So It Begins: Hezbollah Balking At Cease-Fire Conditions
The UN cease-fire agreement for the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict has been agreed to by both sides. Lebanon has stated they will abide by the provisions, and Israel said they will leave Lebanon as soon as the 15,000 soldier peacekeeping force arrives in southern Lebanon. Now Hezbollah has continued to fire on Israel; 250 rockets today, at last count.
But in the Financial Times today Harvey Morris, Ferry Biedermann, and Jonathan Birchall point out that cracks are beginning to form before the cease-fire is even officially implemented.
The Israeli government on Sunday accepted UN terms for a ceasefire due to go into force at 0500 GMT on Monday, while in south Lebanon its forces fought the fiercest battles of the conflict, seeking to gain ground before the deadline came.
But in Beirut the Lebanese cabinet last night cast doubt on an early end to the fighting when it failed to meet as scheduled to discuss implementation of the resolution a day after it voted unanimously to accept it.
According to one Lebanese minister, the Hizbollah movement – part of the coalition government – was refusing to disarm. “This is the moment of truth and they do not want to give up their arms,” the minister, who asked not to be named, told Agence France Presse.
A spokesman for Fouad Siniora, Lebanon’s prime minister, said the meeting had been postponed indefinitely to allow “wider discussions”. The news of the disagreement came hours after a heavy Israeli bombardment of a Hizbollah area in the southern suburbs of Beirut, with 20 missiles striking the area.
Despite the Israeli advance, Hizbollah kept up its barrage on northern Israel, firing more than 250 rockets – a daily record – killing one person.
Resolution 1701 does not make the disarming of Hizbollah a prerequisite for a ceasefire. In 2004’s resolution 1559, the international community had called for all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed. Peacekeepers have said they will only enter southern Lebanon if they and the Lebanese army are the only armed groups.
Hizbollah’s arms could be a serious obstacle to the implementation of the ceasefire if the group insists on maintaining its positions to the south of the Litani river and next to the Israeli border where an international force and the Lebanese army are to take control. Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, insisted Israeli troops would remain in south Lebanon until the Lebanese army deployed there with the support of a multinational UN force.
Diplomatic efforts were on Sunday focused on planning a UN force of up to 15,000 troops that is to be deployed alongside a similar-sized Lebanese army presence once the fighting ends.
France – which helped negotiate the deal at the UN – is expected to provide the biggest contingent, with about 5,000 troops. Italy is expected to contribute 2,000-3,000, with Turkey, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand also ready to participate.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah leader, had said in a televised speech on Saturday that he accepted the resolution but had some reservations.
“We will not be an obstacle to any decision taken by the Lebanese government,” he said on Hizbollah's Al-Manar television.
Ehud Olmert, prime minister, said the terms were a good outcome for Israel that would ensure Hizbollah would not continue to exist in south Lebanon as a state within a state.
While I appreciate Olmert's rosy outlook here, the sheer fact of the matter is that already Hezbollah is backing out of it's word. They don't want to disarm. It isn't because they would be defenseless; that is a lie, and the world knows it. They want to remain armed so they can continue striking at Israel. And as for the peacekeeping force, of course they want Hezbollah disarmed because they're probably going to sit on their triggers regardless if hostilities break out again or not after the cease-fire is implemented.
The division in Lebanon clearly shows that Hezbollah is putting pressure on individuals in the provisional government. There should be no "wider discussions", as Siniora's spokesman stated. The "discussions" are done. Either Lebanon will abide by and follow the cease-fire, or Israel will remain there. The agreement gives Israel the power if they are attacked again. It is sanctioned by the UNSC that if they do come under attack from Hezbollah again, they can reinstitute hostilities with them, and the peacekeepers can't interfere. Every care was taken by the US to ensure Israel it's right to defend itself in the face of such bald aggression.
The incident that tipped this all off--the killing of eight IDF soldiers,a nd the kidnapping of two others--was completely unprovoked. That is, unless Hamas has changed it's story, and now admits that Hezbollah was acting with them. If that's the case, then Israel is still in the right by responding. The Lebanese government can't afford to play games on this one. There are, as the reports states, IDF soldiers as far north as the Litani River. That is a heck of a buffer zone there, and on ethat will remain in place until the peacekeepers arrive. The IDF could push further north if they wished to, but they are trying to abide by the cease-fire as much as possible already while enforcing their end of the agreement. At this point, no one can fault them for retaliation as long as the rockets continue to fall.
And now that the world has had its say, they need to shut up and let the process work. It will only work when and if Hezbollah disarms, leaves the south, and allows the unfettered patrol by the peacekeeping force accompanied by the Lebanese military. However, an additional addendum should have been added to the cease-fire agreement, though I doubt the UNSC woul dhave had it's unanimity. The US should have requested that Nasrallah be removed from his position within the government. This man isn't a politician. He commands a group of blood-thirsty, anti-Semitic terrorists. The UN and the world may have a problem with identifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but the US doesn't have that problem. By not making such a provision, it shows the world that we aren't serious about the mission we are on, just like the message sent after the Palestinian elections that put Hamas in charge.
Publius II
The UN cease-fire agreement for the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict has been agreed to by both sides. Lebanon has stated they will abide by the provisions, and Israel said they will leave Lebanon as soon as the 15,000 soldier peacekeeping force arrives in southern Lebanon. Now Hezbollah has continued to fire on Israel; 250 rockets today, at last count.
But in the Financial Times today Harvey Morris, Ferry Biedermann, and Jonathan Birchall point out that cracks are beginning to form before the cease-fire is even officially implemented.
The Israeli government on Sunday accepted UN terms for a ceasefire due to go into force at 0500 GMT on Monday, while in south Lebanon its forces fought the fiercest battles of the conflict, seeking to gain ground before the deadline came.
But in Beirut the Lebanese cabinet last night cast doubt on an early end to the fighting when it failed to meet as scheduled to discuss implementation of the resolution a day after it voted unanimously to accept it.
According to one Lebanese minister, the Hizbollah movement – part of the coalition government – was refusing to disarm. “This is the moment of truth and they do not want to give up their arms,” the minister, who asked not to be named, told Agence France Presse.
A spokesman for Fouad Siniora, Lebanon’s prime minister, said the meeting had been postponed indefinitely to allow “wider discussions”. The news of the disagreement came hours after a heavy Israeli bombardment of a Hizbollah area in the southern suburbs of Beirut, with 20 missiles striking the area.
Despite the Israeli advance, Hizbollah kept up its barrage on northern Israel, firing more than 250 rockets – a daily record – killing one person.
Resolution 1701 does not make the disarming of Hizbollah a prerequisite for a ceasefire. In 2004’s resolution 1559, the international community had called for all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed. Peacekeepers have said they will only enter southern Lebanon if they and the Lebanese army are the only armed groups.
Hizbollah’s arms could be a serious obstacle to the implementation of the ceasefire if the group insists on maintaining its positions to the south of the Litani river and next to the Israeli border where an international force and the Lebanese army are to take control. Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, insisted Israeli troops would remain in south Lebanon until the Lebanese army deployed there with the support of a multinational UN force.
Diplomatic efforts were on Sunday focused on planning a UN force of up to 15,000 troops that is to be deployed alongside a similar-sized Lebanese army presence once the fighting ends.
France – which helped negotiate the deal at the UN – is expected to provide the biggest contingent, with about 5,000 troops. Italy is expected to contribute 2,000-3,000, with Turkey, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand also ready to participate.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah leader, had said in a televised speech on Saturday that he accepted the resolution but had some reservations.
“We will not be an obstacle to any decision taken by the Lebanese government,” he said on Hizbollah's Al-Manar television.
Ehud Olmert, prime minister, said the terms were a good outcome for Israel that would ensure Hizbollah would not continue to exist in south Lebanon as a state within a state.
While I appreciate Olmert's rosy outlook here, the sheer fact of the matter is that already Hezbollah is backing out of it's word. They don't want to disarm. It isn't because they would be defenseless; that is a lie, and the world knows it. They want to remain armed so they can continue striking at Israel. And as for the peacekeeping force, of course they want Hezbollah disarmed because they're probably going to sit on their triggers regardless if hostilities break out again or not after the cease-fire is implemented.
The division in Lebanon clearly shows that Hezbollah is putting pressure on individuals in the provisional government. There should be no "wider discussions", as Siniora's spokesman stated. The "discussions" are done. Either Lebanon will abide by and follow the cease-fire, or Israel will remain there. The agreement gives Israel the power if they are attacked again. It is sanctioned by the UNSC that if they do come under attack from Hezbollah again, they can reinstitute hostilities with them, and the peacekeepers can't interfere. Every care was taken by the US to ensure Israel it's right to defend itself in the face of such bald aggression.
The incident that tipped this all off--the killing of eight IDF soldiers,a nd the kidnapping of two others--was completely unprovoked. That is, unless Hamas has changed it's story, and now admits that Hezbollah was acting with them. If that's the case, then Israel is still in the right by responding. The Lebanese government can't afford to play games on this one. There are, as the reports states, IDF soldiers as far north as the Litani River. That is a heck of a buffer zone there, and on ethat will remain in place until the peacekeepers arrive. The IDF could push further north if they wished to, but they are trying to abide by the cease-fire as much as possible already while enforcing their end of the agreement. At this point, no one can fault them for retaliation as long as the rockets continue to fall.
And now that the world has had its say, they need to shut up and let the process work. It will only work when and if Hezbollah disarms, leaves the south, and allows the unfettered patrol by the peacekeeping force accompanied by the Lebanese military. However, an additional addendum should have been added to the cease-fire agreement, though I doubt the UNSC woul dhave had it's unanimity. The US should have requested that Nasrallah be removed from his position within the government. This man isn't a politician. He commands a group of blood-thirsty, anti-Semitic terrorists. The UN and the world may have a problem with identifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but the US doesn't have that problem. By not making such a provision, it shows the world that we aren't serious about the mission we are on, just like the message sent after the Palestinian elections that put Hamas in charge.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home