The Arab Dilemma
The muted responses of Sunni Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Libya to the Israeli attack make clear their fear of Hezbollah developing into a local Shi’ite proxy for Iran. It is a greater threat to their political existence and survival than Israel.
Israel, like its Sunni Arab neighbors, has been there before. International peacekeepers and Israel’s eventual withdrawal of troops from South Lebanon in 2000 did little to stem Hezbollah and their rocket attacks.
Sunni Arab governments and Israel do agree that the U.N. is ineffective. The U.N is viewed with suspicion and anger by the Arabs because of its inability to pressure Israel into complying with many resolutions. Israel on the other hand believes the U.N. is incapable of enforcing its will in a crisis. Foremost in Israelis minds is the U.N.’s role in the prelude to the 1967 Six-Day war. The U.N. deployed an emergency force in Egypt’s Sinai penninsula as part of the 1956 Sinai conflict ceasefire agreement, to serve as a buffer between Egyptian and Israeli forces. But in May 1967, then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, amid growing regional tensions, demanded that the force leave ─ and they did without even consulting the Security Council. Within days the Six-Day war erupted.
The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is perceived as pro-Arab and in kahoutz with Hezbollah by Israel. Hence the bombing of U.N. posts that were used as cover by Hezbollah which resulted in the death of four U.N. observers. The U.N.’s failure to remove Hezbollah as mandated by 1559 is widely believed will be perpetuated and repeated by the new expanded force. It is therefore no surprise that Israel will not accept soldiers from Muslim countries that do not recognize Israel.
To hear Kofi Annan beg for peacekeepers to supplement the “worse than useless” 2000-strong UNIFIL force that has been there for 20 years is a concern and dire warning. To supplement the force in place with soldiers that cannot engage or “wage war” to enforce the resolution and on condition that Israel not violate the ceasefire, even if Hezbollah does, is a one way non-starter, especially when Syria won’t support or recognize the U.N. resolution if U.N. forces are stationed along Lebanon’s border with Syria. To adopt rules of engagement that only allow soldiers to fire to protect civilians, or in self defense, and not to disarm is a mere temporary stop gap measure before the war resumes and reconfirms the U.N.’s uselessness. “There is no flexibility on arms smuggling,” Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr said. Something Syria refuses to acknowledge. Syria sees Hezbollah as its ace in the hole, something to be exploited to make Syria a factor in the region or to be traded in the right circumstances. “We should create a one-two punch with the French to make clear Syria has something significant to lose by not cutting off Hezbollah, and has something to gain from changing course,” said Dennis Ross, counselor of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I agree. How else do you stop wars? Getting the facilitators to sit down and negotiate is a pre-condition.
Syria’s alliance with Iran is “a marriage of convenience.” Syria is a secular country with a Sunni majority. It is not comfortable with Iran’s Shi’ite ayatollahs and can be approached with tempting offers such as the return of the Golan Heights.
The U.N.’s unrealistic expectations have to be acknowledged and challenged. It should therefore not be a surprise that the French refuse to lead the U.N. force if they have to disarm Hezbollah, and the Italians are taking hold of the reins, which in and of itself should set off alarm bells. The European Union member states remain wary of making firm commitments until the mandate for the new force is clarified, fearing their peacekeepers could be dragged into a conflict with Hezbollah or with Israel if the ceasefire collapses. “Nobody wants to be saddled with the task that the Israeli military failed to achieve in a month of intense combat,” said a European diplomat.
The Europeans do not want to risk the lives of their soldiers or their relationship with the Muslim world. The 3,500 vanguard troops that the U.N. wanted on the ground by August 28 with additional reinforcements of 3,500 joining by October 5 and an additional 3000 by early November leaves the ceasefire a leaky sieve that allows the Hezbollah to easily re-arm. “It’s not going to go in there and attempt large-scale disarmament,” said Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown. Why not? So what is it going to do? Why send troops to again just stand idly by as Hezbollah rearms? Any wonder Israel is doing what the U.N. repeatedly promises to?
Israel, like its Sunni Arab neighbors, has been there before. International peacekeepers and Israel’s eventual withdrawal of troops from South Lebanon in 2000 did little to stem Hezbollah and their rocket attacks.
Sunni Arab governments and Israel do agree that the U.N. is ineffective. The U.N is viewed with suspicion and anger by the Arabs because of its inability to pressure Israel into complying with many resolutions. Israel on the other hand believes the U.N. is incapable of enforcing its will in a crisis. Foremost in Israelis minds is the U.N.’s role in the prelude to the 1967 Six-Day war. The U.N. deployed an emergency force in Egypt’s Sinai penninsula as part of the 1956 Sinai conflict ceasefire agreement, to serve as a buffer between Egyptian and Israeli forces. But in May 1967, then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, amid growing regional tensions, demanded that the force leave ─ and they did without even consulting the Security Council. Within days the Six-Day war erupted.
The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is perceived as pro-Arab and in kahoutz with Hezbollah by Israel. Hence the bombing of U.N. posts that were used as cover by Hezbollah which resulted in the death of four U.N. observers. The U.N.’s failure to remove Hezbollah as mandated by 1559 is widely believed will be perpetuated and repeated by the new expanded force. It is therefore no surprise that Israel will not accept soldiers from Muslim countries that do not recognize Israel.
To hear Kofi Annan beg for peacekeepers to supplement the “worse than useless” 2000-strong UNIFIL force that has been there for 20 years is a concern and dire warning. To supplement the force in place with soldiers that cannot engage or “wage war” to enforce the resolution and on condition that Israel not violate the ceasefire, even if Hezbollah does, is a one way non-starter, especially when Syria won’t support or recognize the U.N. resolution if U.N. forces are stationed along Lebanon’s border with Syria. To adopt rules of engagement that only allow soldiers to fire to protect civilians, or in self defense, and not to disarm is a mere temporary stop gap measure before the war resumes and reconfirms the U.N.’s uselessness. “There is no flexibility on arms smuggling,” Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr said. Something Syria refuses to acknowledge. Syria sees Hezbollah as its ace in the hole, something to be exploited to make Syria a factor in the region or to be traded in the right circumstances. “We should create a one-two punch with the French to make clear Syria has something significant to lose by not cutting off Hezbollah, and has something to gain from changing course,” said Dennis Ross, counselor of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I agree. How else do you stop wars? Getting the facilitators to sit down and negotiate is a pre-condition.
Syria’s alliance with Iran is “a marriage of convenience.” Syria is a secular country with a Sunni majority. It is not comfortable with Iran’s Shi’ite ayatollahs and can be approached with tempting offers such as the return of the Golan Heights.
The U.N.’s unrealistic expectations have to be acknowledged and challenged. It should therefore not be a surprise that the French refuse to lead the U.N. force if they have to disarm Hezbollah, and the Italians are taking hold of the reins, which in and of itself should set off alarm bells. The European Union member states remain wary of making firm commitments until the mandate for the new force is clarified, fearing their peacekeepers could be dragged into a conflict with Hezbollah or with Israel if the ceasefire collapses. “Nobody wants to be saddled with the task that the Israeli military failed to achieve in a month of intense combat,” said a European diplomat.
The Europeans do not want to risk the lives of their soldiers or their relationship with the Muslim world. The 3,500 vanguard troops that the U.N. wanted on the ground by August 28 with additional reinforcements of 3,500 joining by October 5 and an additional 3000 by early November leaves the ceasefire a leaky sieve that allows the Hezbollah to easily re-arm. “It’s not going to go in there and attempt large-scale disarmament,” said Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown. Why not? So what is it going to do? Why send troops to again just stand idly by as Hezbollah rearms? Any wonder Israel is doing what the U.N. repeatedly promises to?
posted by Peter de Krassel's Custom Maid Politics at 11:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home