Israeli PM Has Accepted Cease-Fire Deal

[ViolentPanda]

What else did you think Violent Panda? Why the sudden rush to bus in as many soldiers into south lebanon when the diplomatic clock is ticking.

fuckers.

Well, I'd hoped they wouldn't be stupid enough to try and roll up as far as the Litani, I'd hoped they'd withdraw.

It's not just that they're trying to pull the same shite in terms of grabbing land as they've done in the Occupied territories, stealing land to promote their own security, it's that I've got a horrible feeling that if they try to hold an illegal buffer zone, then you'll have settler fuckwits in there tout suite, building those "facts on the ground" that they're so fond of.

As far as the "ceasefire" (which isn't a ceasefire) is concerned, it wont make any difference to the aims of the Zionists in charge of the state of Israel, they'll just dress up further deaths as "defence" or "accidents", and the Bushies and the Blairies will wring their hands and do and say nothing, despite the opinions and wishes of the people they govern.

 

[rennie]

like I said on another thread, pity us fools who have to live in the middle of all that.

 

[moono]

Stop worrying. I've just read that Cameron has lined up a government of Old Etonians. We're all saved.

Hezbollah's leader has said his group will abide by a ceasefire plan agreed at the UN to end fighting with Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4787179.stm

 

[TeeJay]

(reposted from the 'gaza' thread)

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said today the militant organisation would abide by the UN cease-fire resolution but would continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remained in southern Lebanon. link

The trouble with this is that the UNSC resolution orders an immediate ceasefire, prior to an Israeli withdrawal. You can read the full text here: http://newsinfo.inq7.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=14873

ie:

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

OP2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

OP3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;

====

If Nasrallah continues fighting while Israeli troops wait for Lebanese government and UNIFIL troops to arrive then he is not abiding by the UN cease-fire resolution. His statement above implies a direct intention to blatently violate the resolution, however he tries to spin it.

If Israeli troops continue any offensive military operations they are not abiding by it either.

 

[Red Faction]

well until israeli forces leave the lebannon
they are still undertaking an offensive military action
so if they refuse to acknowledge the ceasefire- hizbollah might as well continue as they were

 

[moono]

Once again there is a situation wherein the Zionists are in somebody else's territory and the UN are urging them to leave. You'd think they'd have been expelled from the UN by now. I suppose it's the nature of Zionists to occupy other people's space.

The Lebanese are within their legal rights to continue to repel the invaders if they so wish. They have that right under the UN Charter.

 

[TAE]

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

If IDF troops are in Lebanon then they have not stopped offensive military operations. Or would the IDF not attack Hezbollah fighters who go into northern Israel? The problem with the quoted text is that only Israel is allowed to defend itself.

 

[lostexpectation]

it seems like hez has accepted the resolution/ceasefire depending on leb gov talks...

it seems the most basic resolution, not a basis for new middle east, won't hexballah be folded into the leb army rather then disarmed will the leb army and unifil actually go round destroying the rocket caches? not a chapter 7 resolution, no nato force as I feared. no movement on sheeba farms or any other thing,

 

[laptop]

If IDF troops are in Lebanon then they have not stopped offensive military operations.

Everything Israel does is by (its) definition "defensive"

 

[TeeJay]

well until israeli forces leave the lebannon
they are still undertaking an offensive military action

Not according to the UN resolution. Go and read the full text if you don't believe me.

 

[TeeJay]

Once again there is a situation wherein the Zionists are in somebody else's territory and the UN are urging them to leave. You'd think they'd have been expelled from the UN by now. I suppose it's the nature of Zionists to occupy other people's space.

The Lebanese are within their legal rights to continue to repel the invaders if they so wish. They have that right under the UN Charter.

You may well disagree with the UN Resolution but if Hezbollah continue to attack the Israelis simply because they are waiting for UNIFIL and Lebanese government forces to arrive then they are in direct breach of the UN Resolution.

In any case Hezbollah don't have the 'legal right' - they are not the elected government of Lebanon or its army, they are a self-appointed militia.

 

[TeeJay]

If IDF troops are in Lebanon then they have not stopped offensive military operations. Or would the IDF not attack Hezbollah fighters who go into northern Israel? The problem with the quoted text is that only Israel is allowed to defend itself.

I suggest you go and read the entire UN resolution (it should only take you a couple of minutes at most). If you are debating the meaning of the term "offensive military operations" you are simply wrong - it separates a ceasefire from a withdrawal and outlines both in some detail, which clearly shows they are not the same thing at all.

On the other hand are you simply saying that you reject the UN Resolution?

 

[TeeJay]

Everything Israel does is by (its) definition "defensive"

Come on laptop, I thought you were more legally minded than that. This is a UN Resolution. I trust you have actually read through the full text. If you have then I would be interested in your interpretation of what is meant by the phrase as included in the text, especially as the rest of the text makes detailed references to various other conditions, including the sequence of withdrawal and status of the blue line etc.

 

[lostexpectation]

The UN resolution calls for an embargo on the supply of arms to militias in Lebanon.

the Nas is most unhappy about they say.

158 katushas thurs
120 friday 1 killed numerous injuries

* no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government

UN had previously said it wasn't its job to police this, its is to assist.

(a) the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and

(b) the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11

so iran can't sell lebanese arms the US can

U.S. assures Israel it will not be forced to withdraw from Shaba -key to breakthrough.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749566.html
n the negotiations that preceded the cease-fire deal, Lebanon demanded that Israel hand over Shaba Farms as a "deposit" to the UN, with the small strip of territory later to be given to either Lebanon or Syria, according to the results of Annan's investigation.

But Olmert strongly opposed the Lebanese demand, telling U.S. officials that Israel viewed the Shaba Farms as part of the Golan Heights, which was captured by Israel from Syria in 1967. He said that a withdrawal from part of the Golan would require a majority of 61 members of Knesset - a majority he does not have - or a national referendum.

As a result, the UN Security Council announced that Annan would determine the exact delineation of the Shaba Farms area and present his conclusions to the Security Council within 30 days.

 

[TeeJay]

so iran can't sell lebanese arms the us can

I can't see that in the text - it doesn't say who is selling them, just that they can only be sold to the government, not private militias. This is the case almost universally throughout the world isn't it? What's the big deal?

 

[laptop]

I repeat: Everything Israel does is by (its) definition "defensive".

The course of the negotiations over the resolution, with the US insisting on the use of the term "offensive military operations" rather than the usual ceasefire language "military operations", makes it clear that they intended to insert a get-out for further military operations by the armed forces of the state of Israel.

 

[TeeJay]

I repeat: Everything Israel does is by (its) definition "defensive".

The course of the negotiations over the resolution, with the US insisting on the use of the term "offensive military operations" rather than the usual ceasefire language "military operations", makes it clear that they intended to insert a get-out for further military operations by the armed forces of the state of Israel.

I don't really care what the Israeli definition is - What is the United Nations definition?

 

[laptop]

But it is very, very likely that the Israeli definition will be used to justify (to the Israeli voters if no-one else) actions which in any normal application of ordinary language would be a breach of cease-fire.

That will happen with the assistance of the weasel-words inserted by the US. Which is why they're there.

And that's a proper legalistic view: "how can or will this wording be warped?"

 

[TeeJay]

But it is very, very likely that the Israeli definition will be used to justify (to the Israeli voters if no-one else) actions which in any normal application of ordinary language would be a breach of cease-fire.

Since this is a United Nations Resolution, what is the UN definition of it?

However it got in there every single one of the following countries decided to vote in favour of this text: China, France, Russia, Argentina, Greece, Qatar, Congo, Japan, Slovakia, Denmark, Peru, Tanzania, Ghana, UK, USA

None of them abstained or voted against.

Whatever the Israelis do or don't do, what is the United Nations definition of the phrase?

Simple question really.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is, any proposition that leaves Israel in Lebanon or bombing Lebanon is unworkable. Hezbollah remain a force in being, they will inevitably retaliate even if everybody says yes to a PR ceasefire to which Israel can sign up while continuing to "defensively" drop bombs on civilians and critical infrastructure.

A ceasefire where both sides are inevitably going to continue fighting is just a PR stunt.

 

[TeeJay]

A ceasefire where both sides are inevitably going to continue fighting is just a PR stunt.

But that is exactly what Blair has been saying for several weeks now.

 

[laptop]

Since this is a United Nations Resolution, what is the UN definition of it?

Simple question really.

Not at all simple. Your attempt to find simplicity in the midst of complexity leads me to suspect you're covertly trying to score some point, but I can't be arsed to look back through the thread to see what.

Sigh.

As and when the government and armed forces of Israel commit some act that in any normal application of everyday language would be a breach of cease-fire (for example, as BG puts it, 'continuing to "defensively" drop bombs on civilians and critical infrastructure') then at that time wrangling will recommence on the East River to determine whether they have breached the resolution.

The government and armed forces of Israel will thus gain further days or weeks to dig themselves deeper into the mire.

The US will in any case, I predict, veto any new resolution proposing action against the government of Israel for any breach of this one, as it has vetoed every other enforcement resolution.

 

[laptop]

But that is exactly what Blair has been saying for several weeks now.

But his saying that was no more than PR cover for slavishly following Bush's determination to let the government and armed forces of Israel do what they wont.

Now this non-ceasefire resolution, with Bush's and Blair's fingerprints all over the weasel words, allows it to go on.

 

[TeeJay]

Thing is, any proposition that leaves Israel in Lebanon or bombing Lebanon is unworkable. Hezbollah remain a force in being, they will inevitably retaliate even if everybody says yes to a PR ceasefire to which Israel can sign up while continuing to "defensively" drop bombs on civilians and critical infrastructure.

Just to clarify - is this what you think the United Nations definition is?

My understanding of the resolution is that it requires a ceasefire which covers any initiation of contact but allows defensive fire if attacked (a similar rule often governs United Nations Peacekeepers - that they are only allowed to react if fired on, are not allowed to initiate fighting and must only be acting to immediately protect their own lives). It also describes a phased withdrawal after the ceasefire - with Israeli troops withdrawing from Lebanon after Lebanese and UNIFIL troops arrive on the ground to take control of the area.

Out of interest Bernie, have you read the full text yet?

 

[TeeJay]

Not at all simple. Your attempt to find simplicity in the midst of complexity leads me to suspect you're covertly trying to score some point, but I can't be arsed to look back through the thread to see what.

So an official United Nations document uses a term and I have some kind of agenda in asking what it actually means? Surely it is essential to know what the resolution allows and doesn't allow?

You seem to be arguing that it allows bombing. I think you are wrong in this.

You seem to be saying that this isn't a cease-fire. I think you are wrong.

I agree that one side or the other might not comply and that compliance will be contested. Where you are wrong however IMO is in your apparent interpretation of what the UN resolution itself is. This isn't just a matter of political opinion however - you are simply factually wrong.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wonder what the French will consider to be a ceasefire for the purposes of sending in peacekeepers? I'm pretty sure that if the Israelis are still bombing and Hezbollah are still rocketing Israel, they won't recognise that as "peace."

 

[TeeJay]

I wonder what the French will consider to be a ceasefire for the purposes of sending in peacekeepers? I'm pretty sure that if the Israelis are still bombing and Hezbollah are still rocketing Israel, they won't recognise that as "peace."

You see - that's what I am getting at.

Of course I expect both sides (and their various stirrers) be calling 'foul' from the word go, even if both sides sign up to it. Anyone wanting the war to go on will be calling 'foul' and trying to restart a full on war.

What I am interested in is what the criteria of a disinterested party or UN observer would be, with reference to the actual resolution that the 15 countries of the UNSC voted in favour of, and which (hopefully) Israel, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah will agree to accept.

 

[laptop]

Where you are wrong however IMO is in your apparent interpretation of what the UN resolution itself is.

What I am saying is that the resolution has been deliberately constructed to require further interpretation in a subsequent debate.

You appear to be beyond "factually wrong" - rather making a category error in demanding that there be a "fact of the matter" about the interpretation of a document that is a muddy political compromise. It's not fucking Pascal code.

All the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council were persuaded that they had to be seen to do so something - something ceasefire-like. This text was all they could agree on.

 

[TeeJay]

...further interpretation in a subsequent debate...

So you are saying that you have no clue about what actions would be classified by the United Nations as "offensive military actions"? That there are no precedents? That the UN doesn't use terms of engagement containing similar phrases for its own Peacekeepers? If so I think you are factually wrong. You seem to have an agenda that wants to denounce this resolution as a failure before it has even been accepted and come into effect. Almost as if you would prfere to nit-pick and whinge about 'compromises' rather than see an actual ceasefire and withdrawal - as if you are looking for excuses? I don't believe you really do have this agenda but that is the impression I get from what you are posting and many people do tend to wander blindly in a direction that they profess to not want (the road to hell etc.).

 

[laptop]

Oh, I hope there'll be an actual ceasefire. At last. I merely express my fear that the delaying tactics that have allowed the slaughter to go on for a month have also been re-expressed in the present Resolution. And in doing so I'm putting myself in the shoes of the representative at the UN of a government that shares my hope, rather than reifying the UN as you appear to be. (I've been to observe international treaty negotiations precisely to help put myself in the negotiators' shoes.)

So what actions do you think would be classified by the UN as "offensive"?

And how do you think the member states of the UN would arrive at agreement on that classification?

And when might that happen?

And what would be the result?