As Lebanon was hit by what Lebanese police called the worst day of bombing since the war began on July 12 (La Policía de Líbano denuncia que el país sufre el peor día de bombardeos de toda la ofensiva El Mundo 06.08.06) both the Lebanese government and (what is more important in this context) Hizbullah rejected the notion of the kind of cease-fire current UN draft resolution being suggested by the US and France, the latter of which is the former colonial power in Lebanon: U.S., France Agree on Lebanon Resolution by Walter Hamilton and Kim Murphy Los Angeles Times 08/05/06.
After a special meeting Saturday afternoon of Security Council members, Lebanese Foreign Ministry official Nouhad Mahmoud criticized several aspects of the plan, including the absence of a requirement that Israel immediately withdraw its forces from his war-torn country. "That's a recipe for more confrontation," Mahmoud said.
Hezbollah, too, hinted that it would consider a cease-fire resolution only if it includes an Israeli withdrawal.
"We will abide by it on condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land. If they stay, we will not abide by it," Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah Cabinet member, told reporters in Beirut before a Cabinet meeting there Saturday.
In Jerusalem, the Israeli government refrained from official comment, but Cabinet Minister Isaac Herzog called it a clear signal that Israel faces time limits on its military offensive.
"We have the next few days to carry out many military actions," he told Israel's Channel One. "It is a fact that the time we have is getting shorter and shorter."
The ceasefire plan also forsees eventually deploying a UN peacekeeping force. But this is likely to be very problematic. If it's meant to be a "robust" force, i.e., one that will be expected and prepared for active combat if attacked, it's hard to see who would agree to be in it. If its going to be a regular peacekeeping force, empowered to defend itself but not activelyintervene against the opposing armies (Israel and Hizbullah), such a deployment can't really happen until the opposing sides have agreed to some kind of medium-term separation line between them.
Veteran Middle East war correspondent Robert Fisk recently wrote (A Nato-led force would be in Israel's interests, but not Lebanon's Independent 08/01/06):
Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon. ...
So, how come anyone believes that the next foreign army to arrive in the Lebanese meat-grinder is going to be any more successful? True, the MNF [multinational force of the 1980s in Lebanon] was not backed by a UN Security Council resolution. But since when were Hizbollah susceptible to the UN? They have already failed to disarm - as they were required to under UN resolution 1559 - and one of the world's toughest guerrilla armies is not going to hand over its guns to Nato generals. But most of the force will be Muslim, we are told. This may be true, and the Turks are already unwisely agreeing to participate. But are the Lebanese going to accept the descendants of the hated Ottoman empire? Will the the Shia south of Lebanon accept Sunni Muslim soldiers?
Indeed, how come the people of southern Lebanon have not been consulted about the army which is supposed to live in their lands? Because, of course, it is not coming for them. It will come because the Israelis and the Americans want it there to help reshape the Middle East. This no doubt makes sense in Washington - where self-delusion rules diplomacy almost as much as it does in Israel - but America's dreams usually become the Middle East's nightmares.
It's hard to guess what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had in mind with this: Olmert: I hope Germany send peacekeepers to South Lebanon Ha'aretz 08/04/06. (The link to the full article is no longer available):
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would welcome the participation of German soldiers in a stabilization force in South Lebanon, he said in an interview with a German newspaper published on Friday.
"I have informed (German) Chancellor Angela Merkel that we have absolutely no problem having German troops in SouthLebanon," Olmert told the daily Suddeutsche Zeitung.
"There is no other nation that Israel considers more of a friend that [sic] Germany ... I would be very happy if Germany participated," he said.
The German government has not ruled out sending troops to the Middle East but many citizens are uneasy about sending soldiers to the region.
Those in Germany opposed to the deployment of German troops along the Israeli border say they fear it would hurt the feelings of Holocaust survivors and that the troops would find it difficult to be impartially and operate against Israel if necessary.
But Olmert said he does not consider this to be problematic. "Why would German troops need to fire at Israelis for? They would be part of a force operating to defend Israel. There is no nation acting in a friendlier manner towards Israel than Germany," he said.
The prime minister said Israel has asked of the U.S. many times to deploy its troops as part of the international peacekeeping force, but he "we cannot force the U.S." he said.
It's certainly worth noting that Olmert says that there "is no nation acting in a friendlier manner towards Israel than Germany". Germany does have good relations with Israel. But Germany does not take the one-sided position toward Israel that the Cheney-Bush administration does.
My best guess is that Olmert isn't serious about having German peacekeepers. I can't imagine the Grand Coalition government (Christian Democrats and Social Democrats) in Berlin agreeing to it, either. The key point is probably in Olmert statement, "Why would German troops need to fire at Israelis for? They would be part of a force operating to defend Israel." Olmert is saying that the only kind of "peacekeeping" force he envisions at that point would be one that would fight Israel's battles with Hizbullah, but would not interfere with any Israeli military actions. In other words, it should be a "robust" force only against Hizbullah, not against Israel.
Or, Olmert may be serious about involving German troops for just that reason. He knows very well that the prospect of Bundeswehr troops shooting at and killing Jewish IDF troops would be a strong restraint on any "robust" peacekeeping force that had to act against Israeli forces.
Certainly, German officials are taking the suggestion seriously. The leaders of the Bundeswehr are opposed to the idea. Although German troops in some sort of logistical or other non-combat roles is more thinkable: "Zeit nicht ansatzweise reif" Süddeutsche Zeitung/dpa/AFP) 05.08.06.
Bundesaussenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) mahnte in der Frage einer deutschen Beteiligung an einer internationalen Schutztruppe im Südlibanon zur Geduld. „Angesichts der Bedeutung dieser Frage verbietet sich jeder Schnellschuss, und zwar in die eine wie in die andere Richtung“, sagte Steinmeier dem Nachrichtenmagazin Spiegel. Sein Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt, Gernot Erler (SPD), bekräftigte in der Zeitung Die Welt, über einen deutschen Beitrag könne erst nach genauer Kenntnis des noch gar nicht erteilten Mandats entschieden werden. Direkte militärische Aufgaben der Bundeswehr schloss Erler „allein schon aus historischen Gründen“ eher aus. „Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass deutsche Soldaten mit dem Gewehr im Anschlag israelischen gegenüberstehen“, sagte er. Vielmehr könnte die Aufgabe deutscher Soldaten vor allem darin bestehen, bei der Ausbildung libanesischer Streitkräfte oder als Fachleute bei der Wahrnehmung polizeilicher Aufgaben eingesetzt zu werden.
[German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) is urging patience on the question of German participation in an international peacekeeping force in south Lebanon. "In light of the significance of this question, a quick decision is not possible, whether in one or the other direction", Steinmeier told the news magazine Spiegel. His State Minister in the Foreign Office, Gernot Erler (SPD), confirms in the newspaper Die Welt that German contribution to a mandate that hasn't even been set up can only be decided upon after more specific knowledge [is available]. Direct military responsibilities of the Bundeswehr Erler rejected "if only on historical grounds". "It is hard to imagine that German soldiers would stand against Israel in an armed attack", he said. It far more likely that the responsibily of German soldiers would consist above all in the training of Lebanese fighting forces or to be deployed as experts in the observation of policing duties.]
All the German parties seem to be playing it cool and avoiding committing themselves on Olmert's request, although the Free Democrats (FDP) are pretty skeptical. The FDP has recently held an anti-Israel stance that has at times reminded me of the position taken by American "paleoconservatives" (Old Right isolationists). But there certainly doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for the idea among any of the parties
Plus, you might never know it from following American news, but Bundeswehr troops are part of the NATO force in Afghanistan. Even though that war has looked pretty hopeless for months now if not years, our European allies are sticking with it. I suspect it's more to support the United States as a diplomatic gesture than any faith that anything much positive is going to come out of it any more. (See Bundesregierung sieht keine neue Lage in Afghanistan: Jung lehnt Rückzug der deutschen Truppen ab von Hans-Jürgen Leersch Die Welt 01.06.06)
And why would there be? Apart from the Holocaust echoes of the German Bundeswehr possibly having to fight Israel, Germany had the good sense not to join their Anglo-American allies in the disaster known as the Iraq War. Why would they choose to go fight Hizbullah, a guerrilla force that is clearly holding its own against the fabled Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and one that has become an heroice symbol to much of the Arab world? Why would they want to get in a shooting war as part of the "clash of civilization" that the American neocons and similar hotheads in Israel seem determined to have?
Additional articles on the question of German participation:
Die Last der Vergangenheit von Peter Blechschmidt und Robert Rossßmann Süddeutsche Zeitung 19.07.06
Merkel zu Bundeswehr-Einsatz in Nahost: "Kapazitäten erschöpft" Süddeutsche Zeitung 29.07.06
Wer, wenn nicht wir? von FreiRaum Frankfurter Rundschau blog 31.07.06
"Niemand kann uns stoppen": Ehud Olmert über den Krieg im Libanon, die Rolle Syriens - und den Einsatz deutscher Soldaten Interview mit Thorsten Schmitz Süddeutsche Zeitung 03.08.06. This is a long interview with Olmert, the one quoted in the Ha'aretz article cited above. The sentences quoted above from Ha'aretz, which are accurate translations from the German, are as follows in the original:
Sie haben mich gefragt, wen ich bevorzuge. Ich kann die USA nicht zwingen. Ich wünsche mir auch eine Beteiligung deutscher Soldaten. Ich habe Kanzlerin Angela Merkel mitgeteilt, dass wir absolut kein Problem haben mit deutschen Soldaten im Südlibanon. Weshalb sollten deutsche Soldaten auf Israel schießen?
Sie wären Teil der Truppe, die Israel verteidigt. Es gibt zurzeit keine Nation, die sich Israel gegenüber freundschaftlicher verhält als Deutschland. Wenn Deutschland zur Sicherheit des israelischen Volkes beitragen kann, dann wäre das eine lohnende Aufgabe für Ihr Land. Ich wäre sehr glücklich darüber, wenn Deutschland sich beteiligte.
„Ein Präzedenzfall“: Deutsche Soldaten im Nahen Osten? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) 04.08.06
"Bemerkenswerter Vertrauensbeweis" von Oliver Das Gupta Süddeutsche Zeitung 04.08.06
SPD zurückhaltend zu Olmerts Bundeswehr-Wunsch Die Welt 04.08.06
Olmert wünscht deutsche Truppen in Südlibanon Frankfurter Rundschau 04.08.2006
Libanon-Schutztruppe: Berlin lehnt Israels Bitte um Soldaten ab Die Welt 05.08.06
Steinmeier: „Das ist ein Vertrauensbeweis“ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) 05.08.06
Israel hofft auf deutsche Soldaten: Regierungschef Olmert will Kanzlerin Merkel persönlich um Hilfe bitten Gespräch mit Silke Mertins Welt am Sonntag 06.08.06
No comments:
Post a Comment