This is not the time to express our differences with the Shiites because we are all confronted by our greater enemy, the criminal Jews and Zionists. (Salman al-Awda, a Saudi cleric, The Enemy of my Enemy is still my Enemy, The New York Times, July 26, 2006)


The growing escalation of hostilities in the Middle East has revealed new realities. Historically, none of the US presidents had supported Israel all the way as President Bush has. His Secretary of State talked about a “new Middle East.” She said standing beside the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, that the time had come for a new Middle East. Although she did not elaborate as to what this new Middle East was, it is horribly foreboding. A new Middle East was crafted with the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948. The effect of that creation has been so horrendous that the world, particularly the Muslim world, has not yet fully recovered from the birth pangs of the Jewish state. Ever since, the Middle East has been embroiled in incessant terrorism marked by several fully-fledged wars. In spite of the overwhelming military might of Israel, the Muslim world by and large has not officially recognized its creation. In spite of the earth shattering bombardment of Beirut, Israeli land invasion from the south, total helplessness of all the Muslim governments, dislocation of millions of Lebanese civilians and horrific loss of human lives, no Muslim country has condemned Hezbollah. And this also is the first time that so many missiles have been fired into Israeli cities (Saddam had fired a few scud missiles into Israel in the first Gulf war). Heretofore, all the action or at least predominantly most of it had occurred on the Arab land.

It has been stated in the press that the Sunni states in the Middle East are wary of ever-increasing Shiite strength in Middle East but none of them (to my best knowledge) has publicly condemned Hezbollah. Even Lebanon which is being razed to the ground by persistent Israeli bombardment has called for immediate ceasefire without condemning Hezbollah. The Sunni governments have criticized Hezbollah but did not condemn it. They are ambivalent in their reaction because the Sunni population under their rule supports Hezbollah’s stand against Israel.

In the Bush-al-Maliki news conference, one of the questioners asked President Bush and al-Maliki, “You had a frank exchange on the Middle East. How can you get Arab nations to apply pressure to stop the fighting in the Middle East if allies like the Prime Minister won’t condemn Hezbollah? And Mr. Prime Minister, what exactly is your position on Hezbollah?” (The Associated Press, July 25, 2006).

President Bush hedged around the essence of the question and closest that he came to it was “...that we want a sustainable ceasefire. We don’t want something that’s, you know, short term in duration.” Prime Minister, al-Maliki, completely ignored the question but said, “The important thing here is what we are trying to do is to stop the killing and the destruction. And then we leave the room and the way for the international and diplomatic efforts and international organizations to play the role to be there.”

His statement in a press conference inside the fortified Green zone in Baghdad on July 19
(before his departure to the US) was much stronger. He said, “The Israeli attacks and air-strikes are completely destroying Lebanon’s infrastructures. I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression,” (In Break with Bush, Iraqi Leader Assails Israel, by Edward Wong and Michael Slackman, The New York Times, July 19, 2006).

Wong and Slackman further asserted, “The resentment of the Iraqi government toward Israel calls into question one of the rationales among some conservatives for the American invasion of Iraq – that an American-backed democratic state here would inevitably become an ally of Israel and, by doing so, catalyze a change of attitude across the rest of the Arab world.” The latest conflict has shown that the Arab and the Muslim world is not showing any signs of relenting and recognizing the state of Israel; they are becoming, on the other hand, more hardened and resisting.

Given these realities, is there any chance for the envisioned “new Middle East” (whatever it is) to become a reality? How much more blood is to be shed, how much more devastation to occur, before Israel becomes a bona fide and universally recognized state in the Muslim world? Or, perhaps the new outbreak is the prelude to the clash of civilizations conceived and branded by Huntington. Newt Gingrich readily called the new hostilities as the World War III. May God prove him wrong.

The current politics on the Middle East crisis is very dangerous and can get out of hand by a small misstep or inadvertent slip. It is wise to cease the fire now and patch a diplomatic solution later on. Hamas has already shown a sign of compromise by agreeing to stop firing missiles into Israel and releasing the captured soldier. It is a good beginning; it should be used for opening a way for wider conciliation. Application of force hasn’t produced any durable peace in the last nearly sixty years; it probably wouldn’t do any better now.