Questions For Debate:

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?
Not even close. As usual the rules of engagement are not clear and without the mandate to disarm the terrorists BY FORCE if necessary the resolution is worthless.
2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?
Sure it does but this requires that the members of the SC vote to give the resolution “teeth”. IMO this will never happen.
3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?
IMO none.
4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?

Not even close. The Lebanese “army” has said they will never attack their Hezbollah” brothers” and if the UN troops cannot forcefully disarm them it will be the same as the 4,000 UN troops that have been in Lebanon for 6 years watching the thousands of missiles and other arms flow in and get fired at Israel. Last I heard they have trouble getting countries to submit troops because the mission is so unclear. Typical of the UN.



This condition, if it is the final version, makes the conflict potential worse not better. The Lebanese army has said they will not disarm Hezbollah. If the UN force does not have the power to do this by force then the resolution says that the armed fighters there are the responsibility of the Lebanese GOVERNMENT and therefore subject to attack by Israel in self defense when Hezbollah resumes firing.

The scenario you’re accurately portraying is salient as long as Israel bombs Lebanon. Israel is no longer bombing Lebanon. Who will still want to keep Hezbollah as a resistance militia a year from today?

I looked at the Beirut’s Center for Research & Information’s poll findings you referred to Bucket:


It’s impossible to say whether the polling accurately portrays public opinion without knowing what percentage of the 800 people Saad polled were displaced Christians, Shiites, Sunnis, and Druze, and how many were displaced inside Lebanon and in Syria. Estimates placed the number of refugees at 900,000, or around 23% of the population. I wouldn’t have a good opinion of Israel sleeping in a parks and parking lots during the campaign regardless of my political/ethnic background. Do refugees represent more than 23% of Saad’s 800, or 182 interviews?

Overall I expect any country under attack to view the attacker as an aggressor regardless of why the fighting started. Why should this poll put me off indefinitely?

Back to the article you linked:


Hersh mentions this in the link Trouble posted:


I hope Hersh is misquoting or flat out lying. If Israel hoped to exploit tensions within Lebanon by bombing it they must be as out of their collective minds as we are for believing bombing Iraq would keep the country unified. By itself there are no guarantees that a military operation will yield more than a military victory or defeat. I would have supported Israel’s expanded ground campaign strictly on the basis of disarming Hez by killing them and/or destroying their weapons knowing that the longer Israel operated inside Lebanon the more likely public opinion against Israel would crystallize. No country has the means to separate an armed militia or terrorist group from the greater population without harming the population. Believing collective punishment has the power to grant a political victory is just well wishing. War stopped U.S. slavery and Germany’s Holocaust. It didn’t deconstruct international racism and anti-Semitism.


Merely the act of acknowledging Hezbollah and the destabilizing effect it presents legitimizes the organization? This doesn’t jive with general complaints of the UN being useless and powerless. How do you reach this conclusion?


Who has said Hezbollah doesn’t sway public opinion? I didn’t by suggesting we need to support the legitimate authority within Lebanon: the Lebanese government.


My fantasy of deterring future Israeli military retaliation is based on important preconditions for cooperation between both states. The U.S. wouldn’t bomb Britain if it had failed to infiltrate a cell in Pakistan and stop simultaneous terrorist attacks because we don’t have reason to believe Britain is unintentionally or deliberately incompetent.


Once again, I don’t. That’s why I keep saying outside assistance is necessary. Your responses have teetered between general disdain for the UN and suggesting a civic-territorial style of nationalism within Lebanon is impossible. Lebanon being a semi-presidential democracy gives me cause for concern, but the state has managed to liberalize (allowing alternative media and freedom of speech), is to date on the road to transition (regular, open elections), and needs to consolidate power, the longest phase in the process towards a democratic state—it can take decades—with relatively little outside intervention. In fact Lebanon has done better than expected when one considers the type of intervention it has had. To their credit the Lebanese people have managed to resist Hezbollah’s goal of transforming Lebanon into an Iranian-style Islamic state.

KHT, if you like, Israel is free to treat Iran like the Suez War, but don’t bring up Hiroshima as if Congress has declared war on Iran, and as if 130,000 U.S. soldiers aren’t stuck next door caught between a rock and a hard place providing security instead of engaged in a military campaign to extract complete surrender from Iraqis. It doesn’t wash. Not even if Israel is the target of Iranian nuclear goals.

Mr. KHT, if we could put aside the bomb Iran, bomb Iran, bomb Iran chant for a minute we the audience should back up the truck and pay attention to:

-Setting down a ceasefire to which both sides abide by
-Hand out free english (or is that ingrish?) dictionaries and spell out what the word ceasefire means. Oops
-Allow a review of the events which allow both parties to form a response
-List the concerns that brought about the conflict.

What is unconstructive is forcing the issue by saying, “look are you going to help us fight Hezbollah or not?” Let’s not delude ourselves that Iran is Hezbollah’s sole source of funding. If they were Hezbollah should have not been able to hold out with as well as they did since their Syrian supply line was compromised with last year's withdrawl.

A review is necessary because events have shown the Israeli narrative to be distorted and inaccurate.

A wonderful example is the abduction of Gilad Shalit. The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post’s makes no mention of the sustained bombing campaign Israel was currently engaged in nor does make any mention of the frequent abductions by IDF soldiers which had occurred for months leading up to the June 25th abduction of Shalit.

The public outcry on Shalit’s abduction was enormous but would have the same reaction taken place had people known the young soldier been shelling Gazans for 2 ½ months?

Further, the liberal interpretation on insurgent activity has been taken so far by IDF forces that the end result for Gazans is the routine arrest campaigns of people on an almost daily basis. Gideon Levy of the Haaretz paper writes;




Viewed in this context the Qassam rocket attacks can be seen more of a reactionary response than an initiating one especially since they were out fired each month since Hamas took office. Link



From this activity is where the term 'collective punishment' is coined from.

Sifting through the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) briefings paints an even dimmer picture. The attacks degenerated into 10 to 1 ratio for the Israelis from March of this year on. To claim the abduction on one soldier as an act of war and paint Hamas as terrorist is not only misleading it is hypocrisy. This site is useful to compile a list of monthly statistics which the news reporters rarely report. Pick a month, any month, and it becomes glaringly obvious Gaza has been on the receiving end for months now.

What I am trying to do is to establish the highly reciprocal nature of events that lead down this road to war. If you have any doubts on the IDF abductions let's get back Mr. Levy's comments on the two abducted the day before, Osama and Mustafa Muamar on the 24th which again we are left with only the "good word" of IDF forces assuring us these indeed were insurgent operatives. Here's an idea. How about putting pressure on the IDF to abandon their frequent surgical operations if Hamas leaders make a pledge and stop the rocket attacks? Since Hezbollah has frequently paid attention to the plight of the Gazans, if you can convince Hamas to stop you might actually succeed in doing the same with Hezbollah because they use rocket attacks as well. Let's face it, they won't risk losing their popularity and continue attacking if doing so jeopardizes Gaza's security. This is the method we must use to maintain a ceasefire.

Moving onto the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped on the 12th of July, efforts were made by Hezbollah to initiate prisoner exchange. This is another instance highlighting the dysfunctional state of affairs within the IDF. Beating the war drum on Iran will not address prisoner detentions. Another Haaretz writer Ze'ev Maoz reminds us events are not so black and white by elucidating on Lebanese history. Again we are told of border violations in the name of security. There was precedent here and while the kidnapping of soldiers cannot be condoned, neither can the repeated abduction of civilians occuring at the hands of the IDF. See a pattern forming?

What needs to be done is an intense reviewal of all material, facts checked, chronology set, and an accounting of the media because what is happening on the ground is not what is being reported in the papers.

Who exactly do you believe is funding Hezbollah? And why do you feel the Syrian withdrawal was complete? Did the UN authenticate it as such? Uh no...
Syria has not withdrawn a significant part of its intelligence presence in Lebanon, undermining its claim yesterday to have ended its 29-year intervention in its western neighbor, U.S., European and U.N. officials said.

U.N. member states and the Lebanese opposition have told the United Nations that Syrian military intelligence has taken up new positions "in the south of Beirut and elsewhere, and has been using headquarters of parties affiliated with the government of Syria as well as privately rented apartments for their purposes," said a report Annan made to the Security Council and released yesterday.
link

You seem to have a very unconventional view of this conflict and it's sources and as such you seem to allude to, hint or secretly imply many of it's conditions. Why not clearly state your theories and arguments instead of just alluding to them and placing doubt on others'.

As I am really interested to know who funds, supports Hezbollah outside of Iran and Syria. And who would have the power, will and interest to provoke war, instability and a national breakdown of the Lebanese state more so than these regional powers. As Assad said so himself, from the UN report of Hariri's death...
Syrian President Bashar Assad threatened former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri with "physical harm" last summer if Hariri challenged Assad's dominance over Lebanese political life, contributing to a climate of violence that led to the Feb. 14 slayings of Hariri and 19 others, according to testimony in a report released Thursday by a U.N. fact-finding team.

Assad said that "Lahoud should be viewed as his personal representative" in Lebanon and that "opposing him is tantamount to opposing Assad himself," the report states. Assad then warned that he "would rather break Lebanon over the heads of" Hariri and influential Druze political leader Walid Jumblatt "than see his word in Lebanon broken."
link
I think that more than clarifies Syria's position and perception on Lebanon's sovereignty. Who else do you exactly have in mind that is more motivated and involved with keeping the Lebanese militia Hezbollah armed and ready?

And if you are still reading this debate lederuvdapac I thought these comments from Lebanese political leaders and political analysis would again show you how little your numbers mean in the aftermath of this war and again support my claims that Hezbollah is also the enemy of the Lebanese state itself...

In particular, differences over the militant Shiite group - stilled while the war raged - are re-emerging. Critics of the guerrillas and their leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, have begun to speak out, with some Sunnis, Christians and Druse clearly feeling Hezbollah dragged them into a fight they did not want.

...newspaper As-Safir, which has an Arab nationalist agenda, warned that Lebanese divisions could cause an explosion. "The country seems on the edge of a political volcano," it said on the front page.

Druse leader Walid Jumblatt, a key figure in the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority and a critic of the pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian Hezbollah, has been among the outspoken.
"Is this (Hezbollah) resistance Lebanese or is it a tool of the Syrian-Iranian axis on Lebanese territory?" he asked Thursday.

Saad Hariri, the U.S.-backed Sunni leader of the parliamentary majority, was careful not to directly criticize Hezbollah to avoid inflaming sectarian tensions. But he has focused on the theme that all Lebanese should rally around the government and the army - an implicit call on Hezbollah's military wing to fold.

Samir Geagea, a Christian politician who opposes Hezbollah, said Nasrallah should consider the opinion of other Lebanese "who did not approve what happened."

"It is wrong to think that others do not exist. ... There are popular roots other than theirs (Hezbollah's), deeper roots under a completely different view and did not want what happened," he said in a lengthy TV interview.

link
Compare these comments after Hezbollah's "victory" to the comments and stances these same men made of Hezbollah during the 2005 Lebanese elections...
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's Liberation Day speech sounded more like an election campaign speech. He made it perfectly clear who his allies were and gave a full explanation as to why.
He confirmed that Hezbollah is aligned with Hariri's Tayyar Al Mustaqbal, Druze Walid Jumblat and Speaker Berri's Amal Movement in the May-June elections for a new Lebanese parliament, calling the alliance a "political pact"
link



And Trouble I hope you take the time to read that article too.
Not only does this show a nation that is torn apart and on the verge of civil war, even in the absence of Israel's oppression. It shows that even these ideas that Hezbollah is the arm of Syria and Iran to be widely held and opposed to by Lebanese people themselves.
Why do you discount the Lebanese people's fears, concerns and hopes for their nation's future?

I am not one to run away from debates, so sorry for not addressing points earlier.


There is no denying that there is a certain element of Hezbollah support in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East. If this support did not exist then they would not have the funding and the arms that they have amassed since the Israeli pullout six years ago. Furthermore, it is not as if these weapons and munitions were stocked in a private warehouse here where nobody has knowledge of its whereabouts. These weapons were stockpiled in residential homes in populated areas. The likelihood that the civilians knew of the existence of these rockets is staggering. It would just be impossible to conceive that the civilians were dumbfounded by the amount of rockets kept in their neighbor's home.


I am not going to excuse the US government for its lack of support for Lebanon, but I am not going to go so far as to say we are somehow culpable for Hezbollah's continued strength. Some people have to make up their minds and decide whether or not they want the US to interfere in ME affairs. On the one hand some say we should mind our business and on the other they say we should be doing more to do this or do that. A consistent decision must be made.



The same people who wanted to keep Hezbollah as a resistance militia for the six years since Israeli withdrawal?



Ok, thats a good catch that I overlooked but my point stands.



Well as Dontreadonme commented earlier in the post, putting it on par with a democratic nation such as Israel grants it legitimacy on the world stage even though it has been outlawed by 2 count em 2 UN resolutions.


I fail to see how your analogy applies. Israel and Lebanon can reach as many agreements as they want....it won't matter as long as Hezbollah continues to roam independent of any authority and acts in violation of the wishes of the Lebanese government.


I am not discounting their accomplishments and progress, but I am not going to rest on those very advances and act like the job is done. Hezbollah is still a major problem that must be dealt with and I have yet to see the resolve of the Lebanese government to stop them.



Actions speak louder than words bucket. I told you earlier that I would like to believe you and your theory...but unless certain necessary steps are taken, there is no reason for me to change my thought on the issue. Unless the Lebanese government puts foward policies that work towards the disarmament of Hezbollah or asks for international assistance if they are unable to do it...then Hezbollah will continue to exist and there will continue to be a looming cloud of inevitable conflict with Israel.

The article Ms. Wright wrote over a year ago is a best guess. While I won’t disagree that some type of assistance still exists what I am saying is that it is reduced from what it was. We are arguing degrees of separation here. I am proposing the Hezbollah have become enough of a political force in Lebanon they can raise funds off the locals just as any other political party. But then again, not everyone thinks of them as a political party - yet.

Unfortunately Robin is in the habit of “western officials said”, bit that lends to ambiguous conjecture. Here’s what I am getting at. If we google the Cedar Revolution wikipedia clearly states Syrian troops left Lebanon on April. 27,2005. Robin’s article is dated yep, you guessed it, April.27, 2005. Knowing this piece of information puts a speculative best guess perspective on Robin’s article because she’s trying to look into the future. In her own piece she acknowledges inter-marriage between the countries which will pose a challenge to withdrawing. Was she hoping this would occur overnight?

How could a person write an article detailing Syrian non compliance when there was less than a 24 hour window from the official date? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to write this article in October, say after a six month review of things?



There is nothing unconventional with a reassessment. With all the information available describing the destruction in Lebanon few still believe it was over 2 captured soldiers anymore. Mr. Olmert’s actions are so questionable, his own parliament, including the anti-Syrian, anti-Hezbollah members, ordered a review which was stymied by Olmert himself. Mr. Olmert made no efforts to establish a dialog which was requested by Syria. Hezbollah's offer I can understand but Syria's offer should be taken more seriously.

Mr. Olmert's popularity hasn’t faired that well because of this. Hezbollah has been given the opportunity to be the good guys. Handing out opportunities is not a good way at shifting public opinion against your enemy is it?

It struck me that Mr. Olmert will have an uphill battle villifying those who offer truces. Sure you can say it is a trick, a half-hearted gesture, a delay and nothing more but in the process Olmert begins a war against all. Does this sound like a good way to get along with your neighbours?

This is going to get a laugh from the more conservative memebers out here but I pose a simple question. Will it be more effective to cooperate or force Syria and Lebanon into rolling back Hezbollah activity? To myself the answer seems clear, Hezbollah didn't become the most successful guerilla army in the world for the nothing and it would make sense for countries to "gang up" on them. Cooperation or force, seems clear to me....




The Mehlis report was not conclusive. After Assad’s interior minister committed suicide the case rested solely on the comments of former vice president Abdul Halim Khaddam. I have to admit from all the articles I’ve read on Assad his character doesn’t come across as a bully. This interview adequately sums up my impression of Assad. This does not discount someone in his office which is suggested by the report.

Also Rafik Hariri was a very public figure and while Assad was an obvious choice, he was by no means the only enemy of Hariri’s. Political assassinations are always drawn out affairs and this one is no exception.

Remember 2005 was a very unpopular year for Hezbollah. They made no efforts to have Syria removed and because of this action were becoming unpopular with the public. The Hariri family owns (or owned depending on what is left of it) a brand new airport which was the new landmark for Beirut. His meeting with Hariri was a necessary PR move to rescue a sinking ship. This was the impetus for what you describe as a “political pact”.

One of the main goals of this "pact" was to remind people of the need to maintain arms because of the Israeli presence in Shebaa farms.

Wikipedia


By maintaining participation within the Lebanese government Hezbollah managed to sidestep around UN res. 1559 and I’ll wager a bet they will out maneuver 1701 as well. Now one year later, Hezbollah can look back in these political packs and say “I told you so!” This also will advance the solidarity of similar groups like Islamic Jihad and The Muslim Brothehood. When someone asks isn’t it time to disarm and be taken seriously they’ll point to the summer of ’06 in Lebanon.

The impression I have after reading your links merely confirms Hezbollah's interest in becoming a recognised political force, fully integrated and more autonomous that many would give them credit for.

What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?
Not unless the rules of engagement are changed and the troops are charged with forcibly disarming Hezbollah. The Lebanese army has said they will NOT help disarm their “brothers” In Hezbollah. Today on NPR I heard Hezbollah troops were handing out cash to people who had their apartments destroyed. Fighters with stacks of 100 dollar bills gave one man $12,000 in cash. This while the “government” does nothing. Of course the money comes from Iran and perhaps Syria and THEY are the power in Lebanon. Thus a resolution without teeth is absolutely worthless.
4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?
Not even close and many countries will not supply troops under theses conditions.

I think you misunderstand the point or accusation of the article I quoted earlier about Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. It is not an attempt to preemptively accuse Syria of something that could change in the future if given time...which makes me ask you how much time is acceptable to wait for Syria to fulfill it's requirements why is 29 yrs not enough? It is instead to challenge Syria's claims that they have in fact fulfilled their obligations and adhered to the international community's demands and had made a full and complete withdraw. The article lays claim that with Syria's extensive intelligence apparatus in the country still in place...how authentic is their claims to have fully and completely withdrawn all personnel?
Couple this still active role physically in Lebanon with it's more than public and outspoken embrace of Hezbollah and it seems extremely safe (not to mention well documented) to claim Syria has not lived up to it's promises to allow Lebanon it's sovereignty. This is why I have challenged your view and your argument as being unconventional. I am asking you to give evidence that any of the claims I have made or argued above are unlikely or to some degree doubtful.

We are arguing not degrees of separation but to what accounts for and represents support, and what does not. There is absolutely no indication that Syria or Iran have recently chosen or opted to not support, fund and supply Hezbollah. Quite the opposite in fact. Movements like that of Hezbollah are international and global, they have found supporters and funders from all over the world. They have operated and carried out terrorists attacks outside of Lebanon. I don't disagree that they have domestic support but I think it is foolish to dismiss their international support and funding and goals.

Your point of argument, that Syria has withdrawn it's army from Lebanese soil as an indication of a lessened role of support for Hezbollah I feel is a failed argument to make. In my mind this event or occurence caused Syria to rely more heavily upon Hezbollah as it's military, muscle and influence in the region. And was something that only occurred under great duress and international pressure.

And I am well aware they are a political force, who argued that position? Not I, but you must understand that legitimacy is no longer a regional, cultural position that is independent of international values and concerns. Claiming destruction of Israel is not a legitimate political position.
I argue that Hezbollah must be held accountable and contained within the political system and laws of the state of Lebanon, and adhere to standards of legitimacy set by international demands. Not this lawless, stateless entity they are now, that relies heavily on and is influenced by the politics and desires of Syria and Iran.



So you do admit that Syria (and I argue also Iran) play a major role in Hezbollah's activity?



Again with all the tip toeing, why not just come out and say what you mean, why do you try and soften your position so? Your impression of Assad is what? Not a bully so what is it..how would you describe it, what word/s would you use? Do you respect this man's political views, do you agree with them?

How about other views or political practices of his that are well known or dare I again say conventional knowledge such as...
However, state mechanisms that facilitate human rights violations remain in place. As demonstrated by several crackdowns since 2001, anyone suspected of holding dissident views or belonging to an opposition group risks arrest, detention, and torture. A number of people were sentenced to prison terms in 2004 for allegedly accessing or disseminating political information via the Internet. Several Kurdish men were sentenced to prison in June 2004 after taking part in a peaceful children’s demonstration in Damascus calling on the government to respect the rights of Syria’s Kurdish population.

The Syrian government’s continuing campaign to silence human rights activists and government critics tramples rights to free expression, free association, and other fundamental freedoms protected under international human rights agreements.
link
Sounds a bit like a bully to me, in fact sounds like a dictator.

Or how about what he said in this speech made on Aug 15th giving his reaction to the UN cease-fire agreement...

In a speech Tuesday commenting on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 which stopped 33 days of military confrontations that wreaked havoc in Lebanon, Assad made it a point to brand as "traitors" the so-called "March 14" gathering of multi-sectarian Lebanese groups opposed to Damascus.
link
Why when Lebanon is lying on the ground, in destruction from war, does this man feel a need to call them traitors? Why does he feel the need to address this issue right now? Is it because he is reminding all those who chose to oppose him of the the costs he promised for their treacherous behavior? How can we not characterize this form of "Foreign Policy" as being a "bully"?

He went on to add that not only are they traitors but collaborators..
Assad, in a veiled incitement for civil war in Lebanon, said the role of anti-Damascus groups is to "salvage the Israeli government" which was embarrassed by its defeat at Hezbollah's hands.

Do you believe or appreciate or feel respect for these comments too? Are they the comments from a man who does not wish to bully the people of Lebanon but rather seeks and desires them peace? Or does the author of the article correctly identify these comments as veiled attempts to incite more violence and instability?


But don't just consider my labelings of Assad and the Syrian govt and it's policies in the region consider some of those made by Lebanese themselves :
"The Syrian regime is exploiting the blood of Qana and Gaza and Baghdad to bring sedition to Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq so that the [Syrian presidential] palace now deserves to be called the palace of exploiters," he said.

The palace of exploiters , I like that one best I think.

Mr Hariri condemned the speech as "an incitement for sedition in Lebanon".
Seems Hariri also agrees that Assad's comments and views of this event are not to foster peace and stability in the region, and he is not alone.

Members of the Progressive Socialist party, the second largest party in the Lebanese parliament and a member of Mr Hariri's coalition bloc, also came out criticising Mr Assad's comments.

The communications minister, Marwan Hamadeh, said it marked "a return to his old habits - murder and threatening murder", while the party leader, Walid Jumblatt, held a press conference today to rebut Mr Assad's comments.

"We don't want Lebanon - or south Lebanon specifically - to be a testing ground of pre-emptive wars by America and Israel against Iran and Syria or the other way around," he said.
link



Well I don't agree. I think Hezbollah prefers it's "special" status as a resistance not a part of the establishment. What they desire to be autonomous from is any accountability and public pressure a democratic system provides. You seem so pleased with how well democracy in Israel works, yet you don't seem to be much of a fan of it when it comes to other states in the Middle East such as Syria and Lebanon.

I am sorry for the lack of continuity on this, but am packing to move.

The seems to be a new revelation out that not only UNIFIL has not done it's job nor will it. They ACTIVELY aided Hezbollah in the latest war. UNIFIL homepage by broadcasting Israeli troop movements in real time.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets
"were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.


1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?
Only if Israel ignores the UN and fulfills the obligations that the UN refuses to do.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?
Of course it does, what it lacks is the leadership.

3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?
About the same as me becoming the next Pope. UNIFIL has announced that it will not fulfill its resolution anymore than the Lebanon, Syria or Hezbollah fulfilled 1559.

4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?
Tough? In what way? Does it do anything at all to Hezbollah? A worthless resolution by a worthless group of paperhangers.

Mrs. P - Syria left over 100,000 of it's citizens in Lebanon when it left. The forced their puppets in Beirut to give them citizenship about a year before they 'left' Lebanon. That includes an estimated 10,000 intelligence personnel. They still maintain military positions in the Bekaa Valley, some of which were destroyed during the last war by the IAF.

It's a little lengthy and I apologize to the readers out there but this one couldn't be truncated...



Twenty-nine years of integration must be undone. Intermarriage has taken place. This will pose a long term challenge. If you feel Syria’s intelligence apparatus is strongly in place would be fair to compare other countries that have had coup d'etats or subversions that have destabilized the government?

Do you fear this so called intelligence apparatus may employ militias or death squads to maintain a presence or exert a corruptive influence on the current governing body? I think defining what abuses take place is necessary to lay the case against Syria.

What I am getting at is if we are to point a finger at lazy, over extended occupations, than let’s start with the familiar ones, where the animosity and violence has extended well past the exploits of Syria.



Promises? Syria promised to reduce their troop presence from 42000(some sources say 25k) to 13000 troops in 2001 and where the remainder dispursed into the countryside. This is directly from the Syrian ambassador Imad Moustapha. In 2005 they left Lebanon completely. It took ten years to gradually transition out of Lebanon. The plan was in the works for a long time where Moustapha stressed the pitfalls of leaving a vacuum must be balanced with gradual government replacement Can the same be said by the American trained shi ite death squads now chasing the Sunnis? If this is the comparison, Syria’s attempt was far more successful. Remembering Israel's previous withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, over half of Syria's force left in 2001, one year later. Can America make the same claim over the 2003-4 timeframe? Have the 130 000 troops stationed in Iraq been reduced? No, instead they went up to 150 000.

Could you quantify the depth of Syrian involvement post 2005 within the Lebanese government? I’m interested in hearing something other than but comments made by the Lebanese government, locals and by the Syrians themselves. Examples like this is what I am looking for. The common denominator being after Lebanon's '05 elections where people started to speculate on what a new Syrian free Lebanon would look like.





That’s not quite true. I vividly remember the lengthy article by Seymour Hersh describing Syrian support with American authourities that was rejected when Assad refused to support the war. Hersh detailed Syrian cooperation with the CIA throughout 2002 and early 2003 in going after Al Qaeda, including allowing U.S. operations within Syria. Syria received nothing in return. It remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, largely because it supports Hezbollah and allows Islamic Jihad and Hamas to maintain offices in Damascus. What is not clear is the extent of support. Was it just tenet space? Was it a contact list with of arms dealers? This ambiguity has never been expanded upon.

I’m thinking that with contact, Washington could have set out a list of incentives to pursuade Syria to abandon Hezbollah. This was a wasted opportunity. In fact, something akin to the new arms embargo could have been set up several years ago.

Let’s look at the Syria’s occupation from another angle. Let’s compare events the Iraqis have endured to those of Lebanon. This way the readers can decide for themselves which occupation was more effective.

-Take the use of ID cards for example. ID cards were not in use with Syrian forces. There were no curfew times imposed by Syria, Israel though is another matter.
-Syrian troops did not clash with Hezbollah guerrillas. Hezbollah fighters did not clash with citizens. The climate of rape, assault and robbery was not allowed to fester as in Iraq.
-Families are not held hostage until they tell the whereabouts of would-be resisters
-And up until recently, homes were not demolished and raided with no due process of law.
-Has southern Lebanon been set in razor wire?



Than we better tread carefully then eh? I remember a similar question being posted on the blogs. Except the wording was such that people asked why make an enemy out of Hezbollah when America is tied up in Iraq. The joke was Hezbollah was one of the few groups that had no interest in harming America!! This view was taken by Laura Rozen who cites material off the April National Intelligence Estimate. The objective has changed since its inception where instead of calling for the elimination of Israel the simply are arguing for the right to exist and will defend all attacks on Lebanon. Not all radical groups are alike.



Could you please describe how Syrian involvement with Hezbollah has increased over the last year? Something more substantive than what Mr. Olmert says.

Syrian withdrawal was independent of the criticisms of White House. The efforts to paint them as a threat to democracy were timed to purposefully mislead people. According to White House comments at the time we are led to believe Syria was caving into international pressure to withdraw. Not so.

By hyping up the threat in the last phase of withdrawal the White House painted the perfect picture of failed expectations, Syrian neglect, and a restless audience. A simple google search of the Lebanese-Syrian timeline suggests arbitration was well underway before the west took notice.



Accountable is a very relative term in the middle east. What exactly are they being held to account? Here is an interesting but frank article on who is responsible for most of the truce violations.

Lawless, stateless entities are incredibly wide parameters in the world of freedom fighters. Here are three examples of groups who are currently active, but depending on who they direct their violence at determines their final standing in American media.

Group one, the American supported mujahideen or nowadays known as the Northern Alliance, you know the same guys who threw out the Russians in Afghanistan in the late 70’s? The same guys that were so out of control the people welcomed the Taliban with open arms – Northern Alliance? The same guys who are now working in conjuction with coalition troops to remove Taliban forces out of Kandahar? This is reminiscent of that 80's era when the CIA partnered with Mr. Bin Laden.

Group two, the American-funded (ahem) freedom fighter Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) a mom and pop group that was reformed by Mr. Cheney and trained to be used in Iran. Here is a teaser on these little devils,




Group three, the death squads of el Salvador. So successful were the oppressive tactics of these guys were used as the model when the first death squads in Iraq started popping up in 2005.

The point? If they point their guns over here they are seen as good guys. If they point their guns over there they are seen as bad guys. This is an inconsistent way of addressing violence in the world. At least Hezbollah builds roads and hospitals, these three groups just shoot people.



I admit they hold offices and have representatives just as any other political party.



I am simply constructing a character profile listing his achievements and failures, he does not fit the profile of a humanist nor does Assad fit the profile of a dictator. If you want me to call him a souless devil or other soundbyte you'll be disappointed.



I offer a different perspective. Wikipedia avers what I have said for years, he is a soft mild manner eye doctor that has yet to garner the confidence of his own underlings. This means we see frequent failed attempts at liberal ideas that fall flat when implemented his less than enthusiastic court.



Assad is well aware of the policies inherited from his father. Policies which were not fully in his control until 2005. So my answer to your question is how much can you attribute to Mr. Assad, and how much to his court? Remember he was the younger brother that wasn’t supposed to get the throne and had not been trained/groomed to the extent of his older brother. As a result, no confidence from his underlings.



His comments were condemed thoughout the Arab world. I see this is as one Assad's first big mistakes. It is obvious by his comments that he feels betrayed. He's alluded to an Israeli funded underground movement trying to divide and conquer Lebanon in much the same manner as the National Endowment for Democracy movement is trying to undermine Chavez in Venzuela. Groups that purport to be democratic but are in name only. Maybe he feels victimized by the spill over from Hariri's death? Only Assad can say for sure. For now we will have watch these demonstrations and see how authentic they really are to see if his accusations are correct.



I singled this out because if you are going to assassinate somebody, the point is to not be the only suspect. This means either he was killed by excessively stupid people are more likely being framed as the obvious choice.



Again I didn’t get the impression of escalation. Your authourless link stands alone compared to other comments from the Online Star, The Independant, and Gulf News. At best truthteller, at worst whiney lambastor. But no tinpot dictator anywhere to be seen.



Bucket, the Hariri family has inherited Rafik’s fortune of banking, real estate, oil, industry and telecommunications. Anything that impedes the next deal or adds a restriction or monitors is a barrier and subject to criticism.



I’ve separated these comments because they represent a growing concern that this conflict had nothing to do with two kidnapped soldiers but a premeditated attempt to isolate Hezbollah and attack Syria.





I think you are putting words in my mouth. I do not believe for a second that you can bomb every road, every bridge and every gas station and have the best interests of the people at heart. This is an extension of the Iraq attacks where freedom at the end of a gun is not freedom. That change for the sake of change will have a beneficial effect. I reject the use of soundbytes because once we label Saddam or Assad or Ahmadinejad as the bad guy it facilitates the notion that removal equals peace. Then reality rears its ugly head and people realize you cannot knock down an ant hill because without organization the bad guy is replaced by someone that much worse.

You are a real optimist sir. “Hopefully” is about as far as it will ever go. Remember there were 4,000 UN troops IN LEBANON for years “monitoring” the situation, as Iran and Syria poured arms into Lebanon. If the (useless) UN does not specifically authorize and the FRENCE do not specifically AGREE to forcefully disarm Hezbollah then nothing at all will change in Lebanon. IMO they might as well not bother going in.

Hezbollah essentially runs the country and any force that cannot forcefully disarm them is less than worthless. Less because with them deployed and shooting at Israel from position near UN forces Israel will have few response options. They will point out the attacks and the forces in Lebanon, with no mandate to pursue and disarm Hezbollah with be unable to DO ANYTHING.

Sorry for such a late response I have been very busy.




Integration Is that what you are calling it, why do you have all these alternate names and classifications for things, again your view is certainly not conventional. The UN never mislabeled Syria’s occupation as you do or mischaracterized it as being some harmonious blending creating a relationship of equality and shared power. Do you feel the UN has incorrectly defended Lebanon and it’s sovereignty and has instead misread the situation? Is resolution 1559 where Syria is referred to as an occupying and foreign force, a hoax? I find your false portrayal of Lebanon’s and Syria’s relationship and history, troubling to say the least but for the sake of the debate it is just plain incorrect.

And yes perhaps you should review and compare other examples of how the Mukhabarat have “subversed and destabilized” the people and their freedoms in other middle Eastern nations, perhaps then you would understand how your use of the word “integration” is so poorly placed in this debate.



Are you claiming they have not? Are you not aware of or ever heard of the Syrian Mukhabarat’s reputation in Lebanon? What makes you so convinced that this nation would just humbly crawl away from something it has relied on financially, logistically and politically for so long. How come you don’t recognize how Syria’s forced withdrawal was humiliating and defeating? Don’t you think perhaps the Syrian govt would need to “save face” and somehow prevent the growing freedoms and democratization of the neighboring state of Lebanon influencing it’s own people’s desires for freedom and political legitimacy. And why when we have examples such as Hama to understand how far the Syrian regime is willing to take this need or desire to repress political opposition, do you still think such motives and actions are questionable and unproven?

And this is not a matter of what I fear is to come, it is what has already occurred. Lebanese politicians accuse Syria of not only using Hezbollah to destabilize their government and bring death and war to their nation, but the also accuse the Syrian govt of 'exporting Al-Qaeda' to Lebanon:

Prominent Lebanese politician Walid Jumblatt lashed out at Damascus on Sunday, saying he "feared the current Syrian regime is trying to turn Lebanon into another Iraq by exporting Al-Qaeda fighters into the country."Jumblatt, who is the head of the Progressive Socialist Party and a member of the anti-Syrian March 14 Forces, said that Syrian President Bashar Assad had warned that some members of the terrorist Al-Qaeda group "have been fleeing Syria toward Lebanon."

Jumblatt said: "When Assad spoke of Syria pursuing Al-Qaeda members, leading them to flee toward Lebanon, this reminded me of what is going on in Iraq, and the Al-Qaeda members fleeing Syria toward Iraq and killing Iraqis and causing chaos."
link


Lazy? Are unwanted occupations ever lazy? Syria was hardly lazy in Lebanon.

Regardless this discussion or debate is about the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, and how the UN can or hope to bring about a peaceful resolution, something the UN has been attempting to do for quite some time now, perhaps the UN is lazy too ?



Again, my argument is they never left Lebanon completely as they claimed. That Lebanon’s sovereignty has yet to be accepted by Syria and that Syria still funds, supports and arms militias inside Lebanon.
The UN has not confirmed Syria’s complete implementation of resolution 1559. As you can read here.
The UN has established a new resolution emphasizing the demand for Syria to cooperate with the investigation into Hariri’s murder, they have also extended that demand with yet another resolution, as cooperation has yet to be fully achieved. Here and here.
The UN also passed another resolution to request that Syria fulfill it’s obligations by establishing diplomatic ties with the Lebanese govt in order to demarcate the border. You can read that here.

Most of these UN resolutions I have listed were adopted after Syria claimed to have withdrawn from Lebanon.

The UN has publicly claimed that Syria is allowing arms to cross it’s border and enter Lebanon. That is why Annan himself this past week went and asked Assad to ensure him that Syria would place an arms embargo on Hezbollah in agreement with resolution 1701.

I somehow doubt laziness would explain this UN resolutions record. No this is an obvious, direct and much planned for foreign policy.




Here I will make a speculation, it is rather simple..the more active and powerful anti-Syrian sentiments become in Lebanon the more violent Hezbollah acts. Whenever there is a large show of support or political momentum against Syrian presence in Lebanon some one gets bombed by Hezbollah. Usually the Israelis, but not always.

Why do you desire a outsider’s opinion? Are the Lebanese not qualified to make in depth analysis of their own country? And when has Lebanon been exactly Syrian free? Was this whole event with Hezbollah and Israel Syrian free too? I think the article you linked was a exercise of “what if”...
The listing I made earlier in regards to UN resolutions involving Syria I think is a pretty in depth portrayal of Syrian involvement in Lebanon with direct and purposeful opposition to UN demands.

And it seems your agreement with Robert Fisk and the quote you highlighted illustrates the fact that you seem to believe the Lebanese are unable to govern themselves peacefully and instead require a despotic ruler and lack of human rights in order to be “stable”. We have heard this argument before but I never have understood it as I find little security and stability in a govt. that refuses to accept the most basic rights of it’s citizens.



Oh well Hersh says so...
Syria has gotten nothing in return for cooperation with the US? We gave Syria Lebanon, one of our biggest mistakes ever in the region. Perhaps you and Hersh can lament about the good ol days when the Western world would turn it’s back on the people of the Middle East so long as their governments were “cooperating”. I don’t subscribe to this realist ideal that every nation’s sovereignty extends itself so far that it can even surpass our humanity.




Something was, it was called the Taif accords. We gave them Lebanon, how much more of an incentive does the Syrian regime require? It seems to me you just have a failure to understand what the Hama rules means, anything necessary in order to survive.



Was? you act like this is all said and done and you are writing history, for the readers. Is this a fictional account?



Southern Lebanon is what the future of Iraq could be. Are you now arguing that what Southern Lebanon became is a welcomed future or even a more promising one for Iraqis? And it does really seem like your argument is more fiction than reality :

Syria/Lebanon--Disappearances in Lebanon by Syrian Security Forces
SYRIA/LEBANON: AN ALLIANCE BEYOND THE LAW - Enforced Disappearances in Lebanon
Amnesty International Report 2006 – Lebanon This one is more recent, I hope it is in depth enough for you and I don’t believe any Lebanese were involved it it’s making.


Why tread carefully, is that your solution to addressing threats to peace and stability by tip toeing around them? And I don’t think that is much of a funny joke, I think the argument that because I am an American, or live in America that the suffering, human rights abuses and just overall lack of peace and stability within a nation is not of my concern appalling. It is this sort of nationalist definement of conflict that allows things like the genocide in Rwanda and the current one in Sudan to occur.
And I never argued Hezbollah’s right to exist, how typical for you to try and flip the argument as such, I am arguing for them to adhere to and commit to UN demands.

What is this comment’s intention? When ever did I quote Mr. Olmert? I think your just tip toeing, your preferred style, around the accusation that you think I am biased towards Israel. And exactly how is what Mr. Olmert has to say is not relevant to the debate considering he is the Democratically elected PM of Israel, one of the nations who happen to be involved in this conflict.


Of course they were hyped, the protests and public pressure Syria experienced in Lebanon is exactly what the Bush admin is hoping to see happen in the ME. The less and less governments like Syria can depend on Hama Rules. The more and more peaceful and secure the region becomes.
And what is all this nonsense about “before the west took notice”? Syria in and of itself is a Western construct, we have always taken “notice”
I am sorry but your answer is inadequate, you did not address my question. I asked you that when you say this:Will it be more effective to cooperate or force Syria and Lebanon into rolling back Hezbollah activity? To myself the answer seems clear, Hezbollah didn't become the most successful guerilla army in the world for the nothing and it would make sense for countries to "gang up" on them. Cooperation or force, seems clear to me.... are you not admitting that you do feel that Syria has a major role and influence in Hezbollah’s activities?

I am not demagoguing anyone, but what exactly is the “role” of a dictator? How is Assad not one? Was he elected by the people? How exactly did he become president? Does he permit, encourage and provide for political dissent? I am having a hard time understanding how this man’s govt is not in the profile of a dictatorship. Perhaps you could explain what alternate form of govt it is then?


Oh he is just an eye doctor by profession, is he still a practicing doctor ? Or does all this dictatorship business completely monopolize his time now days? This sounds like nothing but propaganda fluff.

What does it matter? It is basically a tyrannical monarchy and so I change the name of the regime in accordance to which living relative is now “enthroned” Perhaps maybe if it was a democratic govt I would feel more comfortable when discussing Syria to refer to the their govt as “Syria’s Government”


Oh just a mistake now, a blooper, not laziness this time? You seem to be under the impression that Assad is just a man of circumstance, and attribute all his political failings and errors on just blundering or a lack to woo his court. Yet I disagree I feel it is this man’s politics that are in error and his failings evidence of his political deficiency.
And his speech was certainly not for his own personal ponderings and reflections, Assad is a Despotic leader not a blogger. I disagree with much of our analysis in this whole debate , but nothing more so than this interpretation.

Assad's speech was a purposeful and direct political maneuver. He supported Hezbollah at a time when for them to criticize and appear politically divisive would be politically detrimental. Assad being in the political position he is in has all the comfort , not to mention motive, to politically incite divisions., mistrust and dissension. Assad was being politically supportive and deliberately campaigning fro hezbollah, certainly not a silly mistake on his part.

Because it is not an escalation it is the same as it has [i]always[/] been. Nothing has changed as I have continuously argued with regards to Syria’s involvement/role in Lebanon. What has changed is the Western nation’s permittance of this situation, we no longer accept Syria’s role in Lebanon, which I personally happen to feel is a good policy.

And what Syria is not economically dependent upon Lebanon either? Again you dismiss the opinions, political stances and concerns of the Lebanese people.


I am not putting words in your mouth, I am analyzing your argument. You were very pleased with Mr. Olmert’s accountability for his policies in Israel and yet you seem to offer a great deal of support to the other parties of this conflict that act with very little public accountability or even within a democratic political system. That is my point, I welcome Hezbollah to the Lebanese political system, bring them on, because then they will have to be held accountable for their policies and actions and not only answer to UN for their behavior but the people of Lebanon.