Saturday, August 12, 2006



A resolution

The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli troops. However, it also includes an expansion of the current UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to 15,000 troops, and authorises it to take

all necessary action... to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind

This isn't quite an authorisation to use force to prevent hostilities, but it comes close - and there's a strong suggestion that it could be used that way in future. Which means that rather than being a neutral force there to monitor the two sides and provide humanitarian assistance, the UN would effectively be waging war against Hizbollah on Israel's behalf. This is not what the UN is meant to do, and I can think of no surer way of destroying its credibility and marking it as a tool of the hegemon than that.

16 comments:

Mate I'm no lawyer....it ain't chapter 7 but..Billmon sure doesnt see it as a great victory for Israel, seems like the neocons are calling Olmert a loser and the folks back in Zion want a new election.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/12/2006 03:50:00 PM

Billmon is right. The Israeli military has failed to achieve its political objectives (primarily because they were unachievable), and gained a humiliating defeat into the bargain. And the israeli government will probbaly pay a political price for it. They went to war to restore Israel's deterrant power - and proved exactly the opposite.

My worry is that, despite the lack of explicit reference to Chapter VII, the strong language of the resolution suggests the "peacekeeping" force will be used as a proxy army. And that is something I think we should resist.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/12/2006 04:51:00 PM

Are they only entering southern Lebanon? My understanding was that the majority of hostilities were waged from Northern Israel?

Posted by james cairney : 8/12/2006 05:46:00 PM

on the contrary, Israel gets the neutralisation of Hezbollah as a millitary threat - so objetcive achieved. But yes, the Left will be ever eager to see this as a defeat for Israel, which for them seems to be the ultimate goal.

Personally, I'm all for the UN enforcing its resolution, even if it is seen as "doing Israel's bidding".

A for Billmon, anyone bother to look at who he's calling "neocon"? They just happen to be members of the UN Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen
/spages/749293.html

Well, that explains why the UN is "doing Israel's bidding".

Posted by Anonymous : 8/12/2006 07:00:00 PM

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said late Friday that the expanded incursion into Lebanon would continue "for the time being," despite agreeing to a cease-fire resolution drafted by the United Nations Security Council.

Israel will press ahead with its military offensive in south Lebanon until the Cabinet approves an emerging cease-fire deal, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said early Saturday.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749566.html

Posted by Anonymous : 8/12/2006 08:39:00 PM

This could be first positive step toward a U.N. that implements, with force, UN resolutions and international law?

There is much to do in Lebanon/Israel: There are the maps of the landmines IDF left behind and which Lebanon has been seeking since 2000; There are 320 Lebanese disappeared that Lebanon has been seeking info on since 2000; There is what to do with the 400,000 Palestinians that Lebanon has hosted since 1948 but who Lebanon obviously expects Israel to start taking responsibility for for any sustainable peace and as required by international law and UNSC resolutions going back to '48;
In time UN could also push IDF out of East Jerusalem/West Bank and reverse Israel's illegal annexation in 1981 of Golan Heights and uphold right of Palestinians hosted in Syria and Jordan to return to live in peace in the Jewish State. Need a referendum in Sheeba Farm to see what people of that area want - do they want to be in Israel, Syria or Lebanon? Be great too if the U.N. could shoot down IDF airforce infringements of its neighbours air space and commence process of taking war criminals from all sides to the International Court of Justice - starting with the political leaders of Iran, Israel, Syria, Egypt, etc.

www.samidoun.org/

Posted by Anonymous : 8/12/2006 11:02:00 PM

This is a very bad result for Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis. Politically, the winners are the Likud Opposition in Israel; the Hizbullah in Lebanon and the conservative nationalists in Middle East generally (for Shiia, Iran is base; for Sunni the Islamic terrorists based in Pakistan; and maybe Turkey which has its eyes on northern Iraq)

The biggest losers: Lebanese. The middle class Sunni and Christians, the exodus of 150,000 in past month, will become an exodus of 300,000 with the next lull.

In Israel, support for government will weaken considerably in months ahead as it becomes obvious Hizbuallah's military capability remains and it rearms - the plan to unilaterally withdraw from parts of Judea/Samaria cannot continue - the main plank of Israeli government is in tatters to the benefit of Likud Opposition who will say you can't afford to rely on air power, blockades etc. but must have military personnel on the ground and settlers who call the place home.

For Iran, and also for Sunni fascists, it has shown that whereas the corrupt, US-supported armeies of pro-West regimes of Jordan, Egypt et al were demolished "in Six Days" - and while the US "democracy" project is a sham (as witnessed by Lebanon's imminent descent into a chaos and civil strife; the soon-to-be-confirmed unwinding of Palestine Authority in favour of revival of Tunis-based PLO and Iraqi state's splintering); but that a group of small, very small, unconventional force with popular support can in future do what the Viet Namese did to the U.S.: i.e. eventually win - maybe in 20 or 30 or 100 years but basically can eventually win.

The losers are those Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese etc. that just want a normal peaceful life of compromise.

This war has put back to the 1930s. Weep for those who are just pieces in a chess set between Governments of the US/UK, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey.

www.kibush.co.il/index.asp

Posted by Anonymous : 8/12/2006 11:44:00 PM

Israel had 4 objectives:

(1)Destroy Hizbullah, as a lesson to Hamas, in order to justify Key Election Plank of Government i.e. unilateral withdrawal from parts of Judea/Samaria without needing to engage with Hamas politically or make compromises to Palestinians.

(2) IDF objective in war was to hurt Iran and Syria.

(3) "All the population which is the power base of the Hezbollah in Lebanon was displaced" - PM of Israel. i.e. weaken the Shiia within Lebanon.

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745279.html

(4) Return of 2 IDF soldiers.

HOW DID FOUR OBJECTIVES GO?

(1) This objective failed because Government wanted to show air power/destruction of civilian infrastructure like electricity/food/hospitals etc. can work in Lebanon and in Gaza and therefore can work in evacuated parts of Judea/Samaria also. Hizbuallah is not destroyed -it gets to re-arm north of Litani and its power in Beirut politics rises as Sunni/Christian/Armenian middle classes leave the country for good; In Gaza, Hamas support is stronger after weeks of blockade and Fatah is completely irrelvant now, as is Palestine Authority which will be disbanded as Palestinians return to original PLO and start from scratch;

(2) The U.S. obviously didn't want this now because US vulnerable in Iraq. IDF failed on that second count of this war because Iran and Syrian armies were not attacked.

(3) The objective to weaken Shiia inside Lebanon also not achieved. The Shiia aren't going to leave Lebanon like the Christians and Sunnis and Armenians are leaving, because no one will take the Shiia. They are just all still there just now homeless and more pro-Hizbuallah and more pro-Iran than before they lost their businesses, homes and loved ones and feel the pro-US Sunni PM of Lebanon showed himself to have no influence with US in spite of all the lovely photos of him in Washington in past year talking about 'democracy' and 'freedom' etc.

(4) The 2 IDF soldiers hopefully will atleast be going home.

But the thing is the 2 soldiers could have been coming home anyway without the full asault on Libanon. i.e. without strengthening Shiia/weakening Sunni/Christians and destroying a whole country. Hizbuallah would have been happy with some symbolic achievements - like maps of mines in south lebanon, movement on issue of Lebanese "disappeared" in Isreal and maybe a referendum of people from Sheeba farms.

This war was a human and strategic disaster for democrats and those wanting peace. Only the Right wing win - in Isrel, in Iran, in America.

http://web.naharnet.com/default.asp

Posted by Anonymous : 8/13/2006 12:14:00 AM

This resolution really pisses me off because it is so heavily weighted in Israels favour.

Hezbollah must return the soldiers it kidnapped and yet Israel is not forced to return the Lebanese it has kidnapped.

No more weapons are allowed to be imported into Lebanon and yet there is nothing to say that Israel must stop importing more and nastier weaponry from the USA.

The peace force will be located in Lebanonese territory and yet there is nothing to demand that Israel relinquish a portion of it's own northern territory towards the buffer zone.

There is nothing to demand that the Israelis hand over the maps to all the land mines it left behind in Southern Lebanon, making it unsafe for Lebanese farmers to return to their farms in the affected areas.

And there is nothing to force Israel to make reparation for the destruction of civilian infrastructures - that had nothing to do with Hezbollah - and setting Lebanese civilisation back over a decade.

This so-called resolution does not address a single issue that drove Hezbollah to fight in the first place and reeks with vulgar disparity.

Posted by zANavAShi : 8/13/2006 12:59:00 AM

Good to see that you have something positive to say about the fact that Lebanese and Israelis are hopefully going to stop being killed at last. OK, I know you dont give a shit about the Israelis, but i thought, from the way you have been going on, that you would be pleased to see at least an end to the current hostilities. the fact that you fail to mention this, but instead find it more important to focus again on Isreal makes me think that you dont actually give a rats arse for the Lebanese, but that their deaths were more a convenient reason to have a go at Israel. I am very relieved that at least there is the opportunity to move forward now without killing people in the process.
The UN had no credibilty in this situation to begin with, it was not able to prevent this war, and if left in the same situation, will not prevent another if Hizbollah are allowed to attack Israel again. Which will, of course, result in more dead Lebanese regardless of what happens, which I thought you were concerned about. Maybe that is why the extended authority is "Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon...". I beleive the govt of lebanon is in in a better position to decide what is best for their citizens than you.
Your statment "the UN would effectively be waging war against Hizbollah on Israel's behalf" in itself admits that the problem is due to acts of agression directed at Israel from Lebanese territory by Hizbollah. As long as they are left to do this at their whim, Lebanese will die in the inevitable retaliation. I really dont want any more dead Lebanese (or Israelis, but dont bother yourself about them), but it seems you are prepared to sacrifice a few more. how many, may I ask?

Posted by Anonymous : 8/13/2006 07:36:00 AM

U.S.-funded IDF War on Terror continues in spite of the UNSC resolution:

"In Baalbeck on Saturday, IDF strikes targeted residential areas and hit a building containing clinics, shops and houses. Other strikes have damaged the old market in the city...

"Israeli combat jets were also in action across other parts of Lebanon, pounding northern roads leading to Syria and destroying a power plant in the major southern city of Sidon. The city is likely to be without power for 10 days..."

etc. In other words, the UN Council resolution appears to greenlight on-going attacks on Sunni, Christian, Armenian and Alawi, Palestinian refugee camps as well as Shiia civilian areas on Saturday. Only the Druze areas seem safe in Lebanon.

So I don't think this ceasefire will bring peace - it will just return Lebanon to civil war and therefore more consistent source of trouble for the region.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3450C852-D8D9-4913-A5EB-824D9660A18C.htm

Posted by Anonymous : 8/13/2006 07:37:00 AM

Israel left Southern Lebanon in 2000 as part of a UN brokered deal and Hezbollah spent the next six years re-arming and started this war by attacking across the border and kidnapping Israel soliders.

They have fired rockets across the border during those six years trying to inflict the maximum civilian deaths.

Not to mention all the Israel civilians including 128 children Hezbollah have murdered during that six year period.

These are the Lebanese citizens that now sit in Israel's jails.

If Lebanon doesn't want this to be another break before fighting restarts at some point in the future they need to disarm Hezbollah and secure there own border.

Failure to do so will see a repeat in the future.

Hezbollah will only be stopped when one of two things are done.

Either Israel is destoryed and every Jewish person in that country is slaughtered, or
Hezbollah is disarmed and stopped from carrying out attacks.

Lebanon has a clear choice of which road it takes and what the likely outcomes will be in the future.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/13/2006 03:31:00 PM

There is no point having credibility if you never use it to make the sort of decisions where it is required.

Posted by Genius : 8/13/2006 03:50:00 PM

Verdict of the Jerusalem Post:

"There is a good reason that Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which sets the terms for a cease-fire between his jihad army and the State of Israel.

"The resolution represents a near-total victory for Hizbullah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria, and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States..."

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525859901&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by Anonymous : 8/13/2006 06:48:00 PM

Other viewpoints:

Jews of Lebanon website
http://lubnan-alkawi.com/jewsoflebanon/index.php

Main Christian Party (Opposition party, mainly Catholic Maronite)

www.tayyar.org/tayyar/pages.php?page=english

One of papers which is pro coalition government in Lebanon (Sunni/Orthodox Christian i.e. anti-Syrian)

http://web.naharnet.com/default.asp

Posted by Anonymous : 8/13/2006 06:53:00 PM

"an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States..."

Well the Americans have been here before. Overwhelming technological superiority over a guerilla army that has spent a couple of decades learning how to fight in this way. Did Viet Namteach them nothing at all?

Posted by Anonymous : 8/14/2006 12:33:00 PM