Any ceasefire package that does not get the consent of Hizbullah is doomed, writes Omayma Abdel-Latif It took another massacre for the US to force the Israelis to halt their aggression and declare a 48-hour suspension of air raids. But it also took a new massacre for both Hizbullah and the Lebanese government to limit differences on the crisis and speak with one voice. The Qana crime has no doubt hardened the stand of embattled Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, forcing him to adopt Hizbullah's line. A few hours after the disclosure of the massacre, Siniora insisted that Lebanon was not going to negotiate before a ceasefire was declared. The scene of Nabih Berri, parliament speaker, sitting next to Siniora in a press conference hours after the massacre was telling of a government and an opposition united not just in grief but also in their political demands -- at least for now. Siniora even praised Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah "for his sacrifices", hinting that retaliation was justified. Whether or not this signals a shift in policy remains to be seen. As diplomatic efforts gain momentum with the convening of the UN Security Council to discuss conditions for the deployment of international forces in the south, many are hopeful that the internal Lebanese front will remain united in the face of growing pressure from the US and Israel to make painful concessions that could come at the expense of the country's unity. During the week, shuttle diplomacy between Beirut and New York revealed a number of draft proposals for a ceasefire package that aims to stand in a middle ground between Lebanon and Israel. The issue topped the agenda of talks held between the French foreign minister and his Iranian counterpart at the Iranian embassy in Beirut on Monday. Although little came out of the meeting, press reports viewed it as part of larger efforts to engage Iran and Syria in a final settlement. But it was the shift of tone adopted by the Lebanese premiere following Qana massacre that left many puzzled. A few days before the massacre, relations between Hizbullah and the Lebanese premiere were strained after Siniora revealed a seven- point plan to last week's Rome conference on ending hostilities. Among the proposals, Siniora called for an immediate ceasefire to be followed by a comprehensive and final settlement for all remaining issues between Lebanon and Israel. This includes the Shebaa Farms, Israel submitting a map of landmines it planted during its occupation of South Lebanon, as well as the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon. The most controversial point, and which elicited Hizbullah's wrath, came when Siniora made a vague promise to disarm Hizbullah. Although Hizbullah initially accepted the general outline of Siniora's plan, it made it known that it had reservations. Among the points of contention was the new international force mentioned in most draft proposals so far. Hizbullah MPs have repeatedly expressed concern about the nature of the mandate of such a force, particularly when some drafts suggested that they operate under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which would entitle them to use force. "If they think that this international force will be completing the mission the Israelis have failed to do -- ie disarming Hizbullah -- then they will have to think again because no one will be allowed to finish the dirty work of the Israelis," Nawaf Al-Musawi, head of Hizbullah's international relations bureau, said in an interview last Monday. Musawi pointed out that the Israelis, supported by the Americans, want to make up for military defeat by snatching gains from a political settlement. Musawi stressed that any agreement that does not take into consideration Lebanese interests was going to be rejected by Lebanon. "They should not think they will impose any settlement on us and we will take it, because the battles on the ground are still in our favour," he added. Perhaps one of the most important points is whether or not the much talked about international forces will be assigned the task of disarming Hizbullah. The force is expected to be at least 10,000 troops, led by the French and including countries like Tunisia, Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey. Many Hizbullah members are worried that their party -- which enjoys the support of 87 per cent of the Lebanese people in one recent poll -- will be the main preoccupation of an international force, not preventing Israeli aggression. Their concerns were borne out when UN Middle East Envoy Vijay Nambiar said in a TV interview Monday that part of the projected assignment was to help the Lebanese government implement UN resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of all militias. He nonetheless pointed out that any kind of imposition of a settlement that does not muster agreement from all components of the Lebanese government "could lead to grave consequences". Similar warnings came from Lebanon's president. Emile Lahoud objected to French participation in the proposed international force, suggesting that the return of French soldiers to Lebanese territory would mark a comeback of French influence on Lebanon and that this would be a destabilising force. "If they think of forcing a deal on Lebanon this could lead to a civil war in the country," Lahoud told Al-Jazeera last Monday. In fact, many Hizbullah officials have suggested that any proposed international force should rather be on the Israeli side of the border. "Lebanon is the one that needs protection against Israeli aggression, and therefore those forces should be on the Israeli side to deter any possible aggression in the future," said Hassan Fadlallah, head of the Information Committee in the Lebanese parliament and a member of Hizbullah. Hizbullah believes that if Chapter 7 of the UN Charter defines the mandate under which international forces would operate, the force will arrive to do Israel's bidding. "I want to know if this force will be able to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. Will they be able to shoot down Israeli planes, which violate Lebanese airspace all the time?" he exclaimed. Fadlallah said that what Hizbullah wanted was an international force that stands neutral and can deter any Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Naseeb Lahoud, a member of the 14th March camp and former member of the parliament, voiced similar views. While he said the priority should be given to imposing an immediate ceasefire, he said any international forces should be assigned a number of duties. "If the mission is to stop Israeli aggression, to settle the dispute over Shebaa Farms, prevent Israel violating Lebanese sovereign airspace, and prevent it carrying out targeted assassinations of Hizbullah leaders, then why would we object to having them?" Lahoud asked. The US draft proposal, which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took back to Washington, in the view of many Lebanese commentators, must have had an Israeli seal of approval. In recent comments Rice said her regional tour resulted in "a ceasefire package" and an emerging consensus. Under the proposal, Israel and Lebanon would agree to a ceasefire as part of a larger pact that would include installing international peacekeepers throughout southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government would work to disarm Hizbullah, and the United States and other countries would funnel money and send military officials to help train the Lebanese Army so that it could work to prevent future attacks on Israel. The package described by Rice also calls for armed groups to be prohibited where the international force is deployed, and an international embargo against the delivery of weapons to anyone other than the government of Lebanon and the international force. She said the United States would call for UN Security Council action on the package this week. The French proposal, on the other hand, calls for an immediate ceasefire and conditions it on the immediate deployment of the international forces in South Lebanon to help the Lebanese state assert sovereignty over all its territory. Despite much analysed differences between the French and American proposals, both are in fact united in their endgame: to disarm and weaken Hizbullah. According to Sateh Nur Edin, managing editor of the Lebanese daily As-Safir, there are two key factors that are likely to influence discussions ahead of issuing a UN resolution to end the crisis. "First is whether or not the Lebanese front and government, including Hizbullah, will remain united and speak with one voice, thus will not be forced to accept a deal that undermines Lebanese national interests. After the massacres and destruction it will be very difficult for the government to accept a deal that insists on disarming Hizbullah." The second factor, added Nur Eddin, is the situation on the ground. On Tuesday, Israel began a huge ground operation to invade South Lebanon and establish a buffer zone reaching beyond the Litani River. Yet if the past three weeks are anything to go by, Israel will fail again to achieve a major breakthrough on the ground. Already on Tuesday Hizbullah fighters were staging a fierce defence of Lebanese sovereignty. With a united leadership and soaring popularity they are likely to continue their struggle. For Musawi and other Hizbullah officials, there is one thing America should understand: "Hizbullah will not disappear from the political map in Lebanon any time soon, and any attempt to force it to do so is risking pushing the country into civil strife." With public opinion in Lebanon hardening, it seems any ceasefire conditioned on weakening Lebanon's sole force fighting Israeli aggression is doomed. For Lahoud, and many Lebanese, Israel will only enjoy security when Lebanon is guaranteed its full rights. "It will not reach its goals through military force alone but through a settlement based on justice," the president said.
