Bombing a country into its third civil war

MIDDLE EAST/Analysis: The fragile Lebanese government has tried to bridge the country's sectarian divisions by calling for national unity in the face of sustained Israeli attacks, but popular reactions to the crisis have largely been along communal lines. Many of the more prosperous Christians and Sunni Muslims are critical of Shia Hizbullah for provoking Israel by staging Wednesday's cross-border raid and seizing two Israeli soldiers. 

They argue that Hizbullah has no right to take unilateral actions which project the country into conflict with its more powerful southern neighbour.

Poor Shias and Palestinian refugees living in the capital's southern suburbs praise Hizbullah's action because they believe that only violence can move the international community to pressure Israel to negotiate acceptable peace deals with the Palestinian Authority and the governments of Syria and Lebanon. Some Christians and Sunnis also take this view.

Nevertheless, by keeping up its bombardments, killing civilians and wrecking infrastructure Lebanon has built since the end of the 1975-1991 civil war, Israel believes it will erode popular support Hizbullah has for this venture, and strengthen the government's resolve to disarm and dismantle Hizbullah's military wing and deploy the Lebanese army along the border with Israel.

But this is a miscalculation. The weak government led by prime minister Fuad Siniora has neither the political will nor military muscle to do either.

If he tried, he could face communal conflict. All he can hope to do is to use the thread of consensus to stitch together Lebanon's patchwork of 18 sectarian communities.

He is trying to accomplish this delicate task by calling for a ceasefire. This move is acceptable to Hizbullah's secretary general, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and the country's other religious and political leaders. Since Hizbullah fighters captured the two Israeli soldiers, Sheikh Nasrallah has been asking for restraint and indirect negotiations leading to a prisoner exchange. Politicians from anti-Hizbullah factions are saying the same thing.

Israel has not only refused to negotiate but has also declared that the strategic objective of the ongoing military operation is the disarmament of Hizbullah.

Therefore, if Mr Siniora were to demand that Hizbullah surrender the soldiers without any quid pro quo and the movement complied, Israel could very well continue its offensive in pursuit of this overall objective.

Like the citizenry, the 25- member cabinet is split along mainly confessional lines. Seventeen ministers oppose Hizbullah's initiative, but it can count on the backing of eight and can bring down the government. While Mr Siniora's parliamentary bloc has a majority of 72 seats out of 128, Hizbullah's bloc has 35 deputies and enjoys the backing of 21 in the group headed by former Gen Michel Aoun, a popular but eccentric Christian politician who has formed an alliance with Hizbullah. This movement and the secular Shia Amal party command the allegiance of the country's single largest sectarian community, one-third of the populace, as well as the external backing of Syria and Iran.

Hizbullah has secured Shia loyalty by providing the schools, hospitals and welfare assistance not delivered by the government.

Lebanese of all communities are leery of the support the Bush administration has extended to the Siniora government because they fear a revival of the stark polarisation of political forces between the pro-Western (or anti-Hizbullah) camp and the Arab camp, which remains locked in a protracted struggle to secure an end to Israeli occupation of Arab land. The struggle over Lebanon's political orientation has precipitated two Lebanese civil wars - 1958 and 1975-1991 - and could lead to a third.