Israeli PM Has Accepted Cease-Fire Deal

[TeeJay]

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?

I think that the UN would classify actions as defensive if they were done to immediately protect the lives of the soldiers in question (similar to the 'terms of engagement' for many peacekeeping missions) or possibly to protect other life (this might include destroying a missile that was in the process of being launched). Conversely, any military action that was pushing into new areas or that was not simply in direct response to being directly fired on would be seen as offensive.

I imagine (but do not know) that the member states would arrive at agreement on this classification by using terms of reference used both when they are observing combatants on peacekeeping missions (of which the UN has done many) and in relation to the terms of engagment used by UN peacekeepers themselves.

As to "when". A lot of this will already exist due to the long history of UN peacekeeping missions. The actual facts on the ground would have to be established probably by UN peacekeepers acting as military observers. These personell would be sent in even in advance of the proposed 15,000 troops, not least to verify that combat had stopped and it was safe to send in more UN troops.

What would happen if a ceasefire was breached? Presumably the United Nations would not send in the proposed 15,000 troops. The war would continue and the UNSC would have to meet again and decide what action they should take, if any. It is hard to know what they would do. Again, at a guess if Hezbollah was "at fault" they would probably simply let Israel continue to attack, although there might be a question about sanctions of some sort on Syria and Iran if they could be shown to be supporting them. If Israel was "at fault" then again, there might be a suggestion of sanctions on Israel. Sanctions would likely be initially economic and relating to arms sales with the severity increasing in steps if there was further non-compliance.

I am not an expert in this and will gladly stand to be corrected about any of the conjectures I have just made.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

The UN definition becomes irrelevant if Israel choose to selectively interpret it.

If they do so then Lebanese people will continue to die, and their deaths will be "accidents" or acts of "defence" by Israeli troops, "collateral damage".

I'd love to see a clean withdrawal from Lebanon, with no more deaths on either side, but I'm not going to stake anything on that happening, because I doubt it will. Israel have been allowed "wriggle room" in this resolution, and (as usual) they'll use it.

 

[laptop]

So, now you're starting to appreciate that the UN is a process, not a thing, I think you're secretly agreeing with me.

Here are UNIFIL's terms of engagement:

to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces [i.e. between the Blue Line and the Litani river] and as it deems within its capabilities,

• to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind,
• to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council,
• and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;

My bullet-pointing, emphasis, and clarification of "area".

So if Israel is in breach in any way... back to the Security Council for a new resolution.

That would seem to have to be a resolution for a new UN force with broader terms of engagement than UNIFIL's (whether to replace an already-deployed expanded UNIFIL, or to replace the already-present small force).

Which would mean more stalling. In fact, it's difficult to see how such a resolution could get past the US veto, since it'd raise the possibility of UN forces engaging Israel's military.

Whereas if Hizbollah is, in UNIFIL commanders' judgement, in breach they are empowered by the above text to (try to) whup them instanter.

Now of course it is possible that the Israeli government and armed forces will cease fire, if they feel that what they have achieved though killing 1000 Lebanese is to get UNIFIL to occupy South Lebanon for them by proxy. But I wouldn't bet on the Israeli cabinet remaining rational for long. One lone nutter blows themselves up near the Knesset and all bets are off again...

 

[TeeJay]

The UN definition becomes irrelevant if Israel choose to selectively interpret it.

If they do so then Lebanese people will continue to die, and their deaths will be "accidents" or acts of "defence" by Israeli troops, "collateral damage".

It doesn't become irrelevant at all. Yes, either side could break a ceasefire (if one is agreed to and actually starts) and either side could start pumping out their own version of things, but the United Nations will come to its own conclusions about whether the resolution has been breached, it wiull hopefully have its own observers on the ground reporting back and otherwise collecting evidence and it will decide on the basis of this what action to take (subject, of course, to either a vote of the UNSC or theoretically by majority vote in the full General Assembly). Additionally, if either side is seen to be in breach of the resolution individual countries might well decide to take their own action (for example sanctions, cutting off arms sales and aid etc), as well as opposing new UN resolutions.

 

[TeeJay]

...Whereas if Hizbollah is, in UNIFIL commanders' judgement, in breach they are empowered by the above text to (try to) whup them instanter...

I can't see anything in the text that gives UNIFIL any more or less power in relation to Israeli forces than it does in relation to Hezbollah forces.

Your argument about "by proxy" applies equally to Israel and Hezbollah: many Israelis have already started complaining that the UN resolution simply allows Hezbollah to remain in Southern Lebanon and rearm and that neither the UNIFIL or the Lebanese government forces will do anything about this.

Some Hezbollah supporters have already started complaining that the resolution simply does 'by proxy' what Israel was trying to achieve - ie remove Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon.

Seems that you are taking the Hezbollah line here.

Personally I think it is only right that both Israeli forces and Hezbollah (as an armed organisation) get the fuck out of southern Lebanon, and that the area is controlled exclusively by the forces of the elected Lebanese government, back up by United Nations troops (for example French, Italian and others) with a strong mandate to properly enforce this resolution in all aspects.

 

[laptop]

I can't see anything in the text that gives UNIFIL any more or less power in relation to Israeli forces than it does in relation to Hezbollah forces.

So look again.

What is UNIFIL supposed to to about cross-border shelling or about bombing from the air by Israeli forces, given that it is restricted to operating between the Blue Line and the Litani river?

Your argument about "by proxy" applies equally to Israel and Hezbollah: many Israelis have already started complaining that the UN resolution simply allows Hezbollah to remain in Southern Lebanon and rearm and that neither the UNIFIL or the Lebanese government forces will do anything about this.

Er, you were the one insisting that there was a "fact of the matter" about what the resolution means. It may turn out that neither UNIFIL nor the Lebanese Army in fact expel or disarm Hizbollah - but you're going to have to point out the weasel words that permit them to argue that the failure so to do is not a breach of the words of the resolution, because I can't see them.

Seems that you are taking the Hezbollah line here.

Are you resorting to claiming that everyone who does not agree with you "supports the terrorists"?

My friend who has spent considerable time with Hizbollah - somone who regularly calls for all religious nutters to be castrated with blunt shears - reports that there are many very intelligent people among them. If they reach the same analysis of the resolution as I do, you can't blame me.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

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

why not it's perfectly acceptable to the world for isreal to do so...

 

[TAE]

I suggest you go and read the entire UN resolution

I suggest you ask yourself what the IDF will be doing in southern Lebanon. Simply standing around watching truck after truck drive past? Will they just be watching suspected hezbollah fighters moving boxes from house to house? The only purpose IDF troops have in Lebanon is to undertake offensive military activities.

 

[TeeJay]

What is UNIFIL supposed to to about cross-border shelling or about bombing from the air by Israeli forces, given that it is restricted to operating between the Blue Line and the Litani river?

Presumably the same thing they would do if hezbollah fired missiles/rockets at Israel from north of the Litani - ie fuck all basically.

Edited to add: They are there to police a ceasefire not enforce one. I expect that if the ceasefire breaks down they will leave again.

 

[TeeJay]

Er, you were the one insisting that there was a "fact of the matter" about what the resolution means. It may turn out that neither UNIFIL nor the Lebanese Army in fact expel or disarm Hizbollah - but you're going to have to point out the weasel words that permit them to argue that the failure so to do is not a breach of the words of the resolution, because I can't see them.

Sorry I can't reply to this because I simply can't understand what you have written here.

 

[TeeJay]

I suggest you ask yourself what the IDF will be doing in southern Lebanon. Simply standing around watching truck after truck drive past? Will they just be watching suspected hezbollah fighters moving boxes from house to house? The only purpose IDF troops have in Lebanon is to undertake offensive military activities.

So you have read the full text? What do you think of the proposed sequnce of events? You will note that the resolution (which seems to have been accpeted by both sides) sets out first of all a ceasefire, then the arrival of Lebanese and UN troops, and then an Israeli withdrawal.

It seems that all parties have just agreed to something that contradicts your last post. What exactly is it that you know that none of them do?

 

[TeeJay]

why not it's perfectly acceptable to the world for isreal to do so...

Actually "the world" (or at least the 15 countries on the UNSC) have all voted without exception in favour of this resolution.

Why would you be against this resolution? I don't understand why you would be against it because Israel is against it (although they seem to have accpeted it in fact, so you wold be wrong to say this). I never had you down as someone who took their political beliefs from copying what Israel does.

 

[laptop]

Oh fuck it.

First TeeJay starts by arguing that the resolution effectively binds the Israeli government to cease fire, relying on a claim that the wording of the resolution says so, when there's a fucking great loophole in it (the word "offensive") inserted over the objections of the Lebanese government.

Now TeeJay is "arguing" that the resolution has no effect against Hizbollah - when the wording clearly says that UNIFIL shall be empowered to act against it (as quoted above) - this time on no more basis than a general feeling they'd do "fuck all basically".

See: first a claim to understand legal language and that the process doesn't matter. Then a claim that the language doesn't matter and TeeJay's personal expectations settle it in his favour.

I've heard more intellectually consistent and politically relevant arguments between ten-year-old fans of Watford and Luton FCs. But this is not a local football derby and the "my team right or wrong" approach will lead to another thousand dead. Fuckwit.

 

[TeeJay]

...Now TeeJay is "arguing" that the resolution has no effect against Hizbollah...

You can't read. I said that some Israelis have started attacking the resolution on these grounds. I don't agree with them and never said I did.

I am pointing out that the resolution is under attack from people on both sides who don't want to accept it and want to continue fighting as they don't see it as genuine.

I support the resolution and do think it is genuine.

The "fuck all basically" was specifically in relation to what UNIFIL forces on the ground would do if the ceasefire completely broke down and missiles and bombs started being launched from both sides - specifically from areas outside their designated area of operation (eg Bekka valley to the north and Israel to the south). I expect - and you will probably see this confirmed in the UNIFIL terms of engagement - that they would withdraw from the area if this level of fighting broke out. I was not claiming that UNIFIL and the Lebanese government forces would not take action to disarm Hezbollah within southern region. Some people are making this claim (that UNIFIL etc will be ineffective even within their area of operations) but I do not agree with this.

I suggest you go and get some sleep laptop, because not only are you posting gibberish but your reading and comprehension ability seems to have deteriorated to staggeringly useless levels.

Night night.

 

[laptop]

I said that some Israelis have started attacking the resolution on these grounds. I don't agree with them and never said I did.

What is UNIFIL supposed to to about cross-border shelling or about bombing from the air by Israeli forces, given that it is restricted to operating between the Blue Line and the Litani river?

Presumably the same thing they would do if hezbollah fired missiles/rockets at Israel from north of the Litani - ie fuck all basically.

I'd recommend attempting to read what you have yourself written before accusing others.

E2A: And what kind of question would "is the resolution geniune" supposed to be? Has anyone suggested it's a forgery? It appears to be an actual UN resolution. It's a deeply flawed one, and both its wording and its delayed promulgation are slanted in favour of the government of Israel. And therefore against the people of Lebanon in the short term and against the people of Israel in the medium term, in which the fudge will doubtless lead to all kinds of grief.

The government and armed forces of Israel have committed war crimes. Each time they go off on one like this they bring the end of Israel as step closer. You won't listen to me on this. You might listen to the far-right ex-Marine trainer William S Lind:

Washington, which in its hubris ignores both its friends and its enemies, refusing to talk to the latter or listen to the former, does not grasp that if the flanks collapse, it is the end of our adventures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also, in a slightly longer time frame, the end of Israel. No Crusader state survives forever, and in the long term Israel’s existence depends on arriving at some sort of modus vivendi with the region.

this post by Bernie, with link

 

[TeeJay]

I'd recommend attempting to read what you have yourself written before accusing others.

You have incorrectly quoted me there laptop - switching what I said and what you said. I suggest you don't pretend you are quoting a post when you are so wildly inaccurate.

In fact I'd recommend attempting to read what you have yourself written before pressing the 'submit reply' button.

what kind of question would "is the resolution geniune" supposed to be?

I am not sure what the "would" in that sentence means but I will try and reply:

Some people are saying that the resolution isn't a genuine ceasefire or peace deal because it allows Israel to continue to fight, others because it allows Hezbollah to continue to rearm and that UNIFIL et al won't carry it through.

 

[laptop]

OK, so I made a typo in pasting the quote.

What is UNIFIL supposed to to about cross-border shelling or about bombing from the air by Israeli forces, given that it is restricted to operating between the Blue Line and the Litani river?

Presumably the same thing they would do if hezbollah fired missiles/rockets at Israel from north of the Litani - ie fuck all basically.

That is what you said, and it is what you denied saying just a few posts later.

Your attempts at arguments are incoherent and dishonest. Now fuck off.

 

[TeeJay]

That is what you said, and it is what you denied saying just a few posts later.

I didn't deny it.

edited to add some quotes:

What is UNIFIL supposed to to about cross-border shelling or about bombing from the air by Israeli forces, given that it is restricted to operating between the Blue Line and the Litani river?

Presumably the same thing they would do if hezbollah fired missiles/rockets at Israel from north of the Litani - ie fuck all basically.

Now TeeJay is "arguing" that the resolution has no effect against Hizbollah - when the wording clearly says that UNIFIL shall be empowered to act against it (as quoted above) - this time on no more basis than a general feeling they'd do "fuck all basically".

The "fuck all basically" was specifically in relation to what UNIFIL forces on the ground would do if the ceasefire completely broke down and missiles and bombs started being launched from both sides - specifically from areas outside their designated area of operation (eg Bekka valley to the north and Israel to the south). I expect - and you will probably see this confirmed in the UNIFIL terms of engagement - that they would withdraw from the area if this level of fighting broke out. I was not claiming that UNIFIL and the Lebanese government forces would not take action to disarm Hezbollah within southern region. Some people are making this claim (that UNIFIL etc will be ineffective even within their area of operations) but I do not agree with this.

...

That is what you said, and it is what you denied saying just a few posts later.

Where is this "denial" then laptop?

Actually don't bother replying tonight. I can't understand your train of thought at all. I will come back to this tomorrow to see if it makes any more sense then, and when I am less tempted to sign off every post with a string of swearing.

 

[laptop]

Inconsistent, contradictory, dishonest - and now going back to edit your posts to say "er, actually, I didn't mean what I wrote, I meant..."?

 

[TeeJay]

Which edits are you referring to laptop?

 

[TeeJay]

I meant exactly what I wrote.

Go and read it again.

 

[snorbury]

11:56 Government to announce Israel to act according to UN resolution (Haaretz)

 

[ViolentPanda]

It doesn't become irrelevant at all. Yes, either side could break a ceasefire (if one is agreed to and actually starts) and either side could start pumping out their own version of things, but the United Nations will come to its own conclusions about whether the resolution has been breached, it wiull hopefully have its own observers on the ground reporting back and otherwise collecting evidence and it will decide on the basis of this what action to take (subject, of course, to either a vote of the UNSC or theoretically by majority vote in the full General Assembly). Additionally, if either side is seen to be in breach of the resolution individual countries might well decide to take their own action (for example sanctions, cutting off arms sales and aid etc), as well as opposing new UN resolutions.

I'm touched by your faith in the UN, but you don't appear to appreciate that any sanctions/policing/enforcement of the resolution will occur AFTER violations have taken place, AFTER deaths have occurred.

Now, from my reading of the resolution, Israel appears to have been allowed a greater scope for manouvre than Lebanon has, so I don't believe I'm being unreasonable when I say that Israel is likely to "milk" that scope, and if it does, then the resolution becomes irrelevant. Both to the people dying because of the "wriggle room" that Israel was given, and to the people doing the killing, because as far as they're concerned, their actions are permissible.

A resolution that absolutely limited both sides from engagement would have been righteous, one that restricts one side from all operations and the other from "offensive military operations" is far too open to interpretation, even given the language used in the text.

 

[ViolentPanda]

11:56 Government to announce Israel to act according to UN resolution (Haaretz)

A day late and a dollar short (well, two days actually).

 

[moono]

Israel has, I believe, 56 outstanding Resolutions against it. Wtf should they care about it being 57.

 

[snorbury]

A day late and a dollar short (well, two days actually).

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html

 

[TAE]

So you have read the full text?

Most of it, yes.

What do you think of the proposed sequnce of events? You will note that the resolution (which seems to have been accpeted by both sides) sets out first of all a ceasefire, then the arrival of Lebanese and UN troops, and then an Israeli withdrawal.

I doubt that the IDF will abide by it, because I cannot see any reason for them to want to stay in south Lebanon unless they plan to take offensive action.

It seems that all parties have just agreed to something that contradicts your last post. What exactly is it that you know that none of them do?

I'd bet the US threatened to veto the resolution and so the lebanese etc decided to live with the odd phrasing which means the IDF can stay for a while but not actually do anything. Can you explain to me why the IDF want to sit around south Lebanon twiddling their thumbs?

 

[Tom A]

Heard something on Radio 2 News about an hour ago that the Israelis are still fighting, even though they have accepted the resolution, one would assume they would stop the at the stroke of midnight, I mean wow, what a committment to peace and stability...

 

[slaar]

Presumably Hezbollah are still fighting too, no?

 

[Tom A]

If so then ditto to them.