Statement of Lebanese Communist Party on cease-fire
Published Aug 15, 2006 11:23 PM
The Lebanese Communist Party, a participant in the struggle for national
defense in Lebanon against the U.S.-Israeli invasion, issued the following
analysis of the United Nations resolution for a cease fire on Aug.
14.
Will the American-Israeli aggression against Lebanon stop
after the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 1701
yesterday?
One month and a day after the start of the American- Israeli
aggression against Lebanon, after the failure of that aggression and its
inability to achieve its aims, after America’s repeated use of stalling
tactics, delaying expected sessions of the Security Council, and after numerous
American drafts that were proposed and then retouched by France, it was the
battlefield in the south of Lebanon and the noble resistance that have imposed a
new reality hitherto unknown to Israel in all its long history of battle in the
region and its many well-known wars.
After attacks and retreats in every
village in the south, after which the enemy claimed to have won some sort of
victory or achieved some goal, the dust has cleared and it is obvious that the
field is truly in the hands of the Islamic resistance that is defending,
resisting, and inflicting losses and military casualties on the occupying enemy.
This reality has exhausted America’s excuses, its store of delaying
tactics and its time. What has been taking place on the field of battle has
resulted in a growing number of splits and differences and varying
interpretations in many quarters—within Lebanon, between Israelis, between
Europe and America—it has shuffled the cards.
Diplomats worked
feverishly and intensely until the resolution was passed and announced today
against the backdrop of the decision by the Israeli government to expand the
scope of its military operations on the ground in the south up to the al-Litani
River, operations that are disconcerting militarily and politically inside
Israel. We might say that the Security Council resolution was issued so as to
allow the international community to catch its breath in the raging battle, to
allow it to make a calm reassessment, not only in terms of the latest
developments on the battlefield, but also in terms of the latest political
developments as well, and the transformations taking place there (in the Arab
states’ positions and the internal Lebanese position, for
example).
The resolution, therefore, was the result of the steadfastness
of the resistance forces and the people together. The question now is: how
seriously will it be implemented? Will it be regarded as a first step or a
temporary truce? Many questions could be raised if we look deeply into each
paragraph of the resolution that was finally issued. But it is demonstrable that
an agreement on this resolution would not have been achieved if all the means
available to Israel to change the reality on the battlefield had not been
exhausted, and if not for the changes in the positions of various parties
(France, various groups in Lebanon, the Arab states, and the change from a
stance of giving legitimacy to the aggression to one of embracing
yesterday’s Security Council resolution).
Despite that, we can see
that there are many landmines strewn about the “field” of this
resolution that does not meet the minimum Lebanese requirements as represented
by the seven points that the Lebanese government put forth unanimously, even
though parts of them were picked out and inserted.
* The agreement
excluded the demand for Israel to be brought to trial under international law
for the savagery of its aggression against the territory and people of Lebanon.
Instead, the agreement condemned Hezbollah as the instigator of the fighting,
ignoring all of Israel’s crimes and acts of aggression against
Lebanon.
* The agreement did not include a call for an immediate
cease-fire but for a cessation of military operations. This means that the door
is left open for Israel and its army to adjust themselves to the resolution and
take whatever required military steps they believe to be appropriate according
to joint Israeli-American needs.
* In the agreement America makes a
temporary tactical retreat following the failure of the aggression and its
inability to achieve its aims, in an attempt to create a situation where it can
take hold of what is going on and bring into play some of its well-known cards,
such as the Lebanese internal situation.
* The resolution ignores the
matter of the prisoners; it leaves the subject of the Shabaa Farms area outside
the discussion with the aim of possibly using that later in deals with regional
players.
* It is noteworthy that every point in the resolution that is in
the interests of Lebanon is a preparatory point, a statement about something for
which matters are to be prepared; while every point that is in the interests of
Israel is a point for actual implementation.
Much can be said about the
resolution but in any case this agreement would not have been reached had it not
been for continuing, impressive, patriotic, popular steadfastness; had it not
been for the courageous resistance that once again affirmed that Lebanon with
its patriotic and Islamic resistance and the steadfastness of its people, and
with the rallying of all the patriotic and democratic forces around the
resistance, cannot be turned into an arena for the American scheme for the
region. It will not be made into a launching point for the “New Middle
East.” Lebanon will only be a place of steadfastness, patriotism, and Arab
identity, regardless of whatever dreams some might entertain about transferring
it from the patriotic Arab shore to the American shore.
Until this moment
all the international attempts to implement the American-European resolution
1559 have failed. Equally a failure have been all attempts to achieve any of the
goals of the American-Israeli aggression other than the goal of killing the
women, children, and innocent people who paid the price for this neo-nazi
hatred. The attempts of some of the March 14 forces—including Saad
al-Hariri, who flew into Beirut on a French helicopter with American- Israeli
permission, trying to look like a political savior, spreading the notion that
the solution came as a result of his tireless efforts abroad all throughout the
period of the aggression—all that will be of no use unless we accept the
principle of a national conference on the basis that Lebanon has won a victory
over the American-Israeli scheme and we must work quickly and with all our might
to rise to the level of our responsibilities to the country to make use of this
victory politically in order to take a step forward towards the building of a
state of law and institutions, free of confessionalist political assignments and
above narrow sectarian interests.
The people and resistance of Lebanon
have displayed their mighty steel will and we must now frustrate all attempts to
gut and empty this patriotic victory of its contents on the military, political,
economic and social levels. Our central task must be to fortify and bolster
Lebanese national unity, preventing any infiltration, reinforcing the legitimate
confrontation with the on-going American-Israeli scheme against our homeland.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE