CEASEFIRE!

As the Israel-Hezbollah war enters its 18th day, the violence continues unabated, civilian casualties continue to mount, and diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully seem to be falling deeper into disarray.

Condoleeza Rice's mission to the region and her subsequent trip to Rome under the guise of finding a "lasting solution," and not what her adminsitration calls a "fake peace," seems to have failed miserably, resulting in no solutions and more of what the victims of missile strikes on both sides are calling a very "real war."

The disagreement among the parties present in Rome and the fact that, except for the United States, of course, none of the other parties whose weapons are involved in the conflict (i.e. Israel, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran) were even in Rome prove one thing: The world's current effort to bring peace to the Middle East is all in vain.

I say the "current effort" because I do believe the situation can be ameliorated, but not if the real issues at the root of the problem continue to be ignored.

So what are the so-called real issues at the proverbial "root of the problem"? The first is obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the region: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To view the Israeli-Hezbollah war without looking at how it fits into this conflict (and, consequently, how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fits into the greater "war on terror") is to stare into the mirror with your eyes closed.

So, the premise of all negotiations to end hostilities in the current conflict must be that the agreements being sought are the foundation for final status or "lasting peace" negotiations between the Muslim world and Israel, with Palestine as an independent state, and Israel finally free from terror.

The second real issue at the "root of the problem" being ignored is the Israeli occupation of the Sheeba farms, an approximately 9 mile long, rural area that borders Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. Although Israel claims the Sheeba Farms is part of the Golan Heights, there is a dispute as to who is its original owner; both Lebanon and Syria sort of "point fingers" at each other. I believe that using this issue as the foundation of the first round of negotiations may provide us with a way to forge a compromise between those calling for an "immediate ceasefire" and those calling for a "lasting peace."

Whenever pressure in Lebanon mounts against Hezbollah to explain the necessity of its existence---which was the state of affairs before this conflict---Hezbollah's "go-to" response is the disputed Sheeba Farms. Israel's occupation of the area, according to Hezbollah and its supporters, is proof of Israeli aggression against the Lebanese people. Hezbollah fails to mention that the U.N. and the majority bloc in the democratically-elected Lebanese government (of which Hezbollah comprises 12%) have publicly stated that the Sheeba Farms is Syrian territory, while Syria, Hezbollah's second major supporter behind Iran, ironically claims the Farms are Lebanese.

The complexity of this issue may seem daunting, but it comes down to a few simple general truths: The actual "nationality" of the Sheeba Farms is amorphous; Hezbollah and Syria claim it is Lebanese territory in order to justify their own presence in the area (Hezbollah serves as Syria's presence, while both serve Iran's interests); and the U.N. and the United States, in differing ways, have done little to delineate a clear plan to resolve this issue, leaving it vague enough to be exploited by the above parties.

The above parties bring us to the third issue. When have you heard of a "ceasefire," let alone a "peace deal," being negotiated by parties other than the ones doing the "firing" and "making war"? Only the United States represents a nation whose weapons are actually being fired in this conflict (the U.S. provides Israel with much of its arsenal), and, ironically, it is the only one besides its "partner in crime" Britain that is against a ceasefire. And why is this? Perhaps it is because this conflict is "good for business" (of course both governments would never admit this publicly except within the subtle intonations of their voice). The business "deal" is simple: the U.S. makes money by selling arms to its proxy while its proxy uses those arms to potentially destroy an enemies' proxy. Who knows how many civilian lives this business venture is worth?

What can be said for sure is that without Israel, Syria, and Iran sitting at the table along with the Lebanese government, the United States, and the United Nations, there is no chance that the issues I am calling the "root of the problem" will ever be addressed in a comprehensive way. (I do believe that Hezbollah should not attend.)

Finally, there is the question of U.N. Resolution 1559, and this issue brings us full circle. The resolution calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah, relying on the precedents set in a previous U.N. resolution (U.N. Res. 425), and the Taif Accords (the peace treaty "officially" ending the Lebanese Civil War), which called for the disbanding of all "militias" in Lebanon (Hezbollah claimed it wasn't a "militia"). This resolution provides Israel and the U.S. with a valuable negotiating chip because it is U.N. sanctioned, thus appearing "legitimate" in the eyes of the world---the U.S. cannot simply rely on "clout" anymore.

So, I say, tie the ceasefire to Resolution 1559. The U.S. should say, "A ceasefire can only be achieved if Resolution 1559 is implemented because Hezbollah's 'illegal' presence in the south of Lebanon is the cause of the current conflict."

And, how may the Lebanese government and people be persuaded to agree to this?

By saying: "Resolution 1559 can only be implemented if Hezbollah's disarmament is tied to Israel's disengagement from the Sheeba Farms."

And further, how will the Israeli government and people be persuaded to give up the farms?

The United States, their greatest ally, must implore to them that the "facts on the ground" now make it evident that Israel's occupation of this land does it more harm than good.

If this deal is agreed upon, two major goals shared by Israel and Lebanon will be achieved: Hezbollah's disarmament making way for the Lebanese government to fully extend its sovereignty over Lebanese territory, and the cessation of violence.

But, why should they agree?

With the promise of Hezbollah's disarmament under the authority and supervision of a multi-national force to be placed along the border during the interim until the Lebanese army can take over, Israel's negotiating conditions will be met. With the promise of an end to Israeli incursions and aerial bombardments, and disengagement from the Sheeba Farms, the Lebanese government and the Lebanese people---and, consequently, Syria and Iran in order to save face after calling for a ceasefire---will have more than enough incentive to put pressure on Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel and to begin negotiating the release of the captured Israeli soldiers without having grounds to ask for a prisoner swap with Israel.

But, as I alluded to before, a ceasefire is just the beginning. This conflict must be viewed within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran and Syria and al-Qaeda---which has recently made threats to enter the conflict---Islamic fascism as a whole will suffer if the West engages the world with an earnest plan to achieve "lasting peace." Let Iran and Syria assume we are bluffing, as they surely will because they are used to the U.S. bluffing about such matters. Let them call our "fake bluff," and thus allow these talks to turn into a real Palestinian statehood campaign, and an opportunity to free Israel and the West from terror. The United States must go "all-in" right now to show the world that it is fighting for peace.

The current conflict, as gruesome and apocalyptic as it may seem, could prove to be a vital opportunity to kill many birds with one stone and actually find a path to a lasting peace in the Middle East. The chances of success for this idealistic dream once again rest on the ability of the United States to lead. But, as long as the real issues and the actual parties doing the fighting are not involved in negotiations, there is little chance that there will even be a ceasefire, let alone a peace that could ever last.