No
Lasting Peace Without Hezbollah
By Taj Hashmi
03 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
While
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.