Israeli PM has accepted cease-fire deal

dilloduck

Diamond Member
May 8, 2004
53,240
5,805
1,850
Austin, TX
Israeli PM has accepted cease-fire deal By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert endorsed an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal late Friday, after a day of dramatic day brinksmanship including a threat to expand the ground war in Lebanon.


The agreement calls for the deployment of 30,000 Lebanese and U.N. troops along the Israel-Lebanon border. It falls short of some of Israel's demands, including a strong mandate for the U.N. forces to take on Hezbollah guerrillas.

However, the draft is the best chance yet for peace after more than four weeks of war that has killed more than 800 people, destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure and inflamed tensions across the Middle East.

Neither the Lebanese government nor Hezbollah has said publicly whether they would sign on to the deal, but it was widely assumed that they did not object to it. Plans to take the resolution to a vote were announced in New York shortly after U.S. Mideast envoy, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, met for a second time Friday with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

Israeli officials said Israel would not halt fighting until Israel's Cabinet has approved the cease-fire deal in its weekly meeting Sunday. It was not immediately clear whether the military would expand its ground offensive in the time remaining, or would only hold existing positions.

Only six hours passed from an initial decision by Olmert to broaden the ground offensive to his acceptance of the cease-fire deal. The zigzag reflected Israel's dilemma after a month of inconclusive fighting.

Israel has been unable to defeat Hezbollah and was concerned about growing Israeli casualties, as well as international condemnation, if the war continued. However, Olmert also feared that accepting a deal that does not rein in the guerrillas could lead to another war down the road and hurt him politically.

Olmert's initial order to send troops deeper into Hezbollah territory came even as U.N. Security Council negotiations reached the final stretch in New York.

Several hours later, France and the United States reached agreement on a final draft, to be put to a vote later Friday. The draft would authorize the deployment of 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers in south Lebanon, along with 15,000 Lebanese troops, into the region "as Israel withdraws."

The Security Council, repeatedly accused of taking too long to come up with a response to fighting, would leave out several key demands from both Israel and Lebanon in efforts to come up with a workable arrangement.

"You never get a deal like this with everybody getting everything that they want," Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said. "The question is, has everybody got enough for this to stick and for it to be enforceable? Nobody wants to go back to where we were before this last episode started."

Despite Lebanese objections, Israel will be allowed to continue defensive operations, and a dispute over the Chebaa Farms area along the Syria-Lebanon-Israel border will be left for later. Israel won't get its wish for an entirely new multinational force separate from the U.N. peacekeepers that have been stationed in south Lebanon since 1978.

There is also no call for the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel or a demand for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops. Although the draft resolution emphasizes the need for the "unconditional release" of the two Israeli soldiers whose July 12 capture by Hezbollah sparked the conflict, that call is not included in the list of steps required for a lasting cease-fire.

The ongoing fighting has killed more than 800 people — including at least 732 Lebanese and 122 Israelis.

After nightfall, there were some signs of troop movement on the Israel-Lebanon border. Battle-ready soldiers carrying heavy backpacks marched near the border as tanks assembled nearby. In south Lebanon, there were no reports of increased troop activity. Israeli officials gave conflicting assessments on whether a wider campaign was under way.

More than 10,000 Israeli troops are already fighting Hezbollah guerrillas in south Lebanon. In the new phase, Israeli forces would push toward Lebanon's Litani River, some 18 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border, attempting to capture more than twice as much territory as they hold now.

Olmert has faced growing criticism at home for the army's inability to halt the rocket barrages; Hezbollah has fired more than 3,500 rockets in the monthlong war. Polls also indicated that his initially approval rating, high at the start of the war, was slipping.

Commentators have suggested Olmert's political career was at stake, and that he might even be forced to step down. Many Israelis believe defeating Hezbollah is essential for their country's long-term security.

In Lebanon, Israeli airstrikes pounded south Beirut and border crossings to Syria, killing at least 15 people as ground fighting picked up intensity in the south of the country.

In the Bekaa Valley, an Israeli drone fired missiles into a convoy of refugees fleeing attacks in the southern town of Marjayoun, killing at least six people and wounding 16 others, an Associated Press photographer said.

The Israeli military said it had no knowledge of the incident. The army noted that it had imposed a travel ban on south Lebanon, and had received no request to coordinate a convoy in that area.

Throughout the day, civilians had been fleeing fighting in the Christian town of Marjayoun in long convoys after Israeli forces entered earlier this week.

Lutfallah Daher, the photographer, was with the convoy when it was hit near the town of Chtaura, about 30 miles north of the Litani River. Israel had warned it would attack any vehicle on roads south of the Litani, assuming it was carrying Hezbollah weapons or fighters.

Daher said the convoy consisted of more than 600 civilian vehicles and others carrying a detachment of 350 Lebanese soldiers and police when it left the area around Marjayoun. He said very few of the vehicles had left the convoy when it was hit.
 
Yea know, if some idiot is pounding on your door constantly, you don’t open it and punch his face a few times, and then close the door. You have to remove him from the property by whatever means permanently.

This is a mistake. IMO
 
Yea know, if some idiot is pounding on your door constantly, you don’t open it and punch his face a few times, and then close the door. You have to remove him from the property by whatever means permanently.

This is a mistake. IMO

I have to agree with you. Iran has won a battle in the ongoing war. Mind you, they haven't won the war, but the battle for sure.
 
I have to agree with you. Iran has won a battle in the ongoing war. Mind you, they haven't won the war, but the battle for sure.

I don't see where they have won a thing however the media may allow them to appear as tho they have won. It's a long week end folks--lot's can change.
 
I don't see where they have won a thing however the media may allow them to appear as tho they have won. It's a long week end folks--lot's can change.

The Hizbollah will not stop fighting in all likelihood, and the Israelis did retain the right to respond. However, when it came to international tribunal, Israel lost, Lebanon was able to get a Chapter 6, not the 7 that Israel demanded.

They lost, it doesn't take the NY Times to declare that. It's just a fact. Of course, when did the UN not find Israel to blame for something? Just that alone I guess in this case, could be spun as a victory of sorts.

The US lost, because it's proxy lost. For the same reason, Iran won. On larger scale, Iran keeps on threatening and US keeps backing off. Who wins with that?
 
The Hizbollah will not stop fighting in all likelihood, and the Israelis did retain the right to respond. However, when it came to international tribunal, Israel lost, Lebanon was able to get a Chapter 6, not the 7 that Israel demanded.

They lost, it doesn't take the NY Times to declare that. It's just a fact. Of course, when did the UN not find Israel to blame for something? Just that alone I guess in this case, could be spun as a victory of sorts.

The US lost, because it's proxy lost. For the same reason, Iran won. On larger scale, Iran keeps on threatening and US keeps backing off. Who wins with that?

You talking about the real world or media land? The Hizbullys got thier asses handed to them. No-an Israeli is not immortal and the Mossad blew it. That may be about it. Nothing else has changed----it's the world against the US and Israel---what's new?
 
You talking about the real world or media land? The Hizbullys got thier asses handed to them. No-an Israeli is not immortal and the Mossad blew it. That may be about it. Nothing else has changed----it's the world against the US and Israel---what's new?

Oh real land. November elections right around the corner. I haven't a clue about Mossad, would be impossible to tell, thanks to Olmert.

There are the blue helmets, with guns Kofi is hoping to beg from US. He spent most of his time, slapping the US in diplomatic terms. Why are we in the UN again? Oh, Condi kissed his ass, nicely.
 
Oh real land. November elections right around the corner. I haven't a clue about Mossad, would be impossible to tell, thanks to Olmert.

There are the blue helmets, with guns Kofi is hoping to beg from US. He spent most of his time, slapping the US in diplomatic terms. Why are we in the UN again? Oh, Condi kissed his ass, nicely.

It's diplo-speak and it ain't over yet. Step away from the panic button. Things happen behind closed doors more often than they do in public.
 
It's diplo-speak and it ain't over yet. Step away from the panic button. Things happen behind closed doors more often than they do in public.

I'm not in panic mode, I save that for cells being activated here. Here's a few, that say it better than I can:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzExODBmMjliNTc5YTA0YzVjOTZjZDRmZTg2NWVhYzI=

Friday, August 11, 2006

Hezbollah Wins [Andy McCarthy]
Hezbollah wins this big just by being legitmized. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, not a country. The resolution we are signing on to, however, addresses it as if it were a country. The resolution doesn't purport to direct any UN member nation to make Hezbollah cease firing — least of all Lebanon, the purported sovereign of this territory. Instead, it appeals to Hezbollah directly — in the same paragraph in which it addresses Israel, as if there were no difference in status between the two — and "calls on" it to stand down.

How do we sign onto that? Didn't we just say about 24 hours ago that we are dealing with "Islamo-fascists" who cannot be reasoned with? Yet, recognizing that no one is willing to fight them, we are joining the "international community" in calling on Hezbollah terrorists to stand down? And when they don't what happens? Will we write them a strong letter?

Maybe we should vacate Iraq but have the new Iraqi army and the UN guard the country while we call on al Qaeda to disarm. That's apparently a winning formula, right?


Posted at 8:29 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY4ZjJkODc0NDRjNDc3YTcwZjIyYmRhMjA3NmE0ZWY=

Friday, August 11, 2006

the un resolution [Michael Rubin]
The UN Resolution is a defeat for the war on terror. Israel lost, Iran won.
* An international force is just decoration, all the more so without Chapter VII. You can out whatever language you want in about robustness, but the international community looks for reasons to not take action, not for reasons to be efficient.
* The UN already demarcated the Israeli/Lebanon border. They found that Shabaa Farms was not part of Lebanon. That it is even referred to is a victory for Hizbullah.
* Embargoes don't work. Is the international force prepared to take over Lebanese customs at all points of entry?
* The resolution suggests a prisoner exchange, legitimizing the Hizbullah's hostage-taking.
* Hizbullah became the first Arab army to hit Haifa since 1948.
Diplomats and politicians will try to spin, but it's hard to change the facts.
Posted at 6:38 PM

Responding to the above post:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGQ0NDBkZjViYzViZmYyOGQxZjViY2I3NmFhZDdlMjU=

Resolution Pollution [John Podhoretz]
Michael, your distress is well-founded. The only reason I said the resolution is not a disaster is that the language is extraordinarily vague even for the United Nations, and allows Israel to continue military operations. On the matter of Shaaba Farms, the language only says the Security Council "takes due note" of Lebanon's claims over them — which means nothing, especially since the Secretary General has already reported to the Security Council that Shaaba Farms should be considered of Syrian origin. Alas, the notion that Israel's detention of "Lebanese" (i.e., Hezbollah) prisoners must be dealt with "urgently" is very bad news, and an awful parallel with the kidnapped Israelis.

Posted at 7:06 PM

And somewhat connected to all of the above, but with their own take:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014976.php

August 11, 2006
The amateur hour continues

The Jerusalem Post reports that the U.S. and our partner the French have agreed upon a cease fire resolution. From what I can tell, the resolution is a bad joke. Apparently, the same U.N. clown force that has been doing nothing in south Lebanon will be deployed. Then, the job of defanging Hezbollah will be turned over to the Lebanese army, made up in part of Hezbollah sympathizers and in part of those with no stomach to take on Hezbollah, especially on Israel's behalf. Hezbollah will correctly viewed as the force that, for the first time in Lebanese history, prevented a meaningful Israeli advance. Thus, the prospects of it being truly defanged by the Lebanese would appear to be nil.

The JPost says there's a good chance that the wobbly Olmert government will accept this resolution. Over at NRO's corner, John Podhoretz contends that this would mean the end of the Olmert government. I'm tempted to suggest that our government, having seemingly lost its will to oppose (or even to let others oppose) our deadliest enemies, deserves the same fate. But let's wait until the facts are in.

UPDATE: Here, via NRO's Corner, is the content of the U.N. resolution. Here, via the same source, is the administration's spin. The spin seems to be that the administration won a victory by insisting that Israel be permitted to remain in south Lebanon until the U.N force is deployed and that, at the end of the day, there was always going to be an international force to replace the Israelis (who don't want to remain indefinitely).

But if, as I have argued, the IDF is the only force truly capable of degrading Hezbollah, then there is no excuse for bringing this matter to an end until the IDF has made much more progress than it has to date. Moreover, even assuming that eventually an international force would have to be relied on to keep Hezbollah degraded, that international force didn't have to be the joke U.N. force, a proven failure that bears a share of the responsibility for all of the death and destruction of the past month.

FURTHER UPDATE: John Podhoretz argues that the resolution "is not a disaster" because it only bars Israel from "offensive" military action while the IDF remains in Lebanon. But, even taking an aggressive view of what consititutes defensive military action, the resolution surely bars a major push deeper into Lebanon, and that is what was needed. Further desultory action in the border towns isn't going to mean much. Nor would I expect the IDF to be quick to ask its troops to be "the last to die for a mistake."

Speaking of mistakes, the eventual administration spin on this is probably going to be that it gave Israel plenty of time to crush Hezbollah, but the Olmert government bungled the job. That the Olmert government disappointed seems indisputable. But why should Israel have been given less than a month to undo six years of Hezbollah entrenchment? We've had several years in Iraq and haven't finished the job. My guess is that the administration just didn't want to take the international heat associated with another month (say) of fighting in Lebanon. If so, that doesn't bode well for its future conduct of the war on terror.

JOHN adds: Blog of the Week Vital Perspective has these thoughts:

t emphasizes the need for the "unconditional release" of the two IDF soldiers kidnapped on July 12, but does not make a direct demand for their freedom. Additionally, it calls on Israel and Lebanon to agree to a long-term solution under which Hezbullah would be disarmed. The text does not define when Hezbollah would be disarmed and by whom.

Further, it calls for a phased withdrawal by Israeli troops as the Lebanese army deploys 15,000 troops in the south, controlled by Hezbollah. At the same time, UNIFIL would be reinforced by French and other troops, perhaps as many as 15,000. The draft does not specify which chapter of the UN Charter UNIFIL would be authorized under. Instead, it says their mandate would include several elements: monitoring the cessation of hostilities, accompanying Lebanese troops as they deploy and as Israel withdraws, and ensuring humanitarian access. As in earlier drafts, the resolution includes an arms embargo on weapons flowing to Lebanon except for those ordered by the Beirut army and UN forces.

The question is, does any of this matter? The Security Council will likely unanimously approve the resolution tonight. Israel will likely accept it on Sunday. Lebanon has expressed satisfaction, but none of this matters if Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the terrorist Hezbollah organization, does not accept it. If the rocket attacks continue, if Israeli civilians are forced to live their lives in bomb shelters, if the IDF is attacked from their positions within Israel, then Israel can and will exercise its legitimate right to self-defense, and this resolution will have achieved little if anything at all. So by all means, Israel must accept this resolution. As Secretary Rice has said in the past, following this resolution, "We will see who is for peace and who is not."

I haven't yet had time to study the terms of the resolution, but it sounds indefinite enough that it will lead to further trouble before long.
Posted by Paul at 03:54 PM
 
I'm not in panic mode, I save that for cells being activated here. Here's a few, that say it better than I can:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzExODBmMjliNTc5YTA0YzVjOTZjZDRmZTg2NWVhYzI=



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY4ZjJkODc0NDRjNDc3YTcwZjIyYmRhMjA3NmE0ZWY=



Responding to the above post:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGQ0NDBkZjViYzViZmYyOGQxZjViY2I3NmFhZDdlMjU=



And somewhat connected to all of the above, but with their own take:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014976.php

ya--but I like hearing it from you instead of proxies!
 
ya--but I like hearing it from you instead of proxies!

I went first, and I like proxies-when they are mine!

Time to raise the flags!


unifiljj6.jpg
 
ok I get it--sometimes we believe the media !:laugh:

Not so much the MSM and I'm very careful with my alternatives. Do you doubt the UN/Hizbollah flags together? Don't. Even Chicago Tribune noted that, like in 20 locations.
 
Not so much the MSM and I'm very careful with my alternatives. Do you doubt the UN/Hizbollah flags together? Don't. Even Chicago Tribune noted that, like in 20 locations.

Oh I buy it---the right wing media has it all over the place. I'm just not willing to give Iran nor the Hizbullys credit for winning a damn thing.
 
Oh I buy it---the right wing media has it all over the place. I'm just not willing to give Iran nor the Hizbullys credit for winning a damn thing.

Tis your right. Tell me how you spin an Israeli/US victory?
 
Tis your right. Tell me how you spin an Israeli/US victory?

What spin? The US didn't fight other than to supply Israel with the means. Israel successfully defended itself against an attack that exposed the level of terrorist activity that remains in Lebanon. If ( which is a huge if) 30,000 international troops move into Southern Lebanon, there is an arms embargo, Isreal gets it's soldiers back, then it's a real victory--not one that you can pin up on your bulletin board.
 
The UN? Someone is listening to the UN? :funnyface

OK..watch. The first rocket into Israel cancels everything.. I give this 24 hours, MAX.

Dillo said something about “behind closed doors”, personally I think there is a great deal of that going on…time will tell..

My “feeling” is this is going ALL the way to Iran. We’ll see.
 
The UN? Someone is listening to the UN? :funnyface

OK..watch. The first rocket into Israel cancels everything.. I give this 24 hours, MAX.

Dillo said something about “behind closed doors”, personally I think there is a great deal of that going on…time will tell..

My “feeling” is this is going ALL the way to Iran. We’ll see.

Other than some of the US public, nearly 'everyone' listens to the UN. More importantly to US politics, the dems listen very closely. IF your scenario comes to pass, the most likely, the dems will say Bush/Condi/administration were worse that the dems would be, IF they held power.

It's an election year, during war, in one of the worst partisan scenarios since the Civil War.
 

Forum List

Back
Top