It’s all so depressingly familiar. One outrage begets another and soon the acrimony and the ammunition are being traded at a rate which threatens to set peace and stability back a distance too difficult to measure. One side justifies their actions based on past injustices – real or perceived - which cause the other to reach back even further. Their supporters line up, expressing selective indignation at what they see, and dredging up old platitudes about how side A or B is committed to the subjugation of the other. We’ve been here before, in so many regions and so many wars.

The violence in Lebanon (sparked, according to Israel, by the abduction of Israeli soldiers by Gaza-based Hamas militants and Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorists; according to the militants, by Israel’s detention of Palestinians) is corroding the prospects for peace and development in the region. Lebanon’s fragile democracy has taken a hit thanks to the ill-advised adventurism of an insurgent group answering to no one but itself, and determined to carry out its own foreign policy. Having evacuated Gaza and southern Lebanon, Israelis are wondering if they have not simply handed territory back only to see it used for the most sinister of purposes. Before the abductions and Israel’s subsequent response, the chances of a hand-back of the West Bank at least looked somewhat bright. Now the odds against it are formidable.

Israel must know that air strikes and (limited) ground operations will not retrieve its kidnapped soldiers, so it is trying to drive home the point that such actions will result in extremely severe penalties. But if it expects to bring the Islamist fighters to heel, or that the bulk of the Lebanese population will register its discontent with Hezbollah for initiating the conflict, it is in for a rude surprise. Attacks on civil infrastructure and population centres has boosted support for the guerrillas, who are widely considered to be the most potent unconventional force in the region.

A cease-fire and a return to the status quo ante would seem to be the most reasonable way to stopping the carnage, which looks to be continuing to no apparent purpose. The problem is that too many agendas are served by a prolongation of the fighting. Israel needs time to take out a many Katyusha rockets and kill as many militants before Washington tells it to stop. But the Bush administration, engaged in the global “war on terror”, would also like to see Hezbollah cut down to size. It would be immensely satisfying to see the authors of the 1982 bombings of the US Marine barracks in Beruit ground into dust.

Having played a decisive role in pushing the Israelis out of Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah lost its original raison d’être once the last Israeli soldier departed. (According to the UN, the disputed Sheeba Farms, which are still under Israeli control, are part of Syria.) The group has members in the Lebanese parliament and continues to administer social services in southern Lebanon (with Iranian financial assistance). By goading the Israelis into attacking, the guerrillas regain some of their lost cachet, and delay the implementation of UN Security Council 1559 which requires them to disarm and embrace peaceful politics.

Syria, having been booted out of Lebanon after being implicated in the assassination of that country’s former prime minister, would dearly like to say “I told you so” to its former vassal, and re-emerge as its lord protector – if not with troops then with its intelligence services. Playing the Hezbollah card also reminds Israel that no peace is sustainable unless it returns the strategically important Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 war.

And as long as the fighting continues, Iran will have to contend with less international pressure to cease its nuclear enrichment activities. Prior to the crisis there was at least some prospect of UN sanctions being imposed for non-compliance with the IAEA regulations. Those prospects look increasingly dim, and in late July Tehran announced that it would accept not accept the incentives being offered by the US and Europe to stop. Iran has now been given until 31 August to cease enrichment or face the possibility of sanctions. But the longer the Israeli air force hammers away at its neighbour, the more strenuously Iranian president Mahmoud Amedinejad can argue that the option of weaponizing the nuclear program must be retained to keep the Israelis at bay.

The agendas of the vast majority of Lebanese and Palestinians – independence, stability, and economic growth – lie in tatters. And the region’s most significant outside power - the United States – resolutely refuses to talk to Hezbollah’s main backers. It’s not hard to guess why. Parts of the Iraqi and insurgency are being fed through Syria and Iran. Washington undoubtedly knows that Tehran could help it out in Lebanon and Iraq. It also knows that Tehran will exact a huge political price for that assistance (i.e. an end to UN sanctions), and the Bush administration is virulently opposed to that. But the price cannot be known unless it is asked. It would not be the first time that America opened a dialogue with people it doesn’t like.

Meanwhile, talk of an international force to police the south of Lebanon makes the rounds in Western capitals. This all seems premature unless a credible political framework – a new UN resolution with real teeth – can be fashioned. It is surely no secret that the mandate of the existing UN “peacekeeping” force is inadequate; it did nothing to reign in Hezbollah or deter Israeli incursions, as the deadly bombing of a UN post on 26 July graphically illustrated. A new resolution would need to ensure the former’s disarmament (“arms management” in local parlance) and possess the wherewithal to thwart a future Israeli air/ground strike. Would the guerrillas agree to give up their weapons when they derive so much of their self-worth form antagonizing the Jewish state? Will Tel Aviv agree to permanently hold its fire, even when the range of Hezbollah rockets keeps increasing, making a UN-patrolled buffer zone in southern Lebanon superfluous?

And who would have the courage – not to mention the firepower – to contribute to such a force? America will not - too much history and too few troops to spare. Turkey and some European countries might ante up, but those NATO or EU states which have shown themselves unwilling to confront the Taliban in Afghanistan will almost certainly be unwilling to stare down the highly-motivated, martyrdom-seeking jihadis of Hezbollah.

Canada also lacks the capacity, although perhaps not the will to see someone competent stand between the belligerents. Indeed, the whole project speaks to the stubbornly-held image that Canadians have of their military. Appeals to our peacekeeping tradition resonate in the hearts and minds of a generation of Canadian political and cultural elites, as well as newcomers to this country who lack a full appreciation of the richness and variety of its military heritage. But the public’s anxiety over efforts to stabilize Afghanistan against the wishes of a determined guerrilla force casts doubt on their readiness to take on an equally complex and dangerous task in Lebanon – UN resolution or no. Lending a hand may play well to Quebec voters who have taken a dim view of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s apparent tilt toward Israel. (To be fair, he called Israel’s response “proportionate” only one day into hostilities.) But all bets are off if soldiers from the Royal 22^nd Regiment (the “Vandoos”) start coming home in plastic.

For all the bombs and bloodshed, it seems unlikely that a wider conventional conflict involving other states will ensue. Israel has not felt the need to mobilize more than fraction of its military, nor does it seem inclined to enter into another open-ended re-occupation of southern Lebanon. The Arab armies continue to stand idle, and Iran’s best option for mischief-making lies in re-supplying Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets rather than sending waves of Revolutionary Guards into the combat zone. Outside powers are keeping their distance, weighing in with words of concern rather than with threats. Talk of World War III breaking out it is as sensationalist as it is unrealistic.

But it seems undeniable that peace-making efforts have been given an unwelcome kick in the shins. Hezbollah’s apparent determination to retain its military capability, its stated commitment to Israel’s destruction, and Israel’s determination to collectively punish the many for the sins of a relative few make for little common ground. Selective engagement by Washington will not bring enough parties into line to halt the fighting and forge the new Middle East that the administration professes to want.