The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) appears to be hurrying up its grinding ground offensive in Southern Lebanon. Commando units have been deployed in Tyre and other cities in quick insertions clearly intended to decapitate the Hezbollah. The bombing has been as intense as it was in the first week of this war.
Until the last weekend, it was clear the Hezbollah still has some fight left in it. The terrorist group still sends in up to 200 rockets into Israel, hitting no target in particular and killing at random.
The main item that could bring the bloodshed to a halt is a UN Security Council resolution commanding the warring parties to submit to a ceasefire and committing the deployment of a "robust" coalition force to the Lebanon-Israel border. Serious differences between the US and the UK on one hand, and France, on the other, prevented early Security Council action on the crisis.
France wanted an immediate call for a ceasefire and the possible insertion of the peacekeeping force only after a ceasefire is put into effect. The US and the UK insist that such a move will not produce a sustainable peace. They believe that there should be stronger international enforcement of an earlier UN resolution calling for the disarming of the Hezbollah.
Clearly, the Lebanese government could not be relied upon to enforce the disarmament of the terrorist group. It has failed to do so in the past. Today, the elected government of Lebanon has significant Hezbollah presence.
Although it is clear that both Syria and Iran provide the Hezbollah with arms and money, neither has officially acknowledged that. Neither now appears willing to share responsibility for the terrorist group’s actions and to accept a role in enforcing the peace in the area.
Syria did go through the motions of putting her military on combat footing. That is not a credible gesture, however. All military strategists know that once she begins moving her armor towards the common borders, Israel’s overwhelming air superiority will destroy it – as was done repeatedly in past wars.
Other than sponsoring large rallies in their respective capitals, where the rhetoric of hate is spewed in great abundance, the neighboring Arab governments were not prepared either to help the Hezbollah survive militarily nor to help the Lebanese win a ceasefire through concerted diplomacy.
The only country, so far, that has committed troops to a probable peacekeeping force is Malaysia. All the Arab leaders just seem to be grumbling in their corners.
The urgent task of finding a formula that would end this war falls on the laps of Western governments – even if these same governments have been the targets of hateful agitation in the Arab world as well as the actual targets of terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.
Among the Western governments, France ought to have the greatest sense of responsibility over the fate of Lebanon. The two countries share much historical affinity.
At this point, it should be clear to Paris that neither Israel, nor the US nor the UK will agree to a ceasefire that papers over the basic issue in this conflict: the ballooning of a terrorist force on Israel’s border, capable of launching thousands of rockets on her population centers. That terrorist force is acting as proxy of the radical government in power in Tehran, one obsessed with the destruction of the Jewish state.
Reports over the weekend indicate that France is coming closer to the more strategic view held by her allies. It should be fairly obvious that the longer she holds out, the greater the destruction Lebanon will endure. That could bring about a Security Council resolution by today.
Israel, understandably, will try to mount last-minute efforts to destroy as much of the Hezbollah stockpile as they could before a UN-mandated ceasefire takes effect.
The most important thing, however, is that a ceasefire appears close at hand.
Why am I discussing these things?
Well, the greater possibility of an impending ceasefire over the next few days will have direct implications on our frantic efforts to evacuate our workers in Lebanon.
Over the last few days, the opposition, ever in search of an issue, criticized our evacuation efforts as being too little and too late – especially after Israel bombed the escape route to Syria after Damascus began rattling its rusty saber. That, of course, assumes we had a wealth of options for our workers in Lebanon.
Unfortunately, Lebanon is half a world away. The Israeli offensive surprised everybody, including our own authorities.
Those who criticize the repatriation effort imagine it was a simply thing to send in a ship and take out our workers. The other countries who sent in ships were taking out their nationals who had come in as tourists. Our nationals are spread out, 90 percent of them domestic helpers. They had to individually sort out their options and seek the consent of their employers. Some, as we know, had to mount daring escapes.
If we set a ship to sail from Manila, it would take half a month to get to Lebanon. If we hired a ship from nearby Lebanon, we were not sure how many passengers we would have. Our workers trickled in, a few by the day. They were taken out a few by the day.
That was just how our people on the ground could operate – even if they had millions of dollars in their hands. It would have been imprudent to hire a cruise ship and end up with no passengers.
The worst scenario for our workers, of course, is a continuation and escalation of hostilities. Syria could have lost its sense of proportion and sent in an army, forcing the Israelis to escalate bombardment of bridges and other transport facilities.
With a UN resolution apparently under way, we can expect things to taper down. We might yet survive this war with no casualties – save for the two Filipina domestics who fell to their deaths escaping from inhuman employers.