Calm Analysis Of Lebanon Crisis.

Note: This posting is offered to readers to help them make some sense out of the confused current crisis in Lebanon.

Read on...

Franciscan Catholic priest Fr. David Maria Jaeger,is Jewish by birth and an Israeli citizen, an expert in international law and for many years the Holy See’s chief negotiator with the Israeli authorities.

This is how Fr. Jaeger evaluated the conflict now in progress, in a July 15 interview with Daniele Rocchi of “Incroci News,” the online weekly of the archdiocese of Milan:


“Painful but measured reactions”

An interview with Fr. David Maria Jaeger


Q: What will be the consequences of opening the Lebanese front for the difficult situation in the region?

A: We are witnessing a qualitative escalation of severity. Israel maintains that it has been attacked, not merely by the militant organization Hezbollah, but by the state of Lebanon itself, and has decided to respond on the basis of this assessment. It is not without reasons in support of its view: Hezbollah – Israel stresses – is an integral part of Lebanon’s institutions, including the parliament and the executive branch of government. Furthermore, Lebanon has decided not to take control of its southern region bordering Israel, and has in effect handed it over to Hezbollah. The UN, the United States, and Europe have repeatedly appealed, in vain, for the state of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, which is financed and supplied by Iran, and to take back control of the south. Now – the Israelis say – if Lebanon does not decide, in these extreme circumstances, to assert its sovereignty over this armed organization at the service of a foreign state dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, Lebanon risks seeing all of its laborious, costly, and promising work of reconstruction over the last twenty years come to nothing. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who has roots among the right-wing nationalists, seems to be the only moderate voice, promising painful but measured reactions.

Q: Who will have to give in?

A: The Palestinians. They are the big losers in Hezbollah’s war initiative, which has turned attention away from the humanitarian emergency in Gaza and may have derailed the semi-secret negotiations aimed not only at the release of corporal Gilad Shalit, but also at a general cease-fire in the Gaza strip and its surroundings, at the release of an undisclosed number of Palestinian detainees, and at some modest letup in the tensions. In any case, even if at the end of the current umpteenth armed confrontation on multiple fronts there were a release of Palestinian detainees in exchange for the captured Israeli soldiers, the credit would be claimed by Hezbollah, and not by the Hamas-led Palestinian government. No one has more to lose than Hamas, which hoped that by freeing its prisoners it would increase its popularity among Palestinians, and instead risks being outmaneuvered and overshadowed by even more militant groups.

Q: What can Palestinian president Abu Mazen do?

A: President Abu Mazen seems to have been reduced almost to the point of utter powerlessness. It is true that he still commands some rather impressive security forces, which he has simply abstained from mobilizing. But there is no doubt that, especially for him, the idea of the voluntary disbanding of the Palestinian National Authority is very appealing. In essence, the PNA was created by the Oslo accords as an interim body for the temporary administration of some of the portions of the occupied territories, in expectation of a definitive peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, which was first projected for 1999 and then moved back to 2000. Declaring the end of the PNA would, moreover, remove the obstacle of the ambiguous relationship between the PLO – the Palestinian Liberation Organization – and the PNA, and would fully restore to the PLO its formal but defunct role as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people on the international stage, a competency recognized by all, including by Israel since 1993. The self-disbanding of the PNA would also deprive Hamas’ recent electoral victory of its formal significance, and would exert enormous pressure upon Israel to resume peace negotiations with Abu Mazen and the PLO, which he heads.

Q: Do you think a cease-fire is possible at this point?

A: A cease-fire is always possible, and they have always come in the history of this many-faceted conflict. But the only real way out is peace, which requires, as the pope said at the Angelus on June 29, not only the good will of the national governments concerned, but also the generous contribution of the international community. It is now more than ever up to the latter to swing into action, to work wisely and untiringly to accompany these sorely tried nations along the road to a just and lasting peace.



Comment: It would be useful for the Australian government, incompetent though it is in helping the Australians currently caught in Lebanon, to prepare a large supply of the food and medicines that Lebanon will need when the eventual ceasefire comes into place.

Australia has long standing good relations with Lebanon and should be pro-active in preparing for practical help for that severely shocked country.

Hezbullah is a terrorist organisation and has no right to be in possession of 12,000+ rockets and missiles. No right at all. The protection of Lebanese sovereignty is the sole duty of the Lebanese Army.

That said, great sympathy must be extended to the thousands of Lebanese and Israeli civilians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze and all the many groups in Lebanon and Israel who are suffering in this crisis.