Ceasefire or war resolution?

The current UN draft resolution allows Israel to continue its occupation of Lebanon, at least temporarily, and consequently lends legitimacy to Hizbullah’s operations. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora wants the Israelis to stop their attacks and withdraw their troops, allowing the Lebanese army to move into the area immediately, backed by UNIFIL and international forces. He also wants Shebaa to be transferred to UN control. The two amendments sought by the Lebanese cabinet guarantee both an end to hostilities and gradual disarmament of Hizbullah.

The US government is of a different opinion. It wants the war to continue and Lebanon to somehow rein in Hizbullah at the same time. The resolution buys Israel more time by avoiding any mention of Israeli occupation and practically extends Israel’s greenlight to continue their operation.

If that resolution can be quickly voted on, Rice said, "I would hope that you would see very early on an end to large-scale violence." That does not necessarily mean an end to all fighting in the short run because "these things take a while to wind down," and there could be skirmishes for some time to come, she said. "We're trying to deal with a problem that has been festering and brewing in Lebanon now for years and years and years. So it's not going to be solved by one resolution in the Security Council," Rice said.

Siniora’s government cannot accept a “ceasefire” resolution that does not even call for a ceasefire, and instead allows “skirmishes” to continue for some time to come. If passed, the Security Council would be replacing Hizbullah with Israel in the south, until there’s deployment of international forces, which could drag on for many weeks, and is not even guaranteed to happen since France and others oppose such a deployment if there’s no ceasefire.

Bush’s National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said it “was important” to pass the second resolution regarding the international forces in days, and not weeks, although he couldn’t predict how quickly such a force could deploy. In the meantime, Hadley wants this to happen:

Hadley said it would be up to the Lebanese government to pressure Hizbollah guerrillas to lay down their arms, and that Hizbollah backers Iran and Syria should use their influence to get the Shi'ite militia to halt attacks. "It's really going to be the Lebanese government that is going to have to set out and accept the arrangement on behalf of the Lebanese people," Hadley said.

I don’t think the US government really believes Siniora’s government can “pressure” Hizbullah to "lay down its arms", especially not while Israel continues its attacks. The real aim here is to buy Israel more time, and they should stop insulting our intelligence by calling this resolution a ceasefire resolution. The US knows very well that France and the Europeans will not deploy any force if there’s no ceasefire. And a ceasefire means that both Israel and Hizbullah should stop their attacks.

And why should this war stop? There is no reason for it to continue, argues Israeli journalist Uzi Benziman.

The operational logic guiding the introduction of ground forces into this campaign is inferior when compared to the life experience and political wisdom that indicate this should stop immediately. It does not matter how you look at it: If, according to the version that is currently being disseminated by the government and the IDF, Hezbollah learned its lesson and will not dare raise its arm against Israel in the future, what is the added value of taking over a few more square kilometers of territory? If the aim is to stop the organization's ability to launch short-range rockets, that can also be achieved by a cease-fire. In any case, the situation will not be fundamentally altered: Hezbollah will be able to replenish its missile stockpile and also operate them from the depths of Lebanese territory. The chance of deterring or convincing Hezbollah to stop doing so lies in an arrangement that will follow the end of battle - not necessarily the occupation of more land in Lebanon. After all, according to the IDF's own version, Hassan Nasrallah suffered a blow to his mind-set in the first hour of the war, when a significant portion of his long-range arsenal of missiles was destroyed.

A war is brought to an end not by comparing the initial aims to the results achieved in practice, but by comparing the available options at the end of a cycle in the operation...

Update. Fubar explains in the comments section how this resolution is

a “cessation of hostilities” resolution under Chapter 6 (non-binding) - not a “cease fire” resolution under Chapter 7 (binding). And no one in the US government is saying otherwise. It is the major media that is calling it a “cease fire” agreement and they are merely showing their own ignorance by doing so.

It's interesting how this resolution is being reported as a ceasefire or truce resolution when it's not. Could the media be this ignorant? I guess everyone expected it to be a binding ceasfire resolution, and when it turned out to be something else, very few noticed.

Comments

[e]

Abu Khais,
You yourself admit that the Lebanese army is ineffectual yet you want Israel to withdraw.
If it does, who will get to south Lebanon first, HA or the Lebanese army? We all know the answer. And then we are back to square one and another war in a few months.
e

[gee]

So Lebanon doesn't want peace? Ok, then...

[Tom Villars]

"The US government is of a different opinion. It wants the war to continue and Lebanon to somehow rein in Hizbullah at the same time."

Some how I don't thinks it's Lebanon the US is counting on to remove Hizullah. You had your chance to get rid them and now its Israel's turn. I know it sucks to not even have control of your own country put someone has to clean up this mess.

[fubar]

"The real aim here is to buy Israel more time, and they should stop insulting our intelligence by calling this resolution a ceasefire resolution."

Bingo! As Ghassan Karam has said before, the devil is in the details.

This is a “cessation of hostilities” resolution under Chapter 6 (non-binding) - not a “cease fire” resolution under Chapter 7 (binding). And no one in the US government is saying otherwise. It is the major media that is calling it a “cease fire” agreement and they are merely showing their own ignorance by doing so.

If anyone is insulting your intelligence, it is the major media - not the US government. But it is the responsibility of all people, regardless of their nationality, to educate themselves and to know the difference. If you care about this conflict (on any side), you have two options - educate yourself and see what is really happening or stand by and watch and wait to see how it all works out.

The problem is that the Lebanese people need to know how they got into this mess, what is being done to get out of it, and what they need to do to ensure the peace and their own sovereignty once this ends. To that end, it is not acceptable to merely rely upon the media to tell you what is going on. You must invest the time to educate yourself - watch what is happening, not what is being said.

The only real benefit of this resolution is that it is setting the ground rules for the real “cease fire” resolution which can be implemented at any time as soon as the parties, Israel and Lebanon, want it. Iranian Hezbollah is NOT a party to this resolution or any other resolution by the UN. Iranian Hezbollah is not a member of the UN. And if UN resolutions include Iranian Hezbollah as a party, that means Lebanon and the world have already surrendered Lebanon to Iranian Hezbollah which really means Iran. That is never going to happen if the US, Britain, Australia, Germany, Canada, and others, can stop it.

There real question you need to answer is which of your politicians really understands what is going on. They are your leaders. Right now, my money is on Siniora, Hariri, and Jumblatt. I am sure there are others, but I do not know enough about Lebanese internal politics to figure it out. But in times like these, you cannot rely merely upon what people say. Watch what they do, not what they say.

For those that care:
Chapter 6 = non-binding UNSC resolutions, sort of like statements of areas of agreement or statements of the UNSC’s position on the matter. No one gets sanctioned for failure to obey. Chapter 6 resolutions telegraph where the parties are heading or where the UNSC is heading.
Chapter 7 = binding UN resolution. All member nations must comply or be subject to sanctions.

Only member nations can be subject to sanctions - Iranian Hezbollah is not a member nation. What to do? Lebanon cannot control Iranian Hezbollah, but wants a UNSC resolution. And then what happens when Iranian Hezbollah, which the govt. cannot control, does not comply? Well, the member nation, Lebanon, gets sanctions! Solution = do a Chapter 6 (so Lebanon is not subject to sanctions when Iranian Hezbollah does not comply) in which the parties and/or UNSC positions are set forth. Lay the groundwork for the real “cease fire”.

[someone]

US wanted an agent in Lebanon ,and it was France.France accpeted this job, to at least have some foot in the middle east politics now and in the future,now US will give France some credits for this job.This resolution is called french-american,to avoid call it just american.

Now US by this resolution ,wants more time for "israel" to "try" to remove the milishia ,and at the same time say to the international audience ,that the demanded cease-fire is coming soon ,and put Lebanon in a situation of Accept/Dont Accept peace, and if lebanon reject this resolution , it means that Lebanon refuses to stop the war,and put "israel" as a victim and thus has the right to defend itself .

This resolution change the international view of this war.The lebanese rejection will be seen as lebanon supporting terrorism ,and "israel" wanting peace and agree with UN ,i.e a victim.

What a rescue-resolution for olmert.

[Abu Kais]

Fubar, you are right, the media got it wrong.

It could be because this agreement was at first marketed as a ceasefire agreement, and as it turned out, it wasn't one. I will post part of your comment as an update.

[Ghassan Karam]

The call to stop the suffering , the destruction and the killing is an easy one to make. I would hope that all of us , all over the world, would be agents for peace and would work diligently to reduce pain and promote the pursuit of happiness. The urgency for such calls is multiplied by many factors when those that are suffering are your friends, relatives and countrymen and women. Yet it will be short sighted to just put a band aid over the wound in an attempt to stop the bleeding. A wound will fester and the short lived relief often develops into a more serious problem. I can understand the reasons why the Lebanese government and many of my compatriots find it convenient to ask for an immediate cease fire but a cease fire with a return to the conditions that were in existence prior to Juy 12, 2006 is very short sighted and illadvised. It is not acceptable to just cast a blind eye on the role of HA and its principal allies Damascus and Tehran on this tragedy. The flow of funds war maretiale and training to HA must stop. The military arm of HA has to be disbanded if we are sincere about dealing with the major factors that have created this conflict. Let us not forget that the HA fighters are operating outside the law and that only the legitimate representatives of the Lebanese people have the right to declare war on a neighbouring state. To allow Iran, either directly or indirectly, to have the major say about what is good for Lebanon is unacceptable.

Fubar,
Very few people, if any, seem to realize the major difference between chapter six and chapter seven resolutions. I have been dealing with this issue for years and it is astounding that even after the difference is explained people continue making arguments as if there is no difference between the two resolutions. I have come to the conclusion that this lack of distinction in the mind of the public posses a major obstacle to the understanding of Security Council intentions. The UN should embark on a project that would clarify the difference between such resolutions or maybe resort to applying different names to these resolutions

[someone]

"Let us not forget that the HA fighters are operating outside the law and that only the legitimate representatives of the Lebanese people have the right to declare war on a neighbouring state."

Lebanon is i war with "israel" since 1949 .There is no peace threaty between them .The international community is seeking a cease fire,and not a peace threaty between them .The millitants are not acting outside the law,the lebense government didnt condemn their acts on "israel" .Lebanon doenst reconize "israel" either ,and "israel" still occupate a Lebanese territory ,this has been declared by the lebanese government ,and thats why the lebaneses will not disarm the milishia in the south,get it for once.

[Ghassan Karam]

Someone,
Of course the military arm of HA is totally illegal. The Lebanese government does not recognize it neither does the Lebanese constitution condone it. Actually the Taif agreement called for disarming all militias almost fifteen years ago and so did a chapter seven UNSC resolution. If that is not enough to make the HA militia illegal then nothging would. Try as you will, you cannot and will not find legal grounds for your argument so please let us not make irresponsible and silly statements that cannot ever be supported by the facts.

[fubar]

Ghassan Karam,

Do you really teach that the clash of civilizations is naive?

How many of your American students argue against your view?

Just curious,

[Modern Pharaoh]

There is a link to a great article about the Cease fire resolution in my bog from Robert Fisk
www.modernpharaoh.blogspot.com

[Ghassan Karam]

Fubar,
You are not going to get me to discuss at length Huntingtons theory.But a quick answer to your question is that I do believe that it is simplistic and shallow.And believe it or not very few students if any subscribe to the theory.
BTW, very few intellectuals believe that the theory has much validity. Someone once called it a "Clash of Barbarians":-)

[fubar]

lol = )

[Achillea]

The two amendments sought by the Lebanese cabinet guarantee both an end to hostilities and gradual disarmament of Hizbullah.

With all respect, just how do they guarantee the disarmament of Hezballah 'gradual' or otherwise? It looks like just another land-for-peace scam being run on Israel. They withdraw from Lebanon. Do they get peace? No, they get constant harassment by an illegal militia. They withdraw from Gaza. Do they get peace? No, Gaza gets turned into a launchpad for more rockets than ever. Is Lebanon willing to provide any sureties that this isn't just same sh*t, different day?

Also, for the past three weeks Lebanon's been begging anyone who'll listen to get the Israelis to stop attacking. But when someone actually does, suddenly Lebanon wants concessions before they'll accept it?

[someone]

"Someone,
Of course the military arm of HA is totally illegal. The Lebanese government does not recognize it neither does the Lebanese constitution condone it. Actually the Taif agreement called for disarming all militias almost fifteen years ago and so did a chapter seven UNSC resolution. If that is not enough to make the HA militia illegal then nothging would. Try as you will, you cannot and will not find legal grounds for your argument so please let us not make irresponsible and silly statements that cannot ever be supported by the facts."

Illegal and legal , you will not tell me that "israel" is a legal group in the middle east.If you reconize "israel" then you call the milishia illegal,and if you dont reconize it the milishia becomes legal.

If you reconize the lebanese government then this government say that it is legal and so do the majority of lebaneses ,i dont ask non-lebaneses about it.

[M. Simon]

A look at the future

Tactics, Strategy, Grand Strategy

The coming fall of the Syrian regime at: Syria Has a Problem. Its days are numbered. Sixty to ninety days. Possibly less.

[Hmmm]

...which is exactly why the UN is no longer relevant.

Whether it is a chapter 6 or 7 is not material, nor is the vote. The Security Council was intentionally stacked with member nations capable of action. They are choosing not to act. Each of those nations has its own reasons for not taking action, but each is capable of acting in Lebanon without the approval of the others.

Fubar says it is our personal responsibility to see the truth, and that is correct. The UN are lawyers and business men, not men of action. The action is on the ground. The action is taking place in southern Lebanon today. And the action will continue no matter what the UN says, because the leaders of Israel and HA are not going to let this drop.

The UN is impotent and irrelevant. Even if it agrees to a piece of paper, its troops are less armed than most local police. Commanders and troops are intentially chosen from different nationalities to *prevent* quick action without debate.

The UN will be further imasculated because nations will not provide troops. A UN office was attacked by a mob in Lebanon because Israel defended itself. Every politician knows now that the irrational anger of Lebanon's riots will kill even the forces that seek to protect them. UN forces will die in Lebanon, and no politician will commit to that.

The UN mission that does end up there will fail. No one wants it. HA does not want it. Lebanon does not want it. Israel does not want it. The Security Council will send someone (migrant workers?) in blue hats just to show they did something. We all know the US, Russia or China could end this tomorrow - but instead they will send minimum wage cannon fodder in blue hats with WWII side-arms and claim this is 'the solution'.

A better alternative would be an Arab force, maybe Egyptian.