This has provided the French with political leverage against the Americans in drafting a UN ceasefire resolution, which it previously lacked over Iraq. It is affecting the US-Israeli war aims, which are to cripple or disarm Hezbollah before the fighting stops and formal negotiations begin. But the French want a cease fire first and negotiations involving Hezbollah afterwards for security reasons before introducing their own forces into the region. France, according to the report below, "calculates that Israel's military campaign is unlikely to defeat Hezbollah and fears it risks further inflaming the region and anti-Western feelings across the Muslim world. The U.S., like Israel, sees high value in damaging Hezbollah to discourage it and its supporters Iran and Syria from attacking Israel again."
Nevertheless, despite their public utterances to the contrary, Hezbollah's stubborn resistance has softened the strategic thinking of the Israelis and Americans, which is why it quite possible the differences between the allies will converge closer to the French position. If it prevails, this would be a major victory for Hezbollah because it would leave its military capabilities, unprecedented level of political prestige, and bargaining power in any subsequent negotiation intact - the best outcome it can hope for in the present circumstances.
============================================== U.N. Nears Lebanon Resolution As France, U.S. Views Coalesce
By MARC CHAMPION Wall Street Journal August 4, 2006; Page A4
The dispute between the U.S. and France over how to respond to the violence in Lebanon strongly echoes the leadup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But France's role is radically different this time, helping to explain why agreement on a United Nations Security Council resolution for Lebanon is in sight.
Yesterday, as in the last go-round, French and American diplomats were dueling over the text of a draft U.N. resolution in New York. And now, as then, French officials from President Jacques Chirac on down have been attacking Washington's policy toward the region, saying the U.S. is too reliant on military might and unrealistic in its efforts to reshape the Middle East. The two countries also still profoundly disagree on the value of military action in the region.
This time, however, diplomats on both sides of the French-American divide are confident they can agree on a U.N. resolution quickly. Officials and regional analysts cite three main reasons for this: First, the aim of a resolution this time is to stop, rather than start, a war. Second, France and the U.S. agree on the end goal in Lebanon -- a strong elected government and a disarmed Hezbollah. Finally, this time it is France, not the U.S., that is proposing to put its own troops on the ground.
"I think we have an understanding" on key elements, though full agreement might take a few days more, said French Ambassador to the U.N. Jean-Marc de La Sablière, before heading into negotiations yesterday with his U.S. counterpart, John Bolton.
There are other important differences from the Iraq dispute. France enjoyed close ties with Saddam Hussein's regime, but recent French history in Lebanon is as poisoned as that of the U.S. In 1983, Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim suicide bombers killed 58 French peacekeepers in Lebanon, as well as 241 Americans. France retaliated by bombing a Hezbollah camp, and under the name of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah went on to target the French embassy in Kuwait and passenger trains in France. France's draft Security Council resolution includes a requirement that all militias in Lebanon be disarmed, which is also a key U.S. goal.
Mr. Chirac has if anything been more outspoken than the U.S. in accusing Iran of arming and directing Hezbollah in the current conflict, and in criticizing Syria for its continued meddling in Lebanese affairs. Syria is widely believed to have been behind last year's assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a personal friend of Mr. Chirac. That is one reason that, until the current outbreak of hostilities, France and the U.S. worked closely to get Syrian troops out of Lebanon and develop the country's newly elected leadership.
In Iraq, France was trying to block any military action, but this time it is the French and other Europeans who are planning to contribute troops as part of an international stabilization force. That puts Paris in a much stronger negotiating position, because the U.S. needs French troops in Lebanon.
According to diplomats familiar with the U.N. negotiations, the talks are based on a French draft text, a new version of which was circulated to the 15 Security Council members Wednesday night. The U.S. is seeking amendments after dropping plans to propose its own draft. Diplomats said a key disagreement over whether to demand a halt to fighting before a political settlement or at the same time has been largely resolved. Still in dispute is when an international force should be inserted -- the U.S. wants it right away, France only after a political settlement and permanent cease-fire have been agreed by Israel and the Lebanese government, in which Hezbollah participates.
U.S. officials say they are close to final agreement with France on a hybrid approach combining elements of both strategies that U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has been negotiating with his French counterpart since Monday.
A diplomat from one of the European nations involved in the Security Council talks said they center on a dual approach, in which Israel and Hezbollah would first agree to a temporary cessation of hostilities to allow the deployment of a small, rapid-reaction peacekeeping force to southern Lebanon. After the "tip of the spear" was on the ground, the diplomat said, a much larger group of international troops would be sent to Lebanon with a mandate to implement the formal cease-fire agreement and create the buffer zone that Israel has demanded as a condition for ending its three-week-old assault on Hezbollah.
The debate over when to call a cease-fire lies at the heart of one enduring U.S.-French division that carries over from Iraq: the utility of waging war. France calculates that Israel's military campaign is unlikely to defeat Hezbollah and fears it risks further inflaming the region and anti-Western feelings across the Muslim world. The U.S., like Israel, sees high value in damaging Hezbollah to discourage it and its supporters Iran and Syria from attacking Israel again.
"France sees Lebanon as an end in itself, while the U.S. tends to see it through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Iran-Syria axis," says Olivier Roy, director of research at the Paris-based National Center for Scientific Research.
Also holding up agreement at the U.N. are some elements of a proposed political settlement, including whether to refer to Lebanese prisoners held by Israel and whether to include a demand for a settlement of Lebanon's borders with Syria and Israel. That explicitly includes Shebaa Farms, an area that Lebanon claims, Israel occupies and the U.N. says belongs to Syria. Both of these points are in the French draft, and both are opposed by the U.S., diplomats say.
Meanwhile, fighting continued with expanded Israeli attacks and 160 rockets launched by Hezbollah at Israel Thursday. In interviews published Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there should be no "time gap" between Israeli troops leaving southern Lebanon and a multinational force being deployed there. The Israelis' concern is that as soon as they withdraw, Hezbollah will reoccupy the territory unless there is a third force to fill the vacuum.
Mr. Olmert said he expects the Security Council to adopt a cease-fire resolution "sometime next week" but that the end of the war depends on how quickly the international force could be deployed.