Diplomatic semantics

PRESIDENT BUSH WAS SLOW TO endorse an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon, and his explanation for the delay is hardly convincing: An earlier pronouncement would have been pointless, he said, because there was no consensus about how to deal with the “root cause” of the conflict. Yet even an “unsustainable” cease-fire a week ago could have spelled the difference between life and death for many innocent Lebanese and Israelis.

Still, those who favor a more cynical explanation -- that Washington is acting now because Hezbollah has put up unexpected resistance against the Israeli army -- should welcome the administration’s change of heart. In asking the U.N. Security Council to adopt a French-U.S. resolution calling for an immediate “cessation” of hostilities, as opposed to a “cease-fire,” Bush has regained the moral as well as the diplomatic high ground.

In an appearance Monday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the president explained that the cessation would be the first stage of a two-part process. In the first stage, the Security Council would adopt a cease-fire resolution that would also impose an embargo on the shipment of arms into Lebanon. A second resolution would provide for the deployment of the Lebanese army to the southern part of the country, where it would receive aid from an international peacekeeping force.

The challenge, and it’s a formidable one, is to persuade the government of Lebanon to endorse, or at least accept, the resolution. Theoretically, Lebanon should welcome the disarmament of Hezbollah, which has created an armed faction in southern Lebanon reminiscent of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s similar apparatus in the late 1970s and 1980s. But Beirut cannot be seen as buckling under to U.S. or Israeli pressure.

Initial criticism of the resolution by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora suggests that changes may be necessary to win Lebanon’s support. For example, the draft calls for “the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks.” But it orders Israel to stop only “offensive” operations -- a distinction that seems to create a loophole for Israel to engage in post-cease-fire operations that it could characterize as defensive.

Less valid is criticism that the cease-fire must be accompanied by the complete withdrawal of Israeli ground forces from Lebanon. After all, Hezbollah started this conflict -- after Israel withdrew from Lebanon -- and the government in Beirut was unable to restrain it. Beirut’s attitude may be changing, however. On Monday the Cabinet approved sending 15,000 troops to the south in the event of a cease-fire.

It would be in Israel’s interest to associate itself with Bush’s promise Monday that “as these Lebanese and international forces deploy, the Israeli defense forces will withdraw.” Diplomacy may yet provide Israel with the protection for its citizens that weeks of war have not achieved.