A vision stillborn
In Rome yesterday, the US obstructed peace efforts, trading
an immediate end to the war for a "New Middle East" riding on the back
of Israeli military might. This will only stiffen resistance, writes
Omayma
Abdel-Latif
 Click to view
caption |
Demonstrations in support of Lebanon, Hizbullah
and its leader have taken place in many parts of the Arab world.
Yesterday hundreds of Egyptians rallied in Tahrir Square to show
solidarity with the plight of the Lebanese and mark the 50th
anniversary of the nationalisation of the Suez Canal
|
As Israel's assault against Lebanon enters its third week there is no
sign of a ceasefire. The Rome meeting ended on a sour note exposing the
divisions among world powers over the means to end Lebanon's
humanitarian catastrophe which has so far claimed some 420 lives and
injured approximately 2,000 others -- mostly civilians.
It was primarily thanks to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's
insistence that "there will be no going back to the status quo ante,"
that Israel's massacres in Lebanon will continue unabated -- for a few
more days at least. Rather than press for an immediate cessation of
attacks, Rice has instead suggested, cold-bloodedly, that the crimes
against humanity committed by Israel are but the "birth pangs" of a new
Middle East.
Asked what he understood by the New Middle East, the supreme guide of
the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition movement in Egypt, did
not take long to answer. "It is an old ploy made new. It is not about
new alliances being struck but about the same old alliances, between
corrupt and autocratic regimes and the US and Israel, seeking to
terminate all forms of resistance, political or otherwise, to the US's
grand designs in the region," Mohamed Mahdi Akef told Al-Ahram
Weekly.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's secretary-general, underlined his
reading of what Rice's new Middle East actually meant in a televised
speech aired yesterday. "It is," said Nasrallah, "a region where the US
wants to be exclusively in control. It is a Middle East that has no
place for resistance movements, in Palestine or Lebanon, because they
are the main obstacle standing in the way of the historic American
project."
This new Middle East promised by Rice, argued several Arab
commentators, currently being mid-wifed by Israel's ruthless war
machine, aims to neutralise any resistance.
"So it takes the destruction of three Arab countries -- Lebanon,
Palestine and Iraq -- for Rice's new Middle East to be born," wrote
Talal Salman, publisher and editor of the Lebanese daily
As-Safir, on Monday. "This is no more than another attempt by the
US to buy more time for Israel to continue its wanton destruction of
Lebanon and its people."
Rice appears to be spearheading Washington's latest repackage of its
schemes for the region. "It is déjà vu," says Munir Shafik, a
Palestinian commentator. "We have heard this rhetoric before, when they
attacked Afghanistan and then invaded Iraq, and then when they crushed a
democratically elected government in Palestine."
Some analysts suggest that not returning to the status quo ante
implies, among other things, a redrawing of political alliances in the
region as an axis emerges led by what the American administration dubs
"moderate regimes" in the region, a euphemism for Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Jordan, all of which condemned Hizbullah after its capture of two
Israeli soldiers. This will be accompanied by attempts to redraw
Lebanon's domestic political map, leaving Hizbullah weakened and giving
greater influence to pro-American forces in Lebanon -- mainly the 14th
March camp. Regionally, the alliance aims at further isolating Syria and
Iran, regimes deemed by the Bush administration to be undermining US
interests.
"There is a clear American interest in capitalising on Israel's
military campaign to continue its attempt to change the political
landscape of the Middle East," says Shafik.
John Bolton, Washington's envoy to the UN, made the US
administration's position crystal clear when he stated that his country
was using Israel's bombardment of Lebanon to pressure both Syria and
Iran.
Like other leaders of Islamist movements across the Arab world, Akef
believes Rice's new Middle East essentially targets them. "The aim is to
undermine Islamist movements and render them irrelevant in a new
political order," he said.
But Washington's attempts to further its designs on the back of
Israeli aggression are unlikely to find a smooth passage. One fall-out
of Israel's attacks on Lebanon is a striking increase in the popularity
of Hizbullah across the region. Demonstrations in solidarity with the
group and its leader have taken place in many parts of the Arab world,
and that support could easily transform into actions that seek to
destabilise those regimes seen to lend themselves as willing stooges to
the American plot.
The war could easily act to radicalise the region's population and
strengthen the popular base of Islamist movements, and few expect the
idea of resistance to disappear any time soon from the map of the Middle
East. "Many people view these resistance movements as reflecting genuine
popular will, unlike the autocratic regimes, something that the
increased sympathy with Hizbullah across the region reinforces,"
believes Shafik.
Amr Hamzawy, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, could not agree more. "The regimes which the US
will be counting on to launch their new Middle East all lack popularity
or legitimacy in the eyes of their own people." Rice's statements, says
Hamzawy, seem less the product of comprehensive strategic thinking than
a desperate attempt to formulate "an exit strategy".
Shafik is not alone among Arab commentators in concluding that Rice's
birth pangs could well be a harbinger for "the death throes of the US
project in the region".
