In the papers, and between the lines, Dina Ezzat tries to tell the future of a bewildered Middle East Fortune telling is not an easy task when it comes to the Middle East, especially if the future is being depicted in the Egyptian press, which tends to offer such different scenarios that they are often contradictory. The brutal Israeli war on Lebanon and the remarkable -- and to many surprising -- steadfastness of Hizbullah have prompted many to attempt to predict the future of this region after the conflict is over. During the week, the debate has been intense in the press. Some argued directly, and many more indirectly, that if Israel comes out of this war without the clear military victory it had predicted and promised, then Hizbullah would have succeeded in breaking the self-esteem of the vaunted Israeli military. Granted that this outcome, commentators had it, will encourage resistance movements in other parts of the Arab world, especially Hamas. And, they added, it would force the Israeli government to recalculate its political moves. The road towards a lasting and comprehensive peace, some writers even stated, would start the day a ceasefire is declared in Lebanon without a major Israeli victory. In the meantime, a group of other commentators had the opposite scenario to offer -- the end of the war will be in favour of Israel because even if it fails to get an outright military victory it would have completely destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanon. This, commentators argued, is something that Hizbullah will always be blamed for and it is something that will forever haunt all resistance movements; they will always think twice before embarking on operations which will almost certainly bring pain and misery to their people. Of all the predictions offered this week, the most interesting was forwarded by Galal Dwidar in his daily column on the back page of Al-Akhbar. The mid-60s commentator wrote on Tuesday morning: "I am confident that the day will come when I see all those leaders who committed and supported the Israeli massacres in Lebanon, be they Israelis or Americans, standing before an international court to be tried for their atrocious crimes against humanity." Given his age, Dwidar's words indicated that he somehow believes that within three decades the world will change enough for its criminal court to be able to bring to justice no other than Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and US President George W Bush, provided they still have 30 more years to live, for what they did in Lebanon over the past four weeks. For Dwidar's vision to come true, sociologist Sayed Yassin would have to see a day when he can change his mind about what he wrote in the cultural weekly Al-Qahira on Tuesday, when he openly stated, "It is the UN itself that has exempted Israel from all the rules of international law... and as such Israel has had a free hand to commit a new massacre every day in Gaza and Lebanon." But how would this change come about, the papers offered no answer. There were stories carried by the international pages of Al-Ahram throughout the week about the protests across the world against the Israeli aggression on Lebanon. On Sunday Al-Ahram reported from Paris that a group of non-governmental organisations are planning to take Israel to court over its crimes against humanity in Lebanon. On Tuesday, the same paper reported that protesters forced themselves onto a plane flying from the US to the Middle East above a British city to inspect if the plane was carrying more smart bombs from the US to Israel to use in its war against Lebanese civilians, as the case has been for weeks. This said, nobody seemed to indicate whether Arabs will have to depend on Western civil society to bring down the arrogance of the US and Israel. Moreover, with all that has been written about the role of Iran in supporting Hizbullah, and its Palestinian counterpart Hamas, it was not made clear if it is Iran that will defy US-Israeli arrogance. But according to an interview accorded to Al-Masry Al-Youm on Tuesday by prominent thinker Abdel-Wahab El-Messiri, "Iran simply managed to fill a regional vacuum that occurred as a result of the withdrawing role of Arab countries." Then, maybe Dwidar's vision could be fulfilled by what some have alluded to: the decay of Israel. Again, El-Messiri's interview with Al-Masry Al-Youm offered a contradictory signal: "Israel is facing many internal problems but it is unlikely to collapse." Then it must be the resistance movements. Both El-Messiri's interview and the daily column of Makram Mohamed Ahmed in Al-Ahram on Sunday acknowledge the credibility and potential of the resistance and liberation movements in the Arab world and their impact on Israel. But neither men, despite their categorically different ideologies, believe that these movements can bring about a day when Israel, not to mention the US, is held accountable for their deeds against Arabs in Lebanon and Palestine. The signs in the papers were that it is the second scenario that seems likely to prevail for the foreseeable future. One sign is that Egypt is not in the most influential position and is unlikely to be so for some years to come. But as many commentators kept reminding us, Egypt's role is crucial and has to be played well irrespective of how much Egyptian decision-makers preferred to remain ultra-cautious in avoiding confrontations with Israel or, for that matter, the US. "I am not the only one who feels ashamed of the official Egyptian position on the Israeli aggression on Lebanon," Hassan Nafaa wrote in Al-Masry Al-Youm on Sunday. He added, "At the official level, there were many more dignified positions that Egypt could have taken without having to get into a war with Israel." Other signs included the lack of confidence among Arabs, the lack of will of Arab countries to defend one another or to use their economic assets to serve one another's interest and, above all, the inability of the international community to act.
