End to fighting in Lebanon further out of sight
In recent hours, prospects for an end to fighting in Lebanon have worsened and agreement at the UN Security Council may not be possible for several days, if not longer. If nothing happens, the war could continue for several weeks.
One reason is breathtaking cynicism on the part of Arab States advising Lebanon who have rejected a resolution that was almost complete. They would like to prolong the war because of the heavy cost to Israel in blood and treasure.
The main influences on Lebanon are the Sunni Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. They feel that Israel is being weakened at no cost to them and, with some luck, Israel might also succeed in weakening Shiite influence in Lebanon by damaging Hezbollah. So they win on both counts.
The price of these maneuvers is the continuing suffering of Lebanon’s Shiites who comprise about 40% of the population. The Lebanese government argues that protecting the Shiites would mean fighting Israel or forcing the Hezbollah to lay down arms. It is incapable of doing either.
But there is a third alternative. It could accept whatever Security Council resolution immediately stops hostilities because that is the best way to immediately protect Lebanon’s Shiites. Instead, it has given in to pressure from the Sunni Arab countries none of which is losing a single life or dollar as south Lebanon burns.
The other Arabs rejected the resolution to make a point of “principle� that inevitably prolongs the war. They insist Israel’s army must withdraw immediately instead of leaving when south Lebanon is stabilized under a new system of governance.
This “principle� is a trick to prevent peace at the quickest possible pace between Lebanon and Israel. If the aim is to stop hostilities immediately, whether or not Israel withdraws at the same time is irrelevant. It is significant only if the aim is to score propaganda points to make the global community believe that Israel had to leave because it was the aggressor.
As the war continues, those other Arab countries hope TV images of Lebanon’s destruction will turn world audiences further against Israel and the US. For them, prolonging indecisive wars in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank are the best ways to keep Israel and American off balance in their region. With Iraq smoldering in the South and Lebanon in the North, they can squeeze the US and Europe to the maximum for political and economic concessions for their own purposes.
Peace in Israel would substantially cut the political influence of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in Washington and European capitals. It would also make Iran and Syria lesser players in the region. The US may again be a country liked around the world for its positive contributions to the family of nations. How then would those repressive Arab kingdoms and dictatorships survive?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “End to fighting in Lebanon further out of sight”
Now, I do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics or the motivations of these countries in the current Lebanese conflict; however, the analysis provide seems to be overly simplistic. It would seem logical that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan would be motivated to have a rapid and peaceful resolution to the current conflict.
Jordan, particularly, has expressed concern that prolonged hostilities could widen into a larger regional war. They are alarmed about the expansion of Shiite influence in the area, instability in Lebanon would only add to their heartburn over the developments in Iraq. Further, it would seem that Hezbollah martyrs at the hands of Israelis would only ignite long simmering passions in the streets of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The point that peace in Israel would diminish the political influence in the west by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan is simply ridiculous on numerous fronts.
International relations consist of many shades of grey as is evidenced by this administration’s lack of successes in the art of diplomacy.
Egypt had brokered adeal to return the Israelis hostages and unnamed Arab countries caused the deal to fall through. The war started and the US sided with Israel, giving them a smoke screen and green light to go after Hezbelloh. Because the US didn’t appear as an honest broker and Israels bad PR because of “collateral damage” the percieved critism of moderate Arabs (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) of Hezbelloh evaporated. After Qana Condi Rice was not welcome in Beirut. Insight has a couple of articles about the power struggle between Condi and the hawks. The latest article says Bush sided with the hawks and told Condi to back off on Israel. Bush has taken a very strong pro-Israel stance, much stronger than any previous presidents, which has weakened the US’s ability to mediate the situation.