Al-Qaida is Partners with the De Facto Power in the Wars of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine

High-level American military sources with deep knowledge of the Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa expect that Lebanon will be the leading and most important destination for the flight of al-Qaida volunteers and their like. This will not be in the wake of an American withdrawal from Iraq, but as of now. The reason for this is that these forces are searching for headquarters to wage new battles in the war of terrorism to head off an American escalation against them in Iraq, or in the event of a US withdrawal, which will leave them without a direct confrontation with "the enemy." And since "the "enemy" of the US is mercurial, in terms of a definition, and in terms of the mood of the US leadership, the flight from Iraq will branch out and head in directions such as the Horn of Africa and North Africa. However, the coming destination, in the estimation of leading military figures, will be Lebanon. Thus, it would useful for Hizbullah to give the matter some attention, since the volunteers from al-Qaida and affiliated groups are determined to benefit from the strategy of Hizbullah and its Syrian partner. This strategy is based on hindering the Lebanese State, paralyzing and bringing it down at the hands of militias and enhancing their role in the Lebanese arena. This will cost Hizbullah and its fighters a very steep price, while offering Lebanon as a sacrifice to the authoritarian aspirations of this party and the aspirations of hegemony by its two partners, Iran and Syria. The neighboring states of Syria and Israel might do well to think farther than their dance of mutual interests at the expense of Lebanon. The little wolf that they are raising in their neighborhood might turn into a monster that turns on them, because it will move away from what they believe to be their joint control over it. Thus, this phase of wars, terror, proxy wars and wars of priority require a mix of temporary divorce and phased marriage between the combustible issues in the Middle East, i.e. Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Putting these issues on the table of American interest itself has produced fierce battles in the balance of responsibility and prioritization, whether local, regional or international. The concerned parties must understand things, when one of them adopts the tactic of "the forest before the trees," as long as this involves tactics, and is not a substitute for a strategy of "losing the forest for the trees."

Let's tackle things without mincing words. The Palestine issue is a central one in the politics, mind, thought and emotion of Arabs and Muslims. However, Palestine is not the only issue in the Arab world, but does not represent a "cause" in the traditional sense, as Arabs and Muslims are used to. Among the most important reasons for this are the inter-Palestinian divisions and wars. The Palestinian issue is political, and is central, and should be given priority because it is extremely important in and of itself, and because in the emotions, mind and thought of Arabs, it is evidence of the extent of American double standards or honesty of American objectives in the Middle East. It is the cause of a people groaning underneath an exhausting Israeli occupation, which has enjoyed US protection for several decades.

Moderate Arab countries have once again delivered to the Jordanian monarch a message of the necessity of pushing for a solution to the Palestinian issue now, to relay it to the American president. This is what King Abdullah II did during his meeting with President George W Bush last Tuesday. Those informed about the atmosphere of the meetings said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her team were working seriously to ensure that an international peace conference, which Bush recently announced, is "meaningful and significant." The conference, scheduled to be held in November in the US, will play a big role, either in enhancing and activating direct negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, if they have begun, or in seriously pushing them to begin. The important thing is that these negotiations will be about a final status solution, in the estimation of those aware of these meetings. This in itself represents a new accomplishment and development, since the answer in the past has been that the circumstances weren't ripe yet for such negotiations, or that the Palestinians had to submit a certificate of good behavior as a prior condition for talks.

Convening a conference, at an invitation from Bush and chaired by Rice, will present an opportunity for moderate countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Jordan and others -- to put forward a working plan that pushes for an international conference that accelerates movement on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations about final status, with dates and phases that give Palestinians true responsibility, so that the Palestinian Authority can make cohesive, quick and big strides when it comes to commitments and implementing the building of institutions that can preserve security and political authority. The plan would inform Israel that there is a serious readiness to support negotiation toward solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, coexistence, and the normalization of ties with moderate Arab and Muslim countries. At the same time, there is no mood, readiness or desire by moderates to accept stalling, procrastination and an Israeli flight from peace and its challenges.

A portion of this message, which the Jordanian king relayed to the US president, dealt with expectation in the ranks of moderates about US policies, and the existence of an opportunity that should not be lost, since Arab and Muslim moderates are important allies in the battle against extremism and the war against terror. No one will volunteer to sit with Israel at a conference or meeting as long as Israel offers only "plastic surgery" and deficient steps, such as releasing a handful of dollars of Palestinian Authority tax revenues, or releasing a handful of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. What the American president and his team heard was that the climate and mood in the region will not tolerate holding a conference merely for the sake of holding a conference. The failure to exploit this opportunity now, to take advantage of what moderate countries are offering, will waste a rare opportunity for this administration and the US, as well as for the Middle East as a whole.

In other words, the US president must be fully aware that prompting Israel to treat the Palestinian-Israeli conflict serves as a fundamental step for America's higher interests in the Middle East, and an indivisible part of the war that the American president says he is waging against extremism and terror. Treating the Palestinian issue and solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not set down limits for the total war against al-Qaida and the like; however, these steps will certainly remove a good part of the hesitation the Arab and Muslim public when it comes to American intentions. These two steps will lead this segment of public opinion to a necessary alliance with the forces that are standing up to the forces of destruction and terror. Thus, when the leaders of moderate states stress the centrality of the Palestinian issue to the American president, they are not abandoning Iraq or working against it, but rather for the sake of this country. The firm American focus on Iraq enjoys a strong and effective wing of support within the administration, for political reasons. This group does not want to pressure Israel to solve the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the group that calls for assigning importance to Palestine sees a link between what is taking place in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and it is pushing for an effective American role when it comes to Palestine and Lebanon, and not an obsession with Iraq and terror, which blinds one to the policies that are necessary to help Iraq.

This, of course, does not deny the rights of Iraq and its government, or its responsibility to keep Iraq a leading priority for the US, the world, the Islamic world and the Middle East. Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, has every right to focus, for example, on lobbying for an American-Iranian or American-Syrian dialogue over Iraq, regardless of whether this dialogue will have a negative impact on Lebanon, or will not serve the Palestine issue. For him, the priority is as it should be: seeing this dialogue influence Iraq and seeing its repercussions for the horrible sufferings of his country. He is not putting forward Iraq as a hostage until solutions for Palestine and Lebanon are found, and he has the right to do this. He is his country's foreign minister, and even if he has opinions about linking or not linking these issues, he is doing his duty as Iraq's foreign minister, and focusing on the demands of these duties.

The new Lebanese ambassador to the United Nations, Nawaf Salam, sees the opposite as being correct. Thus, he informs those who ask him about how what has been offered to Lebanon can be preserved by saying that the Palestinian question must be solved, and America must acknowledge its mistakes in Iraq. He is completely wrong in this academic style of diplomacy, since Lebanon at this juncture requires that it should represent a decisive priority for the world body, not just for its ambassador, but for all of his accredited colleagues.

Currently the UN is unable to adopt the Iraqi issue -- inheriting a destroyed, fragmented Iraq after the occupation that it opposed, and an American military action that it considered illegal. The role that the UN can play in the Palestinian-Israeli struggle is a secondary one, at this juncture, because of the centrality of the US role in finding a solution to the conflict. Lebanon is another matter. It is an international project in which the UN plays the biggest role, since it has adopted historical resolutions about Lebanon, and is responsible for the international court to try those involved in political assassinations. The UN is tasked with finding mechanisms to control Lebanon's borders, so that arms don't find their way to Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, thanks to Syrian or Iranian decisions. The UN also has peacekeeping troops in the south, on the borders with Israel. Strengthening and enhancing these mechanisms and pushing for the creation of an international court as quickly as possibly are the answers that are being awaited from the Lebanese ambassador to the UN, not comments that turn Lebanon into an adjunct that awaits a solution in Palestine or the acknowledgment of failure in Iraq.

Lebanon contains one possible success perhaps, for the UN and the US, not just as a project and model of democracy, with support from the outside world; but as a historic arena in the conflict between the State and the militias, between moderation and extremism, between building and destroying. Anyone who represents Lebanon in international forums should point to the threats awaiting this country from its neighbors on its borders, and from the volunteers arriving from Iraq, helped by the country lying between Iraq and Lebanon. It is a political and diplomatic war, not an academic one that is served by delivering lectures and acting from a sense of superiority.

The local leader of this war, Hizbullah, is acting tenaciously and predictably, in order to hinder and paralyze the State, so it cannot be blamed for igniting a military conflict or civil war that does away with the State. Hizbullah receives arms from Iran via Syria and is proud of its rockets, informing everyone concerned that the party holds the power of decision-making in its hand; if it does not activate this option, in return it activates the options of suppressing and reducing the power of the State. The message is that Hizbullah holds the keys to seeing the Lebanese Parliament go back to work, or leaving it locked up, thanks to a decision by its ally, Speaker Nabih Berri. The party is able to paralyze the presidency of the Republic by leaving in office its other ally, Emile Lahoud, who is totally subservient to Syria. Amid the international rejection of allowing this party to bring down the legitimately elected government headed by Fouad Siniora, Hizbullah's leader, secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, has only to obstruct, domestically, the institutions of democratic rule in the country.

Hamas tried to get rid of the Palestinian Authority via a military coup. Hizbullah is currently working to bring down the Lebanese government via civil disobedience and obstructing the State, while reserving the right to spark wars, if the orders or approval come from its foreign allies in Damascus and Tehran. Both Hamas and Hizbullah are being contained, like their allies in Tehran and Damascus, in their own ways. The common denominator for the coming phase of this containment might see this temporary partner, as represented by the volunteers from the Iraq war, and the al-Qaida types, which are branching out in all directions.

In addition to the international court, there are violations on the arms ban imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. There will be unpleasant surprises for those who violate this resolution. The same containment will affect the various Palestinian and multi-national terrorist factions that are fighting the Lebanese Army, whose young people are a source of pride.

There might be other assassinations, and the forces seeking the dismantling of the Lebanese State might try other types of sabotage, escalation and wars, through using mercenaries, militias and opening the borders to al-Qaida so that it can enter Lebanon. The forces seeking the overthrow of the Palestinian Authority and the building of institutions might believe that the spread of al-Qaida in their ranks might also protect them from sabotage and terror, at the expense of Palestinian suffering and lives. The Israeli occupation authorities might believe themselves able to procrastinate and appear ready for peace, without offering any down payment to prove their seriousness. The common denominator among all these forces is that they are digging their own graves and building a structure that will be brought down over their heads by their "partner" in these failed policies, whether it is called "al-Qaida" or something else.