Siniora strikes back

Emile Lahoud didn't make it to the cabinet yesterday. He remained holed up in his precious Baabda palace, making phone calls to the dictator next door, feeling irrelevancy envelop his existence. For a few weeks, Lebanon's least respected politician and Assad's puppet felt important again. And for a few weeks only, so did Bashar and his Iranian friends.

But Fouad Siniora, long paralyzed by an inane National Dialogue and Bashar's Lebanese orcs, found his legs yesterday, with a little behind the scenes help from France and Saad Hariri. His speech at the Arab Foreign ministers meeting brought tears to the eyes of many, including the supporters of the Arab world's vicarious resistance against Israel. Siniora's Arab tears made Hizbullah's Iranian weapons look marginal. While it's too early to declare Siniora as the face of a new Arabism, the man's dedication to his country, and his steadfastness and political wizardry may well be what this region long needed: a fresh start. Bashar and his Iranian friends have been dealt a severe blow by Siniora's decision to send the Lebanese army south.  Not even Hizbullah could object.

Siniora knows who is destroying his country. One force is Israel. But the second force is Iran and its new proxy state, Assad's Syria. Hizbullah and Israel put him in a difficult position. They made his fight for his country's independence look like treason. But he persevered, and soon he found the means: Cabinet consensus and the Arab League. Absorb Hizbullah by acknowledging their resistance, but don't let them absorb you. 

Saniora on Tuesday praised Hezbollah's resistance, but said it was time for Lebanon to "impose its full control, authority and presence" over the war-weary country. "There will be no authority, no one in command, no weapons other than those of the Lebanese state," he said on Al-Arabiya television.

Siniora yesterday looked like the leader no Arab country has ever had, offering a better alternative to the misguided "resistance" plague swallowing the region's youth.

We do not want the Lebanese state and the Lebanese people to remain the punch bag of Israel or anyone else (Read Iran and Syria). We are determined not to be the arena for conflicts and confrontations from now on, whatever the justification… We are basing our arguments on the sorrows of the widowed women, the dead children, the wounded and the homeless people… (Naharnet)

"Our Arabness is not conditional. It is not by force, but a choice," he added. The significance of these statements should not be missed. Bashar can no longer get away with waving his brand of Arab nationalism in our faces, using it to justify his murders, and to keep us in a state of war and fear. Arabism should not be a political tool of oppression or ignoring the suffering of your own people. It should be the key to our political independence.

Siniora has successfully recruited and united the Arab League's once defunct political army against Lebanon's enemies. That this is unprecedented is an understatement. They (minus Syria) went arguing Lebanon's case, partly out of fear of the Persian enemy, partly out of realization that their salvation begins in Lebanon. They now know that the future of their countries starts in Lebanon, once their battleground, now the jumping board to their safekeeping.

Your (addressing Arab leaders) position with us, your standing with us, is a right and a duty. Arab security is interlinked, Arab future is interlinked... (Naharnet)

One only needs to look at how Jamal Mubarak, Hosni's heir, flew the Egyptian cabinet and a slew of artists to Beirut today. Beirut is the place to be right now, and Siniora's perseverance made it so, not Hizbullah's. Beirut is the capital that Israel, Syria and Iran could not and cannot cow. It's the capital of a new Lebanon, in a new Arab world that respects its boundaries and honors its sacrifices. It's where freedom and culture collide to give birth to hope. I am jumping ahead of myself, but why not? As Siniora proved, change sometimes begins with hope exaggerated.   

The dark lord in Damascus must feel isolated now, and he has to rethink his alliance with Iran, if he were to survive. If the Arab states allowed Lebanon to be destroyed to get rid of Iran's influence, how would they react if Bashar were attacked?

Someone send the man in Damascus some valium. His Lebanese black market is no longer.

"Syria should get used to the fact that Lebanon is an independent state," he said, without mentioning Hezbollah's other patron, Iran. (Source: AP)

The ball now, more than ever, is in Israel's court. How will they respond to this? Olmert described the decision to send the army south as "interesting." Will Israel and the US give Siniora the chance and time he needs? Olmert may not feel like he has to, and Israel is not known for doing anyone favors, but now is the time to stop this war, and let the Lebanese state take back the country.

Stay safe Fouad.

Comments

[fubar]

And excellent post. However, a bit over-optimistic, I think.

The truth remains that the Lebanese Army will not (largely because it cannot) challenge Iranian Hezbollah. Hezbollah outguns the army and does not fight in a conventional way. It will take more than politics to disarm Iranian Hezbollah.

And while Siniora's vision of a new Lebanon is what all the free world and most of the ME wants to see, the truth is that Israel must get something and that something is security on the northern border.

The absence of international troops until the Lebanese Army can be tested, armed and trained, is most likely a non-starter.

That said, the fact that Siniora is speaking boldly is a real step in the right direction. This is not over yet, but at least now Lebanon sees the threat from Iran and Syria, rejects them, and there is room for progress.

[doha]

Abu Kais,

Thank you for the optimism.

[Ghassan Karam]

Abu Kais,
I will not bore you or the readers by rehashing the failures of the Siniora governemnt. The lack of accomplishments is clear to all.
Suffice it to say that finally he seems to have taken a tentative step in the right direction. It is only half a step, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that finally after having done nothing for over a year that he is starting to find his voice. Let me reiterate that I wish him nothing but success because I do not doubt his loyalties or the strength of his beliefs, I only doubt his strength as a leader and his ability to deliver the goods. If he succeeds , and I hope that he does, then he would be finally redeeming himself.

It is worth noting again that the decision to deploy the Lebanese army on the southern border should have been taken prior to the tragic events of July 12, 2006. No matter what he does right now, history will not be kind to him and all the others that have conspired to send Lebanon the most expensive tab that this wretched place has ever had to face. Even this half step does not face up clearly to the important challenge of disarming HA unconditionally not only because its actions have precipitated this carnage but also and more importantly because no modern democracy can accept in its midst a private armed group of thugs that answer to foreign powers and that insist on being treated above the law. Mr. Sinioras biggest challenges lie before him and I am not certain that he has demonstarted that he will be able to deliver. Ihope that he will prove me wrong and deliver the country out of its agony.

How about a government shaped in the image of Walid Jumblatt. I know that he is a Druze but until we amend the constitution he can be the power behind the thrown.

[Bad Vilbel]

I'm somewhere in between Abu Kais' optimism and Ghassan Karam's realism.

There is most definitely a glimmer of hope here. A step in the right direction. One has to wonder though (as Ghassan has several times before) why such shows of moral fortitude were not taken sooner. I realize there is not much Siniora could have done before now and I don't think sending the Army to the South was really feasible until now, however, he could have taken this sort of stand much earlier, in my opinion.

Having said that, and at the risk of sounding patronizing: "Keep it up, Fuad!". We need to continue down this path towards a REAL sovereign Lebanon, and not one co-opted by Syria or anyone else in the name of any non-Lebanese cause.

[Shail Meir]

I wonder how many syrian refugees the lebanese would take in if the tables were turned. There is a delusion on this blog, as though the Syrians are planning a great Lebanese downfall. As Fouad said earlier this week, this is the 7th time since 1969 that lebanon has been invaded by Israel. Focus your attention there. You may say that Im simple minded, but I say that a distaste for Syria is more trouble than you currently need.

[fubar]

I don't know how much is internal politics, but Siniora's relying on Iranian Hezbollah as a "diplomatic card" and claims that when this is over the country must focus on rebuilding "without looking back to the past" is just a bit disquieting.

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&3A4081DBCA402420C22571C4004B27B8

Those who do not look back to the past, are doomed to repeat it. No comfort for anyone there.

[JoseyWales]

Abu Kais,

Your post is the glass half-full equivalent of my glass half-empty post, (Risky Fad).

I guess I'm trying to shame Siniora into action. You are encouraging his little shy steps. Whatever works, as long as it works.

Hope you are right. Hope Siniora builds on these steps, hope the army fires at the next mo-fo who challenges its authority.

Also hope the words change and prep the terrain and the people for what needs to come: strong state authority over the heads of Nasrallah, Jibril etc...

It may very well mean firing at some dirt bag. I'll believe it when I see it.

Siniora has NO EXCUSE anymore: no tourist season to save, no friction with Hezballah to avoid, no infrastructure to protect, it's all (unfortunately) behind us now.

[Asiason]

I'd say its the trouble they have finally come to face and if they can rid themselves of Syrian or Iranian elements within their nation for eg. Hezbollah... all the better.

I only wish that Syria would give the free world a reason to slap its hand.

[Abu Kais]

Josey, agreed. I just got tired of looking at the glass half-empty, and subconsciously decided to give the man one last chance. But as you said, there are no more excuses. You and I have the same goal, so that's good.

[voice from Israel]

Inspiring. I hope with all my heart that Saniora will realize (as in y7aqqiq) his vision and get all of us out of this mess.

[another someone]

2 things, if the history of that country is anything to go by.

He has been allowed to exist for too long?

Are his days still numbered?

[Hassan]

Nice post Abu Kais, a fresh doze of optimism for the day :)
There's something important worth looking into though. The government's decision to send the army to the south did receive a unanimous vote, that includes HA's and Berri's ministers. However, Assad expressed his disaproval of the plan later the same night. At the same time, Hariri and Berri are supposedly involved in a complex diplomatic effort to include modifications in the draft UN resolution.

Puzzling questions
Why would HA agree to sending the army to the south as the exclusive armed force (along with UNIFIL). They have either been dealt a severe blow by the Israelis so they're buying time to regroup, or they agreed to this concession to give the government negotiating leverage at the UN. I have a feeling its the former.

A more puzzling stance is that of Berri's. Where does this guy stand?! Over the past year, Berri has at many occasions stood with March 14, and at even more occasions sided with Syria against them. Today Berri is playing mediator between HA and Saniora's group. Berri has the power to define the current political conflict in Lebanon. His position can change the conflict from a Shia-vs-nonShia struggle to a HA-vs-Lebanon one. Jumblat has on many occasions praised Berri, but that could simply be his attempt at not alienating the entire shia community. Either way, I think Berri is sticking to playing the middle grounds at all times to ensure his political survival since the majority of the shia community is drifting towards HA.

[IMB]

I agree with Hassan - Berri's attitude will make a big difference - But there is another big question mark - What would be the attitude of Michel Aoun? Would he still back HA or side with the "majority" in order to bring about a long lasting solution to Lebanon??? Time will tell and I do hope that out of this catastrophy a new Lebanon will emerge....

[fubar]

Lebanon tells the UN:

"Regarding the UN-mandated international force, they mentioned Chapter VII. We do not see any necessity for that. Any force should not be perceived on the ground as hostile or confrontational. Our main request from the text is: "a call upon Israel to cease hostilities, to hand over the positions it holds in Lebanon to UNIFIL, and to withdraw its forces forthwith behind the Blue Line. Then, UNIFIL will, in turn, hand over within 72 hours the area between the Litani River and the Blue Line to the Lebanese armed forces and assist them to deploy all through the said area along the Blue Line.

The Lebanese armed forces will also take control of all military positions, arms, and stores, and ensure total respect of the cessation of hostilities in the area. The area between the Blue Line and the Litani River will be free of any armed personnel, and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and those of the UN-mandated international forces deployed in the area."

72 hours of UNIFIL control of the south of Lebanon!!!!!!!!!!

Get real.

If this request doesn't show that Iranian Hezbollah is still in control, nothing ever will.

[dougjnn]

Hassan

Why would HA agree to sending the army to the south as the exclusive armed force (along with UNIFIL). They have either been dealt a severe blow by the Israelis so they're buying time to regroup, or they agreed to this concession to give the government negotiating leverage at the UN. I have a feeling its the former.

My guess is that it’s for two reasons. 1) Hezbollah BADLY wants to be able to claim it has chased Israel out of the country. That’s much easier to do if Israel agrees to leave now in the first cessation of hostilities resolution, rather than later as foreign troops are coming in, and after Israel perhaps gets some political concessions from Lebanon. If Israel leaves now Hez can say the Israel’s so wanted the ceasefire that they were willing to withdrawl. And unlike the foreign force a pretend effective Lebanese force can go south quickly, 3 days after the Immediate Israeli withdrawal. Further the foreign force can look to many Nasrallah supporters as swapping one alien occupier lead for another also Western lead one.

2) Nasrallah thinks it’s will be easier to co-opt and cow the Lebanese army than the French led force. Into say agreeing he’s disarmed when he hasn’t, and so on. Into saying his fighters are staying behind a certain line whereas their actually repreparing the fortifications and positions and going back and forth. And so on.

[dougjnn]

JoseyWales
Siniora has NO EXCUSE anymore: no tourist season to save, no friction with Hezballah to avoid, no infrastructure to protect, it's all (unfortunately) behind us now.

Asiason
Josey, agreed. I just got tired of looking at the glass half-empty, and subconsciously decided to give the man one last chance. But as you said, there are no more excuses. You and I have the same goal, so that's good.

To each of you. And everybody. Is it at all likely that Siniora can get Nasrallah to disarm politically, as opposed to by force?

Is there any real chance that the Lebanese army can do it, especially without foreign training, such as by e.g. the French?

How much difference would it make if Israel agreed to Siniora’s demand that it give ‘back’ Shebaa farms – when and if Hez disarmed as verified by the international force?

[Ghassan Karam]

Josey/Abu Kais,
I feel compelled to add an observation to your "dialogue" regarding this post. I reject totally the concept of a glass half/full half empty in the case of Siniora. From where I am standing the class is practically dry, well it might have a few drops in it. To declare almost the sainthood of a government head whose lack of resolve is responsible for the destruction of a coutry is laughable . It is not enough for a PM to be capable of delivering an emotional speech and to choke while he is doing it in order to be declared a super statesman. But then we have always found it difficult to hold politicians accountable. Nasser, the one who arguably the most responsible for the 1967 disaster, cemented his reputation as a cult figure by giving a speech in which he admitted that the defeat was primarily due to his mismanagement when he should have been sacked. Siniora is in a worst bind, he has not yet had the courage to blame himself and his government for this tragedy.

[bad vilbel]

Ghassan Karam,

I agree to a point. But you continue to say things like "... a government head whose lack of resolve is responsible for the destruction of a coutry..."

So, according to you, the Lebanese government is RESPONSIBLE for the current crisis? It's all the fault of the government?
Had you used a wording like "the Lebanese government's lack of resolve CONTRIBUTED to the current crisis", i'd be inclined to agree...But RESPONSIBLE?

No, if anyone is RESPONSIBLE for the current mess it's Hezbollah/Syria/Iran. Period.

Last I checked, Siniora did not kidnap any Israeli soldiers, nor did he fire missiles into Israel.

[dougjnn]

Ghassan Karam--

To declare almost the sainthood of a government head whose lack of resolve is responsible for the destruction of a coutry is laughable.

Could you sketch out the political or other process by which Hezbollah can be disarmed?

Doing it by force sure looks difficult. The IDF doesn't look to have made much real progress so far on that score. Deterrence against future attacks on it, yes. Disarming, no.

Just sending 15k soldiers south, if most sourthern Shi'as loyalties are stronger towards Hezbollah and Nasrallah than Siniora or the Lebanese Army doesn't seem to me to be talking control of that part of the country in any real sense. Not when Hez is so well armed, so well trained effective guerilla tactics, so dug into the terrain and population, and so much a part of the south's social fabric (which they importantly created).

To you see a political process for getting Hez to disarm volunatily?

[R]

I posted this comment as a reply to PD on a previous post, but I think it may be worth restating here:

My evidence (that March 14 only stands to gain at this point) is only in the analysis of the situation. With the events of the last month, I doubt if HA (whether disarmed or not) would be willing or able to engage in any more of their "adventures" anytime soon. Add to that, if the army is indeed sent south, it may be able to pacify the border. I am not suggesting that they will be able to shoot at HA, only that their presence would be a deterrent, if largely psychological, to any major operation on HA's part.
If that kind of logic applies, then HA, and in turn Syria and Iran, have one less card to play: inflaming the front with Israel. If your (March 14) foe (HA,...) is weaker then you are relatively stronger. That is basically the gist of my take on things.
This is why I am more concerned at the moment with the internal political scene. I am worried that a HA (who understand this) that is too bloodied and "humiliated" might be a desperate one, willing to go down a civil strife road that they were not willing to go down before. You see, if they lose the Israel card, and see themselves as longterm losers after this war, they may go and do something dramatic internally to shuffle the cards, so to speak.

[R]

Which is where Hassan's comments and questions on Berri's stance are very important.

[Hassan]

Doug,
You do pose an interesting point. However, HA's claim to a "victory" at an Israeli withdrawal might not be the jist of it. Having the Lebanese army and a strengthened UNIFIL instead of a multinational force mandated to exterminate any armed presence ensures HA's military survival. Although I'm sure HA would love to fight a multinational force, they run very high risks of defeat. With the government's plan, HA will not be able to engage in future border clashes since the government guaranteed an arms free zone, and any clashes would make the government liable. So it could be a "live to fight another day strategy".

[Hassan]

(cont'd) Until the power in government shifts to a pro-HA/Syrian side. Here is where Aoun and Berri come into play.

[Ghassan Karam]

Bad vilbel,
I don't like to monopolise the post but since you asked me a question my brief answer:(1) A state is responsible for all activities that eminate from within its borders and is held accountable for these activities. ((2) A parent who lets a child walk out of the house with a gun that is used by the child to shoot a passerby is to be held responsible for not stoping the child from walking away with the gun

Doujnn,
I have answered this question three times last week. I am not going to do it again:-) Anyway, I do not believe that this is the right question. Ex. I read a book by Shakespear and I do not like it. I point in my review to all the things that did not appeal to me but I am under no obligation to write a book equal to or better than the one that I am critiquing. I can tell you in broad outlines what he should have done but not in details. Hey I am not the PM he is. In the final analysis there should be no acceptable excuse for failure. The Siniora government has failed to control the agenda, to pass legislation and above all to enact the law of the land.

[PD]

Abu Kais:
I thought your framing posting was VERY thougtful. As an outsider (an American from the Midwest), I think that the Lebanese people have a leader of character for a difficult time. Siniora functions in a very restrictive political context with some very strong and diverse political colleagues in his cabinet (or whatever it is called)--in addition to the foreign entanglements. To his credit, for the most part he has kept his colleagues together. It would have been very easy to let the Lebanese political scene degenerate into a very divisive affair and it has been charaqcterized in its past. It seems like his handling of the Syrian foreign minister yesterday was very skillful. I would disagree very forcefully with Ghassan Karram's forceful indictment of Sinior and his resolve.

We will see what happens with the UN negotiations. My sense is that Siniora's perceived integrity is the strongest thing that Lebanon has going for it at this time in terms of getting a viable resolution from Lebanon's perspective. If that does not work out, all bets are off.

[PD]

R:
Thanks for your most thoughtful response to the question I raised in a previous post about the potential favorabililty of what has happened to the March 14 political agenda.

You make several good points.

Regarding relations to Syria and Iran: My view is that probably the only constructive thing that the US has done in this affair is to insist that Syria be marginalized. The developments yesterday with regard to the Arab League and Syria were also most helpful. One key is to disentangle, at least to some extent, Syria and Iran from Hezbollah. I am not so realistic as to think that can be cleanly done. So I agree this is a positive.

I also agree with you as relates to issues relating to a Hezbollah more likely to be a "constructive player" in post-ware Lebanon I do think that a more bloodied Hezbollah, that might result from what Israel would like to do over the next four weeks, would be as you suggest--a negative force. Given the destruction that has been laid on the Shia community in Lebanon, that, itself, is a defeat for Hezbolllah. To put something more approaching a military defeat on top of that might prove very unfortunate. How the UN resolution comes out will, perhaps, be key to this.

Will Hezbollah be amenable to the kind of "neutralization" in southern Lebanon that will be necessary for a viable outcome to this mess? I will address this issue in a forthcoming posting in response to Doug (dougjj)?

Thanks again for responding to my question!

[Fares]

Harming Syria, Dream on

[Bad Vilbel]

Ghassan Karam,

So, by your analogy: A parent who lets a child walk out of the house with a gun that is used by the child to shoot a passerby is to be held responsible for not stoping the child from walking away with the gun.

You are first of all likening Hezbollah to a child, which they are not. I'd argue they are more of the "juvenile who should be tried as an adult" variety.
Secondly, one could use your analogy to justify Al-Qaeda type chains of "responsibility". The USA provides Israel with "guns". So the USA should be held responsible for, say...The Sabra-Chatila massacres? Interesting logic you use...

But as you said, let us not hijack this thread. I'll move on. Your point of view is noted, and I'll just choose to disagree with it.

[dougjnn]

Hassan--

So it could be a "live to fight another day strategy".

Yeah. I think you’re right. But I think also one of bragging they drove the Israelis out, and not after long negotiations either, but because the IDF wanted a ceasefire badly.

If it was just objecting to the multinational force they could accept the immediate ceasefire (cessation of hostilities) instead of delaying it further by trying to negotiate an immediate Israeli withdrawal (which Israel is insisting it won’t do until the French led force comes in, to accompany the Lebanese army). They could do the lobbying they’re doing now in the second stage.

In essence the Lebanese and American positions have flipped on the timing of a ceasefire. Rice had been insisting on a comprehensive ceasefire agreement first rather than an immediate halt to the fighting followed by negotiations, while the Lebanese gov’t supported by France and the EU had been screaming for the halt first and the negotiating second. Now Lebanon is insisting on elements in the ceasefire that require a more comprehensive agreement first before any halt, because the Israelis won’t withdraw without that. (It is very unusual for an army that has made advances on the ground to withdraw before some sort of at least fairly comprehensive political agreement.) Given the destruction that Lebanon has been suffering Siniora had to be under some pretty powerful pressure to not keep demanding a halt to the fighting first and foremost. That powerful pressure was Hez telling him it wouldn’t stop attacking the Israelis until they withdrew, period. So the ceasefire wouldn’t hold.

multinational force mandated to exterminate any armed presence

Such a mandate isn’t remotely in the cards. France and others who’ve volunteered have said they’ll only go in if the fighting forces are agreeable to their coming in and to their mandate.

What the foreign force will do is just the sort of thing you talk about the Lebanese force doing. Also maybe patrolling the Syrian border for embargoed militia arms. The Israelis may have fantasies about it doing more, but that’s what they are, fantasies. In part to justify the sacrifices of this war (even for Israelis) to the home front. A pretend muscular buffer that the West in general is paying for, rather than Israelis.

But I do think the French led foreign force is more likely to rigorously inspect what Hezbollah’s supposed to be doing and not doing and as well not getting (more rockets) than the Lebanese army force, and like you say Hez wants to retain it’s military capabilities as much as possible for another day.

[PD]

Dougjj; Ghassan Karam; R:

Let me respond to issues regarding the disarming of Hezbollah:
The only force that is apparently willing to "actively" take on the so-called disarming of Hezbollah is the IDF. No multinational force is going to do that and certainly not the Lebanese army.

Any "neutralization" of Hezbollah by a force like the Lebanese government has proposed is going to have to be through a more politically oriented conflict resolution mode. Sure it's possible, but...

Will that occur? Recognize, given the massive destruction resulting from Israeli air strikes, that much external $$$ is going to be needed for that re-building.
Those provide the $$$ (the Saudis and others) as well as countries driven by other concerns are going to insist on follow through. The government much recognize that they have to develop a sustainable solution--they don't want to have to rebuild again after Israeli air strikes 2 years hence. So there certainly should and must be the necessity for resolve in insisting on follow through.

My best guess is that if the Lebanese approach is accepted (with adequate guarantees that missiles won't continue to fly in the short term) that it could be given a chance to succeed-- perhaps, as dougjj suggests, follow through on the Shebaa farms could be contingent on that or something else (I pooh-poohed that yesterday, I think, but today it sounds like a great idea). That would provide a real incentive for Hezbollah to follow through. I suspect that multinational forces will be insisted upon if only to function as a means of helping to assure follow through. My guess is that Ghassan's suggestion that Hezbollah retreat (to Bekaa and elsewhere) to fight another day would like to be the way they would rationalize what they have done.

The alternative to the Lebanese alternative is likely to be the UN giving implicit license for IDF to come in and clean up through leveling southern Lebanon. I would expect Hezbollah to stand up and fight. I don't think it will be pretty. If the international community allows that to happen, the blood should be on their hands. I think that will play into R's negative scenario regarding March 14th advancement.

While some variant of the Lebanese approach may have some risks, I think there are means to ensure follow through. Hezbollah has made its point with its 4 weeks of rockets. I can't see that it has any interest in continuing the barrage. In his last statement, Nasralla stated that Hz would stop firing rockets if Israel ceased its attacks.

Fubar's point about the flimsiness of the Lebanese proposal as currently formulated is well-taken. It needs to be modified. But my guess is that an integral part of any viable (from my perspective) proposal will be the movement of Israeli troops across the blue line at step one. In a posting on one comments section (I can't remember where), I suggested that if Hezbollah was genuinely shrewd that they would have a 24-hour cessation of rocket firing across the border to show their good will and the ability of their command structure to control the initiation of hostilities from their side. It is my understanding that the firing of rockets was not much of an issue (except as relats to Shebaa Farms) before July 12th.

I suspect that, by this point, Nasralla is realistic enough to understand that Hz is going to "re-group." If he thinks that, that this point in time, Hz will be allowed to stay south of the river, he really is dumb.

It will be interesting to see what the UN does tomorrow or the next day.

[PD]

Dougjj:

Very interesting point about the sort-of switching of the Lebanese and US positions on cease-fire, etc. Really the US has changed most dramatically since it originally insisted on having all the political details (precisely how we are going to disarm Hezbollah, etc.)of its Stage 2 worked out before any Stage 1 cessation of hostilities could occur. That position is stupid beyond belief.

[PD]

Fares:

I much appreciate the insightful comments on Syria from someone who has a clue as to what is going on there.

Appreciate your sharing of those comments.

I posted similar comments somewhere here, but without the concrete referents.

[dougjnn]

PD--

That position is stupid beyond belief.

Well it wasn’t credible. If also fooled no one.

It was designed to give Israel more time to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities, particularly on the ground. I think we tried to get Israel to tone down the air war with only limited success.

The IDF’s efforts to degrade Hez has also met with limited success I think, particularly on the ground. So it was time to wrap this up.

Hezbollah has been deterred though.

I guess we’ll see how weakened it is or isn’t.

[Hassan]

Doug,
"That powerful pressure was Hez telling him it wouldn’t stop attacking the Israelis until they withdrew, period."
The pressure you're talking about is more of a realization by Saniora and Co. that it's time to take the initiative and undermine any legitimacy that HA can claim in the future to continue the fight. I see him seizing a perfect opportunity here.

Which brings us back to the lebanese political arena. If Saniora's bargaining chip works, the government will have the upper hand after the war. At which stage, Aoun and Berri's positions, though unclear now, will be crucial.

[fubar]

Iran and Syria walked out on the Israeli ambassador's statements in the UN today.

And France folds and everyone has to rethink the whole res.

Well, looks like no res. for some time. The rockets will continue to fly and the bombs continue to fall.

Who is it again that France is representing in these negotiations?

[R]

I don't understand your question fubar.

[PD]

Doug:

Yes, the purpose of the original US strategy was to give Israel time to clean-up--but it was stupid in two ways.
1) Logically, given the complexity of the problem, it was not entirely doable. And as it turns out, Israel, as you have suggest, would probably have been better off with a cessation two weeks ago.
2) The whole idea that the Lebanese government wanted a band-aid solution is ludicrous. They recognize that without a sustainable cease-fire, Lebanon's rebuilding comes to a halt. It was stupid in that it was entirely condescending to the Lebanese to suggest that they were not concerned with sustainability.

Hassan:

Very nice point about Siniora's bargaining positioning. I reallly think if the international community is genuinely commited to the Lebanese democratic project, that it will accede on this issue(insistence on initial Israeli withdrawal) to prevent further clashes with Hz. US insists on international force--ok-- but insist on Israel getting out before that occurs. Stopping the rocket launches is a small-time issue.
I take it that Aoun and Berri are two of Hz's key allies (who are pressing for initial withdrawal) so that if Siniora is successful, Aoun and Berri owe Siniora a significant debt for following through so decisively on this issue.

[PD]

Fubar:

France's indecisiveness may well be a positive sign for Lebanese-type proposal.
It suggests that they may be having second thoughts about the original proposal, which they co-sponsored.
French issues: anti-Syria (Chirac was a friend of Hariri) and may be lead member of international force, which will probably be part of proposal despite the fact that Lebanon doesn't want to include it.
I can't understand why Syrian and Iranian ambassadors might walk out on Israeli ambassador's presentation.

[fubar]

R --

France was allegedly negotiating for Lebanon. France and the US reached an agreement. Now Lebanon says no, and not just minor changes. Seems France was not negotiating in good faith to me. France was leveraging it's troops to get the two part resolution when the US wanted only one resolution. Now, Lebanon has undercut that position so France caves. The entire resolution must be re-thought.

Too bad. This was a Chapter 6 giving Lebanon cover for the bad acts of Iranian Hezbollah. I'm betting the next one proposed will be a Chapter 7 with no cover for Lebanon. And who knows when the next one will come or what it will include. Israel now has every reason to remove Shebaa from the table if it wants.

I expect another war council in Israel within hours, first thing in the morning at the latest. Ground offensive will be expanded. Israel has just replaced it's northern commander. Preparation, I think, for the new expanded ground offensive.

FYI --
UN protocol - must have at least 24 hours between the circulation of any proposed resolution and the vote upon it. So generally, there is about a 48 hour delay between any alleged agreement on a resolution and the actual vote on it.

[fubar]

PD says, "I can't understand why Syrian and Iranian ambassadors might walk out on Israeli ambassador's presentation."

It's SOP.

[R]

I agree that the entire resolution needs to be rethought of, but I don't agree with your conclusion that the next resolution is going to be a chapter 7. I also don't agree with your conclusion that Israel now has every reason to remove the Shebaa farms from the table. In fact, they havent shown any real inclination to be generous in that regard at any point. So while it was a suggestion being thrown around, until now it hasnt been a real bargaining chip. I also still think Israel's best interests at the moment are served by giving Lebanon, the government of Lebanon, what it needs to undermine HA. That includes the Shebaa farms.
As for the expanded ground offensive, I think its a coin toss at the moment.

[PD]

Fubar:
Fox News web site omdocates French/US coalition on original proposal has fallen apart (certainly not what Fox would like to report). French supports Arab/Lebanese approach. Don't agree with your view of bad faith on France's part!

Still disagreement on nature/timing of international force.

Vote can't take place, as you say, until Thursday.

Not sure about the Chapter 6 or 7 (tend to think you are not right on that one).

I have a feeling that Israel might be more cooperative on withdrawal if they can get unilateral release of Israeli soldiers rather than trade.

[fubar]

We shall see. Everyone's predictions are duly noted.

[Hassan]

PD,
Unilateral release of Israeli soldiers means complete defeat of HA. That won't fly after agreeing to send the Leb army south.
I agree with R on Israel's best interests here.

[PD]

Hassan:

Unfortunately, Israel does not always act in line with its own best interest.

I think its principal concern is going to be with follow through related to its security issues. I like Doug's idea of tkying the ultimate disposition with regard to Shebaa Farms to early successes of implementatiion. They can move troops there in the meantime.

I continue to have the feeling that the soldier release piece is going to continue to pose a problem, despite the fact that I probably agree with you.

[fubar]

R --

Shebaa was suggested by the US from the very beginning as a way to remove Iranian Hezbollah's bogus reason for fighting and to smack Syria in the process (the comprehensive solution). And the US was negotiating for Israel (that means the US was vouching for Israel - that it would agree to the res.).

The French were negotiating for Lebanon (that means vouching for them). Shebaa was in the res. so there is no way you can honestly say there was no indication that it was in play. Not only was it in play, the US had beat Israel over the head to put it in play.

As the Lebanese government is opposed to aggressive international force, now Israel is going to have to go in much stronger and continue to degrade Iranian Hezbollah which means suffering more IDF casualties and more civilian casualties due to the rockets. Israel does not believe the Lebanese government and/or Lebanese Army can or will control Iranian Hezbollah. Therefore, since this deal is off and new one will be drafted, there will be less pressure on Israel to make concessions in the next one.

To the victor go the spoils. It is slow going, but Iranian Hezbollah is being degraded. In a ground fight between Israel and Iranian Hezbollah, Israel will win over time. The longer this goes on, the less Israel needs to conceed.

PD --
Yes, everyone knows the optimum time for a res. was two weeks ago, but the Lebanese govt. would not get their act together two weeks ago. No point crying over spilt milk.

And Israel withdrawing before an aggressive international force arrives (UNIFIL does not count) is NEVER going to happen.

[fubar]

(Reuters) Qatar's foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, representing a three-member Arab League delegation, told the council that adopting a nonenforceable resolution would have "grave ramifications" for Lebanon.

Looks like Qatar wants a Chapter 7.

[bad vilbel]

fubar,

2 weeks ago, the Lebanese government DID offer to send troops to the south. Israel and the US are the ones who "couldn't get their act together". At the time, Israel believed it could score a decisive military victory over HA, and the US was against passing any sort of UN resolution, to buy Israel more time.
I don't know where you got your "Lebanese govt wouldn't get their act together" logic.

[fubar]

Bad Vilbel --

Read it again.

"Yes, everyone knows the optimum time for a res. was two weeks ago, but the Lebanese govt. would not get their act together two weeks ago. No point crying over spilt milk."

Saying they were willing to send troops to the south is not the same as agreeing to a UNSC resolution ending the conflict.

(Yeah, I know, sometimes I do the same thing - read too fast and jump the gun. = )

[PD]

Fubar:

With regard to the issue of conditions for Israeli withdrawal across the blue line, I suspect the fundamental issue is short-term certainty that rockets will not continue to fall on northern Israel. Right now, Israel forces across the blue line can't even prevent that from happening so if there can be Lebanese assurances in this regard, that, to me, should be a plus for Israel. I have suggested in a couple of postings that if Hez was to be shrewd that it would declare a 24-hour moratorium (Say tomoorrow or Thursday) to show their ability to follow through on a cessation of hostilities as well as commitment to cessation as relate to rockets.

With regard to the longer-term issue of forces, I think that Israel will insist on significant international force to complement Lebanese and assure follow through on commitments regarding Hezbolla within part of Southern Lebanon. But the short-term and long-term seem to be quite different issues.

Given the loose control now, Israel doesn't have much of a case for not withdrawing now if Lebanese government and Hez can give assurances with regard to rocket firings--which were not really an issue before July 12th. I have read that there were no rocket attacks into Israel between July 1 and July 11.

Lebanon government can't genuinely compromise on short-term issue, but they can, I think, compromise on long-term composition of force. And I strongly suspect that they will have to compromise on the long-term force. US has already made clear on that.