Israel says it can target Hizbollah arms despite truce. This is dangerous.

[bigtree]

Israel has shown utter disregard for the safety of those Lebanese civilians who happen to be in the way of their 'defenses.' No one can believe that their tactics will change just because they've signed a cease-fire agreement (which they haven't yet).

In the killing of nearly a thousand Lebanese, the Israeli's have insisted all along that they were targeting Hizbollah arms. Now they propose to do that under a UN flagged mission? They need CLOSE supervision. No more unarmed, unthreatening Lebanese civilians should die because of Israel's continued recklessness.

article:


Israel says can target Hizbollah arms despite truce

13 Aug 2006 13:22:09 GMT

JERUSALEM, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Israel believes it will be entitled to use force to prevent Hizbollah from rearming and to clear guerrilla positions out of southern Lebanon after a U.N. truce takes effect, Israeli officials said on Sunday.

Israeli officials said such operations are "defensive" in nature and therefore permissible under a U.N. Security Council resolution which calls for Israel to halt "all offensive military operations".

Western diplomats and U.N. officials said they feared Israel's broad definition of "defensive" actions could lead to a resurgence in large-scale fighting, preventing the swift deployment of international troops meant to monitor a ceasefire.

The Israeli operations could include air strikes against arms convoys travelling anywhere in Lebanese territory, a senior Israeli official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1344731.htm

[KG]

1. israel has shown time and again that it plays by no rules but its own

expect the ceasefire/truce to be immediately and repeatedly broken by israel.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[converted_democrat]

2. K&R.. What a mess... n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

12. In what I think was an amazing stupidity and disregard for Lebanese lives,

Hizbollah gave them the pretext for this with their unilateral actions. No one in Lebanon asked them to do what the did.

[LunaC]

23. My sentiments exactly!

My Journal has extensively documented the step-by-step progression towards an Iran attack. What's happening now is just the set-up propaganda evolving towards a pre-determined conclusion.

[Gman]

4. Sounds like preemptive war

I wonder where they got the idea that preemptive war was OK.

Doesn't take long to figure this one out.

[bigtree]

10. I've never heard of a truce where you let one side continue their assault

unabated. This would amount to an agreement to supplement Israel's forces with the international one.

There has to be a firm halt to these airstrikes and shellings of these areas where civilians are residing and seeking shelter. There has to be a protection of unarmed, unthreatening Lebanese civilians' movement through their own country; to a lesser degree in the south where Israel intends a buffer against attacks by Hizbollah.

There would never have been a cease-fire agreement if the international community felt that the lives of the Lebanese civilians were *going to be preserved as Israel sought to eliminate the threat from Hizbollah. I would not expect that the international community would stand by as Israel continued to prosecute their defense in the same way that has put so many innocent Lebanese at risk.

The cease fire is designed for the Lebanese and others to have an opportunity to remove the threat by diplomatic means and other measures which would be unified and more directed to the source of the violence. I hope there can be an aggressive monitoring of Israel's actions, along with Hizbollah's, as they continue on as they have declared.

[The Magistrate]

30. One Can Read The Text, Sir

In ways that validate this position. That is probably intentional on the part of the framers of the document.

Certainly any rocket attack by Hezbollah will lisence as self-defense operations to destroy the actors and their equipment.

Operations are going to continue against Hezbollah gun-men and stores and installations now behind the front-line of the Israeli forces in Lebanon; such could easily be represented as self-defense, and would be engaged in anyway whatever the terms on paper were.

This resolution is not neutral between the parties, nor should it be expected to be. It is designed to favor Israel. The United Nations some years ago determined that Hezbollah should be stripped of any military capability, and it is intended that this episode end with Hezbollah in that condition.

[Lindacooks]

37. Uh huh. Right.

And Israel is 'only defending itself', right?

Sheesh.

[The Magistrate]

40. Israel, Ma'am, Is Attempting To Destroy Or Neutralize Hezbollah

As a private military on its border, engaged in routine harrasment of its border garrison and citizens in the north of its country. That objective seems to trouble the United Nations no more than it troubles me, as that body directed six years ago Hezbollah be disarmed. The terms of the cease-fire seem specifically tailored to foster this effort. Were it otherwise, the thing would never have been passed at all.

[Lindacooks]

49. And when is Israel planning on complying with the 70 UN resolutions

pending against it?

You can't oversimpify an issue and claim that one side alone is the 'bad guy'.

[KoKo]

55. It's amazing the difference in who is "forced to comply with UN Resolution

and who is given a "free pass" to ignore "UN Resolutions," isn't it.

I guess this implies that laws that are good enough to be imposed on some just aren't tough enough to be imposed on others. :shrug:

I wish my elementary school teachers had expressed that difference in "rules" and "how to obey them or ignore them" when I was growing up. :shrug: I wish most City Police Departments would allow those who are picked up for "crimes" to chose between the laws they are charged with and those that they chose to ignore.

What a bizarro world! :eyes:

[Lindacooks]

64. Yes, isn't that amazing?

And the hypocrisy of those who demand others comply with UN resolutions who look the other way when Israel is the focus is really quite incredible.

[The Magistrate]

57. Quite Irrelevant, Ma'am

This resolution was crafted to facilitate the dis-arming of a private military body operating on the territory of a state without reference to the direction and policy of its government, in hostilities against another state. That is necessary for this conflict to end.

[Lindacooks]

63. That's what I thought you'd say.

And that kind of thinking is a big part of the problem.

[The Magistrate]

65. What Problem Would That Be, Ma'am?

And whose problem would it be?

[bigtree]

41. The problem with that equation is the 'defense' is directed at Lebanon

'Operations' will continue, mostly from the river south. From your description one could easily be lulled into believing that everyone within Israel's dragnet (Israel's 'front-line') is 'Hezbollah.' Of course, the reality is that if Israel* continues their airstrikes in populated areas, they will continue to mow down civilians caught in the way of their 'defenses.'

The resolution may have been designed to favor Israel, but to suggest that it was crafted just to favor them would be a bit misleading. The resolution would never have come about if there wasn't a concern for the citizens who have been caught in the crossfire. It's hard for me to imagine the UN stepping in if they felt Israel was prosecuting a rational defense which was reasonably protecting the Lebanese civilian's lives.

They crafted the resolution so that a diplomatic attempt could be made to end the threat against Israel under Chapter 6 , which doesn't give the peacekeepers an offensive military mission. I don't believe they intended for Israel to continue buisness as usual while they pursue their diplomatic mission. They're not just there to provide cover for Israel to continue to destroy Lebanese lives and livelihoods, no matter how Israel abuses or ignores their mission with their provocation.

[The Magistrate]

56. Anyone South Of The Litani With A Gun, Sir, Not In An Israeli Uniform

Would be well advised to abandon it, and to be far away from where it was discarded. That part of the country is going to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb, and my guess is the Israelis will catch at least three of every two Hezbollah operatives in the region.

If Hezbollah continues to fire rockets from north of the river out of populated areas, or to move fresh munitions in, from Syria over-land, or through the northern ports, then Lebanese civilians are going to continue to be killed in air strikes. There is every reason to expect Hezbollah to do this, as its leader has claimed he reserves the right to repel Israeli soldiers from Lebanon, and the cease-fire does not require their withdrawl until the U.N. element is reinforced.

There is not going to be a diplomatic solution, Sir. Such things require not only good faith among all interested parties, but the expectation of it on the part of all parties from the others. No one involved expects anyone else to act in good faith, and that is probably the soundest expectation for all concerned. The choice is not between a diplomatic solution and a solution imposed by force; it is simply a question of who will apply the force, Israel, or the U.N. troops and the Lebanese government. Hezbollah is not going to voluntarily relenquish its military capability, and there is no solution to this while Hezbollah retains its miitary capability.

[bigtree]

58. That's one view. But, many wouldn't agree that the peacekeepers

are there to apply force under the Chapter 6 resolution. The cease-fire is supposed to give the principals and those concerned* the opportunity to work out a diplomatic solution without the continuing violence interfering and complicating that.

Also, it remains to be see whether Israel will allow those who are left in the south to flee without bombing them as they have on several notable occasions. That's going to be a major role that the UN is responsible for.

In order for there to be a disarming and a real cessation of hostilities, there will have to be a urgent and continuous diplomacy, I hope involving Syria. As Annan has said, on more than one occasion, the Hizbollah will not be disarmed by force. I believe that statement should be qualified to say, the Hizbollah combatants will not be disarmed by force without the continuing, and escalating slaughter of more Lebanese civilians as Hizbollah is not isolated away from them to be picked off.

The Israelis will happily go back to 'flattening villages' if the international community lets them. The question now is whether the international community is going to pack up and go home, or will they stay engaged in the necessary diplomatic efforts to bring Hizbollah into accountability, along with Israel's demonstratively disproportionate defenses. The cease-fire resolution is supposed to give them time to do that. If not, then we are resigned to an endless conflict, which will, at the point where Lebanon is 'flat' and 'victory' seems at hand, widen to include all of those in the region and elsewhere who bear a grievance against Israel's (and by proxy, the U.S.) heavy hand.

To imagine that encircling the south - with all of the blameless humanity in between - and picking it further apart with airstrikes and shelling; that it will end the threat against Israel is an illusion borne out of the notions of long past conflicts where individual acts of international terrorism were not so prevalent and conquest could be mostly contained to the battlefield. For nations to act as if there were not a threat of a widening conflict would represent an amazing memory lapse. I don't expect them to be as sanguine as you about the prospect of another open-ended Lebanon war with the almost certain prospect of a continued and escalated threat to Israel and beyond.

[The Magistrate]

66. Again, Sir

Hezbollah is not going to be disarmed save by force. The effort to do it forcibly may succeed or it may fail, but there can be no reasonable expectation any means but force can succeed. Force is by no means the solution to everything, or even to many things, but for those few cases where it will serve, it is the only thing that will serve. Here, diplomacy can do no more than ratify what is created by soldiers and gun-men in contest.

The U.N. force will not arrive for some while, and Israeli operations against Hezbollah in the south will certainly continue, under the rubric of self-defense, until it does. If Hezbollah rockets continue to fly, and there are attempts to replenish its stock of weapons, there will be operations north of the Litani as well. The resolution provides loop-holes for Israel: it provides none for Hezbollah. Properly speaking, Hezbollah is not even a party to it; it is the Lebanese government that will decide to accept it or not, and Hezbollah, some members of Parliament and Ministers notwithstanding, is not the Lebanese government. Its word does not bind Hezbollah. If it did, none of this would be occuring at all, because the Lebanese government has not directed any violence be employed against Israel, either recently or over the preceding years in which Hezbollah has levied violence on the Israeli border.

The international community has done all it is going to do. It has provided a one-sided framework directing a cessation of hostilities that as a matter of practical fact allows one side to continue them, in full awareness both sides will not stop fighting. It has proclaimed it will gather a force to seperate the combatants, but shows no particular hurry in actually assembling it, and no one expects there to be any particular dimunition in combat south of the Litani before it is present. No more than one or two states in the world have the slightest desire Hezbollah emerge from this with any appreciable military capability.

[bigtree]

68. so, we disagree. no matter. time will tell.

I don't think, however that the international community is finished there. The prospect of a widening conflict will compel many to stay engaged. I hope they find their way to Syria. There's more to this conflict than tanks, rocket launchers, and airstrikes. One of the issues which is outstanding is Syria's role. They have been satisfied to use Hizbollah as an agitator against Israel, a flimsy buffer. With the Israeli forces advancing toward Syrian territory there will be a concern in Syria about the effectiveness of the militarized Hizbollah under fire and pressured to disband. Either Syria will seek to bolster that force with new weaponry (there's really no way to stop that from happening if they want to), or they will be convinced that the better choice is to pursue Hizbollah's disarmament themselves through back channels and solidify their relationship with the reformed Lebanese government. Hizbollah could be convinced to opt for the ballot and put aside the bullet, in much the same way Sadr did in Iraq.

So, I'm a realist about the worst that could happen, but I'm not convinced that diplomacy can't convince Syria that it's in their best interest to broker a disbanding of Hizbollah's military components. I can't imagine that they think they are going to be served by a continuing conflict. Rice should be in Syria today negotiating instead practicing of her usual routine of demonizing and condemming them.

[librechik]

6. I am so sick of the duplicity from our leaders

they know they have to respond to the people, so they lie. Why can they not simply actually respond to people's needs? They only make huge (BLOODY) embarrassing messes when they lie. Avoiding solving the problem does not solve the problem. We are being led off a cliff by selfish children.

[bigtree]

7. I agree. There is an amazing disconnect from these leaders

who are leading their 'followers' into these conflicts, promising 'victory' as they slaughter innocents in their pursuit.

[Don Claybrook]

8. Liars and butchers

Just what you'd expect from neocon killers in Israel's government, or in ours--sorry for bordering on redundancy there.

[Halliburton]

9. they lost

they should accept it. there's no need to keep blowing things up because of some broad interpretation of the U.N. resolution. if israel violates the ceasefire then the rockets are going to be hitting them again and the war would be restarted which would be disastrous.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. They have some paper justification

- Iran has stated they will continue to supply Hezbollah
- The IDF has stated that they believe resupply is already happening
- The UN has stated that resupply is not to occur
- The IDF has stated it has destroyed some arms shipments
- Israel believes that the Hamas & Hezbollah have moved arms and people under the UN and Red Cross flags in the past
- Israel believes that the current UNIFIL has implicitly and explicitly helped Hezbollah in the past.

Given the total ineffectiveness of UNIFIL to date, if the IDF believes that an arms are being moved in a convoy, I could see them striking it, or stopping it for inspection. Since the former cost them little and the latter places their soldiers at risk, I see them using air strikes.

The answer is a peacekeeping force that is effective. The UN has a miserable track record at doing that as of late. If they can not do a decent job this time, then it will be back to the scrum with a bunch of blue berets thrown in for color. If the rockets do indeed stop and Hezbollah disarms, then the UN can start to recover some of it lost luster in such operations.

[bigtree]

13. I agree that the UN force will have to live up to the goal of disarming

Hizbollah if they expect for Israel to stand down. But, I think it is arrogantly stupid to step in front of that effort and continue to provocate with the same type of strikes which caused the UN to step in in the first place. No one would have stepped in with such urgency if they felt Israel's tactics were producing an actual defense while reasonably protecting Lebanese lives. The international body and its many members have taken great pains to decry the reckless civilian killings. That's why they rushed the diplomacy, to obviate the need for Israel to defend themselves against Hizbollah combatants, and to help secure Israel from any military threat from Lebanese territory.

The idea is to CEASE hostilities so that the diplomacy can work along with the unified force. Any unilateral action by Israel (or Hizbollah), in the interim, threatens to send the peacekeepers packing and return us to the seemingly endless slaughter on both sides.

I would note that Israel failed miserably in their attempt to remove the threat from Hizbollah's rockets and grenades with their military assault on Lebanon. They haven't demonstrated at all that they have any clue about how to eliminate that threat with their military forces without continuing the wanton slaughter of innocent Lebanese civilians. It should not be left to Israel to continue without aggressive resistance (diplomatic) from the international community.

They will also not be able to just resume their killing of innocents without a backlash from the very ones they intend to live alongside in peace.

[breakaleg]

14. I suspect this resolution won't be worth the paper it's written on.

It seems that in an effort to push through any agreement, our leaders settled for an agreement that basically allows Israel to continue as they have been doing. There are enough loopholes in there for Israel to continue it's offensive, aka defensive. The world knows that what Israel is considered "defense" is unique only to Israel - they must have a different dictionary than the rest of the world. And Hezbollah is of course going to fight back when fired upon - they've already said so.

So, now we will likely get into a PR battle about the ambiguous wording of the document where each side claims they are following the text of the resolution. Unfortunately, the resolution itself is useless.

And of course, since they already have a resolution, there will be no push to get each side to agree to something more effective, more binding, and closer to an actual truce. I wonder if this is one resolution they would have been better off without. At least then, the dialogue may have continued and a real ceasefire may have still been a possibility.

[mom cat]

26. This may have to be decided in a war crimes trial.

[bigtree]

46. there is presently no vehicle for the application of the law for Israel

The only way would be to get a resolution out of the UN which sanctioned them. Since they regularly ignore the sanctions, they are essentially without any significant, practical monitor outside of world condemnation and the action of their own legislature.

[mom cat]

50. Then it is time to get creative about sanctions. Individuals,.groups and

governments could decide to stop trading with rogue states.

[bigtree]

52. that might best come from organizations like the Arab League,regional ones

Regional unity has been hard to come by. The most uniting factor seems to be resistance to the US. That's pulling them together.

[mom cat]

53. Here is another article that says it better than I can:

The Case for Boycotting Israel
Boycott Now!
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

Johannesburg, South Africa.

It is finally time. After years of internal arguments, confusion, and dithering, the time has come for a full-fledged international boycott of Israel. Good cause for a boycott has, of course, been in place for decades, as a raft of initiatives already attests. But Israel's war crimes are now so shocking, its extremism so clear, the suffering so great, the UN so helpless, and the international community's need to contain Israel's behavior so urgent and compelling, that the time for global action has matured. A coordinated movement of divestment, sanctions, and boycotts against Israel must convene to contain not only Israel's aggressive acts and crimes against humanitarian law but also, as in South Africa, its founding racist logics that inspired and still drive the entire Palestinian problem.

That second goal of the boycott campaign is indeed the primary one. Calls for a boycott have long cited specific crimes: Israel's continual attacks on Palestinian civilians; its casual disdain for the Palestinian civilian lives "accidentally" destroyed in its assassinations and bombings; its deliberate ruin of the Palestinians' economic and social conditions; its continuing annexation and dismemberment of Palestinian land; its torture of prisoners; its contempt for UN resolutions and international law; and especially, its refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. But the boycott cannot target these practices alone. It must target their ideological source.

The true offence to the international community is the racist motivation for these practices, which violates fundamental values and norms of the post-World War II order. That racial ideology isn't subtle or obscure. Mr. Olmert himself has repeatedly thumped the public podium about the "demographic threat" facing Israel: the "threat" that too many non-Jews will - the horror - someday become citizens of Israel. It is the "demographic threat" that, in Israeli doctrine, justifies sealing off the West Bank and Gaza Strip as open-air prisons for millions of people whose only real crime is that they are not Jewish. It is the "demographic threat," not security (Mr. Olmert has clarified), that requires the dreadful Wall to separate Arab and Jewish communities, now juxtaposed in a fragmented landscape, who might otherwise mingle.

"Demographic threat" is the most disgustingly racist phrase still openly deployed in international parlance. It has been mysteriously tolerated by a perplexed international community. But it can be tolerated no longer. Zionist fear of the demographic threat launched the expulsion of the indigenous Arab population in 1948 and 1967, created and perpetuates Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, inspires its terrible human rights abuses against Palestinians, spins into regional unrest like the 1982 attack on Lebanon (that gave rise to Hezbollah), and continues to drive Israeli militarism and aggression.

more at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08052006.html

[breakaleg]

60. Great piece. Thanks for posting.

[w4rma]

15. Looks like a ceasefire in name only. (nt)

[theanarch]

16. so Olmert is taking a page from Junior...

...agreeing to the UN cease-fire resolution, and then issuing his own "signing statement" that he doesn't have to comply with any part thereof that is inconvenient to the IDF or his political needs. Actually, as Uri Avnery (founder of Israel's peace movement) has said, Israel never signed a peace agreement they couldn't find an excuse to bomb their way out of.

[Tom Joad]

17. This is typical. It is the Israeli way. See, they are just like the U.S.

Make their own rules.
What congresspeople will challenge this, or will they insist the US rush more arms to Israel, and kneel in praise of Olmert?

[bigtree]

18. on the arms: US Congress Opposing M-26 Rockets for Israel

10:05 Aug 13, '06 / 19 Av 5766

(IsraelNN.com) The US congress remains opposed to a deal signed before the war in Lebanon, to sell M-26 short range cluster munitions rockets to Israel. Each of the ‘wide blast’ rockets contains thousands of metallic balls, delivering a wide blast to a target area.

Congress has expressed fears that the use of the rockets will result in a sharp increase in civilian casualties among the Lebanese people.

While congress is expected to veto the deal, US President George W. Bush may still decide to ship the rockets but if this does occur, the shipment will include a stern warning to Israel regarding the use of the new weapon.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=109851

more:

Associated Press
August 11, 2006

WASHINGTON - The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.

But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions.

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_world/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19864_4910597,00.html

[Tom Joad]

22. Wish they had more details. Who in Congress? How did it come up

for a vote? Have you heard a peep from any congrespeople on this (beyond perhaps Kucinich and maybe a couple dozen in the house, at most)?

It could be the Israeli national news confused State Dept officials with congress. I think they are the only ones slowing down such a deal.

Thanks for putting that up, perhaps i can do more research, later.

[Az_lefty]

19. Signing statement, that's all they need

just like the shrub, what's on paper means nothing.
:puke:

[leesa]

20. Well, they can't keep it going if they can't keep it going.

I doubt Israel has any intent to make the ceasefire successful. The goal was to get Iran and Syria to respond so that the US could enter the wars and that mission is not yet accomplished.

[bigtree]

21. I think that was Hizbollah's intention as well

to draw the wider Arab community to defense of their aggression against Israel.

[uppityperson]

24. What part of "truce" do they not understand?

Of course they will not get all they want immediately. Of course both sides will continue to prepare for next time. Of course diplomacy takes time, and as each side sees the other side stopping, giving up doing something, they will believe it and will do also. If either/neither side abides at least in part by the rules, the other will not believe and not do so either.

[mom cat]

25. It is time for sanctions against that rogue state and her puppet master

the US.

It is time to start demonstrating in front of Israeli embacies to let them know we will not support continued aaggression under any guise.

It is time for war crimes tribunals for all aggressors and those who start wars of aggression on flimsy or manufactured evidence.

It is time to boycott products from corporations that support rogue states.

[cali]

28. By your definition

more states are rogue than not.

[Selatius]

32. Most states do have blood on their hands in some fashion or another

I can agree with that. I just don't feel the position of embargoing or protesting most of the nations in the world is feasible though. Dealing with the US government and the corruption and arrogance found within it is difficult enough without setting huge goals of embargoing half the world.

[mom cat]

51. The US + Israel does not constitute half the world, unless you count

guns instead of people.

[bigtree]

44. like the US

which we regularly protest

[whosinpower]

27. They did the same thing before

With a Hamas ceasefire. Nothing new here. And I am not surprized. So - in essence - the ceasefire is dead before it even began...with Israel reserving the right to attack Hizbollah, and Hizbollah promising to attack Israeli troops as long as they are on lebanese soil....and with the extra 30 000 Israeli troops in the region.

Hamas agreed to a ceasefire once before, and Israel assasinated one of their leaders while the ceasefire was in effect. Guess what happened to the ceasefire then? There was allot of discussion about extra-judicial assasination/targeted killings at the time.

[bonito]

29. my question is to the extent of integration

of Hizbolla in Lebanon, even Arafat considered Hizbolla trouble makers, I believe the excessive bombings by Israel were an attempt to cause a rift between hizbolla and the lebanese from the bottom up rather than from the leaders in the Lebanese government. In short any effective ceasefire will depend on the elimination of Hizbolla from Lebanon by the Lebanese themselves with the aid of the Peacekeepers otherwise its another Iraq.

[scarletwoman]

36. What are you talking about, "integration"? Hizbuallah ARE Lebanese.

They come from the Shi'ite territory of south Lebanon. The homes and villages being bombed into dust by Israeli/U.S. bombs are THEIR homes and villages. The children and grandparents and sisters and mothers being crushed under rubble or fired on in their cars trying to flee south Lebanon are THEIR family members.

Hizbullah is an indigenous Lebanese organization with political and social service arms besides their military force. They have seats in the Lebanese parliament and 2 cabinet level ministers.

Israel may have wanted to retrigger a sectarian civil war in Lebanon, but so far the Lebanese are remaining largely united with over 80% supporting Hizbullah in a recent poll.

sw

[bigtree]

43. I agree that the Lebanese have to work extra hard to convince Hizbollah

to stand down.

I think this could have been better achieved by talking to Syria (who has more influence with Hizbollah's military wing) rather than continually demonizing them. I hope Hizbollah has their political hat on and will recognize the opportunity to turn from the bullet to the ballot as Sadr did in Iraq.

[Zhade]

31. Usually, truce means "stop attacking".

I mean, that's how I've always seen it defined...

So, will this also constitute a war crime? Breaking a truce? Israel's already racked up a few violations of international law.

[ComerPerro]

33. Well, they do whatever the fuck they want. Why the suprise?

[Imagevision]

34. There will be no cease-fire, Israel will have to get the last bomb in and

Hezbollah will simply return the fire, what are they going to do, stand by and observe their watches?? Israel will keep bombing until Bush says hey! stop! but that will never happen.

[Igel]

35. The Israelis insisted they were targeting Hezb arms.

But they also said they were targeting Hezb 'infrastructure', which is far, far more than just arms caches.

Political offices, banks that Hezb channeled money through, and many other institutions, buildings, and installations count as 'infrastructure'.

But they didn't limit themselves to just those things, since the bombing campaign also, per force, had characteristics of a typical military campaign: you target command and control, supply lines, and the like. These were also explicitly stated targets.

What you say is factually correct ("the Israeli's have insisted all along that they were targeting Hizbollah arms"), but almost necessarily misinterpreted. Your statement will generally be taken to mean "the Israeli's have insisted all along that they were targeting *just* Hizbollah arms."

Why? Because among English-language conversational conventions are that you say everything you know that is relevant to the discourse; it's considered dishonest to leave something out, to say less than the full truth, even if what you say is true. It's the reason that answering "I have 3 dollars" when asked, "Do you have $10?" and when you have $11 dollars in your pocket is considered a lie--you do have $3, but the implicature is that you've answered 'no'.

[annabanana]

38. HEY! It's just a "signing statement". They're legal.

right?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

39. What if they happen to kill the European troops sent in?

Could this lead to an international incident and how would the U.S. respond?

[Clarkie1]

42. I would consider stopping arms shipments to Hezbollah to be defensive

action.

Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria need to understand that any further attempts at arms shipments to Hezbollah will be considered an offensive action, to which Israel has a right to respond.

I am troubled by recent statements by Hezbollah that they consider it their right to attack Israeli troops as long as the troops are in Southern Lebanon. That is not the basis of the agreement.

[bigtree]

45. I don't believe that just labeling something defensive gives cover

to every assault by Israel.

Those 'recent' statements by Hizbollah were not in the context of the period after this agreement takes effect. If you want to go back to 'recent' statements, then you have to include Israel's as well.

Hizbollah has indicated that they won't stand down militarily is the attacks by Israel continue, which doesn't bode well for the success of the 'cease-fire.'

It seems superfluous to include Iran and Syria in your admonitions since all of Israel's assaults are directed at Lebanon and impact Lebanese.

[Clarkie1]

59. What I meant by including Iran and Syria is...

If arms shipments are going across the border to Hezbollah, Israel has a right to stop those shipments from coming across the border, and such action by Israel would reasonalby be considered defensive given the history of Hezbollah.

[Zhade]

54. Um, the IDF invaded Lebanon. Of course Hezbollah says that.

I can't necessarily disagree. In fact, if Hezbollah didn't have a history as a terrorist group that kills civilians, it would be considered a nationalist resistance group.

Not that I like Hezbollah, but Israel shouldn't have invaded, either.

[madville]

47. To be realistic

This cease-fire will be enforced by UN forces and Lebanese troops correct ? I just don't see it being effective, it might last a day, month or year but Hezbollah will eventually do something again to warrant a response from Israel and the whole process will start again. There won't be peace in the Middle East until Israel is destroyed and even after that they would just start focusing on fighting each other like they used to do.

At least the world leaders can feel all warm and fuzzy for brokering this peace deal but a bunch of UN troops watching Hezbollah isn't going to stop them from receiving and firing rockets at Israel, not for long anyway.

[Beelzebud]

48. Just a Measured Response.

[Raydawg1234]

61. yeah I guess that's why they call their army the "Israeli Defense Force"

[PaDem]

62. Israel's looking to provoke Hezbollah.........

they have no intentions of this cease fire holding.

[Scurrilous]

67. IDF general: Soldiers may steal food from south Lebanon stores

<snip>

""If our fighters deep in Lebanese territory are left without food our water, I believe they can break into local Lebanese stores to solve that problem," Brigadier General Avi Mizrahi, the head of the Israel Defense Forces logistics branch, said Monday.

Mizrahi's comments followed complaints by IDF soldiers regarding the lack of food on the front lines.

"If what they need to do is take water from the stores, they can take," Mizrahi told Army Radio."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750384.html

[professor_grove]

69. dangerous indeed

what´s worse? a terrorist organization (Hizbollah) or a terrorist nation (Israel)?