Simple fact is that the rights Israel claims for itself will have to be extended to the other side, viz. Hizbollah. Hizbollah would not ask Israel's permission to reciprocate the Israeli action as and when it deems it fit to act. As one writes, it is certainly cautious and wants to give fullest scope to the "cessation of hostilities" that are supposed eventually to lead to a full and formal ceasefire. Superficially the Israelis also want a proper and stable ceasefire.

The Israelis for their part want two things: one, there should be a Multinational Force supposedly to enforce "cessation of hostilities" in southern Lebanon along with the Lebanese troops that have already been deployed. The Lebanese army does not really command much respect from either friend or foe; it has been eclipsed in action inside the country and is not at all adequate to restrain Hizbollah, even if it wanted to. The second thing that the Israelis want is for Lebanese army to disarm Hizbollah. But real expectation of the Israelis is that the Multinational Force should have teeth and their victim should be Hizbollah.

That transforms the outlook for the Multinational Force that the Europeans have been striving to assemble for so long. Few European powers are ready to commit their troops to this operation. There is no agreement on what the Multinational Force's real mandate should be from the UN and whether it would restrain both sides equally or only one side, viz. Hizbollah. The Americans and the Israelis actually want the Multinational Force to do what the Israelis had failed to do themselves, viz. to keep Hizbollah at bay so that it does not rain rockets on Israeli territory while Israel may continue to make its forays in Lebanon and punish Hizbollah. This one-sided thinking is otherwise known as wishful thinking.

Israel wants after the stalemated war all that it had ever wanted, viz. decimation of Hizbollah fighters and making the organization irrelevant. As it happens, the UN resolution is ambiguous and is indeed defective. Already Israel claims that this resolution permits it to take preventive defensive action -- a misuse of the word defensive. If this Israeli interpretation is accepted, by what logic can Hizbollah be prevented from taking action that it will also call defensive? There would soon be no peace and probably a war will resume. The Multinational Force cannot be expected to achieve what the Israeli forces failed to achieve in Lebanon, viz. disarming and decimating Hizbollah. It is utterly unrealistic to expect a UN force to achieve Israel's aim for it. The resolution, if it can be so interpreted, would be utterly ineffective.

The real danger is that the Israelis will insist, with the US standing behind them, on Lebanese government to order its army to disarm Hizbollah. This is, as noted, beyond the capacity of the Lebanese army to do anything of the kind. Why would an international force do what Israel could not? Therein lurk many dangers.

A peek into the recent history of Lebanon is necessary. Does anyone remember that in 1975 a civil war had broken out in Lebanon? The civil war was over the Palestinian question; the Palestinians had taken refuge in Lebanon after the 1948 and 1967 wars, and out of concern for Arab solidarity or weakness, or both, it had acquiesced. The Israelis, again with the backing of the US, seduced the Maronite Christians, and teamed up with them.

Thus started the civil war and later Israel had invaded and occupied south Lebanon. That was the real cause of Hizbollah's birth and later strength. If the US and Israel want Lebanese government to do what is being demanded of it then a civil war is written into the plot. Why? Because there is no way that Hizbollah can be tackled except through a civil war in which at least pro-west Maronites take on Shias as such with the help of Israel as was the case in 1970s. The thoughtful people in Arab lands should beware. This is a real danger.

This civil war is easily avoidable. Even the Israelis' purposes can best be served by entering into a peace pact with Lebanon and seek the help of Syrians again. The 1970s' civil war was stopped actually by Syrians. They would again prevent it, if requested. But Israel will have to pay a price by restraining itself from trying to be a tyrannical hegemon and honestly respect the Lebanese-Israeli border.

The key to peace is in Damascus. The Israelis will also have to pay the price of returning the Golan Heights. It has to vacate that territory, taking home the Jewish settlers it had unlawfully settled there on a land it had seized in a military action (1967). Does Israel really want peace? If Israel had ever wanted peace it could have accepted Resolution 242 of the UN. Most Arabs would have accepted its legitimacy. The choice was available a while ago by accepting the Saudi monarch's proposals. Has it ever accepted the absurdity of keeping Palestinian areas under military occupation without any real self-governance for 40 years?

The fact of the matter is that Lebanese problem is intrinsically linked with the Palestinian issue. The Arabs, qua-Arabs, want an honourable peace with Israel. After all, they have long tacitly accepted the state of Israel although it possesses no historical or moral legitimacy. Everyone knows that it is western imperial imposition on Palestine. It should take what is available with alacrity before all the Arabs go the way of Hamas and Hizbollah. But that does not seem to be Israel's preference.

Israel wants to keep Golan; it wants to control Lebanon and keep it under its hegemony -- in behalf of the US. In Palestine it wants all the lands and no Arabs there. The Israeli behaviour so far has proved that it simply does not want any Palestinian in any Palestinian area in any meaningful sense of the term. Or else it should not have successfully discredited al-Fatah and Yasser Arafat. It has violated all the human and democratic norms by refusing to let Hamas form a government and run the Palestinian Authority after it won a strong dominating position in a free and fair election; so much for their love of democracy.

The Israelis have been trying to re-establish Fatah's and Mahmoud's authority in Gaza in order to keep out -- and down -- Hamas for the time being at least. But like Hizbollah, Hamas, too, is evolving into a national institution. The outlook for Israel is no longer rosy, if only it will see. The US is, apparently dutifully, echoing what Israel says. The road to stable Lebanese peace still passes through Gaza and West Bank areas. But this route may not long remain open. The arrogance of power in Washington and Tel Aviv prevents them from perceiving the writing on the wall.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.