Security Council votes unanimously for an end to hostilities in the Middle East


One can find Kofi Annon's statement on the resolution here. I have yet to find the actual text of the resolution, hopefully it will be availble soon.

Questions For Debate:

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?
2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?
3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?
4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?

1. Withdrawal of Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters from the south of Lebanon, demilitarisation of the region apart from the 15.000 Lebanese troops in support of a maximum of 15.000 U.N. peacekeepers, disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, the unconditional release of Israeli soldiers: it seems like a solid, neutral and realistic resolution considering the difficulties and sensitivities of this conflict. But it is difficult to say if this resolution will be enough to quell the violence: it all depends on the cooperation of both fighting parties. If they both agree with this resolution and are ready to compromise then it could have a good chance of working.

2. If all the important players in the U.N. are really committed to this cause, then the U.N. will have the (military) power and authority to accomplish its mandate. Unity and determination are the keys words for succes.

3. Difficult to say at this moment. It all depends on the reactions of both fighting parties and the determination of the key members in the U.N.. We just have to wait and see.

4. Considering the circumstances I would say yes. Complete disarmament of all groups in Lebanon also applies to Hezbollah. Combined with the fact that their base of operations (the South of Lebanon) is occupied and guarded by combined Lebanese and U.N. troops would mean that their threat is neutralised. Maybe it would have been preferable if Lebanon was forced to arrest all active members of Hezbollah, but considering the situation in Lebanon (with Hezbollah members in parlement) this would be an impossible request.

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?

I'm not overly optimistic about the chances of success for Resolution 1701. I view the resolution, full of weak terms like 'respect' and 'emphasizing', to be lacking the necessary teeth to disarm Hezbollah.
The 1989 Taif Accords had a much greater chance of doing that, and though never fully implemented, only ensured that Lebanon would remain a vassal of Syria. In much the same respect, this resolution, I believe, will still keep the weak Lebanese government kowtowing to Hezbollah, since it lacks the will and power to disarm them.
The resolution will bring about a cease-fire, but will not solve the problem. The UNIFIL force will be operating under some sort of 1/2 chapter 6, 1/2 chapter 7 mandate, and I'm not yet convinced that the UN lines of authority and rules of engagement have been adequately delineated, for that situation.
I would like to be more optimistic, and I do hope that this holds, but observing years of UN peacekeeping blunders, corruption and mismanagement..........I remain doubtful.

Questions For Debate:

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?
Temporarily, perhaps, only because the Hezzies will use it as an opportunity to save their hides in order to re-arm for another go at it later.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?
No, it doesn't have the power to accomplish its mandate, as Rwanda and the utter impotence of UNIFIL in the face of an obviously rearming Hezzbolah indicates. As for the authority, it lacks any moral authority, having squandered it in the past. This may very well be the last hurrah for the UN.

3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?
Almost zero, unless this new incarnation of UNIFIL is willing to hunt down Hezzbolah and their ilk. Otherwise, I doubt if this one will last anywhere near as long as 1559 did...

4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?
Given that it doesn't call for rounding up and trying every member of Hezzbolah in the International Court for war crimes, it's not tough enough.

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?

I am very skeptical. For one thing, it was not negotiated by the parties involved. It is extremely naive to expect the conflicting parties to agree to terms to which they had little if any input. Sure they may initially agree (as both Israel and Hezbollah seem to have done) but they will violate it at the first opportunity, claiming that their interpretation allows this action or that action.

Another reason I remain skeptical is that it does not resolve the issues behind this conflict. Nothing about the prisoners being returned. Nothing about Lebanese responsibility for attacks from their territory. Instead, it "calls upon" and "requests" this or that. No teeth at all.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?

Good one. The UN has no power, as demonstrated by the flagrant disregard of 1559.

3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?

It has exactly the same chances, unless the parties involved change their attitude. That would be the Hezbollah, Syria and Iran since Israel has fulfilled its requirements under 1559. The arms embargo section of this resolution is a good step (in theory) but unless enforced, it is meaningless.

4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?

On paper, it is. We'll see how it is actually implemented. The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. The UNIFIL force still does not have Chapter 7 authority, although this resolution does strongly hint at the use of force. But with the UN, hinting at the use of force (all means necessary) isn't enough for some to believe it actually authorizes force. I wish these bureaucrats could just say what they mean and give this thing teeth.

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?

It might be, if the Lebanese government is able to send its 15,000 military forces into the area as it intends to, and UN forces are willing and able to back them. Up until this time, the Lebanese military hasn't been permitted in that area, the southern Lebanese border has been entirely run by Hezbollah, with a little UNFIL observation post. If this resolution enables the Lebanese forces to enter it might help. From my understanding of the situation (which I admit is rudimentary) this is what Israel has wanted for the past six years since the withdrawl.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?

I'll be curious to see where they obtain the necessary manpower. They can mandate as many troops as they like, but who will volunteer its forces...and just as importantly, which volunteering nations won't escalate things? (Iran volunteered 10,000+ forces for Bosnia and were turned down for obvious reasons...I'm sure Syria and/or Iran would be willing to volunteer in this case as well).

3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?

My Magic 8 ball says 'don't count on it', but I am hopeful. I'll give it a better than average chance (55 percent). Not sure why.

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?

Depends on the resolve and overall it will not be instant gratification for anyone involved even if the international community does hold such a resolve to make it work.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?

Depends on all parties involved, Israel could kill the issue in a second if it shows no restraint, and of course Hezbollah probably will know or see this. Overall the environment will be rather complex in regards to success as related to the debate topic.


3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?

Will depend on the resolve of the international community and parties involved and overall the ability to adapt and make wanted success a reality.

It appears that Hezbollah has called our bluff and has no intentions to disarm despite the new UN Resolution.Hezbollah Leader Accepts U.N. Cease-Fire But Vows to Fight


I think as had been said time and again, the only way that peace can come about is if Hezbollah is effectively disarmed. Without such an occurrence, the situation in the Middle East is only destined to repeat.

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?

In the short term the violence will end. But the long term consequences of a resolution that is all bark and no bite has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history to mean more bloodshed and more pain. All that is needed for tempers to flare again is for another rocket to be shot at Israel or more kidnappings and then we will be right back to where we started weeks ago.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?

The job of the UN is a tricky one. It's loyalty to neutrality has meant that it is de facto powerless to affect the outcome of any engagement. If the fighting starts up again, they will not be able to choose a side in the fighting and just be caught in the middle of another war they they have neither the strength nor the will to fight.

3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?

If Resolution 1559 was unsuccessful, then why would Resolution 1701 be any different? If the UN as a body cannot enforce its own resolutions then what purpose does it serve? It is a meaningful avenue for diplomacy but if the agreements reached do not have some force behind them then the text is meaningless. The assumption of the UN is that all the actors involved will reach agreements and adopt resolutions because they all rationally hope for peace and security. But this is a pipe dream and there are leaders out there who do not wish for peace and do not care for international stability.

4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?

Is Hezbollah remains armed then the resolution does nothing. That's the only way that peace can be achieved, true peace. A cease-fire by definition means a halt to fighting, under the assumption that it will start up again. This may seem like a victory to the international community, but this is just another defeat for freedom and another victory for terror.

Queer how Nasrellah used "our natural right". Ahmadinejad repeats the catchphrase when he stumps the Iranian countryside, promising prosperity by nuclear technology but doing nothing to help admirers and protesters alike who aren’t paid wages for as long as six months from companies that get around taxes by making generous contributions to the regime. Still, it’s too early to call it a bluff. Hez and the IDF ratcheting operations to inflict as much damage as possible was forecasted before this week’s resolution, to no one’s surprise. Give the other guy as many black eyes while you can so to speak.

At this point I’d call the military conflict a stalemate. Hez proved more resistant, well armed, and disciplined than the IDF suspected, although it was allegedly anticipated by Israeli intelligence. The political victory goes to Nasrellah. Nasrellah just looks more legitimate accepting the resolution. As if he occupied the office of prime minister in Lebanon! I thought Israel was milking the abduction of the Israeli soldiers for all it was worth. They’ve decided to negotiate with Hez for their release. They have Hez members in custody. Getting them back shouldn’t be impossible.

Frankly, if I was in the Knesset I would’ve voted the resolution down and modified my operations to admit international aid when possible to acknowledge the increasing humanitarian toll the conflict has taken. Israel may’ve discovered significant weapons caches but I haven’t heard anything to that effect. Disarming Hezbollah, if it works, isn’t going to cut it. If I were in the Lebanese forces and cared about the Lebanese people I would be completely demoralized. I could not put a lid on Hezbollah operatives doing their part to increase regional instability by abducting Israeli soldiers, stop Israel from invading Lebanese territory in retaliation, or even carry out forced evacuations of Lebanese civilians if Siniora commanded it. What’s worse, military training doesn’t appear to assimilate the country’s factions and brass loyalty falls along cultural lines. Yet it’s obvious we need a Lebanese army capable of disarming Hezbollah and discouraging future rogue operations that threaten the stability of Lebanon. Some U.S. funding has to trickle in there, but that leaves Hezbollah’s popular public works, the basis of their local support. To counter that would mean more support for legitimate public works by the Lebanese government while at the same time avoiding too much support, too soon, and inadvertently encouraging unknown Hezbollah sympathizers from running for office just to get access to those funds.

How to pay for this. Split the difference with Israel, or increase foreign aid overall?

I am going to disagree with you there Lesly. The Lebanese will most likely regard Hezbollah as heroes. This is because after Israel destroys much of the infrastructure, it will be Hezbollah who will be building homes and schools for their "territories" in Lebanon. The language used by Nasrellah is significant. He says that he is defending the Lebanese civilians against Israeli aggression and that it is their natural right as you pointed out to defend Lebanon. He uses this language because he knows the outcome. While many may agree with you and have just had it with Hezbollah, another group will equally be satisfied and champion Hezbollah.

Now i understand your point that increased aid to strengthen democratic institutions in Lebanon could be a counter-weight to Hezbollah's popularity...but it is my opinion that this tactic will fail because Hezbollah is not against using violence and terror to gain its objectives. Lets speculate that you are correct and that maybe a few years down the line the Lebanese government is stronger and is weakening Hezbollah's support. Well if Hezbollah provokes another engagement with Israel it will once again be Hezbollah who are the defenders of Lebanon. What the Lebanese government needs to do is wipe out the Hezbollah army and gain a military foothold on its country. Hezbollah is the key factor in this entire crisis and they are unforunately the ones who will dictate peace and conflict.

Hating Israel for destroying your infrastructure doesn’t automatically translate into siding with Hezbollah, Leder. Lebanon has a significant Christian and Sunni population and a Druze minority. They’re not so blind with anger as to think that Hezbollah fighters muscling their way into their communities to access undamaged buildings as cover from Israel's shelling is completely Israel’s fault. I expect Nasrellah to position himself as the defender of the Lebanese people. I’ve read he thinks a little too highly of himself, but he had enough foresight to prepare logistically for Israel’s invasion. Nasrellah employing that framing in this conflict makes me wonder how secure his position is with non-Shiites.


People don’t have an appreciation for how openly liberal Lebanon is. To many Americans it is the latest Middle Eastern location to brush up on, but we make it “fit” into our preconceived notions about Arab nations. I think I wouldn’t have been as angry about the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure if Lebanon isn’t as open as it is with little U.S. intervention. This rag’s edition would’ve been printed if not for Hezbollah’s interruption. How much Lebanese tolerance is there for Hezbollah “violence and terror” if the organization can’t even stop an editor from publishing a woman’s bare behind?


Hezbollah is a prostitute living large in a weak state by buying off a police crackdown through public works. They are undoubtedly well backed in arms (military operations) and well funded in mobile capital (civic operations). Short of running the state through a dictatorship in the Middle East you can count on a group to carry out what Hezbollah did. If Lebanon manages to get its act together in terms of military strength and discipline in conjunction with civic operations and manages to break Hezbollah’s support, Israel would have to think twice about launching an invasion and consider cooperating with Lebanese law enforcement to bring the criminals to justice. This alternative reaction on Israel's part depends on trust between both nations, the intent of the Lebanese government towards Israel, and the Lebanese government’s ability to deal with Hezbollah; factors that unfortunately aren’t scientifically measurable but exert influence in foreign relations.

We also need to come to terms with the fact that a minority Hezbollah representation in the Lebanese government doesn't automatically mean the Lebanese government has been overrun by extremists. Except for the U.S. and Great Britain, I'm not aware of another democracy that has completely cast off anti-system parties, be they religious, communist, or racist in nature—groups that would overrun the government if elected to majority—including the Knesset in Israel. Incidentally, with the exception of Great Britain's mature and homogeneous culture, fringe elements are harder to get rid of in a parliamentary democratic system.

One item in the resolution that needs to be addressed ASAP if the ceasefire works is the Shebaa farms dispute. It's another craw in regional sovereignty that needs to be settled.

I think your wrong Lesly, and that its unfortunate that you are. I am not making judgments on the ignorance of the Lebanese people but merely looking at the situation from a historical perspective. When Israel drops bombs onto a civilian area and kills people in their homes. The logic for the bombing (Hezbollah fighters using human shields) just does not alter the fact that Israel killed those people. And thats where the anger of the nation is aimed at because in their eyes, Israel is not for just the destruction of Hezbollah, but the destruction of Lebanon itself. This would logically lead to heightened nationalism and support for the one faction that is perceived to be defending Lebanon- Hezbollah.

Support for Hezbollah strengthens with every bombed Beirut building




The fact that Hezbollah is still in existence and is recognized as a legitimate body (through the UN resolutions) is proof enough of its influence. If it was powerless to sway public opinion and powerless to use fear and violence to get what it wants, then the Lebanese government as well as people would have done away with them a long time ago. But they remain.


Its fantasy. For the Israelis and Lebanese to come to a cooperative agreement on how to deal with Hezbollah is highly unlikely if not unforseeable. Hezbollah is a body that acts independently of the Lebanese government and is, as you pointed out, backed heavily by Iran and Syria. With those puppet masters pulling the strings, the Lebanese government is powerless. There is no way they would allow Israel to help with the destruction of Hezbollah because that would mean more war and Israel on Lebanese soil.



Lesly, i think you seriously underestimate the strength and influence of Hezbollah. I still point to the fact that Hezbollah is still allowed to exist as proof. And there is a stark difference between Hezbollah and fringe groups in the US and UK and i think that difference does not even need to be explained.

Read what you said again:

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Saturday that the Islamic militant group will abide by a U.N. cease-fire resolution but will continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remained in south Lebanon.

Do you really expect Hezbollah to disarm if Israeli troops are in their land? Hezbollah isn't the only group to strike first and unprovoked non the less. They know if they turn over their arms they'll have no way to defend themselves when Israel starts flying around picking off senior Hezbollah leaders just as they do all those "senior Hamas leaders" in Palestine.

It's a 2 way street Leder, both groups are going to have to sacrafice and play nice. I wouldn't expect any group to lay down arms if foreign troops were still in their land. Israel has to withdrawal before we can expect any end to the fighting.

No, your wrong psyclist. Israel is a legitimate body where Hezbollah is not and has been ordered to disarm now by TWO UN Resolutions. If Hezbollah disarmed and stopped provoking conflict by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and shooting Iranian made rockets then Israel would have no reason to enter Lebanon. They left six years ago in the hope that peace can occur. But the mere existence of Hezbollah we now know inevitably leads to conflict. If Israel withdraws and Hezbollah is allowed to re-arm and take up new positions along the border, then what has been accomplished? Merely a postponement of the inevitable.

Hezbollah was created because of Israeli occupation. So what makes you think 2 or 2,000 UN resolutions are going to make them disarm when Israeli troops are in Lebanon? The rocket attacks from Hezbollah started after US-backed Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Yes their was a kidnapping, yes IDF soldiers were killed, but Hezbollah didn't target Israeli civilians until after Israeli air strikes started killing innocient civilians. The UN resolution called for Israeli troops to withdrawal as well as Hezbollah to disarm. So both groups have obligations under this resolutions and you're stuck with a chicken and the egg situation. Who's going to give in first? Well, since the so called impotent UN forces will be there, it doesn't seem like the IDF need to be there. And Hezbollah wont disarm until they're gone (which, based on the resolution they have do withdrawal) so Israel has to withdrawal from Lebanon before you can expect to see any progress in the situation.

Didn't target civilians? You might want to rethink your argument because Hezbollah has been targeting Israeli civilians for years and it was just this final straw that broke the camels back.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon six years ago. If the stated purpose of Hezbollah was to resist Israeli occupation, then logic would dictate that once their political goal was attained that they would cease operations. But in the time since the withdrawal, they have stockpiled thousands of Iranian rockets in civilian areas and have continued their terrorist attacks against Israel. This is because their new stated purpose is the outright destruction of Israel and all its inhabitants.

This recent conflict and incursion into Lebanon was a direct result of an unprovoked kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers in Israeli territory by Hezbollah. There can be no peace in the region with Hezbollah still in existence. An Israeli withdrawal can only be effective towards peace in conjunction with the disarmament of Hezbollah. Because then this cease-fire is only the postponement of an inevitable conflict sometime down the road.

Well, Hezbollah took prisoners to trade for prisoners, its cooperation with Hamas is simply one that can come about from the occupation mentality. Iran’s support or use of Hezbollah would be a real issue to resolve. If diplomatically speaking you can engage and disarm Hezbollah and emplace the Lebanese army along with a U.N force in the south, it will work for Israel, then the other issue would be getting Palestine and Israel to cease fighting, for I think that really just spreads out throughout the ME and provides that resources for people to spread radical Islam overall.

Israel did occupy Lebanon for a rather long time, moreover to cut things short peace in the mideast will be a continual process that will probably span at least a generation of people easily. The use of force alone has not brought along peace but just the need for more of the same, to accept this is simply to just accept the current cycle that has been running for far to long now, I do appreciate a desire for change in such.

Israel will simple need to accept the idea though that even if a group of say five people want to keep fighting that Israel will see more violence, but to lash out into an entire nation and plunge it into the stone age and then occupation will not bring them peace or victory in a lasting sense, radical Islam does not have a base nation or a single node you can realistically wipe out like say you had in WW2, this issue needs to be addressed. Lebanon on a whole was a victim from the war between radical Islam and Israel, just as Afghanistan and Vietnam were victims of the cold war. Just because a dog has fleas does not mean you should destroy the dog, its pretty much the same thing with terrorism, any nation on the earth currently has i imagine terrorist in the radical Islam sense running in it, some more then others, but attacking that nation with brute force and openly killing civilians to kill the targets will not in any sense bring along peace, you might as well just drop nukes at that point.

Of course now Iran might use such activities that Israel undertook to state it needs nukes for personal safety and could pull away from the diplomatic table forcing a more severe situation, but that’s just a guess. Everyone advocates the use of force in a shoot first ask questions later format, I will simply say the history of such in the ME points to such as a failed strategy in regards to obtaining peace, or conflict resolution past a lapse in the need for conflict.

I agree with your opinion here Leder, but I would like to add something. In viewing Hezbollah one should not forget that its leaders got in position by advocating armed conflict. It is because of their war mentality and propaganda that they were able to gain support within the Lebanese society. Disarmament would endanger the position Hezbollah leaders, it would mean that Hezbollah becomes obsolete. People in power are not easily swayed to do something like this. (This would explain that after Israeli retreat Hezbollah adopted a course for the complete destruction of Israel) An ongoing struggle against Israel is essential for Hezbollah leaders to secure their position. These people will not give up power and influence without a fight. This is an important aspect that should not be overlooked in peace talks.

Temporarily, yes. But I doubt the resolution will stop the Middle East violence permanently.


Authority yes, power no.

This crisis has shown that UN powerless to resolve a crisis. It can't even protect its own soldiers from being killed.

I find the current situation of the UN very similar to that of the the League of Nations during the Soviet-Finnish war. It is powerless to do anything.


I hope it is, but I seriously doubt that.

The resolution fails to address some very important issues: Will Israel pay for all the damage and destruction it has caused in Lebanon? Will it stop to violate the Lebanese people's right to live ever again?


It is not as tough on Hezbollah as it is as tough on the Lebanese.

One last comment:

Lebanese people have seen their relatives, friends and children murdered over the past month. Their houses were demolished. They were forced to flee their homes. They are still under a blockade. The persons responsible for so much suffering are still free and in power. This resolution does not deliver any justice. I fear that this will only result in moderate people to start giving support to Hezbollah and similar organisations.

I am profoundly pesimistic regarding the chances for a lasting truce. The Israeli government and military leadership have once again loost the dogs of war and even though they may now wish to chain them back up, given the abject failure to achieve their goals, that is likely to prove impossible. The vetran war correspondent, Robert Fisk, agrees with me.

(See Fisk Article).

All of the debate and news making in the last few days concerning the viability of this resolution has left me with one fact and one question.
The fact: People are split between thinking Israel was the aggressor and must bear the overwhelming responsibility of ensuring a cease fire holds...........and those who believe that the same holds true for Hezbollah.

The question: If Hezbollah is disarmed, as is called for by two UN resolutions, then what reason would Israel ever have for conducting incursions into Lebanon? An armed, rocket/missile possessing militia is not providing peace and security for either Israel of Lebanon. Shouldn't the disbanding of that militia be the top goal of any peace agreement?
Fisk's article doesn't appear to address that point.........

On the positive side, we can conclude that because Robert Fisk is so horribly pessimistic, things must turn out better than he expects. As the Guardian's columnist Simon Hoggart put it : Fisk is "not just mistaken, but reliably mistaken." Keep in mind that Osama bin Laden recommends Robert Fisk as a "neutral" correspondent. Fisk himself has said that journalistic neutrality is "no longer relevant", so take what he says with a grain of salt.

He makes some good points, including the fact that the IDF remains the target of Hezbollah. They have reserved the right to attack the IDF if it remains in Lebanon. Of course, the agreement calls for the IDF to remain there until the international force arrives in one to two weeks. We'll see what happens.

I'd say this cease fire lasts about 2 days, tops, with unaccountable Hezbollah guerillas attacking the IDF in Southern Lebanon, Israel striking back, and the Katyushas being deployed against civilians yet again.

Then we can have another round of "decrying" "condemning" and "emphasizing" before we can once again "stress" that we have "decided" to remain "actively seized of the matter".

leder I think you are presenting us with an image of Lebanon that you claim is based on "history" that is terribly false to the one that actually exists. I think you should take the time again to read what lesly has posted as she is trying to have you consider the complexities that exist in Lebanon, and have historically always been present. It is one of the things that makes Lebanon so great when we view it from a Western, democratic, pluralist society and what makes it so threatening to the theocratic, fascist, totalitarian regimes that surround it. You must understand how important Lebanon is in this conflict of ours, it is already everything we desire Iraq to be.


I posted in another debate this quote, which I think you should consider in context of your argument...
And even when the battle with the Israelis is over, he adds menacingly, Hizbullah will have other battles to fight. "The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let's finish with the Israelis and then we will settle scores later." link

If all the people of Lebanon feel so supportive and united with Hezbollah why would Hezbollah have any perception that the "real battle" was still waiting for them once the one with Israel was over?
If Hezbollah was such a uniting cause and idealogy for the people of Lebanon why did civil war wage for so long in this nation and even still threatens it today?



You must take into consideration how fractured and politically divided this nation is if you are to ever understand how we could bring lasting peace and stability to the region. And you must acknowledge that the people of Lebanon and more specifically the legitimate political structure, government and process of Lebanon is not our enemy and that we in fact all face the same enemy.

With that said think that the ceasefire is not enough, and will likely just change the conflict to the one already foretold by the quote I linked to above. Hezbollah has many enemies in the region and I think after this "win" will feel emboldened to challenge it's containment domestically and regionally.

I also feel the Israelis are not happy with their government's back down and will politically reorganize themselves and prepare for another battle.

I have no doubt that the situation in Lebanon is complex. However, the only thing that stops me from agreeing with your argument is the continued existence of Hezbollah. If the Lebanese government made a stand against Hezbollah and disarmed them, then I would be behind you 100%. But that has not happened and it doesn't look like it will happen. And as long as Hezbollah is allowed to exist, they will be able to influence policy through violence and terror. The situation that you describe where the Lebanese people will hold Hezbollah responsible just has not happened.

Beirut Center


87% bucket. Thats an overwhelming majority and it supports my point.


bucket, I am not going to make believe i can adequately explain the mind of a Hezbollah fighter. All i can offer is evidence that the support for Hezbollah has not waivered and that in all likelihoods it has increased.



Again, until Hezbollah is disarmed by the Lebanese government I really cannot see any logical reason to change my position. And it may be difficult to disarm a group with 87% popularity.

1) Is this new resolution by the UN enough to quell the violence in Lebanon?

For the time being? yes.

For the foreseeable future? Maybe.

We see a sizable army being deployed, which is capable of defeating Hezbollah; however what we should be mainly worried out, is it's willingness to carry out its objectives of securing the south and preventing further attacks on Israel.

The UN mandate uses strong, but only implicit langauge. UNIFIL may or may not be permitted fire a shot...

Even if it does, it's delegated to merely support the Lebanese army, which will probably have strong reservations when facing the prospect of combating Hezbollah. Despite recognizing Israel, and being by many qualifications moderate, the Lebanese government seems severely hesitant to speak or act against Hezbollah, which has the popular support of the people, and control of some of the parliament.

Whether the force proposed by the UN to patrol the south will actually fight off Hezbollan incursions is highly questionable.

Though also on the table, is that Hezbollah may not try to attack Israel again. With the prisoner exchange, they lose more legitimacy, and the arab world would likely be very angry at them if they attacked Israel again, being that they can no longer claim ignorance of the probable response from the "zionists".

To state an anecdote, Bush gained popularity off of 9/11, but it would have been a political nightmare for him if the London Airplane attacks had succeeded, since the HLS envisioned an attack of the sort which would've taken place...years ago.

2) Does the UN have the power and authority to accomplish its mandate?

Difficult to say. AMlord (who read either the new resolution or a synopsis of it) said something along the lines of the UNIFIL mandate langauge being strong but merely implicit. It may be that UN troops will not be allowed to fire any shots, in which case, UNIFIL will simply be a farce again...like it was in Rwanda, in Bosnia, and like it has been up until this point in Lebanon.

3) What are the chances that this resolution will be more effective than 1559?

We'll, we now have a large Lebanese army in the buffer zone, and a UNIFIL that has a stronger mandate, and prospects for expansion.

The new resolution is better then the old one, but thats not to neccessarily to say that it is adequate.

4) Is the resolution tough enough on Hezbollah?

In wording yes, in actual action, probably not. Proper execution would mandate that UNIFIL and the Lebanese army take over where Israel left off as soon as they are in place, as Hezbollah is not to be allowed to continue to occupy the south (or so the resolution says). I doubt that any attempt will be made to force Hezbollah north or to oblivion however; at least not until it fires at Israel again.

You have the right to view Fisk any way you want to but to to dismiss one of the great war correspondents of our time so casually without citing context or sources is pretty low. Readers that want some context may wish to look at This Wikipedia Article or, better yet, read his latest book The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East.



Who was the more accurate predictor of events, George Bush and Tony Blair or Fisk? Speaking Arabic fluently, having a command of Middle Eastern history, covering the conflicts in that region for over 20 years from all sides of the battlefields and living most of the period in Lebanon when not in a war zone should give him a perspective that we all should take seriously even if we subjectively want to reject it.

I guessed 80% in another debate, not anything I am surprised with but I don't feel this supports your argument all too well. They support Hezbollah to what end? They support Shia power and recognition in Lebanon? They support a "resistance" to what many feel is Israeli aggression and occupation in the region? They support The Shia in Lebanon retaining political relevance? They have a racist bias towards Jews? They are angry with America and the war in Iraq? They don't like watching on TV their fellow citizens, some even babies, dying? To what end does Hezbollah have 87% support in Lebanon? And how resilient is this support?




I didn't ask you to make believe, I asked you to consider what it was he was referencing to....any ideas? What war is he looking forward to more than the current one with Israel? You seem to wish to not consider and now even address the fact that Lebanon has suffered years and years of civil war, and that Hezbollah played a major role in these internal conflicts. If a huge massive amount of Lebanese supported Hezbollah to the ends in which you wish for us to believe then civil war would not be something looming in the ever distant future of the state of lebanon in it's current existence, but it is.

I also ask you to consider what it was the international community did last time Lebanon became too unstable to continue to ignore. It granted Syria international legitimacy for it's role in Lebanon (many now call it occupation) and even went so far as to require Lebanon to sign a treaty of brotherhood with Syria. Oh and then their was that whole constitution thing...that created a requirement for the Lebanese govt. to include the Shia of Lebanon into the political process...what spoils of war! Obviously bringing Lebanon to the brink of chaos is quite profitable work.

Unfortunately the real political masters of this game have absolutely no political accountability in Lebanon or within the Lebanese political system as they in fact rule by surrogate.

Which if you really wish to consider long term political conditions and lasting influences in the region we should be asking ourselves how many Lebanese support Iranian power in the region and their own country? Or an Islamic Republic style government? Or how many Lebanese support Syria's continued role and "brotherhood" in their nation?


We are not going to bomb support for Hezbollah out of Lebanon and I personally have no reason to believe Hezbollah would or even could exist in peace, we have to either transform this movement which starts with disarming it, or we have to offer alternative outlets for Shia politicalization in this nation and ultimately the region. This is just a very hard thing to do with such a growing radicalization of Islam, and even more specifically with regimes like the one in Iran.

I read something this morning that makes me reevaluate my priorly optimistic 55 percent odds of success. I'll give it 5 percent.
Lebanon will not force Hizbullah to withdraw


If the Lebanese forces won't make Hezzbolah leave, and the UN forces certainly won't act alone (if they would act at all which is very questionable), it doesn't matter how many boots there are on the ground. Without enforcement, those troops are nothing but human shields. I expected a combat force. I doubt this will work, especially since Hezzbolah is proclaiming victory here.

Tell me again how many civilians were killed when Hizbollah captured the IDF soldiers?



Maybe because since 2000 there have been numerous violations of the Blue Line, violations of Lebanon's airspace by Israeli aircraft, a fence being built in Lebaneese territory, and the Shebba farms are still disputed territory. Stop trying to spin this like after the withdrawl Israel followed all the rules and Hizbollah just kept shooting rockets at civilians. Most of Hizbollah's attacks were on IDF soldiers in the Shebba farms.


UNIFL


Like I've said in other threads, there are at least 600 prisioners sitting in a Israeli jails who were arrested with out cause, don't have a trial date planned, and have no representation and no voice to try and get free. That's 600 uprovoked kidnappings. This is not a one sided story Leder. Both sides are guilty. Both sides have to abide by the rules.

I quoted the extent. 70.9% supported the capture and killing of IDF Soldiers and 87% supported Hezbollah attacking Israel with their rockets. I believe this most certainly supports my argument because an organization that is highly disdained as you contend, appears to have widespread support. You have presented no evidence that your theory has any merit while there is strong evidence that Hezbollah retains Lebanese support.



I don't believe that the quote mentioned anything about civil war but just settling scores. Basically killing anyone who opposed Hezbollah's actions. We don't know how many people that is. It could be the 13% who did not support Hezbollah actions against Israel. It could be a majority of the country. There is no real way of knowing and thus doesn't help your argument.



I'm not going to argue against that but I still fail to see how that supports your belief that Hezbollah is not liked in Lebanon.



Its not about bombing the support for Hezbollah out of Lebanon...its about bombing Hezbollah period. Its existence is a cancer in the region and almost guarantees another conflict very soon down the line.



Obviously I must have typed incorrectly. I said that Hezbollah was targeting civilians long before they captured and killed IDF soldiers. In the certain instance that was a catalyst to our recent conflict, no they did not shoot their Iranian made rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas until Israel had had enough of Hezbollah.



Here is your problem psyclist. You are putting Hezbollah on an equal footing with Israel and thus recognizing it as a legitimate body when it is not. It is a terrorist organization that takes pleasure in stepping onto a crowded bus and blowing everyone up. Israel has killed civilians, the United States has killed civilians, Europeans have killed civilians but its the context in which they were killed that is significant. Israel did not target civilians. They dropped leaflets and they even made phone calls to the people's homes to leave. It just so happen that Hezbollah was shooting off ther rockets and then heading back inside to finish their tea. Furthermore, in the violations that you listed there doesn't appear to be a listing of a single casualty on the Lebanese or Hezbollah side by the hands of Israel. I guess the capturing and killing of IDF soldiers was an unproportionate response...



What rules does Hezbollah have to abide by psyclist? Is this not the same organization that has been outlawed by two count 'em two UN resolutions? They have never abided by any rules and do not show signs of doing so in the near future. I am not going to excuse the actions of Israel and the kidnappings of 600 people (as you so claim) but I do not know who these 600 people are nor do i know if they are unprovoked. So either of us discussing them as if they were a crime is irresponsible without more information.

See I don't recall making that argument, as I agree with your numbers and "proof" and even have elsewhere on AD in debate. Obviously I don't feel it is an organization that is "highly disdained" and never said anything close to this. Again I ask you to what end does this support exist? Do you feel it is a long lasting hey this is the path and future we wish our country to move forward in? Do you think 87% of the Lebanese people would take arms up and fight along side Hezbollah? I ask because I have said elsewhere in debates here on AD that I know a Lebanese family, have known them most of my life as they are long, long time family friends. They are Shia, as in the ethnic sense as they are not practicing Muslims, they have lived in the US for many, many years and have US citizenship, they are to all outwards appearances and my personal knowledge of them Western and progressive people. I never would consider them hardened, maniacal, extremists and yet their family in Lebanon and outside, are part of that 87% number you so vacantly throw around as proof...proof of what exactly is what I am asking you? I think it is somewhat logical to see support for such an organization at these numbers at this moment in time. I also think the world and all the people in it exist in various shades of gray rather than this extreme contrast of black and white. I don't think your "proof" proves that 87% of the people in Lebanon are bad and we only have 13% of good rational people to work with.

But you have already said you don't trust my unproven, without poll data position so I offer you to consider another's...
Lebanon's bizarre internal political structure creates mental categories in its citizens that do not and never will exist in the West. It's hard enough to understand how Lebanese think even after living there myself for a while, so I don't expect casual readers to "get" this. But there are Lebanese (I know several) who are secular and pro-American, who want peace with Israel, and who also support Hezbollah.
link
or another's...

In fact, for all of the party's rhetoric, many Hezbollah supporters do not want "Death to Israel! Death to America!" I just spoke with two Shia men, Muhammad and Rida, in the United States who are proud American citizens. They rhetorically support Hezbollah, but are smart enough not to send them any money or officially lobby on Hezbollah's behalf.

Muhammad and Rida support the war in Iraq. Rida's brother is serving in Iraq. Muhammad is actively involved in his union's activities, and his wife is on the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) of their children's school. She's thinking of running for the school board.

Yet, they support Hezbollah.
link


What do I have to do to get you to discuss the reality that Lebanon is a nation that has suffered from a long history of internal conflict or what we call civil war, and lives with the threat of this always resurrecting itself? I don't understand your reluctance to this fact or history of a nation you claim to be interested in understanding and helping to end it's violence. Can we step away from the polling data for one moment and consider what happens when war with Israel has ended, or ceased and peace is again trying to be accomplished? What will the support then begin to look like? As I asked before do you feel it is resilient and long lasting enough to unite the nation under this cause or is it a combat only position?

And in case you have forgotten this is a country that even in a time of "peace and stability" the PM was being violent blown to pieces. Obviously someone in the power structure of this nation does not feel they have any commitment to operating within the political system itself. How well did the people of Lebanon last respond to this extreme show of disdain for their nation's laws, sovereignty and political legitimacy?
Is there any reason for you to believe, or perhaps you have more polling data, that this lack of unified support on behalf of the Lebanese to pursue a future of violence and opposition to democratic values has been permanently altered?



But again that is not what I said, I said they are not a unifying political cause, idealogy and movement in the nation. I don't see Hezbollah moving forward with a large amount of power and legitimacy within the Lebanese political system. I see either that system laying in ruins or the people of Lebanon facing more internal violence.



I agree as I feel their existence threatens Lebanon's peace more so than any other's as they will not always have such strong support, but I still feel that they will not be bombed out of existence. I support their disarmament , by force. I just don't feel this is a conflict we can solve with the same tactics NATO used in the Kosovo war. The US probably should have been more supportive and serious about the importance of the Lebanese govt's ability to extend power and legitimacy prior to this. It is not like this conflict snuck up on us all, it has been rumbling for sometime now and we have all been more than aware of the true powers we face in this region.

Which makes we wonder why you are so concerned with the current demographics of Lebanese support, much of which is platonic in nature, when the support we should be most concerned with comes from Tehran.





lederuvdapac argues this view is in error because you have given equal standing to all parties, I think it is for other reasons, those that are not so equal. psyclist why do you claim that we must understand or consider all sides of the conflict in order to best serve peace? Seems a rather circular path.
Obviously someone or something has to be the arbitrator to the conflict and make a decision and decide what interpretation or issue is of the most importance and what the rules are to abide by. The UN confirmed Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, continues to call for Hezbollah's disarmament and has discounted Lebanon's claims to the Shebaa farms, some in the Lebanese govt. support the UN's stance too.
This is the highest authority is it not? Or is there another, perhaps that of the self ordained messiah Nasrallah, that you feel must guide us?

bucket, I, nor you can possibly coment on the extent that every single Lebanese person supports Hezbollah. I can't argue that all 87% of the people who supported Hezbollah's actions would take up arms against them just as you can't argue that they would not. The poll asked a specific question and that question was answered. Furthermore, i never said that the 87% of people who are for Hezbollah's actions are bad, rather i was connecting it to my main point that in order for there to be peace in the region, Hezbollah must be disarmed. I used the poll data to show that support for Hezbollah is high and that the likelihood that the Lebanese government can disarm them would logically be low. In your scolding paragraph of my misunderstanding of the complexity of the Middle East you have yet to put foward a strong argument for how peace can be achieved with Hezbollah remaining as a state within a state. You have yet to show how your complex understanding of the situation translates into a policy that can work.

The quotes you have presented are sentiments I am well aware of. I know there are people in Lebanon who want nothing to do with war and misery with the US or Israel. But those thoughts must translate into action and the disarmament of Hezbollah. If that connection is not made, then further conflict is guaranteed.


Anyone with an internet connection can Wikipedia the history of Lebanon which I have most certainly done. The questions you pose are inconsequential because the Lebanese government are not pulling the strings. They allowed Hezbollah to grow the size it has. It allowed thousands of rockets from Iran to be smuggled into the country. You saying nobody saw thousands of trucks going in and out of neighborhoods transporting rockets? The Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to dictate policy when they crossed the border and captured/killed IDF soldiers and when they did nothing to bring those soldiers home to end the conflict. And again, it doesn't look like they will do anything to comply with UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 to disarm Hezbollah:

Who Will Disarm Hizballah? Not the Lebanese Army


If nothing is done to disarm Hezbollah, Lebanon will continue to suffer.



Whether or not people will actually walk out their houses and join in arms with Hezbollah is insignificant. The point is that Hezbollah is allowed to remain and that will spell trouble in the future.


But who is going to do it bucket? I mean if anything, thats what Israel was doing and the Lebanese army should have been helping.

What I'm arguing against is a myopic, uninformed, one sided view of things. You can't solve a problem if you don't know or have all the pieces or if you automatically place ALL the blame on one side. Both parties are at fault. Both parties have blood on their hands. I want Hizbollah to disarm and follow the UN resolutions just like I want Israel to follow UN resolutions. But I know that as long as Israel is a threat to Lebanon, whether it be occupation, violations of air space, or shelling positions, regardless of how many UN resolutions they pass and regardless of how many bombs Israel launches in Southern Lebanon, Hizbollah will not disarm. Hizbollah gains it's support from the Lebanese because they are precieved as the only ones who can defend Lebanon from an Israeli offensive. Look it from the standpoint of an average Lebanese... The country right next door occupied my land for 20 years. They're one of the top military powers in the world. They want to expand their country from the Nile to Euphrates (I'm not saying this is true but it's a perception.) Now who's going to protect me? The Lebanese army? Hardly. The USA? Nope. The UN? Nope. Hizbollah? Well we know they can put up a fight. So how do you solve this? How do you end the support for Hizbollah? Well first you have to guarantee the security of Lebanon. When Israel withdrawals, they can't go flying into Lebanon picking off people whether they're members of Hizbollah or not. Lebanon and Israel have to come to some sort of diplomatic agreement that Israel wont be a threat to Lebanon and that Lebanon will do all that it can to guarantee the security of Israel. Lebanon doesn't have to disarm every member of Hizbollah, that's impossible. What they do need to do is prove to the average Lebanese person who just wants to make it from work to the shisha bar that the IDF isn't going to drop a bomb on his head. As the threat of Israel lessens in the mind of the average Lebanese (which wont take long as long as Israel stays on their side of the blue line) and the government grows and provides services to help them, the support for Hizbollah will fall and eventually they'll put away their Katyushas and go smoke shisha too. Security has to be guarantee to both Israel and Lebanon before we can hope for any progress.


After finishing up the post I found this, seems to pretty much jive with what I've been thinking...

I understand the reasoning you have for flaunting this data, I have been just asking you to consider it's meaning and importance to peace in Lebanon, and ultimately the ME. How important is this and what does it mean?

My interpretation is that as long as Israel is waging war on Lebanon, even if the true intention or target of the aggression is Hezbollah, it is still Lebanon, then support for any armed resistance will remain strong. So obviously a cease-fire must occur, but a lasting, fair and once and for all strong international demand for peace must also occur or else it is nothing more than a bureaucratic means of a time-out.

I am not scolding you, are you a child? I am debating you and I am questioning your reasoning and asking you to consider mine. And I think the argument I have already put forward clearly does not support the current "state within a state" existence. I a