Monday, 12 January 2009By Abdullah Iskandar
The repercussions of the Israeli offensive on Gaza have so far spared Lebanon. The official and popular reactions have been limited to condemning and denouncing the Israeli war crimes in the Strip, in total solidarity with the Palestinian people in the face of the Israeli killing machine. The rockets fired two days ago at Nahariya from South Lebanon offered the Lebanese government, the political parties, the UN and the states contributing to the UNIFIL an opportunity to confirm the need not to embroil Lebanon in any field confrontation with the Israeli troops, as this will jeopardize the country, the Security Council Resolution 1701 and the UNIFIL missions.
Even though Hezbollah has attributed its ambiguous stance to the nature of its strategy in confronting Israel, the cabinet - of which it is part - has consensually declined to see South Lebanon turn into a battlefield in the current confrontation. As such, the official stance has prevailed over field neutrality, with the parties to the government, including Hezbollah, supporting the measures taken by the army in cooperation with the UNIFIL to prevent any party from opening the Lebanese front in light of the assault on Gaza. Such a party has been repeatedly identified as the Damascus-based armed Palestinian factions with bases in Lebanon.
The rockets launched from the South were described by many as a message to the Lebanese State. But most importantly, the content of this message must be well-understood, not to mention its impact on the situation in Lebanon.
This message does not target the status quo in the South nor does it threaten to blow it up. Lebanon, Israel, the countries of the region, and influential capitals all know that such a step is impossible without a Hezbollah decision. In turn, this decision is not linked to enthusiastic impulses but to a series of regional calculations. Most probably, this message was addressed in light of Lebanon's participation in the Arab ministerial delegation to the UN and its Foreign Minister's involvement in the Saudi-led efforts to reach the Security Council Resolution 1860 on a ceasefire in Gaza. Fawzi Salloukh is said to represent the opposition in the national unity government.
As such, Lebanon's approach to the offensive differs from Syria's. Following his meeting with his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, who arrived in Syria to promote the Egyptian initiative, Syrian President Bashar Assad called for an Arab Summit even if unattended by all member states. The aim was to reject the initiative that became a goal to attain in the Resolution 1860. In turn, Syria's foreign minister branded as "short-sighted" the Arabs' referring the case to the Security Council. For this reason, the Syrian diplomacy rejected the efforts by the delegation, including Salloukh's who hailed their results. As for Tishreen newspaper, it described the Resolution 1860 as "tailored to Israel's conditions."
Amidst the prevailing Arab divisions, the Lebanese diplomacy has adopted a stance different than Syria's in a matter of paramount importance to Syria. Lebanon has not opposed Syria's policy in this respect nor has it rallied behind a particular Arab axis. But at the very least, it has not taken Syria's considerations into account. This takes place for the first time since the Taef Agreement in the late 80s and the policy of the concomitance of tracks.
The question has to do now with this conflict; how it will impact the bilateral relations in the next stage and Lebanon's ability to uphold such a conflict - especially when the Israeli killing machine stops in Gaza, accounts are made, and prices are demanded. Moreover, there is the issue of the Syrian approach to Lebanon in light of the unhurried exchange of ambassadors, which was supposed to take place before the end of 2008. The issue is also related to the effects it will have upon the allies of Damascus in Lebanon and their conduct in Parliament until the coming parliamentary elections scheduled for next June. Moreover, there is the relation with President Michel Suleiman, who enters into a political atmosphere that is different than the one produced by the Doha agreement, which had led to his election.
|
Monday, 12 January 2009
Al-Hayat
|
|
