US Resorting to Heartless Tactics in the Middle East

Washington is sending hesitant signals to the Middle East, saying intervention at this time wouldn't be helpful. This is a callous delay tactic, which condones further casualties, says Peter Philipp

After a week of massive airstrikes by the Israeli air force on Lebanon, Washington has said it will deploy US marines to the region. Not, like in 1957 and 1982, to restore peace and order in Lebanon, but rather to evacuate US citizens.

Peace and order have to wait. US President George W. Bush has made that more than clear. He is not willing to support immediate measures to end the war. He doesn't want to send his secretary of state on her way to the region for a few more days. In Washington, that will have to take "about another week."

Another week like the last one? With hundreds of civilian casualties, hundreds of thousands of refugees and billions in damage to the Lebanese infrastructure? It is absurd and inhuman to constitute a new order in Lebanon based on this suffering and misery of innocent people.

The US president apparently has a very limited perception. It seems the government in Jerusalem insinuated to him that it needs this one week to vitally weaken Hezbollah now and in the long term. The White House gives Jerusalem the go-ahead - no matter how high the price.

Every day claims new casualties

Of course, it is certainly true that a quick ceasefire, if one were to even come about, wouldn't solve the basic problem. Hezbollah remains a powerful force in southern Lebanon. The central government in Beirut couldn't send its troops there. Sooner or later, the next cross-border conflicts could be expected. And everything would start anew.

But is the situation going to be any different in a week? Is Hezbollah going to be beaten then? In Washington, no one can predict this with certainty. Even in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the prognoses by politicians and the military vary between "several days" and "several months."

Efforts are doomed to fail if no US action is taken

In the course of its history, Lebanon has weathered through many a bleak period. It was often the Lebanese themselves who were responsible for this. But over and over, the country has also become the plaything for foreign powers.

In the current case, both play a role. Hezbollah is a Lebanese force, which nevertheless acts as an extended arm of Syria and Iran. And Israel can count on the - so far - unrestricted support of Washington. What could the hectic efforts by the Europeans or the United Nations to end the conflict even accomplish?

All of these efforts are doomed to fail, as long as Washington doesn't give up its stance of "wait and see." President Bush appears to be indifferent to the fact that the United States will make even more enemies in the world with this position - and further disqualify itself from its reclaimed role of being the "world's sheriff."

The one thing that can be said for certain about Bush in this context: he has proven yet again that he is always willing to make unpopular decisions.

Peter Philipp

Qantara.de

Middle East Conflict
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
With the escalation of the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the adversaries are once again bandying about terms like "terrorism" and "resistance" from a highly subjective viewpoint. An objective classification is not always that easy, however. By Peter Philipp

The Lebanon Proxy
Buffeted by Its Surroundings
Over the past few weeks, Lebanese politicians from diverse groups have been meeting intermittently in what has been dubbed a "National Dialogue." But what their dialogue has exposed is how much Lebanese politics continues to be shaped by external forces. An analysis by Michael Young

EU Dialogue with Islamists
Hamas and Hizbullah Key to Mideast Peace?
In mid-April, the EU Foreign Ministers decided to resume dialogue relations with Islamist organizations. Rightly so, argues Islam expert Michael Lüders, stressing it would be shortsighted to view Hamas and Hizbullah only as terrorist organizations