US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday endorsed the Israeli war strategy in Lebanon, during her visit to Jerusalem, as the fighting intensified. Arguing that it only makes sense to base a ceasefire on a durable and sustainable peace in a "new Middle East", she said this must be based on disarming and neutralising Hizbullah. The Israeli objectives of inflicting maximum damage on the movement by creating a security zone on the border and holding it until an international force is deployed there has been given a further mandate of at least a week before US pressure will be brought to bear for a ceasefire.
This is a risky and dangerous policy. It assumes military action on this harshly excessive scale can defeat Hizbullah or sufficiently weaken it to provide security for Israel on a long-term basis. There is little basis for the belief, since the operation that has so far made one fifth of the Lebanese population refugees, killed more than 400 of its citizens and devastated its infrastructure will not be forgotten by its victims. It is more likely to reproduce Hizbullah as an even fiercer enemy of Israel than to eliminate the threat.
There is no purely military solution to this crisis. It must be tackled politically, by engaging Hizbullah, an organisation with deep roots in Lebanese society, the regional states such as Syria and Iran which support it, as well as those Arab states which are also its enemies and antagonists such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. And, unless this effort is linked to a comprehensive tackling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it will be stillborn. Israel cannot impose unilateral terms by force and should not be allowed to do so by international opinion.
An immediate ceasefire is required, aimed at disengaging the forces and brokering an exchange of captives and prisoners, along with intense efforts to address these political issues. The ceasefire cannot await the politics, nor should it be calibrated to Israel's military objectives. Today's meeting in Rome begins the intense efforts to tackle them. The same considerations apply to planning for an international force in Lebanon. The Israeli government has shifted ground towards such a force, realising it could help defuse the confrontation. But the mandate should reflect international policy towards the conflict and be organised through the United Nations, with the support of regional parties to the conflict. A multinational force under Nato command, as proposed by some members of the Bush administration, would lack this credibility and legitimacy.
Warnings from several Middle East leaders that this confrontation could all too easily spill over into a regional war with worldwide consequences should be taken seriously. That is why the Rome meeting must open the way towards a more balanced approach than Ms Rice endorsed yesterday. This will require other powers to assert their arguments and interests much more vocally and determinedly than has so far been the case.