Israel Blockades Lebanon

[Mushr00ms]

The same quote refers to previous cease fires in which Hezbollah was supposed to disarm. What is the point of putting it in if Hez never disarms and no one will make them? What is meant by "long term solution" is not that Hezbollah can take its time to disarm but that its being disarmed will be the long term solution. How do I know this? Well the US & French put this ceasefire together and Bush and Chirac said as such.

 

[lazyhazycrazydays3]

Are you concussed? You are talking nonsense. Thank God you are not the one having to interpret the resolution.

This resolution places no pressure on Hezbollah to disarm whatsoever.

This is a good article on it

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688589/posts

and here is a news article affirming it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100933.html

heres a snippet



Do you need any more sources?

 

[j1struck]

Actually the article states that the Lebanese government will be either unable or unwilling to disarm Hezbollah and/or prevent them rearming, not that such action is not required by the Resolution.

 

[LittleMasterNik]

He's not confused: you are. Or did you miss Operant Clause #3 in the resolution? (1701) Let's look at it together, shall we,

“3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;"

If that doesn't spell it out plainly enough, we can look at the text of 1559, again Operant Clause #3:

“3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;"

And just for kicks, let's look at Operant Clause #6 from 1680 which is also cited above in the 1701 Ceasefire resolution:

“6. Welcomes the decision of the Lebanese national dialogue to disarm Palestinian militias outside refugee camps within six months, supports its implementation and calls for further efforts to disband and disarm all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and to restore fully the Lebanese Government’s control over all Lebanese territory;"

All of these Operant Clauses have one thing in common: they call for the disarmament of all non-gov't militias in Lebanon. Hezbollah is NOT the gov't of Lebanon, they are a non-state actor with a private army; an army that as of right now exists in violation of international accord and UN Resolution. If English is your primary language, how can you not "interpret" these resolutions as demanding Hezbollah to disarm when it's spelled out explicitly in all three? The fact that there's no mechanism to execute that disarmament in the resolution is just further proof of the ineffective and subsequent irrelevancy of the UN. Clearly they want Hezbollah disarmed, they're just not prepared to actually do it.

 

[vicky_edmond2000]

Hezbollah is supposed to be disarmed, the newspaper just says no one is going to make them.

On a different topic, the UN peacekeepers:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got

 

[sshopaholic12]

no the newspaper says that the disarming of Hezbollah is not dealt with in 1701, or is your President and all of his advisors mistaken on that?

 

[MnayL]

No it is dealt with. You are mistaken.

 

[russianator]

then President Bush is also mistaken, as is Israel and Lebanon and the UN security council. Thats why Bush is pushing for another resolution.

Its like arguing with a two year old.

 

[cena]

I think you're confusing a lack of commitment on using e.g. military force to enforce the disarmament, with the disarmament not being in the resolution.

It's typical "If they ignore this, we'll write a really stern memo" UN BS

 

[FutureMrseG]

I don't understand how the term "armed group" does not refer to Hezbollah in a cease fire for a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. Explain the logic. Because it seems to be pretty clear to everyone but you that it mean Hezbollah.

 

[mwi1112000]

Lets review the clause and take it aparty bit by bit



Resolutions 1559 and 1680 both requite the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.

The state of Lebanon is the only recognized authority in Lebanon.

Where does that leave Hezbollah? Well they an armed group that is NOT the Lebanese gov't. Which can only mean, the resolution is calling for their disarmament.

I hear your argument, that several members of Hezbollah were elected to parliament. Of course being that Hezbollah is armed and no other force including the Lebanese army can do anything about it, how can anyone run against Hezbollah without being killed. They can't.

 

[springfairy556]

No, it states clearly in the resolution that the cessation of hostilities is based on both sides ceasing hostilities (funnily enough). It talks about the previous resolutions later. The entire resolution is not solely concerned with the current crisis, it is attempting to fix the entire problem.

Ok I'll give a simpler example of long and short term goals because Firecoins doesn't seem to get the difference.

In Iraq a short term goal is to train up the Iraqi forces so they are able to police the country alone.

The long term goal is to pull out all foreign forces from Iraq and let the country stand on its own two feet so that it can become a real player in the middle east and the wider international community.

Now you cant achieve your long term goal until your short term goal has been signed off. And no one (with a brain in their head) expects the long term goal to take priority over the short term goal - since thats why its the short term goal.

So the cessation of hostilities as described in the resolution is the short term goal and the removal of all armed militia/weapons not under control of Lebanon is the long term goal. Even Olmert understands that.

 

[ksnake10]

Of course it means Hezbollah but it doesn't mean it is to be done now!

 

[leutenantriggs]

Except that the UN has no teeth in almost all of their 'sanctions' unless the US is responsible for enforcing it. Then the US takes all the heat and the other member states walk off smiling. It will be interesting to see if Israels request for arab nation troops to enforce the ceasefire will be granted by the neighboring countries.

 

[JonathanD]

Israel have said they aren't happy for the UN force to comprise of Muslim states that it doesn't have a relationship with, which frankly isn't surprising. Half of the 15000 troops come from muslim countries.

 

[Sylvester]

yes put Iranian troops as the peace keeping troops. Makes sense for a cease fire. Of course there hasn't been any conlict on the Israeli Egyptian border in some time. Unless you count Al Qeida attacks in Egypt. I guess not having an armed militan group on the Southern border of Israel means peace.

Your sticking point seems to be a lack of a time frame. Well Hezbollah is supposed to be disarmed but no one is going to make them. In fact, they are rearming, which is the opposite of what the ceasefire calls for.

 

[EatAtJoes]

I guess that depends on one's point of view.

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, who said that "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail" would definitely not settle for 40.

The Prime Minister of Israel, the Prime Minister of Israel, is a far more moderate man and offered ~1200 dead, 3600 wounded, and a destroyed nation.

It was a gracious offer, by any Israeli standard, but the Arabs, ever hard to please, still didn't give his men back.


Stay tuned for round 2, tentatively dubbed "Reestablishing deterrence".

 

[bobby420]

Aside from that minor detail that Southern Lebanon has been on Israel's wish-list since Ben Gurion described his vision for the borders a "greater Israel" in 1918:
"...to the north, the Litani river, to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty
miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed
into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert,
including the furthest edge of Transjordan"

 

[dellman220008]

holy threadromancy, batman