Asking Israel to withdraw with a smile
(Political Commentary-Daily Star 18/3/2000)
by Michael Young
Trick question: if a country implements a UN resolution, but is not especially keen to do so ­ indeed, does so under duress ­ is it still considered to have implemented the said resolution? Second question: if Israel agrees to withdraw to the June 4, 1967, borders on the Golan Heights, but does so reluctantly, after trying unsuccessfully to set the 1923 borders as the final boundaries, will the Syrians refuse to negotiate security guarantees?
Conventional wisdom suggests that the answer to the first question is “yes” and to the second, “no.” A different interpretation, however, was offered up by President Emile Lahoud on Monday, when he said: “It is clear that the Israeli proposal to withdraw is the outcome of Israeli losses and is not in harmony with UN Resolution 425.” An unidentified “political source” was on hand to put the right spin on the statement, explaining that the president believed Lebanon shouldn’t guarantee border security after a pullout because Israel did not have “peaceful intentions” in its implementation of Resolution 425.
That is interesting, since for a time the position of the Lebanese government was that an Israeli withdrawal had nothing to do with peace. Let them get out, our tribunes proclaimed, and only then will Lebanon meditate on the subsequent concord. Similarly, the Syrians repeatedly expressed reluctance to link an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan to normalization, a linkage they only recently accepted as necessary to an overall settlement. And yet here we are demanding that the Israelis flash us a smile as they decamp.
The Egyptians are confused. The president’s statement was, by all accounts, a riposte to their foreign minister, Amr Moussa, who saw it useful to remind the Lebanese that an Israeli withdrawal was precisely what they wanted. Despite the celestial harmony of the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting, there was a notable omission: nothing was said about a withdrawal. All agree that Lebanon has a right to fight Israel, but only until the occupation ends.
The real difficulty is that the Lebanese are missing the point: the Israelis, in the event that a deal with Syria fails, might well not withdraw to the international border. Rather, they may maintain positions inside Lebanon, contradicting Resolution 425. Strangely, this eventuality was mentioned neither by the president nor by the prime minister, Salim Hoss. Indeed had it been, Lahoud would have, quite legitimately, threatened Israel with Hizbullah attacks, not those of armed Palestinian groups.
According to Amir Oren, writing in Wednesday’s Haaretz, “A unilateral withdrawal will not be a total exit (from Lebanon) and in effect will only be a redeployment of forces, as opposed to a change in the circumstances that dictate the deployment.” Who is the mastermind of this not-in-not-out plan? A gentleman rather frivolously considered a peacemaker: Yossi Beilin. And his objective ally in the endeavor? The Likud chairman, Ariel Sharon.
As Oren describes it, Beilin has been double-faced of late: He has argued for a unilateral withdrawal, while also holding on to a plan that would maintain military positions inside Lebanon. Sharon, meanwhile, sees a unilateral withdrawal as a means of splitting the Syrian and Lebanese negotiating tracks. However, he too is being deceitful: if, after a withdrawal, South Lebanon Army personnel are killed, Sharon may seek to use this against the Barak government by demanding the establishment of a commission of inquiry.
Adding to the conspiratorial ambiance is Oren’s contention that the Israeli chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, is backing the partial withdrawal plan, fully cognizant of its limitations. By so doing, he hopes to push Ehud Barak into some form of arrangement with Syria. And, one may suppose, bring his legions out of south Lebanon completely, thus avoiding the professional embarrassment of further casualties.
This is most enlightening. That is why Lebanon, instead of threatening to unleash the Palestinians, should be garnering support to insure that any Israeli withdrawal, whether accompanied by “peaceful intentions” or not, is complete. If it is not, then the Palestinians will become irrelevant as a stick, since Lebanon will be able to claim the right to pursue homegrown resistance. That the authorities have not grasped this nuance is astonishing.
Lebanon has unexplainably placed itself in the position of fickle aggressor. More intelligent would have been to call Israel’s bluff and see whether Barak was as good as his word.
The signs suggest that in the south, as on the Golan, the Israelis have a congenital inability to give up land. This does not mean that a withdrawal is not coming ­ it is ­ but that Israel, by not pulling out completely, will remain exposed to the accusation that it is perpetuating occupation. If there is disagreement in Israel over this, then all the better for us.
In parallel, it would be useful for Lebanon to begin thinking about negotiations, whether they take place or not. The government seems wholly unprepared for what lies ahead. There is no negotiating team on hold, no dossiers to oil, no strategy in the event of a negotiated withdrawal, and no realization that Lebanon is fast becoming a footnote in somebody else’s treaty. Surely, no one is demanding quite so much devotion to regional solidarity.
Michael Young writes a weekly commentary for The Daily Star
===================================================================