LAT: U.S. Now Supports (UN-proposed Lebanon) Buffer

[DeepModem Mom]

U.S. Now Supports a Buffer
The White House seeks a beefed-up multinational military presence on Lebanon's border with Israel. Arms monitors also would be deployed.
By Paul Richter and Laura King, Times Staff Writers
July 20, 2006

WASHINGTON — Although wary of multinational peacekeeping operations, the Bush administration is working with allies to find a way to insert a robust military force and a civilian international presence in Lebanon to strengthen the frail government and break the grip of Hezbollah, U.S. and foreign diplomats say.

The peacekeepers would be positioned along Lebanon's southern border in an effort to prevent future Hezbollah attacks on Israel, whereas the civilian officials would be scattered elsewhere in the Arab country, including at key entry points, to halt the flow of military equipment from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah, the officials say.

First proposed by the United Nations, the international peacekeeping effort has become the focal point of American diplomacy, which has been limited since fighting broke out a week ago between Israel and Hezbollah.

Diplomats say they believe that there is significant support among some European and Arab governments for mobilizing a strong international presence in Lebanon to help end a confrontation that otherwise could bleed the region.

At the same time, such a plan would not take effect overnight. Israeli officials have said they plan to continue their offensive indefinitely, and the United States, Israel's most powerful ally, has made it clear that it opposes an immediate cease-fire....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-buffer20jul20,0,5443283.story?coll=la-home-world

[Ian David]

1. This sounds like it might be a good idea, but I'm not sure. n/t

[MADem]

2. Well, yeah, we always approved it, but we weren't going to say that

until the arsenals in Lebanon were cut down to size a bit.

[daleo]

3. To be fair, observers should be on both sides of the border

And the buffer zone should extend equal distances into Israeli and Lebanese territory. They are both small countries, so it would be equitable if each lost a sliver of territory to a new "no man's land".

[underpants]

4. Flllllllllip

FLOP

[whosinpower]

5. my idea on the situation -

10 km of Lebanon and 10 km of Israel - to be a buffer zone occupied by a strong international presence.

We cannot expect Lebanon to disarm hizbollah without aggressively attacking what makes hizbollah strong. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of peace, that the international community work hard to ensure that Lebanon is a free, prosperous nation. Give them jobs instead of guns. Give them hope for a better future and they will reject Hizbollah.

Also - acknowledge that Hizbollah must release the Israeli soldiers.
Israel to recompense Lebanon for its destruction of critical infrastructure.
Hizbollah to recompense Israel for its destruction on Israeli soil.

And have the three parties sit down and hammer out a peace treaty and do not allow any party to withdraw from the negotiating table. All three of them. That is correct. Even Hizbollah. We must allow them a voice. All three parties will have to give up something to further the peace agreement - and these negotiations must be open and transparent. Put all complaints on the table - all of them.

I'd much rather see them talking than lobbing bombs at each other - even if the discussions are painful and uncomfortable.

Of course, none of this will happen. Because the current Israeli leaders have a neocon agenda and they are using this to get Syria and Iran overthrown. And you only have to look to Iraq to see how that would pan out for westerners.

[lyonn]

6. This sounds good and doable

Now if we had a Clinton as president to help with the negotiations it Might work.

Hizbolla is part of the national terrorist problem that bush ignored and decided to play war with Iraq which was a little player in the terror game. Looks like we are back, hopefully, to square one where the fundie Muslims are seen as the problem, not a country.

This fiasco just proves to small countries that they need the nukes to ward off war. Lebanon, Iraq are two examples, no nukes, they get bombed! N. Korea gets a pass. What kind of world policy is this?

[David__77]

7. Not a good idea.

It unfairly targets Lebanese sovereignty. What about Israel?