Text of draft Security Council resolution to end fighting ...

[barb162]

Text of draft Security Council resolution to end fighting between Israel and Hezbollah

ASSOCIATED PRESS

11:51 a.m. August 5, 2006

Below is the draft resolution circulated to the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.


The Security Council,

PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) and 1680 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),


PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,


PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,


PP4. Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,


snip


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060805-1151-mideastfighting-un-text.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I cannot find a single statement that unambiguously requires

Israel to remove its forces from Lebanon as part of this ceasefire.

[Igel]

2. It doesn't.

That's why it'll be rejected.

The only reasonable inference is that the Israeli withdrawal occurs in tandem with either the Lebanese Army occupying the territory, or an international force taking over.

The Help says no.

Also notice the lack of prisoner exchange.

[barb162]

5. I read it as the Lebanese army and UN foces will be in the area

in some fashion or another

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Sure you can read that into it but

these sort of documents, when they lack unambiguous specificity are worse than useless.

[breakaleg]

11. I hope it will be rejected, but I suspect it won't.

if it has the US seal of approval, they will push it through.

[bemildred]

3. No compromise on sovereignty, says Lebanon

BEIRUT• Lebanon’s cabinet said yesterday it would not compromise on the country’s sovereignty but that it was too early to discuss a UN draft resolution calling for an end to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah fighters.

“Even this draft is not final ... we will not discuss the intentions of this side or that,” said Information Minister Ghazi Aridi after a cabinet meeting. Responding to a question, Aridi said the government would not compromise on Lebanon’s sovereignty or accept any Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.

“None of us will give up anything to do with national sovereignty, rights, dignity,” he said, adding the government was committed “to Lebanon’s territory, Lebanon’s liberation, the withdrawal of the occupation from Lebanese land”.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=August2006&file=World_News2006080632240.xml

[barb162]

6. Which is why the Lebanese Army will have to be involved

with the UN forces somehow

[bemildred]

9. They seem to be involved already.

There are reports of Lebanese army fellows firing on IDF troops, in Tyre today for example.

[barb162]

13. It wouldn't surprise me

[oberliner]

4. my favorite clause

OP14. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

[barb162]

7. that sounds L-E-G-A-L

schmegal

[oberliner]

8. I am actively seized with your response! nt

[barb162]

12. bwa!

[TomClash]

10. It appears in most UNSC resolutions

and usually means they anticipate monitoring and a further resolution.