An Arabian Solution
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
by: Daniel Bart
It is important that
the communities of Greater Lebanon find common ground and
agree on a proper divorce. The Lebanese government and its
leaders are important partners, now and in the future and
need to act so as to promote shared Arabian and Aramaean
interests. Although Hezbollah say they take orders from
Teheran one can not help but to observe that they act far
more rationally than their Iranian masters. Hezbollah is in
fact a highly sophisticated Islamofascist entity that likely
makes more independent decisions than they would admit in
public.
It is preferable that Greater Lebanon is divided peacefully with full agreement from the Shi’i community. It is also important that the Syrian government acts responsibly and is helpful in implementing the principle of linguistic states in Lebanon as well. Some Shi’i Iraqi leaders could certainly play important roles in ensuring Shi’i Arab interests.
Greater Lebanon will inevitably become another Israeli theatre of war unless Hezbollah is persuaded to act responsibly and promote Arabian rather than Iranian interests. There is no question that the Hezbollastani regions are integral parts of the Khomeinist entity. The Arabian interest lies in promotion of Arabian unification through implementation of the principle of linguistic states, preferably through agreement in this case. There is no option of leaving an armed Hezbollah in place and Israel would certainly need to apply the strategic doctrine of proactive reciprocity (with temporary consequences) unless there is a comprehensive political solution as part of the wider regional map. Moving the ground battle to the Beqaa Valley would deprive Hezbollah of the topographic advantages that they have in the south. Some Arabophone governments may think that there is a third option of temporary Hezbollah non-belligerence and non-division of Greater Lebanon so as to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict alive indefinitely and deny key aspects of the principle of linguistic states. One can vividly imagine that some in the Arabophone world would be interested in taking over Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah. This is an illusion as there is no such option. Agreed Shi’i autonomy within a federal Arabia in parts of the present Greater Lebanon including complete Hezbollah disarmament is the only option that would avoid the opening of a third theatre. Israel certainly has no strategic interest in delaying the final blow as that would not be conducive to the cause of perpetual peace. A pre-conflict partition agreement between Beirut and Amman in the absence of Hezbollah consent is clearly an Arab territorial interest.
Either way, there will have to be a free independent Aramaean Lebanon as no one should assume that Israel would hesitate to go all the way to the northern end of the Beqaa Valley if necessary so as to terminate the last Hezbollah combatant. Arabian unification and an Aramaean Lebanon are key American, European and allied interests and there is no question that Israel would do everything necessary so as to promote shared interests. No one should assume that Israel would be deterred by prior experience as Israel won all previous engagements in Lebanon.
It is preferable that Greater Lebanon is divided peacefully with full agreement from the Shi’i community. It is also important that the Syrian government acts responsibly and is helpful in implementing the principle of linguistic states in Lebanon as well. Some Shi’i Iraqi leaders could certainly play important roles in ensuring Shi’i Arab interests.
Greater Lebanon will inevitably become another Israeli theatre of war unless Hezbollah is persuaded to act responsibly and promote Arabian rather than Iranian interests. There is no question that the Hezbollastani regions are integral parts of the Khomeinist entity. The Arabian interest lies in promotion of Arabian unification through implementation of the principle of linguistic states, preferably through agreement in this case. There is no option of leaving an armed Hezbollah in place and Israel would certainly need to apply the strategic doctrine of proactive reciprocity (with temporary consequences) unless there is a comprehensive political solution as part of the wider regional map. Moving the ground battle to the Beqaa Valley would deprive Hezbollah of the topographic advantages that they have in the south. Some Arabophone governments may think that there is a third option of temporary Hezbollah non-belligerence and non-division of Greater Lebanon so as to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict alive indefinitely and deny key aspects of the principle of linguistic states. One can vividly imagine that some in the Arabophone world would be interested in taking over Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah. This is an illusion as there is no such option. Agreed Shi’i autonomy within a federal Arabia in parts of the present Greater Lebanon including complete Hezbollah disarmament is the only option that would avoid the opening of a third theatre. Israel certainly has no strategic interest in delaying the final blow as that would not be conducive to the cause of perpetual peace. A pre-conflict partition agreement between Beirut and Amman in the absence of Hezbollah consent is clearly an Arab territorial interest.
Either way, there will have to be a free independent Aramaean Lebanon as no one should assume that Israel would hesitate to go all the way to the northern end of the Beqaa Valley if necessary so as to terminate the last Hezbollah combatant. Arabian unification and an Aramaean Lebanon are key American, European and allied interests and there is no question that Israel would do everything necessary so as to promote shared interests. No one should assume that Israel would be deterred by prior experience as Israel won all previous engagements in Lebanon.
