By Tao Wenzhao
More than half a month has passed since Hezbollah captured two
Israeli soldiers, prompting the ongoing conflict in the Middle
East. More than 600 Lebanese civilians have been killed and 800,000
have become refugees. Dozens of Israelis have also died.
The international community is making appeals for a ceasefire,
only for them to be stonewalled by the US.
In the meantime, the US has rushed smart bombs and other
military supplies to Israel, which, consequently, is free to act in
the knowledge that its aircraft, missiles, fuel and technology
supplies are limitless, despite the large levels of consumption the
war demands.
Both US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice have said that the Israel-Lebanon situation should
not simply return to the status quo, branding this a "false
peace."
They have insisted that the matter be resolved in a way that is
enduring. This actually means giving Israel a free hand to get at
Hezbollah.
Rice's Middle East tour, in such scenario, was but a show put up
under pressure from the international community. At the Rome
conference, convened in an effort to resolve the conflict, the US
tried to block moves to an immediate ceasefire. The meeting,
therefore, ended without any substantial agreement having been
reached.
Minor provocative acts are commonplace between Israel and
Hezbollah and between Israel and Palestinian guerrillas. Today, one
party abducts one or two persons from the other. Tomorrow, the
latter bombs to death one or two people of the former.
But things are different this time. Israel launched major
operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip because the latter took
one of its soldiers hostage. Then came Israel's massive campaign in
Lebanon after two Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah. The
US' backing is indispensable to both these Israeli maneuvers.
Why is the US reluctant to see an immediate ceasefire? A number
of factors explain its motivation.
To begin with, Hezbollah, like Hamas, is listed as a terrorist
organization by the US so Israel is seen to be helping the War on
Terror. This is why both the US Senate and House of Representatives
passed a resolution to support Israel, and why the Bush
administration throws its backing behind Israel.
In addition, pro-Western and anti-Western political forces exist
side by side in Lebanon. The current Lebanese government leans
toward the West, supporting international investigations into the
Hariri assassination last year and accommodating efforts to end
Syria's presence in Lebanon. Hezbollah, however, is considered an
anti-Western sect, born out of the battles against Israel that have
been fought since the early 1980s. A fragile balance has been
struck between these two forces. So, weakening Hezbollah is an
equivalent to strengthening pro-Western elements in Lebanon, in the
eyes of Washington, and, in turn, will tip Lebanon's political
balance in favor of the West.
Finally, Hezbollah was allegedly founded with the help of Syria
and Iran and has long counted on support from the two countries.
The US accuses Syria and Iran of supporting terrorism largely
because they lend their backing to Hezbollah. So, striking
Hezbollah means weakening those two nation states, to a certain
extent. Though it is Israel and Hezbollah locked in the fighting,
the US can be seen wrestling with Iran and Syria beneath the
surface.
On her visit to Jerusalem on July 25, Rice made it clear that
the US was not eager to see an immediate ceasefire between Israel
and Hezbollah. Instead, Rice suggested that conditions for a
ceasefire be first created and that the status quo in the area be
altered before a ceasefire can be put in place. This would mark the
beginning of a new Middle East, according to her.
Judging from all this, the US indeed has a long-term formula for
the Middle East. But could Israel's strikes against Hezbollah bring
about a new Middle East? There are profound doubts about that.
Even before the Iraq War, the US had already made its plan for a
"new Middle East." Washington held that terrorist acts were
launched by religious fanatics. Washington hence prescribed: The
lack of democracy and freedom in the Islamic world provides a
fertile breeding ground for religious extremism. It follows that
rooting out terrorism requires the spread of Western-fashioned
democracy and freedom in the Islamic world.
If Iraq became a successful and inspiring model of democracy in
the region, Washington hoped, a brand new Middle East would be near
at hand.
Iraq today, however, is riddled with sectarian strife and terror
attacks. Moreover, radical or even extremist Islamic sections have
emerged winners from a string of elections ranging from Egypt to
Iran and Palestine, contrary to the expectations of US
decision-makers.
To where will the current conflict in Lebanon lead?
Hezbollah, though having only 5,000 members, counts on fairly
strong support in Lebanon as a political-military group and it
seems impossible to wipe it out. The best Israel can do is to
weaken it. Furthermore, Syria and Iran will not watch Israel
liquidate Hezbollah and sit idle.
Hezbollah will certainly rebound even after sustaining
devastating blows from Israel. The US' idea of deploying
multi-national forces along the Israel-Lebanon border would, at
best, merely separate Israel and Hezbollah. Is this the beginning
of a brand new Middle East?
The Middle East's history over the last six decades is marked by
war, suffering and humanitarian disaster. The peace process has
gone through many turns and twists. People only see a bumpy road
but no light at the end of the tunnel, excepting the reconciliation
between Egypt and Israel in 1978. This painful journey, however,
offers some food for thought.
First, "live and let live" should be a vitally important
principle in addressing Middle East issues, especially the
Israel-Palestine question.
The peace process made great headway in the 1990s because this
principle was brought to play. "Land for peace," therefore, still
remains the crux of settling the issue today.
Second, the reality of the Middle East must be taken into
account in working out a solution and no unilateral requests should
be forced on others.
After the end of the Iraq War in 2003, the UN, the US, the EU
and Russia worked out a roadmap for the Middle East. But not long
before, the US, refused to have dealings with Yasser Arafat,
claiming he was a terrorist, and tried to elbow him out from the
game.
When Mahmoud Abbas became the chairman of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization, Washington became willing to cooperate
with him, only to see Hamas come to power by winning elections.
Again, the US refused to have any contact with Hamas.
Rice, on her latest Middle East visit, met only with Israeli and
Lebanese government leaders, ignoring the Palestinians and
completely shunning Hezbollah. This practice of choosing dialogue
partners and taking no heed of the Middle East's reality does not
facilitate resolution of the problems.
Third, it should be remembered that the region is divided
between the major Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim sects. The current
sectarian conflicts in Iraq are a representation of the tensions
between the two sects in the Middle East at large. This stark
reality must be taken into account in any attempt to resolve the
issues. The delicate balance between the Sunnis and Shi'ites should
never be broken. Otherwise, this already difficult situation will
become all the harder to resolve.
(The author is a research fellow from the Institute for
America Studies affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences.)
(China Daily August 2, 2006)
