No Lasting Peace Without Hezbollah
By Taj Hashmi
03 August, 2006
Countercurrents.orgWhile Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insists there will be no ceasefire in Lebanon until international peacekeepers are deployed in the south of the country, Hezbollah has remained defiant against all odds, logic and common sense, firing more than 200 rockets into Israel, the biggest single day barrage so far on August 2. Meanwhile Israel has mobilized more than 25,000 troops in the border, sending several thousands deep inside Lebanon. Israeli troops raided Baalbek, destroying a hospital, killing and seizing several people, presumed to be Hezbollah fighters.
The fresh round of Israeli attacks on Lebanon began in the wake of the abrupt return of Secretary Rice to Washington on Monday, July 31, albeit empty-handed and humiliated for not being able to visit Lebanon as Prime Minister Siniora refused to meet her this time. Let us see if Rice’s failure in negotiating a “lasting peace” in the Middle East is self-inflicted, a by-product of the State Department’s intransigence and ostrich policy of denying the reality.
Secretary Rice’s first trip to Israel and Lebanon more than a week after the beginning of the latest Israel-Hezbollah showdown did not flicker much hope for a cease-fire. She simply re-iterated the US policy of not negotiating an immediate truce between the rivals for the sake of a “lasting peace” in the Middle East by de-fanging Hezbollah guerrillas, once for all. However, her second trip to the region within three days after returning from the region, especially after the diplomatic fiasco in Rome, raised eyebrows as well as a glimmer of hope for an imminent cease-fire. Several events and sudden developments in the arena of global politics were responsible for this flickering hope.
The least expected stalemate between the unequal rivals and the ominous video message from Ayman al-Zawahiri expressing al-Qaeda’s solidarity with Shiite Hezbollah might have sent Secretary Rice to the Middle East. There seems to be no ambiguity about the purpose of her second trip other than finding ways for a truce, durable or for the time being. But Rice had to go back empty-handed.
Why so? Can the US really negotiate a cease-fire and a “lasting peace” in “days, not weeks”? Is it fair to assume that Israel can achieve the goals in “weeks, not days”? Are Israeli military lobby and American “Jewish lobby” calling the shots while the world is witnessing deaths and destruction in the Middle East?
As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Amir Peretz do not have command experience in the IDF, unlike most of the previous leaders, the IDF seems to have a dominant role in the war and peace making process. Interestingly, after the telecast of the latest al-Zawahiri video the government agreed to accept slightly more than a mile as the “buffer” between Lebanon and Israel, but the IDF succeeded in convincing the government that Israel needs a much wider buffer zone under NATO troops, preferably up to the Litani River. And the military lobby so far has successfully thwarted all attempts to make peace with Hezbollah.
Peretz tends to agree with the hawks in the IDF as possibly generals direct him instead of him directing the generals. And the upshot is Secretary Rice’s abrupt return to Washington within two days after her latest trip to Israel, without making any changes in the previous US stand on not ending the war before Israel “achieves its objectives”. Rice’s failure in making any headway towards a cease-fire may be imputed to the overwhelming popular support (more than 80 per cent) for the Israeli war effort among Americans.
However, what is missing in both the Israeli and American policies towards a durable peace between Israel and Lebanon is their taking no notice of the wider popular support for Hezbollah among Lebanese across the board. While 96 per cent of Shiites are behind Hezbollah, 87 per cent of Sunnis, 80 per cent of Christians and 80 per cent of Druze Lebanese consider Hezbollah as the defender of their country.
In view of this, no temporary truce, let alone a durable peace, is possible without active participation by the Hezbollah in the peace process. It is heartening that while Secretary Rice favours 20, 000 international peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon as a pre-requisite to “a lasting peace”, she is against house to house search for Hezbollah militants. Tony Blair is also realistic that there cannot be any peace in the region without Hezbollah.
Sooner the Israeli military lobby and the Americans with a soft corner for Israel realize the fact is better. J.F.O. McAllister has rightly observed: “If peace in the Middle East is a Rubik’s Cube whose every piece has to align properly to arrive at a solution, the puzzle posed by Hizballah seems to have more than six colors for six sides” [“Why Hizballah Can’t be Disarmed?” Time, July 31, 2006]. Peacemakers should remember that Hezbollah has skillful fighters with powerful patrons and overwhelming mass support in Lebanon and the rest of the Muslim World. And that neither Iran nor Syria is willing to disarm the militia. So, a lasting peace in Lebanon does not depend on the implementation of UN Resolution 1559 but other resolutions, especially 242 (1967), taken in favour of Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Lebanese problem is actually a by-product of the Palestinian refugee problem. So, as it is wrong to single out the “Lebanese Problem” so is it wrong to ignore the Palestinian Problem, the most important catalyst to a “lasting peace” in the Middle East. We may agree with Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies that a peace without Hezbollah might look impressive, but it would remain hollow and meaningless in the long run.
