Turks comment on possible Lebanon role

[verte76]

I think this is interesting. I wonder if the Shi'ite Muslims of Lebanon would have trouble with the Sunni Turks myself. Article is cut and paste due to registration requirements.

Turkish troops in Lebanon force: a matter for debate
Monday, August 14, 2006


Pro-Israeli commentators in Washington advocate a leading role for Turkish troops with others expressing concern, while in Turkey Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül emphasizes Turkey’s stance of sending peacekeepers to Lebanon only after a full cease-fire is achieved

ÜMİT ENGİNSOY

WASHİNGTON/ANKARA - Turkish Daily News


While Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül has reiterated that Ankara would look favorably on sending peacekeepers to southern Lebanon only after a full cease-fire was achieved, Turkey's expected participation in an international peacekeeping force is a matter of debate on the international platform.

Ariel Cohen, a Middle East and Russia specialist at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, and Gal Luft, a former Israeli army officer and director of the Institute for Analysis of Global Security in Washington, said Turkey was the best choice to lead the international Lebanon force, although diplomats suggest that France is likely to take up the force's command. But Rory Miller, a senior lecturer at King's College in London, said Turkey's participation in the force could cause a backlash because of sectarian differences between Sunni Turkish troops and the Shiite Hezbollah.

Britain's Robert Fisk, a seasoned left-wing Middle East analyst and a correspondent for The Independent, says a Turkish move to send a contingent to the Lebanon force would be “unwise.” He believes the international force plan will not work.

Meanwhile in Turkey Gül has welcomed the adoption of a U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon. “What matters now is implementation of this significant decision,” he told reporters yesterday.

“Troops will be deployed there not for enforcing peace but for keeping peace,” he emphasized, reiterating Turkey's stance of sending peacekeepers to Lebanon after a full cease-fire is achieved and the mandate of the U.N. force is clearly defined.

 

[JCR]

This is worrisome. I tend to think Fisk is correcto mundo here, but hope we're wrong. Based on the behaviour of the Sunnis and Shiite in Iraq right now, it doesn't seem likely they can fight, excuse me, keep peace--together... but then they do have their anti-semitism in common...

 

[JCR]

I find this topic quite important and relevant to our futures, so I've been reading...Reuters has a story out: "Arabs pedict guns won't be silent long in Lebanon" According to this, Hizbollah has succeeded in incorporating the Lebanese gov't with its cause. Al Jazirah is reporting that maybe now the Palestinians will be "inspired" to fight Isreal--Al Jazirah reporters, (or propagandasts?) see the resolution as a victory for Hizbollah. They see it as a "gift" from america and france, via the U.N. *I find this confusing because when america was not seeking an immediate cease-fire we were fuckin' up, but now that we are, we, and Bush are seen as handing a "victory" to the enemy.
WHich is it?
COntinuing: according to an independent Moroccan newspaper: "Despite this peace agreement just one spark would be enough to reignite the shole region." So, my question is, Will one Shi'ite turk be the match?

Oh, I also found it sadly fascinating that mothers in Palestine are naming their sons aafter the Hizbollah leader, Nasarallah (which they said means Victory to god) they are naming them Hezbollah and after the Iranian pres.
(And we Americans name our children after characters in movies--Madison comes to mind. How un-nationalist of us!!!)