Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
27 August - 03 September 2006

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian. To subscribe, click here. (http://www.sfcg.org/template/lists.cfm)
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org.
Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Inside this edition

1) by David Ignatius
Syndicated columnist, David Ignatius, describes a recent conversation with Ahmed Sheikh, the editor in chief of Al-Jazeera television, about different views in the Middle East on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Admitting that as a journalist himself he has often found Al-Jazeera’s coverage “tries too hard to present the Arab news, rather than just the news,” he is struck in his meeting by how difficult it is to cover the region and quotes what Sheikh claims is one of the biggest challenges, "all the threads and problems are intertwined…it's very difficult to trace where they begin and end." Describing some of the complexities facing the satellite channel in its reporting, Ignatius remains a supporter: “Al-Jazeera is confronting one of the abiding truths of honest journalism - that the world is damned complicated, and that it's very hard to know who the good guys and bad guys are.”
(Source: Daily Star, 24 August 2006)

2) by Rana Sweis
Rana Sweis, a journalist and recent graduate of Hofstra University, provides a review of John Updike’s recent best-seller Terrorist. Replete with portrayals of harsh stereotypes that are brought to the fore through various characters and providing a window for Western readers in the mind of a frustrated Arab-American youth, the book is an uncomfortable read at times. However, Sweis concludes it “does go a long way toward exploring, and potentially helping bridge, the ever-growing gap of misunderstanding between the Arab world and Americans.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 August, 2006)

3) by Zaenal Abidin Eko Putro
Executive Director of the Center for Asian Studies (CeNAS) in Jakarta, Zaenal Abidin Eko Putro, provides an interesting perspective on the old argument about whether democracy can be implemented in predominantly Muslim countries. Sharing the example of Indonesia’s democratic system and the inclusion of Islamic parties in the democratic process, he urges the West to continue to support democratic reform in the Muslim world and to work closely with Muslim scholars to refine and adapt Western-style democracy for the needs and unique circumstances of these countries.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 August, 2006)

4) by Mohammad Yazid
Mohammad Yazid, staff member on The Jakarta Post's Opinion Desk, looks at the various ways in which jihad is understood in the Muslim world and contends that the most difficult form of jihad is "the war against one's own desires.” Arguing that the current global context requires a different way of performing jihad, he looks to prominent Muslim thinkers in Indonesia who suggest that today’s jihad could take the form of “continuing to exert political pressure on the United Nations to stop Israel's attacks”, sending peacekeeping forces to Lebanon, and even prayer.
(Source: Jakarta Post, 18 August 2006)

5) by Joshua Mitnick
Christian Science Monitor correspondent, Joshua Mitnick, examines the thorny issue often claimed to be at the root of the long-standing conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the dispute over the Shebaa Farms. Although it would not act as the be-all-and-end-all in Lebanese-Israeli relations, the resolution of this issue, which will shortly be discussed by the UN Security Council, could help to bring some stability to the region. "I am not sure if Hizbullah is willing to lay down its arms if Shebaa Farms is returned," says Adib Farha, a former aide to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora who today resides in the US, "but the Lebanese government's hand will be strengthened tremendously and the Lebanese public - even those who support Hizbullah - are going to start questioning the justification of the alleged resistance."
(Source: Christian Science Monitor, 22 August 2006)

1) Al-Jazeera faces the ambiguities of a complex world
David Ignatius

Washington, D.C. - What do people in the Middle East think five years after the September 11, 2001, attacks? To get a quick snapshot, I paid a visit to Ahmed Sheikh, the editor in chief of Al-Jazeera television. It was reassuring, in a perverse way, that he views the situation in his region the same way that most Americans would - as a dangerous mess.

Sheikh told me he had been mulling this week over how Al-Jazeera should cover the 9/11 anniversary. "Five years after that catastrophe, the Arab world is much more divided than it used to be," he reflected. "The image of Islam has been tarnished to a great extent. We are weaker than we used to be against Israel. Development is absent." When he stands back and looks at the region, Sheikh says, "all the threads and problems are intertwined. It's very difficult to trace where they begin and end."

Sheikh fears that Iraq is headed toward a calamitous civil war that will spill over to other countries that have mixed Shiite-Sunni populations, such as Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. "If the Americans can prevent civil war from happening, their presence would be useful," he says. But after three years of American failure to stabilise the country, he is doubtful.

Al-Jazeera's editor remains militant about Arab causes. "What doesn't change for our viewers is indignation against US and Israeli policies," he says. But with the exception of the Palestinian struggle and the Iraqi resistance to American occupation, he says, most of the so-called jihadist battles have actually produced what the Arabs call fitna, or self-destructive internal strife.

Sheikh works out of a small office just off the main newsroom. He joined Al-Jazeera when it was founded in 1996 after working for the BBC and other television news channels. Dressed in shirtsleeves, just back from the morning story conference with his editors, he looks a bit like an Arab version of Lou Grant.

Al-Jazeera has been attacked by American officials as a propaganda tool for Osama bin Laden and other Muslim radicals. And as a journalist, I have often found its coverage unbalanced. It tries too hard to present the Arab news, rather than just the news. That said, I was struck talking to Sheikh how complicated it has become for Al-Jazeera to cover this part of the world.

Take coverage of Iran: Al-Jazeera recently reopened its bureau there after it was closed by the Iranian authorities for 18 months. The network's crime was that it sent a camera crew into southwestern Iran and reported complaints of the Arab minority there that they were unfairly treated by the central government. After the broadcast aired, there were protests and civil unrest in the region - and the Iranians decided to pull the plug.

Iraq poses a worse problem. Because Al-Jazeera reported from behind the lines of the Sunni insurgency, Iraqi Shiites became indignant about its coverage. The Shiite-led government expelled the network in September 2004, but Sheikh says he would be reluctant to go back now. Relations with the US military are better, but because of Shiite anger, it would be "very, very dangerous" for Al-Jazeera.

"People say we are the channel of the insurgents. It's not true. We are the channel of everybody. We are critical and balanced. That is what a journalist is supposed to do - not drum the official point of view but criticise, try to evaluate."

Syria and Lebanon also pose tricky problems for an Arab satellite network. After Al-Jazeera broadcast an exclusive hour-long interview with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shiite militia Hizbullah, it was attacked by Sunni Salafists, who back Al-Qaeda and consider the Shiites apostates. And after Syrian President Bashar Assad denounced other Arab leaders as "half-men" for failing to support Hizbullah against Israel, Sheikh says it was hard to find a balanced on-air commentator.

I've been a proponent of Al-Jazeera, despite its tendency to spin coverage, because it was the first step toward real broadcast journalism in the Arab world, as opposed to the old state-run propaganda channels. And my conversation with Sheikh reinforces that conviction. After 10 years, Al-Jazeera is confronting one of the abiding truths of honest journalism - that the world is damned complicated, and that it's very hard to know who the good guys and bad guys are.

That's a start. If we can have common standards for covering the news in the Middle East, maybe we can eventually do something to fix the problems we all agree are there.

###
* David Ignatius is a syndicated columnist. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Daily Star, 24 August 2006; www.dailystar.com.lb (http://www.dailystar.com.lb).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

2) ~Youth Views~ Book review: Terrorist by John Updike
Rana Sweis

Amman, Jordan - John Updike’s new novel, Terrorist, released a few weeks ago in the United States, is selling like “hot cakes”. Perhaps it became an instant best-seller because it is a John Updike novel. Or perhaps because the life and mind of a terrorist fascinates Americans.

The book opens with thoughts running through the mind of an Arab-American, high school student, named Ahmad, an intolerant, conservative, aloof but shrewd critic of the American way of life.

His mother is Irish-American. His father, absent from his life since childhood, is an Egyptian. A sensitive and bright senior in high school, Ahmad seems to be failing to live up to his potential when he reveals to his Jewish guidance counsellor, Jack - the novel’s other main character - that he is planning a career merely as a truck driver.

The novel often reads like non-fiction because of its depiction of real political events and identity issues. There is the story of 9/11, the mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and more importantly, the tale of a confused adolescent living between two worlds, Muslim and American.

The reader witnesses Ahmad’s growing resentment and lack of healthy social relationships evolve into something far more unhealthy than normal adolescent angst – Ahmad is considering becoming a suicide bomber. Jack senses Ahmad’s potential and intelligence but is unable to stop the process, partly because of his sympathetic views of some of Ahmad’s criticisms of American society. His interest in Ahmad leads him also down his own path of self-assessment and strange encounters.

Updike’s prose is vivid, luring the reader into Ahmad’s streets, neighbourhood and school: “The halls of the high school smell of perfume and bodily exhalations, of chewing gum and impure cafeteria food, and of cloth—cotton and wool and the synthetic materials of running shoes.”

Unfortunately, clichés and stereotypes at times stifle the novel, despite Updike’s gifted way with words. As the title suggests, sometimes it seems that Updike’s portrayal of Ahmad involves stereotypes that border on racism, and whether these are Updike’s perceptions or merely those of his characters is not clear. Even the cover illustration is that of a shadowy figure, with no clear features, walking away.

Witness a Federal agent discussing the difficulties of investigating suspects: “Damn!” he explodes…“I hate losing an asset. We got so few in the Muslim community…We don’t have enough Arabic speakers, and half of those we do have don’t think like we do. There’s something weird about the language – it makes them feeble-minded, somehow…The explosives team…they are not talking, or else the translator isn’t telling us what they’re saying. They all cover for each other, even the ones on our payroll, you can’t trust your own recruits anymore…”

Still, this novel remains a page-turner and worthy read despite these flaws. Updike’s use of Arabic words and quotations from the Qur’an demonstrate substantial research on his part, lending an impression of credence to a portrayal that many Arab readers may feel uncomfortable with. Unfortunately, a few young Muslim men do take Ahmad’s path, and Updike does a respectable and scholarly job of exploring the twisted interpretations of Islam that result in such destructive actions.

Ultimately, Updike’s hopeful end, rushed though it may be, does suggest that violence and terrorism can be avoided and that inter-cultural understanding is possible: it is the American guidance counsellor, not the team of heavily armed American FBI agents, who ultimately saves the day, because Jack is able to empathize with and understand Ahmad.

Uncomfortable as the novel is at times, it does go a long way toward exploring, and potentially helping bridge, the ever-growing gap of misunderstanding between the Arab world and Americans. Updike deconstructs these issues and presents them eloquently, albeit painfully. At the same time, Updike seems equally interested in using Ahmad’s point-of-view to criticise contemporary American society as he is in writing a post-9/11 thriller. For both Muslim and Western audiences, there is much to be learned from this novel.

###
* Rana Sweis is a journalist and recent graduate of Hofstra University. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), August 29, 2006; www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Copyright permission has been granted for republication.

3) What democracy means in Muslim-Western relations
Zaenal Abidin Eko Putro

Jakarta – Many today argue that the world is engulfed in a terrifying "clash of civilisations" between the Muslim world and the West. Even though many refute the idea of such an international clash, it is clear that Muslim-Western tensions are playing out today in some parts of the world, with the most recent instance being the fighting between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Another example of such a clash is a non-physical one that has occurred in the discourse on democracy. Most Western countries have accepted the idea of democracy and applied democratic political systems. However, only a small number of Muslim countries have adopted Western-style democracy. Some Muslim countries even reject this term and have created their own political systems based on Islamic principles of governance.

In addition, when some Muslim countries embraced democratic principles, the results were sometimes surprising and often viewed with dissatisfaction by the Western world. Specifically, the establishment of certain governments which came to power in free elections has resulted in Western criticism on several counts. One well-known example occurred in Algeria in 1990 when the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) won the election, only to be overthrown by a West-supported military. A more recent controversial election victory was Hamas’– a persona-non-grata in the eyes of the United States- which is still categorised as a terrorist organisation despite winning a free election in Palestine. The Hamas government has yet to receive any support from Western countries under the influence of the United States.

Misperceptions about the principles and implementation of democracy have caused a great deal of misunderstanding between Muslim and Western cultures. Many Muslim peoples fear democracy in their countries will result in the erosion of moral and religious values and would represent yet another invasion of Western cultures and norms. Many Western cultures wonder whether democracy is compatible with Islam and fear the rise of Islamic extremist parties. And one specific concern that Western and Muslim academics have often differed on is whether democracy has room for shari‘a (Islamic law).

Yet regardless of these obstacles, the Western world should continue to work with Muslim countries to help them build their unique versions of democracy. Efforts toward greater understanding of the various definitions and perceptions of democracy and toward the practical implementation of democracy in predominantly Muslim countries should be met with greater Western support of these processes.

One country that is often held up as a positive example of a democratic political system in a predominantly Muslim state is Indonesia. Following its independence in 1945, Indonesia decided not to become an Islamic state as such, but a democratic nation-state, and has not seen a rise in Islamic extremism or violence. Indonesia's experience with the emergence of the Party of Justice and Prosperity (PKS) as the sixth runner up in the last parliamentary election is an interesting case in point. In the 2004 parliamentary election, no less than 8.3 million voters gave their support to the party and helped establish its 45 representatives in parliament. The party was also successful in placing prominent members as ministers in a cabinet led by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla.

The accusation that overwhelming success by the PKS would cultivate Islamic radicalism and spawn terrorist groups was unfounded. On the contrary, the result of a survey conducted by Kompas Daily about this party in June 2005 showed that while most people tended to be pessimistic over the future implementation of political platforms in Indonesia, this opinion did not apply to the PKS. No less than 60.4 percent of respondents expressed their optimism about the positive image of the party. For many people, the victory of PKS and the emergence of other Islamic parties are considered a positive move that will result in constructive change.

Unfortunately, this example has mistakenly been seen as the emergence of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in Muslim world by some. Yet, the Indonesian example fits with a trend that other countries have also seen when more radical groups, such as the IRA in Northern Ireland, have found room to participate in government, resulting in a decrease in violence and extremism. This suggests that the West should not impede the integration of radical Islamic groups into political systems.

What is clear is that a new perspective of democracy in predominantly Muslim countries, based on the needs of both the Muslim world and the West, must be developed in an effort to achieve long-term peace. Furthermore, Muslim and Western populations should aim for greater understanding and empathy towards the other. Above all, the Western world should take its first concrete step by giving more opportunity to Muslim scholars, governments, and civil society activists to practice their understanding about democracy in their own countries and consider opportunities to merge shari‘a law with the idea of democracy. Some Western intellectuals such as John L. Esposito, John O. Voll, Jeff Haynes, and Martin E. Marty have tried to push the adoption of democracy in Islamic countries. In fact, many believe that there is a democratic system that is compatible with the basic principles of shari‘a.

There are hopeful signs that the next steps in building mutual understanding between the Muslim and Western worlds are taking shape so that the current “clash” over the term democracy may yield a new hybrid version that combines the benefits of democracy in the West with the unique needs and circumstances of predominantly Muslim countries.

###
* Zaenal Abidin Eko Putro is Executive Director of the Center for Asian Studies (CeNAS) in Jakarta. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), August 29, 2006; www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Copyright permission has been granted for republication.

4) Jihad in Mideast could mean unholy war
Mohammad Yazid

Jakarta - During the life of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims at one point misunderstood the meaning of jihad (literally “struggle”, though often translated as “holy war”). This happened after Muhammad, for the first time, led Muslims to military victory in the Battle of Badr in 623. During this fight, Muslim troops, consisting of 313 mostly ill-armed males, fought against the well-armed and well-equipped polytheist Quraish troops of Mecca, numbering over 1,000 and led by several experienced generals. This war broke out because the polytheists drove away the Muslims and seized all their belongings so that the latter had to move to Medina.

After this battle, Muhammad, in a sermon to the warriors of Badr, some 150 kilometres southwest of Medina, said, "In fact, we have returned from a minor jihad to fight the major jihad." His words took his comrades by surprise so that one of them asked him, "Which major jihad do you mean, oh Prophet?" And the Prophet responded, "the jihad against one's own desires.”

Today, about 14 centuries later, Muslims, in several respects, have once again misunderstood the meaning of jihad. That this misunderstanding exists is easily observed from the great number of plans made in our country to dispatch volunteers to Palestine and Lebanon in response to Israeli attacks. Most of these jihadis have been mustered by such groups as the Indonesian Mujahidin Council (MMI), the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Islamic Youth Movement (GPI).

Unfortunately, the recruitment system employed and the combat training provided to these volunteers show that the war against Israel is considered to be something like the Battle of Badr, namely one involving face-to-face combat. They apparently fail to realise that this war is conducted using super-sophisticated technology and is very different from the type of war that took place during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

In terms of weapons technology alone, for example, Muslims lag compared with Israel, which enjoys the support of the United States. Israel also demonstrates superiority over Muslim armies in other respects, such as diplomatic skills. Should these volunteers fail to pay attention to these aspects, this would be tantamount to failing to understand Muhammad's teachings, which lend great significance to the strategy of war and mental preparation.

The Prophet's message can be understood if one studies the strategy adopted in the Battle of Uhud, which took place the year after Badr, in which Muhammad stationed a number of skilled archers on Uhud Hill, some six kilometres south of Medina, after he studied the battle formations and strengths of each side. This battle was once again provoked by the Meccan Quraish, who were greatly upset after they were defeated at Badr.

What this means is that if Muslims fail to pay attention to various important aspects of winning a war in this modern age, they will have again misunderstood the meaning of jihad. Jihad, therefore, has changed in meaning from a holy into an unholy war leading to meaningless and unnecessary deaths due to a misunderstanding of its true meaning.

There are a host of things to be taken into account for those wishing to become jihadi volunteers, such as whether or not they are married, and whether they have made suitable arrangements for their families left behind in Indonesia amid the current economic difficulties. A misunderstanding that is based on a failure to think things through honestly and deeply is just the same as the failure of the Prophet Muhammad's comrades to understand the meaning of “major jihad”, namely the war against one’s own desires.

Jihad, which means hard work in the terminology of the ulama (religious leaders), means mobilising all existing capabilities and all that one possesses to uphold truth and virtue, and fight against iniquity and evil, with the expectation of receiving God's blessing in the process.

However, jihad has been interpreted by different groups according to their own understanding of the term. To a number of militant Muslim leaders, such as Osama bin Laden and Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, a banned militant outfit in Pakistan, jihad means killing.

If you look at chapter 29 verse 69 of the Qur’an, you will find that jihad does not mean killing, or being killed, but is about how to work hard so as to receive God's blessing. Jihad, for groups or individuals, is something that is essential as part of the journey toward spiritual progress.

While jihad has received different interpretations among Muslims, the plans hatched in Indonesia to dispatch jihadis to the Middle East has been criticised by a number of Muslim figures here.

Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin is of the opinion that while conducting jihad is what he terms a human right, "... I need to remind all that the battlefield [in the Middle East] involves the use of modern weaponry. That's why military skills are necessary."

There are still many other areas where jihad could be waged, he suggests, by those wishing to assist the Palestinians and the Lebanese. Political jihad may be resorted to by continuing to exert political pressure on the United Nations to stop Israel's attacks. In the economic arena, jihad could be conducted by providing financial assistance. Or, one can also conduct a spiritual jihad by offering up prayers.

Meanwhile, Hasyim Muzadi, who chairs Nahdlatul Ulama, the country's largest Muslim organisation, has said that it is necessary for Muslims to unite. Arab countries, in particular, must join forces to stop the attacks by Israel. He argues that it would be better to dispatch peacekeeping troops to the Lebanon as a solution, rather than sending jihadi volunteers.

Taking into account the opinions of ulama and the correct understanding of jihad, jihadi volunteers should heed the government's suggestion that now is not the right time for them to go to the Lebanon. The most practical and realistic way forward for Indonesia would be to act constructively by contributing to the peacekeeping force in Lebanon and Palestine when this is established by the United Nations.

As Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda has put it, Indonesia is a country whose citizens are free to travel anywhere. Therefore, the government cannot prevent people from travelling. The only action that can be taken is to issue an advisory warning Indonesian citizens of the dangers they would face should they agree to be sent willy-nilly on a jihad to the Lebanon.

###
* The writer is a staff member on The Jakarta Post's Opinion Desk. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Jakarta Post, 18 August 2006; www.thejakartapost.com (http://www.thejakartapost.com).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

5) Behind the dispute over Shebaa Farms
Joshua Mitnick

Kibbutz Dan, Israel - Until six years ago, the mountain range that rises beyond the verdant orchards of this farming collective at Israel's northern tip was best known as the site where Abraham received his divine covenant in the Old Testament.

Few Lebanese or Israelis knew the range as the location of the Shebaa Farms, the site of an arcane border dispute that ultimately unravelled into a month-long war between Hizbullah and Israel.

"It's an arid piece of land," says Adib Farha, a former aide to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and a native of the southern Lebanese village of Marjayoun. "Most Lebanese had never heard of it until Hizbullah brought it up in 2000."

The UN Security Council is scheduled to revisit the thorny question of whom Shebaa Farms belongs to. A diplomatic solution, analysts say, could eventually bolster stability along the Israel-Lebanese border by weakening Hizbullah's justification for holding onto its weapons.

"It would lead to the marginalisation" of Hizbullah's militia, says Gidi Grinstein, the president of the Reut Institute, a Tel Aviv think tank. "The goal of eliminating Hizbullah from Lebanon is not achievable, therefore we should make Hizbullah's life more difficult through the politics of legitimacy."

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has often called for the resolution of the Shebaa Farms conflict as a means of neutralising Hizbullah's military wing. In a seven-point plan he unveiled last month during the height of the war, he called for Israel to withdraw from the farms and for the 12-square mile territory to be placed under UN guardianship pending a formal agreement between Lebanon and Syria over its sovereignty.

At the time when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Hizbullah seized on claims that the farms belonged to Lebanon, thus justifying its attacks against Israeli forces occupying the territory. Israel and the UN said the real estate was part of the Golan Heights captured from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War. Damascus has declared that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon. But it has never attempted to formally ratify the sovereignty of the mountainside with the Lebanese to gain UN recognition and acceptance of the new border.

From Kibbutz Dan, a series of Israeli military lookout towers are barely visible along the western slope of a mountain range stretching northeast toward the strategic Hermon peaks.

The outposts overlook the 1926 border that lies at the root of the confusion over Shebaa Farms. When the French created Lebanon, they drew a border with Syria that severed Lebanese villages like Shebaa from fields on the mountain range to the south where villagers owned land.

Yossi Lev Ari, a Kibbutz Dan resident, recalls how a few months after the Six Day War, he met Lebanese villagers carrying white flags who were allowed to cross the border to work their land.

Israel closed the border in the early 1970s after Palestinian guerrillas from Yasser Arafat's Fatah militia used the mountains to stage raids on farming villages such as Kibbutz Dan. The mountain range also enables Israel to peer into southern Lebanese villages. "To withdraw would be suicidal" in the absence of a peace treaty, says Mr. Ari.

When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, a UN team confirmed the French-drawn border. Hizbullah, as well as the Lebanese government, took issue with that decision, pointing to the old Lebanese-owned plots of land on the other side. To draw attention to Shebaa Farms, Hizbullah guerrillas abducted and killed three Israeli soldiers in a cross-border ambush in October 2000. The bodies were returned in a prisoner swap in January 2004.

Now, even if Israel were to give the territory back to Lebanon, few expect Hizbullah to forswear its fight against the Jewish state. "They don't have a territorial, or political, or economic quarrel with Israel, but a fundamental objection to Israel's right to exist. Part of the logic of the permanent resistance is to always find a new pretext," says Mr. Grinstein. "Shebaa Farms is a symptom of this phenomenon. When you think about it, that Shebaa Farms would be a pretext for a conflict between Lebanon and Israel is ridiculous."

Hizbullah has said in the past few years that it will not dismantle its military wing, even if the Shebaa Farms are returned to Lebanon. It argues that its battle-hardened fighters provide the only viable defence against Israel and they can't be disarmed until Israel no longer represents a threat to Lebanon.

But even if Hizbullah wouldn't be won over to the peace camp by a resolution to the Shebaa Farms dispute, some argue that the issue can still be used to pressure the militia into disarming. The average Lebanese citizen is likely to be less sympathetic to Hizbullah's ideology of waging an open-ended struggle against Israel.

"I am not sure if Hizbullah is willing to lay down its arms if Shebaa Farms is returned," says Farha, who today resides in the US, "but the Lebanese government's hand will be strengthened tremendously and the Lebanese public - even those who support Hizbullah - are going to start questioning the justification of the alleged resistance."

###
* Joshua Mitnick is a correspondent with the Christian Science Monitor. Fellow correspondent Nicholas Blanford contributed to this piece from Beirut. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Christian Science Monitor, 22 August 2006; www.csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com).
Copyright (c) The Christian Science Monitor. For reprint permission please contact lawrenced@csps.com. Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

Youth Views
CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to Chris Binkley (cbinkley@sfcg.org) for more information on contributing.

About CGNews-PiH
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of issues affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are balanced and solution-oriented to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian government and the United States Institute of Peace, this news service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the field of conflict transformation.

This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.

The Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes balanced and solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here. (http://www.sfcg.org/template/lists.cfm)

The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews-PiH or its affiliates.

Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718

Rue Belliard 205 Bte 13 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32(02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033

E-mail: cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website: www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/index.php?sid=1&lang=en)

Editors
Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)

CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.

Posted by Evelin at August 30, 2006 07:17 AM