Lebanon hopes that deploying its troops in the south will put the onus on Israel and the international community to offer an end to the month-long Israeli destruction, writes Omayma Abdel-Latif In its attempt to prevent Israel achieving a political victory through the UN-proposed plan for a ceasefire, the Lebanese government offered to send 15,000 troops to the south of the country to patrol the borders with Israel. The decision, which was approved by Hizbullah's two ministers in the Lebanese cabinet, has been viewed as a move to pre-empt any efforts aimed at passing the French-United States draft resolution which Lebanon rejected earlier in the week. "Sending the army to the south is a clear message to the international community that the Lebanese government is ready to deploy its troops over all Lebanese soil," Elias Al-Murr, Lebanese defense minister told reporters on Monday. Al-Murr, however, did not elaborate on how this step will be implemented, in light of the situation in the south where Hizbullah fighters are waging some of the fiercest battles against Israeli troops and have managed to deprive Israel -- one month after its aggression -- from making any substantial territorial gains. Al-Murr, nonetheless, did emphasise the fact that the troops were to take over once Israeli troops withdrew behind the 'blue line'. The proposed plan also assigns the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) an important role to play, side by side with the Lebanese army. The decision has been regarded as a qualitative shift in the Lebanese internal political dynamics. For the past six years, since the liberation of south Lebanon from Israeli occupation, demands for deploying the Lebanese army have been made both from local and international forces but were faced with stiff resistance from Hizbullah. It was among the key points that were included in Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora's much hyped seven-point plan, which he presented to the Rome conference as part of the effort to reach a final settlement to the Lebanese- Israeli conflict. The decision came on the heels of the heated debate triggered by the French-US draft resolution. It was perhaps a last ditch effort by the Lebanese government to back up its demands for necessary modifications to the draft resolution which it deemed "lacking crucial points"-- especially the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. By offering its consent, Hizbullah did not want to break the Lebanese consensus over Siniora's seven-point plan. But crucial questions about the future of Hizbullah's arms, in the light of such a development, remain unanswered. Some Lebanese observers suggest that the resolution was a response to contain the international pressure on the government to rein in Hizbullah. They remain nonetheless sceptical that such a move is not likely to cut any ice with the international players, particularly the United States, which resisted any attempts to introduce amendments to the draft. Lebanese Culture Minister Tariq Metri, who heads the Lebanese delegation at the UN, told As-Safir newspaper that Lebanon was fighting "a cruel, diplomatic battle". While Metri said that some of the Lebanese reservations have been taken into consideration, he nonetheless pointed out that the draft is generally not satisfactory and "impossible to implement". The cabinet's decision to deploy the Lebanese army in the south was meant to strengthen the position of Arab and Lebanese negotiators who were facing fierce resistance from their American counterparts. The French, on the other hand, according to Metri, have shown some understanding of Lebanese concerns, but without offering any promises except perhaps to ask for more time to discuss the Lebanese and Arab demands. While the majority of Lebanese officials -- including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri -- have expressed an outright rejection of the resolution, sources close to Siniora said he was dismayed when he received the draft on Saturday. But when he took the issue up with David Welch, US deputy Secretary of State, who was then visiting Beirut, their discussion "reached a dead-end". A 45-minute telephone conversation between Siniora and US Secretary of State Rice brought hardly any different results. The sources said that the only reason why the Siniora government and the bulk of the Lebanese forces expressed their commitment to the seven-point plan was simply because "any change in this plan was likely to put Lebanon on a course similar to that of Iraq and will lead to an implosion of the internal system in Lebanon." "When Siniora saw the draft, he immediately realised that it was not serving any Lebanese interests," Radwan Al-Sayyid, an advisor to the Lebanese premier, told Al-Ahram Weekly on Tuesday. "This resolution was creating more problems rather than offering a settlement. Lebanon could not do anything but reject it," Al-Sayyid added. The UN resolution under consideration calls for "a full cessation of hostilities" based on "the immediate cessation by Hizbullah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." But it makes no explicit mention of an Israeli withdrawal, implicitly allowing the continuation of Israeli operations. In the longer-term, it calls for a buffer zone in southern Lebanon -- where Israeli troops have been fighting for weeks to control a six-kms buffer zone. The basis upon which Lebanon officially rejected the draft was that it ignored any reference to Siniora's plan. The plan calls, among other things, for an immediate ceasefire, followed by a mutual release of prisoners; withdrawal of all Israeli forces behind the "blue line" and the return of at least one million displaced; Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shuba Hills, placing them under temporary UN control; and the reinvigoration of the 1949 armistice agreement. Thus, the decision to send 15 000 troops to the south is part of this plan which calls for extending Lebanese government authority throughout the country. Al-Sayyid said that the cabinet decision was a response to the challenge facing Lebanon. "We wanted to pre-empt Israel's claim that their withdrawal will create a security vacuum which Hizbullah will immediately fill. Now the onus is on the Israelis to show that they don't want to occupy any Lebanese territory, as well as on the international community which should offer a just solution," he added. To many Lebanese, the draft had an all too obvious Israeli seal of approval to it. The fact that the Israeli cabinet stated that "it was broadly satisfied with the draft" has confirmed worst doubts. The Franco-American draft resolution was seen as another face-saving solution for Israel, allowing it to make political gains it failed to achieve through military might. "This draft is an Israeli draft, an extension of the 1559 [UN Resolution] and a new roadmap for Lebanon, just as both America and Israel want it to be," said Moen Hmeid, member of the political bureau of the Lebanese National Syrian Party. Similar views were echoed by respected figures such as former Prime Minister Slim Al-Hoss. In a press conference on Sunday, Al-Hoss described the draft as "biased". "It wants to reward Israel for what destruction and atrocities it committed and to punish Lebanon for defending its legitimate rights." Those conditions, he added, were made for the Lebanese government to reject and for Israel to be given extra time to go ahead with its military operation. Hizbullah, on the other hand, has shown goodwill by accepting the cabinet resolution which clearly stated that "no other force will share the security responsibility in the south with the Lebanese armed forces." According to sources close to the party, Hizbullah did not want to break the consensus that has been formed over Siniora's plan, despite its initial reservations over some points. "It was a concession by Hizbullah to keep Lebanon united and to deprive Israel of any excuse for continued aggression," said the source. This begs the question over the future of Hizbullah's arms. An issue that has been deliberately kept absent from the debate over the deployment of the army in the south, but one that is likely to dominate the post-war political scene for some time to come. An insight into what shape the debate will take came in the form of statements by Hizbullah's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah. He pointed out in a press statement this week that any talk about disarming Hizbullah, after what has happened, will amount to "an act of treason". "No one," insisted Fadlallah, "can do that which the Israeli military machine failed to do," he said. Any settlement of this issue, said Fadlallah, should take into account the massacres which Israel committed against Lebanese civilians. "The resistance proved that it can provide the decisive deterrence and power that Lebanon cannot afford to give up," he said. But to what extent can the Lebanese army handle the explosive situation in the south? Ghassan Mekhaybar, a Lebanese member of parliament, told the Weekly that the army will not be deployed until the Israelis withdrew behind the "blue line". He pointed out that the Lebanese troops have military capabilities to handle the situation in the south and restore security. "Once the army is there, its main mission will be to help the displaced to go back to their villages and houses and restore stability with the help of the UNIFIL," Mekhaybar said. He stressed that Lebanon would agree to the expansion of the UNIFIL but not to the change of its mandate, placing it under the umbrella of Chapter 7. The draft resolution describes the international forces intended to be deployed in south Lebanon as being "delegated by the UN," and not under the supervision of the UN. "If we are going to have deterrent forces, then we better have them on both sides of the borders and not just on the Lebanese side," he said. The most crucial question that Lebanese officials are trying to avoid answering is whether the resolution will be passed regardless of Lebanese reservations. What can Lebanon do? "I believe that the Lebanese government and people will opt for a continuation of the confrontation with Israel, rather than taking any steps that are likely to jeopardise the country's unity," said Mekhaybar. The seven-point plan 1- Immediate ceasefire and a mutual release of prisoners through the Red Cross; 2- Israeli troops withdrawing to the demarcated frontier and allowing displaced civilians to return home; 3- Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Shebaa Farms/Kfar Shuba Hills and placing them under temporary UN control; 4- Extending Lebanese government authority throughout all southern Lebanon; 5- Expanding the existing UN force (UNIFIL) in south Lebanon; 6- Reinvigorating the 1949 armistice agreement and introducing the necessary amendments; 7- Commitment by the international community to providing humanitarian aid and participation in the reconstruction of the country.
