The world pronounced the Israeli air strike on Qana "indiscriminate and excessive", but it couldn't impose a truce because of Washington's objections, writes Gamal Nkrumah An old couple still rubs along. Britain and America are spearheading an international campaign to shore up Israel's interests and bolster its arguments against implementing a truce. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair tackles Lebanon with a mixture of warm words and photo opportunities. Less suave is the American President George W Bush, who leaves the talking to his administration's top officials. But even in Britain, opinion is divided over Israel's punitive strikes on Lebanon. "Ten times as many innocent Lebanese men, women and children were killed by Israeli force," noted Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons The Israeli position is as intransigent as ever. The Israelis insist that their campaign to curb Hizbullah's military prowess will take at least another couple of weeks. "In my judgement, it [a ceasefire] is not far away. You can count it in a matter of weeks, not months," said Shimon Perez during a visit to Washington. United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice predicted a "ceasefire possible within days, not weeks". Indeed, during her visit to Israel, Rice's utterances and body language when meeting with Israeli officials revealed an uneasy and underlying tenseness. "I think it is time to get to a ceasefire," said Rice. Ominously, Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz said, "We [Israelis] have reached the stage where we have to expand the operation." The world's reaction to Israel's cabinet decision to widen its offensive in Lebanon took a new turn with its aerial attack and ground offensive on the northeastern Lebanese city of Baalbak in the Bekaa Valley, a Hizbullah stronghold. Again, Britain and the United States are insisting that Israel has the right to defend itself and Europe is divided over whether or not to penalise or back Israel. The confusion was reflected at the United Nations with a growing rift between France and the US. The Israeli massacre of innocent civilians sheltering in a residential building in the southern Lebanese village of Qana was the turning point. France and Finland, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, expressed outrage. France, a key player in Lebanese affairs and the former colonial master of Lebanon, said it was boycotting a meeting today of potential contributors to an international peacekeeping force. "France condemns this unjustified action which demonstrates more than ever the need for an immediate ceasefire, without which there will only be other incidents," noted French President Jacques Chirac. "France will not take part in a meeting it considers immature," a French Foreign Ministry spokesperson said. France is a major contributor to the UN International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whose commander is the French General Alain Pellegrini. The EU held a meeting this week to discuss the deplorable crisis in Lebanon. Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuoioja expressed exasperation. "If we fail [to agree on a common stance], we can say good-bye to the EU's influence on international matters," said Tuoioja. Many European leaders were severely critical of Israel's "unjustifiable" acts of aggression, as French President Jacques Chirac put it. But in spite of its pro-Lebanon posturing, France is not that innocent. France was the brains behind UN Resolution 1559, which is technically a new Sykes-Picot agreement. Others, especially Britain and Germany, were far more muted in their criticism. Indeed, British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a visit to Los Angeles warned against the "arc of extremism" threatening the Middle East and world peace, and called for the creation of an "alliance of moderation" to thwart the extremists. After this bit of positioning, Blair added two other themes. He claimed that the extremists aim at "provoking retaliation by Israel that would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being inflamed", and then added that Syria and Iran are supporting terrorism in the region -- none of which sounds much like an argument over the future direction of the Middle East. Blair's stance contrasts sharply with that of France. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy visited Lebanon this week and met with his Iranian counterpart, Manushahr Mottaki. Soon after the meeting, Douste-Blazy praised Iran's "stabilising influence" in the Middle East. So what about old-fashioned diplomacy? "Excellencies, we must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. I appeal to you to do likewise," UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan said. The Ghanaian-born world top diplomat appealed for Israeli restraint. "No one disputes Israel's right to defend itself. But by its manner of doing so, it has caused, and is causing, death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale," Annan concluded. The US and the UN clearly differ on their interpretation of developments in Lebanon over the past three weeks. Everyone knows, of course, that their co-operation will last as long as diplomacy does. In the end, the Americans are on top. What Washington wants invariably prevails. And what Washington requires is often dictated by Israel. On the other hand, a growing number of Arabs and Muslims around the world regard Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader, as an inspiration. Pundits around the world are praising Nasrallah. He has become an iconic figure. Public opinion in most developing countries is staunchly sympathetic to the Lebanese people. But if Arabs and Muslims are inspired by Nasrallah's courage and resistance to Israeli oppression, they are also dismayed by what has been happening to Lebanon. "Humanity has gone mad," said South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad. "We cannot accept the feeling that we are all helpless, while the world slowly but surely moves to a situation that would have catastrophic consequences for all of us," Pahad added.
