This isn’t the first time the Middle East has lived in fear of a generalized conflict, and it probably won’t be the last.
But an out-and-collision has yet to occur for two reasons.
First, because the paramilitary organizations of the “resistance” have seemed too weak to take on Israel’s military might.
Hamas is well on the way to being totally destroyed, hence Israel’s troop withdrawals from Gaza.
And Hezbollah’s command structure is largely paralyzed in the wake of the booby-trapped pagers. It seems to have suffered far more serious losses to its political and military hierarchies than was obvious in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
The second reason is that Iran, which is behind both these organizations, is reluctant to take action.
Of course we’re talking on a different scale now, but even so no one can say whether Iran has the capacity to take on Israel. Indeed, it seems even Iran isn’t certain it could.
So it’s up to Israel to make the running. Will it invade Lebanon?
All the international actors, with the US and the EU at the forefront, have committed themselves to warding off an invasion.
On the other hand, Israel is well aware of the opportunity presented by a weakened and disorganized Hezbollah.
Will it seize the chance or not?
We should remember, of course, that Israel’s prior experience of military intervention in Lebanon has not always been positive. And a serious military leadership like Israel’s remembers that.
What is certain, however, is that whether a conflict is avoided or not, the opposing sides do not seem ready to sit down around the negotiating table.
First of all, because it’s not even clear who the opposing sides are: Israel? The Palestinians (and if so, which Palestinians)? Iran? The paramilitary organizations?
And, second, Israel will obviously exploit the current situation to settle a long-standing problem: ensuring the security of its citizens. No nation can gladly accept to live under a constant hail of rockets, missiles and drones or with the threat of terrorism on their doorstep.
Logically and theoretically, the need for security could unlock a field in which meaningful communication is possible. But neither side knows how—or wants—to seek it out. Years of violence and fanaticism have left scars; there’s been a lot of blood under the bridge.
And when the time comes for the crucial negotiations, no one has the courage to look forward rather than backward.
