Are there prospects for peace between Syria and Israel? We re at a nail biting stage where the US administration seems intent on continuing the siege on Syria, and the Syrian-Iranian alliance is growing stronger and stronger. As US threats grow bolder, Syrian alliances with a number of resistance movements are also consolidated. Meanwhile, the Arab street has become convinced that Israel only understands the language of force and power, and that the voices of truth and justice can only emerge through pain.
The situation in Lebanon is related to the Syrian-Israeli peace track. The US and Israel want to remove Lebanon from the equation and sever any connection between the two tracks in order to produce a new May 17 agreement with a weak Lebanese negotiator, something with more than a flavor of Oslo and a hint of Wadi Arabah. Then a concluding chapter in the peace process that started in Camp David can be written by a choir of western ambassadors in Lebanon that might this time lead to Arab consensus on condemning resistance and linking it with terrorism. In this way, Syria could find itself fatally cornered with Iran and the resistance movements, besieged by geography and pursued by UN resolutions.
The US considers the absence of Syrian support for its schemes in Lebanon a hostile act. US President George W. Bush readily proffers a formulaic reference to Syria in his every utterance, demanding immediate Syrian intervention in Lebanon to exert pressure on its allies in order to accede to the election of a president that fulfils American criteria.
But what is really happening in Lebanon? What is behind the interest shown by the international community in the next Lebanese president? The election for a future Lebanese president has attracted world attention and pressure in a way not witnessed even in US elections. Such questions will undoubtedly compel the Syrian analyst to read between the lines – and we have to excuse him for this – especially when the future political scene becomes clear in Lebanon: a new entity parallel to the Zionist one, stripped of its history, civilization and national responsibilities and working as a Singaporean proxy for western business interests, a Greek travel agent for Arab tourism and a Vatican port of entry for Christian civilization. Thus, with the ground for all these aspirations meticulously prepared, the Syrians fear a potential bridge for Israeli expansion alongside Syria.
The situation in Lebanon today is very similar to the situation 25 years ago when the will of the Americans was similarly bent on digging an Israel-Arab tunnel through Lebanon. The assassination of President Bashir Gemayel provided an emotional cover for the Lebanese people to support his brother Amin whose negotiators concluded a deal in a very short period of time and handed the complete security file for Lebanon to their Israeli neighbor with American blessing. The May 17, 1983 agreement stipulated the joint deployment of 4,000 Israeli and Lebanese soldiers on a border strip on Lebanese territory, the immediate withdrawal of Syrian and Palestinian factions from Lebanon and the establishment of diplomatic and commercial representation offices in the two countries in preparation for full-fledged diplomatic relations. Passing the agreement was easy in theory as Israel then occupied 25 percent of Lebanon, having succeeded in expelling Yasser Arafat and his troops by force. It seemed that an agreement, equal in importance to the Camp David agreement, was about to be realized on the ground.
The situation was settled later in favor of the anti-war voices when Alexander Haig lost out to George Schultz. But it was too late to repair that which had been destroyed by pro-Israel US policies. After a series of massacres executed under the supervision of Israel, notably the Sabra and Shatila massacres, the Lebanese people started to see what the future held for them if the Israeli scheme should succeed. America had provided, as usual, the most violent environment for the rise of the Jihad movements in Lebanon.
A booby-trapped car blew up the US Marines headquarters in Lebanon, forcing America to fly back home with more than 200 body bags. This incident was followed by a series of suicide attacks started by Sana Mheidli and Hameedah al-Taher. The chapter of fida i (freedom fighter) action had been opened once again in the Middle East and then US President Ronald Reagan could do nothing but depart, leaving Lebanon to the Syrian troops that stood ready. The Lebanese Council of Ministers announced the cancellation of the agreement with the Israelis on March 3, 1984, but this lead to a violent phase of holding President Amin Gemayel accountable at the popular level, isolating him in B abda and suspending the presidential portfolio until the end of his term.
Twenty-five years on, a similar US scheme will be resisted by the Lebanese people who don t want history to record that they became victims of a new Nakba designed to produce a sectarian entity next to the Zionist one, closing the Arab seashore of the Middle East into the bargain.
It has to be pointed out that Syria has not been forced to interfere in Lebanese affairs this time around, precisely because its perspective on American designs is shared by a large number of Lebanese citizens who are ready to confront these plots. However, any demographic-political imbalance caused by US pressure on the Lebanese political scene will force Syria to interfere directly to protect its security and prevent any work that aims to prepare the climate for another May 17 agreement Mohammad Habash is director of the Islamic Studies Center in Damascus and a member of the Syrian parliament. This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons-international.org.
