War in Lebanon gives birth to new Middle East

RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya

Israeli and American politicians, Syrian President Bashar Assad and many Islamic leaders say the war in Lebanon has changed the balance of power in the Middle East and given a new political image to the region.

The Middle East is changing, but how?

At the beginning of the war between Israel and Hizbollah, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the plight of Lebanon as part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East", free of the influence of extremist movements. She was apparently referring to Lebanon's Hizbollah and Palestinian Hamas.

When the war ended, U.S. President George W. Bush claimed Hizbollah had suffered a defeat in the month-long conflict.

Many Israeli politicians agree with the American leader, although they say more cautiously that Israel has merely changed the situation on its northern border in its favor.

But statements by Hizbollah's leaders show that the movement has not accepted defeat. Moreover, it is claiming a bigger social and political role in Lebanon, and insists that other political forces in the country must respect it.

Lebanese Defense Minister Ilyas al-Murr said the Lebanese military would go to southern Lebanon "not to disarm Hizbollah, but to defend the country and strengthen the victory of the Lebanese resistance." He added: "The Lebanese army must ensure the safety of the people, including resistance members."

The Arab media are writing about Hizbollah's victory over Israel, something no Arab state has attained before. The resistance movement has significantly strengthened its position in the Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole, which cannot leave anyone indifferent, especially Arab leaders.

Syrian President Bashar Assad said: "The substantial achievements of the Islamic resistance represented by Hizbollah have changed the region's outlook. The U.S.'s intention to create a 'new Middle East' in line with its blueprint has failed."

This is true because Hizbollah has shown that it can stand up not only to Israel, but also to the United States.

"Hizbollah cannot be viewed as a purely terrorist organization now, because it has won the support of the majority of the Lebanese people and authorities," said Vladimir Akhmedov, a senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. "Thousand-strong demonstrations in the East and West display Hizbollah banners and portraits of Hassan Nasrallah. If we keep saying that Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, we will have to admit that terrorists have won the war. Why then did we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and why did we initiate action against Iran? To fight terrorists who turn out to be ordinary people?"

Akhmedov said that Hizbollah had proved to be a viable organization militarily, politically and in terms of information. To progress now, it should stop fighting Israel in order to strengthen its influence in Lebanon.

"Its priority objective now is to provide material assistance to war victims and to help the authorities deal with the consequences of the war," he said. "This is a way of expanding its influence in the country and strengthening its foothold in state institutions, including the army. Nasrallah said on August 14 that Hizbollah's heavy weaponry and militants should form the basis of a stronger Lebanese state, which leaves no doubt regarding the organization's strategic plans."

Many Islamic political movements in other Mideast countries have similar objectives. Their popularity rests on the idea of social justice, which the mostly poor Arab people readily embrace. This is why these organizations are formidable rivals to many regimes in the region, and the war in Lebanon has strengthened their standing.

It is logical that the bulk of Arab governments showed restraint towards Israel during the war in Lebanon. Unlike during the Palestinian intifada in 2000-2002, Egypt and Jordan did not sever diplomatic ties with it, and Qatar did not close the Israeli representative office in its capital, Doha.

During the war, the Israeli newspaper "Yedioth Ahronoth", citing a source in the Defense Ministry, wrote: "Moderate Arab regimes are [quietly] expressing support for Israel's actions," which means that "Arab countries would be glad if Israel did away with Hizbollah."

But Israel has not lived up to these "quiet" expectations.

These trends show that the Middle East is changing. Nobody in the region, including members of the most radical Islamic movements - especially when they get seats in government - can seriously hope that Israel will disappear from the political map. Therefore, the sides should find acceptable conditions for a peaceful coexistence.

This is where opinions on ways of attaining this goal split. Some Arab regimes have opted for dialogue and pragmatic cooperation with Israel. Others, mostly those that represent the unofficial "resistance project", prefer fighting, when and if necessary.

The war in Lebanon has shown again that it is not Arabs who should recognize Israel, but Israel, the West and Arab regimes who should accept the fact that radical Islamic movements such as Hizbollah and Hamas are an inalienable part of Middle Eastern politics. Ignoring them is useless, which means that we have a choice between trying to liquidate them (which has proved impossible) and coming to terms with them.

But different views of the new landscape of the Middle East make the second objective extremely difficult to achieve. Link