Which side does time favour?

Tel Aviv

The front page of Israel’s mass circulation Yediot Ahronot sums up America’s attitude to Israel’s military action in Lebanon: “Take Your Time”.

Senior Israeli officers say they need at least a week, maybe more, to achieve their military aims, although there is growing confusion as to what they may be. First Israel said it wanted to destroy Hizbollah, then revised this to say it wanted the militia to be disarmed and now reduced this further to a desire to “push Hizbollah away from the border”, even if just by a few kilometres.

Whatever the aim, America seems ready to fend off international pressure for an immediate ceasefire, saying any halt to the violence had to be “enduring”. She said the political spadework, to devise a way of helping the Beirut government extend its control to south Lebanon, had to be in place first. In truth, this argument is a political manoeuvre to allow Israel to keep up its military campaign.

Prioivately, though, Western officials have been expressing doubt about how much damage Israel is really causing to Hizbollah. A senior British official toldme the bombing was yieding "diminishing returns for Israel". The question now is whether it is actually counter-productive.

Does more time really benefit Israel? More time for bombing may, in theory, give greater opportunity kill Hizbollah fighters and destroy their rockets. But it also progressively weakens the pro-western government of Fouad Siniora, whose cooperation is essential in the post-war settlemetn, and increasingly radicalises Muslim opinion.

More importantly, time also gives Hizbollah more opportunities to build up the myth of heroic resistance against the "Zionists". Every day that Israel does not silence Hizbollah’s missiles is another victory in the propaganda battle. Every day that Hizbollah fighters hold off Israeli ground troops in the border villages further increases Hizbollah’s mystique as the only fighting force able to hold Israel back.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah chief, told an interviewer this week: “If the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory.”

Israel has made no secret of its desire to kill Nasrallah. But after dropping countless bombs on his suspected bunkers, he keeps back popping back up to give interviews and make statements. That, too, is a victory for Hizbollah – and it is being noticed elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Condi may be doing Israel no favours by allowing it to go on bombing Lebanon.

Arabs to defend Israel?

Jerusalem

Lost in the tumult and misery of the war across the Lebanese border is a fascinating political change in the Middle East: Israel accepts, even welcomes the deployment of foreign forces; Arabs leaders openly criticise Hizbollah's attack on Israel that provoked the massive bombardment of the country and Palestinian leaders accuse Iran of hijacking their cause.

These are the building blocks for the diplomatic package that Condoleezza Rice is trying to put together in her mission to the Middle East.

One surprising idea being promoted by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, is that the foreign intervention force should include Arab troops. The idea that Israel would entrust its security to Arab armies - if it happens - is astonishing.

Israel has traditionally refused intervention by third parties, believing that peace would be longer-lasting if negotiated directly. And if conflict continues, Israel would would have a freer hand in its military operations without having to worry about harming foreigners.

But in accepting the idea of a foreign intervention force, Israel has taken a leaf out of Palestinian tactics, as the New York Times reports. According to Israeli lore, only the Jews can propely defend themselves and their threat. Outsiders can help, but would not be expected to fight on Israel's behalf.

There have been exceptions to this, for instance in 1956, when French fighters patrolled Israeli air space during the Suez crisis, when Israel colluded with France and Britain in the failed effort to bring down Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

More recently, a US-British mission to monitor a Palestinian jail in Jericho ended in fiasco when the monitors, feeling threatened, abruptly pulled out and the building was stormed by Israeli forces.

Still, Israel last year agreed to amend the Camp David Accords with Egypt to allow Egyptian forces to reinforce the border with Gaza after Ariel Sharon withdrew soldiers and settlers from the area last year. It also agreed that European Union monitors should supervise the Rafah border crossing

Now, realising it cannot it cannot destroy Hizbollah from the air, and doubting that it can even win a points victory over Hizbollah, Israel and America are increasingly turning their attention to winning the post-conflict diplomacy. A key element is to help the Lebanese government take control of south Lebanon from Hizbollah.

This is where the idea of an intervention force comes in. It has been tried before, without success. The Multi-National Force the deployed in Lebanon in 1982, after the Israeli invasion of Ledbanon, was forced to withdraw a year later after it got sucked into the civil war and became the target for Hizbollah suicide bombers.

UNIFIL, the UN "interim" force, has been in Lebanon since 1978 and the best it can do is to watch the fighting and keep its heead down when the going gets really tough.

Would a new international force would do a better job of fighting Hizbollah than the Israelis? They tried for years and failed, and withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. To be effective the force would neeed to include a serious western army, but the Americans and the British have given notice that they would not contribute. It is hard to see the French taking on such a burden, particularly given France's role as the former colonial power.

Perhaps the inclulsion of Arab forces would give the force greater "legitimacy" in the eyes of the Lebanese. It would also serve notice on Iran that a coalition of the West, pro-western Arab states and Israel are standing up to its attempt to inflame the Middle East.

But if it is hard to imagine western armies returning to Lebanon, it is almost impossible to conceive of an Arab army being sent to fight fellow Arabs and defend Israel.

Welcome!

Welcome to my new blog site.

I have left The Daily Telegraph after 19 years to move to The Economist, and have taken my blog with me.

I will pick up from where I left off, with postings and links on international affairs and other observations.

If you want to see my postings from my earlier incarnation as The Daily Telegraph's Diplomatic Editor, click here