• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Condi Goes to Lebanon

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
a_unique_person
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
49,642
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
"We are here, we are concerned," but we're not actually going to DO anything, like tell the Israelis to knock it off or do anything to help the refugees.

I hope Siniora gives her a mouthful, preferably ending with "and the horse you rode in on!"
 
Cleon said:
"We are here, we are concerned," but we're not actually going to DO anything, like tell the Israelis to knock it off or do anything to help the refugees.

I hope Siniora gives her a mouthful, preferably ending with "and the horse you rode in on!"
Click to expand...
By contrast, a sober analysis can be found in today's Wall Street Journal.
...the Bush Administration now seems properly focused on exploiting the clash between Hezbollah and Israel as a strategic opening. The opportunity is to degrade Hezbollah and further isolate its enablers in Syria and Iran.

One of the most notable reactions to the fighting has been the absence of the usual solidarity from leading Arab countries. Governments in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states understand the hegemonic ambitions of Hezbollah's patron, Iran, and they know this is a foretaste of Iranian trouble if the mullahs ever get a nuclear bomb. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave every indication in her press conference Friday that she intends to exploit that anxiety during this week's trip to Europe and the Middle East.

...

Word is that Ms. Rice's more ambitious plans include the creation of an international stabilization force for southern Lebanon. And properly conceived, this might be a genuine help. We're not talking about the kind of "peacekeeping" mission U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan envisions, whose purpose would be to keep the "warring parties" apart.

...

An international force inserted after Israel finishes cutting Hezbollah down to size could serve a very different purpose. Its mission could be to see that Hezbollah and the mullahs never regain a military foothold in Lebanon or hold the threat of violence over that country's fledgling democracy. It could also work to strengthen the official Lebanese Army, facilitate its deployment in the south of the country, and otherwise help implement U.N. Resolution 1559 -- under whose terms Hezbollah should already have disarmed. Israel is talking about a robust NATO force, which makes some sense. But if the "moderate" Arab states are really concerned with stability, they could also contribute troops -- as could Turkey.

...

As the Syrian problem shows, there are plenty of obstacles to Ms. Rice's diplomatic success. But if she is able to exploit the "consensus" she's described, she has an opportunity to contribute to near-term peace in Lebanon, as well as to broker a new alliance of Arab countries that could help contain the much larger threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb down the road.
Click to expand...
Link requires subscription.
 
BPSCG said:
By contrast, a sober analysis can be found in today's Wall Street Journal.Link requires subscription.
Click to expand...
Only if by "sober" you mean, "let Israel keep bombing and killing people, and then let's set up an 'international' occupation force that will be as amazingly successful as the one in Iraq."

What that "sober analysis" entails can be summed up as "Rice should tell Lebanon to surrender."
 
Hey, there's a concept!

Surrender ~~~ why hasn't anyone thought of that as a good solution?

Surrender the two hostages.
It's really very simple. I personally don't see the problem with the Lebanese government saying to the minority representatives in their own government:

"Uh, guys, you effed-up. Surrendering the two IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser, and Eldad Regev, and maybe even telling HAMAS publicly to release Gilad Shalit, would go a long way to showing our neighbors and the rest of the world that we are not terrorist-supporters."


But, instead, Nabih Berri, Lebanon's parliament speaker and Hezbollah's de facto negotiator, rejected proposals brought by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He told her:

"Get Israel to cease fire and withdraw first ---
Then we will work towards an over-all solution guaranteeing the return of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel, Israel's withdrawal from the Shaba Farms - a tiny border region that Lebanon claims - and the provision of (maps of) minefields lain in south Lebanon during its 18-year occupation of the region."

In other words, we want all of our demands met -- the exact same demands that we had before this war was started by our good buddies, Hezbollah.


Idiots.
 
From BPSCG`s "sober" "Wall Street Journal" "analysis":
"It could also work to strengthen the official Lebanese Army, facilitate its deployment in the south of the country, and otherwise help implement U.N. Resolution 1559 -- under whose terms Hezbollah should already have disarmed..."

The background to UNSCR 1559 was the desire to get Syria to withdraw its troops and so, ironically, several of the clauses stress the need to respect Lebanon's sovereignty. Clearly, Israel's is not doing this - big time - so it's yet another example of chutzpah that Israel and its amen corner are calling on UNSCR 1559 to support its actions.
Secondly, and this is key, although the resolution does call for the disarming of "militias", it is not prescriptive either about how this should be done or the time-frame in which it should be done. Militias could, for example, be absorbed into the regular armed forces as is supposed to be happening in Iraq.

It ought to be obvious, even to "Mr Sober" at "The Wall Street Journal", that to be consistent with the resolution's demands to respect Lebanese sovereignty, the disarming of any Lebanese "militia" is a matter for the Lebanese government. That government was democratically elected and only it can request assistance from an outside power be it NATO, the UN or Israel. Since it has most emphatically NOT done so, the constant waving of UNSCR 1559 by Israel's apologists is a non sequiter.

This UN resolutions regarding Lebanon and Israel just go to show how the "Israel-can-do-no-wrong" crowd have fastened on one clause in UNSCR 1559 - the apparent failure to disarm Hezbollah - but have ignored all the other resolutions going back to 1978 which have censored Israel again and again for its violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
 
I like to read demon's stuff when he brings facts and figures. I enjoy absorbing his views when they keep to the track of conversation and he avoids personalizing the issue. He has a wide grasp of the context, and a broad perspective of how Israel isn't so lilly-white in the scheme of things. That is indeed a useful part of this overall topic and allows us to more intelligently discuss what the future may hold. Which is what everyone is concerned about, or we wouldn't be particpating here, right?

Welcome to "Milhemet Tamuz" (War of Tamuz) as I have coined the current two-front Israeli-Arab battles.
 
demon said:
From BPSCG`s "sober" "Wall Street Journal" "analysis":
"It could also work to strengthen the official Lebanese Army, facilitate its deployment in the south of the country, and otherwise help implement U.N. Resolution 1559 -- under whose terms Hezbollah should already have disarmed..."

The background to UNSCR 1559 was the desire to get Syria to withdraw its troops and so, ironically, several of the clauses stress the need to respect Lebanon's sovereignty. Clearly, Israel's is not doing this - big time - so it's yet another example of chutzpah that Israel and its amen corner are calling on UNSCR 1559 to support its actions.
Secondly, and this is key, although the resolution does call for the disarming of "militias", it is not prescriptive either about how this should be done or the time-frame in which it should be done. Militias could, for example, be absorbed into the regular armed forces as is supposed to be happening in Iraq.

It ought to be obvious, even to "Mr Sober" at "The Wall Street Journal", that to be consistent with the resolution's demands to respect Lebanese sovereignty, the disarming of any Lebanese "militia" is a matter for the Lebanese government. That government was democratically elected and only it can request assistance from an outside power be it NATO, the UN or Israel. Since it has most emphatically NOT done so, the constant waving of UNSCR 1559 by Israel's apologists is a non sequiter.

This UN resolutions regarding Lebanon and Israel just go to show how the "Israel-can-do-no-wrong" crowd have fastened on one clause in UNSCR 1559 - the apparent failure to disarm Hezbollah - but have ignored all the other resolutions going back to 1978 which have censored Israel again and again for its violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Lebanon either has no sovereignity or has unofficially declared war on Israel.
If Hezbollah is firing rockets on/at Israel without the approval of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese government cannot stop them then it is a powerless government (no sovereignity in its' "own" land) and the UN did/does not immediately step in to stop them, no law or provision exists that can prevent Israel from protecting its' citizens. If Hexbollah is kidnapping Israelis and firing rockets at Israel with the permission and cooperation of the Lebanese government then a de facto state of war exists and Israel is being even more restrained in its' response than I have credited it for previously. Second, regardless of wording, any disarmament section that is not timed (and really short-timed) means immediately or is a joke.
 
fuelair said:
Lebanon either has no sovereignity or has unofficially declared war on Israel.
If Hezbollah is firing rockets on/at Israel without the approval of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese government cannot stop them then it is a powerless government (no sovereignity in its' "own" land) and the UN did/does not immediately step in to stop them, no law or provision exists that can prevent Israel from protecting its' citizens. If Hexbollah is kidnapping Israelis and firing rockets at Israel with the permission and cooperation of the Lebanese government then a de facto state of war exists and Israel is being even more restrained in its' response than I have credited it for previously. Second, regardless of wording, any disarmament section that is not timed (and really short-timed) means immediately or is a joke.
Click to expand...

Nothing to add, just felt it deserved bumping. I'd have modified one or two of your "and" conjuctions with a "/or" but that's about the extent of my disagreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom