Ceasefire in effect, world waits… and hopes

The thing to remember, first of all, is that a "cessation of hostilities" is nowhere near the status of a comprehensive peace agreement. Although referred to loosely in media as a "ceasefire," some international law experts are even carefully distinguishing a cessation of hostilities from a ceasefire. Apparently, what we’re seeing in Lebanon is technically not a ceasefire.

The second thing to remember is that the United Nations Security Council, with all delegates uttering textbook paeans to peace and human life, took more than a month to come up with a resolution which no one thinks settles anything beyond stopping the killing, although that is no mean feat in itself.

The third thing to remember is how long the conflict between the State of Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East has smoldered, how several of these Arab countries have refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and how a few have even sworn to destroy that State, whatever the United Nations has said over several decades.

Against that background, one has to ask what real chance of success, as a practical matter, this latest cessation of hostilities in Lebanon has? In the hours leading up to the ceasefire yesterday, starting at 1 p.m. Manila time, both sides escalated hostilities to the highest level seen since the war began 33 days ago.

In that time, the reported toll was as follows: Lebanon: 890 killed and 3,800 wounded; Israel: 146 killed and 1,000 wounded (according to the Israeli Defense Forces); Hezbollah: 530 killed and no figures on wounded, also according to the IDF. Hezbollah itself has not released any casualty figures.

As I write this, the cessation of hostilities has been in effect for a few hours, so it’s too early to say what the effect of the UN resolution has been. Since Israel, Lebanon and the Hezbollah have approved the resolution, even if with reservations, things will likely be quiet for a while. However, the skepticism of the contending parties is palpable.

That’s because the UN resolution does not actually require Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. Nor is the Hezbollah required to disarm. There is no reference in the resolution to the release of either the two captured Israeli soldiers or the Lebanese prisoners being held by Israel.

Israel has made it clear it will not withdraw from Southern Lebanon until that multinational United Nations force of 15,000 soldiers, plus another 15,000 or so Lebanese troops is firmly in place at the border between the two countries. That could take another two weeks, at least. But for now, there are no reports of continued bombing by Israeli aircraft, nor of Katyusha rockets being launched by Hezbollah.

Clearly, Israel has no intention of quitting any new territory over which it now exercises effective control. Neither, from all indications, will Hezbollah dismantle its military organization and social welfare operations in Southern Lebanon. Israel insists it wants to ensure that no more rockets are rained down on its cities from the border. Hezbollah has not formally given up any of its aims in regard to Israel.

Thus, as CNN reporters on the scene tell us, the guns and rockets continue to be aimed at the enemy. But, for now, they are silent. If, for any reason, they are heard once again, we can expect the area to blow up all over again.

Beyond the cessation of hostilities, I am not aware of any longer-term efforts to address the "root causes" claimed by the parties to the conflict. The Lebanese Prime Minister’s "Seven-Point Plan" isn’t on the table yet. For instance, no talks have begun on the Shebaa Farms, the maps to the landmines Israel laid down in Southern Lebanon when their occupation of Lebanon ended in 2000, or the Lebanese detainees.

Hezbollah has reiterated threats to attack any Israeli soldiers still in Lebanon. Israel has not promised to forego "defensive" actions whenever warranted. Neither is prohibited by the text of the UN resolution. It’s a time of "confidence-building" in an atmosphere where neither combatant feels any reason to trust the other.

In the meantime, a story has appeared in the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, authored by Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Seymour Hersh that claims the US government knew in advance of planned attacks by Israel against Hezbollah militants. President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, according to Hersh, were convinced that a bombing campaign would solve Israeli fears about continued Katyusha rocket launches by Hezbollah from Lebanon.

But, more significantly, the underlying motive of the US was to deny Iran the ability to retaliate against Israel, utilizing the hundreds of rockets it has supplied Hezbollah, in the event of pre-emptive US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations.

Hersh cites senior intelligence sources as sources. Although his story has been denied by the US government, he has obviously opened up a huge can of worms. It will be recalled that the US (plus Britain and Israel) had blocked earlier UN efforts to craft a ceasefire plan in Lebanon, ostensibly because of the international body’s failure to address "root causes" of the conflict.

That seemed like a plausible reason, since earlier attempts to resolve those fundamental causes had ended in dismal failure. As suggested by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a ceasefire under those terms could not assure that the conflagration would not recur if the "root causes" remain unaddressed.

The Seymour Hersh story illuminates some possible motivations for the US position. If true, the puzzling US reluctance to stop the carnage on both sides emerges in a new and different light. But it also makes clear that rumors of a potential US "preemptive strike" on Iran were not entirely unfounded.

All this simply proves, I suppose, that it’s not only war that produces a "fog." International diplomacy, the struggle to let peace reign in a world where nations seem all too ready to go to war for what they swear is the clear "right" and unarguable "principle," also functions in a perennial fog.

The US can’t be blamed for thinking the worst about an Iran which thumbs its nose at the international community and persists in nuclear development, while publicly vowing to eradicate Israel from the map. But if the US does its worst, then we are all involved, whether we like it or not.

All small and relatively poor countries like ours can do is watch, wait . . . and hope. Powerlessness, being an ant in the midst of rampaging elephants, really sucks!