Peace? Where?

Peace_dovemedres "That appeared to be a major victory for the U.S. and Israel. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate and halt to violence without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

The French presidential palace in Paris said a deal was reached on a resolution that seeks a total halt to hostilities and would work toward a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution."  AP


1- France and the United States are not at war with each other.  They cannot agree to end the fighting.

2- Hizbullah thinks it is winning both tactically and strategically.  Why will it agree to anything other than a cease-fire in place?

3- Such a cease-fire will be a victory for Hizbullah.

4- Who will disarm Hizbullah if it accepts such a cease-fire?

The news babble over this non-event is meaningless.

Pat Lang

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Peace? Where?

  1. Matthew says:

    We could probably create a cottage industry posting successive Israeli climb-downs over the last four weeks. Not only will Hez survive, but when Lebanon is fully open again and the extent of Israeli vandalism is shown to the world, this will be viewed as huge strategic defeat for Israel and our hapless President.

  2. Jerry Thompson says:

    I’m of the opinion that this war ended about two days ago. It ended when the political issue — the dominance of the Hizballah role in Lebanon’s politics — was settled, in Hizbullah’s favor. Unfortunately, the Israelis (and the Bush administration) are focused on the military dimension of the conflict and are ignorant, blind and oblivious to the political environment within which they have chose to wage war. They seek “victory” where it is not – in destruction of forces and infrastructure. We (and Israel) will bear the blame for nearly a million IDPs in Lebanon and Lord knows the dollar value of the infrastructure damage. We and the Saudis?) will pay for Hizb’ilah’s victory. The UN, the French, maybe the Burmese and who knows all MAY form the most “robust” peacekeeping force in history and allow the Israelis to declare a self-congratulatory and meaningless victory, MAYBE extricate their forces from S. Leb and (as one of my mentors used to say) generally indulge their phallic tendencies amongst themselves. It seems more productive now to consider the implications of this Israeli-Hizb’ilah fiasco for Iraq and for the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranians will perceive an advantage. How will they exploit it? (Perhaps, see civil war item above — we could lose our ability to “decide” the terms and conditions of our withdrawal).

  3. b says:

    You did forget
    5- The Israeli will never agree to this either.

  4. The Agonist says:

    Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict Open Thread XI

    This is the Eleventh Middle East Crisis open-thread. Please post all developments, news stories, comments, links, theories, ideas, etc. . . here in this thread. The earlier threads by number are I – II – III – IV – V – VI – VII – VII – IX – X. If you post

  5. W. Patrick Lang says:

    ?????????? Are you talking to me? pl

  6. jonst says:

    In PL’s best DeNiro style. “are you talkin’ to me?”
    Lounsbury, I vote for the phrase “insightful wisdom”. I think perhaps you were refering to the Yahoo article. I have disagreed with PL in the past if I thought he was off base. I thought he was dead on here.

  7. jonst says:

    Pl, or others,
    What, if anything, do you make of this. Now its in the JPOST so it comes with a warning label on it. But still…interesting, if even remotely accurate.

  8. W. Patrick Lang says:

    My God! I never noticed. pl

  9. Ben P says:

    So an Al Qaeda spiritual fellow traveller denounces Hezbollah? Not surprising. Considering the Saudi context (is he state sanctioned?) and that the Wahhabist fanatics hate Shi’ites (witness – Zarqawi).

  10. Nope mate, sorry, I meant the commentary that the US and the French (non-parties and not actually on opposite sides) doing a deal is a resolution is navel gazing.
    Sorry about that.

  11. canuck says:

    I too agree the Security Council resolution will go nowhere. It is a resolution that condemns Hizbullah for aggression within the State of Lebanon which marks a first for the UN. There haven’t been like resolutions against the Taliban and Al Quaeda against the State of Pakistan.
    BTW, noteworthy is that Pakistan and India today expelled their diplomats from each other’s country.
    At the rate fundamentalism is spreading, soon the world will have to come up with measures to stop it from non state aggression within states, state sponsored militants and states that are in themselves terrorist oriented.
    The balance of power in Iran shifted after the removal of Mohammad Mossadegh followed by the wholehearted support of the Shah’s dictatorship for 25 years. Pity the United States began supporting Israel so forcefully in 1967. Osama bin Laden was spawned because of policies that were in place. Israeli occupations have resulted in Hamas and Hizbullah. The United States invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam who had kept the lid on Sunnis and Shiites is now past tense.
    Supporting India’s nuclear proliferation probably has excerbated the ongoing conflict between them and Pakistan.
    A more short-sighted, American administration has never been elected to such high offices.

  12. jonst says:

    Ben P,
    I failed to make myself clear. The point, or my point anyway, is less what was reported to be said. Then it was allowed to be said. And publized. At this moment. With the huge caveat (look at the source)that it was accurate, it is a message from the Royal Family. My guess.

  13. zanzibar says:

    The Saudi royal family are caught between a rock and a hard place.
    They have a large Shia minority in their oil producing region. Their oil has to flow through Hormuz to get to world markets. Their fellow Sunni in Iraq are fighting for their “lives”. And with al Jazeera running away with the ratings for the Lebanon coverage it must be a major concern to the royals when their protector the US is portrayed as a Zionist enabler in the killing of Lebanese civilians, while the Hizbullah as valiant fighters defending the dignity of muslims.
    Naturally they don’t want any defections from the Sunni fundamentalists adding fuel to the fire. With the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood calling for solidarity with the HA it would have been important to issue fatwas condemning them to keep at least some in the Saudi Sunni community in line.

  14. canuck says:

    What realistically do you expect a UN resolution that is presented to the Security Council can accomplish given that any that is presented that isn’t favourable to Israel will be vetoed?
    It’s the ceasefire that is important–terms of treaties are violated all the time.
    I do expect Lebanon will be recompensed to rebuild her infrastructure.
    It’s compulsory that Israel be given a face-saving diplomatic provision–hundreds of lives will have been squandered.
    Hizbollah rocket strike kills 12 Israeli soldiers At the top of the article, “(Adds Lebanon asking for amended resolution, rockets hit Haifa)”
    The more rockets that hit Israel increases the likelihood there will be terms for Lebanon. Hizbullah will demand as many as possible be met knowing today’s political environment. The longer a ceasefire is delayed, the more deaths there will be. The number of Hizbullah seats in the government will increase. She may make a half-hearted attempt to ‘appear’ to be in compliance. Israel doesn’t trust UN forces anymore than other middle eastern countries do and will protect its borders, despite any MNF that is deployed.
    Stalemate. No one wins.

  15. blowback says:

    Why couldn’t the IDF have cashiered the officer responsible for either mislaying two of his men or getting that tank blown up and then put a call straight through to the Germans to get their men back. They would have given Hezbollah a very minor propaganda victory instead of the major political victory that Hezbollah have achieved. Additionally the IDFs reputation would not have been shredded in the Arab public’s eye.

  16. pbrownlee says:

    I think these guys (and one or two others) instinctively recoil from anything resembling rationality or “managed calm”.
    Especially when they think they can smell a slam dunk victory.

Comments are closed.