I don't think anyone can question that I stand with Israel in their fight against the Islamofascist terrorists who would like to see them annihilated, but is anyone else having a problem figuring out what the heck is going on? What are they doing? They amass on the border for a massive onslaught against Hizb'Allah and then they pull back, a few hours later we hear that they are willing to negotiate a UN cease fire and not more than five minutes later we are informed that they are attacking again. I'm confused. I've just come online today and I haven't had time to gather up the links and stories, so consider this .... developing.
Here we go, starting with this Powerline post:
The Jerusalem Post reports that the U.S. and our partner the French have agreed upon a cease fire resolution. From what I can tell, the resolution is a bad joke. Apparently, the same U.N. clown force that has been doing nothing in south Lebanon will be deployed. Then, the job of defanging Hezbollah will be turned over to the Lebanese army, made up in part of Hezbollah sympathizers and in part of those with no stomach to take on Hezbollah, especially on Israel's behalf. Hezbollah will correctly viewed as the force that, for the first time in Lebanese history, prevented a meaningful Israeli advance. Thus, the prospects of its being truly defanged by the Lebanese would appear to be nil.
The JPost says there's a good chance that the wobbly Olmert government will accept this resolution. Over at NRO's corner, John Podhoretz contends that this would mean the end of the Olmert government. I'm tempted to suggest that our government, having seemingly lost its will to oppose (or even to let others oppose) our deadliest enemies, deserves the same fate. But let's wait until the facts are in.
Fox News reports:
Olmert Orders Expanded Offensive as France, U.S. Agree on Resolution
UNITED NATIONS — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has accepted an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal and informed the United States of his decision, Israeli officials said Friday.
Olmert will recommend that his government approve the deal in its upcoming meeting on Sunday, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to brief journalists on the internal discussions.
An Israeli official said the renewed offensive will continue at least until the government votes on the cease-fire agreement.
This comes as France and the United States reached a deal Friday on a final draft resolution aimed at ending the month-long conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, with a likely vote by the U.N. Security Council later in the day.
The agreement came as Israeli forces earlier threatened to lobby a lightning strike against Hezbollah and troops made their way across the Lebanon border.
A vote on the resolution was not expected before 7 p.m., a member of the French delegation told FOX News at the United Nations.
The resolution, if passed, would authorize the deployment of 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers in south Lebanon to support Lebanon's forces in the region "as Israel withdraws."
yNet News reports:
UN troops to monitor peace in southern Lebanon
Crucial evening: Olmert, Peretz approve large-scale ground offensive in southern Lebanon as UN agrees on draft resolution for truce, which Israeli sources say is 'good' for Israel and which authorize deployment of 15,000 peacekeepers
Is the region heading for all-out war or a ceasefire? That's the question that's hanging in the balance on Friday as the United Nations Security Council meets to vote on a draft French-US resolution for a ceasefire in the Middle East.
The 15 members of the Council are expected to vote on the draft at 1 am Israel time. If approved, the resolution would authorize the deployment of 15,000 UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon to support Lebanon's deployment to the region "as Israel withdraws."The draft, would ask the UN force to monitor a full cessation of hostilities and help Lebanese forces gain full control over an area that has previously been under de facto control of Hizbullah guerillas.
The text of the draft says the force's mandate would include several elements: monitoring the cessation of
hostilities, accompanying Lebanese troops as they deploy and as Israel withdraws, and ensuring humanitarian access to the area.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will ask government ministers to approve the resolution when the cabinet meets early next week, officials said late Firday.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told CNN that the UN peacekeeping force would have "a clear mandate," but it the Lebanese government will be assisted in imposing its sovereignty over the whole Lebanese territory as stipulated in UN Resolution 1559.
The resolution calls for the disarming of all militias, including Hizbullah.
Israel to consider draft
The five permanent members – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – have agreed on the resolution, which seeks an ending to the fighting between the Israel Defense Forces and the Hizbullah.
Council members discussed the draft as Israel gave its army the green light to launch a large-scale ground offensive against Hizbullah and to capture Lebanese territory stretching as far north as the Litani River.
In Jerusalem, officials said the government will look at the articles of the draft resolution before accepting the stipulated ceasefire conditions.
But sources in Jerusalem told Ynet that the draft is "good" for Israel . US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice updated prime minister Olmert with discussion over the draft between US and French diplomats.Defense officials said once the operation is launched it is difficult to stop it.
In Lebanon, Minister Fuad SIniora received a copy Friday evening of the US-French draft, Lebanese government officials said.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Siniora was studying the document and contacting politicians in his country for their input. The officials refused to say who Siniora was talking with, but the leading Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation said he was in touch with Hezbollah officials as well as parliament speaker Nabih Berri, Hizbullah's de facto negotiator.
But hold on there is also this:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz give green light to army to capture southern Lebanon territory stretching up to Litani River as US-French truce deal said 'very, very close'
And back to the Fox News online headlines:
 AP
An Israeli soldier puts on camouflage make-up.
|
Fighting continues in south Lebanon as U.S.-backed plan for 15,000 peacekeepers presented for U.N. vote
|
I'm as confused as I was when I started. Frankly, I am in the camp who does not believe this problem can be solved diplomatically. Lebanon doesn't have the balls to oust Hizb'Allah from their politics, Hizb'Allah isn't interested in diplomacy, their objective is drive Israel and all Israelis into the sea, and Israel is giving itself the kiss of death if it kids itself into thinking that Nasrallah and Hizb'Allah are going to cease offensive actions against them. Whether it is on the battlefield, where Israel has a chance, or in the cafes and public areas where the offense of Hizb'Allah will be homocide bombers, there is no question that Iranian backed Hizb'Allah is going to continue attacking. And the idea that the United Nations, even with John Bolton, is anything but a joke is ludicrous.
UPDATE:
UNSC DRAFT RESOLUTION LEBANON / PROJET DE RESOLUTION LIBAN
Security Council unanimously adopts resolution calling for end to fighting between Israel and Hizbullah, but Jerusalem says offensive in Lebanon would not be halted yet.
AP--Secretary of State Rice votes on the U.N. resolution.
Ed Morrissey tries to explain it all:
By Captain Ed on Israel and Palestinians
It appears that Ehud Olmert has accepted in principle the cease-fire proposal offered by the US and France, who apparently recovered somewhat from the swoon it experienced over Arab criticism of the original proposal. The UN Security Council meets shortly to debate the offer and vote on its adoption, and it is expected to pass without opposition. Some have hailed this as a breakthrough, while others see it as an unmitigated disaster. The truth is that the proposal gives both sides something while attempting to find what everyone understands will be the eventual outcome of any protracted war, given the reluctance of Israel to attempt another twenty-year occupation of Lebanon.
And it holds an ace in the hole for Israel, which many seem to have missed.
Let's look at the resolution itself, covered in detail by the Jerusalem Post and also by The Corner. The points adopted in this proposal say nothing of an immediate withdrawal by Israel, nor does it link the war to the issue of Lebanese criminals in Israeli prisons, the motivation for starting the war in the first place. Nasrallah got skunked on the one action he hoped to accomplish, and the resulting prisoner swaps will likey involve only those captured during the war. It also explicitly puts the blame for the war on Hezbollah -- and excludes it from any other legitimation in the document.
In fact, the resolution requires Hezbollah to cease all hostilities, while it only requires Israel to cease offensive operations. Until Hezbollah stops launching rockets at Israel, the IDF has a free hand to take responsive action to stop them and take out their launch capabilities. In effect, it says that Israel can continue the fight until Hezbollah stops attacking them.
The resolution also demands the end of military support for Hezbollah and the exercise of sovereignty over southern Lebanon by the Lebanese government. That demand is not new, and had the Lebanese complied with it last year, this war would never have taken place. The Siniora government will have to control the territory south of the Litani, and according to this agreement, everywhere else in Lebanon, too.
There's plenty to dislike here, too. The agreement makes several flattering references to the seven-point plan put forth by Fuad Siniora, a list of grievances and goals he could easily have copied from a Hezbollah web site. Most egregiously, it continues the UNIFIL force as the conductor for the Lebanese Army, despite its decades-long record of incompetence and outright collaboration with Hezbollah. The UN will deploy a much larger UNIFIL force than in the past, up to 15,000 troops, matching the Lebanese Army contingent. It will also have a mandate for force in order to ensure compliance, although given the lack of will shown in UNIFIL and other UN forces in the past, one has to chuckle inwardly at the suggestion.
The above article also includes a couple of updates that I think are important to include here. Be sure to read the whole article.
UPDATE: (Referring to the Powerline link quoted above,) Ed says: And I predict that Nasrallah will make the entire debate moot by continuing his attacks after Israel adopts it on Sunday.
UPDATE II: Rick Moran is thoroughly dejected [ed., aaaah poor Rick, couldn't happen to a
nicermore deserving guy]. Hot Air's Allahpundit is rounding up news, and probably blog reactions soon. Keep an eye on TMV, which has been almost unanimous in its support for Israel from conservative and liberal co-bloggers alike.
This may be the saddest thing I have had to say since starting this blog ... I agree with Dan Riehl's assessment:
Bush Ensures Legacy Of Failure
So, it turns out the lofty anti-terrorism rhetoric of Bush was little more than what some speech writer wrote to be read from a screen. He's caved into International pressure to sign on to another empty Middle Eastern agreement, assuring nothing but more and worse fighting in the future.
The man has looked over his head for much of his second term. Now, it's becoming more clear just how far. This will embolden the opposition in Iraq and could lead ultimately to the destruction of Israel.
Israel’s PM Caves, Accepts UN Cease-Fire This is a big mistake. It would be better to get this over now then when Hezbollah’s patron has "the bomb."
Israeli Prime Minister Accepts Cease-Fire Deal By Kevin Aylward: Left undefined is the disarming of Hezbollah, which if not addressed will make the whole thing worthless...
George Bush: Where I Stand Bill Quick has had a bug up his a$$ for a long time when it comes to George Bush and I think most of his conclusions are hogwash and border on the obsessive, but he does make a few salient points.
Cowards Olmert and Bush have blinked and Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah have won. What a joke.
Peace in our time (Updated and bumped) No, no, no! God damn it, man, come to your senses before it's too late! Ariel Sharon would have been in Beirut by now, and probably Damascus. Get mad at them damned jihadis!
Yikes! Sorry about the next link, but we link 'em as we see 'em
Israel Offered Nothing, Ehud Olmert Surrenders and Swallows Nasrallah’s Cock
The only thing more sickening than reading the words “france and the United States reached a deal” was watching the news just now with Condi Rice and Kofi Annan locked in a hot, slurping, smacking 69 on the floor while they praised each other on reaching this monumental heap of nothing.
So what’s the meaning of the above? Well, UNIFIL and
LebanonHezbollah will “take control of the region.”Apart from the fact that there’ll be even more of them this time, this is what is called status quo ante, unless of course you’re enough of a naif and a moron to think that Hezbollah won’t be exerting at least the same amount of control over the Lebanese “government” now that they’ve been handed the hugest victory ever.
Iran Poised To Be "Mother of All World Threats" By Walid Phares: It was terrible how the Lebanese politicians lost all the opportunities provided by the Cedars Revolution," laments Phares, "but it is worse that the bureaucrats in the U.S. and Europe didn't understand what Hezbollah was doing."
Wishful thinking, I’d say I think the only appropriate response to this is to just laugh
Hezbollah Wins (Andy McCarthy) How do we sign onto that? Didn't we just say about 24 hours ago that we are dealing with "Islamo-fascists" who cannot be reasoned with? Yet, recognizing that no one is willing to fight them, we are joining the "international community" in calling on Hezbollah terrorists to stand down? And when they don't what happens? Will we write them a strong letter?(Micha
the un resolution (Michael Rubin) The UN Resolution is a defeat for the war on terror. Israel lost, Iran won.
Diplomacy and the Hounds of Hell, Part XXV (GREAT LINKS HERE) My question to Sec. State Rice is don't we already know who's for peace and who's for pieces? Hizbullah wants to destroy Israel, and this ceasefire only delays Israel's ability to destroy a mortal enemy.
Olmert cannot remain in the prime minister's office
By Ari ShavitEhud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege. Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists protected, and whose rule journalists preserved. Now the journalists are saying run away. That's legitimate. Unwise, but legitimate.
However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day. Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake. That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please.
There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front.
Israel Gets Most Of What It Wants, But Will It Get What It Needs?
By John Hawkins on Israel
Unfortunately, I'm deeply skeptical about whether any UN Force or the Lebanese army is willing to fight against Hezbollah to keep them from rearming and or attacking Israel. Moreover, Iran and Syria have been pulling Hezbollah's strings and any sort of long term compromise that doesn't force them to pay a terrible penalty for Hezbollah's actions isn't getting to the root of the problem.
PS: A lot of people on the right side of the blogosphere are calling this resolution a big win for Hezbollah. I think it's a murkier than that. After all, Israel did enormous damage to Hezbollah and their assets. Moreover, the UN resolution specifically calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and for them to lose military control of Southern Lebanon. On top of all that, Israel still retains the right to attack Hezbollah for "defensive" reasons while Hezbollah is supposed to be constrained from attacking Hezbollah at all.
So, why is this perceived by some people as a such big loss? Part of the problem is that there has been an enormous amount of mission creep since the whole conflict started.
By Chad Evans on Iran Watch
Originally posted at Freedom’s Zone:Perusing over Richard’s post concerning the UN sponsored cease-fire, there are portions of the post that I strongly agree with Richard and others that I don’t. Olmert is a gonner and the cease-fire will be seen by many in the region as a defeat of Israel and a victory for Islamists, but short of a dead Nasrallah carved up and packaged to Iran any solution including the complete destruction of Hezbollah would have been seen as a victory for Islamists.
Where I disagree is that I think this agreement stands a chance at working to the benefit of freedom. Did anyone expect UN Secretary General Kofi Annan would actually condemn Hezbollah? I certianly didn’t, but he did, kind of, by saying Hezbollah carried out an “unprovoked attack on Israel.” Shocking statement from the same Kofi Annan who proclaimed within hours of a UNIFIL post hit by Israel stating that too was an “unprovoked attack.” But words have meaning, even if the person uttering those words is as hollow as Hezbollah’s promise not to attack Israel. However Annan also condemned the UN Security Council for failing to reach an agreement earlier which took away any good graces his other statement of recognition of who started this conflict had. This year’s end cannot come soon enough
...
Let us, again, hope history will prove Richard is wrong and my first impressions are right, but sadly I hardly believe the optimism I wrote above. Hope may be all we have.
Captain Ed finds my suggestion that "the Bush administration didn't want to take the heat for more fighting in Lebanon" to be "an unfair shot at the White House." Ed writes:
Bush and his team made sure that they would not allow the UN to win the war for Hezbollah, and this document at least shows that effort, regardless of its implementation. It's really not our job to hold umbrellas for Israel, and they certainly didn't show too much enthusiasm for fighting the kind of war the post suggests in any case.
Except for his final clause, I'm not sure I understand exactly what Ed is saying, but let me try to respond.
Without the administration's participation in the formulation and adoption of the U.N. resolution, there would have been more fighting in Lebanon. Thus, it seems indisputable that the administration didn't want more fighting in Lebanon, and Ed does not say otherwise. The question then becomes why the administration wanted the fighting to end. Was it because more fighting would have been in Hezbollah's interest? Clearly not. With each day, Hezbollah's military capacity was being diminished, and the degradation would likely have accelerated now that Israel finally has boots on the ground in something like the ratio thought to be required to succeed in this type of action. Had Israel made its way to the Litani River, as it had finally resolved to do, Hezbollah not only would have been further degraded, but would have lost its ability persuasively to claim that it successfully resisted the IDF.
Comments