I have been amazed at the provincial, bubble-like reaction of editors and commentators in major US media who have been presenting the news that the US and France agree on a resolution concerning Lebanon as if that means the “problem” there is resolved!
Seems like these editors and journos have zero understanding of these facts about today’s world:
- (1) The US and France have been coordinating closely on all matters Lebanese since the summer of 2004. That they do so now– after a short disagreement over the timing but not the content of the resolution proposed at the Security Council– is not “news”.
(2) The veto-wielding governments of west-European heritage– the US, Britain, France– don’t control the whole world, however much they might like to think they could (and should.) Crucially, in the present context, they don’t control the UN Security Council, where two other governments also hold veto power along with those three, and where the non-veto-wielding powers need also to be taken into consideration. (For Tony Blair’s intricate involvement in pushing the US-Franco project, see this AP report.)
(3) Not many people in the world take seriously the present claims of the Bush administration and its close ally, Tony Blair, that the need for a ceasefire is now urgent, “on humanitarian grounds”. These two leaders have been working very hard throughout the past three weeks to delay a ceasefire, even as hundreds of Lebanese civilians were dying and their country’s vital infrastructure was being smashed to smithereens. Right now, the rate at which Lebanese civilians are dying is actually, blessedly, a little lower than it was two weeks ago. But now, it’s the Israelis who are becoming militarily and politically bogged down. So the claims of Bush and Rice that their present call for a ceasefire is motivated by purely “humanitarian” concerns ring very hollow indeed.
(4) The Euro-Heritage Three still need to understand the dynamics on the ground in Lebanon and the Middle East a whole lot better than they have shown themselves capable of doing so until now. Did they completely fail to notice the need to involve both Lebanon and Syria as full partners in the peace diplomacy in order for it to have any relevance or chance of succeeding?
Today, both the Syrian Foreign Minister and the politically crucial Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament announced their opposition to the US-Franco draft resolution.
It is worth quoting that latter news story, from AP’s Bassem Mrouwe in Beirut, at some length. He wrote that the Speaker, Nabih Berri,
- said Lebanon would not accept any terms that did not include a government plan calling for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli troops.
“Lebanon, all of Lebanon, rejects any talks or any draft resolution that does not include the seven-point government framework,” Berri said at a news conference in Beirut.
Prime Minister Fuad Saniora first offered the plan, later adopted by his Cabinet, during the Rome crisis summit July 26.
The seven-point proposal calls for a mutual release of prisoners held by Israeli and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. It foresees the Lebanese government taking control of southern Lebanon with the help of an international force.
The U.S.-French proposal, which was expected to go to the floor of the U.N. Security Council early this week, calls for Hezbollah to stop all military operations [actually, the text says “attacks”, which could be interpreted as still permitting acts of legitimate resistance against the Israeli troops inside Lebanon. ~HC] and for Israel to stop its offensive drive against Lebanon. The proposal would allow Israel to strike back if Hezbollah were to break a cease-fire.
The draft resolution does not require an immediate Israeli withdrawal to its side of the common border.
“We always spoke about an immediate cease fire. We never spoke about ending military operations because this is in a way like legitimatizing the occupation, as if the war is being legitimatized,” Berri said in fiery remarks before opening the floor to questions.
He said the U.S.-French draft resolution was fundamentally tilted in favor of Israel.
“If Israel has not won the war but still gets all this, what would have happened had they won” the war, Berri asked.
Under these circumstances, it seems clear that it will not be plain sailing for the US-Franco draft resolution.
Personally, I think the best way to proceed would be to seek an immediate and complete cessation of the hostilities (and all their attendant death and suffering), with that ceasefire to be monitored by an empowered UN truce-observation force, such as already exists along the Israel-Lebanon border (UNTSO plus UNIFIL), but further beefed up and empowered. This ceasefire should also include a promise– to Lebanon, to all other regional powers, and to the world community– that within a specified, short period of time (two weeks?) the United Nations will convene an authoritative international peace conference to resolve all the outstanding strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of all the outstanding Security Council resolutions (242, 338, 1559)– terms that would include the conclusion of robust peace agreements between Israel and, respectively, Lebanon, Syria, and a free-at-last Palestine; Israel’s withdrawal of troops and settlers from the territories occupied in 1967; and the demobilization of all non-state armed formations. This approach could and should be followed, and is the best way I can see to end the suffering and hostility that have festered in the ever-volatile Israeli-Arab region for far too long, of which the present Israeli-Lebanese fighting is just the latest manifestation.
However, I am not the government of Lebanon. The government of Lebanon, which along with Israel is the crucial deciding party in the present instance, is standing up for its right to be free from foreign military presence on its land, and from foreign military operations against its land and people. I can certainly see the logic of their point of view, which is every bit as valid as Israel’s equally understandable desire to be free of the threat of Hizbullah’s rocket force.
Thus far, however, the Euro-Heritage Three seem to see only the Israeli position as “logical” and “valid”, while denying any equal acknowledgement of the validity of Lebanon’s position… Well, actually, it seems as if they haven’t been listening to Lebanon very much at all over the past horrendous month. Instead, they’ve all three of them been treating Lebanon as some sort of inferior colonial holding that is not entitled at all to the same dignity, concern, and security that they seek for Israel.
Let’s hope the US-Franco draft marks the last gasp of colonial thinking regarding this portion of the Middle East. The peoples of the region have suffered for far too long from such thinking.
So Helena wants the UN to take the lead role in peacemaking. Except when it approves a resolution that doesn’t give her beloved Hezbollah what it wants, in which case it is a tool of the colonial powers.
Joshua, a little more logic from you, perhaps? Note that I did include UNSC resolution 1559 as one (among several) that should be implemented with good speed. Note too that what the Euro-heritage Three have agreed on is still only a “draft” resolution, not an actual resolution.
Sorry if your emotionalism and desire to make childish accusations got in the way of your clear reading there.
So who pays to rebuild Lebanon?
Let Israel pay. They destroyed it. Unfortunately, that means the US taxpayer will foot the bill.
Joshua, her “Beloved Hizbuallah” ? Get a grip. If raindrops strike a jew, does that make mother nature an anti-semite ?
Another recent example of French-American (and Canadian) cooperation was the coup they organized against Haiti’s democratically elected government.
Which Israeli will want to be the last soldier to die for his country in this little war. I suspect that this resolution will make it harder to get the conscripts in the Israeli Army to fight hard enough to get the Israelis to the Litani River. While the Israeli Army remains in Lebanon, Hezbollah will have no problem motivating its soldiers.
In “Le Monde” Reactions of the readers to the UNSC resolution conjointly proposed by the US and France are almost unanimously critical toward Chirac, they are deceived that he has given in to the US/Bolton and that the result is unbalanced and favor Israel. Their reaction to the refusal of Lebanon are also favourable to Lebanon, at least the first half.. since after a quarter pas 10 pm, the pro-israeli seems to have confiscated the comments..
We’re getting a little Orwellian here, no?
Chirac is too pro-Bush?
UN resolutions are colonial relics?
Six years after the withdrawal of Israeli troops from its South Lebanese buffer zone, Hezbollah attacks Israel without so much as consulting the Lebanese people or government and now insists that it is resisting Israeli “occupation”? A bit like the boy who killed his parents and demands sympathy for being an orphan?
The Lebanese turn a blind eye to the accumulation of thousands of missiles over the years by a private militia and purports to be shocked that their use to murder Israeli civilians (many of them Israeli Arabs) led to a costly Israeli response?
puhleeeez…
Just thinking out loud-Enforcement of 1559 to disarm Hizbuallah makes sense only if Israel too is disarmed. Fair is fair. How else will Lebanon protect itself ? Their armed forces have not been able to stand up to Israel in the past, and nothing has changed to alter that fact. If one sets aside the slavish, irrational devotion to Israel and views the scene objectively it becomes apparent that the US continues its policy of backing the bad guys. Toss Israel in with the Contras, Diem, Rios Montt, Pinochet et al and flush.
Ah, Truesdell, another sloppy reader. What I was criticizing as(by implication) a colonial relic is merely a draft resolution, currently supported by only three of the UNSC’s members.
Let’s wait and see what the final resolution looks like. Let’s hope it upholds the rights of all the region’s peoples to live in peace (and to receive fair reparations for the damages they’ve suffered.)
“If raindrops strike a jew, does that make mother nature an anti-semite ?”
In Joshua’s whiny world it certainly does!
Well, actually, it seems as if they haven’t been listening to Lebanon very much at all over the past horrendous month.
It seems to me that it was the Lebanese Government who told Secretary Rice not to bother coming to Beirut during her last trip to the region.
Stap my vitals. I get it now. The little jig of anxiety is performed here daily. No matter how predictable. No matter how counter-productive.
Toss Israel in with the Contras, Diem, Rios Montt, Pinochet et al and flush.
wow!!! Flush the bad guys down the toilet? I wonder if Helena is likely to denounce this hateful remark any time soon?
Joseph, it’s plain to me that you don’t care much for UN resolutions or international law. But the Taif agreement (which was drafted in Saudi Arabia, not Tel Aviv, by Israel’s enemies) also demands that Hezbollah disarm. And Hezbollah’s role [as just one political party among many] isn’t to defend Lebanon, thats the responsibility of the Lebanese army. Plus Hezbollah hasn’t prevented Lebanon from being flattened. They haven’t defended Lebanon at all. All they’ve done is provoke a war.
Vadim,
Now what was it you weren’t saying about 242? Oh and in case you hadn’t noticed, your elbow’s in the spaghetti.
Now what was it you weren’t saying about 242?
I wasn’t saying it calls for secure and recognized borders w/Israel and recognition of its right to exist, though both clauses are rejected by Hezbollah, non-state instigator of the latest conflict. I also wasn’t saying that it addressed Lebanon, because (surprise!) it doesn’t mention that nation anywhere, and because Lebanon wasn’t occupied during the ’67 war and was unoccupied as of a few weeks ago, when Hezbollah began launching rockets and kidnapping soldiers. Was that what you meant, Napoleon Fluffenstuff-Glossop? {yr double barreled surname suits the Wodehousian silliness of yr question.}
Two questions.
1) Has Israel ever occupied Lebanon?
2) Why bomb your allies? As in Christian Maronites.
Just wondering.
1) Has Israel ever occupied Lebanon?
Are you really wondering? This seems like a straightforward bit of history. answer: of course it has. That doesnt give Hezbollah license to launch missiles and conduct cross border raids, especially long after the end of Israeli occupation.
as to 2.) ‘christian maronites’ [sic/redundant] — exactly who do you mean? The Phalange party chairman karim pakradouni has been friendly to Hezbollah for a long time. So has M. Aoun, in case you missed it.
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/02/full_english_te.php
Look, he’s all smiles! So are these the allies you meant?
Cantonments. Bantustans. Compartments. Yes, you be sure and get that wall up. Whatever you do don’t let the “arguments” that cause problems get a hearing.
“arguments” that cause problems
Your “arguments” (well placed scare quotes for once) cause no problems for me, only the Lebanese and the Israelis. Clearly walls aren’t the answer to the threat posed by ballistic missiles. Though I’d hardly classify south lebanon as a ‘Bantustan.’
Didn’t realise that about the Maronites. Yet another problem, what. I suppose they qualify as terrorists now as well. Yes? No? And for that matter, will we Americans be when we finally adopt a more even handed policy vis-a-vis your part of the world?
Didn’t realise that about the Maronites.
Seems that way. where I wonder do these armchair guerrillas receive their stale talking points? My guess is Juan Cole. I’m notice he called pakradouni “a longtime right-wing ally of Israel” as recently as last week! Whoops!
http://www.meib.org/articles/0112_ld1.htm
Seeing as he’s their bud, the zionists should call off their ‘hasbara’ hit squad. Friendly fire, guys! Or maybe it;s time to revise the “christians = bad” dead-as-disco post-colonial vocabulary. In other news: bell-bottoms are out of style, and ABBA has broken up.
Vadim, it is slanderous, childish, and distinctly discourteous to come here and defame Juan Cole as an “armchair guerrilla”. It’s also off-topic.
Oh dear, Helena. Seems that you are a “sloppy reader”. Vadim clearly did not refer to Juan Cole as an “armchair guerilla” (hardly a “slanderous” charge, IMHO, and certainly far less so than many of the charges regularly thrown around here by your “soul mates”). He appears to have been referring to the one who calls himself “Achilles” (who does, indeed, appear to be an “armchair guerilla).
Post-colonial rhetoric is on topic, no? And you misread me: JC is no armchair guerrilla, just some of his readership. How else would you describe an american who lobbies on behalf of Hezbollah’s plainly illegal militia?
As far as courtesy goes, there’s a general shortage of that here lately.
Bolton may well bring Russia and China on board with the US-French proposal. He can offer them many inducements, above or below the table. National interests rule. Neither has any brief for Hezbollah, but both might be happy to see the US tied down in another costly and intractable “peacekeeping” fiasco.
It seems to me that it was the Lebanese Government who told Secretary Rice not to bother coming to Beirut during her last trip to the region.
Yes we all recall she was at the time opposed to a ceasefire that would have saved 60 lebanese civilian lives lost in Qana just before her planned visit. What were his options politicly even if he wasnt to outraged too see her himself?
Seems that way. where I wonder do these armchair guerrillas receive their stale talking points? My guess is Juan Cole. I’m notice he called pakradouni “a longtime right-wing ally of Israel” as recently as last week! Whoops!
JC is no armchair guerrilla, just some of his readership ….not an armchair guerilla just wrong, and followed by them. Got it now thanks. Which posters aren’t guerrillas? The ones we agree with? People who type from an office chair, or standing up, maybe? Or do you actually have to be a guerrilla combatant, and then post here?
As far as courtesy goes, there’s a general shortage of that here lately.
Yes for example, failing to meet high school debating standards. Grossly truncating a post out down to one or two words out of context to reply to sarcasticly, without actually or addressing the points raised.
So let’s address the most serious deficiency in decency: I’m starting by expressing once again my deep and genuine sorrow at all the innocent lives lost in this war. Without mealy-mouthed qualifications of any kind. I don’t want another Lebanese or Israeli killed. Lets stop justifying war. Lets talk about how peace could be achieved, with more sophistication than just saying “it’s all their fault, so they have to……” We could call that “armchair diplomacy”, if it feels good.
I recommend doing more than typing about this war. Be a bit of an activist. Donate. Gives you a sense of perspective, and is more likely to be of direct help to it’s victims.
Lets talk about how peace could be achieved.
agreed…but not a bandaid solution…one that provides long-term security for Lebanese and Israeli nationals…and restores sovereignty to Lebanon…so that the Lebanese don’t have to suffer the consequences of decisions made for them by Nasrallah, Assad or Ahmadinejad .
We all know, the only answer is to deploy the Lebanese military to the South. It is not fair to have any other nationality go die for Lebanon if the Lebanese themselves are not doing it. Hizbullah would presumably be less inclined to massacre its own people as it would an outsider.
It seem to be on the table now, why did it take 6 years to these mofos to wake up? Too busy partying in the Beirut nightclubs?
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74570
BEIRUT: Defense Minister Elias Murr said Monday night after a Cabinet session that the government would deploy 15,000 troops along the UN-demarcated Blue Line as soon as Israeli forces withdrew. The Cabinet made the decision in a unanimous vote, Murr told reporters. Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said the government reserved the right to ask UNIFIL for help in deploying army forces in the South.
Achilles,
Now what was it you weren’t saying about 242? Oh and in case you hadn’t noticed, your elbow’s in the spaghetti.
Excellent point. Thank you.
Joseph
Wars end with one side winning and one side losing. If you don’t win, you lose.
DANIEL PIPES
So Israeli will makes war each 5-10 years before now its shorter “Israel if don’t win, Israel will lose”
This the ideology of Israelis she need to win upon all neighbouring Arab State to live?
Is this can happen? Is this can bring peace? NO….NO…NOOO
Yes Truesdell we don’t need a band aid solution. I dont think the world has much tolerance for Lebanon being anyone’s pawn or proxy battleground. You noted some candidates. However the best humanitarian outcome is a rapid ceasefire. There is a sufficient number of relizeable concessions needed by both parties to achieve that, so long as there is an accompanying timetable for further diplomacy.
Sam I dont know how Hezbullah will react to lebanese regulars, (look at the civil war) but it’s probably a courageous concession. I think Lebanon will need quite a decent UNIFIL back up a sufficiently rapid Israeli withdrawl, and a bit of luck.
Salah whatever Daniel Pipes says wars can end and have ended in a variety of ways, depending on their cause and impetus. Victory and defeat are often unclear and debatable. The apparent impetus of this episode was a border clash within a context of regional diplomatic vacuum and overly prepared parties with a history of conflict. IF so; and if third parties aren’t otherwise determined, it should be stopable.
But what concessions would be requied?