Since Jesus Christ’s miracles in qanna of Galilee 2000 thousand years ago, Lebanon has become the country of miracles. One of the most important contemporary miracles is the current Lebanese official stance in regards to UN Resolutions of which 425, 426 and 520. From day one the UN issued 425 Resolution in 1978, The officially declared Lebanese policy for all the Lebanese successive governments was the call for its immediate implementation, (while these officials deliberately ignored the 426 and 520 after the Taief Accord). A few weeks ago the Israelis took a new stance from the 425 that made the Lebanese government lose its balance completely and contradict (negate) all its previous stances in this domain. The Israelis wrote to the UN Secretary declaring officially their recognition of the 425 and their full commitment for its implementation. This Israeli proposal created a state of havoc (chaos) in Beirut and Damascus characterized by official bellicose accusative attitudes against Israel condemning the culpability (accountability) of its proposal.

The official present Lebanese stance could be summarized in one simple sentence, A rejection of the proposal in principle for the following reasons and justification that we hear constantly from the political media Syrian-Lebanese joint band:

1- The Israeli proposal is a maneuver - not genuine - that aims to separate the Syrian-Lebanese track in the Arab-Israeli negotiations.

2- unquestionable rejection for security arrangements in regards to the Israeli proposal.

3- Lebanon has the legal right to see the Israeli withdrawal executed unconditionally as stated in 425 issued by the United Nations.

The Syrian-Lebanese tracks?

Not one sensible individual in the whole would react automatically to the Israeli proposal on the basis that it is a maneuver, when the proposal is in fact confirmed by an official Israeli letter addressed to the UN General Secretary, especially if this individual is a Lebanese official and a member in the Lebanese government. A proposal submitted by a state, any state, including the state of Israel concerning a vital Lebanese issue (matter) must be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly. I insist on the must approach, till it is clear by all substantial proofs in accordance to the international criteria that the proposing party is not serious in what was proposed. The proposal must be taken seriously even if the Lebanese officials are completely convinced that the percentage of its austerity (seriousness) does not exceed one percent. According to the Lebanese constitution the officials must deal with the proposal in a very serious manner, otherwise they would be committing a crime against Lebanon. As far as the Syrian and Lebanese tracks are concerned, it has to be understood by all those involved that each of these two tracks is completely different from the other in every known legal and ethical aspect.

For the Syrian track, there is no UN 425 Resolution, but two other different Resolutions, 242 and 338. Lebanon has nothing to do with any of the two Resolutions because it did not participate by any means in the 1976 Arabic-Israeli war that lead the UN to issue these resolutions. In fact, Lebanon did not take part in any of the Arabic-Israeli wars after the 1946 war. Lebanon played a very limited role in the 1946 war on the basis that its role was a pure policing mission in accordance to a decree issued in this regard by the Arab League Council. It is worth mentioning that the Lebanese army has never been defeated in any military confrontation with Israel. It is possible that due to this fact, some authorities (parties) in the area have always envied Lebanon and still do for it’s wise policies in this aspect. It is assumed that those same authorities (parties) want the Lebanese army to taste (experience) unnecessarily and without any political or ethical foundations the bitter defeat they have already went through.

I personally believe in Lebanon’s commitment and obligation, with no reservations at all, to support the complete implementation of the 242 and 338 resolutions on the Palestinian and Syrian tracks. At the same time, Lebanon can not bear any consequences for delaying or not implementing both Resolutions. Lebanon did not participate, or consult in any of the Arab-Israeli wars that lead to the issuing of these two Resolutions. Accordingly, Lebanon does not bear any political, legal or ethical responsibility for the loss of the Syrian and Palestinian land as a result of these wars... this is simply the core and essence of the 242 and 338 Resolutions.

Accordingly, there are two different tracks with two different and independent entities. The question is: Does an Israeli complete withdrawal from South Lebanon in accordance with 425 Resolution weaken the negotiating Syrian position in regard to 242 and 338 Resolutions? The answer is a big NO. On the contrary, implementation of 425 will set an important precedent solidifying the calls for implementation of 242 and 338 and vise versa.

If I was an official in the Lebanese government in charge of this case, I would embark on (initiate) an extensive diplomatic official and international campaign to demonstrate Lebanon’s complete compliance and extreme seriousness with the Israeli proposal. The campaign should target (reach) the UN Secretary, UN Security members, and April understanding committee. It will delineate the Lebanese seriousness in dealing responsibly with a Lebanese vital issue. If proved ineffective due to lack of seriousness on the Israeli side, Lebanon would then have done its homework and ascertained to the whole world that the Israeli proposal was not authentic and just a maneuver. If the Israelis’ response happens to be genuine, receptive and positive, and results in full and complete withdrawal from the security zone in the south, Lebanon would then have, accomplished an important political achievement, a victory for the historically wise Lebanese policy in the context of avoiding wars with Israel.

Security arrangement issue:

The security arrangement issue is another contemporary miracle. In accordance with the Lebanese-Syrian media joint melody (theme) it is a taboo to discuss any security arrangements in relation to the 425 Resolution. While in fact ninety percent of all the negotiations that took place on the Syrian-Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli tracks, and prior to that on the Egyptian-Israeli track has dealt with only, security arrangements and nothing else. All the needed security arrangements related to the implementation of 425 were plainly and clearly stated in the UN Secretary’s report that was adopted in the 426 Resolution. The 426 is a legal statement that can be interpreted (clarified, explained) by the UN General Secretary who is internationally accountable and no one doubts its credibility. Such interpretation will lead to an appropriate milieu for a tranquil and fast Israeli withdrawal from the security zone, and for a quick, quiet deployment of the Lebanese army in its place. This arrangement provides assurances and peace for the Lebanese citizens in that area and helps them re-enjoy (reclaim) their right in a peaceful dignified pattern of life. A pattern they were deprived of since the Fateh Declaration and then the Cairo Accord and all the other disastrous events they lived through.

Yes! for mutual security arrangements that establishes a peaceful and tranquil environment on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese joint borders. The Israeli and the Lebanese troops will then, each be stationed only on its own land, within its borders, guarding its own security and assuming full responsibility in preventing cross border infiltration against targets on the other side of the border.

Are there Israeli conditions?

Some of those who tune up with the Syrian-Lebanese media band confirm that Israel has laid unacceptable conditions for its withdrawal from Lebanon. They enumerate these conditions as follows:

1- Disarming Hizbolla.

2- Putting limits on the # and quality of Lebanese tanks, artillery and missiles in the border area.

3- Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon or from the Bekaa.

4- Amalgamating the South Lebanese army with the central Lebanese army.

If these are really the Israeli condition, it will be very easy to deal with as follows:

1- The answer for the first condition: Yes, this the request is fully understandable by all international standards. Every private military organization outside the frame of the Lebanese army and the Lebanese Ministry of Defense is in principle suspicious and outlaw! The existence of such an organization on the Lebanese soil (territories, land) is politically unacceptable. Accordingly disarming Hizbolla and dismantling its military organizations is norm to do, and this issue could be easily included in a package deal within the security arrangements. From the Israeli point of view there is no logic in seeing their army withdraw to be replaced by Hizbolla military troops on the Lebanese side of the borders. The Israeli villages and towns would be than in Hizbolla’s fire range ... very threatening situations that no body wants it to happen.

2- The answer for this condition is very simple: Who said that Lebanon owns the kind of tanks and missiles that might be a threat to Israel in any future (Lebanese assaults, attacks against Israel). Yes for putting limits on military machines and equipment on both sides of the borders.

3- the answer: The Syrian withdrawal is also an international and Lebanese demand in accordance to UN Resolution 425 and Taif accord. The Lebanese can not see any reason for the Syrian troops to stay in Lebanon except in the context of maintaining Syrian hegemony on their national decision making process. From a military point of view, an Israeli withdrawal from the security zone (south Lebanon) counterbalances any reason for a Syrian military presence in the Bekaa valley. At the same and from the Israeli point of view there is no logic in giving military privileges to Syria by keeping its troops in Bekaa valley, when they (the Israelis) withdrawal from Lebanon.

4- The answer: No, because in principle it is not acceptable to amalgamate any militia with the official Lebanese military forces under any excuse. When the Israeli withdrawal is complete, the South Lebanese Army must be disarmed and all its organizations dismantled. Simultaneously Hizbolla will be disarmed and its organizations dismantled too.

Unfortunately there is no International Department for the execution of UN Security Council Resolutions, and it is so naive to describe the 425 as a (sentence) verdict good for execution. If the Lebanese government decides to pursue such a sentence it has to try the “Hague” International Judiciary Court. If the Lebanese government is really serious in its endeavors for an Israeli withdrawal, it would be easier to go back to the Security Council and ask for 425 implementation using the sanctions weapon, but it should take in consideration that the council will not be receptive to its request unless serious and good intentional efforts are demonstrated on Lebanon’s side in regards to the Israeli proposal in the context of the Resolution 425 and 426.

Is the Israeli withdrawal from the Security zone (south Lebanon) is imminent, within few months? Yes, certainly, this possibility attracts great support from many big countries. Accordingly it is better for the Lebanese Government to participate effectively and equally with Israel in the Security arrangements needed for its withdrawal, or otherwise Israel will withdraw according to unilateral security and other arrangements imposed on all parties, with no Lebanese role, or any consideration for wishes of Syrian and Lebanese governments.

The question is: Are they, the Lebanese and the Syrian regimes, going to issue an official plea for Israel not to withdraw its troops from Lebanon? And in case the withdrawal actually takes place, are they going to beg Israel to revert it? for if they do so they would be performing “ the miracle of all miracles”?

===================================================================