The Quest for Middle
East peace
Saturday, August 19,
2006 -
Bangor Daily
News
The Israeli military
has stated that "each and every death of an innocent Lebanese is the fault of
Hezbollah." Unfortunately, the attitude underlying this statement betrays a good
deal of callousness toward the civilian population of Lebanon. The horror of
widespread bombing is bad enough without blaming the victims.
The result of all
the aerial bombing over the past month has managed to enhance, rather than
weaken, Hezbollah's reputation among a good proportion of the Lebanese
population that were not particularly well disposed toward them up to now. The
war has also resulted in the U.S. suffering yet another blow to its already
tattered reputation among Arab nations.
According to Rashid
Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at the Middle East Institute at Columbia
University, "The Israeli government and the Bush administration both suffer from
the foolish illusion (one easy to understand among [those] ... who have never
been near a battlefield) that war is the solution to problems in the Middle
East. The idea that Arabs understand only force, which underlies American and
Israeli policies, is racist and profoundly mistaken. As long as such dangerous
illusions reign, innocents will continue to die in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and
Israel."
An English writer
living in Beirut noted after a month of bombing that "the damage to Lebanon has
been catastrophic." He then asked, "how would Canadians and Americans feel if
British forces had loosed their jet fighters on Dublin because the IRA set off
bombs in London?" His analogy is an apt one. Why bomb Beirut and why destroy the
Lebanese infrastructure unless you wish to punish a whole people for the actions
of a minority? Or was there an additional purpose intended so as to provoke a
larger confrontation to satisfy the Bush administration agenda? According to an
article in the Jerusalem Post on July 30 President Bush expressed interest in a
wider war involving Syria. Israeli "defense officials told the Post ...that they
were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in
seeing Israel attack Syria." But in this case wiser heads in the Israeli cabinet
prevailed and the suggestion was rejected.
Dr. Stephen Cohen,
who teaches the theory and practice of diplomacy, notes that: "... I also don't
think this is a good way for the United States to be showing how it can be
helpful in this new era, because what...[we need is] to bring Israel into a
relationship of peace on equal footing with the other states of the region, and
with the Palestinians becoming such another state in the region. So, I would say
that we don't see here an example of the proper kind of American leadership. But
we have to understand that the United States is looking at this not as a problem
between two communities who are unable to resolve their conflict now for over
eighty years, but rather trying to reconstruct it as part of this war on
terrorism and therefore not being able to see the real regional and real
communal problems that are coming."
Uri Avnery, a
well-known Israeli writer and peace activist, responding to questions concerning
the regions problems said"... Hizbullah was created by us. When the Israeli army
invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Shiites received the soldiers with rice and sweets.
They hoped that we would evict the PLO forces, who were in control of the area.
But when they realized that our army was there to stay, they started a guerilla
war that lasted for 18 years. In this war, Hizbullah was born and grew, until it
became the strongest organization in all Lebanon."
When discussing
Hezbollah (ie Hizbullah) Avnery also states that "Not by accident is the
organization call Hizb-Allah ("Party of Allah") and not Jeish-Allah ("Army of
Allah"). It is a political organization, with deep roots in the Shiite
population of South Lebanon. For all practical purposes, it represents this
community. The Shiites are 40 percent of the Lebanese population, and together
with the other Muslims they form the majority."
America's present
administration appears unwilling or incapable of looking at the broader picture
and at the same time betrays a one-sided view of middle-eastern affairs.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to President Carter
notes that: "These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents,
are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the
overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States.
The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neocon policies
continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and
that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well."
The issues, in the
case of Lebanon and Israel, is that both countries are convinced they are right.
Yet real solutions have to have real compromises, not one aimed at utterly
subjugating the other. Uri Avnery presents a viable way forward when he states
that Israel must: "... put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which
causes ferment throughout the Middle East. [Israel]...must draw Hamas out of
this hostile front, by negotiating with the elected Palestinian
government.[Israel] ... must reach a settlement in Lebanon. For it to last, this
settlement must include Hizbullah and Syria. This will oblige us to give the
Golan [Heights] back. It should be remembered that Ehud Barak had already agreed
to that and almost signed a peace treaty, similar to the one signed with Egypt,
but unfortunately chickened out at the last moment for fear of public
opinion."
Even though military
might with its consequent short term thinking has become part of U.S. and Israel
policy diplomatic means can still be the salvation of both nations. But real
statesmen have to be allowed a real role. Elder statesmen, such as Uri Avnery,
who have lived through long-standing conflicts know that lasting peace can only
be achieved in this way.
