First Draft of Cease Fire?

[Annie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_un

U.S., France OK U.N. Mideast truce pact

By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 2 minutes ago

The United States and France agreed Saturday on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for a halt to the fighting between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, but would allow Israel to defend itself if attacked.

The draft, sent to the entire Security Council for consideration, "calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."

Israel, backed by the U.S., has insisted it must have the right to respond if Hezbollah launches missiles against it. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate halt to the fighting without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

The agreement broke weeks of deadlock as the U.N. Security Council had failed to take any significant action to stop the violence, primarily because of opposition from the United States, Israel's closest ally.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the agreement will aid the peace process.

"What we're trying to do is lay in the foundation so that you can finally enact the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559," said Snow, speaking from Crawford, Texas, where President Bush was vacationing on his ranch.

Resolution 1559, passed in September 2004, called for the disarming of Hezbollah and the extension of Lebanese government authority throughout southern Lebanon.

Illustrating the difficulty ahead in getting the sides to agree to a cease-fire, Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese Cabinet, said after the announcement that his group would stop fighting, but only if Israel removed all its troops from Lebanon. The draft resolution makes no such demand.

"If they stay, we will not abide by it," he told reporters.

Israel has said it wants to continue fighting for up to two more weeks to seriously diminish Hezbollah's military capability.

The full 15-nation Security Council was to meet later Saturday to discuss the resolution, and it was likely to be adopted in the next couple of days, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said.

"We're prepared to continue to work tomorrow in order to make progress on the adoption of the resolution but we have reached agreement and we're now ready to proceed," Bolton said. "We're prepared to move as quickly as other members of the council want to move."

The resolution asks that Israel and Lebanon agree to a set of principles to achieve a long-term peace. One crucial element is an arms embargo that would block any entity in Lebanon except the Lebanese government from obtaining weapons from abroad.

That is presumably meant to block the sale or supply of arms to Hezbollah from Iran and Syria, believed to be the militia's main suppliers.

Other principles spelled out in the resolution include the disarmament of Hezbollah; the creation of a buffer zone from the U.N.-demarcated border between Israel and Lebanon up to the Litani River, which is about 20 miles north of the frontier; and the delineation of Lebanon's borders, especially in the disputed Chebaa Farms area.

The resolution would call for the current U.N. force in Lebanon, known by its acronym UNIFIL, to monitor the cessation in fighting. Once Israel and Lebanon have agreed to the series of principles, the Security Council would then authorize a new peacekeeping force for the region.

That force would "support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution."

That element was a victory for France. The U.S. and Israel had earlier insisted that there would be no deal without the immediate deployment of a new force, separate from UNIFIL.

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair endorsed the U.S.-French draft resolution, calling it "an important first step in bringing this tragic crisis to an end."

"The priority now is to get the resolution adopted as soon as possible, and then to work for a permanent cease-fire and achieve the conditions in Lebanon and Israel which will prevent a recurrence," said Blair.

Israeli Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog said the agreement was an "important development," but Israel will not halt its war against Hezbollah for the time being.

"We have to study the details of this draft. There's a lot in there," Herzog told Israel TV's Channel One. "The Israeli military continues to act in the meantime, without letup, in many areas."

It was not immediately clear whether Herzog was speaking for the government. Officials in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said no formal reaction was expected Saturday.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was to arrive at Bush's ranch later Saturday, but would head back for a vote at the U.N.

"She will be prepared to go to New York," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, meanwhile, met with Lebanese officials in Beirut Saturday trying to pave the way for ending hostilities. He talked with Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a prominent Shiite who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah.

He said the talks focused on establishing a lasting political framework for Lebanon and an international force to support the Lebanese army in taking control of the south from Hezbollah.

The fighting has been raging since July 12 when Hezbollah guerrillas crossed into northern Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers.

 

[Annie]

Reaction. The Security Council still needs to approve, but Hizbollah is complaining. I do find the French reaction to Hizbollah interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060805/wl_nm/mideast_reaction_dc

Praise and skepticism greet UN peace resolution

By Scott McDonald 38 minutes ago

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair backed a U.N. bid to end fighting in Lebanon, but the plan was greeted with skepticism by some on Saturday who wondered whether it could be implemented.

The draft U.N. Security Council resolution completed by the United States and France seeks to end fighting that began when the Iranian-backed group Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

The draft resolution, obtained by Reuters calls, for a "full cessation of hostilities." It also tells Hizbollah to end attacks immediately and for Israel to stop "all offensive military operations."

The text of the resolution, which calls for a framework for a political settlement between Israel and Lebanon, must still be reviewed and accepted by the full 15-member council.

"This is a first step. There is still much to be done," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "But there is no reason why this resolution should not be adopted now and we have the cessation of hostilities ... within the next couple of days."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush, who is at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, knew details of the resolution and "he's happy about it."

But getting the parties to stop fighting may not be easy, as seen by the statement by Hizbollah cabinet minister Mohammed Fneish, who said the guerrilla group would stop only when Israel ended its bombardment of Lebanon and withdrew its troops.

"Israel is the aggressor. When the Israeli aggression stops, Hizbollah simply will cease fire on the condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land," he said.

Francois Gere, head of the French Institute for Strategic Analysis, said the U.N. effort was a first positive signal "but I don't expect the situation to stabilize in the coming week."

He added he did not see Hizbollah giving up the battle soon unless pressured by Iran.

"The big test is not the Lebanese government, it's really Hizbollah," said Ousama Safa, head of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.

"Hizbollah will probably drag its feet because Hizbollah sees that its fortunes on the battlefield are on its side, so it will drag its feet and up the ante as much as possible to get a resolution that is acceptable on its own terms."

The conflict has killed at least 734 people in Lebanon and 78 Israelis. Hizbollah has fired 2,600 rockets into Israel.

Other analysts also said the U.N. bid would be difficult to put into practice.

"There's going to be a huge gap between the content of this resolution and the military and psychological reality on the ground (which) will make it hard to implement," said Middle East expert Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Telhami said one problem was that Hizbollah has not been involved with drafting the resolution.

"And it isn't clear that they have any input in this. And it's hard to see how you're going to implement something like this (without the input)," Telhami said.

Israeli Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog said time was running out for Israel's military campaign.

"We have the coming days for lots of military moves. But we have to realize the timetable is getting shorter," he said.

 

[Gunny]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_un

This is killer stuff. Israel is waging war against Hezbollah; meanwhile, France and the US agree on a cease-fire for them.:rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

This is killer stuff. Israel is waging war against Hezbollah; meanwhile, France and the US agree on a cease-fire for them.:rotflmao:

You noticed the irony too? Now Hizbollah? Seems Iran or Syria should be included? Then again, I guess that would put France with them, never mind.

 

[dilloduck]

Syrian minister rejects cease-fire plan 1 hour, 1 minute ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806...8rK7JoUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The Syrian foreign minister declared on Sunday that the U.S.-French cease-fire plan was "a recipe for the continuation of the war" and he warned his armed forces were under orders to respond immediately if Israel attacks.



"If Israel attacks Syria by any mean, on the ground, by air, our leadership ordered the armed forces to reply immediately," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said after emerging from a meeting with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

That lasted a long time. Apparently the real purpose of this peace plan is to see who wants peace and who doesn't. That was pretty obvious a while back I think.

 

[Mr. P]

Syrian minister rejects cease-fire plan 1 hour, 1 minute ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806...8rK7JoUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--



That lasted a long time. Apparently the real purpose of this peace plan is to see who wants peace and who doesn't. That was pretty obvious a while back I think.

I think Israel should continue straight through Lebanon into Syria. They need to sweep both Countries clean of Hezbollah. IMO
The US can move to the eastern Syrian boarder or the western boarder of Iran to stop Iranian forces from crossing. Turkey can secure its eastern boarder with Iran.

Then, announce to Iran they’re next.

 

[bobn]

I think Israel should continue straight through Lebanon into Syria. They need to sweep both Countries clean of Hezbollah. IMO
The US can move to the eastern Syrian boarder or the western boarder of Iran to stop Iranian forces from crossing. Turkey can secure its eastern boarder with Iran.

Then, announce to Iran they’re next.

The idea that a guerilla army like Hezbollah can be "swept clean" from an area as large as Lebanon and Syria without support of the citizenry is beyond ludicrous. You can bomb cities and urban positions to kill a lot of the guerillas, but this will be at the expense of support of the local citizenry. And without enough support from locals you can never hope to sweep clean an area of guerillas. By Israel bombing the infrastructure of lebanon they have inadvertently made it possible for hizbollah to remain there for decades. Once again this is yet another 21st century war fought based on short term satisfaction and a lack of long term oversight.

 

[Mr. P]

The idea that a guerilla army like Hezbollah can be "swept clean" from an area as large as Lebanon and Syria without support of the citizenry is beyond ludicrous. You can bomb cities and urban positions to kill a lot of the guerillas, but this will be at the expense of support of the local citizenry. And without enough support from locals you can never hope to sweep clean an area of guerillas. By Israel bombing the infrastructure of lebanon they have inadvertently made it possible for hizbollah to remain there for decades. Once again this is yet another 21st century war fought based on short term satisfaction and a lack of long term oversight.

Any reasonable citizen that sees the Country being destroyed would surely support the effort to eliminate the cause, don't ya think? Pull your head outta the pacifist hole in the ground. The cause of this current situation IS NOT Israel, it is Hezbollah. Deal with it, Israel is.

 

[dilloduck]

I think Israel should continue straight through Lebanon into Syria. They need to sweep both Countries clean of Hezbollah. IMO
The US can move to the eastern Syrian boarder or the western boarder of Iran to stop Iranian forces from crossing. Turkey can secure its eastern boarder with Iran.

Then, announce to Iran they’re next.

Exactly--and I have a feeling that only France is standing in the way. This thing is far from over and expect it to get worse as the Hizbullys keep firing the big stuff.

 

[bobn]

Any reasonable citizen that sees the Country being destroyed would surely support the effort to eliminate the cause, don't ya think? Pull your head outta the pacifist hole in the ground. The cause of this current situation IS NOT Israel, it is Hezbollah. Deal with it, Israel is.

Solutions are independant from the causes. Im a pessimist, not a pacifist.

There is now no solution to this problem for the forseeable future. The problem is noone can "deal with it"

Hezbollah are not going to be destroyed unless the local population are pursuaded to remove them. Bombing the infrastructure of lebanon will not suffice and has the negative side effect of ensuring the population will not remove them. Ie bombing damages hezbollah but also solidifies their position. The net effect is unknown. I suspect, due to it being fairly easy to recruit and supply hezbollah in that region that the net effect has been to strengthen and not weaken hezbollah. It's like shooting rats, they will breed and grow in number faster than you can kill them, except the noise of your shooting has annoyed the locals on whom land the rats live and those locals are now less interested in helping you remove them. In short you gain nothing and lose slightly more. Shooting things is a short term satisfaction solution - everytime you kill a rat it makes you feel like you have accomplished something. One step closer to goal. But it aint necessarily true.

 

[Mr. P]

Solutions are independant from the causes. Im a pessimist, not a pacifist.

There is now no solution to this problem for the forseeable future.

I disagree. Kick ass, take names, break things, like Isreal is doing! They'll get the messege.

It's like treating a cancer....It spreads and grows until you stop it..A cure? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is if you don't treat and try to destroy it, it will surely kill you!

 

[dilloduck]

Solutions are independant from the causes. Im a pessimist, not a pacifist.

There is now no solution to this problem for the forseeable future. The problem is noone can "deal with it"

Hezbollah are not going to be destroyed unless the local population are pursuaded to remove them. Bombing the infrastructure of lebanon will not suffice and has the negative side effect of ensuring the population will not remove them. Ie bombing damages hezbollah but also solidifies their position. The net effect is unknown. I suspect, due to it being fairly easy to recruit and supply hezbollah in that region that the net effect has been to strengthen and not weaken hezbollah. It's like shooting rats, they will breed and grow in number faster than you can kill them, except the noise of your shooting has annoyed the locals on whom land the rats live and those locals are now less interested in helping you remove them. In short you gain nothing and lose slightly more. Shooting things is a short term satisfaction solution - everytime you kill a rat it makes you feel like you have accomplished something. One step closer to goal. But it aint necessarily true.

Do you have any inside scoop into the long range strategy being used by the US OR Israel. Perhaps you're pessimistic because you believe your own theories. If the Wests' approach to confronting Islamo-Terrorism is encouraging more recuits, so be it. It's timke peole pick thier side because the shits gonna fly. It needs to--we've appeased these assholes too long anyway. If we waited any longer we would start looking like Europe.

 

[bobn]

That's precisely it. The shit is not going to fly. 10 years from now everything will be just the same. Terrorists and bombs and small wars in the middle east. All these chicken little alarmists predicting world war 3 will turn out wrong..again (remember when the media were predicting world war back in the 70s and 80s?)

 

[Mr. P]

That's precisely it. The shit is not going to fly. 10 years from now everything will be just the same. Terrorists and bombs and small wars in the middle east. All these chicken little alarmists predicting world war 3 will turn out wrong..again (remember when the media were predicting world war back in the 70s and 80s?)

So your solution is what?

 

[dilloduck]

That's precisely it. The shit is not going to fly. 10 years from now everything will be just the same. Terrorists and bombs and small wars in the middle east. All these chicken little alarmists predicting world war 3 will turn out wrong..again (remember when the media were predicting world war back in the 70s and 80s?)

If it doesn't fly it will only be because liberals and muslim infested western countries don't have the stomach or brains to finish off an enemy.

 

[bobn]

Why assume there is a solution?

It appears there are several paths. Israel and hezbollah move down one at the moment, the UN suggest a different one. Neither is a solution in that neither path leads to an end, at least in the forseeable future.

I guess you could choose which path to take based on what you thought might happen along the way, but that's a bit too much like trying to predict the future in an especially uncertain situation. So I think that would just be a guess. A dice roll would be as effective as anything at this point.

 

[dilloduck]

Why assume there is a solution?

It appears there are several paths. Israel and hezbollah move down one at the moment, the UN suggest a different one. Neither is a solution in that neither path leads to an end, at least in the forseeable future.

I guess you could choose which path to take based on what you thought might happen along the way, but that's a bit too much like trying to predict the future in an especially uncertain situation. So I think that would just be a guess. A dice roll would be as effective as anything at this point.

The fallacy of your argument is that America can afford to just sit and watch. Do nothing and you get steamrolled and don't tell me there is no steamroller.

 

[bobn]

Isn't that what the US is doing with regards to the Hezbollah/Israel situation? Sitting and watching as Israel go about their strategy to resolve it?

 

[dilloduck]

Isn't that what the US is doing with regards to the Hezbollah/Israel situation? Sitting and watching as Israel go about their strategy to resolve it?

Have you totally missed the fact that our Secretary of State and ambassador to the UN are working thier asses off to reach "a sustainable peace" ? Think about it. A sustainable peace would involve dealing with Iran, probably the biggest threat to America. Wouldn't you say that Iran represents the heart of Islamo-facism at present ? Even moderate Arab countries are telling the Hizbullys that they have gone to far. Iran knows full well who they are talking about.

 

[bobn]

Have you totally missed the fact that our Secretary of State and ambassador to the UN are working thier asses off to reach "a sustainable peace" ?

That has only happened within about the last week. Before that there was a definite sitting and watching approach and even now I suspect the US administration still sees the Israeli military operations as the prefered path to resolve this, just as they did over a week ago. Ie the UN negotiations approach is just politics.