Lebanon has a ceasefire resolution. I am happy that there is a chance of the killing being ended soon because of it– But this is clearly only a chance, since the Israeli government has said it won’t stop its military operations that are now pushing ever deeper into Lebanon until 7 a.m. local time Monday, at the earliest, and Hizbullah’s leader has said that Hizbullah will continue fighting as long as Israeli soldiers remained in Lebanon.
The Israeli forces don’t seem to be doing too well. Eleven have been killed inside Lebanon so far today, and “dozens” wounded. It looks as if the ground operations they’ve been undertaking have taken them into a series of well-prepared Hizbullah traps.
A poll conducted by Haaretz on Wednesday found that,
- Only 20 percent of respondents said that if the war ended today, it would be possible to declare Israel the winner. Some 30 percent said that Israel is losing, while 44 percent said that neither side is winning.
However, many people said that they had trouble answering this question, as they lacked relevant data.
Only 39 percent of the respondents backed the cabinet’s decision to expand the ground operation.
This does not look like good news for Olmert, to say the least.
Meanwhile, the popularity of Hizbullah and its leader Sayed Hassan Nasrullah, has continued to increase throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds– mainly because of Hizbullah’s ability to keep fighting despite the month of extremely lethal Israeli assaults.
The text of the ceasefire resolution as passed still looks to me to be very favorable to Israel. One very good aspect of it is, of course, the call for a “full cessation of hostilities”– even if, in Israel’s case that is then described only as, “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.” But as we all know, everything Israel has done in Lebanon over the past month has been fully “defensive”– right? (Irony alert.)
The resolution, number 1701, also calls for a total Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, which is excellent. But again, it qualifies this by saying that upon full cessation of hostilities the government of Lebanon and Unifil should deploy their forces together throughout the South, and the government of Israel should, “as that deployment begins, … withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel.” In other words, it doesn’t call (as resolution 425 did, back in 1978) for Israel to withdraw “forthwith”… but it allows Israel to stay in Lebanon until UNIFIL is ready to deploy, alongside the Lebanese Army, into the south. Beefing up UNIFIL from its present troop level of 2,000 to its projected level of 15,000 will take some weeks.
For all that time the IOF is in Lebanon, there will be a very high risk of renewed fighting. Plus, what on earth further havoc might they wreak on the infrastructure in the areas under their control?
One of the many other problems with the resolution (as I read it on the BBC website) is that in clause 15 (a) it seems to forbid “the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories… ” So not only Hizbullah but also the Government of Lebanon is apparently to be starved of any new arms supply? So how are the government forces supposed to act effectively in South Lebanon or anywhere else in the coming period?
Israel, of course, is subject to no such arms embargo, even as it proceeds with its evidently very lethal operations inside and against Lebanon…
Again, one good aspect of the resolution is that it does now (clause 18) “[Stress] the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.”
This is a very positive provision to include in the resolution. Not nearly as strong as what I’d advocated for in my CSM column of last Thursday. But it is important that the resolution has given at least some recognition to the fact that the violencebetween Lebanon and Israel is integrally linked to the broader Arab-Israeli peace process.
Let’s hope that future resolutions related to this region go much further in mandating a speedy resolution of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of those wellknown resolutions.
“The text of the ceasefire resolution as passed still looks to me to be very favorable to Israel.”
You are being too kind to it and to its authors. It clearly was written by and for Israel and its sponsors.
“One very good aspect of it is, of course, the call for a “full cessation of hostilities”–”
But it is carefully worded in a manner that allows Israel to continue to do whatever it wants while requiring Hizbollah – the only force that is doing anything at all to defend against Israel’s unspeakable aggression – to cease and desist immediately.
“even if, in Israel’s case that is then described only as, “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.”
Which, as you noted already, really means that Israel can carry on as usual, since its military operations are NEVER, EVER offensive. (Sarcasm – not irony – alert here, of course.)
“The resolution, number 1701, also calls for a total Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, which is excellent.”
And it gives Israel a pretext to bomb or invade any time it gets in the mood by setting up Unifil and the Lebanese governments as its proxy occupation forces. Now, one false move by anyone in Lebanon and Israel will have a pretext to go after the State of Lebanon for not living up to its obligation.
“But…it doesn’t call (as resolution 425 did, back in 1978) for Israel to withdraw “forthwith”… but it allows Israel to stay in Lebanon until UNIFIL is ready to deploy, alongside the Lebanese Army, into the south. Beefing up UNIFIL from its present troop level of 2,000 to its projected level of 15,000 will take some weeks.”
During which Israel will be free to “finish the job” (whatever “the job” is) while the Lebanese (in this case Hizbollah) are under the order of the United Nations not to resist.
Some might say this resolution is better than nothing. Many of us do not agree.
The resolution is drafted to give political cover to Olmert for an eventual withdrawal from Lebanon, after a disastrous campaign which is not now expected to achieve any other strategic objectives. Distasteful though it may be, this is a necessary step toward stopping the violence. Had the resolution in any way condemned Israeli aggression, or even been closer to evenhanded, Olmert would have been compelled to continue the carnage. He’s under plenty of pressure to do that anyway – let’s hope saner heads prevail.
The popularity of Hizbullah and its leader Sayed Hassan Nasrullah, has continued to increase throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.
yes, but at what cost to the Lebanese people?
“at what cost to the Lebanese people?”
You guys sound just like B-movie gangsters. “It’d be a shame if somethin’ happened to your FAMILY.”
“Would you call me a spoil sport if I predicted the ceasefire’s failure? If so, give me one reason to believe it might hold.”
The IDF continues to escalate hostilities, having tripled it’s forces in Lebanon since
Thursday, and will continue to advance as far as possible into Lebanon, it seems right up
to the point that aggression is required to end. If the Israeli Government intends to be a
party to a ceasefire, this is likely to make it immensly unstable at the outset. They will not
be likely to have a secure or continuous front line, so will be exposed in places, the front
line will also be very “hot” from the combat’s escalation. Hard not to see Richard’s point(above link).
One explanation other than simple duplicity is that IDF commanders have promised a military victory to “go out” on, as a career saving exercise, on the premise that any
shortcomings of such a large scale assault can be blured into a failed ceasefire if needs
be.
The Shebaa farms issue appears to have been pre-resolved in oreder to achieve the ceasefire agreemrnt
Truesdell
yes, but at what cost to the Lebanese people
Give me a break, we are sick and tired of this a single side attitude, if there are determinations about this war Israelis should pay for her crimes and should the aggressor pay for his madness and here ignorance on this Earth.
We all seeing Israelis targeting the Palestine’s leaders and those who involved in the representing the resistance to Israeli occupations and their land they are hunting down by Israeli’s chops and rockets, why then Hassan Nasrullah not hunt down? Why his TV station and radio running the show to the lat minute? Who is got befits from his move which caused the chaos by Israelis distraction of Lebanon?
Is it same behaviours those in Iraq who backed Iran look what’s happened in Iraq and those came with US troops are on the ground running the show on behalf of US.
US/UK asked for USD3.2Billions from Al-Gadafi for his crime why should Israel run out with her crimes in Lebanon?
There were a TV show made by Japanese was running on Iraqi TV 20 years ago for kids, the story around a kingdom of bees living in peace and then the ugly face aggressor came and destroyed the Bees’ kingdom, after that those peaceful Bees rebuilds their kingdom by hardworking and love again another enemy cam and destroy them and again the built …
So in ME Israel represent that aggressor who don’t know only the killing and aggression and destruction of the others lives.
John C.
after a disastrous campaign which is not now expected to achieve any other strategic objectives.
John C., you my like to read about Israelis –Arab wars, but after this war I think it’s more applicable to Israelis not Arabs…
Theory: Success or Failure in Arab-Israeli Wars? “pdf File”
By ELLI LIEBERMAN
أما ثاني تطبيق صهيوني في هذه العقيدة القتالية فكان في فلسطين حينما ضغطت عليهم المقاومة الفلسطينية فعمدوا إلى ذبح النساء والأطفال الأبرياء في معظم القرى الفلسطينية وهم عزل. وعلى ذلك نقيس كمثال مذبحة ومجزرة دير يسين.
أما في عام 1967 فلم تكن تحتاج للأطفال المدنيين فقامت بقتل الأسرى المصريين العزل والمقيّدي الأيدي من جنود وضباط ودفنتهم في قبور جماعية. ولكي تحدث الخوف والهلع في باقي الشعب المصري وقواته المسلحة سرّبت أخبار هذه الجريمة إليهم وإلا لكانت سرية حتى الآن.
وثالثاً كان ذلك أثناء حرب الاستنزاف على ضفة القنال قبيل حرب أكتوبر التي كانت بتخطيط من أركانات الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر يرحمه الله. ولطول المدة التي استغرقتها تلك الاستنزافات وفشل إسرائيل في ثني المصريين عن الاستمرار فيها، فلم يكن بداً من مجزرة مدارس بحر البقر في العمق المصري. فهل يعقل أن تكون تلك غلطة تصويب أو تحقق من مصدر نيران، كما تدعي إسرائيل دائماً. ومع ذلك فشلت إسرائيل في إحداث الرعب المنشود فكانت حرب رمضان 1973.
ورابعاً كان ذلك في أول دخول لهم لعاصمة عربية وهي بيروت لإخراج الفلسطينيين كانت مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا حتى لا يعود الفلسطينيون لذلك المكان الذي تلقت فيه إسرائيل الضربات الكبيرة ولكنهم لم ينجحوا أيضاً إذ خرجت ثورة حزب الله التي وحّدت لبنان مسيحييها ومسلميها سنييها وشيعتها.
وخامس تطبيق لهذه العقيدة بامتياز عندما فُُتحت شهيتهم على أطفال الحجارة في فلسطين وقاموا بتكسير أذرعتهم الصغيرة والطرية لكي توقف التفاف الرأي العام العالمي حول قضيتهم.
وسادساً كان ذلك قبل عشر سنوات أي في عام 1996م فقد قُتل مئة نفس مسلمة، ثمانون منهم من الأطفال والنساء والشيوخ. وعندها كان شمعون بيريز رئيساً لحزب العمل الحاكم فبذلك يجب عدم التفريق بين الليكود وكديما في تطبيق سياسة ذبح كل من يعكر صفو الكيان الصهيوني وعقيدتهم «الحضارية».
وسابعاً فإن عقيدتهم القتالية هذه شجعتهم أيضاً على قتل رجال الأمم المتحدة بدءًا من الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة همرشولد ولجنة تقصي الحقائق وتفجير فندق الملك داوود وغير ذلك.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=377694&issue=10120
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=377694&issue=10120
I think Truesdell read Arabic, like others Davis, JES, Vadim, Joshua , Jonathan, …… can translate this to our friends here……
So now we have the 1701 resolution. It is still terribly unbalanced, but somehow I feel that for this time we have escaped to a neocons plan which was to lure Syria into the conflict and after that Iran. Syria despite its long relationship with Lebanon didn’t move in however, depriving the power/oil thirsty Bush/Blair of the general ME conflagration they seem looking for.
But we only escaped to it this time. The frame for the next general conflict seems already set up :
1) Force the UN to take an unbalanced resolution, constraining the Hezbollah to a ceasefire, while Israel can continue to “defend itself” (well since they pretend that they had to destroy Lebanon in order to defend themselves, what exactly is forbidden ?)
2) Take an extended Finul (which looks more like a force second art. VII than a Finul second art. VI) and give it the mission to disarm Hezbollah, while Israel still keeps troops in Lebanon.
3) Count on Israel to pretend that the disarming isn’t quick enough, that in order to defend itself it has to help the Finul achieving its mission. Count on them to drag the period of withdrawal by the length and to become a defacto occupier of the region again; count on them to provoke Lebanon/Hezbollah.
4) Then just wait to see the disgruntled Hezbollah fighers falling in the trap and responding to the provocation.
5) Pretend that Iran and Syria are helping Hezbollah and create a mess which the Finul isn’t able to deal with (well, continue to pretend it.. like the recent interview of Shimon Perez who directly accused Iran and said it was necessary to go after it).
6) Israel & US go after Syria .. so that Iran comes to rescue. Then we have it.. the creative chaos a la neocon.
Lebanon is down to rubble. His leaders see clearly the risk and the imbalance of the proposed resolution, but they don’t have the power to oppose to these unjust terms. They need a respite in order to rescue the victimes and they want the destruction to cease. All this is outrageous, profoundly outrageous. The true underlaying deal seems to be that Israel will get a free hand south of the Litani and, in exchange, it will stop bombing the rest of Lebanon. They were not able to win over the Hezbollah and disarm it, but now they will have the help of the FINUL. (I)morality of the story : when you have a powerful friend like the US, you can transform an insuccess on the ground in a winning ceasefire accord. Plus this accord is bound to create the pretext the US superpower wants/need to have in order to go after Iran.
Christiane,
Israel & US go after Syria .. so that Iran comes to rescue.
Christiane I have believe Iran will never be harts by Israel & US, so far we seen Iran doing what Israel/US like to see in ME.
I think one day we will see Statue for Saddam, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah in Israel or US because these three did a marvellous job to them and they let them do unthinkable project in ME
Christiane,
Israel & US go after Syria .. so that Iran comes to rescue.
Christiane I have believe Iran will never be harts by Israel & US, so far we seen Iran doing what Israel/US like to see in ME.
I think one day we will see Statue for Saddam, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah in Israel or US because these three did a marvellous job to them and they let them do unthinkable project in ME
On 19 March 1978, five days after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, UN Security Council Resolution 425 called on Israel to withdraw immediately from Lebanon …”Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”.
It took Israel 22 years, 3 months and 11 days to finally comply with that resolution but not before invading, besieging and razing West Beirut, and occupying and destroying southern Lebanon. Why should it be any different this time?
Why should it be any different given Israel’s continued refusal to comply with UN SC Resolution 242 of 1967 (14,144 days and counting) or SC Resolution 338 of 1973 (11,983 days and counting)?
John Miate,
Why should it be any different given Israel’s continued refusal to comply with UN SC Resolution 242 of 1967 (14,144 days and counting) or SC Resolution 338 of 1973 (11,983 days and counting)?
John, Israel did not comply with more than 97 UN Resolutions till now but no one of the power members taking any actions from sanctions and banning arms or bombing till now in fact it’s got all the support in UN and the power members used the Vito right to protected her from any consequences… It’s the one sided controlling UN saga…
So not only Hizbullah but also the Government of Lebanon is apparently to be starved of any new arms supply?
totally untrue! clause 11 provides for arms imports ‘authorised by its government’ — see 15(b) as well: except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11.
A flimsy reed
By Yossi Sarid
“The frame for the next general conflict seems already set up”
Christiane, good job of laying out the worst-case scenario. I’m sure you are right that this is what the John Boltons of the world have in mind. For some reason though, I am feeling a small twinge of hope that the neocon agenda is running out of gas. I don’t think Israel is prepared for another long-term occupation of Southern Lebanon, let alone all-out war with Syria and certainly not with Iran. This is probably irrational optimism. It depends in large part on Nasrallah not believing his own P/R.
Vadim, thanks for your pointers re the text there. However, that exception in 15(b) seems only to apply to the prohibitions listed in 15(b) not the ones in 15(a). I also re-read clause 11. 11(e), 11(f) and 14 between them do apparently allow resupply for the Lebanese army– but also, apparently, under some control from UNIFIL? Does this put Lebanon’s allegedly “sovereign” armed forces under the tutelage of this foreign power? Who gets to control the control and composition of UNIFIL?
let alone all-out war with Syria and certainly not with Iran.
“TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s president has launched a Web log, using his first entry to recount his poor upbringing and ask visitors to the site if they think the United States and Israel want to start a new world war.”
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-13T162106Z_01_BLA353117_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-PRESIDENT-BLOG.xml&archived=False
Yes if one interpreted 15a; an arms supply prohibition clause, at face value then one might try and apply it to the IDF, which is currently an “entity or individual in (as opposed to say “based in” or “originating from”)Lebanon.” that is being supplied arms and ammunition from outside of Lebanon. And as far as 15b; a training and assistance prohibition clause, I doubt much needed IDF retraining would always be “authorised by the government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11. It does seem odd that this final limitation of 15b isn’t also in 15a as Helena noted. Is the idea that it’s OK to train people how to use weapons so long as they can’t rearm?
That couldn’t possibly be the case given the IDF’s “mopping up” and Syrian “border control” plans post cease-fire which, with current IAF/IDF tactics, are bound to need resupply of ammunition almost as frequent as it’s current self-defence activities. The IDF’s arms and ammunition often come from another state.
No doubt there is some special flavor of legalese that applies to UN resolutions, I’ll try and learn them after the cease-fire has held for it’s first week.