Arab foreign ministers' meeting places Lebanon at the top of the agenda

The extraordinary Arab foreign ministers' meeting opening here in Beirut today was meant to send the message to the world that…

The extraordinary Arab foreign ministers' meeting opening here in Beirut today was meant to send the message to the world that the Arabs were committed to peace, Dr Selim Hoss, the Lebanese Prime Minister, told The Irish Times.

"We want peace, we want a fair and comprehensive settlement. We won't accept any unfair deal. "It is strange that the Arabs should be portrayed as the aggressors when Israel is occupying our land," he said during an interview in his small, chilly private office above his home in a modest apartment building situated at a busy junction at the heart of West Beirut.

Books and papers were neatly piled on every surface, a reminder that the mild-mannered Prime Minister was once a professor at the American University of Beirut.

The routine biannual meeting became extraordinary when it was shifted from Arab League headquarters in Cairo to Beirut and Lebanon was placed at the top of the agenda.

READ MORE

"This is the first time [the ministers] meet in Lebanon . . . The fact it is being held in Beirut is, in itself, evidence of solidarity with Lebanon," following Israel's recent air strikes against power plants.

"We expect a strong expression of support for Lebanon's demand that Israel should abide by its commitment to the 1996 ban against attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure."

Lebanon also seeks Arab backing for its three major positions. Firstly, the Arabs must recognise "the concomitance between [the Lebanese and Syrian] tracks" according to which neither side will sign an agreement with Israel unless the other is ready to do so.

Secondly, the Arabs should state that a partial pullout, leaving Israel in control of strategic pockets of Lebanese territory, was unacceptable. "This is not implementation of resolution 425, which decrees that the withdrawal should be down to the internationally recognised border," Dr Hoss stated.

"If there is no full withdrawal there is no guarantee that resistance will stop. Resistance will continue until all Lebanese territory has been liberated."

But he refused to say if the Lebanese army would deploy to the border if Israel unilaterally withdrew across the frontier without having concluded peace deals with Damascus and Beirut. "This is something we reserve until it is time to take the appropriate decisions."

The spokesman for the UN force, Mr Timor Goksel, referred to a partial Israeli withdrawal as "the doomsday option" which would put peacekeepers at risk.

Thirdly, the Arabs must insist that a "solution for the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon" must be an integral part of any settlement.

"Lebanese of all persuasions reject the resettlement of Palestinians in Lebanon because this has become a matter affecting [national] reconciliation" in the aftermath of the 15-year civil war.

He made the point that a ban against "implantation" had been incorporated into the preamble of the Lebanese constitution.

"We cannot afford to compromise over the refugees," he said.

Dr Hoss is not optimistic about the prospects for peace. "Time is short. In two, three months' time the American administration will be too busy with electioneering and the President will not be in a position to take an active part. The American role is indispensable . . . Then, Barak is not as strong as he was when he was first elected. So he is not in a position to make the concessions needed for us to make peace with Israel . . . Barak is still not spelling out clearly the imperative of withdrawing to the June 4th, 1967, line on the Syrian front . . . So the opportunity [to make peace] could be put off until [at the earliest] after the American election. But", he warned, "in the meantime God knows what will happen. It won't be in the interest of peace."