Clausewitz's definition of war as an extension of policy by other means seems to have fallen flat on the face of the Israelis, considering their humiliation in the battle field as well as in the international diplomatic circle due to weaknesses in their strategy and the moral lowliness of the force.

Hizbollah and its charismatic leader are revered by Arabs as the brave defenders of faith and are perhaps the undeclared last hope for the Arabs to regain their honour. But there is another side to this sentimental feeling which deals with the larger crisis in the Middle East and the Muslim world, and maybe Hizbollah's current methods will keep them from becoming the Arab saviour.

The Lebanon conflict has raised a lot of questions about the role of Hizbollah in the Middle East and in the greater Muslim populated lands. Hizbollah's militant wing may have won the battle in Lebanon but can their methodology defeat the bigger enemy that lives within the Muslim ranks?

In order to first understand the dynamics that prevailed in the conflict we need to analyze the Lebanon conflict within the greater Middle East context from historical and political viewpoints. Firstly, the existence of Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians in 1948. Prior to the creation of Israel the British held the mandate to rule Palestine as their prize following the defeat of the Ottoman power at the end of WW1. It is interesting to note that Palestine had a long history of violence and conflict except for the 1,300 years of Muslim rule where the inhabitants of that land enjoyed peace, freedom of religion, expression, and thought. The only exception to that tranquility was the time of the Crusades in the 11rh century until Saladin defeated the crusaders. Lastly, the Ottomans ruled the area for nearly 500 years and interestingly there was only one outpost, a police station in Jerusalem, and the people of the entire area lived in peace.

The end of the Ottoman rule witnessed the unfolding of a new political phenomenon in the Muslim lands. A new political thought swept through Hejaz, Nejd, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Ash Sham, North Africa, and India. It wanted to replace the 1,300 year old political institution of the Muslims with an alien institution that would eventually disintegrate the universality of the single nation concept of Muslims. Racial bias would become deep rooted through this new idea and make Muslims distrust not only their governments but also question their own original sources. This new political ideology was so powerful that it became sacrilege to even speak against it, let alone oppose it. This new phenomenon was Nationalism. The nationalistic ideology rewrote the map of the Muslim heartland by establishing new nation states with boundaries carved out of once unified lands under one political institution. The independent states were to be ruled by authoritative dictators with the support of a superpower and the citizens' political rights were erased along with their freedom of political thought.

With the fall of the Caliphate and the rise of nationalistic sentiments, the Arab autocratic rulers became busy lobbying for super-power support for their own existence while the Jewish lobby was able to carve out a state of their own in the land of Palestine by 1948. In the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars, it is quite clear that most Arab rulers only gave lip service and sheepishly offered military support as a face-saving circus for their citizens, not for the Palestinian or Muslim cause. The result of the Arab-Israeli wars was that Israel was able to expand and conquer a much larger territory than their own expectation. A point to note here is that while the Arab rulers were bent over backwards to please the super-powers in order to secure their boundaries, Israel ensured that the state of Israel had no international boundary!

The lack of Muslim unity and the loss of the concept of the Muslim Ummah thus became central to all the current crises in the Middle East. This could only happen due to the intellectual bankruptcy of the Muslims caused by blind faith and a simultaneous restriction on reason as a means to belief. As a result, Muslims have gone back to the "Age of Ignorance" (Jahiliya) similar to the time before the coming of Islam. The problem in Palestine and Lebanon and other places are symptoms of this fundamental issue but not the issue itself, like loss of hair in leukemia.

As the Muslims in Lebanon were being butchered by Ariel Sharon in 1982, no Arab or Muslim ruler dared to interfere, and there Hizbollah was born as a reactionary force to defend the property of Muslims that should have been the responsibility of the Muslim political institution. They have since grown into a powerful force in Lebanon and with the support of Iran and Syria they have stockpiled missiles and bullets which should have been the responsibility of a Muslim army under a legal political authority. They had to look towards France for a diplomatic win over America and that too should have been the responsibility of the Muslim state.

Unity will elude the Muslim until the ideology is comprehensively understood by the mind, and this cannot happen until there is a thought process to drive it. Therefore the greater challenge for Muslims is to build a new thought process in which the theater of war is in the mind and not in the battlefield. To tackle this issue of thought with militancy is like the Pakistan army's attempt for a military solution to a political problem in the then East Pakistan -- it cannot work. The usurpers will automatically meet their logical ends once the ideology is firmly understood and incorporated in the citizens' minds.

But it is dangerous to think that the only way to resist oppression, as in Palestine, is through violent uprising before the actual problem has been properly diagnosed and medicated appropriately. On the other hand, temporary resistance victory, as in Lebanon, may inspire the Muslim youth to join overzealous militants in their utter madness to enforce their sadistic views on the innocent people and thus cause further decay of the Muslim intellect that will have ripple effect on the entire Muslim world. This will not be accepted and will cause internal destruction and worse still the Muslims will move further away from their principles in the original sources.

The methodology is just as important as the result itself and hence it must conform to the kind of challenge at hand. A political problem must be challenged politically. In the face of naked aggression, Hizbollah had no choice but to defend militarily and a splendid job they did at that. But their stated aim to "wipe out Israel" with the support of Baathist Syria and a racial Iran seems like a contradiction in their ideology. Racial divide and the politics of hate and militancy will be rejected by the people.

Hizbollah must question this methodology if they sincerely want to lead the Muslims out of their miserable status. It would seem though that Hizbollah's roots in militancy may become its single biggest impediment to pursue a different course and thereby make them an unlikely party to deliver the Muslims from the Age of Ignorance. Perhaps a new group will arise from amongst the Muslims who will adopt the correct methodology and usher in the era of Enlightenment.

Arif Iqbal Khan is a financial consultant and associated with the group, Muslim Professionals.