a mosaic of editorial excerpts for August 14 - 28, 2006

The excerpts show the high state of confusion of a country that was forced by its neighbor Syria to allow the establishment of a state-within-its-state, the Syria-Iran backed Hezballah-land. Being weak to the point that for 40 years Beirut gave up any pretense of ruling over the southern part of its country, and hanged then its hopes on a global solution of the Palestinian problem in order to retrieve also its internal peace. Above was criticized by members of the Lebanese opposition Walid Jumblatt and Michel Aoun, and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora found himself basically a political captive of Syrian backed Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. Lebanon’s leadership was a Siniora - Berri co-production with Sheik Nasrallah ruling in the south and eventually precipitating the confrontation with Israel. Even now, being the host to an enhanced foreign peace-keeping force - the so called UNIFIL II - Siniora still makes no pretense that he will indeed disarm Hezballah, but rather talks about opening a dialogue leading to the incorporation of Hezballah into the Lebanese army. The Daily Star editorials zig-zag their way through above landscape. Our hope is that by reading the actual excerpts, the dilemma before Siniora becomes quite clear. Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani will now show that he can help negotiate the release of the Israeli prisoners, and Iran’s shadow, as well as Iran’s money, will continue to loom over the Lebanese sky, with Qatar trying to bring in some balance for the Sunni League of Arab States. Will Lebanon try for real to regain its independence? Can it afford to do so?

Only in the Middle East could a so-called “peace process” have produced so much process and so little peace over a span of decades. The Arab Peace Initiative (API) of March 2002 was unanimously approved by the heads of state of all 22 Arab League member-states and promulgated with great fanfare. More than four years later, Arab governments are now asking the United Nations Security Council to hold a ministerial meeting in hopes of, in effect, resurrecting the very same offer. This maintains a long tradition of recycling ideas - good or bad - that have failed in the past, which is only appropriate since the API was itself a rehash of a previous package. There is an argument to be made that some diplomacy, no matter how unproductive, is better than no diplomacy, but there is also a very real danger of raising false hopes once too often and thereby tossing the Middle East into a tempest of even greater ferocity than that which we know today.

Gunnar Jarring’s career is an instructive case. A Swedish diplomat, he served as the UN secretary general’s envoy for the Middle East peace process for an astounding 23 years. That amazing run began after the 1967 war with shuttle diplomacy (before the term had even been coined) aimed at restoring order to the region to prevent something like the 1973 war. Half-way between the two conflicts, US Secretary of State William Rogers produced his “Rogers Plan,” an effort that was discarded shortly after its inception. Then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic shuttle helped end the 1973 war on terms and at a point that allowed for hope on the possibility of resolving the issue at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, that of the Palestinians, but nothing happened. Camp David produced both peace between Egypt and Israel and an Israeli commitment to more autonomy for the Palestinians. The Jewish state “acted” on this promise by deporting elected Palestinian mayors and, weeks after evacuating (and destroying) its last settlements in Sinai, invading Lebanon. This led to the “Reagan Plan,” which was revolutionary for its time but went nowhere. There followed several more years of futility, and Jarring, who had continued his efforts to no avail, finally retired in 1990.

Then came Madrid in 1991, which laid the groundwork for the 1995 Oslo Accords. The time since then has been a torturous era of hopes raised and dashed. Bill Clinton worked relentlessly to hammer out a final status agreement to wrap up Oslo, but his failure to do so only added fuel to a fire that was already starting to burn. George W. Bush has made a few noises and even uttered some flowery rhetoric, but his attention span has not been up to the task. Along the way, private initiatives like those of tycoon Ron Lauder have helped nudge leaders like former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back to the negotiating table with the Arabs. The process has indeed been broad and deep, but the peace remains an elusive prize.

Jarring died just weeks after the API was released and rejected, surely of exasperation. Today the entire Middle East is just as weary of failed diplomacy, but its demise would not be nearly so peaceful as Jarring’s. Everyone knows that the Palestinian issue is the essential first step. Everyone knows that its resolution is long overdue. We even know what a final resolution would look like. No one wants to think about the price of failing to achieve it.

——————————-

By making a public tour of the devastated southern suburbs of Beirut, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora have inaugurated a noteworthy transition. When the pair, who have recently been engaged in intense discussions with international officials aimed at ending the siege of Lebanon, left their offices to tour the hardest-hit areas around the capital, they officially changed gears, shifting from diplomatic mode into reconstruction mode.

Lebanon is fortunate to have these two pillars at the helm of government to oversee the start of reconstruction. Siniora, in particular, is well-versed in the process of rebuilding after war. As late former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s right-hand man, he oversaw much of the reconstruction that took place after the 1975-1990 Civil War and Israel’s last major onslaught on Lebanon in 1996. The recent crisis of Israel’s war on Lebanon has seen Siniora emerge from under the shadow of Hariri’s legacy to become a national leader in his own right. His experience, coupled with his attentiveness to detail and a well-honed sense of priorities, will no doubt serve Lebanon well during the coming phase.

The challenges that lie ahead are enormous, and the issues that must be addressed range from constitutional reform to ensuring full transparency during the reconstruction process. But the most urgent and difficult challenge of all will be to consolidate the power of the national dialogue committee under the umbrella of the executive branch of government.

Berri and Siniora will need to be creative and energetic in order to meet this challenge. It is a good first step that both leaders expressed complete commitment to preserving Lebanon’s unity. But it will take more than unity to reconstruct the country - the shattered state cannot be glued back together into the same pre-war shape and form. Radical changes will be necessary in order for the Lebanese state to survive and thrive. In effect, the state will have to be built on a completely new foundation.

The government will need to create the solid ground upon which the third Lebanese republic can be built. This will require a significant overhaul of the state and all of its institutions, with an eye toward enhancing its efficiency and accountability.

The Lebanese people spent years rebuilding after the Civil War and various Israeli attacks, only to see all the products of their toils laid to waste in a matter of weeks. This time, every effort must be made to ensure that the same costly and deadly cycle is not repeated.

——————————

As the sounds of guns and bombs in Lebanon fell silent, one could almost hear an entire nation sighing in relief. But the Lebanese cannot afford to give in to the temptation to rest easy now that Israel has scaled back its siege. We no longer have the luxury of waiting patiently for difficult problems to resolve themselves. Pre-war issues - and some new ones - demand urgency.

——————

In the past month, and for some time before that, we have heard just about every possible suggestion about how to deal with Hizbullah: Attack it, degrade it, disarm it, wean it away from its friends in Syria and Iran, engage it politically, bring it into the Lebanese government in a bigger way, pressure it to show its real aims, drive it away from the border. Love it or hate it, Hizbullah has lessons for all Arabs.

—————–

In remarks that can only be described as flabbergasting, Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni demanded on Friday that Syria respect Lebanon’s sovereignty. “It’s about time that Syria give Lebanon the freedom and ability to be an independent and sovereign state,” Livni said. Absurdly, the Israelis, who have recently pummeled Lebanon to near extinction, now have the audacity to point fingers at others for their failure to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty.

There is no denying that Lebanon’s sovereignty has been repeatedly undermined - both overtly and covertly - by Syria over the past 30 years. But during this same period of time, Lebanon’s sovereignty has been utterly annihilated by Israel. Ironically, Livni was bold enough to chide Syria while thousands of Israeli troops remain in South Lebanon, and while Israeli warships and warplanes maintain the Jewish state’s stranglehold on Lebanese territories through an air and sea blockade.

Even before the war, Israel showed little if any respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty. Over the past six years, UN observers have documented repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese land and sea territory. And although Israel supposedly withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, it maintained its occupation of the Lebanese Shebaa Farms and continued to launch air incursions on a daily basis, often penetrating deep into Lebanon and generating sonic booms over populated areas, causing tremendous anxiety for the civilian population.

Livni is right to say that it is about time for others to give Lebanon the freedom and ability to be an independent and sovereign state. But the truth is that we Lebanese cannot count on either of our neighbors to do so, nor can we count very much on the vacillating will of the international community to protect our country. We can, however, take steps toward building a stable and capable state, so that if indeed the opportunity to exercise full sovereignty arises, we will be ready for the challenge.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora would be well-advised to begin holding extensive talks on strengthening and fortifying the Lebanese state and its institutions. These two pillars of leadership in Lebanon ought to start meeting right away with the goal of identifying ways of building a national consensus that will allow the government to better assert its authority. As a team, Berri and Siniora can begin to consult with political parties and the business community about getting Lebanon’s house in order. They can start to identify the homegrown obstacles to a sovereign Lebanese state, including the absence of mechanisms for upholding the rule of law. By actively working to create a strong, transparent and functional state, they can offset external attempts to weaken our country.

We Lebanese can’t afford to wait for our neighbors to one day reverse their persistent urge to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty. We need to take steps now in order to assure that if and when we have the space to act with full autonomy, we will be equipped to do so.

——————————

On the second day of the cessation of hostilities between Hizbullah and Israel, Syrian President Bashar Assad came out of hiding to make his first public appearance since the start of the war. Only two days prior to Assad’s theatrical appearance in Damascus on Tuesday, Israeli analysts and officials were publicly dissecting the details of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. All Lebanon wants from Syria is a deed to the Shebaa Farms.

——————

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 ensures that military action in South Lebanon will be accompanied by a political process. The cost of delaying that process - due to the United States and the United Kingdom delaying the meeting of the Security Council for one month - has been high for Israel. The Israeli government has been discredited and serious wrinkles in the US-Israeli relationship have been exposed. Lebanon can emerge stronger from crucible of war.

—————–

Hizbullah’s secretary general said Sunday August 27, 2006, that had the resistance known, “even 1 percent,” that Israel would respond in the way that it did to the July 12 capture of two Israeli soldiers, the group would not have carried out the operation. In an interview with New Television, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said: “If I knew that the capture of the soldiers would have led to this result, had Hizbullah known even 1 percent, we definitely would have not carried it out.”

Nasrallah added that the Lebanese need not fear a new round of fighting because Hizbullah would ignore “Israel’s provocations.”

“If we responded to these provocations, we would be in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and this could open the debate on a second resolution, which [US President George W.] Bush wants and which is connected with disarming the resistance,” he said.

He said Hizbullah has no problem with the deployment of UN forces along Lebanon’s border, as long as they do not seek out his group’s weapons.

However, the leader of the resistance said that if Lebanese troops encountered armed fighters, they would have the right to confiscate their weapons.

He added that his party would not carry weapons in public when the Lebanese Army and UN forces move into the South.

Nasrallah said Israel was trying to impose new demands, such as the deployment of UN forces at the airport in Beirut, at Lebanese ports and along Lebanon’s border with Syria.

The Israelis “are making threats about a second round to make Lebanon surrender to those demands. If the Israelis were intending to launch a second round, they would have been increasing their troops instead of withdrawing them,” Nasrallah said.

“Their displaced people are going back to their hometowns and they have started to rebuild the north. Someone who acts like that does not seem to be going to war. We are not heading to a second round,” he added.

Despite assurances that the fighting had ended, Nasrallah said Hizbullah reserves the right to attack any Israeli force inside Lebanese territory, but would show restraint for the time being.

“We will support the Lebanese soldiers and facilitate their role; we will also avoid any act that might put them in an awkward situation,” he said.

As for negotiations on the prisoner swap, Nasrallah said “Italy is trying to take part in negotiations on a prisoner swap between Israel and Hizbullah,” with an Italian senator saying talks could begin this week.

“Contacts have recently begun for negotiations. It seems that Italy is trying to get in on the subject. The United Nations is interested and the negotiations would be through [Speaker Nabih] Berri,” Nasrallah said.

The head of the Italian Senate’s Defense Committee, Sergio De Gregorio, has said Iran, which backs Hizbullah, wants Italy to be involved. He added that Iran’s national security chief, Ali Larijani, had told him personally that he would ask Hizbullah to negotiate with Italy.

The senator told Reuters on Sunday he expected the talks to begin this week. He said the Israeli soldiers were “still alive, fortunately,” but declined to discuss their condition.

As for the disputed Shebaa Farms and the resistance’s role in liberating the Israeli-occupied land, Nasrallah said: “The resistance’s duty and responsibility consists of liberating any occupied Lebanese land.”

Asked about Hizbullah’s arsenal, Nasrallah said more than 4,000 weapons “fell on Israel and this number is just 50 percent of our military capacity.”

Nasrallah also said he would no longer participate in the country’s national dialogue in order to “prevent the other participants from being exposed to danger.”

——————

Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said August 28, 2006, that the war between Hizbullah and Israel was more than the result of a disproportionate retaliation.

Speaking from La Rochelle in France, he said Lebanon has been caught in the middle of a regional conflict with the US and Israel and stressed the need for a mechanism to stop arms smuggling through the Syrian-Lebanese border.

“Since July 12, Lebanon has become the captive of the Iranian-Syrian and Israeli-American axis,” the head of the Progressive Socialist Party said at a news conference.

“It is necessary to adopt an effective mechanism to protect the Lebanese-Syrian border because the Syrian regime will keep on sending its gifts through it,” Jumblatt said after the summer congress of the French Socialist Party.

Meanwhile, calls on Hizbullah to disarm were met by other politicians’ demands that Siniora’s government resign.

In an interview with Al-Balad newspaper published Sunday, the head of the Reform and Change parliamentary bloc, MP Michel Aoun, said that he did not trust Siniora.

“I am not reassured by his performance on the internal and international levels; I don’t trust him and his group,” Aoun said.

Aoun added that he would not resume the national dialogue talks that had been ongoing before war broke out. “[The national] dialogue was a lie,” he said.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has said for the first time, that the government’s authority has been weakened in the past three decades and the state with its army should be the sole authority over the country. In an exclusive interview with CBC News Friday, August 25, 2006, Siniora said: “The government’s authority over the various parts and various activities of the country, again in certain aspects, became very insignificant.”

He added that the state should become the sole authority and only the Lebanese Army, Internal Security Forces and the UN international force carry weapons. He said developments over the past three decades have “weakened” the state.

South Lebanon has been considered to be under Hizbullah’s control for several years.

Asked whether Hizbullah should be disarmed, Siniora said the term “disarmed” is “not at all the right word.” He said it will be “through dialogue, through cooperation,” with Hizbullah the goal of no weapons in the region is achieved.

“It’s not a matter of disarming. It’s through dialogue that we have to reach that point. And I think this can be achieved while at the same time trying to find out how to integrate the numbers of Hizbullah that want to really get integrated within the Lebanese Army,” he said.

Siniora said the Lebanese Army is “definitely entitled” to prevent the movement of weapons from other countries into Lebanon, but suggested it won’t act aggressively. “But I mean it’s not there to use force. Let’s make it very clear it’s not there to use force, but if it has to use force to protect itself and to stop any infringement of the law, then definitely, this is the army and it has to do so. The army is in the South to defend law and order and to stop any infringement of the law,” he said.

—————-

Qatar’s emir - a rare Arab leader who means what he says - The Daily Star editorial of Tuesday, August 22, 2006:

To his credit, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani was the first head of state to visit Lebanon since the start of Israel’s war against this country on July 12. Sheikh Hamad was also among the very first foreign officials to tour Lebanon’s version of ground zero - the southern suburbs of Beirut - and witness for himself the evidence of Israel’s voracious appetite for destruction.

But Sheikh Hamad visited with the intention of doing more than just touring the scenes of destruction. His goal is not to be a mere spectator, but rather to be actively engaged in helping Lebanon and the wider region on the path toward progress. Prior to his trip to Lebanon he had already pledged to help reconstruct the flattened towns of Bint Jbeil and Khiam in the South of the country.

Fortunately for the Lebanese, Sheikh Hamad is just as comfortable treading the rubble-strewn streets of the southern suburbs as he is at navigating the troubled diplomatic corridors of the region. The task of inter-Arab diplomacy has not been made easy, especially since the erratic and inflammatory remarks made by Syrian President Bashar Assad last week. Assad had accused the members of Lebanon’s parliamentary majority, the March 14 Forces, of allying themselves with Israel during the war and of inciting sectarian strife. Assad’s incendiary remarks, which only dug the Syrian regime deeper into its hole of isolation, were completely insensitive toward the plight of the Lebanese, who had just endured a brutal and deadly war. If Assad’s goal was somehow to preserve unity and civil peace in Lebanon, his comments were far from helpful in achieving that objective. On the contrary, many viewed his speech as a blatant attempt to divide the Lebanese people. But whereas some Arab leaders have pursued the path of divisiveness, intimidation and coercion, others have fortunately promoted engagement and constructive dialogue. Sheikh Hamad visited this part of the region with the aim of rebuilding what others had set out to destroy. In addition to reconstructing villages in the South, he aimed to build bridges of inter-Arab cooperation by promoting constructive dialogue among regional leaders.

Prior to his arrival in Lebanon, Sheikh Hamad also conducted negotiations with Assad in Damascus, and put the Syrian leader in direct contact with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He also encouraged Assad and other Syrian leaders to renew contacts with their Lebanese counterparts. His efforts bore fruit: He carried with him from Damascus an invitation for Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, a leading figure in the March 14 Forces, to visit Damascus at “any time.”

Countless Arab leaders - past and present - have paid lip service to the concepts of brotherhood and cooperation. But few have ever managed to live up to these grand ideals. Sheikh Hamad, through his constructive engagement in the region, is a welcome exception.