All indications point to a new round of rising tensions between Israel and the other states in the region, particularly Syria and Iran, as well as the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements, such as Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. This escalation could lead to armed hostilities.
As moves to calm the situation vie with efforts to escalate it, the latter exertions appear to be gaining the upper hand, although this will not be a political choice or decision by any of the parties involved. It will simply materialize of its own volition as a result of swelling political tension, the hardening of political rhetoric, mounting American support for Israel and Washington’s espousal of the views of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. So the parties concerned will automatically find themselves embroiled in a military confrontation.
The Bush administration’s determination to blitz Iraq and replace Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime, and the possible redrawing of the region’s political map that this may bring about, has undoubtedly thrown another factor into the mix. It means the Middle East is approaching a complex future in the short and medium terms, and it explains why all sides ­ be they states, organizations or political powers ­ are trying to prepare for such an eventuality.
Within that context, Israel and Syria are exerting huge diplomatic efforts to prepare for that phase. The Jewish state is clearly waging a general diplomatic campaign in which its officials and diplomats abroad are participating in conjunction with pro-Israel US intellectuals.
In June, Israel’s diplomatic missions concentrated their efforts on depicting Syria as a “terrorist state” that “violates UN resolutions by smuggling Iraqi oil” and “militarily supports terrorist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah.” That campaign was aimed at distracting Syria from putting forward crucial issues during its presidency of the UN Security Council ­ of which it is a nonpermanent member for two years. The plan was to keep Syria preoccupied with efforts to respond to the clever, organized diplomatic and media campaigns (based on intelligent but politically false arguments) being waged against Damascus.
Now, the elements of Israel’s campaign have changed. It rests on the argument that Hizbullah is a terrorist group that has strong relations with Al-Qaeda; that Syria has given Hizbullah missiles with a 270-kilometer range capable of reaching Israel’s northern industrial zone; and that Syrian President Bashar Assad has established a direct relationship with Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, thus overstepping the “red lines” his late father Hafez Assad ­ who knew the “limits of the game” ­ put in place by avoiding a direct connection with the group.
Other arguments underpinning Israel’s campaign are that Damascus is indefinitely hosting Hamas senior official Khaled Meshaal and Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shallah, both of whom it says train “suicide bombers.” US Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, took part in that campaign, demanding that Syria shut down training camps “where the next generation of terrorists is being prepared.”
Israel’s efforts are clearly aimed at getting the Bush administration to further pressure Syria, and at severing the “friendly link” that sprang up between Damascus and Washington after their “unprecedented” cooperation against global terrorism. Syria’s sharing of intelligence with the US following Sept. 11 led to the arrest of several Al-Qaeda members. More importantly, the quality of information Syria supplied was such that, according to State Department official Richard Erdman, it “saved American lives.”
More importantly, according to Israel, is the effort to neutralize Hizbullah in the coming battle, especially since it is the only side that was able to inflict a military defeat on Israel, forcing it to pull out of south Lebanon, thanks to Syrian and Iranian support.
Israeli experts are trying to convince Bush administration hawks that “war against Hizbullah is more important than war against Iraq, because Hizbullah represents the most basic danger to US national interests.” The reason is that Israel is convinced Syria will exploit a blitz on Iraq to “ignite” the south Lebanon front through Hizbullah, exactly as Saddam fired missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War to make the Arab-Israeli conflict part of that war. That scenario did not materialize because Bush Sr. pressured Israel’s then prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir. The picture is different now because of President George W. Bush’s weakness and the intransigence of Sharon, who is notorious for overstepping all red lines.
At the other end of the equation, Syrian diplomacy is diametrically opposed to what the United States has in store for the region. It has rejected most of the ideas put forth by Bush in his June 24 Middle East policy speech. It has also taken a clear stand that “categorically and absolutely opposes” any US-led attack on Iraq.
Since Syria’s policy is at variance with Washington’s plans for the Middle East, Damascus is naturally trying to pick up and hold onto cards that it can play. These include its political links with Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are some of the few cards Damascus holds after the huge tilt in the military balance of power in Israel’s favor. Moreover, the Hamas and Islamic Jihad cards are at the very heart of the political ideology of the ruling Baath Party and the Syrian regime.
But Syria has shown flexibility by asking the two organizations to be “wise” in their political dealings and not to claim responsibility from Damascus for suicide attacks against Israel because of the “sensitivity of the current situation.” However, it still offers them a political and media haven as resistance organizations.
At the same time, Syria conducts its relations with Hizbullah publicly and openly, since Hizbullah is a recognized, legitimate party.
Interestingly, Syria has started confronting Israel’s crusade with an unprecedented counter campaign to clarify the nature of its relations with Hizbullah, and to show that it is not a terrorist organization and has no connections with Al-Qaeda. During a meeting with Graham last month, Assad said that “any link between the two is naive and baseless” because it ignores the rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. That rivalry came into view clearly in 1998, when elements from the Sunni Al-Qaeda and Taleban killed Shiite Muslims, including 12 Iranian diplomats, in the Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif.
The Syrians also put forward “incontrovertible evidence” proving that Hizbullah was not involved in “terrorism” because it had “never carried out operations against civilians, limiting its operations to resisting Israeli occupation. It also has no offshoots abroad.”
The contention that Hizbullah elements carried out the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut which left 241 marines dead was invalidated in 1996 when Israel and Lebanon endorsed the US- and France- brokered April Understanding between Israel and Hizbullah. The “understanding” legitimized Hizbullah operations against Israeli troops inside the now-defunct south Lebanon “security zone” and recognized Hizbullah as a legitimate resistance organization.
The “war of words” between Syria and Israel over Hizbullah shows the coming phase will be complex, and that the tense words of the present will turn into action on the ground, especially in the event of a US-led military campaign against Iraq Such a blitz will be a red line that changes all the earlier red lines drawn in the Middle East during the past few decades.

Ibrahim Hamidi is a Damascus-based journalist specialized in Syrian current affairs. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

Copyright © The Daily Star