The wretched in Lebanon

Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi did not link his threat of the “upcoming” war on Lebanon this time to an emergency factor or a change in Hezbollah’s approach for example. Rather, he insisted on UNIFIL’s inability to discover the weapons which he accused Hezbollah of storing in residential areas south to the Litani River. The “upcoming” [war] reflects Ashkenazi’s confidence that what used to be a possibility has become more likely to occur. Thus, the Lebanese should not be deceived by the ability of the Democratic Administration in the United States to prevent the war, assuming that it does not really want it.

It is important here to recall the public pledge that was made by President Barack Obama for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to allow anything which the Hebrew State considers a threat to its security…i.e. giving it the freedom to determine the “security” and military priorities in the region, whose map Netanyahu does not see any hindrance in locating, starting from Bushehr, Esfahan, and all the Iranian nuclear program reactors, passing through south Lebanon and Hezbollah’s missile arsenal and Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza.

It is thus pointless to investigate the US Administration’s intentions and whether or not it abstains from giving Israel a green light for a war that could destroy the entire south again. But the presence of UNIFIL will be its first victims, and thus Resolution 1701 would be cancelled. It is pointless to assume that the Democratic Administration would have some mercy on the Lebanese, contrary to the Republicans’ keenness on extending the war in 2006.

While it is alarming after the wave of Israeli threats to launch a ruinous war this time, that the Hebrew State does not seem to be concerned about the 2006 lessons and maliciously points to new realities in Lebanon in the fall as a result of the Special Tribunal, it is even more alarming and also confusing that the United States, which incessantly renews its concern over the stability of the country, did not also draw lessons from the experience of the former Republican Administration’s approach for the nature of the relationship with a Lebanese group, even if it represented a majority (14 March), and the insistence of the same administration on reinforcing the doubts of the other group whether intentionally or not…For instance, its excessive praise of the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora appeared as an intentional act to provoke the opposition, or at least an act to offend the government and provoke its anger.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the American House of Senate, classified what he described as the “threat of the military superiority of Hezbollah over the Israeli military superiority and its threat on the Lebanese domestic situation” as the most “annoying” issue for his country. If we recall Obama’s pledge for Israel, would the reasons of optimism which some sides rely on to rule out the possibility of a war still be valid?... Most importantly, at the domestic level, Kerry, who addresses “our allies in Lebanon” and commits himself to a long-term “partnership” with them, does not come up with anything better than former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s full verbal support and inability to secure Israel’s withdrawal from Al-Ghajar or put pressure [on Israel] to stop its violation of the Lebanese sovereignty.

In all cases, did the government of Saad al-Hariri consider itself an “ally” for the United States? Did Siniora’s government do so?...The support which Washington provides for the Lebanese has also become another controversial issue among the Lebanese political forces, simply because the American “cleverness” does not hesitate to give a pretext as usual, as revealed by the testimony of the new US Ambassador Maura Connelly before the House of Senates. She believes that among the objectives of the American military support for Lebanon is to “prevent the south from being used as a base to launch attacks on Israel.” It is left to the imagination to interpret the meaning: Protecting Israel!

Which diplomacy then? Even if there were arguments to support Kerry’s pessimism in his talk about the period of turmoil in Lebanon – which extended from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, to the July War in 2006 and the Nahr al-Bared camp war – it would have been more rational had Connelly linked Lebanon’s restoration of its complete sovereignty to the achievement of comprehensive peace in the region. But of course, she abstains from discussing what hinders this objective, while the pledges Obama made for the Arab at the beginning of his tenure are evaporating.

Behind all the clamor of the American-Israeli conflict over the settlements, Ehud-Barack meetings at the Pentagon were increasing, and the strategic military cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv was given more momentum.

What the United States provides for the Lebanese is more pretexts for divisions, while the country is too small to contain the storms resulting from the regional balance of powers. Many have assumed that the Obama-Netenyahu conflict would end by twisting Israel’s arm…But the American President came out to promise with a stronger arm for it, and Israel plans to prevent a nuclear Iran and does not forget the stage of the American withdrawal from Iran and the new “map” of balances. When its ambassador to the United Nation says that the Hebrew State has become “the most isolated state in the world,” it will not tip the balance of peace to end this isolation.

As for the Lebanese, they will remain wretched forever if they risk their unity again, albeit a weak one.

*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on July 22, 2010.