Diplomacy? Ceasefire?
Talks on the crisis in Lebanon which took place in Rome yesterday came to a sad conclusion. That is, if anything positive was anticipated to begin with. Hopes for a ceasfire remain elusive. Wonder why. Hezbollah, for one thing, isn't dreadfully inclined toward a ceasefire. And under current conditions, neither, it would seem, is Israel terribly entertained by the prospects of a ceasefire reflecting the urgent concerns of most of the meeting's delegates: "an immediate ceasefire without conditions".Think about that: an immediate ceasefire without conditions. Back to square one. What will have been achieved? Yet another ceasefire. Think about this: Has Israel ever in its admittedly short history attacked any one of its neighbours? Has Israel ever initiated hostilities leading to war between/among its neighbours? Is it Israel who repeatedly issues death threats against any of its neighbours? Is it Israel whose provocative actions continually place the entire region on edge?
Has it not been that perpetually embattled state which has been forced to fight one defensive war after another. And try as they might, Mr. Annan, they have been unsuccessful in finding the correct formula for war-without-casualties despite your expectations, despite your urgings that Israel shed no blood. Israel has been forced to shed blood because of its unreasonable determination to protect itself and its citizens, to live to see another day, to live to fight another war in the hopes that some day their presence will be accepted and all in the region will live in peace. Perhaps not a peace of total acceptance, but one necessitated by the knowledge finally ingested by its enemies that it has no intention of leaving, and it will remain capable of defending itself - with the shedding of blood if need be.
An immediate ceasefire without conditions would profit no one, not Israel, not any of the surrounding countries of the Middle East, whether they be those who have resolved to live with an uneasy peace with Israel as neighbour, or those who yet harbour intentions of bringing about its ouster from the region, or in less polite terms, exterminating it. A ceasefire without conditions would mollify Lebanon and encourage Hezbollah which body would then claim triumphantly to have beaten the Israeli war machine. And then the Arab street could indulge in one of its much-loved celebrations of exultation over the Jewish interloper's comeuppance.
What manner of accomplishment is this? for the region? for Israel? for the world at large? An unconditional ceasefire, then an anticipated time for renewing resources of the extra-territorial Islamic fundamentalist war machine, until the time is deemed once again expedient to launch another series of attacks against the Jewish state. Well, that would certainly solve the immediate problem, what about a long-term solution?
Why is it not surprising that Arab foreign ministers attending this meeting, along with United Nations Secretary Generak Kofi Annan (ever hear of him?) pressed for an immediate ceasefire without conditions? In an impassioned speech Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said it was not enough to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to his beleaguered country: "Is the value of human rights in Lebanon less than that of citizens elsewhere?" he asked. Reiterating "we wanted a ceasefire, an immediate ceasefire." To which this observer asks: Why is the value of human rights in Lebanon seen by Mr. Siniora to be paramount over those of the citizens of Israel? Why did not Mr. Siniora, his ruling body, the citizens of Lebanon, not recognize the value of human rights in Israel long before this dreadful impasse?
Ah, here we have the respected Mr. Kofi Annan in his speech suggesting that Hezbollah could be trusted to not use any pause in Israel's offensive to its benefit, in the instance of a partial ceasefire to enable humanitarian goods to reach the embattled population under fire within southern Lebanon. Hezbollah "can be trusted" Mr. Annan avers? Oh, really? Is this not the very same militantly-aggressive, jihad-waging group of terrorists which unleashed this hell upon the civilian population of Lebanon to begin with, and with full knowledge of its horrible effects on the country, the people? Oh dear me, Mr. Annan, where does the logic of your position stem from?
Some might just consider your logic, your ideas rather bankrupt. You state that: "A key stipulation for such a halt in fighting would be that the parties must not, I repeat, must not take advantage of such a pause to conduct offensive operations, redeploy or re-supply." Sounds good, but exactly whom are you dealing with here? A democratic state on the one hand, a non-state terrorist group on the other. Honour? Whose definition of honour-bound, that of Hezbollah whose stated goal is the total destruction of the State of Israel, as dictated to it and amply funded by Syria and Iran?
What on earth has the United Nations been doing for the past decade? Yes, you ordered Lebanon to take charge of its own affairs, yes you charged that country with taking control of the terrorist groups acting with complete impunity within the confines of that unfortunate country to attack its neighbour. Your UN observers carefully noted all infractions on both sides, but what, exactly, was the point of their presence, unarmed, incapable of taking remedial action, biased in any event, alas. There's where the "bankrupt" designation comes in.
How about a more reasoned and reasonable position, say for example that of the U.S. and Canada, which stipulates that a cessation of violence be connected to a total dismantling of the terrorist group Hezbollah, a shedding of their parliamentary positions if they do not declare themselves ready and willing to abide their neighbour's presence, leading to a long-term ceasefire, leading to eventual peace and security for both sides, Mutual Assured Security, (MAS) how's that sound? In the interests of a truly durable peace. That too much to ask for?
And while we're at it, how about the United Nations using its good offices to persuade Syria to join the ranks of civilized countries. And let's go a little further yet and assure Iran that its present course of defying the expectations of civilized behaviour and official positions vis-a-vis its continual threats to expunge Israel from the face of the earth is, let's just say, not acceptable...?
In the meantime, one ponders Italian Prime Minister Roman Prodi's musing on the conference, where he remarked "what could be achieved was achieved".
Indeed, nothing, nada. Try a little harder, Mr. Annan.
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, July 27, 2006
<< Home