Arab News,
Saudi Arabia
U.S. and Israel Know, Europe is 'Unlikely to Deliver' Peace Force
EDITORIAL
July 25, 2006
Saudi Arabia - Arab News - Original Article (English) 
Israel's
incessant criticism of the Europeans for being lukewarm supporters and soft on "terrorism"
is apparently forgotten. Just as Israel was about to invade southern Lebanon in
a seek-and-destroy mission against Hezbullah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert suggests a European peace force be deployed there. Why this sudden
change of heart? Is this just a delaying tactic or has there been a last-minute
realization that a new Israeli invasion of Lebanon could be as ineffective
militarily as all others? That would certainly be a political nightmare for
Israel. A failure to crush Hezbullah would see the latter feted worldwide as
the hammer of the Israelis, the only entity to have stood up to Tel Aviv and
gotten away with it. Leaving the task of confronting Hezbullah to the Europeans
would blunt Hezbullah's claim of being Israel’s nemesis, even if the Europeans
fail to smash it.
And Olmert
clearly envisages a force that would do just that [fail to smash Hezbullah]. It
would have to be a NATO force - since so far, no meaningful European military
framework exists outside NATO. A NATO force without the U.S. makes sense from
both an Israeli and an American point of view. The presence of either [Israelis
or Americans] in Lebanon would inflame the situation and rally support for Hezbullah,
whereas a European presence would not. In any event, Washington will not want
to get physically involved, since it has enough problems in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Even without the specter of its painful past involvement in
Lebanon to frighten it, American public opinion would go ballistic with yet
another involvement in the Middle East.
All this
must have been discussed and agreed with the Americans before Olmert spoke to
the Europeans and went public. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit
yesterday to Lebanon has to be seen as an attempt to get the Lebanese
government to agree. It is no secret that Lebanon would love to see Hezbullah
broken up. No government can accept a private army, and no other Arab state
would tolerate Hezbullah. The Lebanese government, moreover, has as much to
fear from a failed Israeli invasion and an empowered Hezbullah as the Israelis.
There is theoretically then a basis for agreement between the two, and an end
to the murderous bombardments.
But there
is one big stumbling block - and the Israelis and the Americans know it. The
Europeans are unlikely to deliver. The British are overstretched, the Germans
lack the skills; the Italians and the Spaniards the political will; the French
alone would be willing, are leading the campaign to develop a European military
force and want to strengthen relations with Lebanon. Even if the Europeans
could get their act together, it would take time - time that does not exist. It
could end up being the French alone, but would they be enough?
That
brings us back to the alternative suggestion, that this is just a delaying
tactic. The Israelis will be able to say: Look, we tried to find an alternative
but it was impossible. We had no choice but to invade.
A serious suggestion or a deception? Almost
certainly a bit of both.
VIDEO FROM IRAN: AHMADINEJAD ATTACKS MUSLIM
NATIONS FOR SUPPORTING ISRAELI ATTACK ON LEBANON
IRINN TV, IRAN: Excerpts from an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, July 4, 00:19:07, Via MEMRI
"It is inconceivable for anyone who calls himself a Muslim and who heads an Islamic state to maintain relations under the table with the regime that occupied Jerusalem. He cannot take pleasure in the [Israeli] killing of Muslims, yet present himself as a Muslim. This is inconceivable, and must be exposed."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
[SLIDE SHOW: Israel-Lebanon Crisis].