Spectre of regional war looms in Middle East

VOLATILE MIDDLE EAST: The world is suddenly confronted with the spectre of a regional war in the Middle East. Another “Arab-Israeli conflict” in the real sense of that phrase.

As could be seen, Israeli military action in Lebanon is having wider regional geo-political and military implications with even Syria threatening a “harsh and direct” response to Israel if it is attacked by the latter, which is engaged in air strikes against Hizbollah targets in Lebanon.

In contrast to the Arab-Israeli military confrontations in the latter half of the last century, however, this time round, the possibility of Iran being dragged into the conflict too is great on account of Iran’s supposed support for the Hizbollah organisation which has fired rockets very devastatingly deep into Israel.

If Tel Aviv is to be perceptive, it would see the current round of hostilities as springing from the unresolved territorial disputes which came to define the Middle East conflict from the inception, and not as a “terror” problem.

For instance, it’s the occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel, which is also claimed by Syria, which draws the latter into the conflict and compels it to sustain a presence of sorts in Lebanon. If there is militant opposition to the state of Israel, it is largely because the territorial disputes at the heart of the conflict have gone unresolved to date.

Not surprisingly, hopes of forging ahead on the path of negotiations were high when Israel pulled completely out of the Gaza strip at the middle of last year. However, such hopes seem to have evaporated with the coming to power of the Ehud Olmert administration in Israel and the Hamas government in the Palestinian Authority areas.

Hardline positioning on both sides of the Middle East divide seems to be steadily undermining peace prospects and changing the opinion climate in the region from one of relative accommodation to outright hostility.

So much so, one is compelled to think in terms of a “regional war”, with Iran too figuring in it.

However, there are some lessons here for conflict resolution, particularly when such conflicts revolve around nations and statehood claims. That is, when two or more nations are in conflict over rival territorial claims, it is best that political arrangements are made for the peaceful co-existence of such nations on the basis of equitably shared territory.

In the Middle East, for instance, it is the “two-state” formula, which recognizes the right of Palestine to peacefully co-exist beside Israel, which would lay the basis for a resolution of the conflict.

A policy of annihilating each other by the antagonists would only pave the way for a devastating regional war, which may draw in even extra-regional powers.

Such a development would have ominous consequences for world peace.

However, unlike in the early decades after the establishment of the state of Israel, we have a more multipolar rather than a bipolar world, which makes for a more unstable global order.

Compounding the problem further is the emergence to unchallenged power of the US - led NATO alliance and the relative weakening of the UN system.

These developments tend to sharpen antagonisms in the Middle East. For instance, the US has spoken out on the right of Israel to “self-defence” in the current crisis which may encourage Israel to persist in its policy of armed confrontation with the Arab states.

Hopefully, there would be profounder reflection on these questions by the world community. It needs to make a concerted effort to strengthen multilateral, negotiating bodies such as the UN.