Where Does the US Notion Of “Greater Middle East” Stand Now? By Ali Al-Hail

Where Does the US Notion Of “Greater Middle East” Stand Now?

By Ali Al-Hail

Al-Jazeerah, August 20, 2006

The 1701 US green lighted, ‘UN Security Council-branded’ ceasefire resolution between Hezbollah and Israel, shouldn’t be dealt with in isolation of major events leading up to it. It has to be made clear at the outset that, despite its inequity in favour to Israel had the 1701 resolution not been given the ‘go ahead’ by the Bush Administration, it would’ve not passed through.

However, the resolution, apart from secondary articles underpins two main points: the deployment of the Lebanese army in tandem with an Israeli withdrawal from the contiguous villages into Israeli lands (Historical Palestine occupied in 1948). But, the latest scandal of a Lebanese army officer, Adnan Dawoud shown on two Lebanese TV channels recorded from an Israeli TV film, hosting Israeli soldiers at his Marj’oyoon camp office and treating them with coffee and biscuits had thrown suspicions on the future possible ‘patriotic’ role of the Lebanese Army deployment on the borders.

Though Hizbullah perceived the film as an attempt by Israel to create a division between Hizbullah and the Army, the film had been since August 16th reactivating. Hizbullah said on Wednesday August 16th that, his fighters had prepared an ambush to the Israeli soldiers. Being inside the Lebanese army camp with taking the virtually, 350 Lebanese soldiers as human shields, Hizbullah changed his plan to ambush them, fearing to hurt his Lebanese fellows.

In the view of the latter, on Wednesday, August 16th , the Lebanese Interior Minister put Officer Dawoud in prison and had promised an urgent inquiry into the matter. While Hizbullah welcomed the Lebanese deployment, they hadn’t hide their skepticisms about its ability to counter-attack an Israeli future incursion. Especially, after Euhd Olmert, the Israeli PM vowed to chase Hizbullah’s leaders “wherever they will be”.

As for increasing the already existing UNIFIL Peacekeeping Force up to 15,000 strongman, the mandate is not yet clear. Although France could fill in the gap temporarily, for some time, it had called for having a clear-cut mandate. To some extent, one could claim that, the US and Israel on this article in particular, has lost ground as the resolution had echoed Lebanese and Arabs’ concern about not employing a Nato force.

Since UNIFIL came into existence in Southern Lebanon in 1982, it has been too weak to defend itself, much less defending the oppressed. Or else, at least preventing the oppressor to assault. As mentioned during Qana 1 massacre of April 18th, 1996 Israel bombed the civilians, knowing for sure they were sheltering inside an UNIFIL compound with the UN flag at the top of it, as the UN independent investigation headed by Major General Franklin Van Kappen, from the Netherlands, had noted in May 1996. During this war between Israel and Hezbollah’s fighters, Israel once more bombarded an UNIFIL Compound in Southern Lebanon, killing this time 4 UN Peacekeeping soldiers. Many argue that, this hostility background between the UNIFIL and Israel over the past 2 and a half decades, would be reviewed with concerns by countries wanting to be part of the peacekeeping force. This backlash in particular, which prompted the French requesting from the UN a clear-cut and strong teethed mandate. Observes familiar with the conflict in Southern Lebanon suggest that, the antagonism between Israel and the UNIFIL would continue until the UN has agreed to deploy a Nato ‘Peacekeeping Force’, taking Israel’s side.

However, the French are not the preference of the main powers in the region. Hizbullah, Syria, Iran and the Lebanese government to an extent, believe that, France authored and adopted with the US, the original draft resolution 1701 before it was amended which was utterly, against Lebanon and the Arab consensus. As for Hizbullah, Syria Iran along with majority of Arab and Muslim street, the consistent French call for disarming Hizbullah plays in Israeli and American hands.

Consequently, Hizbullah’s tactics in this war, have proudly, been evaluated by many Arabs and Muslims as a military advance in theory and practice, which are quite seldom in the history of Arab –Israeli conflict (20,000 telephone calls counted on Arab TVs; Al Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Al-manar, New TV Beirut based, Abu Dhabi and Dubai since August 10th, from Arab and Muslim audiences hailing and glorifying Hizbullah for its victory). Additionally, according to media reports, what a guerrilla has done versus the most military might in the entire Middle East and one of the most powerful Army in the whole World, had captured the attentions of many military specialists in the World, including those in the US and Israel itself.

Having clarified all of that, nearly 10 days prior to the 1701 Ceasefire resolution, there was a resolution before the UN Security Council to ‘blame’ Israel for bombing a multi storey building, massacring more than 60 civilians, among whom were 28 children. This massacre which became to be known as Qana 2 massacre, (as a reference to 1996 Qana 1 massacre) of July 31st during the 34 day war between Israel and Hizbullah, had shocked the entire World, including the UN Secretary General, who urged the Security Council to denounce Israel’s barbaric and holocaust styled carnage.

As a result of global criticism and public demonstrations as the massacre was watched on TV World-wide with pictures of children picked up from underneath the rubble, Israel and the US were once more, being put on the defense. While the resolution condemned Israel for killing innocent civilians, it has nevertheless, fallen short of placing the blame on Israel, as the US vetoed the resolution in favour to Israel, as was predicted. In the same way, the US prevented a UN Security Council resolution in the aftermath of Qana 1 massacre on April 18th, 1996, despite World-wide condemnation and protest. More than 120 Lebanese civilians, half of them were children massacred by Israeli F16 bombers, while seeking refuge inside a UN peacekeeping force compound. More than 100 were either injured or maimed for life (Martin Asser, BBC Online, July 31st ).

Although the US, through its open and unconditioned support to Israel, despite Israel’s blatant wrong doings and numerous holocausts made the US’ credibility, trustworthiness and reliability face ethical and moral crisis right across the globe, the US doesn’t seem to care less. Not even in a form of revising its relationships with Israel. One may presume, as do many the holocaust culture of Nazi Europe in the 1930’s is the prime factor behind the US and Western stance that, is marketed by the Israeli lobbies in the US, in the UN Security Council and in the West as a Whole with varying degrees.

since as early as 1967 the US has never approved of a UN Security Council resolution that, wasn’t serving Israel. One could possibly assume, as do many had the UN Security Council been free of US domination, Israel should’ve applied by now all UN Security Council resolutions 442, 338, 194 and more others regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, emanated 40 years ago. This resolution accordingly, is not an exemption and therefore, feeds into this precedence. As to why didn’t the US stop it; the 1701 resolution has widely, been perceived by many, as a desperate attempt to rescue Israel’s military reputation in Southern Lebanon which had, according to media reliable sources been jeopardized by Hizbullah’s fighters. These media sources highlighted in particular, Hizbullah’s military surprises of utilizing anti-tank missiles which have provided a significant number of Israeli Armour most notably, the Merkava tanks that, had been destroyed and many more were hit. (see for example, BBC Sunday AM, BBC Online, July 16, 2006; BBC online August 15, 2006; AP report August 5, 2006; Jane’s Defense Weekly and Al-hail, August 13, 2006, www.zaman.com).

The capability of Hizbullah to confront Israel’s most powerful US funded army in the entire region, for 34 days and more considerably, to fire more missiles on Israel and to inflict huge losses on Israeli soldiers and Merkava tanks until hours before the ceasefire has come into effect, had been joyfully, viewed, by the Arab and Muslim street along with Hizbullah’s strategic allies, Syria and Iran, as an enormous blow to the Bush Administration’s notion of the ‘new’ and later developed into the ‘greater’ Middle East. Furthermore, Syria and Iran a day due to the ceasefire, had proceeded Sheikh Hassan Nassrullah, Hezbollah’s leader, in declaring victory over both Israel and U.S. and defeat to U.S. devised agenda to regeographize the region.

Thus, many Arabs and Muslims, including the two governments of Syria and Iran saw in the war as an American attempt to eradicate forces opposed to its Middle East plans. It was obvious that, the war and the heavy scaled bombing campaign by Israel on Lebanese civilians, civil infrastructures and installations, were not triggered by Hizbullah’s capture of the two Israeli soldiers on July 12th. According to the international law upon which Hizbullah made its move, as long as they are in a state of war and they have a land that is occupied by Israel, they possess the right to resist. The capture of Israeli soldiers is included especially, Hizbullah has done it before. in 2004 Israel agreed to exchange its kidnapped soldiers with Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, without going into an all out war with Hizbullah. This time Israel could’ve done the same, had not the war, as many presume triggered by factors which were far beyond the capture of the two soldiers.

ironically in the U.S. and Israel alike, the war between Israel and Hizbullah from day one, has been perceived as an American war carried out with American made and supplied weapons, and fought by Israel army. Symour Hersh, a US investigative journalist from the New Yorker Magazine, quoted an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson in reference to the war to have said that, “we didn’t plan the campaign- the decision was forced upon us”. According to Hersh, the US coordinated with Israel about the war on Hizbullah long before it had begun on July 12th . As such, the capture of the two Israeli soldiers was sheer pretext. This theory reinforces what the leader of Hizbullah has said in an interview with Al Jazeera Qatar-based TV on July 20th.

Although the Bush Administration has frequently, denied any knowledge of the Israeli bombing campaign against civilians, civil installations and infrastructures, reports from Washington, including that of Hersh’s suggest that, the Bush Administration had probably, proposed that, Israel should “mirror image” what the Administration has been planning to take on in Iran. Hence, massacring civilians and targeting civil infrastructures and installations in the drastic way carried out on a daily basis by Israel in Lebanon had fundamentally, aimed at turning the government and the people in Lebanon against Hezbollah. The US calculated that, since this intimidation had worked out in Iraq which resulted in toppling Saddam’s regime would’ve similarly, worked out in Lebanon. However, the Bush Administration was certainly, miscalculated. Hezbollah is different from Saddam’s regime. Hezbollah has only, fought Israel. In many Arabs and Muslims’ views, Hezbollah confronted Israel since 1982 until it had Israel withdrawn from the South of Lebanon. Inside Lebanon in the meanwhile, Hezbollah does enjoy genuine popularity for its reasonable rhetoric and credibility as a political, social and as a military well organized party.

By turning Lebanon against Hezbollah, in the same way it has turned key Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan among others, the US wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah’s missile firing capability in case it had decided to bomb Iran’s nuclear reactors. Since Hezbollah is an ally to Iran, the US was fearing retaliation from Hezbollah, if the US bombed the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Undoubtedly, the Hezbollah’s decisive victory or at the least its 34 confrontation and counter-attack with the most powerful army in the entire region, partnered with the apparently, single super power on earth, has emboldened its two strategic allies, Syria and Iran to surge up their rhetoric and political confrontation with the US. Hezbollah’s declared victory could also, be seen as the motivating force behind Iran’s agreeing to negotiate its nuclear program with the European Union (EU). Iran has seemingly observed that, the Hezbollah’s tough lessons taught to Israel’s military, its capability to launch more than 4000 missiles on Israel, and the reported huge number of Israeli soldiers and offices killed and wounded, had obviously, strengthened Iran’s position on the nuclear program. Likewise, Syria exploited the Hezbollah’s apparent victory to declare the burial of the US-Israeli joint venture for a “greater Middle East”. More significantly, Hezbollah's perceived victory by Arab governments, despite disagreement or otherwise, had reinforced on one hand and increased power struggle within the Arab World on the other. A question arises here; Can this Hezbollah's victory phase, be assessed as an end of an era and a beginning of another? This still remains to be seen. In conclusion nevertheless, one could say that, attempts to disarming Hezbollah would haven’t halted. Some parties in Lebanon and certain regimes in the Arab World want to see Hezbollah disarmed. Simply, because they are shortsighted. On the other hand regimes such as, those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Libya explicitly, called for disarming Hezbollah despite their people and almost entirely, all Arabs and Muslims. The aim is in their narrow thinking, prolonging their reigns. But they are certainly, mistaken. Because the US and Israel only, bow to the fittest. Hezbollah, for 34 days had proved this character in international criteria.

Disarming Hezbollah after all what he has achieved, seems unrealistic, and many Arabs and Muslims consider it even as a National crime. The resistance, the confrontation, the skillful style of tactics and surprise and the colossal toll, Hezbollah’s fighters on the ground along with firing approximately, 4000 missiles on Israel has imposed upon the “undefeatable Army”, had evidently, put Arab regimes on the notice, according to the BBC (August 13th). Many argue that, within the Lebanese dialogue Hezbollah as a military power will be too costly, to disarm. Therefore, it may well be agreed to become a part of the Lebanese Army.

Professor, Dr. Ali Al-Hail, Professor of Mass Communication, Twice Fulbright Award Winner, Fulbright Visiting Scholar, and Board Member of AUSACE ASC, IABD, NEBAA, BEA, IMDA and EAJMC American Associations. Can be contacted via: pdaah90@hotmail.com

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

Apartheid Wall


The Israeli Land-Grab Apartheid Wall built inside the Palestinian territories, here separating Abu Dis from occupied East Jerusalem. (IPC, 7/4/04).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info