Words Make Agenda in Middle East

The Israeli capture of Sheik Abdel Karim Obeid, a military as well as spiritual Shiite leader in Lebanon, has triggered renewed international interest in the 10-year struggle between Iran and the United States. The changing circumstances of this struggle vividly illustrate the complex diplomatic terrain of the Middle East and one of its most nuanced yet highly effective weapons: words.

Did Israel capture a “combatant” or kidnap a “hostage”? Should the 300 Shiites now held by Israel be viewed as “prisoners of war” or equated with the Western “captives” held hostage in Lebanon? How important are semantic choices in the Middle East conflict?

U.S. and Iranian leaders have sought to advance their respective interests by conveying political signals through highly nuanced messages while preserving flexibility of action. President George Bush and Iran’s Hashemi Rafsanjani try to convince the other to behave differently without explicitly acknowledging any fundamental changes in the basic tenets of their forcefully articulated policies.

Maintaining flexibility is vital for both men, not only in the international arena, but with respect to their domestic constituencies.

Rafsanjani, a “moderate” who has advocated a more pragmatic policy toward the West--including an end to Iranian efforts to export revolution--still faces considerable opposition from radicals who oppose any reconciliation with the United States. Hezbollah receives most of its support from those radical factions who oppose Rafsanjani’s pragmatism. Thus, Rafsanjani proclaims simultaneously that while he is prepared to “approach the problem reasonably,” the United States must end its “bullying, arrogant approach” to the situation.

Bush is also walking a high wire between domestic critics who favor immediate military action and those seeking political initiatives aimed at freeing hostages at any cost. To his credit, Bush is demonstrating statesmanship by deftly conveying signals of resoluteness and a readiness to use force with ambiguous but patient diplomacy.

These combined efforts have created a tenuous political opportunity that could lead to the release of the hostages in Lebanon, peace and economic recovery in south Lebanon and the normalization of U.S.-Iranian relations. Notwithstanding these hopeful developments, it should remain clear that Iran and its allies are at war with the United States.

There should be no ambiguity regarding the Iranian-backed Shiites’ loathing of America and their readiness to fight the West in advancing the Shiite cause. Their success can be largely attributed to America’s failure to act in defense of its national interests.

Instead, America once again finds itself manipulated--politically and emotionally--with the media delivering the messages of our enemy. In this “wartime” environment, decisions by public-opinion-makers to describe Israel’s abduction of Obeid as a “kidnaping,” rather than a legitimate act of self-defense, or to identify Israel’s Shiite prisoners as “hostages,” take on considerable political significance.

Moreover, the rhetorical treatment of particular factions of Shiites in Lebanon as an independent, national force, exaggerates their political status in a country being ripped apart by Syrian and Iraqi proxies. To Lebanon’s Shiite community, such rhetoric, whether official or unofficial, is perceived to reflect subtle but fundamental shifts in U.S. policy--extending a form of political legitimacy to Hezbollah aspirations, strategy and tactics.

The accepted use of such charged rhetoric can only register as a victory for terrorism and a defeat for Western values and interests. After all, how was America’s airborne interception of the Achille Lauro hijackers characterized--as legitimate “self defense” or as unlawful “hostage-taking”?

Not only does such careless or carefully chosen rhetoric legitimize Hezbollah’s struggle--by equating Israeli actions with those of lawless terrorists--it exacerbates the already strained relations of Israel, the United States and the Western democracies.

Such strains weaken America’s regional position and will make it more difficult to arrange some sort of prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah, or to persuade Israel to take risks for peace in the broader context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Another example of the important role of semantics in the struggles of the Middle East is the Palestine Liberation Organization’s recent political recognition by the U.S. government and the ensuing strains in U.S.-Israeli relations.

The PLO was recognized by the United States government not because it had changed its behavior. After all, the PLO maintained it already had renounced terrorism. Rather, Washington began an official dialogue with the PLO simply because the PLO had finally uttered the “magic words.” As far as the U.S. government is concerned, the PLO is now a legitimate participant in the political dialogues.

The PLO--well aware how word choice can alter the process--picks its terms carefully. It selects a word in Arabic to satisfy its domestic constituency but the English meaning is far different. In recent weeks, Al Fatah called on its constituents “to intensify and escalate armed action and all forms of struggle” against Israel.

Always seeking opportunities to enhance its international standing and achieve legitimacy, the PLO recently tried to achieve de facto statehood by asking to become a signatory to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the subsequent protocols.

Whether groups other than states can be a signatory is subject to legal debate. But PLO semantic objectives are clear: advance the goal of “self-determination,” the code word for an independent state, and enhance the status of Palestinians arrested in the occupied territories by increasing international pressure on Israel to treat detainees as “prisoners of war.”

In the current hostage situation, it appears likely that the United States and Iran, with Syria playing its “why ask me?” role, will try to inch forward in the coming months through a complex set of public and private diplomatic initiatives. Israel has offered to exchange the Shiites it holds--including Obeid--for the Israeli and Western hostages. Hezbollah seems to have said implicitly--although it has also seemingly recanted--that it will secure release of Western hostages if Israel first releases “its hostages.” Yet the Iranian foreign minister says the Lebanon hostage issue doesn’t concern Iran.

Choice of words and timing are critical to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough. While it must be clear that Washington will use force if necessary to give teeth to U.S. diplomacy, a carefully conducted war of words may offer the best chance of achieving political results.

Opinion-makers must choose their weapons carefully, however, in advancing or describing U.S. interests. As a nation we risk the lives of the hostages, unnecessary damage to our relationship with Israel and repeating our regrettable penchant for self-inflicted wounds.