'Sustainable peace through more killing'?

July 28, 2006

“Sustainable peace through more killing”? Sounds odd but that’s what Condoleezza Rice said during her shuttle diplomacy tour in the Middle East. Later President Bush also endorsed it. What they meant was to let Israel move deeper into Lebanon in the hope of weakening Hezbollah, notwithstanding the destruction of more buildings and villages and the death of more civilians. Today Bush called it an opportunity.

Maybe that’s our foreign policy trait. That’s what we used in Afghanistan and then in Iraq and now in Lebanon. Although there was relative calm in those countries, we went there, killed thousands of people, destroyed their civilization, and obliterated their cities and infrastructure to give them a “sustainable peace” and democracy. So far the experiment has only been tried on the Islamic countries.

When the State of Israel was created in 1948, its size was less than half of what it is today. It was through successive land grabs from its neighboring countries in wars during 1948 and 1967 that it swelled to its current size. From its current attack on Lebanon it is clear that Israel’s greed for more land from its neighbors is not satiated yet and perhaps it would never be. United States has an unconditional support for Israel. Right or wrong, Israel’s actions are always kosher in the eyes of the United States. It beats all qualms of reason that a superpower, rather the only superpower, can be so discriminatory in its relations with all countries in the world except the tiny State of Israel. Then the Americans wonder why do the people in the whole world hate us?

It never used to be like that. Americans stood tall and proud and it was an honor to travel on an American passport. Now, being an American, you have to virtually hide your identity as much as you can. Why is it that we were respected before and now we are not? Because we respected others and respect for others begot respect for us. If Israel did anything wrong, she had to pay for that.

Compare the two Administrations of two Presidents of the United States, both Republicans. During the Eisenhower Administration, the credibility of the U.S. around the world was at its zenith and everybody respected us. During the (George W.) Bush Administration, America’s credibility is at its nadir and everybody hates us. Eisenhower threatened all aid to Israel, if it did not withdraw its troops from Egypt because justice and fair play demanded it. President Bush, on the other hand, has openly supported Israel’s nefarious actions of killing the Lebanese men, women and children in cold blood and has called it a road to a “Sustainable Peace,” an unfair and a treacherous action.

Whether it is at war or at peace, Israel has always been arrogant and belligerent towards its neighbors. Because of Israel’s harsh treatment for the Palestinians, most of the Muslim countries don’t even recognize her. The current disproportionate attack by the Israelis on Lebanon is another show of their arrogance. Just as the Bush Administration had envisioned unseating Saddam as a cakewalk and conquering Iraq in a matter of few weeks, their mission is not complete even after four years, Israel also misjudged Hezbollah’s power. Hezbollah is turning out to be a much more formidable enemy than the Israelis had thought.

I, sometimes question the validity of the press reports that speak of the Sunni States’ apprehensions for the ever-increasing strength of the Shiites in the Middle East as being the reason of their lukewarm support for Hezbollah. If Sunnis have to choose between the Shiites and the Jews, there is no doubt that their choice will be the Shiites. I believe this is another Western ploy to drive a wedge of hatred between the two sects of Islam. I think the Westerners should realize that both Sunnis and Shiites are Muslims, and both believe in the same Allah, the same Prophet (PBUH) and recite the same Holy Book. The effort of the West to separate the Sunnis and the Shiites is the same old policy of “Divide and Conquer”.

Since yesterday the tone in Washington has changed. Bush and Blair are talking about a cease-fire. At the same time Israelis are talking about a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. I would recommend that if there has to be a buffer zone that it should be on Israel’s land and not in Lebanon, because once a country next to Israel portions out its land, even for a noble cause, that becomes Israel’s property. There are ample examples to look at.