A one-sided resolution on ending conflict in Lebanon will not achieve its goal, writes Ibrahim Nafie During their meeting in Beirut on Monday, Arab foreign ministers stood firmly behind Lebanon and endorsed in full the position of the Lebanese government. The latter had rejected a draft resolution the US and France wanted to submit to the UN Security Council. The meeting was an important message to the world at a time when major international powers seem to have misread Arab signals. Yes, some Arab countries have reservations about Hizbullah's 12 July operation, but that doesn't mean that any Arab endorses Israel's barbaric aggression against Lebanon. The US-French draft resolution endorses Israel's views. Even Israeli sources say as much. Israel's Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni made certain demands and the draft has been worded accordingly. Writing for Yedioth Ahronoth 6 August, Shimon Shiffer states that, "According to Israeli sources, the Americans let Israeli officials participate in drafting the resolution which will call for Hizbullah to stop all attacks -- which is an implicit reference to possible attacks against Jewish institutions across the world ... Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni launched a political battle over the weekend in an attempt to influence the decisions passed by the UN Security Council. Through talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Livni presented a few points that Israel wanted to include in the draft. That's why the draft resolution calls for the unconditional release of the two abducted soldiers. Israel managed to extract from the Americans a promise that Israel would stay in Lebanon until the arrival of the permanent international force. In addition, the draft resolution includes a clause banning the provision of military hardware to Hizbullah from foreign countries." As it stands, the US-French draft resolution reflects Israel's vision. The resolution calls for a complete cessation of hostilities without calling for Israeli forces to withdraw from Lebanon. It demands the unconditional release of the two Israeli soldiers. As for the Lebanese detainees, the draft merely urges "efforts aiming to settle the matter of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel". The draft calls for Hizbullah to be disarmed and deprived of arms supplies. But it doesn't call on Israel to withdraw from the Shabaa Farms. The draft calls for the deployment in Lebanon of an international force, instead of having observers stationed on both sides of the border. The draft resolution ignores the seven points Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora outlined in Rome. If passed by the UN Security Council, the draft would be a humiliating defeat for Lebanon and a reward for Israel's aggression. The draft reminds me of capitulation agreements imposed on countries defeated in war. It is a recipe for instability rather than peace. It departs from the spirit this region needs. At present, what we need most is something that leads to political stability; something we could build on for peace on the Syrian and other contested tracks. The Arabs should stand behind the seven points stated by Siniora in Rome. The Arabs should declare their views at the highest levels and in no uncertain terms. Now is the time to revive the Arab peace initiative launched in Beirut in 2002. The Arab peace initiative remains the only way to end the withering tribulations of this region. Unless peace and stability are restored in the near future, more turbulence and chaos are to be expected.
