European hypocrisy
As expected France has backed down from its committment to provide soldiers for the expanded UNIFIL force in S. Lebanon. Even though France was the country most strongly pushing for an "immediate" ceasefire in the UN Security Council, and even though France was widely anticipated to be the leading country in the force, with an estimated 3,000 troops, actually they have decided to contribute - 200! France can be relied upon to be unreliable.
The British and Americans have a low opinion of the French, which is based on mutual disregard, even though Pres. Bush labels France an ally. But, it is pure hypocrisy for France to push for the establishment of the expanded UN interim force in S. Lebanon, and then back down because they "don't know the rules of engagement." At present no one knows the final rules of engagement, they are being established by consensus between the various countries involved, and particularly the EU countries. So far it has been agreed that the force should be armed and should have the right to stop anyone other than the Lebanese Army from carrying weapons in S. Lebanon up to the Litani River. However, they will not be expected to specifically disarm Hizbollah, even though resolution 1701 (and the previous resolution 1559) calls for that, it will simply not be done! So much for UN resolutions. Unfortunately even the IDF could not do it, at least as it prosecuted the recent war. Another problematic aspect of the resoltuion is the requirement to prevent smuggling of arms from Syria into Lebanon. The UN force is unlikely to be able to tackle this, especially with a warning now from Syria that it will close the border if the UN force even tries.
In each of the European countries polls were taken to determine support for the war in Lebanon. France had the highest levels of people against the Israeli response to Hizbollah. Most French people (ca. 60%) did not believe that Israel had the right to counter-attack after being attacked by Hizbollah. What did they expect Israel to do, behave like France! Smaller majorities held this view in Germany and Britain. Only in the US did a majority of people (54%) agree that Israel was justified in retaliating against Hizbollah. Note that Germany has to be extra careful, they don't want their forces to be in any way drawn into a conflict with the IDF, that could have enormous consequences!
There is one small glimmer in this situation. If the ceasefire fails and fighting does resume few countries will be prepared to push as hard for an "immediate" ceasefire as they did last time, with the hypocrisy over the UN force they have shot their credibility. It's true that Amnesty International, long known as an antagonist to Israel, has accused the IDF (and Hizbollah!) of war crimes. But, most knowledgeable observers know that first there was massive deception in the reporting from Lebanon, so the numbers of casualties cannot be relied upon. For example, Pres. Seniora himself accused Israel of a war crime when he announced that 60 people had been killed in an IAF strike in Baalbek, and then he retracted and announced that in fact only 1 person had been killed. But, by then it was too late, all the media carried the original figure, and few noticed the retraction. Second, the IDF does avoid civilian casualties, so that the number of dead were actually low compared to what might have happened had any other military force (including the Europeans) been carrying out these raids. Hardly anyone noticed that many Christian and Sunni Muslim villages in S. Lebanon were avoided by the IAF and IDF, and are still intact with their original inhabitants still there. This was a very targeted campaign against Shia-Hizbollah areas. Third, there were ostensibly no Hizbollah casualties, at least none were reported by the media, what happened to them all? So to base your opposition to the Israeli retaliation in the war on "civilian casualties" is absurd.
Note that the EU is going to provide a large chunk of the money, together with the US (and Iran), for reconstruction in Lebanon. But, noone but the Jewish people has offered to help rebuild Israel, even though the estimates of the damage are not that much greater in Lebanon, b$3.2, while in Israel it is ca. b$1.
It seems that with the Italians stepping in to save the UNIFIL force, with 3,000 soldiers, and a meeting of EU foreign ministers due on Friday with Kofi Annan, and a more "robust" role being planned for the force, then it might actually be deployed, even if it will likely be another UN failure.
The British and Americans have a low opinion of the French, which is based on mutual disregard, even though Pres. Bush labels France an ally. But, it is pure hypocrisy for France to push for the establishment of the expanded UN interim force in S. Lebanon, and then back down because they "don't know the rules of engagement." At present no one knows the final rules of engagement, they are being established by consensus between the various countries involved, and particularly the EU countries. So far it has been agreed that the force should be armed and should have the right to stop anyone other than the Lebanese Army from carrying weapons in S. Lebanon up to the Litani River. However, they will not be expected to specifically disarm Hizbollah, even though resolution 1701 (and the previous resolution 1559) calls for that, it will simply not be done! So much for UN resolutions. Unfortunately even the IDF could not do it, at least as it prosecuted the recent war. Another problematic aspect of the resoltuion is the requirement to prevent smuggling of arms from Syria into Lebanon. The UN force is unlikely to be able to tackle this, especially with a warning now from Syria that it will close the border if the UN force even tries.
In each of the European countries polls were taken to determine support for the war in Lebanon. France had the highest levels of people against the Israeli response to Hizbollah. Most French people (ca. 60%) did not believe that Israel had the right to counter-attack after being attacked by Hizbollah. What did they expect Israel to do, behave like France! Smaller majorities held this view in Germany and Britain. Only in the US did a majority of people (54%) agree that Israel was justified in retaliating against Hizbollah. Note that Germany has to be extra careful, they don't want their forces to be in any way drawn into a conflict with the IDF, that could have enormous consequences!
There is one small glimmer in this situation. If the ceasefire fails and fighting does resume few countries will be prepared to push as hard for an "immediate" ceasefire as they did last time, with the hypocrisy over the UN force they have shot their credibility. It's true that Amnesty International, long known as an antagonist to Israel, has accused the IDF (and Hizbollah!) of war crimes. But, most knowledgeable observers know that first there was massive deception in the reporting from Lebanon, so the numbers of casualties cannot be relied upon. For example, Pres. Seniora himself accused Israel of a war crime when he announced that 60 people had been killed in an IAF strike in Baalbek, and then he retracted and announced that in fact only 1 person had been killed. But, by then it was too late, all the media carried the original figure, and few noticed the retraction. Second, the IDF does avoid civilian casualties, so that the number of dead were actually low compared to what might have happened had any other military force (including the Europeans) been carrying out these raids. Hardly anyone noticed that many Christian and Sunni Muslim villages in S. Lebanon were avoided by the IAF and IDF, and are still intact with their original inhabitants still there. This was a very targeted campaign against Shia-Hizbollah areas. Third, there were ostensibly no Hizbollah casualties, at least none were reported by the media, what happened to them all? So to base your opposition to the Israeli retaliation in the war on "civilian casualties" is absurd.
Note that the EU is going to provide a large chunk of the money, together with the US (and Iran), for reconstruction in Lebanon. But, noone but the Jewish people has offered to help rebuild Israel, even though the estimates of the damage are not that much greater in Lebanon, b$3.2, while in Israel it is ca. b$1.
It seems that with the Italians stepping in to save the UNIFIL force, with 3,000 soldiers, and a meeting of EU foreign ministers due on Friday with Kofi Annan, and a more "robust" role being planned for the force, then it might actually be deployed, even if it will likely be another UN failure.
posted by Jack Cohen at 9:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home