More wars or appeasement in the Middle East?

As the dust settles following the Lebanon cease fire, Israel is less secure than before the war whatever the fig leaf of positive spin international diplomats put on events.

Current indications are that Israel’s northern borders may not be secured without another bigger war, unless Israelis suddenly have a change of heart and decide to appease their enemies.

It is increasingly clear that the edifice of peace is being built on a quicksand of hope rather than firmer foundations of tangible and constructive post-war events. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan’s visit to Lebanon was a reminder of how dangerous those shifting sands are.

Under UNIFIL’s rules of engagement clarified during the last two days nobody – neither the Europeans nor the Lebanese army – would shoot to kill Hizballah members transporting weapons in south Lebanon. European soldiers in particular will do nothing to stop arms deliveries to Hizballah beyond asking the Lebanese government to take action despite its obvious impotence.

After great soul searching, the Europeans have offered about 7,000 troops towards the UNIFIL force, which is less than half the required strength of 15,000. The motives of that offer have less to do with building a better Middle East and more with avoiding embarrassment and international contempt for Europe.

A key motive was to avoid being branded yet again as a group of confused and hypocritical governments reluctant to stick their necks out for peace, especially if that costs European blood and treasure.

Israel is less secure since it will come under increasing pressure not to defend itself through war because of the presence of international troops in Lebanon. Given the circumstances, there are only two courses of action to move towards peace starting from the fragile road map laid down in UN resolution 1701.

One is that the Lebanese government should somehow neutralize and disarm Hizballah through a domestic process of political negotiations. The other is that Israel should voluntarily desist from raids into Lebanon even if it sees arms being shipped to Hizballah through Syria. It would also lift the naval blockade of Lebanon, thus running the risk of possible arms shipments to Hizballah from the sea. No warship linked to UNIFIL is expected to shoot to stop those shipments.

That puts Israel in a bind because the Lebanese government is obviously too weak to confront Hizballah in any way. In effect, Hizballah alone will decide whether to lay down arms and fully enter Lebanese politics as a pacific entity or to keep one foot in each camp, as currently. It alone will decide whether it remains the chief social service organization rebuilding south Lebanon and south Beirut, or whether it allows Lebanon’s government to be visible to the public as a key actor.

Meanwhile, the Europeans have drawn a blanket of wishful thinking and hope over their involvement. Their main message is that Israel should prefer negotiations to war as the route to building security and peace for its people. As an ideal, that route is laudable. But with whom is Israel to negotiate?

Is it expected to sign peace deals and compromises with a Lebanese government that has no punitive power over any of the major sects, including Shiites, Maronites, Sunni and Druze? Such deals would not be worth the paper on which they are written. Worse still, Transparency International ranks Lebanon alongside Rwanda for corruption and poor governance.

Even if valid interlocutors could be found for Israel, would they make the necessary compromises if they knew beforehand that Israel will not start a major war because of the risk of killing European troops?

Israel is between a rock and a hard place. Expecting the Lebanese government to reign in Hizballah is unrealistic. Therefore, it must retain full freedom to conduct raids and conduct naval blockades to stop arms from flowing to Hizballah.

On the other hand, it cannot respond with overwhelming force to new provocations by Hizballah or other more shadowy splinter groups of terrorist because of the presence of many thousand Europeans in Lebanon.

In the end, the only possibility open to Israel may be to tell UNIFIL to get out of the way while it launches a war bigger than the last one to change Lebanon’s political makeup once and for all. This may not happen soon as all sides lick their wounds and rearm for another day. But one thing is clear – the current no-war no-peace situation is unsustainable.

The available choices are a bigger war or wars of attrition for decades to come; or a sudden change of heart in Israel to make peace at the cost of major territorial and other concessions.