Does Blair "get" Hezbollah?

"It can only work if Hezbollah are prepared to allow it to work." This statement by Tony Blair, referring to any approach to achieving peace between Lebanon and Israel, leapt off the front page of Saturday's Globe. Finally, I thought, at least one of the Blair/Bush duo has recognized that any hope of a stable agreement requires bringing Hezbollah to the table. It contrasts with the spectacle of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice attempting to bring out about a "new order" while refusing to talk to the key players on the Arab side.

Blair may intuitively recognize the reality of the situation in a way Bush cannot. For decades the British government, despite all the resources at its command and the co-operation of its counterpart in Dublin, couldn't rid itself of the IRA. Eventually they had to accept the fact there would be no peace in Britain until they sat down with the rebels and negotiated a deal. It wasn't easy; they despised the IRA and thought of their members as no more than ruthless killers, but they swallowed their pride and dialogued. And they achieved a peaceful solution.

The reason they couldn't crush the IRA was fundamental: the guerrillas had a powerful constituency within the Irish nation. The British could imprison or kill IRA men but their constituency would simply produce more. As Tony Blair apparently recognizes, a similar situation prevails in Lebanon. Hezbollah is of the people, of the Shia of southern Lebanon, a large and devoted constituency. And furthermore, Hezbollah has the support of the Arab street outside of Lebanon, probably more support than most governments in the region. They must, therefore, be a key part of any process to shape a secure and peaceful relationship between Israel and its northern neighbour. Blair seems to sense this. When Bush and the Israelis do, peace will be given a chance.