Join 3,362 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


United Nations Resolution Achieved.
August 11, 2006 6:06 PM   Subscribe

Not just another news blip; UN Security Council passes Lebanon cease-fire resolution. The resolution calls for a "full cessation of hostilities" and tells Hezbollah to stop all attacks immediately and Israel to end "all offensive operations". Let's hope this brings about an end to all the madness.
posted by Second Account For Making Jokey Comments (77 comments total)

 
We can only hope.
posted by wfc123 at 6:07 PM on August 11, 2006


Amen.
posted by eriko at 6:11 PM on August 11, 2006


*insert comments about monkeys flying out of GWBs ass here*
posted by bob sarabia at 6:11 PM on August 11, 2006


This will bring an end to something, certainly.
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:14 PM on August 11, 2006


An obvious difficulty with ceasefires is that it often only takes one dickhead with a gun (or rocket), who doesn't give a shit, to unravel the whole delicate structure.

And there is no shortage of dickheads. Or guns.

Let's hope it can withstand the Dickhead Factor.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:15 PM on August 11, 2006


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that: "With this resolution, a new stronger Lebanon can emerge, with the world's help. Now the hard and urgent work of implementation begins."

She cautioned that no one could expect the resolution to end all violence, saying, "the conditions of a lasting peace must be nurtured over time".


That's quite a elegant way to say, "Rinse. Repeat."
posted by Brak at 6:15 PM on August 11, 2006


Sounds very good, but I wait with bated breath.
posted by caddis at 6:20 PM on August 11, 2006


The question is will Hezbollah agree?

I think in reality the best we can hope for is that hezbollah will act like the morons they are and continue firing potshots into israel while israel proceeds with a fighting wthdrawal.

The clock is still ticking, however. There's an Aug. 31 deadline for IRan to comply with UN on stopping nuke development or face sanctions. The president of Iran has said the if the US imposes sanctions, "expect $200 oil". Which in my mind translates to unleashing hezbollah and the shiites in iraq to create havoc.

Fingers crossed...
posted by Pastabagel at 6:22 PM on August 11, 2006


With tough language in remarks before the vote, Annan said hundreds of millions of people around the world shared his frustration that the council had taken so long to act. That inaction has "badly shaken the world's faith in its authority and integrity," he said.

"I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the council did not reach this point much, much earlier," he said.


Nice.
posted by owhydididoit at 6:26 PM on August 11, 2006


Is it wrong to feel optimistic about an agreement I doubt will be given any heed by the ones who should listen most?
posted by Busithoth at 6:28 PM on August 11, 2006


No Busithoth. No it's not. I feel the same way.
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:28 PM on August 11, 2006


Peace in our time. This means everything is going to be OK now.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:29 PM on August 11, 2006


Let's hope this brings about an end to all the madness.

because the UN security council has a solid record of ending all the madness.
posted by quonsar at 6:37 PM on August 11, 2006


Bending over backwards here to avoid agreeing with the Bush administration on anything (even if they said the sky was blue), but I'm worried a cease fire here (absent a meaningful introduction of Lebanese troops to secure the border) risks emboldening Hezbollah.

From Hezbollah's perspective, this is win-win: they attack Israel whenever they (or Iran) wants, then melt back into the population and wait out the tremendous loss of civilian life, then beg for a cease fire. The suffering of Lebanese civilians leads to an increase in Hezbollah's popularity both among the Lebanese victims and among other Arabs in the region (despite the initial negative reaction from the ‘Arab street’), not lessen it, while at the same time damaging Israel's standing in the world. It also helps with Hezbollah's fundraising in general.

Once a cease fire goes into effect, Hezbollah can regroup and attack Israel again at its leisure.

Yes, to be sure the primary concern should be preventing the loss of innocent life - but somehow it seems like that burden tends to fall primarily on nations like Israel who are somewhat subject to world pressure, not organizations like Hezbollah that deliberately (and routinely) use civilians as meat shields and body counts to bolster fundraising drives without little or no regard for world opinion.

So yes, this may "bring about an end to all of the madness" in the very short run, but it's easy to imagine how giving Hezbollah a reprieve will only end up making things far worse for the region in the long run.
posted by Davenhill at 6:38 PM on August 11, 2006


This isn't going to do shit.

Seriously, why the hell should this change anything? Some words on paper, some foreign leaders nodding their heads in "yes that's what I think" agreement? The violence between Isreal and the Arab world ceases?

I bet Iran agrees with all of this, too.


There will be war and death over there until we're all dead and/or gone.
posted by dopamine at 6:43 PM on August 11, 2006


UN Security Council Members: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Argentina, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia, Tanzania.

I don't see anyone on that list who's currently got their feet—or blood—on the ground in Lebanon.
posted by cenoxo at 6:53 PM on August 11, 2006


What remains or becomes of more interest (to me anyway) is the aftermath in terms of Hezbollah, Iran, and Lebanon. During the Israeli pounding in the south, many Shia fled and went into Syria. The Shia in Lebanon are not a majority and yet they have Hezbolla. Will the "new" Lebanon revert to Hezbollah control (again) or will there be a change? If Lebanon begins to reject Hezbollah, Iran will have suffered a big setback, and Syrian, waiting to get back into Lebanon, will also be a bit put off.

And that then brings up the issue of Shia in Iraq and how that might play out.
posted by Postroad at 6:54 PM on August 11, 2006


There have been a couple of draft resolutions presented so far, which were not acceptable to Lebanon and Hezbollah because they didn't require an immediate halting of hostilities. Hopefully all sides can agree on this one and the pointless fighting can stop.
posted by delmoi at 6:56 PM on August 11, 2006


The thing which will come to an end soon will likely be the government of Ehud Olmert which has managed to drop to George Bush levels of popular support by kicking ass in Lebanon and taking names later. So, for the sake of two or three kidnapped soldiers they could have jawboned away from their captors, the Israelis are even less secure than they've been in years and Hezbollah is stronger than ever. Go figure.
posted by MAYORBOB at 6:57 PM on August 11, 2006


I think in reality the best we can hope for is that hezbollah will act like the morons they are and continue firing potshots into israel while israel proceeds with a fighting wthdrawal.

What? Are you saying you hope hezbollah continues to fire at Israel and ignore the ceasefire? You think that would be better then if they stopped shooting at Israel? Really?
posted by delmoi at 6:58 PM on August 11, 2006


Wow, reading through the Hezbolla entry on wikipedia really shows the weakness of the system :P
posted by delmoi at 7:02 PM on August 11, 2006


Or I should say reading through the edit history.
posted by delmoi at 7:02 PM on August 11, 2006


I don't see anyone on that list who's currently got their feet—or blood—on the ground in Lebanon.

Really? You should get your eyes checked.
posted by delmoi at 7:05 PM on August 11, 2006


What? Are you saying you hope hezbollah continues to fire at Israel and ignore the ceasefire? You think that would be better then if they stopped shooting at Israel? Really?
posted by delmoi at 9:58 PM EST on August 11 [+] [!]


No, that's not what I hope for. That's what I think is the best possible outcome given that in the real world, as opposed to fairy tale diplomat land, (a) hezbollah will probably not acknowledge the cease fire at all and continue to blast away, and that (b) Israel will alwys shoot back when shot upon.

I hope I am wrong and that everyone does stop. But I doubt it.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:07 PM on August 11, 2006


Delmoi, I think you misread Pastabagel, who is saying that's the best we can get, not what he/she wishes for.
posted by BackwardsCity at 7:07 PM on August 11, 2006


Ok folks, please help me understand how UN resolutions work.

So they made this resolution that hostilities should end immediately.

What are the consequences for not doing this?

Or is this just a way to make an official statement somewhere by some governing body that hostilities should no longer continue and that's it?
posted by redteam at 7:07 PM on August 11, 2006


Cupcake Condi and George the Lesser may be the first team of idiots who think you can broker Middle East Peace by Security Council resolution. Nobody in the region does anything with UN resolutions except quote them as "justifications" for "defensive actions." They can't think much else, because no one in the region will talk to them seriously, now, and at least going to New York doesn't call for leaving the U.S.

Hezobollah will keep shooting as long as they can, and Israel will keep shooting back, until and unless Israel can establish a 60 mile demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon. We're in month 2 of the New 100 Years' War.
posted by paulsc at 7:09 PM on August 11, 2006


Let's hope.
posted by squidfartz at 7:11 PM on August 11, 2006


Davenhill: The 'melt back into the civilian population' tactic is the very nature of terrorism.

This is why armies can't solve the problem. It's like trying to kill fire ants with army boots. The soldiers can stomp as much as they like, but there will always be more ants.

Fighting terrorism is a job for police.
posted by Malor at 7:14 PM on August 11, 2006


I don't see anyone on that list who's currently got their feet—or blood—on the ground in Lebanon.
-cenoxo

Really? You should get your eyes checked.
-delmoi

Good point, delmoi. And after that eye check, cenoxo, you might also keep in mind that the UN is an international body whose purpose is the creation of resolutions and guidelines that attempt to ameliorate and end conflict in the world. Just because the currently warring parties are not on "that list" doesn't mean that the Resolution is meaningless. Obviously, the ones with their feet and blood on the ground (UN peacekeeps aside) are the Israelis and Hezbollah, who could (understatement alert) use a little outside help in bringing this thing to a ceasefire.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:18 PM on August 11, 2006


(a) hezbollah will probably not acknowledge the cease fire at all and continue to blast away, and that (b) Israel will alwys shoot back when shot upon.

Well, keep in mind that Hezbollah didn't start firing rockets into Israel until after Israel started their bombing campaign (after the kidnap of two Israelis solders). Hezbollah has been asking for a ceasefire since this whole thing began, so why wouldn't they follow one? This whole time Israel has been trying to eliminate or neutralize Hezbollah, while the US was asking for a "Sustainable" ceasefire.

What evidence is there that Hezbollah would be the ones to violate a ceasefire?
posted by delmoi at 7:29 PM on August 11, 2006


Let's hope it can withstand the Dickhead Factor.


posted by spazzm at 7:37 PM on August 11, 2006


If the US was serious about a ceasfire in Lebanon all it would have to do is threaten to cancel the billions worth of weapons military aid it sends to Israel.
posted by spazzm at 7:42 PM on August 11, 2006


Really? You should get your eyes checked.

The real question is what the fuck they are doing there.


Well, keep in mind that Hezbollah didn't start firing rockets into Israel until after Israel started their bombing campaign (after the kidnap of two Israelis solders).

A lie. Hezbollah has fired rockets at Israel on several occasions since the withdrawal.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:44 PM on August 11, 2006


"The real question is what the fuck they are doing there"

Well, not to be incendiary or anything, but one answer to that question would be: getting killed by Israelis.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:50 PM on August 11, 2006


I call for a full cesspool of hostilities.
posted by Eekacat at 7:53 PM on August 11, 2006


What's the UN going to do if when Hezbollah disobeys the ceasefire and attacks Israel under the table? I'm guessing 'not a god damned thing'.

Terror groups can't abide by ceasefires even if their leaders want to. They don't have that kind of control over their members.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:54 PM on August 11, 2006


"I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the council did not reach this point much, much earlier," he said.

Why's Annan do this shit? He's in charge of the UN. If he's so goddamned profoundly disappointed maybe he should replace himself with someone who can accomplish the things he apparently knows he cannot?
posted by xmutex at 7:54 PM on August 11, 2006


I'd like to see some citations with that refutation Krrrlson. Got any?
posted by isopraxis at 7:55 PM on August 11, 2006


Does this mean the US war with Iran is cancelled?
posted by homunculus at 7:59 PM on August 11, 2006


A lie. Hezbollah has fired rockets at Israel on several occasions since the withdrawal.

Whatever. These days Israel is getting hit with upwards of 200 rockets a day. Between the withdrawal and Israel's air offense I think three or four rockets were fired over a 3 or four-year period, killing no one, as far as I know.

Yes, they did kill people during the kidnapping, but they major rocket attacks were a response to Israeli air attacks.
posted by delmoi at 8:11 PM on August 11, 2006


Why's Annan do this shit? He's in charge of the UN. If he's so goddamned profoundly disappointed maybe he should replace himself with someone who can accomplish the things he apparently knows he cannot?

Like who? How could Annan possibly control the actions of the security console members, particularly John Bolton? Do you even understand how the U.N. Works?
posted by delmoi at 8:14 PM on August 11, 2006


From Hezbollah's perspective, this is win-win: they attack Israel whenever they (or Iran) wants, then melt back into the population and wait out the tremendous loss of civilian life, then beg for a cease fire.

true ... and israel should have seen that coming from day one when they replied so aggressively ... short of outright massacre of a million shiites, there's no way they could win this war tactically ... and strategically and politically, they weren't going to win, period

all the israelis have done is

1) prove they can no longer rely on their borders ... or any possible borders to protect them against professional and clever enemies, no matter how many bombs they explode

2) pissed off a whole bunch of people who hadn't been that concerned with them before

3) shown the world they can be more barbaric and callous of civilian life than their enemies ... (and don't give me that garbage about intent as they knew weeks ago what the results of their tactics were and continued them)

4) doomed themselves to decades more of danger hate and possible war

i don't know if either side will be able to resist the temptation to get a few last shots in ... and then there won't be a ceasefire at all ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:28 PM on August 11, 2006


Krrlson King Of The Drive-By. Always On Hand For the Predictable One-Line Pro-Israel Factless Statement.

but it's easy to imagine how giving Hezbollah a reprieve will only end up making things far worse for the region in the long run.

It was th 18 year occupation of Lebanon that CREATED Hezbollah. What Israel could not accomplish in 18 years you think a ceasfire NOW is going to make that big of a difference?

It is this invasion that will fail that is the threat to Israel's security IN THE LONG RUN.

Dude. Hezbollah is no strategic threat to Israel. Hezbollah is not going to occupy Tel Aviv. It is not capable of bringing down the jewish state or killing every jew in Israel. IRAN is the threat to Israel. NOT Lebanon.

Israel is mush better off dealing with Hezbollah as a legal and diplomatic matter - punctuating that with quite clandestine military force - than direct military confrontation.

Invasion only kills and displaces innocent people and creates MORE instability to their neighbors with every wave of refugees. This shit is FUELING anti-Israeli extremism.

They may as well hand the keys to the temple over to Iran. This whole thing is Ahmadinejad's wet dream.
posted by tkchrist at 8:51 PM on August 11, 2006


So wait... the US can't call for a cease fire because we want something that will result in lasting peace, but the security council can call for a cease fire because it is a step towards lasting peace? I tell ya Condi must be a bit dizzy from the circular (ill)logic. I wonder if she believes this stuff or if it is just a script read?
posted by edgeways at 9:20 PM on August 11, 2006


"I wonder if she believes this stuff or if it is just a script read?"

It seems almost quaint at this point to even wonder about what people like Condoleeza Rice actually believe. I think she probably really only believes in furthering the objectives of her bosses. I think she lost her soul a long time ago.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:24 PM on August 11, 2006


Delmoi said: Really? You should get your eyes checked.

(Cleans glasses.) True, there are 2000 UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, although, as your linked article from July 28 stated, "UN removes unarmed observers from border". As soon as there is significant risk to UN forces, they withdraw (as perhaps they should.) How many UN members will want to add their own people to bring the peacekeeping force up to 15,000? Is that enough?

Flapjax said: ...the UN is an international body whose purpose is...to ameliorate and end conflict in the world.
...
Obviously, the ones with their feet and blood on the ground (UN peacekeeps aside) are the Israelis and Hezbollah, who could (understatement alert) use a little outside help in bringing this thing to a ceasefire.


Agreed. And ever since the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, the UN is now well into their sixth decade of practice in the area. There's always hope for the future, but realistically, what are the odds of Israel and Hezbollah accepting a UN resolution written up by outside parties?
posted by cenoxo at 9:31 PM on August 11, 2006


It's worth stating the obvious as well -- the IDF had roughly a month to quell or at least curtail the Katyushas. They did neither.

Which isn't to say it would have been easy, since the very nature of terrorist groups like Hezbollah is to blend into the civilian populace. Then again, that legendary Israeli intelligence/Mossad reputation has been tarnished forever. Dare I say, it's about as capable as the American CIA.

Olmert talked a big game about invading up to the Litani River, but it was pure bluster. Hezbollah probably lost a few hundred fighters, but from their twisted perspective, the dozens of IDF deaths in exchange were a relative coup.

Iran, the majority Shia bloc in Iraq, and Hezbollah ftw. Hell, you can throw France in there as well -- Israel and the US were practically begging them to do something once the IDF realized it had bitten off way more than it could chew.
posted by bardic at 9:31 PM on August 11, 2006


"Lebanon has expressed profound doubts about the likelihood of a UN cease-fire resolution being able to end a month-old conflict between Israel and the Shiite militia Hezbollah.

Israel has warned the world would face an even "greater tragedy" in the Middle East if the resolution passed by the UN Security Council did not produce change in Lebanon."
It's good to see that mere hours after the UN passed its resolution, the two main protagonists in this horrible conflict are saying it probably won't change anything.

Sigh... this world is fucked.
posted by Second Account For Making Jokey Comments at 9:35 PM on August 11, 2006


"realistically, what are the odds of Israel and Hezbollah accepting a UN resolution written up by outside parties?"

I'd say slim, unfortunately. But let's hear it for anyone (including the Security Council) who's at least trying, eh? After all, it still signifies "hope for the future".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:36 PM on August 11, 2006


I can't remember just now how many cease fires I've seen in the Middle East over the last 40 years. Folks were always hopeful; but, it seems like each one was just another news blip.
posted by taosbat at 9:39 PM on August 11, 2006


It seems almost quaint at this point to even wonder about what people like Condoleeza Rice actually believe.

Or just plain disturbing.
posted by homunculus at 9:47 PM on August 11, 2006


The damage to popular opinion in Lebanon may be too serious to repair:

Last year, Lebanon was the beacon of the Bush administration's vision of a new Middle East. There were free elections without Syrian influence, women's rights, a free press and free speech. Today, much of this nation feels deserted by America as Israeli warplanes dropping American-made weapons destroy apartment blocks, bridges and roads. After four weeks of bombardment, the feeling is increasingly shared by Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze.

Israeli and American officials thought Israel's counterattack against Hezbollah would turn more Lebanese against the militant Shiite group, but members of the new independent government worry that the war will turn Lebanon into a bastion for extremism. With every civilian death, anger rises, among both the displaced poor living in parks and the well-off still eating pasta salads in cafes...

Anti-American posters have become commonplace in tony shopping districts that only weeks ago were peopled with students from the American University of Beirut sipping lattes at the now-closed Starbucks...

"We were fighting for real democracy in this country, and the U.S. supported us," said Maha Hoteit... Hoteit, a Shiite Muslim, had taken to the streets on March 14 [2005] with her family. Now her hope for a new Lebanon is gone and all she thinks about is leaving.

"They left us. The Americans are just watching this happen," she said. "All that the Cedar Revolution was is gone."

posted by mediareport at 10:53 PM on August 11, 2006


Whatever... Yes, they did kill people during the kidnapping, but they major rocket attacks were a response to Israeli air attacks.

Translation: Israelis should shut up and patiently take occasional rockets, raids, and killings, because if they don't, it'll get worse. I suggest you go deliver that statement to the average Israeli citizen and see where they tell you to shove it.

Krrlson King Of The Drive-By. Always On Hand For the Predictable One-Line Pro-Israel Factless Statement.

Surely that means you can easily refute them. Hmm...
posted by Krrrlson at 10:55 PM on August 11, 2006


Looks like the ceasefire is over.
posted by mullingitover at 11:15 PM on August 11, 2006


The cease fire does not start now. did you even read the articles?
posted by caddis at 11:19 PM on August 11, 2006


(Cleans glasses.) True, there are 2000 UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, although, as your linked article from July 28 stated, "UN removes unarmed observers from border". As soon as there is significant risk to UN forces, they withdraw (as perhaps they should.) How many UN members will want to add their own people to bring the peacekeeping force up to 15,000? Is that enough?

Yeah, they removed a lot of them, but the point was China had actually had a guy killed over there, by Israel. So it's a bit insensitive to say one on the security council had any 'blood' on the ground.
posted by delmoi at 11:23 PM on August 11, 2006


Oh, right. My bad. By 'immediately', they meant "immediately on Sunday."

Is it just me, or is this a really toothless decree by the UN? It's like a teacher watching two kids fight in the schoolyard, and telling them "Hey! That's it. You can each kick each other in the balls one more time. Then you really, really have to stop. Please."
posted by mullingitover at 11:26 PM on August 11, 2006


Actually, according to rumor, Condi is really upset about bush and the rest of the government not being willing to push for an immediate ceasefire. Makes her job harder and she loses personal credibility with other world leaders since she can't delver at home.
posted by delmoi at 11:28 PM on August 11, 2006


Is it just me, or is this a really toothless decree by the UN? It's like a teacher watching two kids fight in the schoolyard, and telling them "Hey! That's it. You can each kick each other in the balls one more time. Then you really, really have to stop. Please."

Yeah it's weird.
posted by delmoi at 11:31 PM on August 11, 2006


the point was China had actually had a guy killed over there, by Israel

Along with 3 other UN observers. Check it out.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:34 PM on August 11, 2006


Krrrlson writes: Translation: Israelis should shut up and patiently take occasional rockets, raids, and killings, because if they don't, it'll get worse.

I'd call that a poor translation. Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah. In the short-term, they had a month to try and stop the missile attacks. They failed. In addition, they bombed the hell out of major civilian population centers like Beirut and Tyre. Non-Hezbollah Lebanese didn't like these Shia radical guys much, and as posted above, a lot of them are wondering why a democracy with a problematic terrorist influence (if you don't believe me, google "Cedar Revolution" for quotations from Bush and Rice) is now being pushed towards the brink of anarchy by Israeli jets and tanks firing American made and/or purchased bombs and missiles.

But it's easy to keep that ol' black and white picture of the world, isn't it? You're capable of understanding the various complexities here, I think, but you just won't allow yourself to. That's sad.

Anyways, as I've said multiple times, by your logic we should start bombing major population centers in Iraq since a majority of them are outright supporters of Hezbollah. At least, they are now.
posted by bardic at 11:37 PM on August 11, 2006


Metafilter: no shortage of dickheads. Or guns.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:51 PM on August 11, 2006


"Metafilter: no shortage of dickheads. Or guns."

Hmmm... I sorta doubt there are that many gun owners among MeFi members. Probably a lower percentage than, say YouTube...

As for dickheads, well, that's up for debate, I suppose. But if that's the best comment you can come up with, uh, why bother? You're not moving the debate forward in any way, you're not putting any opinion of your own (on the topic at hand) into the thread. What's the point?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:00 AM on August 12, 2006


This will certainly work. Israel has an excellent record of listening to the opinion of the UN member nations.
posted by moonbiter at 1:27 AM on August 12, 2006


Welcome to metafilter, flapjax.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:17 AM on August 12, 2006


"Welcome to metafilter, flapjax."

Thanks for the link. I have seen the light.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:06 AM on August 12, 2006


It's like a teacher watching two kids fight in the schoolyard, and telling them "Hey! That's it. You can each kick each other in the balls one more time. Then you really, really have to stop. Please."

Yes, but it is better than nothing.
posted by caddis at 6:39 AM on August 12, 2006


I wish hezbollah and israel would just wipe each other off the face of the earth.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:40 AM on August 12, 2006


Anyways, as I've said multiple times, by your logic we should start bombing major population centers in Iraq since a majority of them are outright supporters of Hezbollah. At least, they are now.

Which logic is that?
posted by Krrrlson at 2:06 PM on August 12, 2006


I'd call that a poor translation. Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah. In the short-term, they had a month to try and stop the missile attacks. They failed.

What does Israel's incompetence in its campaign have to do with lying about the existence of Hezbollah's attacks prior to the recent escalation?
posted by Krrrlson at 2:09 PM on August 12, 2006


Israel doesn't ever see or define their operations as "offensive". They always carefully and clearly state that they are acting "defensively" in response to some action or actions by the other side. This is a weasel-worded document and Israel won't stop until they want to, no matter what the UN says.
posted by amberglow at 2:30 PM on August 12, 2006


The NYT Magazine was awesome this weekend. Michael Young's analysis of Hezbollah and Lebanese politics is the best backgrounder I have seen for the current controversy. Basically, this is as much a battle for Lebanon as it is for anything. Hezbollah and the Shia were on the outs after the Cedar Revolution and this is their way of fighting to regain influence. They hate Jews and they seek to destabilize Lebanon. I can not think of one positive thing to say about Hezbollah. As much as Israel may have over reacted here, Hezbollah still fail to attain redemption. In the best of all worlds, when the peace keepers come in they somehow manage to disarm, at least of the rockets, Hezbollah. This group is all negative with no positives (and don't tell me about the hospitals or what not, criminal organizations like the mob frequently seek to build public opinion by diverting some effort to charity - it allows easier continuance of their criminal enterprise).
posted by caddis at 12:10 AM on August 13, 2006


Surely that means you can easily refute them. Hmm...

Krrlson, just so you know: your post are a joke. You don't put enough content in anything TO refute. Except some general drive-by strawman. THEN call everybody a liar. This is what you do. Scream "liar" nearly every thread. Especially at anything remotely critical of Israel. It's your predictable little kink. And you run like a little bitch away. Or go to MeTa to cry. Nobody here takes you seriously. We laugh at you.
posted by tkchrist at 9:05 AM on August 13, 2006


*crickets*
posted by Krrrlson at 11:50 AM on August 13, 2006


...Israel believes it will be entitled to use force to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and to clear guerrilla positions out of southern Lebanon after a UN truce takes effect.

Israeli officials say such operations are "defensive" in nature and therefore permissible under a UN Security Council resolution that calls for Israel to halt "all offensive military operations."...

posted by amberglow at 4:35 PM on August 14, 2006


(the news that that quote comes from-- Israel says it can still target Hezbollah arms)
posted by amberglow at 4:36 PM on August 14, 2006


« Older icdiss.org...  |  For most musicians, it's diffi... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments