragile calm began to unravel, leading both nations into a tangled web of violence and proxy battles that persist to this day with Israel locked in mortal combat with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shia militant group.


Lebanon’s delicate political system, carefully crafted to balance its religious sects, had kept the country relatively stable during Israel’s early wars with its Arab neighbours. While Lebanon did not officially make peace with Israel, there was no active conflict between the two. Lebanese Christians from Maronite factions, had a pragmatic relationship with Israel, viewing it as a buffer against hostile forces like Syria and Palestinian militants.


By the 1960s, Lebanon's internal balance shifted dramatically with the influx of Palestinian refugees following the Six-Day War of 1967, during which Israel decisively defeated the Arab states. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, established bases in southern Lebanon - having previously set up strongholds there after being expelled from Jordan in 1970 - and began launching cross-border raids into Israel, which in turn provoked Israeli retaliation.


In his monumental and judicious 1,300-page masterwork ‘A History of Israel’, historian Howard Morley Sachar observes how the frustrated Palestinian refugees became “fair game for the PLO,” already entrenched in Lebanon. Arafat and his colleagues, says Sachar, had at their disposal some $400 million in annual subsidies from Saudi Arabia and Gulf Oil states, with which they organized labour welfare and generated employment for their kinsmen, becoming a semi-autonomous government in Lebanon.

In 1975, Lebanon’s social fabric ruptured into a brutal civil war. What began as sectarian clashes between the Maronite Christians and Muslim factions, snowballed into a full-blown proxy war, involving regional and global powers. Amid the chaos, the PLO gained strength, making southern Lebanon a launching pad for attacks into northern Israel.


In response, Israel cultivated relationships with Lebanese Christian militias, particularly the Maronites, who were fighting the PLO and its Muslim allies. One of the key figures in this alliance was Bashir Gemayel, a charismatic Maronite leader and head of the Lebanese Forces, the main Christian militia.

By the early 1980s, Israel had had enough. The situation in Lebanon, particularly the constant threat of PLO attacks, had become untenable. Ariel Sharon, Israel’s hawkish defence minister at the time, saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: oust the PLO from Lebanon and install a friendly Christian government under Bashir Gemayel, creating a pro-Israel buffer state to the north.


What was Sharon’s Gamble?

In June 1982, Israel launched ‘Operation Peace for Galilee,’ sending its troops deep into Lebanon. The stated objective was to push the PLO back from Israel’s northern border, but Sharon’s ambitions went far beyond that. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reached Beirut within days, laying siege to the capital city and bombarding Palestinian positions, prompting Arafat to flee Lebanon.


Yet this invasion would become one of the most controversial chapters in Israeli military history. It was during this period that Israel’s Christian allies, under the leadership of Bashir Gemayel, found themselves in the international spotlight for all the wrong reasons.


In September 1982, Gemayel was assassinated in a massive bomb attack just days after being elected president of Lebanon. His death, a devastating blow to Israel’s plans, triggered a horrific massacre at the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. In retaliation for Gemayel’s death, members of the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia (They drew inspiration from the Nazi and Italian Fascist movements, while also embracing the Catholic nationalism and imperialist nostalgia of the Spanish Falange), with the tacit approval of the Israeli military, stormed the camps, killing between 700 and 3,500 Palestinian civilians.

The world was outraged, and Israel’s moral standing suffered greatly. (The Kahan Commission, an Israeli government inquiry, found Sharon personally responsible for allowing the massacre, leading to his resignation as Defence Minister)


The operation saw Israeli forces occupy the southern half of Lebanon and eventually reach Beirut, where, in a controversial move, they laid siege to the city. While Israel succeeded in driving the PLO out of Lebanon, the occupation sowed the seeds of a far more dangerous foe: Hezbollah.


Initially founded as a small resistance movement to fight Israel’s occupation, Hezbollah would grow into a formidable paramilitary force. Bolstered by funding and arms from Iran, and taking advantage of Lebanon’s weak central government, Hezbollah emerged as both a military and political player. For Israel, the group’s emergence was a bitter unintended consequence of its military intervention. By the time Israeli troops withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, Hezbollah had established itself as a potent guerrilla force and the dominant power in southern Lebanon.


The 2006 war, a 34-day conflict sparked by Hezbollah’s abduction of Israeli soldiers, revealed Hezbollah’s ability to strike deep into Israeli territory using rockets revealing the extent of its military capabilities. Though Israel claimed to have damaged Hezbollah’s infrastructure, the group emerged as the epitome of ‘resistance’ against Israel in the Arab world.


Since then, the two adversaries have engaged in sporadic but lethal confrontations that has now metastasized into an Armageddon following Israel’s pounding of Gaza in retaliation to the October 7 attacks launched by Hamas and other Palestinian terror outfits.


As Israel today launches strike after strike to decapitate Hamas leadership, killing the once-elusive Hassan Nasrallah and his potential ‘heir apparent’ - senior Hezbollah leader Hashem Safieddine - the Lebanese government is nonplussed at the mounting casualties of its civilians.


While Sharon’s ‘mailed fist’ of the 1980s was all about overwhelming force against the PLO in Lebanon, Israel’s military claims that today its military operations are surgical, aimed at eliminating key Hezbollah figures and neutralizing the group’s rocket and missile stockpiles in the benighted country.


Today, it seems endgame for Hezbollah. But as Gaza and Hamas — once the focal points of conflict since October 7 last year — give way to Iran, Hezbollah’s primary backer, the question remains whether the IDF can eliminate the hydra-headed Lebanese militant outfit.


In a visceral scene in German filmmaker Volker Schlöndorff's haunting Circle of Deceit (1981), the finest film on the Lebanese Civil War, a journalist, portrayed by Bruno Ganz, frantically runs toward the camera, chased by a carload of militiamen from one faction, only to stumble upon the lifeless bodies of another. Overwhelmed, he clutches his head in a moment of paralyzing despair. As the IDF continues to maul Lebanon, the scene serves as a chilling shorthand for the relentless cycles of bloodshed that continue to define the country today.


(Tomorrow, we explore the ‘special relationship’ between Israel and the United States. As the Left across the globe censures Israel and students in American campuses stridently condemn it, we look at the so-called ‘Jewish Lobby’, the forgotten history of left-wing support for Zionism and the future of the Israeli-American relationship in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza)

Comments


bottom of page