The UN cease-fire: At most, a D

Let’s see what the cease-fire gives us. (Full text here.)

Do we get an international force in southern Lebanon with the ability to disarm Hezbullah? No.

Do we get the disarmament of Hezbullah? No. Of course, you can point to 1559, but in the last two years, Hezbullah has laughed at it, and their shills in Lebanon have said they will not disarm the “resistance.” The fact that Hezbullah is not a resistance movement seems moot.

Do we get the kidnapped Israeli soldiers back? No.

Here’s what we get: UNIFIL, without Chapter 7 rights, which are a bit foggy to me, except that I’m pretty sure they still can’t fire back at Hezbullah (if they wanted to; that’s a big if) will put 15,000 troops in southern Lebanon.

The Shebaa Farms issue is not part of the deal, which is a good thing and would have been an unbelievable victory for Hezbullah.

Israel reserves the right to respond if attacked. Now here’s where I found the best quote of the year.

Lebanon’s acting foreign minister, Tarek Mitri, suggested that his nation would accept the resolution though he said its call for a cessation of fighting could not be implemented. He criticized it for allowing Israel to continue some operations.

“A cease-fire that by its terms cannot be implemented is no cease-fire,” Mitri said. “A cease-fire that retains the right for one side the right not to cease firing is not a cease-fire.”

Look at it this way, Tarek. Israel managed to get the UN to do to the Arabs what the Arabs have been doing to Israel for decades. How does it feel, buddy? I think it’s great.

The UN, of course, is gaga over the agreement.

At the heart of the resolution are two elements: It seeks an immediate halt to the fighting and it spells out a series of steps that would lead to a permanent cease-fire and long-term solution.

That would be done by creating a new buffer zone in south Lebanon “free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL” – the acronym of the U.N. force deployed in the region since 1978. The force now has 2,000 troops; the resolution would expand it to a maximum of 15,000.

South Lebanon had been under de facto control of Hezbollah, a Shiite militia, for several years until Israeli forces occupied parts of it after the start of the fighting last month. The political solution would include implementation of previous Security Council resolutions calling for Hezbollah’s disarmament.

And we can’t get through this without pointing out yet again the lies and biases of the wire services:

Diplomats at the U.N. said the adoption of the resolution must spur them to solve the wider conflict in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and the Palestinians. The Lebanon war has overshadowed the turmoil there, caused by the capture of an Israeli soldier on June 25.

You see? The war was caused by a single action—Israel’s response to an incident that the AP isn’t even honest enough to report the Israeli deaths that occurred during the cross-border invasion and kidnapping. The spin has spun.

On the other hand, Iran really hates the resolution. I might have to raise its grade to a D+ on that factor alone.

Iran said Saturday that the UN resolution aimed at ending the warfare between Israel and Lebanon’s Shiite Muslim Hizbullah group was biased and served only the interests of the Jewish state.

“UN resolution 1701 is completely one-sided and it serves the Zionist regime’s interests,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted as saying by state television.

Interesting. The morning was “quiet“—Ynet’s phrase that means “no rockets were fired on Israeli civilians”—and the afternoon heated things up. But not by a lot. Gee. The ground forces are stopping the rocket fire. Who’da thunk?

This entry was posted in Israel, Lebanon. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The UN cease-fire: At most, a D

  1. Anonymous says:

    Here’s what we get: UNIFIL, without Chapter 7 rights, which are a bit foggy to me

    Basically that which Rice a few weeks ago said was unacceptable: ” a return to the status quo!”
    And Syria’s proxy wins.

  2. Joel Rosenberg says:

    The only good thing about it is that it lets Israel continue defensive operations, while building up for the offensive operations that should go into effect when the hollow “ceasefire” collapses.

    Other than that — and including that, on balance — it sucks rocks.

    The difference between Article 6 and Article 7 would only matter if you had a force that was both willing and able to engage Hezbollah. Given the way this is being set up, it doesn’t matter . . . unless Hezbollah badly misplays their hand and attacks UNIFIL. Unlikely; it’s like Eric stabbing Lyle.

  3. A Steve says:

    Maybe Olmert is just sick of being Prime Minister. That seems as good an explanation as any.

  4. Ozzie says:

    I am not convinced that a ceasefire will stick. For that matter I think that it is highly likely it will not last.

    Words on paper are meaningless in the ME.

  5. Tatterdemalian says:

    “Given the way this is being set up, it doesn’t matter . . . unless Hezbollah badly misplays their hand and attacks UNIFIL.”

    In which case, Kofi Anan will issue a harshly worded condemnation, Hezbollah will say “Mossad did it,” and the whole thing will be forgotten in the rush to condemn Israel again.

  6. Dan says:

    The enormity of her office exposed Rice, and I knew it would. She simply doesn’t have the moxy to purge the arabists in the State Department. And so the status quo continues, not just in the middle east, but in Washington. In the middle east, the desire for the blood of the Jew reigns supreme, and in Washington, the desire to continue to do business with those creatures, reigns supreme.

    When Congress passes legislation BARRING former politicians from accepting positions or consultancies with mideast think tanks, and bars their acceptance of any cash that is sourced to petrodollars, THEN WE’LL KNOW that the time of Saudi/Arab dominance is coming to a conclusion.

    Until such time, expect little or nothing from Washington.

    They’re scared to death at the enormity and scope of the strategic challenge to the United States.

    We’ve commenced a “decades long” Cold War against jihadist islam, which has lasted 1,300 plus years. AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, in the Far East, we’re seeing the rise of an even greater strategic problem, in the rise of China.

    And in as much as those two entities will have the same strategic foe, it’s only natural to expect them to find similar interests, and ultimately, to forge a temporary, but nonetheless vast strategic alliance.

    And to this, and against this, we’ve got the worst communicator in Presidential history. We’ve got a guy who barely, BARELY stumbles and bumbles his way through the English language.

    We need a Lincoln, a Churchill, and we’ve got a verbal cripple on our hands.

    We need iron in our leadership, and we’ve got men who wander off for consultations with Kofi Anan, a thoroughgoing worm like figure, involved in the GREATEST financial scandal in history. And we’re supposed to believe that at such a place, led by such a creature, the answers to the age old jihadist blood lust is to be found. The very notion is pure gallows’s humour.

    Why didn’t the Israelis vote for Netanyahu? If we had Netanyahu the Tehran Manhattan project would already be ash.

    What the hell possessed the Israelis to turn away from the one man of ability and persuasiveness they have, for a Mayoral non-entity. The only campaign Olmert ran was wandering the length of Israel with a big poster of Sharon behind him.

    The Left and Peres still can’t find the error that pervaded the whole Oslo process.

    The religious parties still jockey and posture for political spoils when the nation’s security is truly at risk.

    And Netanyahu is shackled because he’s too “American” and has certain irrelevant scandals attached to him.

    It’s absolutely surreal. Surreal.

  7. Dan says:

    If we had Netanyahu, he would have told the State Department what they could’ve done with their adoption of the French proposals.

    Netanyahu would have attacked the enemies of the Israeli state, {and let’s be blunt, the enemies of the Jewish people, because the distinction between the state of Israel and security of ordinary non-Israeli Jews is NOW non-existant}.

    And the thing I see clearly, is that it’s only going to get worse.

    Anti-semitism on American streets and colleges will surely rise, as the Left follows the example of Europe. Which they always do.

    I’m truly sickened at our foreign policy which has left the Israelis exposed on the diplomatic front. It’s utterly degenerate.

  8. Dan says:

    And one thing more, don’t blame Olmert overmuch for this debacle.

    This lies at the foot of the man I voted for, George Walker Bush.

    Olmert only capitulated to pressure from Washington. And it was a bit of a stretch to expect some guy out of his depth like Olmert to defy the only true friend the Israelis have on the face of the earth.

    My country has acquired far too much sway over the foreign policy of Israel. It’s unhealthy for the Israelis and for us.

    It was this administration that effectively pulled the rug out from under the IDF and Olmert. Let’s not blind ourselves to that.

    Take a good look at the provisions of the arrangement that Rice SIGNED OFF ON before they were proffered to Olmert and the Cabinet. If you have the stomach that is. The very fact that she EVEN PARTICIPATED IN SUCH SQUALID DISCUSSIONS is breath takingly brain dead.

    We can only hope that GW is but the McClellan, that will but precede the genuine figure who will see the drama out, and victoriously out at that.

  9. The ceasefire may end up getting an “I” for “Incomplete.”

Comments are closed.