So much for my rose tinted wish-list on who should keep the peace in Lebanon.

The Economist weighs in on the nature of the peacekeeping force:

Behind the scenes, France is emerging as the lead nation in the scheme (see article). Turkey, which has longstanding relations with Israel, may be a leading contributor too, putting a Muslim face on the peacekeeping force.

So a new UN force in Lebanon may risk looking like a Frankenstein’s monster, with French leadership, a mandate from the UN, Muslim legitimacy from Turkey, logistical support from NATO, and money and diplomatic backing from the United States and Britain. In any event, a plan has yet to be agreed that would either disarm Hizbullah or fold its militia into Lebanon’s official army. No country sounds keen to tell its troops to fire on Hizbullah if it disobeys. A UN official says that this question must be settled before an international force can be agreed upon.

Two comments:

I think this whole “Moslem Legitimacy” that the Turkish Army supposedly grants the force is a farce. Doesn’t everyone know that the Turkish army is the upholder of the secular regime in Turkey? The Turkish army protects Turkish nationalism by heavy-handedly suppressing all signs of religiosity in public offices. How are they supposed to grant the peacekeepers so-called Moslem legitimacy? The Turks can come but stop insulting our intelligence.

Don’t mess with the French. The French might have a reputation for fine wine and sophisticated cuisine, but they are ruthless on the peacekeeping front.
The French peacekeepers are preventing the two parts of Ivory Coast (The Northern Moslems and the Southern Christians) from getting at each other’s throats (something similar to what it would be required to do in Lebanon). When an Ivorian bomber “accidentally” killed nine French soldiers, the peacekeepers bombed and destroyed the entire Ivorian Air-force.

(Comments are moderated. A free exchange of ideas is welcome, but some comments will be removed. please read policy here. If your comment does not immediately show, it’s probably because I haven’t read it yet or because it doesn’t comply with the policy, please wait and don’t re-post.)

So much for my rose tinted wish-list on who should keep the peace in Lebanon.

The Economist weighs in on the nature of the peacekeeping force:

Behind the scenes, France is emerging as the lead nation in the scheme (see article). Turkey, which has longstanding relations with Israel, may be a leading contributor too, putting a Muslim face on the peacekeeping force.

So a new UN force in Lebanon may risk looking like a Frankenstein’s monster, with French leadership, a mandate from the UN, Muslim legitimacy from Turkey, logistical support from NATO, and money and diplomatic backing from the United States and Britain. In any event, a plan has yet to be agreed that would either disarm Hizbullah or fold its militia into Lebanon’s official army. No country sounds keen to tell its troops to fire on Hizbullah if it disobeys. A UN official says that this question must be settled before an international force can be agreed upon.

Two comments:

I think this whole “Moslem Legitimacy” that the Turkish Army supposedly grants the force is a farce. Doesn’t everyone know that the Turkish army is the upholder of the secular regime in Turkey? The Turkish army protects Turkish nationalism by heavy-handedly suppressing all signs of religiosity in public offices. How are they supposed to grant the peacekeepers so-called Moslem legitimacy? The Turks can come but stop insulting our intelligence.

Don’t mess with the French. The French might have a reputation for fine wine and sophisticated cuisine, but they are ruthless on the peacekeeping front.
The French peacekeepers are preventing the two parts of Ivory Coast (The Northern Moslems and the Southern Christians) from getting at each other’s throats (something similar to what it would be required to do in Lebanon). When an Ivorian bomber “accidentally” killed nine French soldiers, the peacekeepers bombed and destroyed the entire Ivorian Air-force.

(Comments are moderated. A free exchange of ideas is welcome, but some comments will be removed. please read policy here. If your comment does not immediately show, it’s probably because I haven’t read it yet or because it doesn’t comply with the policy, please wait and don’t re-post.)

Just now, Israel bombed 4 important bridges that link Beirut to North Lebanon. I used 3 of them just Yesterday

The bombing targeted two bridges in Maameltein, one in Batroon and one in Halet.
I actually used 3 of those bridges when I took my fiancé to Jounieh yesterday. I could have been killed like that family that was in a car and fell in the hole formed in the Batroun bridge.

Land access to Beirut from the North is now completely destroyed.

For the record, those bridges link the Sunni North to the Christian Center of Lebanon. There are no Hezbollah supporters whatsoever in those areas.

This proves the point that Israel is using Hezbollah as an excuse to destroy Lebanon.

(Comments are moderated. A free exchange of ideas is welcome, but some comments will be removed. please read policy here. If your comment does not immediately show, it’s probably because I haven’t read it yet or because it doesn’t comply with the policy, please wait and don’t re-post.)

Just now, Israel bombed 4 important bridges that link Beirut to North Lebanon. I used 3 of them just Yesterday

The bombing targeted two bridges in Maameltein, one in Batroon and one in Halet.
I actually used 3 of those bridges when I took my fiancé to Jounieh yesterday. I could have been killed like that family that was in a car and fell in the hole formed in the Batroun bridge.

Land access to Beirut from the North is now completely destroyed.

For the record, those bridges link the Sunni North to the Christian Center of Lebanon. There are no Hezbollah supporters whatsoever in those areas.

This proves the point that Israel is using Hezbollah as an excuse to destroy Lebanon.

(Comments are moderated. A free exchange of ideas is welcome, but some comments will be removed. please read policy here. If your comment does not immediately show, it’s probably because I haven’t read it yet or because it doesn’t comply with the policy, please wait and don’t re-post.)

The countries that the Lebanese most trust for peacekeeping in Southern Lebanon are Canada, Brazil and Japan.

No matter how this crisis ends, there will be without doubt some kind of peacekeeping force that will assist the Lebanese army in the south of Lebanon. Here are my ten cents on why they should be Canadian, Brazilian and Japanese.

We won’t trust the neighboring countries to send their soldiers because they might never leave. This discounts Syria and Jordan. Turkey brings ugly colonial memories, so they are out too (sorry, I know you want the job, but we’re not comfortable with it). The Arab countries and Iran are too involved and partial. Sub-Saharan Africans won’t scare anybody (with my deepest respect to Ghanaian peacekeepers in the UNIFIL).

The force should have unanimous support from the Lebanese people; this immediately discounts Israel, the US and the UK. France is admired by some Lebanese (The Maronites and the Sunnis), but to others (like President Emile Lahhoud and the Shiaas) it represents a colonial past and is an unwelcome influence. Spain and Italy are too Catholic, Germany still needs time before it could send soldiers abroad, the Scandinavians and the Swiss are too pacifist, Eastern Europe is too pro-American.

The Russians are too eager to spite the Americans and the Chinese are too willing to bargain for oil. Besides, both are too heavy-handed. Pakistan is too Muslim and India is too anti-Muslim. Australia is too pro-American and New Zealand is too far. Argentina has a history with Hezbollah and Venezuela is too anti-American. Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile are too poor.

Which brings us to the most trusted, most independent countries in Lebanese eyes: Brazil, Canada and Japan.

Aside from the Soccer fans who raised Brazilian flags all over the country during the world-cup, Brazil has the right mixture of independence, thirld-worldism and clout. It also helps that Brazil has more Lebanese descendents than Lebanon itself.

Canada is the most respected and neutral country in Lebanese eyes. I remember once going to the south, in a Hezbollah controlled area. There was a hotel that wanted to portray an international image; so it raised the Canadian flag next to the Iranian, Saudi and Syrian flags. Canada has been very sympathetic to Lebanese Immigrants and Canadian Universities are having special measures to help Lebanese students follow their studies there. There are no Lebanese who consider Canadians their enemies.

Japan is associated here with nothing but hi-tech, robots and gizmos. A peacekeeping force will definitely need assistance with their computers and laser-guided missiles. The sushi (which we’re beginning to terribly miss here) will be a plus.

The countries that the Lebanese most trust for peacekeeping in Southern Lebanon are Canada, Brazil and Japan.

No matter how this crisis ends, there will be without doubt some kind of peacekeeping force that will assist the Lebanese army in the south of Lebanon. Here are my ten cents on why they should be Canadian, Brazilian and Japanese.

We won’t trust the neighboring countries to send their soldiers because they might never leave. This discounts Syria and Jordan. Turkey brings ugly colonial memories, so they are out too (sorry, I know you want the job, but we’re not comfortable with it). The Arab countries and Iran are too involved and partial. Sub-Saharan Africans won’t scare anybody (with my deepest respect to Ghanaian peacekeepers in the UNIFIL).

The force should have unanimous support from the Lebanese people; this immediately discounts Israel, the US and the UK. France is admired by some Lebanese (The Maronites and the Sunnis), but to others (like President Emile Lahhoud and the Shiaas) it represents a colonial past and is an unwelcome influence. Spain and Italy are too Catholic, Germany still needs time before it could send soldiers abroad, the Scandinavians and the Swiss are too pacifist, Eastern Europe is too pro-American.

The Russians are too eager to spite the Americans and the Chinese are too willing to bargain for oil. Besides, both are too heavy-handed. Pakistan is too Muslim and India is too anti-Muslim. Australia is too pro-American and New Zealand is too far. Argentina has a history with Hezbollah and Venezuela is too anti-American. Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile are too poor.

Which brings us to the most trusted, most independent countries in Lebanese eyes: Brazil, Canada and Japan.

Aside from the Soccer fans who raised Brazilian flags all over the country during the world-cup, Brazil has the right mixture of independence, thirld-worldism and clout. It also helps that Brazil has more Lebanese descendents than Lebanon itself.

Canada is the most respected and neutral country in Lebanese eyes. I remember once going to the south, in a Hezbollah controlled area. There was a hotel that wanted to portray an international image; so it raised the Canadian flag next to the Iranian, Saudi and Syrian flags. Canada has been very sympathetic to Lebanese Immigrants and Canadian Universities are having special measures to help Lebanese students follow their studies there. There are no Lebanese who consider Canadians their enemies.

Japan is associated here with nothing but hi-tech, robots and gizmos. A peacekeeping force will definitely need assistance with their computers and laser-guided missiles. The sushi (which we’re beginning to terribly miss here) will be a plus.