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 amateur hour continues
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
In News
Yitzhak Benhorin
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:
IDF ordered to move up to Litani
In News
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:
On the Brink of Cease-Fire
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
UN votes to stop Lebanon war
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:
The Mixed Bag Cease Fire
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 nicer more 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
By Dan
on Terrorism
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
By Emperor Darth Misha I
on Useless Swine
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 Lebanon Hezbollah 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.
Wave the white flag--and Hizballah's By malkin: Israel and the West surrender to Hizballah. Terrorists and the U.N. win. Here are the depressing details:
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.
Haaretz.com:
Olmert cannot remain in the prime minister's office
By Ari Shavit
Ehud
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.
Incompetent Ehud Olmert?: By David Bernstein: Word from Israel, from both the English-language media and my relatives
there, is that folks are very unhappy with various aspects of the
cease-fire deal that the U.N. Security Council has just passed ...
Israel agrees to ceasefire - bad move! MacRanger says: Make no mistake, this is a bad deal - period ...
Hezbollah Will Reject UN Resolution By AJStrata I have no doubt Hezbollah will be directed by their Iranian masters to reject the UN resolution seeking a ceasefire in the ME.
And with a slightly different take, although not with much confidence:
The UNSC Cease-Fire Agreement
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.
Victory For Hezbollah Like I've said before, the only lasting solution to this conflict is to let the two sides fight until one side loses.
We started this post with the quote from Powerline, which in turn, was followed by Captain Ed Morrissey's exception as the first update, so it seems fitting to end with the Powerline response:
A response to Captain Ed (Go read it all)
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 ENCOURAGED
THE AIM OF EDUCATION IS TO TEACH US HOW TO THINK, NOT WHAT TO THINK.
This site is designed for and best viewed in Firefox with view at 1249x778px
Firefox allows you to resize your font/type size as well as resize the page and/or the resolution for easier reading. This is especially helpful for those still using 800x600 resolution monitor settings.