UN Adopts Draft for Isreali/Leb Ceasefire

[Ice]

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council on Friday unanimously approved a six-page proposal aimed at ending the monthlong conflict between Israel and Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.
Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said before the vote that the Israeli Security Cabinet was likely to sign off on the resolution at its Sunday meeting.

Resolution 1701 calls for increasing the number of U.N. troops in the area from 2,000 to 15,000. They would be joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops and charged with ensuring Hezbollah could not operate anywhere between the Israel-Lebanon border and the Litani River.

The measure also calls for the unconditional release of two Israeli soldiers captured July 12 by Hezbollah. The action precipitated the conflict.

It also calls for a "full cessation of hostilities" and says that once a cease-fire has been achieved the Lebanese government will deploy its forces into southern Lebanon as Israel withdraws its soldiers from the area.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

30,000 troops. This sounds very promising.

[Divinus Arma]

Chapter 6 or chapter 7 mandate? Number of troops wont matter unless they have teeth.

[Xiahou]

Chapter 6 or chapter 7 mandate? Number of troops wont matter unless they have teeth.

There's language in the draft that directly refers to using 'all necessary means' and force where needed. Apparently Lebanon opposed language specifically referring to Chapter7. I sincerely hope it works out, but Im skeptical seeing as how the force is composed of untested Lebanese troops and UNIFIL, which has thus far been useless at best and complete Hezbollah dupes at worst.

[spmetla]

I'm glad the UN has adopted this. The Israeli attack was too heavy handed and I think will cause more lebanese to support Hezballah than to oppose them. As of now I think this crisis has accomplished little more than "operation Grapes of Wrath" did back in '96. The only real accomplishment is this UN resolution which will hopefully force Lebanon to disarm Hezballah at least for a short while.

I hope that Israel complies without unnessasery delays and that Lebanon doesn't shirk their duties.

The big worry is of course Hezballah's reaction. I doubt they'll release the Israeli soldiers which are probably in Damascus by now. I doubt they'll just disarm arm, if anything they'll just move into Syria for a while and wait for the UN force's withdrawal before coming back. I just hope that if Lebanon gets the chance to have true control of the south of their country that they can actually manage to maintain that control and have the backbone to evict another Hezballah take over.

EDIT: And furthermore I hope this will allow the UN and the attention of the world to go back to Iran's nuclear program. Now that the UN has flexed it's "muscle" a little bit let's hope they don't wimp out on Iran.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Chapter 6 mandate. Hezbollah remains armed.

Nothing is done to stop the flow of weapons from tehran and damascus.

What good will the UN force do? It has done nothing in the past years, no condemnation of hezbollah from the UN as it fired rockets into Israel, no action to stop the terrorists. The UN force remains teethless.

I hope Israel spits on this.

Crazed Rabbit

[ChewieTobbacca]

That the U.S. veto'd/opposed early action did not help the UN in its cause. As long as there is division among the veto power, there will never be an effective UN.

[Tribesman]

A ceasefire at this stage is ridiculous. We need to let the war run it's course, or else it will have been for nothing. Hezbollah needs to suffer a serious reversal.

You are really gung-ho ain't ya , where ya been the past month ?
Of course it was for nothing , Israel couldn't win , Hezballah couldn't lose .
That was bloody obvious from day 1 .
Iran and Syria are laughing the heads off and you don't even get it .

Now then , who is going to better in the next elections , Kadima in Israel or hezballah in Lebanon ?

[x-dANGEr]

I think it is really unfair. It seems all the destruction Israel inflicted will be rewarded..

[Duke of Gloucester]

Hezbollah needs to suffer a serious reversal.

The whole fiasco has been just what Hezbollah needed to boost recruitment. As Tribes says, they couldn't lose and Israel couldn't win. The sooner it stops, the better for Israel and the less Hezbollah can make of the situation.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Take a look at a map of the region, GQ. Hezbolla can just retreat, disband cells and merge with civilians, build up recruits, organise guerrilla raids against Israeli military targets in Lebanon and wait until Israel withdraws before it renews attacks on civilians in northern Israel. Any attack on Syria will just make things worse for Israel, further boost Hezbolla recruitment. You can't defeat Guerrillas with conventional arms.

[Husar]

I think it is really unfair. It seems all the destruction Israel inflicted will be rewarded..

I think it´s the best thing to do though I´m curious what will happen.
What if Hezbollah starts attacking UN troops? Or what if Israel does? Or what if they both keep out of the 20 km zone and start shooting over it with artillery? Sounds weird? Well, the whole conflict is weird to begin with.

[Tribesman]

If they haven't driven Hezzbollah out of their part of the Middle-East by the end of the war, then they have lost.
You still don't get it do you , they cannot drive them out , that's why they cannot win .
Their only choice is negotiaed settlement , to get a good place at negotiations you must do so from a position of strength . Israel has made its position weak and has made hezballahs stronger .
Do you not understand something even that simple ? The more it goes on the weaker Israel becomes and the stronger hezballah is
Israel needs to step it up a notch or three. Maybe even go to war with Syria over the whole thing.
Wow I wonder why Israel didn't think of that?
Oh they did think of it and decided it was crazy

[Duke of Gloucester]

Bull. It just requires a willingness to cause more civilian casualties than are normally considered acceptable. It also requires that the funding and supply of the guerrilas is taken out in a most direct fashion.

How many more?

[Duke of Gloucester]

As many as it takes. If I started throwing out estimates, we'd get Ser in here calling me genocidal and closing the thread.

Exactly!

[Banquo's Ghost]

As many as it takes. If I started throwing out estimates, we'd get Ser in here calling me genocidal and closing the thread.

Seirously though, declare war on Iran and Syra, blow the crap out of their capital cities via airstrikes--not military targets, but governmental ones (i.e. parliamentary buildings, houses of leaders, ect.), and let the world know that terror will be fought with terror.

That'll end the funding real quick.

Oh, you're already genocidal.

Many radicals, including Hezbollah sympathisers, also hide in countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Oh, and it appears, the UK.

Assuming your strategy actually works (ie goes against the experience of every military in the world) and you have killed everyone above 18 months of age in Iran and Syria (I'm assuming you have Iraq cleared out as well) - do you start on the others?

By what parameters do you measure that you have begun eradicating terrorists and fighting terror with terror (a fascinating concept whereby you create a terrified world).

[Banquo's Ghost]

If people knew that their entire family might get killed by a bomb for harboring Hezzbollah in their neighborhood, they'll be lass apt to allow Hezbollah in their neighborhood.

Interesting. Hasn't really happened that way in Lebanon, has it? Israel has bombed family into pink mist and support for Hezbollah has rocketed.

(Pun intended )

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is quickly becoming my most-used emote.

If you don't want to be accused of genocidal views, don't post them. Your follow-up post still reeks of savagery.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Because Israel's doing a bad job of it. The threat isn't enough--it needs to be made fact through constant and effective practice. Terrorism isn't just for rag-tag guerrillas.

I'm still waiting for you to define what you mean in some detail. What level of casualties over what period of time?

Remember that in WW2 major cities were bombed nightly in both Britain and Germany and the civilians didn't noticeably give up on their governments and war effort.

How much of the population of Syria and Iran needs to die before they give up? If Hezbollah moves its base somewhere else, do you follow with the bombers?

I ask because yours is a doctrine completely eschewed by modern militaries (as you note, even Israel is doing it in a feeble fashion) and I'm sure they would like to know how to solve the problem.

If a threatening/invading power bombed your family into oblivion, would you roll over and thank them or take to the hills and fight them unto your last breath?



EDIT: The real argument that has been put to you is that your ideas don't work. You have refused to accept that, so we are now trying to ascertain why you think they will work in contravention of accepted military thinking.

[Duke of Gloucester]

That was sarcasm.

I have trouble separating sarcasm from nonsense without cues from the tone of voice.

I don't think it would require wholesale depopulation .....

but it might, so not completely sarcastic - genocide remains an option.

.......but it would definately require retaliatior strikes against civilian areas where Hezbollah is even suspected of operating. If people knew that their entire family might get killed by a bomb for harboring Hezzbollah in their neighborhood, they'll be lass apt to allow Hezbollah in their neighborhood.

Civilians in southern Lebonan don't harbour Hezbollah because they support their objectives (although many of them do). They harbour Hezbollah because they are frightened of them. They don't ask permission to use a position. They turn up with weapons and do what they want. Air strikes won't drive Hezbollah out, but will make young men more likely to join if their families are killed in an air strikes.

But, as I said above, I think knocking Iran and Syria out of the funding game is more important.

Are you sure Israel can win a war against Iran and Syria? What effect would unilateral strikes against these countries have on the support that Israel receives from the US, or will American support them no matter what they do?

[Don Corleone]

If it's a Chapter 6 mandate, Hezbollah has already said they'll start shooting UN troops. Will they even be allowed to fire back? This is no cease-fire at all. It just means more dead Jews, only now, we have dead UN observers to boot. Hmm, yes, this should all work out splendidly. Let's allow Hezbollah to rearm and let's give them some new targets to shoot at...

If the folks on the Security Council really wanted a cease-fire, they'd take the pacification force from members of the Arab league (but not Syria or Iran). A few days of dead Egyptians and Saudis and maybe the UN would be ready to actually disarm Hezbollah, because clearly dead Lebanese and dead Jews aren't important enough...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now we have some basis for discussion, thank you.

I don't really have an answer to this one. But I'd go out on a limb and say it doesn't matter. Whatever enemy casualties it takes to win are more than acceptable.

If the aim of the campaign you propose is to terrorise the population of one's enemy into disowning the terrorists in their midst and ensure that no new converts are added to their ranks then the amount of casualties is pertinent.

Almost all campaigns of the modern era that have escalated up in the manner you propose have in fact produced more support, more terrorism and more long-term problems. Overwhelming brutality may cow the population for some time, but invariably other aligned groups outside the immediate area are radicalised and produce new enemies.

Look at the level of violence unleashed on Grozny by the Russians, and the ongoing casual brutality that characterises Chechnya, and has done for the last eight or so years. Didn't stop Beslan did it?

From a military point of view, it is imperative for a strategy to have a measurable objectives and an exit strategy that once completed satisfactorily demonstrates that you have achieved those - in other words, won. You need numbers - not a woolly 'whatever it takes' - a notion that politicians like to bandy about, and gets you into trouble like Iraq.

Thus, if the objective is as I paraphrased in my first paragraph, one needs to decide how much of the civilian population you must kill to ensure that no-one will take up the cause of Hezbollah ever again. I can't think of a number that wouldn't be classed as genocide - can you?

You're right, Terror Bombing in World War II did not work particularly well--at least not in Europe. In Japan, it contributed considerably to the collapse of their military, but did only strengthened their resolve against the American forces in terms of morale. But we're not dicussing that kind of terror-bombing. We're dicussing two distinct bombing campaigns:

The first would be against Hezzbollah forces in Lebanon. If a few towns where Hezzbollah are known to have a presence (any presence) were completely levelled, and then the rest of the country was given a warning to clear Hezzbollah out of their towns, or they'd suffer the same fate, I think we'd see some results.

Baalbek, for example? The hezbollah refuge? Which the Israelis have bombed repeatedly? Or perhaps Tyre, where Hezbollah has set up shop to cover the Litani river? Also bombed flat. The rest of the poor country of Lebanon no longer has (even if you grant it ever had) the ability to challenge Hezbollah. And in spite of the huge suffering of the people, many Lebanese are more firmly in the Hezbollah camp because of the suffering they have undergone. Again I ask - put yourselves in their shoes - if an invading force attacked your home and family, would you do the invader's bidding and forgive them? Many Shia Lebanese don't see the Hezbollah as terrorists as you do, but legitimate defenders of their precarious position. Violence by Israel has simply confirmed this to them, and even to Maronite Christians who can't understand why they have been bombed too.

No, it would not improve Israel's image (indeed, it'd worsen it), but people don't want to die. Not everyone--not even close to the majority--of Lebanese people are willing to die for Hezzbollah. To prevent Hezzbollah from simply clearing out of a town before it got levelled, different means would have to be used. Instead of a detailed ground campaign, the best way to do it would be to send in the bombers and let loose with the Fire-Bombing, no warnings. After that, send in troops and kill everything that moves. Now, I'm not advocating the destruction of every town in Lebanon--just a few, so that the population can be scared straight.

As noted above, even if you subdue the Lebanese, many others would be galvanised into action and reprisals. Or maybe you are thinking of Chinggis Khan's methods - wouldn't work in a modern, communicating world. Such fearsome brutality would only convince people they had absolutely nothing to lose - die in a mindless fire-bombing or try and fight back as a suicide bomber and make your death mean something. You might even radicalise places like Saudi to the point that their puppet government was overthrown and the new Islamic hardliners there turned your oil off.

The second bombing campaign would be against Iran and Syria. This would be a pretty straightforward sneak-attack against the governmental buildings of the two countries. Take out their leaders, or at least some of them, and let the rest of the middle-east know that this is what happens when you fund terrorists in Israel. It doesn't even matter all that much whether or not any important figures are actually killed in the attacks--the knowledge that it happened should be enough to pull Hezzbollah's funding.

I have some sympathy with the idea that Israel would benefit from a surgical strike against Syria to bring home the truth of their meddling in Lebanon. They would have to be very clear that it would be a one off, and have to accept some retaliation themselves. Sadly, no-one in the region trusts the Israelis to stop at a punishment blow, and so it would escalate rapidly, and very nastily. The fact that the Israelis have taken very great care not to touch Syria shows how scared they are of an escalation.

Iran is too far away, and would be a whole new hornet's nest.

Neither of these will particularly ingratiate Israel to the UN, but so long as they have US support they can tell the UN where to go.

And therein lies the whole sorry tale.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It just means more dead Jews, only now, we have dead UN observers to boot.

Don, you do realise that Israel is a country made up of more than just Jews? There are many Israeli Arabs, Christians, Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, European Muslims, Atheists and so on ad infinitem.

And all these citizens get to serve in the army in defence of their country. And occasionally die in that service.

It's actually a wonderful country of diversity and multi-culturalism. Fragony would hate it there.

Oh, and we already have quite a few dead UN observers.

[Don Corleone]

My point, which you appear to have missed, was that apparently the current casualties were not enough to actually do what it will take to ensure peace. Hezbollah will continue shooting rockets into Israel. Israel will continue firing back. This resolution? More dead UN observers, from Israeli shelling and from Hezbollah bullets. But yes, the UN can be proud of itself that they did their job.

If you want the conflict to stop, you have to get Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel. The only way that's going to happen is if you put Saudis, Egyptians, Turks... people that Hezbollah might actually stop and think twice before killing, in the border force. And give them the ability to disarm Hezbollah.

This so-called cease fire should be called what it really is... a pause for Hezbollah to restock it's munitions.

[Banquo's Ghost]

My point, which you appear to have missed, was that apparently the current casualties were not enough to actually do what it will take to ensure peace. Hezbollah will continue shooting rockets into Israel. Israel will continue firing back. This resolution? More dead UN observers, from Israeli shelling and from Hezbollah bullets. But yes, the UN can be proud of itself that they did their job.

If you want the conflict to stop, you have to get Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel. The only way that's going to happen is if you put Saudis, Egyptians, Turks... people that Hezbollah might actually stop and think twice before killing, in the border force. And give them the ability to disarm Hezbollah.

This so-called cease fire should be called what it really is... a pause for Hezbollah to restock it's munitions.

I agree with you that the resolution is rather feeble, but it was always going to be that way. What surprises me is that you blame the UN - it was the USA and the UK who delayed any meaningful attempt at a really serious early ceasefire - when Israel was clearly in the right. The US/UK alliance on the SC has ensured a toothless resolution for Israel, and so it has to be toothless for Hezbollah too.

It was never going to be possible to disarm Hezbollah. And they would view any blue hats as quislings of the USA and Israel. Everyone involved knows that. Not to mention that a Chapter 7 force acceptable to Lebanon and Hezbollah would be utterly unacceptable to Israel - remember, if they have the RoE to engage Hezbollah, they may well end up shooting at IDF as well under the same RoE. That'd be fun, wouldn't it?

As was noted by several at the beginning of this invasion, Israel will pull back having accomplished nothing, Hezbollah will regroup and we're right back as we were two months ago - but with Lebanon, the nearest thing to a democracy in that region apart from Israel, ruined and radicalised. Syria, having punished Lebanon for dismissing its protection, will be strengthened in the region.

If you want the conflict to stop, you have to address the territorial issues.

[Don Corleone]

The US & the UK were opposed to a unilateral cease-fire, which is what was called for earlier on, and is apparently what everyone has settled for now.

It was never going to be possible to disarm Hezbollah

Baloney. It was never going to be possible to disarm the group only because too many Iranian and Syrian officials, and too many UN officials on their dole, don't want them disarmed.

Your answer is that Israel should just learn to sit there and take it?

Edit: I mean, the whole reason Israel started shelling Lebanon in the first place was to silence Hezbollah rocket fire. Now, in the cease fire, which in reality is no such thing, we're just going to let Hezbollah import more rockets from Iran, and resume? Will the UN even have the decency to declare the cease fire over when Hezbollah starts firing again? No, cause only Jews will be dying. It won't declare the cease fire over until Israel fires back, and then, of course, as always, the failed cease fire will be all their fault.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? Other than just dying in the thousands and moving out of Israel, what would you have Israel do here? We won't disarm the people that are shooting at them. We won't let them fire back. We won't let them set up a security perimeter. Their only option? Sit there and die. And some how, the UN (and John Bolton is apparently every bit the knob-polisher for Iran that Kofi Annan is ), manages to call this 'peace'.

We should bring all the Israelis to the US, then turn our back on that God forsaken corner of the world. Have fun with appeasing them, we'll be over here securing ourselves.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We should bring all the Israelis to the US, then turn our back on that God forsaken corner of the world. Have fun with appeasing them, we'll be over here securing ourselves.

OK Don, you have clearly had a bad morning or something, so I'll leave you be. Whilst I often disagree with your views, you're rarely incoherent and irrational. Have a beer, if it's not too early.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not trying to be irrational and disagreeable. I'm trying to express just how futile appeasing them seems to be. The UN seems to be resigned to an armed Hezbollah ready to strike at Israel at any time. They don't seem to want to do anything to actually limit Hezbolalh's ability to strike Israel. As long as Hezbollah is firing rockets at Israel, Israel is going to fire back. We all agree that if they don't, Hezbollah will take that as a sign of weakness and ratchet up the intensity of their attacks. All this so-called cease fire will do is rearm Hezbollah. If I were President Amendijad, I couldn't have paid my lackeys Kofi Annan and John Bolton for a better outcome, assuming he didn't pay for this one.

Honestly, beyond just sitting there and taking it the next time around, what is Israel to do?

[Pannonian]

Honestly, beyond just sitting there and taking it the next time around, what is Israel to do?

Accept that the existence of Israel, especially in its current form, is upsetting a few people, and accept a few rockets as the price of existence. The state of Israel isn't being threatened, and prior to July this year, its civilians weren't much threatened either (one report says 1 Israeli civilian was killed in the 2000-2006 period).

I see this as analogous to the unofficial ceasefires on the western front during WW1. Outside the various offensives, both sides usually settled down to a mutually accepted existence. On occasion there might be orders from higher command to show some activity, or a particularly keen sniper might move into the area. When that happened, the other side would respond in kind, but no more. Thus the higher ups were satisfied, but those in the frontline were warned that any infractions of the rules of the game would be punished, and despite the chaos of war, the game had recognised rules, even if unwritten. After vengeance had been taken, activity would return to how it was before.

From what I've read, the border exchanges between the IDF and Hezbollah had settled into this comfy mutual existence. They sat in a mutually recognised combat zone, lobbing shells and rockets at each other, neither doing much damage. Then an IDF patrol, ranging a bit further than was wise, was destroyed and 2 of its members captured. What Israel should have done was recognise it had reached a bit too far, send in a ground offensive aimed at capturing Hezbollah members (replying in kind), return claiming victory for the domestic audience then started negotiations to free prisoners (de-escalation). It wouldn't even have mattered if Lebanese civilians were captured in the sweep, since they would be freed as part of the exchange anyway.

What Israel should do is try and return to how it was before. Thanks to their overreaction, Hezbollah is far stronger now than it was before the campaign, but nothing can be done about it now. They should recognise that Hezbollah is here to stay, identify any moderates among them, and try to strengthen them at the expense of the radicals (as the British did with the IRA). While Hezbollah has an armed wing, it is also the de facto government of south Lebanon, which means it has governmental interests. Realise this, work with it. 1 billion dollars in civilian aid to the Hezbollah-controlled area would do far more to reduce attacks on Israel than 10 billion in military expenditure.

[Pannonian]

Why don't they just bring out the nuke card? Threaten Nuclear Retaliation against Israel and Syria if Hezzbollah is not out of Lebanon within another month.

Nobody is going to call *that* bluff.

The bluff is not credible.

[x-dANGEr]

The first would be against Hezzbollah forces in Lebanon. If a few towns where Hezzbollah are known to have a presence (any presence) were completely levelled, and then the rest of the country was given a warning to clear Hezzbollah out of their towns, or they'd suffer the same fate, I think we'd see some results. No, it would not improve Israel's image (indeed, it'd worsen it), but people don't want to die. Not everyone--not even close to the majority--of Lebanese people are willing to die for Hezzbollah. To prevent Hezzbollah from simply clearing out of a town before it got levelled, different means would have to be used. Instead of a detailed ground campaign, the best way to do it would be to send in the bombers and let loose with the Fire-Bombing, no warnings. After that, send in troops and kill everything that moves. Now, I'm not advocating the destruction of every town in Lebanon--just a few, so that the population can be scared straight.

If that happens, I will be the first crier: "Death to Israel!"
Note: That is not a racist comment, it striclty shows my hate and disgust to the Israeli government that'd do such a thing, and even the people who support it.