Middle East: from bad to worse

Israel's air and sea blockade on Lebanon, as well as its bombing of parts of Beirut and southern Lebanon, have all the ingredients of a disaster in the making. Israel's actions are in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shi'ite militia, after Israel sent its military into southern Lebanon in response to Hizbollah's rocket attacks against northern Israeli towns. This whole conflict comes as Israel fights on another front, Gaza, where an Israeli soldier was also captured last month.

Hizbollah is saying that it will release the Israeli soldiers in return for the release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. While it is true that such deals should not be encouraged, as they would only result in further kidnappings, it is also correct to say that prisoner exchanges have taken place between the two sides in the past.

It would be foolish to underestimate the dangers of this latest escalation of violence. Lebanon's social fabric is very fragile. Hizbollah is backed by Syria and Iran, which could be drawn into the conflict.

International Muslim public opinion could be further radicalised, terrorism could increase, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could enter a new point of no return and Israel could get bogged down in Lebanon, just as it did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Israel does not have happy memories of its previous venture into Lebanon. It invaded the country in 1982 to crush the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. This resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the harming of Israel's reputation and the creation of Hizbollah, which is now (unfortunately) greatly respected by most of the Shi'ites in Lebanon.

It is an ironic fact that Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was responsible for the birth of Hizbollah, which fought Israel throughout its occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Hizbollah was largely credited with having brought this about, and this explains its popularity among Lebanon's Shi'ites.

Hizbollah today is a major force in Lebanese politics. It is represented in the Lebanese Parliament and it has two government ministers in the country's Cabinet. Unfortunately, it has not disarmed its military wing, despite a United Nations resolution that called for the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and the disarmament of Hizbollah.

The bottom line is that the Lebanese government is probably powerless to disarm Hizbollah, which is armed by Syria and Iran, and any attempt to do so would result in a major crack in Lebanese society. One mustn't forget that a large chunk of the Lebanese military consists of Shi'ites and that, after 15 years of civil war, Lebanon remains a very fragile country.

The fact remains, however, that Hizbollah has continued to wage war against Israel by firing rockets onto Israeli towns and killing innocent civilians. One, therefore, understands Israel's frustration at such a situation, especially when the Lebanese government is unable or unwilling to disarm Hizbollah and when it is clear that the recent rocket attacks against Israel were aimed at opening up a new front against the Jewish state at a time when it was engaged in military action in Gaza. I would not be surprised if Iran were behind Hizbollah's latest rocket attacks.

Having said that, I still think that this latest Israeli bombing of Lebanon is both wrong and completely disproportionate, and has the potential to engulf the region into war. It is wrong to punish entire populations, to target the country's infrastructure and to cause the death of innocent civilians, as Israel is doing in Lebanon.

Such action cannot be justified. Some type of response to such rocket attacks would have been acceptable but Israel has certainly gone overboard. It is also fair to say that Hizbollah should be apportioned part of the blame for the Israeli attacks - which it provoked.

I am sure that the Sunni Muslim and Christian communities of Lebanon are not at all pleased with Hizbollah's provocation of Israel - after all, everybody is suffering in Lebanon as a result.

The regional context of Israel's latest military adventure is indeed cause for concern. The Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process' is going absolutely nowhere. Israel has continued to target Hamas in Gaza. Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

Islamic terrorism has increased and Iran is at odds with the international community over its nuclear programme. Furthermore, it is also very unfortunate that the United States has been largely absent from Middle East diplomacy. What is needed is for President George W. Bush to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and Bill Clinton, and actively involve his administration in trying to bring about a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

Of course, the matter is very complicated and, of course, peace and security depend on the countries in the region playing their part in trying to achieve these goals. However, the US is the world's only superpower and the only country to have any clout over Israel, which needs to be supported - but which also needs to be told when it goes overboard.

Israel should not be given the impression that it has a free hand to do as it pleases when it comes to military action against its neighbours. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has more or less adopted this position.

I really fail to see how Israel can gain from its attacks on Lebanon. Similar incursions in the past have got them nowhere. It is true that something has to be done about Hizbollah and more international pressure should be exerted on the Lebanese government to disarm this movement, taking into consideration Hizbollah's position in Lebanese society.

What is needed is a greater effort at Middle East diplomacy by the US and the European Union because this conflict has the potential to spiral out of control. It would then no longer be a limited regional conflict but an international one, with severe political and economic consequences.