New trumps old
The prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Lebanon highlights two different orientations between the leaders who negotiated it. Sharon is on the losing side, writes Hassan Nafaa*
On Thursday 29 January, Arab and international satellite channels broadcast an event that was as significant as it was moving. That evening, at Frankfurt International Airport, two planes took off almost simultaneously. One was headed to Lod Airport, Tel Aviv. On board of one was Mossad agent Elhanan Tanenbaum, who had fallen prisoner to Hizbullah, and the remains of three Israeli soldiers who had died as they were being captured by the Lebanese resistance. The other, bound for Beirut, carried 59 bodies belonging to the full spectrum of that resistance, from the Communist Party to the Syrian National Party. Also on board were 23 Lebanese POWs and seven other Arab POWs of diverse nationalities. At the same time, several busses carrying 400 Palestinian POWs crossed Israeli checkpoints inside the West Bank on their way to Palestinian Authority areas, where they would be reunited with families and loved ones.
A despondent gloom hung over Lod Airport when the plane landed, and no officials were on hand to mark the occasion. In stark contrast, Beirut International Airport was a spectacle of triumphant jubilation. The airport teemed with prominent Lebanese officials and public figures, principal among them being the Maronite president, the Sunni prime minister and the Shi'ite speaker of parliament. All were keen on having the honour to receive the liberated POWs, and to pay tribute to the Lebanese and Arab resistance martyrs.
The scenes aired live from Germany, Israel, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories confirmed to spectators throughout the Arab world that the agreement struck between Israel and Hizbullah over the exchange of POWs, and the bodies of their respective dead, was being implemented with clockwork precision. It is not difficult to imagine what the two architects of this deal must have felt at the time. One pictures the elderly Sharon, who had not made his presence felt in any way at the sombre reception in Lod, dispirited and humiliated, while the youthful Hizbullah Secretary-General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the star of the tumultuous reception at Beirut International, was aglow in exultation. Nor should one be surprised that such would be their sentiments after nearly three years of arduous negotiations in which finally the latter, Nasrallah, succeeded in imposing his conditions in full upon the former.
One cannot help but to wonder why Sharon would have agreed to this deal and its logistics. Certainly, he could have refused such difficult and unequal conditions without angering his people. Indeed, he could have refused to enter into negotiations from the outset, given that Hizbullah has been branded an organisation of "terrorists". That he did not leads one to believe that he had some message to convey to others. One also must presume that Nasrallah had a message to convey; for otherwise he would not have shown that degree of flexibility in the final moments of the negotiations that would ensure that the deal would be struck and executed in such a dramatic manner.
In concluding this agreement, Sharon sought to tell his people and -- via them -- the world that he places the interests and religious customs of the Israeli people above all other considerations, and that he is prepared to go to all possible lengths in order to ensure the return of an Israeli POW to his family and loved ones, or to bring back the corpse of even one Jew to his cherished homeland who had given his life for the sake of his country. Simultaneously, Sharon sought to tell his enemies that the blood, body or life of a single Jew is more precious to him than the blood, bodies or lives of all other peoples -- especially if they are Arab. The release of 400 Arab detainees in exchange for a single Israeli POW is to be taken as testimony that the moral and political scales, and not just the military scales, are in his favour; and that he, therefore, is the victor, regardless of how the media might construe the exchange. As long as the balances of power are so overwhelmingly in Israel's favour, he reminds his Arab audiences, he really has nothing to lose in striking this deal. Especially given that Israeli prisons will quickly fill up again with new Arab detainees.
This message epitomises the outlook of that veteran warrior who was born in historic Palestine, enlisted in the Haganah at the tender age of 14, and served in the Israeli army for 28 years; during which time he fought in all of Israel's wars. Not only did this career army officer score some unconventional successes (most notably his command of the force that breached Egyptian lines in the 1973 War), he is also notorious for having cold-bloodedly perpetrated some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity during these all these wars; from the massacres of Palestinians in 1948, to the murder of Egyptian POWs in 1956 and the massacres of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. Sharon was a child of the Zionist enterprise. As it advanced from one success to the next, so did the career of this man who was instrumental in transforming that project into a reality on the ground. A man with such a past can only regard the current crisis as transitory. Indeed, he believes that the current international circumstances offer him the ideal opportunity to lead the Zionist enterprise to its ultimate victory, and himself to be crowned as Israel's new king.
Hassan Nasrallah, through his perseverance and ultimate success at ensuring his conditions were met, directed his message not only to the Lebanese people, but to all Arab and Muslim peoples. This message was powerful and succinct: You have to strike iron with iron. Israel only understands the language of might, and any concessions from it must therefore be extracted by force. Israel, moreover, is not looking for friends, but for agents. And it has no compunction against betraying them -- as it did Anton Lahd and his comrades who paid with their lives for its sake. Nor does Israel respect those who have no other means at their disposal but to beg, and it will use and deceive these people ruthlessly, as it did Abu Mazen. On the other hand, the message continues, Israel can be made to respect those of its enemies who possess strong weapons that can be brought to bear in the arena of combat or in the field of diplomacy. Nasrallah proved consummately adept in both domains, simultaneously proving himself prepared for the greatest sacrifices having lost his own son in the course of his campaigns. Israel, therefore, had no alternative but to respect Hizbullah, even if it harboured the most intense hatred for it. Moreover, it was Israel that had to plead with others to mediate in order to persuade Hizbullah to negotiate, in spite of its long proclaimed charge that that party is a terrorist organisation.
The two messages could not be more antithetical. Sharon's speaks from the past, from the experience of a shrewd politician with proven military credentials who had to rifle through his old files in order to come up with something to persuade his people to be patient because the greater victory is just within reach. Sharon is convinced that the Palestinians and the Arabs are afraid but have no shame, and that they might fly into fits of rage, but do not have the wit or patience for long term strategic battles, and must, therefore, succumb in the end. The proof of this, in his eyes, is to be found in their pathetic conditions, their ceaseless squabbling and infighting, and their constantly deteriorating resources and capacities. Nasrallah, on the other hand, speaks to the future. His is an attempt to revive the energies of an entire nation rather than to achieve narrow political gains. The nation, he believes, may be in a critical condition, but it has not been defeated yet. Arab governments may have weakened and grown submissive, but the people have not yet surrendered. True, some groups and factions may now be singing to the tune of an American master, but the will of the resistance remains alive and is only waiting for someone to stir it into action, and to point the way to salvation.
Because it is backed by events on the ground, Hassan Nasrallah's message has begun to strike home throughout the Arab and Islamic world. The Hizbullah leader has furnished a unique and inspiring model, for he has adopted a modern and sophisticated political and religious rhetoric that focusses on those issues that unite, rather than divide, the nation; on ways to build bridges at home and abroad, rather than destroy them; on the fundamental, overarching principles, not on the details that lead to discord and confusion. He has realised that the Zionist enterprise is poised to defeat all in the Arab world -- Arabs and non-Arabs, Sunna and Shi'ite, Muslims and non- Muslims -- and that no truly nationalist denomination or movement will be able to survive under its shadow.
The defeat of the Zionist enterprise, therefore, must be the higher strategic goal towards which all the nation's energies and resources must be channelled; nothing should be allowed to distract the nation from that end. It is possible for the nation to sustain its resistance, using diverse means, and simultaneously to grow and develop. Indeed, its growth and development are integrally contingent upon keeping the culture of resistance alive. The defeat of the Zionist enterprise does not imply "throwing the Jews into the sea", or even the destruction of Israel. It means reaching a balance in mutual deterrence so as to ensure a peace settlement that guarantees each party their legitimate rights, instead of a settlement under which an entire nation will be reduced to second-class citizens in the new kingdom of Israel.
If my reading of Hassan Nasrallah is correct, his message will reach the heart of millions because his is the message of the future to a people in search of salvation. Meanwhile, we pray to God to protect all Arab and Muslim leaderships from the evil root of pride, and from all enemies who are waiting to deliver the fatal blow.
* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
