Lebanese Wonder, 'Can We Count on America?'

A worrisome deficiency in the level of “American protection” for “Political Lebanon” became evident over the past 24 hours, after the runways of Beirut International Airport were bombed and Israel announced it has imposed a sea and air embargo over all of Lebanon. This raises many questions that should greatly concern us, because of the almost complete absence of restraint of these attacks.

This is now a pressing question: Is this “lack of American protection” temporary, or is it for the long term? The answer is unclear, since President Bush revealed a clear “sensitivity” on the subject of protection, when he declared that ongoing Israeli military operations “should not weaken the government of Fuad Siniora” (Lebanon’s pro-Western prime minister).

But can anything be more “weakening” then intimidating tourists with an embargo and attacking Beirut at the height of tourist season, and bombing runways at that industry’s Achilles’ heel, Beirut’s airport?

In these difficult moments, with Lebanese falling victim to an Israeli military machine committing horrendous crimes, we must concern ourselves with this matter. The question of the fate of American protection deeply effects the Lebanese political structure, which was dramatically altered after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri and after Security Council resolution 1559 [asking Syria to withdraw], which resulted in the composition of the current Parliament in 2005 and the formation of the present [pro-Western] government.

[Editor’s Note: Security Council resolution 1559 called on Syria to end its military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to stop intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) to disband. ]

The closing of the airport with a few bombs and the announcement of a siege is very worrisome, because it means one of two things: Either the Israelis are unable or unwilling to “cross the line [cause an escalation with Hezbollah]” and hit Lebanon’s southern areas (the Bekaa Valley and the southern suburbs of Beirut, where Hezbollah has its headquarters), and have made up for this with the vile (if only symbolic) targeting of Beirut Airport and Lebanon as a whole; or that the Americans have turned their backs on the protection offered Lebanon since the summer of 2004, which led to the restructuring of Lebanese politics by the Americans and French. Because the economy is the key to political stability, the U.S. and France even offered economic support despite the government’s semi-official bankruptcy.

[Editor’s Note: On Sunday morning, Israel did in fact attack southern Lebanon and Hezbollah’s headquarters there. See photo, top].

Is this removal of protection from the Lebanese economy a way to impose collective punishment on all Lebanese for a certain policy of confrontation with Israel since 2000?

[Editor’s note: In 2000, Israel completely pulled out of southern Lebanon, but Hezbollah refused to disarm].

This is a fundamental question, because American protection is not only vital to Lebanon’s political system, being the stage of the Bush Administration’s second demonstration of democratic change in the region (after Iraq), but because there is no real chance of obtaining international protection for Lebanon if the Israeli military machine, under any pretext it so chooses, decides to inflict even more devastation.

It is hard to imagine that behind closed doors, international protection and particularly American protection – is being removed, regardless of what one thinks of Hezbollah’s mistakes and its timing, and especially its decision to cross the Blue Line [when it kidnapped an Israeli soldier] that runs along Shebaa Farms

[Editor’s Note: the Blue Line is the line drawn by the U.N. after Israel pulled out of Lebanon. The Chebaa farms are still disputed between Lebanon and Israel].

But after the [West’s] recent decision to send Iran’s nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council and [Hezbollah’s] kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers – this confrontation must be seen as a precursor of a confrontation between Iran and the West.

With all of the suspicion about whether the Americans have looked the other way, permitting Israel to expand this confrontation into southern Lebanon and even into Lebanese politics, it is logical to assume that Washington is trying to limit the scope of Israeli operations. But whatever direction events take, logical assumptions are not always correct, like the surprising Israeli pressure on the airport and through the embargo. Washington was expected to prevent such an escalation, based on the theory that it was protecting Lebanese politics, just as it has for the past two years.

In the recent edition of the American magazine, “Foreign Affairs,” the changes in American policy is discussed in an article by Philip Gordon entitled, “The End of the Bush Revolution .” The article discusses how the United States has tried to change political structure in the region after the events of 9/11.

It is beyond doubt that the political and security failure in Iraq (which we have called “the American fiasco”) has resulted in “shock” changes to American policy. American commentators are calling it a return to a new “realism” in Bush’s second term. It is true, policy changes in major countries often take time before becoming tangible, but countries like Lebanon, that have witnessed dramatic changes under the influence of the “Bush Revolution” must ask some basic questions. For example, do these changes show a weakening or the end of America’s commitment to Lebanon’s political and economic security?

It is difficult to accept this opinion, because even if there has been a temporary removal of U.S. protection leading to a certain amount of Israeli military “terror,” giving up on Lebanon is not in America’s interests. If the Israelis have convinced Washington that putting pressure on Hezbollah requires them to have somewhat of a military free hand, the Americans know Lebanon’s limits. Any economic collapse will result in an internal security collapse, which would encourage greater militia violence. This would lead to the fracturing of a country that has been “revived” after having been promoted by and benefiting from Bush policy in the region over the last two years.

Perhaps Israeli circles in Washington are annoyed by what President Bush said about the necessicity of military operations not weakening the Siniora Government, as we were told over the phone by an Arab diplomat in the American capital.

What is needed now, after the shock and pain deliberately inflicted by the Israelis on the Lebanese tourism industry – which by the way is the most equitably run of any such industry in any country, because its benefits are vertically distributed to all classes of society – is for the American president to quickly limit the Israeli attacks. After the Iraqi fiasco, the “status quo” is no longer what it was: Is every country that America touches supposed to fall to pieces?

Hopefully all of Lebanon, from the south to the north, will have some time to absorb this difficult experience with a patriotic sentiment, but not “overly-patriotic” or “under-patriotic” … This balance is an integral part of Lebanon’s long journey toward stability an integration of its diverse components. We hope that when the Israeli aggression ends, this experience will be an opportunity to strengthen the historic achievement of liberating Southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000, rather than putting in jeopardy.

[Editor’s Note: Lebanon is composed of three predominant ethnic groups and religions that have troubling getting along, hence the author’s call to patriotism: Muslims (Shiites, Sunnis, Alawites), Druze, and Christians (Maronite Catholics, Melkite Greek Catholics, Armenian, Syrian and Assyrian and Latin Rite Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syrian Orthodox, Assyrians, Copts and Protestants)].

May God have mercy on our new martyrs and may he protect all Lebanese who are living martyrs at this time.