The List: Who Will Send Troops to Lebanon?

Nearly everyone agrees that a large, multinational force of some kind is needed to police the Israel-Lebanon border and enforce a cease-fire. But Israel has made it clear that it won’t accept the usual U.N. rent-a-force. With Britain and the United States unwilling to send troops because of their commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, FP takes a look at other nations that could supply the boots on the ground.

Egypt

Why: The United States and Israel want to drive a wedge between moderate Arab states and Hezbollah and its sponsors. So, expect a big push for Egyptian involvement. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has already told members of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that he would welcome Egyptian troops.

Stumbling block: The Egyptian public. President Hosni Mubarak was too afraid of public backlash to host U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for talks in Cairo last week. How comfortable would he be sending a large number of soldiers to protect Israel from attack?

Bottom line: Mubarak would cave to international pressure, but he would also take the opportunity to remind the Americans to be careful what they wish for.

Italy

Why: Sending Italian troops to the region would help establish new Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s reputation on the world stage. Italian participation would also firm U.S-Italy relations, which have been strained by Prodi’s decision to pull troops out of Iraq. Prodi, the former head of the European Commission, also wants the country to take a leading role in the force before other Europeans can.

Stumbling block: Italy’s coalition politics. Prodi cobbled together a government after barely squeaking by in April’s elections, and he has only a slight majority in the Italian Senate. His grand plan for involvement could easily be held hostage by a recalcitrant senator or two.

Bottom line: With national—and personal—prestige on the line, the wily Prodi will likely get his way and deploy Italian soldiers to the region.

Turkey

Why: Strong ties between the Turkish and Israeli militaries, as well as Turkey’s membership in NATO and its large Muslim population, make the country an obvious choice for the force.

Stumbling block: Appearances. Turkey would be loathe to appear as the West’s lackey unless it got significant concessions in return. The country’s foreign minister stressed last week that a force would have to be backed by a U.N. resolution and that a cease-fire would need to already be in place for Turkey to participate.

Bottom line: Turkey may agree to send troops if it believes that, in return, it could obtain some leverage in its tortuous accession talks with the European Union.

France

Why: The former colonial power in Lebanon already has forces there as part of a U.N. observer mission. France is also the only country that has the trust of both the Israeli and Lebanese governments, and a military with the capacity to do the job right now. Expect the French to take command of any multinational operation.

Stumbling block: The color of the helmets. French President Jacques Chirac has said that NATO is perceived as “the armed wing of the West†in the Middle East, making its involvement inappropriate. France would prefer to send troops under the banner of the United Nations. There’s also the memory of the 89 French troops lost in Lebanon serving with the 1982-83 multinational force.

Bottom line: Chirac hinted to Le Monde last week that French troops will be deployed, saying, “France has always assumed its responsibilities in Lebanon.â€

Germany

Why: Dispatching troops to Lebanon would provide a big boost to Germany’s campaign for a seat on the U.N. Security Council. There’s also an undercurrent of historical atonement. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier argued recently that Germany is compelled to get involved, remarking that sending troops would be “appropriate given the difficult shared history between Germany and Israel.â€

Stumbling block: Details. Germany is reluctant to dispatch troops unless kidnapped Israeli soldiers are released and Hezbollah accepts the presence of a peacekeeping force. And for Germany, the historical argument is a double-edged sword. The specter of the Holocaust looms heavily, with a recent newspaper editorial arguing that no German soldier should “be brought into a situation where he has to aim his weapon at an Israeli.â€

Bottom line: Expect the Germans to compromise and end up in the rear with the gear.

Ireland? This is from Daily Ireland:

Political solution is only way to peace

Editor: Colin O’Carroll

08/07/2006

Another weekend, another two days of carnage in the Middle East, another 72 hours of weasel words and fake sincerity and sympathy emanates from the Bush administration in the personage of Condoleezza Rice.
Despite the deaths yesterday of yet more Lebanese civilians in deliberate attacks on ordinary homes in towns in the south of the country as well as the killing of ten Israelis, nine of them reserve soldiers, in a Hezbollah rocket attack, the US is still mainaining its ridiculous support of Israel’s military campaign and its unworkable demand that a multinational force step in and do its bidding.
Yesterday saw a Hezbollah rocket barrage on northern Israel unprecedented in its ferocity. The fact that ten people died made it Israel’s worst day of the war, and underlines the fact that a military campaign to crush and drive out Hezbollah is not working, despite Israel’s overwhelming firepower, provided courtesy of the US. The continued slaughter drives home the fact that a political solution is the only possible way forward, yet the US is still talking about UN resolutions and peacekeeping forces in the personage of Ms Rice, while George W Bush plays cowboy on holiday at his ranch in Texas.
Someone needs to have a good sit-down with this overgrown frat boy and tell him a few simple and universal truths. The only way to stop a war of this kind and find a solution is for all sides to stop killing each other. Then, once the killing of innocent people has stopped, hopefully all the interested parties can open channels to start negotiations to try and sort out their differences and come to some sort of peace agreement.
As Israel, backed by America, is the overweening military power in the region, it is beholden to halt its war machine to at least give this alternative a chance, and America as its backer should be telling it in no uncertain terms to do so – now.
It is simply illogical, unacceptable and deceitful to claim that you will only stop fighting if someone else comes in to stand between you and your enemies.
Does this mean Israel can no longer defend her borders, even with her mighty American-supplied arsenal?
Or does she expect the rest of the world to go in and suffer the consequences for Israel’s acts of aggression in the region, while she walks away, abrogates all blame for her part in creating the past five decades of instability in the Middle East while continuing to refuse to recognise her neighbours as human beings with equal rights?
Israel’s past and present treatment of the Palestinians is a case in point, as we learn that over the weekend, her armed forces arrested the speaker of the Palestinian government without giving any reason, but we assume because he is critical of Israeli treatment of his people.
Israel must learn to live with those around her, as they must and have learned to live with her.
A first step would be to stop killing people.

No! I can’t see Ireland rushing to help out.

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapter 7: Vs 14

"They have blown the trumpet, even to make all ready; but none goeth to the battle: for my wrath is upon all the multitude thereof."

Ezekiel did not like the Israelies much, at all. He even likened them to scum at one point.