This
Draft Shows Who Is Running America's Policy... Israel
By Robert Fisk
07 August 2006
The
Independent
So
the great and the good on the East River laboured at the United Nations
Security Council - and brought forth a lemon. You could almost hear
the Lebanese groan at this draft resolution, a document of such bias
and mendacity that a close Lebanese friend read carefully through it
yesterday, cursed and uttered the immortal question: "Don't these
bastards learn anything from history?"
And there it all was again,
the warmed-up peace proposals of Israel's 1982 invasion, full of buffer
zones and disarmament and "strict respect by all parties"
- a rousing chortle here, no doubt, from Hizbollah members - and the
need for Lebanese sovereignty. It didn't even demand the withdrawal
of Israeli forces, a point that Walid Moallem, Syria's Foreign Minister
- and the man the Americans will eventually have to negotiate with -
seized upon with more than alacrity. It was a dead UN resolution without
a total Israeli retreat, he said on a strategic trip to Beirut.
A close analysis of the American-French
draft - the fingerprints of John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN,
were almost smudging the paragraphs - showed just who is running Washington's
Middle East policy: Israel. And one wondered how even Tony Blair would
want to associate himself with this nonsense. It made no reference to
the obscenely disproportionate violence employed by Israel - just a
sleek reference to "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides"
- and it made only passing reference to Hizbollah's demand that it would
only release the two Israeli soldiers it captured on 12 July in return
for Lebanese and other Arab prisoners in Israeli jails.
The Security Council said
it was "mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and
encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue [sic] of the Lebanese
prisoners detained in Israel". I bet Hizbollah were impressed by
the "mindful" bit, not to mention the "sensitivity"
and the soft, slippery word "settle" - an issue which can
be "settled" in maybe 20 years' time. Then came the real coup
de grâce. A demand for the "total cessation by Hizbollah
of all attacks" and the "immediate cessation" by Israel
of "all offensive military operations". Bit of a problem there,
as Hizbollah spotted at once. They have to lay down their arms.
Had the council demanded
an immediate resolution on the future of the Shebaa farms, the Israeli-occupied
territory which once belonged to mandate Lebanon - and for whose "liberation"
the Hizbollah have fought - the whole fandango might have stood a chance.
After all, Shebaa is the only raison d'être that the Hizbollah
can produce for continuing their reckless, ruthless, illegal war across
the UN blue line in southern Lebanon. But the UN document wished only
to see a delineation of Lebanon's borders "including in the Shebaa
farms area". There was even a wonderful paragraph - Number 9 for
aficionados of UN bumf - which "calls on all parties to co-operate
... with the Security Council". So the Hizbollah are to co-operate,
are they, with the austere diplomats of this august and wise body? Isn't
that exalting a guerrilla army a little bit more upmarket than it deserves?
No one was fooled and few
disagreed with Syria's Walid Moallem when he said the UN's draft resolution
was "a recipe for continuing the war". As both the Hizbollah
and the Israelis did yesterday, the former killing 13 Israelis and the
latter bombing houses in Ansar - once an Israeli POW camp - which destroyed
five more Lebanese civilian lives. Mohamed Fneish, a Hizbollah government
minister - who scarcely represents all Lebanese but talks as if he does
- thundered away about how "we" [presumably the Hizbollah,
rather than the Lebanese] will abide by it [the resolution] on condition
that no Israeli soldiers remains inside Lebanese land."
There were more Israeli air
attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs yesterday - though heaven knows
what is left there to destroy - ensuring that even more Shia Muslim
civilians will remain refugees. Fearful that the Israelis will bomb
their trucks and claim they were carrying missiles, the garbage collectors
of this city have abandoned their vehicles and the familiar 1982 stench
of burning rubbish now drifts through the evening streets. Petrol is
now so scarce that a tank-full yesterday cost £250.
About the only gift to Lebanon
in the UN resolution was the expressed need to provide the UN with remaining
Israeli maps of landmines in Lebanon. But Israel has again dropped lethal
ordnance all over southern Lebanon. Oh yes, and as usual, the UN draft
on these ambitious, hopelessly conceived ideas "decides to remain
actively seized of the matter". You bet it does. And so, as they
say, the war goes on.
What the UN wants...
* A full cessation of hostilities
based upon, in particular, the cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks
and the cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
* Israel and Lebanon to support
a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following
principles and elements:
* Strict respect by all parties
for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;
* Full respect for the Blue
Line by both parties;
* Delineation of the international
borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed
or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area;
* Security arrangements to
prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between
the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel,
assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security
forces, and of UN-mandated international forces;
* Full implementation of
the relevant provisions ... that require the disarmament of all armed
groups in Lebanon;
* Deployment of an international
force in Lebanon;
* The Secretary General to
develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned
parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions ... and to present
those proposals to the Security Council within 30 days;
* The UN Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL), upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation
and extend assistance to ensure humanitarian access to civilians and
the safe return of displaced persons;
* The government of Lebanon
to ensure arms or related material are not imported into Lebanon without
its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the
government of Lebanon at its request;
* The Secretary-General to
report to the Council within one week on the implementation and provide
any relevant information in light of the Council's intention to adopt
a further resolution.
So the great and the good
on the East River laboured at the United Nations Security Council -
and brought forth a lemon. You could almost hear the Lebanese groan
at this draft resolution, a document of such bias and mendacity that
a close Lebanese friend read carefully through it yesterday, cursed
and uttered the immortal question: "Don't these bastards learn
anything from history?"
And there it all was again,
the warmed-up peace proposals of Israel's 1982 invasion, full of buffer
zones and disarmament and "strict respect by all parties"
- a rousing chortle here, no doubt, from Hizbollah members - and the
need for Lebanese sovereignty. It didn't even demand the withdrawal
of Israeli forces, a point that Walid Moallem, Syria's Foreign Minister
- and the man the Americans will eventually have to negotiate with -
seized upon with more than alacrity. It was a dead UN resolution without
a total Israeli retreat, he said on a strategic trip to Beirut.
A close analysis of the American-French
draft - the fingerprints of John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN,
were almost smudging the paragraphs - showed just who is running Washington's
Middle East policy: Israel. And one wondered how even Tony Blair would
want to associate himself with this nonsense. It made no reference to
the obscenely disproportionate violence employed by Israel - just a
sleek reference to "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides"
- and it made only passing reference to Hizbollah's demand that it would
only release the two Israeli soldiers it captured on 12 July in return
for Lebanese and other Arab prisoners in Israeli jails.
The Security Council said
it was "mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and
encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue [sic] of the Lebanese
prisoners detained in Israel". I bet Hizbollah were impressed by
the "mindful" bit, not to mention the "sensitivity"
and the soft, slippery word "settle" - an issue which can
be "settled" in maybe 20 years' time. Then came the real coup
de grâce. A demand for the "total cessation by Hizbollah
of all attacks" and the "immediate cessation" by Israel
of "all offensive military operations". Bit of a problem there,
as Hizbollah spotted at once. They have to lay down their arms.
Had the council demanded
an immediate resolution on the future of the Shebaa farms, the Israeli-occupied
territory which once belonged to mandate Lebanon - and for whose "liberation"
the Hizbollah have fought - the whole fandango might have stood a chance.
After all, Shebaa is the only raison d'être that the Hizbollah
can produce for continuing their reckless, ruthless, illegal war across
the UN blue line in southern Lebanon. But the UN document wished only
to see a delineation of Lebanon's borders "including in the Shebaa
farms area". There was even a wonderful paragraph - Number 9 for
aficionados of UN bumf - which "calls on all parties to co-operate
... with the Security Council". So the Hizbollah are to co-operate,
are they, with the austere diplomats of this august and wise body? Isn't
that exalting a guerrilla army a little bit more upmarket than it deserves?
No one was fooled and few
disagreed with Syria's Walid Moallem when he said the UN's draft resolution
was "a recipe for continuing the war". As both the Hizbollah
and the Israelis did yesterday, the former killing 13 Israelis and the
latter bombing houses in Ansar - once an Israeli POW camp - which destroyed
five more Lebanese civilian lives. Mohamed Fneish, a Hizbollah government
minister - who scarcely represents all Lebanese but talks as if he does
- thundered away about how "we" [presumably the Hizbollah,
rather than the Lebanese] will abide by it [the resolution] on condition
that no Israeli soldiers remains inside Lebanese land."
There were more Israeli air attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs yesterday
- though heaven knows what is left there to destroy - ensuring that
even more Shia Muslim civilians will remain refugees. Fearful that the
Israelis will bomb their trucks and claim they were carrying missiles,
the garbage collectors of this city have abandoned their vehicles and
the familiar 1982 stench of burning rubbish now drifts through the evening
streets. Petrol is now so scarce that a tank-full yesterday cost £250.
About the only gift to Lebanon
in the UN resolution was the expressed need to provide the UN with remaining
Israeli maps of landmines in Lebanon. But Israel has again dropped lethal
ordnance all over southern Lebanon. Oh yes, and as usual, the UN draft
on these ambitious, hopelessly conceived ideas "decides to remain
actively seized of the matter". You bet it does. And so, as they
say, the war goes on.
What the UN wants...
* A full cessation of hostilities
based upon, in particular, the cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks
and the cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
* Israel and Lebanon to support
a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following
principles and elements:
* Strict respect by all parties
for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;
* Full respect for the Blue
Line by both parties;
* Delineation of the international
borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed
or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area;
* Security arrangements to
prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between
the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel,
assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security
forces, and of UN-mandated international forces;
* Full implementation of
the relevant provisions ... that require the disarmament of all armed
groups in Lebanon;
* Deployment of an international
force in Lebanon;
* The Secretary General to
develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned
parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions ... and to present
those proposals to the Security Council within 30 days;
* The UN Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL), upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation
and extend assistance to ensure humanitarian access to civilians and
the safe return of displaced persons;
* The government of Lebanon
to ensure arms or related material are not imported into Lebanon without
its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the
government of Lebanon at its request;
* The Secretary-General to
report to the Council within one week on the implementation and provide
any relevant information in light of the Council's intention to adopt
a further resolution.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited