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.
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.
posted by Anton La Guardia at 3:00 pm
2 Comments:
What do you think of Juan Cole?
This seems a pretty good analysis
http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/war-on-lebanon-planned-for-at-least.html
Somne interesting stuff in Juan Cole, but it's too conspiratorial for my taste.
The piece is based on the central claim that Israelis have been giving briefings on their plan to take out Hizbollah, and that their campaign is therefore a pre-planned "war of choice". I would like to see the supporting evidence. Which think-tanks and which journalists were given the heads up?
Secondly, it presupposes that Hizbollah itself was in on the conspiracy, by conveniently kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight, to give Israel the pretext to attack.
Finally, the depopulation of northern Israel undermines the claim that all Hizbollah had was short-range Katyushas.
Post a Comment
<< Home