The indispensible site Watching America has this must-read post translation (a translation only available on the WA site) of a Lebanese opinion piece on the new Middle East turmoil.
We’ll give you WA’s set up and then a key excerpts here:
Is the Israeli attack on Lebanon a signal that the United States can no longer be counted upon to follow through on its commitments? According to this op-ed article from Lebanon’s An-nahar, for the sake of Lebanon and American credibility, President Bush had better quickly stop Israel’s assault.
A few sections of this opinion-piece:
A worrisome deficiency in the level of “American protection” for “Political Lebanon” became evident over the past 24 hours, after the runways of Beirut International Airport were bombed and Israel announced it has imposed a sea and air embargo over all of Lebanon. This raises many questions that should greatly concern us, because of the almost complete absence of restraint of these attacks.
This is now a pressing question: Is this “lack of American protection” temporary, or is it for the long term? The answer is unclear, since President Bush revealed a clear “sensitivity” on the subject of protection, when he declared that ongoing Israeli military operations “should not weaken the government of Fuad Siniora” (Lebanon’s pro-Western prime minister).
But can anything be more “weakening” then intimidating tourists with an embargo and attacking Beirut at the height of tourist season, and bombing runways at that industry’s Achilles’ heel, Beirut’s airport?
The writer Jihad El Zein then recounts some of Lebanon’s history and recent events and writes:
It is beyond doubt that the political and security failure in Iraq (which we have called “the American fiasco”) has resulted in “shock” changes to American policy. American commentators are calling it a return to a new “realism” in Bush’s second term. It is true, policy changes in major countries often take time before becoming tangible, but countries like Lebanon, that have witnessed dramatic changes under the influence of the “Bush Revolution” must ask some basic questions. For example, do these changes show a weakening or the end of America’s commitment to Lebanon’s political and economic security?
It is difficult to accept this opinion, because even if there has been a temporary removal of U.S. protection leading to a certain amount of Israeli military “terror,” giving up on Lebanon is not in America’s interests. If the Israelis have convinced Washington that putting pressure on Hezbollah requires them to have somewhat of a military freehand, the Americans know Lebanon’s limits. Any economic collapse will result in an internal security collapse, which would encourage greater militia violence. This would lead to the fracturing of a country that has been “revived” after having been promoted by and benefiting from Bush policy in the region over the last two years.
Then the key question posed by the writer:
What is needed now, after the shock and pain deliberately inflicted by the Israelis on the Lebanese tourism industry – which by the way is the most equitable run of any such industry in any country, because its benefits are vertically distributed to all classes of society – is for the American president to quickly limit the Israeli attacks. After the Iraqi fiasco, the “status quo” is no longer what it was: Is every country that America touches supposed to fall to pieces?
Hopefully all of Lebanon, from the south to the north, will have some time to absorb this difficult experience with a patriotic sentiment, but not “overly-patriotic” or “under-patriotic” … This balance is an integral part of Lebanon’s long journey toward stability an integration of its diverse components. We hope that when the Israeli aggression ends, this experience will be an opportunity to strengthen the historic achievement of liberating Southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000, rather than putting in jeopardy.
This is a thoughtful piece and one that should be included on the menu of those who want to read all sides on this critical issue.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.