Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Lebanese Peace Plan Via the French

Why does the concept of the French leading the peace process between Israel and Hezbollah make me nauseous? Not that I can give any credence that Hezbollah would honestly follow the UN resolutions, especially as enforced by France.
France's blueprint for postwar arrangements in Lebanon was greeted coolly by America yesterday, exposing competition between Paris and Washington for who should provide the diplomatic leadership to bring to an end the fighting. Meanwhile, Secretary-General Annan will try to bolster the role of the United Nations in Lebanon today.

France, which is expected to lead the multinational force to deploy in south Lebanon once the war is over, yesterday nixed a British-American idea to convene a meeting of countries who might contribute troops to Lebanon. "It is too early, too adventurous," said one French diplomat. "It could even be counterproductive."

That's just humorous. Let's not discuss who will be in the multinational force, since it's obvious that making such plans may actually start some form of process to establish an effective military force. As for the competition between the US and France, who cares? Let France have the whole pile. Then when Hezbollah starts firing rockets into Israel, France can figure out how to stop them.

I hope the US has nothing to do with the military forces that will go in. Let's let the EUrs put their candy asses on the line by themselves for a time. Let's see how they deal with the suicide bombers and terrorists. You want my prediction? Probably not but here goes any way. Any force that doesn't include the US or the UK will be a miserable failure which will end with more Israeli deaths.

Take a look at the French proposal:
The French package begins with "an immediate cessation of hostilities," but Israel said it is not yet ready for ceasefire, and yesterday expanded its ground operations. A 48-hour suspension of Israeli airstrikes, announced earlier by the State Department, was dismissed yesterday by Prime Minister Olmert. "There is no cease-fire and there will not be any cease-fire in the coming days," he said.

Israeli diplomats said yesterday that while they accept some elements of the French proposal, they oppose its "sequencing." Issues such as a cessation of the military campaign and delineation of the border, including the reopening of the question of Shaba farms which Hezbollah contends is occupied Lebanese territory, are dealt with up front, they note.

Israel's major aim is to ensure that once it ceases the assault on Hezbollah, southern Lebanon will not return to the prewar situation, in which a hostile and heavily armed Shiite army threatened on its northern border.

You can understand the Israeli point on this. Hezbollah has been a militia in the southern part of Lebanon and has become entrenched. The French just want everyone to stop fighting, but totally ignore that if the states begin an agreement on a cease-fire that Hezbollah will immediately start hiding their missiles and rockets. The French continue to fail in defining Hezbollah as a terrorist group. They should find out from experience that they are wrong.

But then, this is the same country that see Iran as a "stabalizing force" in the region. Well, if you consider a major supporter of terrorism as "stabilizing" I suppose you can consider the French plan as reasonable.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy says Tehran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East "a great country, a great people and a great civilization"
Reuters

Iran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilizing role, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Monday.

"In the region there is of course a country such as Iran "a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region," he told a news conference.

"It was clear that we could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region," Douste-Blazy said in Beirut.


Yeah. That should make you pause.

2 comments:

Granted said...

I don't think France has a chance in this. Israel is pretty pissed off. They're not going to rely on as weak a sister as France to ensure their security. Still, it's entertaining watching the French attempt to appear relavent.

Brimfulof said...

I think that France is doing the practical thing in kissing up to Iran. They realise that Iran and Syria are pulling Hezbollah's strings and getting them on side will do far more than telling the Lebanese government to stop Hizbollah.

What is really worrying about the French approach is the Sheba Farms issue. No one (excpet Hizbollah) considers the Sheba Farms to be, or have ever been, part of Lebanon, not the UN, not Israel, not Syria, not even Lebanon. For France to suggest that Israel should give away part of the land it occupied as a way of solving a war it did not start is completely unacceptable. This small area of land will cause this proposal to fail and the UK media will lay the blame at Israel's door without fully explaining the issue, yet again casting Israel as the unappeasable aggressor.