Israel drops call for immediate deployment of int'l force in S. Lebanon, U

[bemildred]

Israel has lifted its demand for the deployment of a new multinational force in southern Lebanon and agreed that UNIFIL, the United Nations force already in place, would oversee the cease-fire.

In a draft text for a UN Security Council resolution on ending the crisis in Lebanon, agreed Saturday by the United States and France, it was concluded that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon would be replaced by a new force only after Israel and Lebanon reach agreement on the principles of a long-term accord.

In the immediate future, UNIFIL will be reinforced with more troops in order to be able to carry out its new mandate.

Initially Israel opposed the expansion of UNIFIL's role and asked that it be replaced, arguing that to date its performance was poor and its troops did not prevent terrorist attacks.

Haaretz

[Kagemusha]

1. I saw a Ha'aretz comment that said...

A UN force should protect Israel not only from terrorist attacks, but from ALL attacks.

...and I'm like, do they have any concept of what the UN is? ...and I realized, no. If it doesn't exist solely to protect Israel it is worthless to them. While I can understand that thinking, I can also recognize it as very narrow-minded.

By the way, this concession to have UNIFIL involved is... rather stunning.

[bemildred]

2. UNFIL does not exist to protect anybody. They are observers. nt

[Kagemusha]

3. Yes, you'd think people would understand that.

But Israel says so often how UNIFIL is a failure because it doesn't militarily engage Hezbollah (as if that was its purpose) that people read that and think, gee that's so terrible, UNIFIL isn't doing its job! (Job according to what Israel would prefer it to be, not what it is)

[Briar]

34. Indeed

they can't even protect themselves, not even against the self-designated and oh so civilised "only democracy in the region". Which plainly doesn't not respect the UN nor its observers.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Not surprising

The key will be if requirement that Hezbollah disarms is retained. If it is, Hezbollah will never agree. If it is not, it will not get through the UNSC (and rightfully so). If have no confidence in Nasrallah to do the right thing passed on his past statements and actions

[mike_c]

8. any call for Hiz'bullah's disarmament should be matched...

...by a requirement that Israel disarm. I mean, if the resolution is going to be a fairy tale....

[Solo_in_MD]

11. The IDF is the national army of Israel while Hezbollah is an illegal

militia that have been disavowed by the Lebanese national government and has already been ordered to disarm by the UNSC

[mike_c]

14. but it is nonetheless the primary opponent in the field...

...and if it demands Israel's disarmament in return for reciprocity, there will be no cease fire. At the end of the day, Israel and Hiz'bollah are the only brokers at the table with real power because they are the only ones with their fingers on the trigger.

Hiz'bollah is PART of the Lebanese gov't-- where did you get the impression that they'd been "disavowed" by Lebanon?

[Solo_in_MD]

21. The Lebanese government has called for Hezbollah to disarm for years

and did not support their harrassment of Israel. They have also said they do not support the rocket attacks. Remember that there is a Sinn Fien/IRA duality at work here. The part that has been denounced is the militia and its actions.

[mike_c]

24. my point remains-- dismissing or minimizing Hiz'bollah...

...as an "illegal militia" is a mistake-- they are the other 600 pound gorilla in the room.

[scarletwoman]

26. Well, the UN has called on Hizballah to disarm, not so sure that the

Lebanese government has been all that adament about it. Remember, the Syrians (and their military) just left last year, the Lebanese government was just getting starting pulling itself together before all this started.

You also have to remember that Lebanon's civil war wasn't ended all that long ago. From what I've been reading, the Lebanese people really don't want to return to that kind of suicidal factionalism, and pushing too hard on the Hizballah military wing has felt a bit dangerous.

The Lebanese Shi'a, traditionally somewhat downtrodden, for whom Hizballah is both political representation and protector in the South, makes up about 40% of the population. Moving too strongly against Hizballah could open up old sectarian wounds that have only just started to heal.

I think that's why no particularily strenuous effort has been made to disarm the military wing. The fact is, Hizballah has actually been a success story in it's evolution toward legitimate political participation.

sw

[daydreamer]

51. I wouldn't call fighting against occupation "harrassment".

[FlavaKreemSnak]

30. But that is just the point of view of America and Israel

You might find people in the Middle East that would say that America and Israel are illegal militias and so are the governments there. So it is easy to say, well but only the opinion of America and Israel counts because they have more bombs and more money. But unless the other side agrees with that, you probably won't get a cease fire. And the other side is probably going to want one that is equal in both directions, but if you look at the one they are talking about today, it says that Israel can bomb if Hezbollah shoots a rocket, but Hezbollah is not allowed to shoot a rocket even if Israel bombs. So this is naturally going to sound better to America and Israel than it will to Hezbollah and all the people who will be getting hit by the bombs!

[bvar22]

45. If you look at the timelines,

the rocket firings from Hizbollah have been in response to and in proportion to Israeli attacks.
The rocket firings started after Israeli attacks. As the # of Israeli attacks increased, the # of Rocket Firings increased. During a minor lull of Israeli attacks (10 days ago?) and a withdrawal if Israeli forces, the rocket firings decreased. American Media speculated that Hizbollah had "shot their wad" and that the Israeli bombings were having an effect. When Israel renewed their bombings with a vengeance, Hizbollah renewed the rocket attacks with a record # of firings.

[Porcupine]

37. Says who they're illegal? The US and Israel? Some credibility

they have there. That charge just doesn't fly with the majority of the regions populace. Call them terrorists and drug dealers next; that'll make them go away. Hezzbollah survives with the acceptance and support of the surrounding populace.

Name calling just exposes your prejudice.

[LivingInTheBubble]

50. Hezbollah are part of the lebanese goverment.

Ever heard of democracy?

They were created as a resistance movement that successfully fought against Israels long occupation.

[TomInTib]

5. Bullshit begets more bullshit

Those guys aren't leaving.

We have opened a door that will never be closed.

[scarletwoman]

6. Lebanon is right to reject this. Unless it calls for a withdrawal of IDF

from Lebanon's sovereign territory, it's a farce.

sw

[bemildred]

7. Isn't it interesting that Dolton and France are good friends on this?

The former bitter foes in the runup to the Iraq invasion?
Doing their best to construct a fig-leaf for Olmert?

Who would have predicted a few weeks ago that Israel would be struggling to keep an occupation force in S. Lebanon? So Olmert won't be left with nothing as a result of his war?

[scarletwoman]

9. I've just been reading Billmon's take -- check it out

The Portmanteau Resolution

It's difficult to know exactly what to make of the proposed UN Security Council resolution the Anglos and the French have finally managed to hammer out -- in part because it's really two resolutions jammed together in one.

<snip>

The first resolution... appears to be basically a ceasefire in place dressed up with some artful language to make it sound like the Israelis and Hizbullah are not being placed on an equal footing, even though they are. This part of the resolution calls for:

A full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.

An immediate ceasefire in place, without preconditions, is what the French and the rest of the world have been begging for since the war started, while Bush and his British butler have been holding out for a "comprehensive" or "lasting" ceasefire with many preconditions, including the disarming of Hezbollah and extension of Lebanese government authority and Lebanese army control to southern Lebanon.

The first part of the resolution contains none of these supposedly indispensable conditions. It appears to call quite clearly for an immediate cessation of hostilities on both sides -- although with slightly different phrasing applied to each. It's not clear to me whether this word play is simply a fig leaf to try to obscure the fact that the resolution essentially treats Hizbullah as a legitimate combatant, or whether it's some sort of loophole designed to allow the IDF to continue its "offensive operations" while the Israelis and the Cheney administration pretend that they've been halted.

(DO read the rest!)

You'll notice (and appreciate, I imagine) that Billmon uses the phrase "fig leaf", too!

I'm thinking that "Dolton" (as you so rightly call him) is like any blowhard bully. Maybe if you stand up to him and refuse to take his sh*t, he's actually reduced to a few high-pitched whimpers. Maybe that's what France did.

What I'm really finding interesting -- in a nasty schadenfreude kind of way -- is that it really sort of looks like Israel is conceding that it's not going to be able win this one militarily. Why else are they suddenly backing down and saying, "Hey, we're cool with UNIFIL, bring 'em on"?

But more from Billmon:

There appears to be some hope, at least among the French, that the Iranians might pressure Sheikh Nasrallah into playing ball, but at this point Tehran looks almost as ineffectual and out of touch as Shrub. Other than sending their own dimwit of a president out to opine that the solution to the crisis is to drive Israel into the sea (bin Laden: Damn, why didn't I think of that?) the Iranians are keeping their heads well down.

Whether that's because the Iranians believe a continuation of the fighting serves their interests, or because they really have very little influence over their Lebanese proteges at this point, I don't know. But either way I think it's pretty daft to expect Tehran to bail the Olmert government out of the jam it's created for itself. (my emphasis)

Fun stuff, eh? :eyes:

sw

[bemildred]

13. Thank you, that is interesting.

I assume all the stuff in the second part is mush-mouth talk, as he suggests.

I am assuming for the moment that Nasrallah is in no hurry, as Billmon considers at the end. He appears to be in a better position to wait things out.

I had not considered that Nasrallah might like a cease-fire in place, but that seems plausible the way Billmon explains it.

I was thinking that Olmert would in due course have to withdraw rather than stay, bleed, and continue to look vincible; and that Nasrallah would want to wait it out to get the withdrawal, but perhaps not.

I had not considered the notion he raises that it treats Hizbullah as a legit combatant, and do not know if I agree. It is an interesting point of view. The muslim stories I have read tend to treat that language difference as a loophole for the IDF to continue operations while Hizbullah is required to stop, and also reiterate a demand for withdrawal of troops as a precondition of a cease fire. I can't say I see how to choose between those two views as to what that language "means".

It does seems important to me that all the important stuff other than a cease fire is shoved off into a second phase to be negotiated later. So it could amount to as litte as a chance for everybody to take a breather and reload.

It will be interesting to see if it gets any traction in the UNSC, too.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I don't think Iran tells Nasrallah what to do much.

[scarletwoman]

22. You're very welcome. I love Billmon, I think he has a very keen sense of

things.

I really hope that this can amount to more than "everybody just tak(ing) a breather and reload(ing)", but I'm not all that optimistic just yet.

What might be the clincher is if the pressure builds up within Israel to not let this go on much farther. Do the citizens of Israel REALLY want to do another military occupation of Lebanon? I'm kind of suspecting not.

Israelis are going to have to come to grips with the whole neocon/PNAC plan for "re-making" the Middle East, and their own ruling class' collaboration with same. How much of the grand plan for "creative chaos" is truly in Israel's best interest?

As for Nasrallah, I guess here is where we'll get to see what he's really made of. He doesn't strike me as a wild-eyed fanatic. So will he be pragmatic or will his ego carry him away?

sw

[bemildred]

31. On further consideration, I think what we have is just stalling tactics.

Buying a couple more weeks of war at a time.

The Israeli press seems to share the Lebanese interpretation of the verbiage in the first part:

Israel views the U.N. draft favorably, a senior government official and Israeli media said, noting that it allowed Israel to respond to Hizbollah attacks after a truce and did not order Israel to withdraw its 10,000 soldiers from southern Lebanon.

Israel wants its troops to remain until an international force can take over. Hizbollah says it will keep fighting until Israel stops bombing Lebanon and withdraws all its forces.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060806/ts_nm/mideast_dc

[Briar]

35. Bingo!

n/t

[Zhade]

41. Oh, no wonder Lebanon rejected it!

The Israeli troops HAVE to leave, that's an absolute requirement for any cease-fire to work.

[mike_c]

16. whoa, that deserves a thread all its own-- wow....

Very interesting.

[scarletwoman]

17. Thanks, but I don't think a blog post qualifies under the new GD rules

for discussing the Israel/Lebanon conflict.

Billmon has long been a daily must-read for me. If I can turn a few more people on to him, that would be great. He puts out some extremely astute analyses.

Glad you liked it.

sw

[mike_c]

25. I posted links to a blog in GD today re: Gaza-- I think Billmon...

...would be much appreciated.

[scarletwoman]

27. Well, thank you. Do you want to do it? I'm out of time.

I've REALLY got to get to bed. It's 2:20am I have to be at work at 7:00.

G'night,
sw

[mike_c]

28. done-- check it in the AM....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1831415&mesg_id=1831415

g'nite :hi:

[Comadreja]

10. Why should UNIFIL care when Israel bombed them?

What utter gall the Israelis have to expect UNIFIL to put themselves in as their proxies. They already have the IDF raining bombs on them. Now Israel wants them to get blasted by Hezbollah, too?

[Solo_in_MD]

12. There were claims earlier of colaboration, both implicit and explicit

between UNIFIL and Hezbollah. I take them with a grain a salt, like I take most of the reports coming out of that area in real time, regardless of which side they support.

Israel is right though when it says the French lead UNIFIL was impotent at best. If there is going to be any kind of durable peace, the buffer troops will have to be more than unarmed observers

[scarletwoman]

15. What county in the world is going to send its troops to fight for Israel?

That's insane. If Israel wants buffer troops it's going to have to accept a stand-off. It can't expect some other country's troops to fight Hizballah for them.

sw

[Solo_in_MD]

18. I would not view such a force as fighting for Israel as much as

protecting the Lebanese people from further devastation. A noble objective.

What Israel is saying is that it does not want to relinquish control and withdraw unless there is a force powerful enough to suppress the rocket attacks. Reasonable from their point of view.

Unfortunately until Hezbollah stands down and disarms, I believe nothing will be particularly effective in terms of restoring peace and sovereignty to the region.

[scarletwoman]

23. But see what you're saying? If Israel's military isn't "powerful enough"

to stop Hizballah's rockets, how is any other force going to accomplish it?

I do believe that Hizballah will stop firing their rockets if Israel withdraws and stops bombing. Disarming Hizballah is a fantasy. The best case scenario is that Hizballah military forces get incorporated into the Lebanese army -- which isn't all that unlikely now that they are heroes to a great majority of the Lebanese -- even the Christians.

sw

[msmcghee]

33. Israel hasn't been able to stop the rockets . . .

. . . YET!

She is more than willing to keep trying. She has no choice.

The world (UN, etc.) wants the fighting to stop. Israel will stop if the world can offer some reasonable guarantee that Hizbollah can not attack again across the border whenever they feel like it.

Maybe Hizbollah can not be disarmed. But their ability to attack Israel at will must be neutralized if anyone expects peace - or if anyone expects Israel to stop its campaign IMO.

[Zhade]

44. Israel won't be able to stop them by indiscriminately bombing civilians.

It just enrages the survivors, which gains Hezbollah more support, and misses those firing the rockets due to their use of shoot-and-scoot tactics.

I think the only one who can offer a guarantee that Israel will not be attacked by Hezbollah is...Israel. They could pull back to the pre-67 borders, for example, as they're supposed to have done.

[Little Star]

36. If the objective is to protect.....

the Lebanese people from further devastation, why can't the 20 mile buffer be on the Israeli side of the border? Why do others always have to give up their land? Why is that always an Israeli objective? I don't get it. Well, I really do think I get it. Everything is always at the expense of others land and resources just like the US.

[msmcghee]

38. Because Hizbollah attacked Israel. n/t

[Little Star]

39. I think that is disputed. It still wouldn't answer why

Israel does not give up its own land for a buffer if it really is ALL about security. Why always someone else's land?

[msmcghee]

40. It's only disputed by those on the far left fringe.

When you attack another country across a border - if the buffer is set up in your country then the attacker is rewarded for the attack. It's very simple - for anyone who cares truthfully about peace - and not rewarding their favorite side in a conflict.

[Zhade]

46. Is Forbes the "far left fringe"?

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html

"The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them.

The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity."

(No, in fact Forbes is a conservative-leaning magazine.)

So, given the possibility that the IDF soldiers were not abducted from Israel, but captured after violating the Lebanese border (which is not the first time in history), it's not just disputed by those you wish to dismiss as the "far left fringe".

Thing is, we don't know what really happened. Given that Israel has lied in this conflict (see Qana), we can't take their word anymore than we can Hezbollah's word.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

43. It's unreasonable for Israel to invade, indiscriminately bomb civilians...

...and then demand that Hezbollah stop attacking before Israel will withdraw.

The Lebanese government, based on Israel's own actions, have no reason to believe Israel would leave if the only group fighting the invaders (and, unfortunately, also killing civilians) ceases to do so. There is that little matter of historical precedent, namely Israel's prior invasion of Lebanon.

[mom cat]

19. If Israel wants a buffer zone, why don't they create one in Israel?

[Zhade]

47. Because the Latani River isn't in Israel?

Great question, MC!

[mom cat]

52. Great answer, Zhade.

[heidler1]

20. It stinks like Israel wants the buffer, but they want to have permission

to kill anyone that they don't trust.

[Zhade]

42. It's my understanding that UNIFIL are not combat troops.

They can only be unarmed observers, unless I'm very much mistaken.

[anotherdrew]

29. Israel can take it's demands and go to hell for all I care

no international force should or will go into Lebanon, you can bet on that.

[hack89]

32. That's what they want ..

The want people like you to leave the Lebanese people helpless because of "principle". Israel doesn't want a ceasefire - they want more time to kill and you are willing to give it to them.

[Zhade]

48. I don't think the poster wants Israel to murder more innocent Lebanese.

I got a different impression from his/her post.