U.S. & Israel Can Finesse Annan’s UN Peacekeeper Proposal

Cynics of Western resolve – as justified by the past as they are -- were surprised at the G8’s priority in damning Hezbollah’s kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and rocket attacks on Israel. They may be surprised again, if the U.S. continues to exert its influence strongly to capitalize on EU moral relativism and the fear from the Arab Sunni states of Iran.

Near the start of hostilities, July 13, I recommended we think and act “outside the box” with “A European Solution to Gaza & Lebanon Problem?” The response in the blogosphere was underwhelming, although some thought it a noble attempt at being “positive” or “constructive.” Now, developments may be heading that way, at least if the U.S. can again succeed enlisting Western support again for a firm stance. I wrote:

There is a way out, as outside current commentary as it may be:
· European forces – either under NATO or UN umbrella if possible, but anyway – secure the Lebanon and Gaza border areas, to neutralize and disarm terrorists and thus eliminate their threat to Israel and power over the nascent states; and
· At the same time fully engage in massive economic and infrastructure aid within Lebanon and Gaza, to replace the social role that Hamas and Hezbollah have filled and to build a more resistant civic culture, optimism and stake in peace….
The U.S. and Europe are not that far apart. Neither wants regional conflict or it enlarging in the Middle East, but both see that the primary barrier to peace and future democratic development is in the instability created by Hamas and Hezbollah.
European, and Canadian, armed forces are actively engaged in taking the pacification of Afghanistan outside Kabul, and are succeeding in decimating Taliban insurgents. They demonstrate resolve and effectiveness when applied. They can do the same along the Gaza and Lebanese border areas, breaking Syria and Iran’s stranglehold on progress within Gaza and Lebanon and with Israel.

On July 15, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton to the U.N. spoke clearly, as usual, telling the Security Council and the world what an outcome must look like:

Let us be clear that without the financial and material support of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas would be severely crippled in carrying out its terrorist operations….We stress again our condemnation of Syrian and Iranian support of Hizballah, which has claimed responsibility for the other kidnappings along the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon. We further call on the Palestinian Authority government to stop all acts of violence and terror and comply with the principles enunciated by the Quartet: renounce terror, recognize Israel, and accept previous obligations and agreements, including the Roadmap.

Nonetheless, as usual, when Israel is firm and successful, the equivocators at the U.N. and in the EU run forth to hobble it and recommend “solutions” that rollback and undermine Israel’s gains.

There can be little doubt that is U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s purpose in recommending a U.N. peacekeeping force along the southern border of Lebanon. The quick concurrence by Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, continues his and the EU’s moral relativism and past ineffectualness in supporting a real peace from Israel’s neighbors.

Israel, of course, replied politely, buying time:

But Israel said it was too soon to talk of sending the force. "We're at the stage where we want to be sure that Hizbollah is not deployed at our northern border," government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.
Army Radio quoted Israel's chief of staff as saying Israel planned to enforce a 1 km (0.5 mile) "security zone" to keep Hizbollah away from the border.

And U.S. presidential spokesman Tony Snow concurred:

Sending in an armed force ``may be a tad premature, although it is a distinct possibility,'' said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

Ed Morrissey presents the many reasons why such a U.N. peacekeeping presence will be worthless and counterproductive, succinctly summed:

And this is where the problem lies. UN peacekeeping forces do not fight. Historically, they run away.

Israel and the U.S. are buying time from the seemingly inevitable U.N. ineffectualness and fecklessness:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, signaled an openness to talk with the UN delegation when it arrives over how to end the crisis. He said that while Israel had a checkered past with the UN, it was important to bear in mind that the UN Security Council did pass Resolution 1559 which calls on the Lebanese government to dismantle armed militias and take full control of all of Lebanon. Furthermore, he said, Annan shepherded this resolution through the UN system, over Syrian objections.
Olmert told the cabinet that Israel would cooperate with the UN delegation as long as its goals would first and foremost be the return of the abducted Israeli soldiers, and the end of rocket fire on Israel both in the North and the South. "We are not going to return to the situation that existed before last Wednesday," Olmert said "That was an insufferable situation."
Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, in his briefing to Sunday's cabinet, asked the government to give it time to deliver a blow to Hizbullah from which it would be difficult for the organization to recover.
"The way we finish this will have ramifications for the entire Middle East," Halutz said, adding that "everyone is watching" - the Syrians, the Palestinians and the Iranians. He said the goal is to severely weaken Hizbullah militarily, diplomatically, and in terms of support it gets from the Lebanese population.
Nevertheless, government officials said that everyone realizes that the time frame Israel has to act is not unlimited.

The United States has the opportunity to turn the U.N. Security Council debate over any such force into something more worthwhile, and maybe even again surprising justifiable cynics, by standing firm for any U.N. force to be required to actively inspect and destroy any Hamas or Hezbollah rocket stores or launch-pads throughout Gaza and southern Lebanon.

If unrealistic, I prefer to remain optimistic rather than defeatistically cynical.

Personally, although I seriously doubt Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert to have the experience, daring or stones of Sharon, I would prefer to first see Israel go much further in Lebanon, which Israel is in a position to do, which may also undo the little dentist’s hold on a threatening Syria, and to take advantage of this present time to setback Iran’s nuclear capacity and credibility among radical Shia in the Middle East.

Sure, the anyway timid or opposed world opinion may howl, but they do anyway. The Western and Sunni Arab states would secretly cheer, and then any peacekeeping force be properly directed and possibly even worthwhile.

UPDATE: Count on President Bush to be forthright, and Blair and others in EU to be equivocal:

It wasn't meant to be overheard. Private luncheon conversations among world leaders, picked up by a microphone, provided a rare window into both banter and substance — including President Bush cursing Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.
Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.
"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.
He told Blair he felt like telling U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who visited the gathered leaders, to get on the phone with Syrian President Bashar Assad to "make something happen." He suggested Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might visit the region soon….
Blair, whose remarks were not as clearly heard, appeared to be pressing Bush about the importance of getting international peacekeepers into the region.

ALSO SEE “Arabs Fear Iran More Than They Hate The Jews.”