The Arab bluff 

By EVELYN GORDON 

Jerusalem Post 
(The writer comments on current affairs.)

(March 31) -- The Arab world's response to Israel's proposal for a
withdrawal from Lebanon has set new standards for farce, even in a
region in which the bizarre is the norm. For 20 years, the entire
Arab world has been demanding a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from
Lebanon. Suddenly, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says he is
willing to do exactly that - and the Arab world has flatly rejected
the offer.

Lebanon, which might have been expected to be pleased at the prospect
of getting its long-sought territory back, has said it would not
accept south Lebanon on a platter unless Syria is given the Golan
Heights at the same time. Such generosity is unprecedented: Egypt,
for instance, had no qualms about signing a separate peace with
Israel in order to get the Sinai back. By itself, however, this
response would not have been so surprising. It merely provided
additional proof, were any needed, of Syria's political domination of
Lebanon, which forces Beirut to subordinate its own goals to those of
Damascus.

Much more revealing was the second element of Lebanon's refusal.
Israel's one condition for a withdrawal is that when the IDF pulls
out, it be replaced by the Lebanese army, so that the security zone
will actually become part of Lebanon again rather than de facto
becoming an independent mini-state controlled by Hizbullah.

Logically, this demand would seem to coincide with Lebanon's
interests. If Lebanon actually wants to regain control of what it
claims as sovereign territory, deploying its army there is necessary
- both symbolically and practically. Yet Beirut said this requirement
is unacceptable, making the strange claim that Israel is thereby
asking the Lebanese army to defend Israel's citizens rather than its
own.

Nor is Lebanon alone in this stand. Last week, the Arab League backed
Lebanon's position regarding the deployment of its army, and said it
"rejects the Israeli initiative pertaining to this issue."

It is hard to understand why the Arab world thinks Israel's demand is
unreasonable. This is a much more minimalist position than Israel has
ever taken in the past. It is not even demanding a peace treaty or
diplomatic relations in exchange for its withdrawal: All it wants is
an assurance that its concession will not give rise to unending
terror attacks along its northern border. If the Arab world is truly
interested in peace, is this too much to ask?

Even harder to understand, however, is why Lebanon thinks restraining
Hizbullah attacks on Israel following an Israeli withdrawal would be
contrary to its own interests.

Currently, the strategic value of these attacks is obvious: They are
an excellent way of pressuring Israel to leave the security zone. If
Israel leaves, however, Hizbullah attacks would promptly become a
liability rather than an asset. At the very least, they would provoke
retaliatory Israeli air strikes which would endanger Lebanese
citizens; at worst, they could provoke another full-scale Israeli
invasion of south Lebanon.

The unfortunate conclusion is that allowing Hizbullah's war on Israel
to continue is much more important to both Lebanon and the Arab
League than their stated goal of restoring Arab sovereignty to south
Lebanon. If shutting down this war is the price of Israel's
withdrawal, the Arab world is not willing to make a deal.

For years, the Arabs have been claiming that Israel's occupation of
Arab lands is their sole reason for the 50-year state of war in the
Middle East. Over and over, they have said that once these lands are
returned, they would be willing to make peace.

Yet Israel has finally called the Arabs' bluff by caving in and
offering a unilateral withdrawal from one of these lands - and even
this has proven not to be enough. For many of these countries, it
seems, the issue was never really land: The real priority is the war
against the Zionist enemy.

Western diplomats, in contrast, have always taken Arab assertions
about the land-for-peace equation at face value. As a result, they
were initially receptive to Israel's Lebanon proposal. UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, for instance, welcomed the idea during
his visit last week, and said he would be happy to help Israel work
out the details of a withdrawal with Lebanon.

The unequivocal negative response from Lebanon and the Arab League,
however, forces the West to make a choice. One option is the
time-honored route of closing its eyes to Arab cynicism and
pressuring Israel to drop even this most minimal of security demands.
The other option is to finally take a good hard look at what the
Arabs' land-for-peace rhetoric really means.

There will never be a clearer statement than those made by the Arab
world on Lebanon last week about where "land" and "peace" really sit
on many Arab countries' priority lists. It is about time for the West
to wake up to this fact.