'No victor, no loser' axiom may hold key

Washington may be prepared for an indirect dialogue with Hizbullah, writes Michael Jansen

Washington may be prepared for an indirect dialogue with Hizbullah, writes Michael Jansen

During Lebanon's past conflicts, local sages have always insisted that an end to warfare and an accommodation can be reached only if the two sides abide by the "no victor, no vanquished" dictum.

If that is not the basis of a ceasefire in the current conflict and post-ceasefire arrangements, fresh fighting could flare.

If the "no victor, no vanquished" formula is to be applied, Hizbullah has to be part of the negotiations. So far, Israel has refused to deal with Hizbullah, and the US - which has provided Israel with political backing, arms and aircraft fuel - has followed Israel's lead.

READ MORE

But yesterday's meeting between US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri, a close Hizbullah ally, indicates that Washington may be prepared for an indirect dialogue with the movement.

Mr Berri has previously served as interlocutor between Hizbullah and governments that do not want to deal directly with it. It is unlikely that the Bush administration, regarded by Israelis as the most pro-Israeli in US history, would open a dialogue with Mr Berri if Israel did not agree with this course of action.

Hizbullah seeks a cessation of hostilities and the exchange of the two Israeli soldiers it holds for three Lebanese detained in Israeli jails for more than 20 years, as well as a substantial number of Palestinian and Arab prisoners. Yesterday, Israel captured two Hizbullah fighters in south Lebanon. It is suggested the Israelis seized them in preparation for a swap.

But Hizbullah will never agree to a ceasefire and prisoner exchange if Israel and the US insist that the movement should be excluded from a broad band of Lebanese territory north of the border. Hizbullah is not prepared to accept the role of vanquished because the movement already regards itself as victor.

Its spokesmen argue that Hizbullah fighters have stood against an Israeli air, land and sea onslaught for longer than the Arab armies against a less powerful Israel during the 1967 and 1973 conflicts.

Following Israel's capture of the village of Maroun al-Ras on Sunday, a Hizbullah communique boasted: "An army using its elite forces and tanks backed up by its airforce that can enter a frontier village only after days of fighting . . . is a defeated and useless army."

Furthermore, the Israeli and US demand that Hizbullah must be barred from the frontier area is unrealistic because there are Hizbullah members in every town and village.

Equally, while Israel cannot claim victory in this unequal contest, it cannot afford to be vanquished. Therefore, any accommodation would have to include a ban on Hizbullah rockets south of the Litani river.

While Israel has accepted the deployment of an international force in this no-rocket zone, Hizbullah is unlikely to do so unless there is progress on a prisoner swap and the movement's demand that Israel must withdraw from the last slice of land that Lebanon insists remains occupied by the Jewish state: farmland belonging to the village of Shebaa.

If this is returned, Hizbullah would have no Lebanese casus belli. But if the international community is to counter Hizbullah's ambition to lead the Arab world by fighting Israel, Israel's continuing occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory would have to be addressed.