Israel’s decision to back the deployment of an international stabilisation force in southern Lebanon may prove a crucial part of the peace jigsaw. But it also suits Israel’s changing objectives.

At one time, it strongly resisted any attempt to “internationalise” its conflicts with its neighbours. Yet as the costs of occupation have risen, Israel has increasingly sought outside help in restraining and containing its enemies beyond unilaterally demarcated borders. Since 9/11, its leaders have been remarkably successful in portraying its struggles as part of the global “war on terror”.

Last year’s Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was underwritten in part by EU border monitors deployed along the border with Egypt. Part of the current problem in southern Lebanon stems from the failure of yet another international force, the UN’s Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), created in 1978, to prevent continuing hostilities after Israel’s 2000 withdrawal. One option now is to expand UNIFIL, raise the calibre of its troops, and give it a more robust peace enforcement mandate. But that could increase the strain on global UN peacekeeping operations.

Few analysts believe the largely Shia Lebanese army has the capability or the willpower for the job. So other options include a NATO-led force, although the US will not send troops and the alliance has its hands full in Afghanistan; or an EU force under UN auspices, which Israeli officials say is their preference. Britain and Germany have already said they will not contribute soldiers.

France, Italy and Greece have indicated they will contribute. So, too, has Turkey. But Romano Prodi, Italy’s prime minister, says 10,000 troops are needed — a tall order for Brussels given its Balkan commitments. Israel clearly sees an opportunity to have crack international troops pick up the security burden on both the Lebanese and Syrian sides of its borders. In

this way, the international community is effectively co-opted.

“It doesn’t matter who runs the mission,” said Shimon Peres, Israel’s deputy PM. “It’s just important that the mission is accomplished as long as the border is cleared of Hizbullah missile-launching pads.” Israel’s ability to persuade less experienced outside interlocutors to adopt its aims and objectives was evident in remarks by foreign office minister Kim Howells, who visited Amman the other day.

“Hizbullah has to either be persuaded or forced to give up its arms and start behaving like a democratic organisation within a democratic Lebanon,” he said.

But who or what can disarm or even deter Hizbullah in future remains unclear. Even the most sympathetic European countries do not want to do Israel’s fighting for it.

Neither, for all its rhetoric, does the US. Hizbullah has its tail up right now. It has warned that the fight would continue until “no place is safe” for Israelis. Its statements suggest it would not shy away from an Iraq-style insurgency.

Without a negotiated settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict any international force may be on a hiding to nothing. Expect protracted negotiations over composition and rules of engagement and long delays before full deployment. A fudge cannot be ruled out, once the political pressure eases. — The Guardian