BEIRUT — This will be a decisive week in the current war between Israel and Hizbullah, as diplomatic efforts pick up steam and the focus shifts from fighting to negotiating. The outcome of diplomatic efforts could in turn be decisive for the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, and broad relations of the United States with the Arab world and Iran.
Lebanon is the epitome of the modern legacy in the Middle East of warriors in local battles who tend to be surrogates for larger combatants further afield. So it is important to unpack the various layers of confrontation and separate the issues at hand, in order to discern any chances of either a quick cease-fire or a lasting solution.
Several diplomatic movements are occurring, which might augur well for all concerned. First, Washington and Israel seem to have made two significant changes in their previous positions over the weekend, which open the door to many diplomatic possibilities. Washington now calls for an immediate cease-fire under certain conditions, after having told Israel publicly to ignore cease-fire calls and continue bombing Lebanon to smithereens. And Israel said it would accept an EU- or NATO-led intervention force on the Israel-Lebanon border as part of a package of measures to resolve the conflict.
Second, Syria is making intriguing noises and statements about how it can help solve this problem, while the United States for its part gropes for a way to engage the Syrians without seeming to be engaging the Syrians, so as not to lose face.
Third, intense third party diplomatic ideas and contacts are being offered by the UN, EU, France, Germany, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and assorted others.
Fourth, Hizbullah seems to have absorbed the initial Israeli-American military blows along with the political criticisms hurled against it from within Lebanon and the region. It seems to be exploring routes out of this dilemma, mainly by delegating the Lebanese government to handle diplomatic negotiations to end the fighting and resolve the issues that triggered the clashes in the first place. It is not in an enviable position. Fighting Israel and holding out for weeks wins it accolades from Arab public opinion, but builds up the political retribution it will expect to receive from other Lebanese political groups when the fighting stops.
But what is it that needs to be solved to stop the clashes, and why is this war taking place? Those are rather rudimentary questions, but increasingly relevant ones given the slow shift towards diplomacy, especially with the 26 July Rome meeting of the United States, Europe and Arab parties.
Three concentric circles of confrontation are self-evident in the Lebanon-Israel situation:
* the immediate Lebanese-Israeli clash;
* the wider regional confrontations including Syria, Iran, Palestine, Israel and Arab leaders in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, who seem to fear Shiite empowerment in the region; and,
* the global confrontation between a United States that appears to want to revamp this region to suit American-Israeli preferences, and regional governments and popular forces — Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood — that resist such hegemonic aims politically and militarily.
Any successful attempt to quell the Lebanon-Israel clashes must decide which of these three is the most important problem to be resolved, or victory to be earned, at the negotiating table rather than on the field of battle. A sure recipe for failure would be to lump all three circles together and hopelessly confuse a narrow bilateral dispute with the larger regional and global confrontations.
The negotiators should focus on the bilateral Israel-Lebanon issues, but also commit to an equally serious attempt to resolve the underlying Arab-Israeli dispute in quick sequence. The two are inextricably linked as historical cause-and-effect, but they cannot be resolved together. Lebanon’s fate also should not be held hostage to Palestine, Iran, Syria, American neo-conservative ideology or any other such external factor.
The purely bilateral issues are few, and clear: Israel wants its two captured soldiers returned alive, and not to be attacked by Hizbullah rockets from southern Lebanon. Lebanon/Hizbullah wants Israel to stop bombing Lebanese targets, leave the Shabaa Farms area it still occupies, return the few Lebanese prisoners it holds, and stop menacing Lebanon and intruding on its sovereignty with over-flights by jets and drones, sonic booms, and occasional attacks.
A negotiated agreement on these points should be easy to achieve, given the several other understandings on these same issues that Hizbullah and Israel have reached and largely adhered to in recent years. An able mediator will craft an agreement that simultaneously or sequentially returns all prisoners, liberates occupied land, and stops mutual attacks and threats. The Israel-Lebanon bilateral situation would enjoy calm, but not a formal peace agreement.
If such an accord offered a sense of victory for both sides — diplomacy’s ideal outcome — this would subsequently prod progress on the second circle, the Arab-Israeli conflict. Achieving an Israel-Lebanon ceasefire and permanent calm, on the basis of international law and mutual rights, implemented simultaneously, would have enormous positive implications for progress on wider regional and global issues.
This is the time for those concerned to focus sharply and narrowly on the technical issues in dispute between Lebanon and Israel, and set aside both hormone-driven egos and ideology-driven hegemonic aspirations. The bilateral issues can be resolved by humble, honest men and women, should any such folks wish to step up and identify themselves.
Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune.
Copyright ©2006 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 26 July 2006
Word Count: 891
——————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757