A war in the region involving Israel was not in the cards, writes Rasha Saad Banner headlines this week reflected the pain inflicted on Lebanon as Israel waged a bloody military campaign on the country following the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the death of eight others at the hands of Hizbullah last week. "The Israeli war machine spreads destruction," read the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar 's front-page headline on Tuesday. "Hizbullah's missiles reach Nazareth", read the banner of the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. "Bush wants Hizbullah out of Lebanon", was in the Lebanese As-Safir . In the pan-Arab London-based Al-Hayat daily, Abdul-Wahab Badrakhan hailed the Hizbullah operation as "the best, most expected and necessary response to Israeli terrorism and brutality in Gaza." Omar Koosh in As-Safir described the Israeli military operation waged on Lebanon as "an all out aggressive destructive war". US justification for the Israeli operation as "self- defence" and a "reaction", while being severely criticised by Arab pundits, did not surprise many of them. "The US can justify this war as it did with other wars waged by Israel against the Palestinians and Arab countries," wrote Koosh, adding that what was happening in Lebanon was not a mere reaction or use of the right of self-defence, "but is genocide which is rejected and condemned by all international and human rights laws". In Al-Hayat, Walid Choukair agreed that the Israeli offensive was not a reaction to Hizbullah's operation. Choukair said there had been much debate about the rationality of the Hizbullah operation, whether it was right or wrong, and about its timing. But according to Choukair, the problem remains that Israel continues to take more Lebanese prisoners and consolidates its occupation of the Shebaa Farms. He added that there was also a similar problem in Palestine, where Israel continues to keep more than 10,000 Palestinians in jail. "The Israeli government is pressing on with its policy of killing and starvation. It continues to deny the presence of a Palestinian peace partner in negotiations. The abduction of an Israeli soldier by the Palestinians and two others by Hizbullah, then, was a reaction," Choukair said. Choukair also held the US accountable for the Israeli escalation. It goes without saying that such a widescale war must have had the US green light. Choukair also challenged Bush when he said that while giving Israel the right to defend itself, he added that its actions should not "weaken" the Lebanese government. Choukair wrote that Bush claims to be anxious not to weaken the government in an attempt to justify his contradictions. "Whereas Bush has backed Lebanon's sovereignty and independence from Syria over the past few months, he supports Israel's bloody aggression which is destroying this independence and sovereignty. The allegation has become more like a joke that only raises a dark irony. It is a cover for massacres committed against civilians. It further fuels Arab hatred against America's double-standard policy in the region. "What is this kind of independence that Bush supports in Lebanon when he fully backs Israel's efforts to destroy its economy, the most important element of Lebanon's independence?" Choukair wrote. Amir Taheri wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that until a few weeks ago the conventional wisdom was that there is not going to be another major war in the Middle East involving Israel but that now even the most optimistic observers are no longer sure. Taheri argued that what was certain was that the conflict would not end until one side wins and the other loses. He explained that if Israel backs down now and ends its campaign without disarming Hizbullah it would, in effect, hand Iran and Syria an unexpected victory. This, according to Taheri, would also spell the end of Lebanon's new democratic government and the return in force of Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon. At the other end of the spectrum in Palestine, such an Israeli retreat would give a badly wounded Hamas a second lease of life and greater vigour to pursue its radical strategy. If, on the other hand, Israel removes Hizbullah from the Lebanese scene, Taheri adds, it would be the turn of leaderships in Tehran and Damascus to come to terms with a major strategic setback that could encourage their internal enemies. The negative Arab stance vis-à-vis the Israeli aggression and the depiction by some Arab regimes of the Hizbullah operation as an "uncalculated adventure" came under fire from Arab pundits. "Whenever we think that the Arab stance has hit rock bottom, we are surprised by the exceptional ability of Arab governments to dig even deeper into absurdity and political ineffectiveness," Hossam Eitani wrote in As-Safir. Clovis Maqsood in An-Nahar praised "the heroic resistance of the Lebanese and Palestinians and their showing the utmost endurance and persistence to defend their lands. However, Maqsood added, "it is a shame that [Arab regimes] put the responsibility of confronting criminals only on the shoulders of innocent defenceless men, women and children."
