Three armed Jewish groups existed in Israel: Hagana, Irgun, and Stern Gang. To the Israelis, they were the resistance to the British colonizers and Arab inhabitants. To the Arabs, they were terrorists. They resemble Hamas in Palestine today, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. To the Arabs they are the resistance, to the Israelis, they are terrorists.

Ben Gurion understood that in order to create a modern state, he needed to disarm the military groups and incorporate their fighters into the IDF. The United States and Israel say that this is what should be done today in Lebanon and Palestine. In Israel, Ben Gurion argued, they had served their cause well, but now (after 1948) was the time to lay down arms and leave military affairs to the professional army.

In the 1940s, the three Israeli "resistance" groups had destroyed all of Ben Gurion's diplomatic efforts with their military agendas. Among other things, the Stern Gang murdered Lord Moyne in 1944 and blew up the King David Hotel in 1946. This mirrors the embarrassing situation that confronts Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and the March 14 coalition that is ruling Lebanon. As Saad al-Harriri, the head of the largest bloc in parliament, and his Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora were encouraging investors to come to Lebanon, and boasting of high revenues from tourism in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah went into this war with Israel, completely dislocating the Lebanese economy. It contradicts everything the Lebanese government had been saying since 2005 about stability, investment, and economic and political reform. In Palestine, as Abbas guarantees peace and order, Hamas or Islamic Jihad carry out military operations inside Israel, making the president look silly.

On June 20, 1948, the Irgun office in Paris sent a ship, the Altalena, loaded with arms and ammunition to Israel. A stern Ben Gurion ordered his army to sink it off the shore of Tel Aviv. They complied and he publicly praised "the holy canon" that sank the Altalena. Ben Gurion was saying that as prime minister he was willing to do anything possible to end the rule of military groups in Israel. He was telling the world that arms are only carried by the Israeli Army. After the Altalena Affair, the Hagana was absorbed into the IDF and Irgun were convinced, unwillingly, to disarm. The Israelis and Americans are saying that this is what should happen in Palestine and Lebanon today.

The difference between Ben Gurion's case in 1948 and that of Mahmud Abbas and Fouad al-Siniora today is that Ben Gurion only cracked down on the armed groups after Israel was created in 1948. Abbas cannot do that while the State of Palestine does not exist and while Gaza is occupied by the Israelis. Siniora cannot do that so long as the Sheba Farms are still occupied and Lebanese prisoners still languish in Israeli jails, giving credibility to Hezbollah. All the Lebanese, after all, including the Siniora government, support Hezbollah's claims to the Sheba Farms. Both Abbas and Siniora would be spelling out their political suicide if they disarm Hamas and Hezbollah today, and also, political suicide if they fail to do that once the State of Palestine is created or once the Israelis leave the Sheba Farms.

Also, Ben Gurion had a lot of historical legitimacy and commanded wide-scale support among Israelis. He had the power and the credibility to disarm the Haganah and Irgun, once Israel was created. The late Yasser Arafat had that legitimacy if the State of Palestine had been created; Abu Mazen does not. The late Rafiq al-Harriri had that legitimacy if Sheba had been liberated. Saad al-Harriri and Fouad al-Siniora do not.

Siniora and Abbas will eventually act like Ben Gurion if Israel gives them enough reason to do so. Occupying Gaza, and bombarding the Lebanese people, will make it all the more difficult and embarrassing for Siniora or Abbas to take any future measures against Hamas and Hezbollah. The Israelis should come to a realization after so many years of violence that they will not be able to destroy Hamas or Hezbollah with military might. A war of attrition might get Hezbollah to stop the battle, but it will not liquidate Hezbollah.

The Israelis have been fighting Fatah since 1965 and it still exists in Palestine. And even if these parties evaporate, new Hamas-like or Hezbollah-like parties will re-emerge because the essential grievances will not have been solved, which are the absence of land and freedom for the Palestinians and Lebanese. Israel must try, for once at least, to court and contain the military groups in Palestine and Lebanon, rather than try to crush them.

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Nasrallah to fire rockets into Israel when the Israelis are leaving him alone. Why would he engage in battle if Lebanese territory is not occupied and no Lebanese prisoners are in Israeli jails? Nobody in the world, not even the Lebanese themselves or Iran or Syria, would be able to support such a Nasrallah offensive on Israel.

I mentioned in a previous post that military groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah do not welcome a peace-loving environment in the Middle East. They do not want to recognize Israel and this stance becomes easy to hold in a war-charged environment. But if the Israelis were talking peace -- real Rabin-style peace -- then Hamas and Hezbollah simply could not talk war any more. That is why Hamas and Hezbollah do not want Israel to talk peace. Escalation from the Israelis justifies escalation from Hamas or Hezbollah. All parties in Palestine have realized that crushing Hamas out of existence would only ignite a third intifada. The Hezbollah fighters are also very popular in Lebanon, especially among the residents of the South and within the Shiite community, but also within the Christian and Sunni Muslim communities.

Crushing Hezbollah and Hamas out of existence would also be very difficult for Israel. To avoid more bloodshed and battle, the Israelis must engage in dialogue with Hezbollah and Hamas, not war. War will only lead to more war. This is a fact proven by history.