The current discussion surrounding an international force for southern Lebanon has focused almost exclusively on which countries and organizations -- NATO, the EU, the UN -- will provide the troops. This is an important issue, to be sure, but the real question concerns the changes that Israel must make in exchange for this force being put in place and assuming the risk of such a mission.
No international force will simply protect Israel from Hezbollah rockets while Israel continues its current strategy. After all, the recent military escalation in the region is at least partly due to that strategy. If an international force simply allows Ehud Olmert's government to pursue its plans further, the countries that provide troops for the international force will not only be seen as rubber-stamping Israeli policy, but will also be dragged into its failure.
To criticize Israel's strategy as flawed is not to condone the acts of Hamas or Hezbollah or to deny Israel's right to self-defense. It is merely to point out what should be obvious: Israel's efforts to find a unilateral solution to its security problems -- whether occupation, withdrawal, or separation -- have failed.
Unilateral occupation without commitment to a viable Palestinian state has produced only the intifada and suicide bombers. Unilateral withdrawal from Gaza without the prior establishment of a local authority to maintain order has only led to renewed intervention. And the "security fence," which was to allow for unilateral separation, may hold back suicide bombers, but won't protect against modern missiles of the kind currently employed by Hezbollah.
So far, the only lesson Israel seems to have drawn from its failed strategies is that it must extend and intensify the use of unilateral force: re-invade Gaza, devastate Lebanon, and threaten Syria -- and, by implication, Iran, which the Israeli government hints had a hand in orchestrating the recent crisis.
It takes little foresight, however, to predict that more force will not produce more security for Israel. The policy, reminiscent of the terrorist stratagem of bombing civilians in order to force the hands of their leaders, will only strengthen the radicals and boost their popular support. It will not hide the fact that Israel has run out of unilateral options.
Israel has so far been unwilling to accept this fact. Instead, its leaders hope that a robust international force in southern Lebanon will provide protection for northern Israel, leaving them with a free hand to deal unilaterally with Gaza and the West Bank, while committing the international community to Israel's failed unilateralism.
To join such an international force under such conditions would be totally irresponsible. Countries that contribute troops would appear to be siding unequivocally with Israel, thereby losing all of their credibility with Israel's adversaries. They would also risk being drawn into renewed Israeli operations against Hezbollah and its backers. Most important, they would forego what may be the last chance to promote a consensual peace.
The prior condition for setting up and joining an international force for deployment in southern Lebanon must be that Israel renews its commitment to the "road map" and negotiations with the Palestinians for a viable Palestinian state. With this aim in mind, it must enter into talks with democratically elected Palestinian representatives. True, such talks will be difficult, and they may not succeed. But that can no longer be an argument against diplomacy now that Israeli unilateralism has once again proven to be a strategic blind alley.
Only an Israel seriously willing to seek security through agreement, not one that wants to impose her security on her neighborhood by fiat, can be partner to an international effort to bring stability to Lebanon and beyond. Of course, some countries, not least the US, would oppose making such a reversal in Israeli policy a condition of creating an international force, and consensus in NATO, the EU, or the UN may not be found or, if it were to emerge, Israel might simply refuse to abide.
Both prospects would provide reason enough for NATO's members to stay away from the project altogether. Creating an international force for southern Lebanon makes sense only as an investment in regional peace, not as an appendix to Israel's current strategy.
Christoph Bertram is the former Director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers