<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi08072006.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi08072006.html<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>August 7,
2006<br><br>
</font><h1><font size=5><b>"If Israel did not win the war and it
gets all this, what would have happened if it had won the
war?"<br><br>
<br>
</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5 color="#990000">The
Draft UN Resolution on
Lebanon</b></font></h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5>By
KARIM MAKDISI<br><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4><i>Beirut.<br><br>
</i></font><font face="Verdana" size=6 color="#990000">I</font>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>t is impossible to speak of a Hizbullah
victory' when nearly a thousand Lebanese civilians have been killed,
thousands more injured, a million people internally displaced; and
Lebanon's infrastructure, environment and economy laid to waste as the
world watches.<br><br>
The general consensus however is that Hizbullah's and Lebanon's
steadfastness after four weeks of merciless Israeli attacks means that
Israel has failed to achieve its objectives through military means:
crushing/disarming Hizbullah, reinstating its deterrent, and protecting
the security of northern Israel. Indeed, Hizbullah's resistance has
gained unprecedented support throughout the Arab world, and Nasrallah has
emerged as a Nasser-like figure who has restored pride to Arabs
everywhere in contrast to the uniformly servile and unpopular Arab
regimes.<br><br>
The draft UN resolution proposed by the US and France on Saturday thus
seems strangely out of place, as though Israel had won this war
decisively and is in a position to dictate the terms. The draft does not
reflect either the reality of a balance of terror that clearly exists
between Hizbullah and Israel today, or the political unity that this war
has created in Lebanon and across the Arab world. As such, it has come as
a shock to many people in the region. In the words of the influential
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri (who is mediating between Hizbullah and
the Lebanese government), "if Israel did not win the war and it gets
all this, what would have happened if it had won the war?"<br><br>
Here are some preliminary observations on this draft resolution:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>1. It clearly adopts the Israeli narrative that this war was begun by
Hizbullah"referred to dismissively as an "armed group"
"on 12 July when it "abducted" (as opposed to
"captured") two Israeli soldiers, and makes clear that to
prevent the "resumption of hostilities" Hizbullah must be
banned in all areas between the Blue Line and Litani River. Elsewhere,
the text refers to the Sheba'a farms as "disputed or uncertain"
as opposed to "occupied."<br><br>
<dd>2. It calls for a "cessation of hostilities" until an
international force is deployed, as opposed to the "immediate cease
fire" that the Lebanese government has repeatedly demanded. This
gives Israel the face-saving mechanism it needs to justify the heavy
costs of this war to its own public, given its pledge not to stop the war
until an international force is in place in southern Lebanon.<br><br>
<dd>3. It further calls on Hizbullah to cease all "attacks"
while Israel must only cease "offensive military operations."
Given that Israel has all along stated that this war is in self-defense,
this phrasing clearly gives Israel the green light to continue to hit
Hizbullah targets whenever it interprets the need for self defense.' And
since 'Hizbullah targets' apparently includes the full spectrum of
civilian installations throughout the country as well as all civilians in
Lebanon, Israel could interpret this to mean a green light for the
continuation of its onslaught.<br><br>
<dd>4. It refers to the "unconditional release" of Israeli
soldiers, but only to "encouraging the efforts aimed at resolving
the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel." It says
nothing about the exchange of prisoners, a key Lebanese demand.<br><br>
<dd>5. It does not heed Lebanon's demand for an immediate lifting of the
Israeli siege of Lebanon. Rather it makes clear that airports and ports
will be reopened only for "verifiably and purely civilian
purposes." In other words, everyone and everything going in and out
of the country will be monitored, thus turning Lebanon into a new
Gaza.<br><br>
<dd>6. There is no mention of an international investigation into
Israel's savage attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure as
Lebanon's Prime Minster has repeatedly demanded. There is moreover no
reference to war crimes, international humanitarian laws or the Geneva
Conventions.<br><br>
<dd>7. The heart of this draft resolution calls for a permanent ceasefire
based on the disarming of "all armed groups in Lebanon" under
UN resolution 1559, and the deployment in Lebanon (as opposed to Israel,
or both countries) of an "international force" under Chapter
VII of the UN Charter to help implement a "long term solution."
The Lebanese government has insisted that the disarming of Hizbullah must
be part of Lebanon's national dialogue in the context of the Taif
Accords, and that the Lebanese army should be the main player in securing
southern Lebanon, with an expanded UNIFIL there to assist it as
needed.<br><br>
</dl>In short, this draft resolution is a major blow to Lebanon, its
sovereignty, and its new found political unity and consensus as
represented by the government's much-publicized seven point plan, first
unveiled in the Rome Conference of 25 July and later adopted unanimously
by the Council of Ministers (that includes Hizbullah) and supported by
the Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conferences. The draft
totally ignores major Lebanese demands, most notably Israel's withdrawal
from any territory it has seized during this war, the placing of Sheba'a
farms area under UN control until border delineation is completed, the
exchange of prisoners, and the rejection of a Charter VII authorized
"international force." Worse, it waves all culpability of
Israel in terms of its deliberate targeting of civilians and consigns the
long-established international laws of war to the trashbin.<br><br>
As expected, the Lebanese government has already rejected the draft
outright because it is clearly not a serious attempt to resolve the
crisis. Ominously, the draft's bias seems clearly designed to ensure
Lebanon rejects it, thus giving Israel yet more time to continue its
carnage in Lebanon. It also seems designed to divide Lebanon once again
politically"and potentially along sectarian lines--to isolate
Hizbullah. This is extremely dangerous, and may lead to more violent
civil conflict or even full-scale war. Much depends on the leadership
skills of Prime Minister Siniora who needs to emerge as a genuine
national leader if such civil conflict is to be avoided in the coming
months.<br><br>
Overall, then, we can see that this draft UN resolution represents a
second wave of US-European-Israeli attacks on Lebanon. While the military
assault against Hizbullah has apparently failed, we now enter a
diplomatic war that will be even bloodier.<br><br>
It is clear that, once again, the differences between America and Europe
are not over substance but style. In blunt terms, America does not
particularly care how much damage is done to Lebanon as long as its
objectives are reached, while Europe"and France in
particular"want only for Hizbullah to be crushed without the
unseemly images produced in villages and cities throughout Lebanon, from
Qana in the South to Qaa in the North. Europe, in other words, is
entirely complicit with America and Israel in this war. As for the Arab
regimes, their support for the Israeli objectives has now been
neutralized by Hizbullah's popularity across the Arab world. The
international political will to reach a just, lasting and realistic
solution to this conflict"and the larger Palestinian
question"clearly does not exist. The violence and destruction of
Lebanon will thus continue, and Islamists will reap the long-term
political rewards.<br><br>
The international community as embodied by the United Nations Security
Council is, for all intents and purposes, itself waging war on a small,
vulnerable Member State; and as such it no longer carries legitimate
authority in the Arab world. In this sense Israel, America and Europe can
congratulate themselves not only on the total destruction of a country,
but on the de-legitimization of the international legal order as we know
it.<br><br>
Karim Makdisi</b> is Assistant Professor of International Relations in
the Dept of Political Studies and Public Administration at the American
University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Email:
<a href="mailto:km18@aub.edu.lb">km18@aub.edu.lb</a><br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>