Israeli PM Has Accepted Cease-Fire Deal

[slaar]

Indeed, which is kind of the problem, Hezbollah won't cease fire while Israelis are on Lebanese soil, Israel won't cease fire until the multinational and Lebanese troops are in full control, which will make getting the UN force in place very troublesome indeed.

 

[Tom A]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4911334&postcount=27

As I was saying...

 

[ZAMB]

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.

What right has the US to make such a guarantee?

 

[TeeJay]

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.

They want to stay there until the UNIFIL and UN troops arrive, so that Hizbollah can't rearm and reoccupy their previous positions in the south. Staying there won't necessarily involve attacking Hezbollah if there is a ceasefire.

United Nations troops have very often had "defensive" terms of engagement which basically means they can only use their weapons to defend themselves when their lives are in danger. If they have this kind of restricted mandate they are allowed to patrol and observer but they aren't allowed to go on the attack. While the IDF are obviously not the same as UN troops, this does show that the concept of "defensive action" is not meaningless and does in fact have a definition and plenty of precedents even when troops are in a foreign country and facing hostile forces.

 

[TAE]

They want to stay there until the UNIFIL and UN troops arrive, so that Hizbollah can't rearm and reoccupy their previous positions in the south. Staying there won't necessarily involve attacking Hezbollah if there is a ceasefire.

What are the IDF troops going to do when young lebanese men drive past them in big trucks?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

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

Probably one of the best posts on this thread so far...

 

[david dissadent]

This cease fire has the air of diplomacy on auto pilot about it. A deal done for public consumption that leaves to many details for later. It is far too easy for either side to prick the other enough for a responce that will break the deal.

No European army is going to take 24 casuaties a day trying to disarm Hezbollah.

Lebanon will not risk a civil war doing so.

Israel will remain in southern Lebanon able to reinforce its positions so long as no International force shows up.

If America takes punitive action against Iran Israel will have tanks on the ground (to coin a phrase) to prevent a sudden and large scale hezbollah bombardment of Israel in retaliation. (One of the very probible reasons for this incursion).

Israel can use a period of reduced millitary activity to crash retrain its regular battalions from mechanised in light infintary tactics. They have tried to fight a mech war when it needed foot soldiers. They can also rapidly adapt to the tactics of Hezbollah to minimise there impact. It is a pause that will allow them to come back with a plan that works.

It will also reduce immediate tension in Lebanon allowing cracks to open in the Lebanese solidarity.

Israel will control, or aims to, the roads which will reduce Hezbollahs capacity to resuply. Food stores in the bunkers will be reducing.

It is feasable that this peace will hold, but only if Iran and the US strongly wish it too.

I dont fault the diplomats for orginising it. Its is at least a chance. I just dont see it as realisitic.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Robert Fisk seems pessimistic about the cease-fire:

The real war in Lebanon begins today. The world may believe - and Israel may believe - that the UN ceasefire due to come into effect at 6am today will mark the beginning of the end of the latest dirty war in Lebanon after up to 1,000 Lebanese civilians and more than 30 Israeli civilians have been killed. But the reality is quite different and will suffer no such self-delusion: the Israeli army, reeling under the Hizbollah's onslaught of the past 24 hours, is now facing the harshest guerrilla war in its history. And it is a war they may well lose.

and

Officially, Israel has now accepted the UN ceasefire that calls for an end to all Israeli offensive military operations and Hizbollah attacks, and the Hizbollah have stated that they will abide by the ceasefire - providing no Israeli troops remain inside Lebanon. But 10,000 Israeli soldiers - the Israelis even suggest 30,000, although no one in Beirut takes that seriously - have now entered the country and every one of them is a Hizbollah target.

From this morning, Hizbollah's operations will be directed solely against the invasion force. And the Israelis cannot afford to lose 40 men a day. Unable to shoot down the Israeli F-16 aircraft that have laid waste to much of Lebanon, the Hizbollah have, for years, prayed and longed and waited for the moment when they could attack the Israeli army on the ground.

Now they are set to put their long-planned campaign into operation. Thousands of their members remain alive and armed in the ruined hill villages of southern Lebanon for just this moment and, only hours after their leader, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, warned Israel on Saturday that his men were waiting for them on the banks of the Litani river, the Hizbollah sprang their trap, killing more than 20 Israeli soldiers in less than three hours.

Israel itself, according to reports from Washington and New York, had long planned its current campaign against Lebanon - provoked by Hizbollah's crossing of the Israeli frontier, its killing of three soldiers and seizure of two others on 12 July - but the Israelis appear to have taken no account of the guerrilla army's most obvious operational plan: that if they could endure days of air attacks, they would eventually force Israel's army to re-enter Lebanon on the ground and fight them on equal terms.

source

 

[moono]

IDF urges rapid withdrawal

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html

Right.

 

[moono]

A first fire incident violated the cease-fire, however, when Israel Defense Forces soldiers shot dead a Hezbollah militant who sprang from his hiding and opened fire at them. The clash took place near the village of Ghanduriya, in central south Lebanon.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html

That will be some shepherd's wife milking the goat herself tomorrow then.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Israeli interpretation of 'defensive'

Lebanese security sources said Israeli air raids killed at least 22 people.

Israeli officials said Israel believed it would be entitled to use force to prevent Hizbollah from rearming and to clear guerrilla positions out of southern Lebanon after the truce took effect. They said such "defensive" operations were permissible under the U.N. resolution to end the fighting.

source

 

[laptop]

More on the Israeli state's definition of "defensive":

Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora has accused Israel of a "naked violation" of the five-day-old ceasefire, after a raid by Israeli commandos deep inside Lebanon.

The raid, in the eastern Bekaa Valley, left one Israeli dead and two injured.

Israel said it was trying to disrupt the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah, and insisted the ceasefire was still intact.

BBC

 

[TAE]

I don't recall the UN authorising Israel to disrupt the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah.

 

[TeeJay]

Maybe not, but the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah is also in violation of the UN resolution.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Any info on whether the shipment of weapons from the US to Israel is a violation of the UN resolution?

 

[moono]

Maybe not, but the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah is also in violation of the UN resolution.

The Lebanese government has the final say on whatever is moved in or out of Lebanon, not the UN and certainly not Israel.

 

[TeeJay]

Any info on whether the shipment of weapons from the US to Israel is a violation of the UN resolution?

No this is not in violation of UNSC resolution 1701 - nor are are shipments to the Lebanese army. What is banned however are shipments to Hizbollah.

You can read the full text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4785963.stm

For example, Points 14 and 15 state:

14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11 to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft;

* 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 authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11;

 

[laptop]

Maybe not, but the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah is also in violation of the UN resolution.

The resolution authorises only UNIFIL to deal with it - having determined whether it has in fact happened.

 

[moono]

Annan says the raid is a clear violation . Now what are the Security Council going to do about it ?

 

[TeeJay]

The resolution authorises only UNIFIL to deal with it - having determined whether it has in fact happened.

I just said that the resolution doesn't authorise Israel to attack - hence my words "maybe not".

My point is that if one side breaks a ceasefire then the other side responds to this violation you can't pretend that only one side broke it.

For example, if Hezbollah started firing rockets again, noone would expect Israel to do nothing. If Israel initiated offensve operations noone would expect Hezbollah to do nothing.

The question is what level of violations is enough to render the whole ceasefire defunct and also what sanctions or other action is the UN or others going to take if Hezbollah (or Israel) continue to violate the resolution?

Should these sanctions or actons be proportionate to the breach or is it "all or nothing"?

 

[TeeJay]

Annan says the raid is a clear violation . Now what are the Security Council going to do about it ?

Do you want the war to resume moono?

If not then what do you think of Hezbollah's violations of the UNSC resolution?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Annan says the raid is a clear violation . Now what are the Security Council going to do about it ?

Probably fuck all, as we all know Israel can't break the "ceasefire" only those evil Al Qaeda loving Hama-bollah terrorists scum can!

 

[moono]

If not then what do you think of Hezbollah's violations of the UNSC resolution?

Is this another chapter of 'Israel says' ?

 

[TeeJay]

I don't think you would condemn anything Hezbollah did, even if it was in violation of the UN resolution.

 

[fishfingerer]

If not then what do you think of Hezbollah's violations of the UNSC resolution?

There is no proof that Hezbollah violated the resolution apart from the Israelis' claims. The reason for the commando attack is not clear, but was probably an attempt to capture a Hezbollah leader, as the Lebanese have claimed. Is it not more likely that weapons shipments can be disrupted using airpower alone? Why would they need ground troops?

 

[moono]

I don't think you would condemn anything Hezbollah did, even if it was in violation of the UN resolution.

Well, what did they do ? The Israeli version is clearly not acceptable. Who else's version is there ?

You can't possibly be so naive as to accept the Israeli version, surely.

Why would they need ground troops?

Right, why would they need ground troops.