THIS ceasefire -- in Lebanon -- is obviously selective and temporary and still terribly tenuous. Though clad in smooth words and fine statements of intent of peace, this ceasefire appears to be a break of convenience of at least a few parties to the conflict. Possibly, both, Israel and Hezbollah are looking for a lunch-break so that they are ready again to launch a fresh combat. For, the Middle-East conflict has become an enduring feature of international geopolitics because the majority of Islamic regimes have refused to accept the reality of Israel as a legitimate entity in their neighbourhood. The details of agreement speak for themselves -- as the truce does not address the ongoing hostilities in Gaza strip where the terror outfits are refusing to appreciate the reality of their own limitations. When one side to a multi-national and multi-lateral conflict refuses to recognise the unavoidable realities of the situations, then the conflict is not likely to find its end. There is no doubt that the United States and France initiated the peace process that led to the current agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

 

There are reasons to believe that the US in particular had its own reasons to impose at least a temporary peace in at least one theatre of conflict in Middle-East. At a time when the US is about to see a regime change, different and hitherto unimagined possibilities are likely to be crop up from the ground -- with a great potential to affect many an international activity in the diplomatic and geopolitical domain. In such situations, wise it may have been to broker at least a temporary truce so that there is some breathing time for realignment of various forces and elements of international realpolitik. Hence the agreement between Israel and Hezbollah -- limited only to Lebanon. But this truce has not come without the rider from Israel -- that a strong action would come if Hezbollah did not respect the agreement in its entirety. This warning is the critical pointer to the Middle-Eastern geopolitical reality. Experience has taught Israel over time that the Islamic side is ever eager to breach agreements and get back into the conflict mode, trigger-happy as it is (as history shows).

 

There, of course, other hidden aspects of the situation as well. For, even if Hezbollah by itself does not kick itself up into a breach of agreement, another Islamic terror outfit may pick up the gauntlet and dare Israel and push the truce in Lebanon into trash-can. Israel is fully aware of such dangerous possibilities -- of course on the support of its experience over the past seven-plus decades. Hence its stern warning. No matter that, so tenuous is this agreement that the region can see eruption of hostilities at any moment even in the next, say, 72 hours. Such has been the nature of Middle-Eastern politics for decades on end. Even when a leader as strong and popular as Yassir Arafat promised peace, there were elements eager to breach his word and relaunch the region into fresh hostilities scorching the population with another outburst of violence sponsored by States on both sides of the divide. Standing in the United Nations, Arafat had then said, in effect, that even if he stood with an Olive branch (Signifying peace) in his hand, he also had a gun in the other hand. By that he had meant a possible breach of peace absolutely by anybody. The condition now also is not much different, except that personae to the current conflict are different. Yet, as the United Nations welcomes the truce and India hopes for peace to the region, the world has only one thing to do -- cross its fingers and wait and watch how things develop in a region where population of trigger-happy people is bigger than that of the peace loving ones.