Containing conflict
The great danger posed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been its potential to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. This has happened three times since the state of Israel was formed, and the Israeli bombing raid against a Syrian radar station in Lebanon illustrates how it might happen again.
The attack was a response to raids by the Syrian-backed Hezbollah militia against the Shebaa farms, an area claimed by Lebanon but occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Hezbollah carried out similar attacks after the withdrawal last May of Israeli forces from Lebanon. The difference this time has been the severity of the Israeli response. The air raid is the first attack on Syrian troops in Lebanon in five years and was intended, in the words of an Israeli spokesman, to demonstrate that "the rules of the game had changed" under the new hardline Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud has warned that the air attack could lead to a "general confrontation" in the region. At present, the probability of this happening is still low. A wider conflict would have to involve at least one of the three significant Arab powers bordering Israel-Syria, Jordan and Egypt. None of these countries is looking for conflict. Syria and Jordan have young, moderate new leaders who have no desire to get sucked into a war, while President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is aware of the economic and political cost of a wider conflict.
The danger, however, is that if the current violence between Israelis and Palestinians is not brought to a halt, Arab public opinion will put increasing pressure on governments in the region to act against Israel.
Clearly, international mediation is required to halt the violence and persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, none of the major powers is rushing to offer its services. US President George W. Bush has taken a much more cautious approach to the Middle East than his predecessor Bill Clinton, whose energetic diplomacy helped bring the Israelis and Palestinians closer to a peace agreement than they had ever been.
Mr. Bush's caution is understandable. The deep suspicion and bitterness between the Israelis and the Palestinians makes mediating between them a hard and often thankless task. But it is only the United States that has enough influence to both persuade Mr. Sharon to rein in his hawkish tendencies and get Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to accept a deal that will necessarily be less than perfect.
-- The South China Morning Post, Hong Kong