Riding the momentum in Middle East
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
EVEN as Israeli fighters intensified their onslaught almost unimpeded on civilian targets in Lebanon last year, any remarks about ceasefires being called for by two parties were usually met with snorts — of laughter or in derision.
The first party whose comments about ceasefires were dismissed by those involved in the Middle East conflict was Washington. In the words of a Lebanese Shi'ite leader last year, "Washington did not want Israel to stop attacking us." Of course it became a public knowledge only recently that the US actually sought to encourage Israeli fighters to continue to pound South Lebanon's cities intro rubbles because it wanted to "eliminate Hezbollah's military capability". In the words of John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, to the BBC last week, "an early ceasefire would have been dangerous and misguided" and that Washington decided to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's military campaign was not working.
The other party whose remarks about ceasefires were met by snorts of laughter was, of course, the Arab community. Whenever any member of the Arab League voiced the possibility of cooperating to bring an end to the conflict, the sceptics amongst the Lebanese fighters would say, "Yeah, right, they would start talks about talks."
The inability of Arab countries to agree to a common, international political goal is notorious. Individual members bicker over their individual interests, with Saudi Arabia usually being the slowest to respond to crises involving its ally, the US. Nowhere was this shortcoming displayed more acutely than during the Arab League conference in Cairo in July 2006 when members simply could not agree what stance to take over the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Excuses were found to be aplenty for the grouping's foot-dragging attitude, most notably the debates over whether the Sunni Arabs should extend their help to the Shi'ite Hezbollah, and whether it was Hezbollah itself that should be responsible for the cleaning up of its own mess.
Ultimately, the stalling of any truce by Washington and the slothfulness of the Arab League could only contribute to the death of some 1,200 people, most of whom were Lebanese, severely damaged Lebanese infrastructures while displacing nearly a million Lebanese and 300,000 Israelis. Even after the ceasefire, much of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to unexploded cluster bombs.
This was why the international community, especially the Muslim ummah, were pleasantly surprised when Saudi Arabia hosted the landmark talks between Hamas leaders Khaled Meshaal and Ismail Haniya with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah faction in February which led to the establishment of the unity government of Palestine.
This was later followed by a visit in March to King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in Riyadh by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who told the world that they agreed to fight the spread of sectarian strife that threatened to spill over from their neighbour Iraq.
A new image of Saudi Arabia and its counterparts in the Arab League is then being painted, and this year's summit — to open today in Riyadh — promises the birth of a more decisive political force in the Middle East because Saudi Arabia looks set to put real muscles into the fray rather than behaving like someone else's errand boy.
We say it is about time because the region is now sinking under too many conflicts and crises, from Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon to Darfur. Not that we think the two-day summit will magically produce the formula to solve these problems, but even if the 22 Arab leaders attending can basically resolve differences among themselves and present a united front, the world would see it as a great success indeed.
The first party whose comments about ceasefires were dismissed by those involved in the Middle East conflict was Washington. In the words of a Lebanese Shi'ite leader last year, "Washington did not want Israel to stop attacking us." Of course it became a public knowledge only recently that the US actually sought to encourage Israeli fighters to continue to pound South Lebanon's cities intro rubbles because it wanted to "eliminate Hezbollah's military capability". In the words of John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, to the BBC last week, "an early ceasefire would have been dangerous and misguided" and that Washington decided to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's military campaign was not working.
The other party whose remarks about ceasefires were met by snorts of laughter was, of course, the Arab community. Whenever any member of the Arab League voiced the possibility of cooperating to bring an end to the conflict, the sceptics amongst the Lebanese fighters would say, "Yeah, right, they would start talks about talks."
The inability of Arab countries to agree to a common, international political goal is notorious. Individual members bicker over their individual interests, with Saudi Arabia usually being the slowest to respond to crises involving its ally, the US. Nowhere was this shortcoming displayed more acutely than during the Arab League conference in Cairo in July 2006 when members simply could not agree what stance to take over the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Excuses were found to be aplenty for the grouping's foot-dragging attitude, most notably the debates over whether the Sunni Arabs should extend their help to the Shi'ite Hezbollah, and whether it was Hezbollah itself that should be responsible for the cleaning up of its own mess.
Ultimately, the stalling of any truce by Washington and the slothfulness of the Arab League could only contribute to the death of some 1,200 people, most of whom were Lebanese, severely damaged Lebanese infrastructures while displacing nearly a million Lebanese and 300,000 Israelis. Even after the ceasefire, much of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to unexploded cluster bombs.
This was why the international community, especially the Muslim ummah, were pleasantly surprised when Saudi Arabia hosted the landmark talks between Hamas leaders Khaled Meshaal and Ismail Haniya with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah faction in February which led to the establishment of the unity government of Palestine.
This was later followed by a visit in March to King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in Riyadh by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who told the world that they agreed to fight the spread of sectarian strife that threatened to spill over from their neighbour Iraq.
A new image of Saudi Arabia and its counterparts in the Arab League is then being painted, and this year's summit — to open today in Riyadh — promises the birth of a more decisive political force in the Middle East because Saudi Arabia looks set to put real muscles into the fray rather than behaving like someone else's errand boy.
We say it is about time because the region is now sinking under too many conflicts and crises, from Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon to Darfur. Not that we think the two-day summit will magically produce the formula to solve these problems, but even if the 22 Arab leaders attending can basically resolve differences among themselves and present a united front, the world would see it as a great success indeed.
Business Besides Oil
