Lebanon and Palestine are the most dramatic examples of the new ideological battle that now defines much of the Middle East, where local players and medium-strength regional powers often interact with one another in parallel with foreign powers’ interests and goals.
While tensions were increasing in Beirut last weekend in anticipation of Tuesday’s nationwide strike action by the Hezbollah-led opposition against the government of Prime Minister Fouad Seniora, in Damascus the leaders of the two leading Palestinian political groups, Hamas and Fatah, were meeting under Syrian auspices to try and solve their dispute over who rules Palestine and defines its foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel. If you were too young to remember the Cold War, study this dynamic closely, because it is a miniature version of the former global contest. It is possible that the Middle East-anchored new cold war we are living through these days may persist for many years, or it may be over in two or three years, depending on how both sides harness and use their competitive assets. For now, we can only identify some of the new rules and realities of the regional confrontation. The two core powers who confront each other in the Middle East today are the United States on one side, and the Iran-Syrian tandem on the other. Major supporting actors and local allies include Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Europeans. Lebanon and Palestine are the two most interesting proxy wars in this battle. Iraq is, of course, also important, but the domestic tensions that have been unleashed there are more likely to determine the country’s fate than actions by foreign powers. What makes Lebanon and Palestine so fascinating today is how they have rewritten the rules of Cold War proxy warfare, in which local actors fight ideological battles on behalf of their more powerful patrons and allies. During the Cold War, rival ideological powers usually confronted one another from neighboring states, such as North and South Vietnam, Syria and Jordan, Iraq and Iran, Somalia and Ethiopia, and dozens of other such pairs of ideologically antagonistic states.
In the Middle East today, the competing political forces are usually found within the same country, and often share local legitimacy. Just as in the Cold War, they fight on many fronts, including the occasional clash or local insurrection, but more often via competing political ideologies and economic policies. In Lebanon the Seniora government and the Hezbollah-led opposition are fighting an intense battle on many fronts, just as the Hamas and Fatah camps square off in Palestine. They do so as part of a local political power struggle, but also explicitly as part of the wider confrontation between the US and Iran-Syria. The fact that these face-offs now occur within Arab countries, rather than between different countries, reflects a bizarre reality: Most Arab countries-in some cases half a century or more after their birth-still have not achieved stable statehood based on the collective allegiance of satisfied citizens. Different groups not only compete for political control of the government, but for the even more basic ideological definition of the state and its policies. The Fatah-Hamas talks in Damascus last weekend were perhaps most interesting for their location: in the Syrian capital. The substance and outcome of the talks are less dramatic matters, because they are largely known and also perhaps slightly irrelevant, sadly so. This is because the Palestinians will almost certainly agree on a national unity government based on the principles in the agreement reached last year by leading Palestinians in Israeli jails; yet a unity government will not have any serious impact on the burning issue of whether to make war or peace with Israel.
There is simply too large a gap between Hamas’ refusal to recognize and deal with Israel and Fatah’s insistence on resuming peace talks with Israel for this to be bridged by a vague national unity government agreement whose main advantage is diplomatic imprecision. Holding the meeting in Damascus also was significant because it highlighted the role that Syria hopes to play as a broker among different parties in the region, especially those who oppose the US and some of its Arab allies. Earlier this month Syria hosted Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and now it wants to show that it can achieve results on Palestine that are beyond the reach of the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel or any other third power. Syria’s links with Hezbollah and other smaller Lebanese opposition groups give it continued influence in Lebanon. Syrian and Iranian attempts to score points in their contest with the US by using their influence and alliances with junior partners in the region, such as Hamas, is classic cold war-type behavior.
Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
