Saturday, July 29, 2006

Any takers?

Any takers for a
proxy war for Israel?

EVERYONE else is wrong and only Israel is right. This is what the Israeli ambasador clearly stated on Thursday when he ruled on major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon.
Dan Gillerman's declaration is an open slap on the face of the UN and underlines Israel's blatant defiance of the international conventions and legitimacy represented by the world body.
Of course, it is not the first time — nor would it be the last time — that Israel stand almost alone in the international community arguing against the very concept and principles that went into creating the world body.
An overwhelming majority of the UN members have always opted to side with justice, international legitimacy and code of conduct and that is why Israel has found itself at the receiving end of UN criticism. The almighty US to could always use its veto power block any meaningful action against Israel for its refusal to abide by mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. However, in the larger General Assembly, Israel has no such protective umbrella and has to take on transparent and unbiased criticism of its actions although the General Assembly is a toothless tiger when it comes to decisive and effection action not only in the Middle Eastern context but also anywhere else in the world. Israel has to grit its teeth and listen to truth as truth is and to criticism as harsh as criticism could be coming from the world community in the General Assembly (although that is the extent to which UN members could go within the context of the world body).
In the latest spat, Dillerman is arguing that the UN should not have any involvement in Lebanon and that more professional and better-trained troops should be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanese border. He has also vowed not to allow any UN role in investigating the Israeli attack on a UN post in Lebanon that killed four UN observers last week.
He made an interesting observation when he said that "I don't think that if anything happened in this country (the US), or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation." Again, no one pointed out to him that no other country he mentioned, with the exception of course of the US — which is occupying Iraq —  was/is running a military occupation of neighbour's territory and therefore forced to be subject to UN observers.
The Israeli ambassador made fun of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was deployed on the border following an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978.
"Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said.
Well, he was not asked nor did he volunteer any explanation as to why Israel remained in southern Lebanon for 18 of those 28 years. Was it an "interim" occupation? Is it not true that Israel had no option but to quit Lebanon only because the resistance put up by Hizbollah?
His summary assumption is that the UN force did not do the job, but he conviently overlooked that the very mandate of UNIFIL did not allow it to use force except in self-defence, and then the UN force would have to had take action against Israel in self-defence since the force had suffered the worst from the Israeli military and not from Hizbollah or any other group present in the area of its operations.
In sum, Dillerman was only alluding to the US-backed Israeli desire that any force to be deployed in Lebanon should come from Israel-friendly countries from Europe, it should be independent and should not only be armed with the mandate and weapons to fight Hizbollah and all other forces resisting Israel but also engage in action to "neutralise" the resistance.
More simply, Israel wants the Europeans to lead the Jewish state's fight its war to eliminate Arab resistance in Lebanon.
Any takers?

Alliance at stake?

Alliance at stake
or business as usual?
June 28 2006

ONE of the Israeli analyses of the ongoing offensive against Lebanon is that the US is disappointed that the Israeli armed forces did not live up to Washington's expectations that Hizbollah would be decimated in a matter of days.
This assumption, favoured by many so-called Israeli nationalists, has led to a warning to the Israeli leadership that they should not place Israeli interests at stake by seeking to realise the American objective.
The US hope, at the outset of the Israeli offensive, was that the structure of Hizbollah would be demolished and the group's leadership eliminated in a few days and this would have offered Washington a major victory in its drive to remove the Lebanese Shiites as a potential threat in the eventuality of a US-Iranian confrontation.
The so-called Israeli nationalists are suggesting that the US could help Israel win the conflict by landing American soldiers in north Lebanon and thus catching Hizbollah in a trap in central Lebanon, with the Israelis pushing the way from the south.
However, "this is not on the cards for the simple reason that America is willing to fight in Lebanon to the last Israeli soldier, just as Iran is ready to fight to the last Hizballah combatant," reads the "nationalist" analysis. The propagators of the theory warn that "Israel must beware of being hustled into taking imprudent steps by the proxy contest between the Washington and Tehran. Israel and its armed forces must pursue their own national agenda...."
Well, this posture is indeed befiting for the US, which invaded Iraq mainly upon Israeli insistence and has already lost more than 2,500 American soliders in the insurgency there.
US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice, according to reports, left the Middle East this week after expressing her displeasure, in talks with Israeli leaders, that the Israeli military was doing badly in the assault against Hizbollah. It is believed that she had served an "ultimatum" to Israel to "finish off the job" before July 30, so that she could come back in the first week of August to continue efforts to build a "robust" multinational force to be deployed on the Lebanese-Israeli border authorised to use force to disarm Hizbollah.
However, it does not look as easy as that.
After two weeks of the brutal offensive, Israel does not have much to show (except of course the massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and the untold suffering of the people of Lebanon). Some 80 Hizbollah fighters have been killed and dozens wounded and a few small arms and ammunition dumps were discovered and neutralised. So far the Israeli army could cripple only two multiple rocket launchers and one single barrel rocket launcher belonging to Hizbollah, which is believed to have a fighting force of at least 4,000.
It definitely promises to be a long, ardous and sustained campaign that Israel is facing in its push to demolish Hizbollah.
It is not as if the Israelis are not trying, but they face tactical difficulties in facing Hizbollah, which is fighting on two parallel tracks: Firing rockets at Israeli towns and using guerrilla war tactics and picking their own time to engage Israeli soliders combing southern Lebanon for underground bunkers and other concealed guerrilla bases.
It is clear that Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is determined to battle it out: He is retaining his option of firing rockets at Israeli towns and enlarge the range of the attacks whenever he fits fit until he scores a victory — an offer of compromise from Israel — or is eliminated.
This situation has caught Israel in a dilemma. It is largely aware that would not be able to meet the reported American deadline to bring the offensive to a successful conclusion, and also that if it does engage itself in an intensified effort then it would have to take much higher casualities than now. That would mean growing internal criticism that Israel was dumb enough to be trapped into waging an American war at the expense of Israeli lives (never mind that the US is waging an Israeli war in Iraq at the expense of American lives).
It is an interesting situation, and the region is watching closely to see whether Israel would live true to its "strategic alliance" with the US by risking high casualties or let the US do the job itself. Either way, it is a safe assumption that the shape of the US-Israeli alliance is placed at stake in the bargain. Then again, conventional wisdom based on the track record of the US-Israeli relationship also suggests that Washington might not get a chance to have its way with the Jewish state.

World failed Lebanon

World failed
the Lebanese
July 27 20065


AS expected, the top US and European officials gathered in Rome to discuss the Israeli war on Lebanon did not call for an immediate cease-fire but focused on the establishment of an international force to be stationed at the Lebanese-Israeli border.
By reaffirming that any cease-fire must be "sustainable" and that there could be "no return to the status quo ante," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warded off Arab and international pressure to twist Israel's arms into suspending its blitz against Lebanon. Again, that position is in line with the US goal to eliminate Hizbollah as a potential threat against Washington's interests in the event of a conflict with Iran, according to US analysts.
Granted that Israeli civilians are caught in the conflict and are living in fear of Hizbollah rockets. Going by what Hizbollah leaders have been saying, the group could now be expected to launch rockets beyond the range that they have been hitting in recent weeks. It is doubtful that the Israeli military would be able to check Hizbollah from carrying out its "promises of surprises" in the short term. As such, Israel's refusal to accept a ceasefire is in face exposing its own people as Hizbollah's targets.
In the meantime, the proposed international force, expected to be led by European countries, is designed to push Hizbollah away from the border and to disarm the group in a manner that would suit Israeli and American interests. By not providing details of the proposed force, the US and its allies gained more time for Israel to continue its devastating rampage against Lebanon.
It is in this context that Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora issued a dramatic appeal for peace because he knows only too well the suffering and agony that his people are already under and what could be in store if Israel continues to wreak havoc at will anywhere in Lebanon.
The questions that Siniora raised during the Rome meeting and later at a press conference should have hit the international conscience.
Are the war-cursed Lebanese were "children of a lesser God?" he asked.
"The country is really being cut to pieces .... to bring the country to its knees and that is what's happening," Siniora said.
Siniora asked "what future other than one of fear, frustration, financial ruin and fanaticism can stem from the rubble?"
"Is the value of human life less than in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?" "Can the international community continue to stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted upon us?"
"Is this what is called legitimate self-defence?"
The leaders gathered in Rome had the moral responsibility to answer these questions, but none did except speaking in terms of sympathy for the victims of the Israeli offensive.
Sympathy is not enough. The Lebanese mothers who had to flee their homes in southern Lebanon with their children and those who saw their homes in Beirut and elsewhere bombed out and now are sleeping in carparks and schools in the country cannot survive on sympathy. They needed concrete action that would address their plight. Every day, they are exposed to increasing dangers and suffering. Quite simply, the so-called civilised world gathered in Rome failed them.

Ignoring realities

Ignoring realities
— a dangerous game

"Bush Sees a Chance for Change to Sweep Mideast" — this was the headline in a New York Times report on Thursday's meeting between US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
On the face of it, it would imply that the US president was seeing the latest crises in Palestine and Lebanon as an opportunity to take the Arab-Israeli conflict by the horns with a firm commitment to finding an end to the nearly six-decades-old problem.That is part of what real "change" means in the Middle East.
However, it does not look that way in the American administration's interpretation of the situation in the Middle East. Instead of injecting new life into the overall effort for just, durable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, Washington is following a piecemeal approach to the overall problem. Destroying Hizbollah as an effective group with military capabilities to challenge Israel and pose a potential threat to US interests in a US-Iran confrontation is Washington's main objective today.
The Palestinian Hamas group, which won fair and free elections and won power in Palestine, is also included in the agenda along with all other likeminded groups.
Once Israel feels satisifed that Arab resistance has been "weakened enough" for it to push through its unilateral agenda, then it would move, with support from the US, towards creating further fait accomplis on the ground that it would see as strengthening its hand in any further dealings with the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Syrians. This is indeed the masterplan, but it overlooks or seeks to circumvent the realities on the ground which dictate that Israel's unilateralism would not work.
It is transparent that Washington's current effort is aimed at devising a new UN Security Council resolution that would focus only on Hizbollah and the group's armed status and dictate terms tailored to suit Israel's interests. That in itself is one of the gravest mistakes that Washington is making.
Hizbollah and all other "terrorist, militant, extremist" groups in the Middle East came to life as the direct result of Israel's occupation of Arab territories that started with the Jewish state's grabbing of major chunks of land that was set aside for a Palestinian state under the 1948 Partition Plan and continued with the subsequent wars in the region (An interesting but little noticed news item in the Israeli media has said that the Israeli army is now in control of Israel' ts main sources of water, the Wazani springs in the divided Ghajar village near the border, and is unlikely to let go of it. Israel's capture of the spring should be seen against its Defence Minister Amir Peretz’s statement his country would retain control of a security belt in southern Lebanon until a multinational force takes over).
Today, "eliminating" Arab and Palestinian resistance groups would serve only short-term goals. Those groups would spring up in the medium term and pose far more serious threats to US interests than today, and it really surprising that Washington does not seem to take this reality into consideration.
Bush and his administration aides repeatly affirm that Hizbollah is the "root cause" of the problem in Lebanon — likewise Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine — but such affirmations do not make it a reality. The root cause for the problem, whether in Palestine or Lebanon, is Israel's occupation of Arab territories and its drive to legitimise its actions. The sooner the US reflects this truth in its actions, the better the prospects for "real change" in the Middle East.