MIDDLE EAST: Arab leaders are uneasy at the popularity that Hizbullah has acquired during the conflict, writes Michael Jansen
Arab rulers drew deep breaths when Hizbullah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed that the Lebanese Shia movement now leads the world-wide community of Muslims, the Umma.
His words, uttered on Sunday during a televised address, amounted to a direct Shia minority challenge to the 90 per cent Sunni majority and to Saudi Arabia's Sunni ruler who, as custodian of Mecca and Medina, is considered head of the Umma.
Previously, Hizbullah had put itself forward as the vanguard of the Arab struggle against Israel's occupation of Arab land. It earned this role during the 1990s when it battled Israeli troops deployed in a strip of Lebanese territory north of the Israeli border and was hailed as the victor when Israel withdrew in May 2000.
Since the Arabs have had few victories over Israel to celebrate, Hizbullah is greatly admired by many Sunni Arabs. It also earned kudos for its health, education, and social welfare projects for the poor and its rapid emergence as a mainstream Lebanese political party.
But Arab governments, which have failed to confront Israel or to improve the lot of their citizens, have been leery of Hizbullah's achievements and fearful of its popularity. Their concern intensified after the US toppled the Iraqi government and installed in power Shia parties allied to Iran, Saudi Arabia's previous rival for leadership of the Umma.
King Abdullah of Jordan spoke for other Sunni rulers when he spoke about the creation of a "Shia crescent" extending from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon. This warning also resonated amongst ordinary Sunnis fearful of the rise of Shia power in Iraq, creating a certain ambivalence about Hizbullah which has been erased by its successful strikes on Israel.
Consequently, it was hardly surprising that regional policy-makers Jordan and Egypt, the two Arab countries with peace treaties with Israel, and Saudi Arabia, Washington's oldest ally in the Middle East, reacted negatively to Hizbullah's raid into Israel on July 12th in an attempt to ease Israeli military pressure on Gaza, where the Sunni fundamentalist Hamas movement has been battling Israeli forces since June 28th.
The rulers of these countries castigated Hizbullah for "adventurism" but alienated their citizens by taking no diplomatic action to try to reduce or end Israel's campaign in Gaza or onslaught on Lebanon. Since all three rulers are trying to contain the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots in their countries, they have reacted negatively to the charismatic Shia organisation which backs the Palestinians, fights Israel, and exploits popular Arab anger against the US.
Many Arabs believe Jordan and Egypt should cut relations with Israel and other Arab governments should recall ambassadors from Washington. Arab commentators compare today's Arab inaction with the oil embargo proclaimed during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war by the then Saudi king Faisal. The only Arab ruler benefiting from Hizbullah's current popularity is Syrian president Bashar al-Assad who backs both Hizbullah and Hamas. But he, too, has to worry about Syria's Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of Shia fundamentalists.
To demonstrate that they are trying to deal with the crisis, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, Qatar, Sudan and the Palestinian Authority have called for an Arab summit. And, in an effort to counter domestic anger over its criticism of Hizbullah, Saudi Arabia pledged $50 million in aid to Lebanon and criticised the "limitless support being offered by certain countries to Israeli policy". Without naming the US, Riyadh castigated it for blocking a Security Council resolution ordering a ceasefire.
The Saudis also complained that the economic boycott of the Palestinian Authority caused the "extremism and despair" which prompted a violent response from Hamas and Hizbullah.