UN Proposed Resolution

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5249488.stm

The Security Council: Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) and 1680 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35), Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel, 1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations; 2. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line; 3. Also reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949; 4. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours for verifiably and purely civilian purposes, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon; 5. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty and authority; 6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements: strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon; full respect for the Blue Line by both parties; delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa farms area; security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces deployed in this area; full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state; deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below; establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government; elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government; provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession; 7. Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above; 8. Requests the Secretary General to develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Chebaa farms, and to present those proposals to the Security Council within thirty days; 9. Calls on all parties to cooperate during this period with the Security Council and to refrain from any action contrary to paragraph 1 above that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, or the safe return of displaced persons, and requests the Secretary General to keep the Council informed in this regard; 10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution; 11. Requests UNIFIL, upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons; 12. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to ensure arms or related materiel are not imported into Lebanon without its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request; 13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and to provide any relevant information in light of the Councils intention to adopt, consistent with paragraph 10 above, a further resolution; 14. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Will those whom secure the world agree?
How far will they be prepared to go if neither side obeys?

[Scribbler1]

And just how will a cease fire benefit Hezbollah? Both sides despise each other and I don't see that going away even if the missiles stop for a little while.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 And just how will a cease fire benefit Hezbollah? Both sides despise each other and I don't see that going away even if the missiles stop for a little while.

Totally agree, but hey it keeps the politicians buzzing.
It will depend on the peace/secuity force. Which countries make up the group and the orders they are given. To be a watcher will not be enough. They will need the authority and weapons to attack and remove any/all weapons from Hezbollah, whilst also having the authority to do the same to any insurgent use of force by Israel. They will need sufficient funding to be there for years and have had proficient training to respect the citizens of Lebanon. Tough call.

Perhaps French, Malaysian, Polish, Japanese, Russian and Chinese might have a chance with a South African commandor?

[ise]

Quote by: Scribbler1 And just how will a cease fire benefit Hezbollah? Both sides despise each other and I don't see that going away even if the missiles stop for a little while.

Security council draft resolution agreed

Hezbollah warned it will not abide by the resolution unless Israel withdraws from Lebanon entirely and indicated the lack of a timetable for such a withdrawal was perhaps the biggest sticking point with the text. “We will abide by it on condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land. If they stay, we will not abide by it,” said Mohammed Fneish, one of two Hezbollah Cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government.

On one side and totally opposite is...

Israel says it will not pull its troops out of the south until a significant international military force deploys in the region.

...so it has no chance.

It also ignored Lebanese demands:

setting a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the south,
lifting Israel’s full blockade of Lebanon
release of the long term prisoners interned in Israel without trial and
putting it's disputed Chebaa Farms area under UN control for now.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Totally agree, but hey it keeps the politicians buzzing.

That's probably the most iritating part of any so-called "cease fire" agenda. We really don't need buzing politicians. A little more working and a lot less buzzing and they may earn their keep for once.

It will depend on the peace/secuity force. Which countries make up the group and the orders they are given. To be a watcher will not be enough. They will need the authority and weapons to attack and remove any/all weapons from Hezbollah, whilst also having the authority to do the same to any insurgent use of force by Israel. They will need sufficient funding to be there for years and have had proficient training to respect the citizens of Lebanon. Tough call.

Indeed. You make good points and under "normal" circumstances I'd agree with you, but this is a hatred that has gone on so long I don't see what you can do to calm these people down to the point where an agreement fair to both sides could be reached. Israel might be convinced to stop grabbing land that doesn't belong to it and quit building settlements but Hezbollah and other arab groups keep saying they won't rest until Israel is destroyed and Hezbollah's leaders no doubt like their positions of power so much they would NEVER give them up. When your entire power structure is based on the hatred of another group you don't suddenly start talking peace. Once you make nice with the enemy you have no reason to be in power anymore.

They both might just wait out a cease fire and when it comes to its inevitable end start looking for ANY excuse, no matter how minor, to start their shit up again

[ise]

Heavy duty stuff, but worth it, I hope.

The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance part 1
By Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke ...Aug 8, 2006

The United States and France have produced a United Nations resolution of sorts aimed at ending the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, but the negotiations between US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and France's Jean-Marc de La Sabliere nearly ended in disaster. Through the course of a single week, the US and France came as close to a bitter split over Middle East policy as they had on the eve of the Iraq war. At issue in the confrontation was a US insistence that an international force (led by France) be deployed to Lebanon prior to the declaration of a ceasefire - a requirement the French thought ludicrous. They weren't the only ones. "The position that we're taking in the UN is just nuts," a former White House official close to the US decision-making process said during the negotiations. "The US wants to put international forces on the ground in the middle of the conflict, before there's a ceasefire. The reasoning at the White House is that the international force could weigh on the side of the Israelis - could enforce Hezbollah's disarmament."

The normally taciturn La Sabliere was particularly enraged when Bolton indirectly accused him of naivety. Responding to a reporter's question about the French position calling for a ceasefire prior to a troop deployment, Bolton was at his arrogant best: "I think it simplistic, among other things. I want somebody to address the problem on how to get a ceasefire with a terrorist organization." Bolton then took a leaf from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's 2003 criticism of France and Germany as "old Europe" - calling the French ceasefire initiative "old thinking". La Sabliere not only bristled at Bolton's language, he threatened to end all discussions with the US over ending the Lebanon conflict.

Bolton's continued "cheerleading for Israel" didn't help, according to this same official. "It's a real row that started with Bolton's statement that you couldn't compare the deaths of Lebanese to the deaths of Israelis," the official said. "He implied that because Lebanon harbored Hezbollah, Lebanese lives were forfeit. It was a stupid thing to say. It tore the scab off the wound."

The European anger boiled over, according to one UN diplomat, during an exchange between Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman and a French official during a meeting on the composition of a proposed international force.

"It's not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism,"UN deputy secretary Mark Malloch Brown said last Tuesday. His voice edged with anger, Brown hinted that the United Kingdom could be forced to rethink its by now predictable support for the US initiative. "Britain has tried very, very hard to keep with the US on this; no one respects the reasons for that entirely, but you have a Security Council and international public opinion, while fully understanding what has been done to Israel, now believes strongly in a cessation to hostilities."

Sorry that it's so long. The article itself is more than twice as long.
US + EU = 0
Hezbollah 10
Israel - 05

[ise]

...part 2, from the Middle East...
The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance part 2
By Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke ...Aug 8, 2006

A spokesman for Hezbollah in Beirut was even blunter, saying that the resolution was "dead on arrival". He added, "The French caved in to American and Israeli pressure. Israel gets to stay on our land. We are required to disarm. Why isn't an international force deployed in northern Israel? Our arms get cut off and the US gets to fly cluster munitions into Ben Gurion [Airport in Tel Aviv]. Just who do they think is winning this war?"

For now, Condoleezza Rice is hailing the US-French draft as a symbol for US-European cooperation. But for many European diplomats, agreement on the draft resolution has only papered over a deepening rift between the United States and its European partners, with some European diplomats muttering that America's real goal is to induce the Europeans to wade into Lebanon on the side of a defanged and humiliated Israel. :)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "bragged that Israel would destroy Hezbollah", a French diplomat said in Washington, "and if he can't do it that's his problem.:( I don't care what the secretary of state says, we're not going to do it for him."

One UN diplomat said the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict may spell the end of an era in which the US and Europe established a tradition of diplomatic cooperation: "We might as well face up to it. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important - its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel.":confused:

Stark choice. Who do you fancy.

[Charon]

Tell me if I'm wrong about this, but it's my understanding that Lebanon's military isn't powerful enough to disarm Hezbollah?

Even if they came to a ceasefire, it would only be temporary?

Who's the terrorist group here? http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

Why did respectable governments deal with terrorists? http://www.etzel.org.il/english/people/begin.htm

I really hope I'm wrong, but this could be the beginning of World War III. What does everybody think?