At least Obama and Mubarak agree on Lebanon

On the agenda at the meeting between presidents Barack Obama and Hosni Mubarak this week were Palestine, Iran and Iraq, all of which involve Syria in some way. The two disagreed on some things, but on protecting Lebanon and supporting its sovereignty, they remain firm.


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (L) speaks with US President Barack Obama (R) during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on August 18. (AFP/Jim Watson)

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, Special to NOW

Following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Washington this week, US President Barack Obama told the press that the two addressed the Arab-Israeli situation, a nuclear Iran and making progress in Iraq. Sources informed on the meeting said that under the umbrella of Iran and Iraq, the two presidents also discussed Syria and Lebanon.

First on the agenda was the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the word on the street in Washington is that Mideast Peace Envoy George Mitchell has succeeded in convincing the Palestinians and the Israelis to resume negotiations.

President Mubarak – who has been playing a key role in bringing the two main Palestinian groups, Fatah and Hamas, together – has added to this apparent American success a proposal: Skip trust-building measures and move on to negotiating a final agreement, which, if ratified, will cut out political maneuvers and populist public stunts on both sides.

The Egyptian delegation to Washington did not forget, however, to mention to senior US officials the negative role that Damascus has been playing in obstructing peace by constantly pressuring Hamas to undo whatever national-unity agreements it has with its rival Fatah.

And while Syria has been lobbying inside Washington for a long time now to convince American officials that only Damascus holds the keys to solutions in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq, sources report that Egyptian officials have argued otherwise, as they made the case against the Saudi-Syrian peace initiative in June, making it harder for a future Washington-Damascus rapprochement.

After the meeting, some US officials concluded that Syria cannot break with Iran, and that it is unable to deliver in Iraq or on Hezbollah inside Lebanon. This does not mean however, according to Washington sources, that America will slam the door in the Syrians’ face. “The door will remain open for now and it is up to the Syrians to choose, but as time goes by, there will be fewer and fewer favors the Syrians can do for America and the world,” a source close to the administration told NOW Lebanon on condition of anonymity.

In terms of a nuclear Iran – number two on the Obama-Mubarak agenda – there was a difference in perspective between the two sides. Washington believes it can push Tehran to a crossroads, making it choose between giving up its nuclear program and turning a new page with America and the world, or risk “crippling sanctions.” The Egyptian outlook on Iran, however, is more pessimistic.

Cairo has historically had thorny relations with Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, the leader of which called for toppling Mubarak. Additionally, Egyptian security forces uncovered Hezbollah cells inside Egypt in April, which pushed officials in Cairo into thinking that Iran’s regional aspirations go far beyond acquiring nuclear weapons, believed by many to be a prerequisite for securing the regime’s survival. Egyptian officials told their American counterparts this week that a long-term confrontation with Iran will be dangerous, but that it may be the only option.

On Iraq, America and Egypt have shared an agenda since 2004, as the two countries, among other regional players, have kept in close coordination to help curb the once-spiraling violence in the country. During his meeting with Obama in the White House, Mubarak, a veteran of Middle Eastern politics, argued that Iraq was on the right track, and the two men debated on how to move forward in the country.

But the conversation did not end with Iraq. Syria, again, also came up. So far, several American delegations have visited Damascus to convince their Syrian counterparts to cooperate on closing their borders with Iraq to stop the flow of insurgents between the two countries.

But despite all the promises, the flow of militants has not ebbed, and violence, though slowed, still rages in Iraq.

And although while Mubarak was in the White House, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki was meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus to discuss forming a joint committee to address the problem, Mubarak has been in power in the region long enough to realize that for the Syrians, “security committees” mean very little. Unless Syria detaches itself from Iran and sits down with leaders in more moderate states, such as Egypt and Saudi, all of its promises to the US will remain hollow.

Finally, while the US budget for the promotion of democracy in Egypt and Syria, among other Arab countries, has been substantially slashed, both Egyptian and American officials still believe that democracy in Lebanon should remain a priority for the world. There will be no bargains over Lebanon’s independence, Egyptian and US officials agreed, and the two states will do all they can to empower the democratically-elected government in Beirut.

Peace between Lebanon and Israel

As Lebanon will never defeat Israel militarily, its conflict with the Jewish state can only be resolved by diplomacy. Yet successive Lebanese governments have failed to reach out and have delegated the business of war to Hezbollah and peace to the Arab League.


A view of Shebaa Farms, located at a crossroads between Lebanon, Israel and Syria. The disputed territory is one of the principle issues of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict. AFP/Joseph Barrak

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, NOW Contributor , August 12, 2009

March 14’s quest for independence has been proven insincere by the coalition’s failure to foster a policy for peace talks with Israel. It has instead tied the fate of negotiations to a toothless Arab Peace Initiative. If other Arab countries are to decide Lebanon’s foreign policy, then we can kiss goodbye genuine independence.

As Lebanon will never defeat Israel militarily, its “conflict” with the Jewish state can only be resolved by diplomacy, despite the failure of successive Lebanese governments to endorse such a track. They have instead delegated the business of war to Hezbollah and peace to the Arab League. Such governmental behavior has proven detrimental to the principle of Lebanese independence.

Throughout the 1990s, the world grew accustomed to a Lebanese government unwilling or unable to deal with relations with its neighbor; delegations have either discussed Lebanese-Israeli peace in Damascus or arrived at truces with Hezbollah. None of these agreements have gone through a sovereign Lebanese state, except in August 2006, when Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s cabinet served as a conduit between Hezbollah and the United Nations to end the July War.

Now we hear that US President Barak Obama’s peace team, led by former Senator George Mitchell, has decided to turn a new page. Mitchell argues that peace can only come by talking to all parties, but does he know that, since May 17, 1983, when Beirut inked a peace treaty with Tel Aviv, the Lebanese state has taken a back seat in dealings with Israel?

Yet Mitchell’s approach might finally offer Lebanon a chance to change the game. According to the Mitchell team, finding solutions for the Lebanese-Israeli conflict is easiest if pared down to Lebanon’s two pending issues with its southern neighbor: the disputed Shebaa Farms area and the roughly 400,000 Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon.

Both Hezbollah and Syria have used the Shebaa farms to undermine peace between Lebanon and Israel and to keep Damascus in the driving seat when it comes to negotiations. The area is widely believed to be part of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, therefore part of Israeli talks with Syria. Damascus, for its part, has repeatedly said this barren sliver of land belongs to Lebanon, but refused to provide the United Nations with any documentation to this effect.

A number of Lebanese officials have suggested that the easiest way to neutralize the situation is a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the area, which would remove all debate (the area is Lebanese after all) and deny Hezbollah its raison d’être.

Tel Aviv has refused, believing – based on past experience – that any unilateral withdrawal from Arab territory will always be interpreted as a military victory for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. To avoid such a scenario, Israel proposed that Lebanon regain Shebaa Farms through diplomacy, even if it is backroom diplomacy. After all, Hezbollah has negotiated with Israel – indirectly – for a prisoner swap deal in the past. Why can’t such an arrangement work for the Lebanese government?

Then there are Lebanon’s 400,000 Palestinian refugees. It is understood that 10% of them will be offered the right of return to their villages inside Israel. The rest will be given the right of return to the Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza. All of them will be also given the choice to immigrate to Western countries.

With Shebaa and the refugees out of the way, Lebanon and Israel can sign a peace treaty, during which they draw their common borders and agree on the allocation of water resources, as per international agreements.

The outgoing March 14-led government did little to advance this cause. In fact, since the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, both governments have failed to produce a policy on Israel. The Mitchell team is determined to change all this, but they need the help of Lebanon’s leaders, who must not be shy about talking peace with Israel, just like their Syrian and Palestinian brethren. The rest will become details.