RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov,
MOSCOW: Even an optimist would not say that the Mideast war is over. It would be more correct to say that it started long ago and will go on for a long time, with minor outward changes.
Israel and the Arabs are not ready for peace, according to the latest statements by Hizbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who said that the disarmament of Hizbollah was out of the question, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said that the hunt for Hizbollah leaders would continue to a victorious end.
So what we see in the Middle East is a temporary lull.
The UN did not contribute much to this, although all the permanent members of the Security Council, after being sharply criticized, exaggerated their achievements. After all, soldiers in any war need time out for sleeping, eating, tending to wounds, replenishing munitions, and considering plans for further action.
Israel and Hizbollah are tired, and their wounds are bleeding, and so the UN's call came at a good time. However, it will not last long.
A lasting peace cannot be established in such circumstances, but a truce is possible under certain conditions, which have been outlined by many commentators and political analysts. Here are the main requirements:
A truce is possible if the peacekeeping force, which should create a buffer between the adversaries, is capable of disengaging them, has a UN mandate, and has the will and the desire to act on its mandate. Other conditions are the disarmament of Hizbollah (which is improbable), Lebanon's real independence from Iran and Syria (also improbable), and Israeli patience and tolerance.
So even the viability of a truce, let alone a lasting peace, is questionable.
A lull in the fighting should be used to sum up the results so far and draw conclusions.
The first conclusion is that all sides lost in the last phase of the conflict.
Israel has lost because it has not achieved its objective of neutralizing Hizbollah. In a way, this is the price it is paying for the conceited belief that its weapons would continue to ensure stunning and guaranteed victories. But this time Israeli diplomats, the army and security services have not lived up to the public's expectations. Israel did not prove ready for a modern guerrilla war. It started the war in Lebanon with old precepts, without adequate weapons, and without adequate knowledge of the adversary. It appears that Israeli intelligence had only a vague notion of Hizbollah's arsenal, tactics and bases.
The conclusion is that if it wants to survive, Israel should use the lull to correct its mistakes. Unless it critically analyzes recent events, which should come as a cold shower to its leaders, it is doomed. A lasting peace is better than a war, and so Israeli diplomats must redouble their efforts. However, the probability of attaining peace is very small. Instead, Israel may be shelled with more modern missiles with a bigger yield, higher precision and longer range.
I would not be surprised if Israel, learning the bitter lessons of the war in Lebanon, looks at the market of Russian-made weapons, where it can find the effective air defense missile systems it badly needs.
For example, the shoulder-fired Igla-S (where S stands for Super) is better than the U.S.-made Stingers because it can down projectiles fired from the Grad (Hail) multiple-launch rocket system, which is doing the bulk of damage to Israel now. The Tor-M1 can down Grad projectiles and tactical and ballistic missiles (the U.S. Patriot-3 used by the Israeli army cannot do this). Hizbollah is firing missiles with a range of up to 70 km at Israel now, and may use longer-range missiles in future.
I am sure that Washington will not be happy if Israel buys weapons from Russia, but this is a task for Israeli diplomats. If Israel really wants to protect its people from hail, it knows where to buy the umbrella.
The government of Lebanon has lost because it proved completely helpless. If it did not want the war, why didn't the Lebanese army fire a single shot? If the government wanted peace, why didn't it act when Hizbollah was stockpiling weapons for a future war and provoked the death of non-combatants by shooting at Israelis from behind a live shield of women and children?
The answer is simple: the Lebanese government did not act because it could not do anything. The conclusion is that it lacks the will and is powerless to control the situation, which does not encourage hopes for a long lull. The Lebanese government, which includes Hizbollah members, cannot resist Nasrallah, let alone disarm his militants.
Many people think that Hizbollah has won the recent clashes. I don't think so, although there are many arguments in favor of this supposition. The main one is Arab jubilation and the increased authority of Hizbollah's leader. Nasrallah has become a second Che Guevara for the market, which sells his portraits, as well as T-shirts and trinkets with his image.
The “shining face” of Nasrallah is selling equally well in Russia and the West. Those who wear his likeness in any form have learned nothing from the terrorist attacks in the United States, Madrid and London, and at the Beslan school, in the southern Russian republic of North Ossetia. Some people may argue that this is political infantilism. I would reply that political infantilism can be deadly. Any man-made disaster is precipitated by a word and a symbol. In short, a Nasrallah trinket is not as harmless as it may seem at first glance.
Nasrallah is only a market copy of Che Guevara, who would never have kidnapped two American soldiers from the Guantanamo base, knowing that this provocation would result in the deaths of thousands of Cubans and the destruction of half of “Liberty Island”. Che was a revolutionary, but he valued human life, whereas Nasrallah and his supporters have no regard for it.
One of his ardent fans told EuroNews: “Losses do not matter. The main thing is that we have won. Long live Nasrallah!”
If this is the voice of the Lebanese people, the country is in for more and bigger trouble. But I hope that the voice of reason will be heard when passions subside, turning Hizbollah's illusory victory into defeat. Hizbollah militants are very well organized and have modern skills in guerrilla warfare, but they have no regard for the Lebanese people. When the day comes to rebuild the country and consider the damage done by the war, reasonable men will weigh the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers against the resulting destruction, and their conclusion will not be in Hizbollah's favor.
Hizbollah may keep its place in the political system of Lebanon only in a complete international vacuum, with an impotent Lebanese government and weak political forces. If a reasonable political force appears, or even a leader who will strive for genuine sovereignty for Lebanon, the majority of current supporters of Hizbollah will desert the organization, and Iran's money will not help. So Hizbollah will also be a loser in the long run.
The seed of Hizbollah's future defeat is being sown while Nasrallah celebrates his victory over Israel on the graves of his compatriots. It may not bear fruit for some time, depending on the common sense of the Lebanese, but Nasrallah has already lost, because he cannot win.
Another loser is the UN, because its Security Council has again produced a resolution that raises questions without providing answers. It does not say who will restore order in the region and when.
The UN will remain ineffective as long as it does nothing but try to placate aggressors. It should act in accordance with its Charter, which has a provision on peacekeeping. Until the blue helmets from Fiji act as guarantors of peace, and until the UN Security Council sees that it must use force sometimes, peace in the Middle East and any other part of the world will remain a crystal vase. The UN is acting like another Red Cross, which humankind does not need. What it needs is an effective UN.
The United States has also lost, because its image as the leader of Western civilization has been shattered. This conclusion is obvious, but the White House refuses to acknowledge it. Unless the U.S. wants to become a rogue nation, it should get off its high horse and listen to the opinions of other members of the international community.
Europe has lost because it has been split by the unbearable burden of its problems. Part of it is following France, and the other part the United States. The conclusion here is that the rapid and hasty enlargement of the European Union is damaging European unity. Building a skyscraper on a shaky foundation is dangerous.
There are other losers, but not a single winner.
