All I can say is thank God for Romano Prodi’s Italian government. It appears to have almost single-handedly saved the UN’s Lebanon peacekeeping mission from imploding. After Jacques Chirac’s “now you see ’em, now you don’t” performance in which he seemed to offer to lead the new UNIFIL force and supply it with thousands of troops; only to see the offer practically evaporate before the world’s eyes–we now have a country that has shown courage and vision in taking the lead on this issue.
Chirac was shown up pitifully by Prodi when the latter made his offer to contribute substantial troops and to lead the force. Only then did the former decide to make a serious commitment to the force. Apparently, Jacques didn’t want to be shown up by his neighbor to the south.
Another way in which the Italians have shown themselves to be bold and forthright is in their discussions with the Israelis. They have not rolled over and acceded to any demands in their negotiations with foreign minister Livni. They have warned her that they cannot lead the mission as long as Israel insists on continuing offensive operations like the ill-fated one in the Bekaa Valley of a few days ago.
Even more pointedly, foreign minister D’Alema has told his Israeli counterpart forthrightly that Israeli and American Mideast policies have failed. He added that perhaps it’s time for both of them to sit back and let the Europeans show them a different, less warlike path to peaceful co-existence. The guy’s got guts to say that right to Livni’s face:
If the planned multinational force in Lebanon succeeds, it might be possible to create a similar force for the Gaza Strip, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema said in an interview with Haaretz.
D’Alema said that America’s aggressive approach to the Middle East, which Israel shares, has failed, and has caused serious damage. Now, he said, Italy and Europe must prove to Israelis that only international intervention can bring them security.
D’Alema also expressed some hard-headed realism regarding Hezbollah which Israel ought to hear:
…The Italian foreign minister, who met with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in Rome on Thursday, said that the multinational force can only help the government of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. This matter “essentially depends” solely on the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, he said, and will certainly not be done through force.
He also claimed that it would be “simplistic” to describe Hezbollah solely as a terrorist organization. “Were Hezbollah merely a small terrorist group, it would not enjoy the support of so many Lebanese,” he said. “Even Tzipi Livni says that if Hezbollah becomes a political organization, this will be a success, and I agree with her.”
Though Israel will undoubtedly view these remarks as “unhelpful” or worse, they should keep in mind this sentiment D’Alema also expressed:
“We are sending our soldiers to Lebanon and endangering their lives out of love for Israel. We have no interests in Lebanon; this is supposed to be a step that creates peace. And that is in Israel’s interest,” D’Alema said.
To pro-Israel partisans who call him an “enemy of Israel,” you do so in error.
In a Haaretz interview, D’Alema responded to a question about how he would judge the success of the mission. His answer, in my opinion, shows an acute understanding of the Israeli security and political environment:
If, with the assistance of a UN and European presence, a positive process begins in Lebanon – the country is stabilized and the fundamentalist threat is removed from Israel’s borders – that will show people in Israel that the international community can be efficient, that Europe can be efficient. Such a process would prove to Israel that it can ensure its security better through the politics of peace than through war. The main problem is that in Israeli politics, peace and security are two different, often contradictory things.”
He also expanded on his critique of the dismissive Olmert/IDF analysis of Hezbollah:
“An organization that has 35 members of parliament and three ministers cannot be described solely as a terrorist group. Hezbollah is not considered a terrorist group by the European Union, nor in my personal view. Hezbollah is a military organization, but also a force that participates in elections. The paradox is that we support Siniora, a democratic leader, and Siniora lauds Hezbollah as the defender of the Lebanese homeland. It is important to understand the complexity of the situation, because if you have a simplistic view of the enemy, you deal with him incorrectly.”
Finally, D’Alema aired a very interesting proposal for a potential UN peacekeeping force in Gaza (if the Lebanon force works):
“The idea of sending UN troops to the Gaza Strip is currently being aired. But I think that if things go well in Lebanon, a similar positive process could also begin in the Gaza Strip: the release of [kidnapped soldier Gilad] Shalit, a Palestinian unity government that meets the criteria set by the international community, and the presence of a UN force to bolster the Palestinian government.”
Likewise, credit should be given to Javier Solana, who today called for Israel to end its blockade of Lebanese ports and airspace:
Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, called on Israel to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon to ease tensions and to allow reconstruction to go forward.
I’ve written elsewhere here about my Doomsday clock for the Israeli-Arab conflict. The comforting news from Italy makes me move the minute-hand another minute back from midnight.
I am concerned though about Israel’s refusal to accept Arab or Muslim nations’ participation in the new UNIFIL force. It shows Israel’s petulance and continuing lack of vision for what will make for a fair and balanced force to keep the peace in Lebanon. Luckily, Lebanon has not complained about Israel’s refusal. But if the latter were smart they’d realize that Lebanese (and Hezbollah in particular) could take the peacekeeping force more seriously if it included Arab troops. And this would be in Israel’s interest. The problem is that Israel has no long-term vision. It only sees the short term, if that. And its view is that Arabs are enemies and cannot possibly police its northern border. A big mistake.
Terrific information. I am greatly encouraged by the Italians. Someone needs to tell the US and Israel that war is not the answer. We cannot kill them all and while trying we just create many, many more. Thank you for your time in helping to educate us. Jeanne
“I am concerned though about Israel’s refusal to accept Arab or Muslim nations’ participation in the new UNIFIL force.”
Is this a blanket refusal of ALL Arab/Muslim nations or those who don’t recognize Israel’s statehood?
“continuing lack of vision for what will make for a fair and balanced force to keep the peace in Lebanon”
Guess it’s all subject to opinion, but how is a force including nations that exercise their own forms of petulance regarding recognition towards Israel a fair and balanced one?
If one can pardon the naive and simplistic outlook, perhaps recognition of Israel could be considered a prerequisite to achieve the special status of a legit participant in stabilizing the region?
This is not some personal concoction. At a recent meeting of the Arab League, the Jordanian model to kick-start the peace talks was for Arab nations to recognize Israel FIRST so then she would have no choice but to implement items on the table. I believe many in the Israeli populace who waver on forging ahead with some kind of process would be strongly reassured following pan-Arab recognition.
Sure it’s a risk and would involve complensation, but so is working with organizations like Hamas/Fatah and relinquishing territories.
Jake: I think perhaps there is ONE Muslim nation, Turkey, that recognizes Israel. THere may be one other Arab nation (& it prob. doesn’t have an army) that recognizes Israel–I can’t remember. So by setting a criteria for participation of having to recognize Israel, the latter has perforce excluded all Arab/Muslim nations fr. UNIFIL.
You make the erroneous judgment that the purpose of the UNIFIL force is to be “fair & balanced” toward Israel. This is not the case. Israel is not the only party to the ceasefire. Lebanon is as well. And Lebanon is a majority Arab/Muslim nation. To be truly fair & balanced (a goal in which Israel of course has no interest) such a force would include nations Israel would be comfortable with & nations Lebanon would be comfortable with. Due to Israeli “petulance” this is not the case.
There is no reason whatsoever that nation’s contributing to a peacekeeping force stationed in Lebanon should HAVE to recognize Israel. It’s simply yet another ploy by Israel to tailor a solution that is more in its interests than Lebanon’s.
I’d like to see a journalistic source confirming your chracterization of the mtg. I’m not saying you’re not accurate. I’d just like to hear fr. a reporter who was actually at the mtg. It’s an interesting idea but why should the onus be on Arab states to make such a huge concession to Israel w/o gaining anything in return except the POSSIBILITY that it might turn Israeli opinion in favor of conciliation? That’s not generally how international diplomacy & negotiation works.
“I think perhaps there is ONE Muslim nation, Turkey, that recognizes Israel. There may be one other Arab nation”
Besides Turkey, I believe all of the former Soviet republics which are predominantly Islam (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan et al) recognize Israel. The 3 Arab nations are Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania. What their military status is, I don’t know either.
“You make the erroneous judgment that the purpose of the UNIFIL force is to be “fair & balanced” toward Israel.”
I don’t see it that way; there obviously is a need for bi-lateral fairness. If for whatever reason a country refused to recognize Lebanon and Pres Siniora protested their presence in UNIFIL I believe there would be a receptive audience to his pleas.
“why should the onus be on Arab states to make such a huge concession to Israel w/o gaining anything in return except the POSSIBILITY that it might turn Israeli opinion in favor of conciliation? That’s not generally how international diplomacy & negotiation works. ”
Yes, but perhaps there’s a flip-side as well. The onus on Israel; relinquishing territories, adjusting to an independent but likely volatile and unpredictable Islamic-run Palestinian state, admitting perhaps a “six-figure” amount of additional Palestinian returnees, plus many other risks in return for the POSSIBILITY of Arab countries opening an embassy in Tel Aviv sounds like a lot of huge concessions as well.
I know that recognition from Arab League members is not the core issue but, it could work to gain some form of accountability for the Palestinians, and for Israel, acceptance in a wider arena which has always been a strong selling point to the Israeli people who ultimately, through their mandates have a say in this.
Personally, I can’t fathom how one could equate the risks of Qatar and Oman opening an embassy on Frishman St equally with the ones listed above that Israel would be forced to take.
The former Soviet republics do not have armies & so cannot participate. Mauritania clearly does not. Jordan & Egypt will not participate for other reasons. Qatar has just announced that it will send 300 troops & Israel has accepted. Israel has also accepted Indonesian participation but it has objected to Malaysian participation (don’t ask me what’s the difference). So apparently Israel has softened its ironclad rejection of the notion that nations not recognizing it cannot participate in UNIFIL as the last two nations do not have relations w. Israel.
But this is disingenuous. All nations recognize Lebanon, few Arab nations do. So the problem of non-recognition is Israel’s, not Lebanon’s.
You’re not following the logic of yr original suggestion which was that the Arab states recognize Israel BEFORE getting anything in return. In the scenario you describe which I’ve quoted just above, it would only be relevant if Israel were recognizing Hamas and Palestine w/o a peace agreement. Though that would be nice (& impossible for the current government), that’s not what I expect to happen. I expect Israel to accept all the onuses you list above AT THE SAME TIME as a negotiated peace agreement in which the Arab states pledge something in return: recognition, an end to hostilities and multi-lateral cooperation. That’s the way most treaties go. Each side gives to the other simultaneously rather than one side giving something to the other before it gets anything in return. But yr original suggestion was for the Arabs to give while getting nothing specific in return.
Why am I not surprised that you would see only Israel as taking risks for peace, while not seeing the Arab side as having to take significant risks? And why have you focussed on Qatar & Oman when the nations that would be taking the real risks would be Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, the frontline states?