Forcing a bad ceasefire in the Middle East could kill more people than the fighting it's intended to stop

Barry Rubin
Citizen Special


Thursday, August 10, 2006


Terrorists took Lebanon hostage and started shooting at the neighbours, Israel. The neighbours shot back. Apparently the international community is only upset about the third point. Rather than helping end the fighting and freeing the Lebanese, many countries are proposing ceasefire terms that would ensure the kidnappers stay in charge.

Asks Mohsen Rezai, Iranian Expediency Council secretary and former Revolutionary Guard commander: "Disarm Hezbollah? Who would dare? Who has the power to disarm Hezbollah? Today Lebanon is in the hands of Hezbollah."

There will soon be a ceasefire to the fighting. The question is: what kind of ceasefire? Will it leave Hezbollah in control, able to launch more fighting whenever it chooses? Perhaps even more important, will it make radical Islamists believe that willingness to sacrifice themselves and commit violence without limits will bring victory?

Is it going to seem to show that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas are the wave of the future, increasing both revolutionary activity against moderate states and terrorism against the West?

In short, will a bad ceasefire kill far more people in the end than the fighting it was formulated to stop?

Here are some of the key issues that must be resolved in formulating a ceasefire:

- UN Security Council resolutions have mandated that all militias in Lebanon must be disarmed. Will the ceasefire include provisions to disarm Hezbollah? Hezbollah will fight against being disarmed and the West does not want to fight Hezbollah. So Hezbollah will probably continue to be given an exemption, allowed to keep a huge arsenal which it can fire against Israel any time it wants, knowing the West and international community will never punish it for such behaviour.

- Where do Hezbollah's weapons, including the kind of missile designed by Iran to carry nuclear warheads, come from? From Iran and Syria. Will a ceasefire try to stop this shipment of arms? Will anyone say anything critical of Iran and Syria? Probably not. So Tehran and Damascus will have a free hand in sponsoring terrorist groups (as they already do with Hamas) and their prestige among the Arab masses will rise.

- Will a ceasefire set up a serious force to prevent terrorists from attacking Israel through south Lebanon? Here, too, there is a problem. A real patrol force will have to be ready to fire at Hezbollah terrorists trying to cross the border or fire rockets. They will fire back.

Is the West ready to send soldiers who might be attacked or kidnapped? Is it willing to act forcibly against terrorists who might threaten to launch attacks against those countries? Probably not. So such a force will merely count passing terrorists and presumably protest if Israel shoots at them, calling it a violation of the ceasefire.

- Are the ceasefire negotiations going to admit Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria as equal partners in an agreement? It might be hard to get an agreement otherwise. Yet such a step would be a disaster. Hezbollah would be legitimated despite its neo-Nazi anti-Semitism, bloody record (its security chief was directly responsible for killing more than 300 American and French soldiers in the early 1980s) and anti-Western ravings. Moreover, it would be promoted to an equal status with the Lebanese government, ensuring that no Lebanese politician would ever be able to do anything Hezbollah didn't like. As for Syria and Iran, it would make these two countries supervisors over Lebanon, a country they only want to use as a battlefield.

- Will the international community demand Israeli concessions without giving Israel much or anything in return? The two obvious ones would be to get Israel to give Lebanon a piece of Syria (the Shaba Farms) which has always been part of Syria and never even claimed by Lebanon. But Hezbollah claims it, thus giving Hezbollah a victory. The same applies to getting Israel to hand over convicted terrorists who staged attacks within Israel and just happen to hold Lebanese citizenship, in order to get back its own kidnapped soldiers. Another victory for Hezbollah.

- Yet if a ceasefire helps make the confrontation look like a Hezbollah victory, it will end up killing far more innocent civilians than have died on both sides in the recent battles. Thousands of Muslims will flock to radical terrorist groups inspired by the apparent success of those who claim that a willingness to be martyred brings triumphs. Equally, radical and terrorist groups will turn to Iran and Syria as sponsors that prove they deliver the goods. Ironically, these forces are doing everything they can already to attack Israel. The losses are likely to be suffered by Arab states and the West as revolutionary terrorists multiply and become bolder.

- Equally, a ceasefire that rewards Hezbollah would also further convince Iran that no one is serious about stopping it from getting nuclear weapons. And if Tehran can cause this much trouble and have so much influence without atomic bombs, what is going to happen when the extremist regime there (which openly calls for genocide against Israel) has these weapons?

What would a good ceasefire look like? What any ceasefire should be: an agreement that will ensure that this and other wars don't break out again. It would involve strong support and pressure for Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and control its own southern portion, including supervision of southern Lebanon so that nobody fires across the border in either direction.

It would also mean pressure on Tehran and Damascus to stop being such huge sponsors of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the more likely result is a ceasefire that is worse than the war because it sets the stage for more, and worse, wars to come.

That is not doing anyone, especially the Lebanese people, any favours.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary university, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

---

Authors and respective publishers are responsible for the content of this article