Saliba Sarsar * - Jordan Times, 17 August 2006
West Long Branch - "War”, the Prussian military theorist Karl Von Clausewitz insisted some 170 years ago, is “a mere continuation of policy by other means.” What we witness in the Israel-Hezbollah war is not only a confirmation, but also a flagrant denial of basic human rights irrespective of who is right and who is wrong.
While the right to self-defence and the right to freedom from occupation provide some justification for war and national resistance, the war has surpassed those two rights by crossing numerous redlines. Each side, along with its respective allies, is punishing the other and scoring military “victories” and political advantages regardless of the human and social tolls. Each side has gone beyond fighting terrorism or occupation to killing innocents, whereby the ultimate result, as Mahatma Gandhi once stated, is “an eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind.”
Historically, Arab and Israeli leaders have led their respective citizens to distrust and fear each other. Through claims and counterclaims and through endless delays, they have postponed serious consideration of differences between them. Even when agreements were signed at the highest levels, as in the 1978 Camp David or 1993 Oslo accords, the people on the street remained unconvinced. It is no surprise that fanaticism and aggression have usually followed, invariably resulting in casualties, disempowerment, imprisonment, dispossession and hopelessness.
On the Israeli side, the overwhelming emphasis on security and reliance on extreme force has generated the need for territorial expansion in order to guarantee “survival in a hostile region”. On the Arab side, the excessive need to undo history by defeating Israel and recapturing dominance in Palestine has blinded Arabs for generations and brought forth radical social movements.
In this charged environment, adversaries are given monolithic persona and turned into worse enemies to be neutralised. Combatants and non-combatants are lumped together and subjected to collective punishment regardless of the difference between them. Even when precautions are taken, collateral damage results, and it is explained away as a regrettable or tragic mistake.
Unlike previous Arab-Israeli wars, the Israel-Hezbollah war is the result of a grave mistake committed by national leaders over a quarter century, which enabled Hezbollah to grow with support from Iran and Syria and with acquiescence from successive weak Lebanese governments, along with an aversion against a 22-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Within the context of the war on terrorism, it is a proxy war undertaken by Israel on behalf of the United States to block Iranian and Syrian designs on Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East.
Like previous Arab-Israeli wars, however, the Israel-Hezbollah war is a failure of diplomacy, as well as an outgrowth or residue of the question of Palestine. Unless this central issue is resolved, its effects will continue to haunt regional and international relations, particularly as extremists and others use it to advance their exclusionary aims and interests.
What is evident is that while one’s security is essential for survival, security alone will not guarantee peace. Security must be balanced with the other`s security and can only be assured through stability, justice and peace. These materialise when adversaries respect each other’s humanity, when they promote a culture of moderation, tolerance and trust.
The way forward in Arab-Israeli relations is not to commit lesser evils or to continually fight wars. It is to win an enduring just peace.
Five steps based essentially on principles promoted by the American Task Force on Palestine present themselves.
A first step is for Israeli and Arab leaders to prepare their societies for peace. This includes educating for peace, and making unacceptable and condemning categorically and unequivocally all violence directed against civilians no matter who the perpetrators or victims may be.
A second step is to achieve a historic compromise anchored in a two-state solution by establishing a democratic, pluralistic and non-militarised state of Palestine living in peace and security alongside Israel in the territories occupied in June 1967 in accordance with international law and United Nations resolutions.
A third step is to have Jerusalem open to all faiths, serving as the capital of Israel and Palestine and fulfilling the political aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
A fourth step is for Israel and the Arab states to accept each other and to create diplomatic, economic, financial, educational and cultural relations and partnerships.
A fifth step is for oil states, Western industrialised countries and others to offer a “Marshall Plan” style package of aid and investment for Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and the new Middle East.
The newly adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is crucial for terminating the Israel-Hezbollah war. What would be equally, if not more, crucial is for the United Nations to adopt a new resolution that addresses the key question of Palestine once and for all. What would be critical is for the United States to become actively engaged in advocating for a durable and just peace. The aforementioned five steps contain a basic outline.
###
* The writer is professor of political science at Monmouth University and on the Board of Directors of the American Task Force on Palestine. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)
