You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Ceasefire Plan Does Not Eliminate Hizbullah Threat
2006-08-11
The draft ceasefire plan agreed to by the United States and France may result in an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, but it will not disarm Hizbullah. It appears that United Nations efforts are concentrating on halting Israeli military operations throughout Lebanon, but no effort is being made to eliminate the Hizbullah threat. The draft agreement only calls for pushing Hizbullah north of the Litani, not far enough from IsraelÂ’s northern border to place Hizbullah rockets out of range from northern Israeli civilian population centers.

While the draft agreement supports UN Resolution 1559, demanding Hizbullah be disarmed by the Lebanese government, it does not make this a precondition to the implementation of the ceasefire. The plan calls or the deployment of the current UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon, to be supported by some 10,000 French forces and 15,000 Lebanese army troops. Other countries may also send troops to take part in the force, which will be responsible to prevent Hizbullah attacks into Israel.

Lebanese authorities and Hizbullah are already signaling the plan is unacceptable since it does not demand an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, but permits a gradual withdrawal of forces over a month. In addition, Lebanese officials are calling the plan discriminatory, since it mentions the need to work towards the release of captive IDF soldiers while not making mention of the release of Lebanese soldiers.
Posted by:Fred

#57  "Peace in our time!" -- it may look like 1938, but it's much much worse.
Posted by: Kalle   2006-08-11 20:09  

#56  I guess I was being optimistic when I said I'd reserve judgment for 12 days.

Olmert has opened the door to the total destruction of Israel. Europe will follow shortly. The survival of Western civilization depends entirely on the USA -- and it will take Islamist nukes on all of the West before the people of this country pick leaders who will take on the real sponsors of Islamofascism.

It's not 1938. It's not 1941. It's 2006, and time for Dan Simmons' three words.

August Twenty-Second. Jerusalem, Rome, London. Recombined bubonic pest. It doesn't matter which it is now, this capitulation to Hizb'Allah opens the door to whatever it will be. We can't count on or hope for anyone else's actions.

Ceterum censeo, Mecca delenda est.
Posted by: Kalle   2006-08-11 20:00  

#55  Crosspatch - I hope that you are correct. If things remain as they are now, Israel will be in full retreat from now on. And Olmert still wants to leave the West Bank.

Cliche #1. The Arabs can make many mistakes, but Israel can only make one. A cliche, but true none the less.

Cliche #2. The Arabs lose, but someone always saves their asses. This time it appears to be the USA. (!)

Cliche #3. The IDF is the toughest army in the world. True, but the political leadership appears to be rotting from the head.

Cliche #4. We can always been able to count on Israels sense of self preservation. I'm not so sure now.

I believe that things always make sense from some level. Something behind the scenes is causing sensible people to take actions that appear non-sensical. I am beginning to wonder if democracies can defeat the challenge of Islamo-Facisism.

Just heard exerts of Mike Wallace's interview with Sean Hannity about his talk with Ahmanutjob. Wallace appears to have been totally charmed by the maximum jihadi in Teheran - he repeadedly called Israel the Zionist entity. He is a posterchild for the MSM: morally backrupt and an enemy of this nation. The bonds that hold America together continue to fray. I am going to buy another case of ammunition.





Posted by: SR-71   2006-08-11 19:39  

#54  It certainly is.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-08-11 18:49  

#53  it be all over
Posted by: Legolas   2006-08-11 16:28  

#52  Thanks Cross...I'll have to go online as I'm at the saltmine. Best news yet. This time I love bein' wrong! Now if Olmert doesn't yank em out...
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-08-11 16:12  

#51  Turn on your television to Fox News ... it has already started. Tens of thousands of troops are at this moment moving across the border.
Posted by: crosspatch   2006-08-11 16:08  

#50  I"m more convinced there will be no attack. The US and France have agreed to ceasefire language and will bring to a vote quickly to save Olmert's butt because he has signaled repeatedly that he does not want to fight it out. Green light....feh..you don't announce your intentions...you announce what you've already undertaken. I hope I'm wrong on this...we'll find out soon.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-08-11 16:05  

#49  "I am afraid this reaction to critcism will end badly. I dont expect Olmert to know how wage war."

I am afraid that many people will not understand that the nature of this war will be different than what Israel has fought before. This will not be a war of maneuver with great tank units outflanking an enemy and causing them to surrender. This will be a slog through clearing bunkers like the US had to do against Japan in the Pacific. One bunker at a time against a well-armed fanatical enemy armed to the teeth and willing to fight to the death.

This is the kind of fight that brings out weapons such as flame throwers to clear bunkers and it is very slow and causes a lot of casualties. The IDF has never engaged in this kind of fight before and it took us a couple of years to perfect our methods for it during WWII ... and that expertise is gone now, for the most part.
Posted by: crosspatch   2006-08-11 15:56  

#48  Another in the many reasons why the deep tank strike us not in the cards here is that unlike earlier IDF wars, the objective here is to inflict casualties on the Hezzies, not break them up and bypass them.

This requires different strategies and tactics.
Posted by: Oldcat   2006-08-11 14:47  

#47  ... and the only way out will be worse than any sane person would hope for.

Then color me less than sane, Kalle. We will find a way out from under the spectre of Islamist terrorism, be it with or without any active cooperation from the world's Muslim population.

As to all of this Hezbollah 2.0 horseradish, it will be pretty hard to re-arm these maggots if Syria and Iran become bouncing rubble.

This administration does not have the stomach another war.

You're presuming that America will continue to engage its enemies with conventional warfare, as in Afghanistan or Iraq, ed.

Any American general worth his or her salt must now know that the era of nation-building is through, possibly forever, at least with respect to Islamic autocracies. We must now adopt a policy of simply breaking the bad boys' toys and letting them crawl out and rebuild on their own. If they reconstruct another terrorist sponsoring regime break rinse and repeat. I will repeat, there is absolutely nothing worse that could be sucked into an Iranian power vacuum than what we are already confronted with as of now.

Olmert's lack of courage is more than disappointing. Israel should declare a vote of no confidence in their current leadership and elect someone with the determination to crush their enemies for once and all.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-11 14:36  

#46  Anyway, for about three and a half of the last four weeks I've been thinking Oldspook was wrong, and Olmert was just about to go on the offensive in a major way.

I've heard six or seven reports over that time that the Big Offensive was about to kick in. Each one turned out to be wrong.

They might be wrong this time, but for the six or seven previous times I owe all the pessimists an apology.
Posted by: Phil   2006-08-11 13:59  

#45  LH: I took notes at the time, and had permission to edit them slightly and repost them (he didn't want to reuse some civil war/ww2 comparisons he was worried might be inappropriate) but I didn't have time to edit them and he later made similar analogies in the comments in the pages 1 and 2 sections.

I suggest asking him.

I don't want to argue from authority or try to repeat what he said with my faulty memory, because I'd wind up putting words in his mouth that he didn't say.

Google isn't helpful in this regard. I guess one day we'll get a "comment search" feature with author, date ranges, and keyword variables.

It does seem odd to suggest that now an interdiction approach instead of a frontal assault approach wouldn't have worked because the frontal assault approach didn't work.
Posted by: Phil   2006-08-11 12:57  

#44  I am watching TV now.
Israelis are are warming up,
UN convoy headed west , out of the way.
Posted by: j. D. Lux   2006-08-11 12:45  

#43  "It was not immediately clear whether Israel was trying to pressure the U.N. Security Council, which was expected to vote soon on a cease-fire resolution, or whether it was really determined to send troops deeper into Lebanon.

The Israeli officials said Israel was upset about apparent last-minute changes that seemed to weaken the mandate of a multinational force."

Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-11 12:25  

#42  I dont know what OSs intell was on the degree of fortification and strength of Hezb, or how that related to the intell in Olmerts plan.

Im going by what I read in the Israeli press, and the debate going on in Israel, including by IDF generals who thought Olmert was wrong.

Im not sure how a war of maneuver wins. Hezb is presumably supplied in its strongholds for months, and Israel would inevitably have faced a ceasefire in less time than it would take for to cutting off Hezb to be effective. Everyone in the ME is aware of what Sharon did in '73, and I dont beleive Hezb was in the same logistical situation as the Egyptian 3rd army was. Blitz warfare doesnt work if the staybehinds can outlast you.

Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-11 12:24  

#41  Sounds Like... [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

...U.N. resolution plans are failing ....

Posted at 11:41 AM

the link goes to an announcement of the larger ground war ... we shall see
Posted by: Legolas   2006-08-11 12:07  

#40  Olmert just rejected the Fwench cease-fire (arutz 10 & Fox) and the invasion is on.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-08-11 12:03  

#39  The Leb army, if deployed south of the Litani, will be made of largely of shiites. Guess where their sympathies lie. Even if they wanted to enforce the central government's will, their families/clan/tribe are vulnerable to Hizb'allah.

The only positive to Leb army deployment is that attacks restart, the responsiblity will fall on the central government, which can then be defeated and the land taken away.
Posted by: ed   2006-08-11 12:00  

#38  OS is hanging around the OC?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-11 11:59  

#37  since the lebanese army = hezbollah i don't see much good there
Posted by: Legolas   2006-08-11 11:59  

#36  Reality folks. Hezb is stronger and more dug in than Israel OR the US expected when this war began (we can debate whos at fault for THAT, but its not relevant now) To fully destroy Hezb would take months, and the US cant wield its veto to stop a ceasefire indefinitely, at an acceptable diplomatic cost, with so many other irons in the fire. Besides, suppose you DO kill every Hezb militant, and destroy every missile, at the cost of alienating EVERY Lebanese, and destroying all the anti-Syrian and anti-Iranain elements in the Leb govt. What then? Israel still has to leave at some point. Then the Iranians, who set up Hezb in the first place, just come back and create Hezb 2.0.

There IS no way to destroy Hezb now. The BEST outcome is a ceasefire, and some improvement in terms of an international force, Leb army troops, and keeping Hezb away from the border. The arguement within Israel now is HOW to achieve that, whether to focus on diplomacy, or another week or two of fighting to improve bargaining leverage.

As long as Israel is fighting to "improve bargaining leverage" rather than to wreck the enemy, Hizbullah isn't going to be wrecked.

You know, when this whole cluster**** started, Oldspook dropped by the O-Club and described in depth what he thought was wrong with Israel's strategy.

He didn't say that Israel was going to fail to destroy Hezbollah because Hezbollah was indestructible. He said Israel was going to fail because they weren't specifically doing a number of actions to transform the war from battles of attrition to battles of maneuver. (Loosely summarizing; I hope he or someone else will correct me if that summary is wrong).

He gave examples at the time.

I thought at the time he was being unduly pessimistic.

However, it seems to have been borne out by subsequent events. He made predictions based on what courses of action Israel took, that if they did one thing it would produce one result, and if they did another it would produce another result.

None of these were based on "Hizbollah being tougher than everyone thought."
Posted by: Phil   2006-08-11 11:52  

#35  The US had 3 years to attack Syria and 5 years to attack Iran. I didn't happen even under severe provocation. Get used to it. This administration does not have the stomach another war. Syria will continue sponsoring terrorists against th US and Syria until Israel, not the US, overthrows them. As for Iran, they will become the second Islamic nuclear power. I expect the Iranians to attack the US when they build up several thousand warheads (15-20 years). In the mean time, the Iranians will harass and demoralize us with ever increasing attacks both against our military and cities in order drive the US out of the middle east, then south Asia, then Europe. I believe the 27 years and counting of Neville Chamberlain's policyies w.r.t. Iran will cause the US greater deaths than WW2 (all nations combined).
Posted by: ed   2006-08-11 11:52  

#34  "It is difficult to imagine a peacekeeping force implementing UN resolultion 1559--particularly if the force is largely made up of the Lebanese military. The Lebanese military, most likely, is made up of a fair number of Hezzballah. So where does that put the West? Not in the catbird seat by any means. Seems like same old same old--as was said by by LH and NS--a Hezzballah Version 2.0. Improved and more dangerous with all the newest bells and whistles provided by Iran and Sy"

The Leb army wont be asked to FULLY implement 1559, since 1559 calls for the full disarmament of Hezb. What the Leb Army WILL be tasked with is keeping Hezb out of the zone south of the Litani.

Will they be up to it? Unclear. Only 15,000 troops will go, not the entire Leb Army, and it may be possible to select more reliable units. Also the US will be training the Leb army.

If anyone in the Leb army is shot at by Hezb, that will be a huge deal politically in Lebanon, and will open up the possibility of a different configuration of forces against Hezb.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-11 11:47  

#33  Diplomatic pressure

"According to one of my sources Israel is going to reject the diplomatic efforts spearheaded by America at the UN.
The resolution that America in the end has agreed to will do nothing to protect Israel
As a result of this according to my source in the next few hours Olmert will give the order to restart the war and the IDF will march north to the Litani River and maybe beyond."

yoni blogger

I am afraid this reaction to critcism will end badly. I dont expect Olmert to know how wage war.
Posted by: Clerert Uneamp2772   2006-08-11 11:42  

#32  Reality is what you create on the ground. Even if a UN resolution is reached, who will enforce it? France? Don't make me laugh. The Israelis would have an easier time attacking France than visa versa.

So far only localized raids have been conducted to kill local concentrations of shiite jihadis. The key to this conflict is to drive the shiites into sponsor Syria. That means attacking shiite towns and villages to create a refuggee flow into Syria and then destroying the structures, electical, water, and sewer systems that make easy return possible. If any shiite later tries to return, then shell them until they leave. No shiites, no support system for Hizb'allah. Ideally, the Israelis should annex southern Lebanon as punishment for starting this war, but since they won't do it, they need to ensure the abandoned shiite areas are repopulated buy a friendlies. The shiites started the war against the Israeli civilain population. The Israelis are late in joining.
Posted by: ed   2006-08-11 11:38  

#31  Too late Lebanon is now a terror state Syria clone; Lebanon is history and oiless and will not be propped.
Posted by: SamAdamsky   2006-08-11 11:33  

#30  It is difficult to imagine a peacekeeping force implementing UN resolultion 1559--particularly if the force is largely made up of the Lebanese military. The Lebanese military, most likely, is made up of a fair number of Hezzballah. So where does that put the West? Not in the catbird seat by any means. Seems like same old same old--as was said by by LH and NS--a Hezzballah Version 2.0. Improved and more dangerous with all the newest bells and whistles provided by Iran and Syria.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-08-11 11:21  

#29  "When this campaign widens into war with Syria and Iran, the US will take the opportunity to destroy these two terrorist states. Hizb'Allah does not live or grow in a void."

If thats whats going to happen, then its all the more important for Israel to take steps that help the US political and diplo position, more important than killing a few more Hezb terrorists.

Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-11 11:10  

#28  "Hezb is stronger and more dug in than Israel OR the US expected when this war began (we can debate whos at fault for THAT, but its not relevant now) To fully destroy Hezb would take months

You say. It is not clear that there has ever been a competent sustained effort to remove Hezb by sufficient combined arms forces."


Thats my point. The reason they thought they could win WITHOUT a large combined arms force was BECAUSE they didnt think Hezb was that strong.

"There IS no way to destroy Hezb now. The BEST outcome is a ceasefire

And that is an invitation to Iran to create Hezb 2.0."

Yes, but Hezb 2.0 wont be south of the Litani. Thats a benefit militarily, and begins to weaken Hezb politically, on the ground in S Leb. And strengthens the Leb state.

" This logic is evidence of the moral failure that has caused the defeat of Israel in this war. Israel has never been in mortal danger in this war from rockets or any other material factor. It's morale has been attacked and, by this logic, defeated."

For now. If they get a good political deal that will reduce the loss of morale. And then they will fix whats wrong with the military, and probably get rid of Olmert. It will take them months to a year or more to recover morale, but they will do it.

" The only way for Israel to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is to destroy Hezb' Allah now, regardless of what the Lebnanese think, regardless of what the Americans think. "

Israel cannot afford to ignore the Americans. Can NOT. Then when they have to fight Hez 2.0, they will do so isolated.

"And a moral defeat of these dimensions for Israel will only lead Ahmedinajihad to believe he can achieve a similar defeat of the Americans, not give the Americans more room for anything."

Which isnt necessarily bad. The more Ahmadinajad overreaches, the worse it is for him.

" And the election returns from Conneticut didn't do much to dissuade him."

Disappointed as I am with those returns (enough to consider changing my party registration) I doubt Ahmadinajad follows them closely.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-11 11:08  

#27  Kalle, widening the war to include Syria and Iran is politically more feasible the quicker it is done, not the slower. The current delay simply gives the usual world anti-Israel coalition time to mobilize.
Posted by: Odysseus   2006-08-11 10:49  

#26  Something missing from your reality, lh.

When this campaign widens into war with Syria and Iran, the US will take the opportunity to destroy these two terrorist states. Hizb'Allah does not live or grow in a void.

Israel has not lost and doesn't have to agree to a ceasefire as long as they are killing Hizb'Allah members and the Lebanese government supports Hizb'Allah and the distinct Syrian as well as Iranian threats remain. If these two believe --as many do-- that Israeli leadership is confused or weak, they may very well make their fatal mistake.

I'm not prepared to judge now whether the information on the state of Israeli leadership is accurate. I remain open to the possibility that there are much wider strategic objectives in play.

During WW II a lot of disinformation was only aimed at the enemy's secret services. Today the UN and MSM are so involved in shaping perception (and planning) that one should assume these are scenes of disinformation.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2006-08-11 10:39  

#25  Hezb is stronger and more dug in than Israel OR the US expected when this war began (we can debate whos at fault for THAT, but its not relevant now) To fully destroy Hezb would take months

You say. It is not clear that there has ever been a competent sustained effort to remove Hezb by sufficient combined arms forces.

There IS no way to destroy Hezb now. The BEST outcome is a ceasefire

And that is an invitation to Iran to create Hezb 2.0. This logic is evidence of the moral failure that has caused the defeat of Israel in this war. Israel has never been in mortal danger in this war from rockets or any other material factor. It's morale has been attacked and, by this logic, defeated. The only way for Israel to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is to destroy Hezb' Allah now, regardless of what the Lebnanese think, regardless of what the Americans think.

And a moral defeat of these dimensions for Israel will only lead Ahmedinajihad to believe he can achieve a similar defeat of the Americans, not give the Americans more room for anything. And the election returns from Conneticut didn't do much to dissuade him.

Viet Nam. Quagmire. Defeat. Negotiate. Nonsense.

Just win, baby.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-11 10:36  

#24  Reality folks. Hezb is stronger and more dug in than Israel OR the US expected when this war began (we can debate whos at fault for THAT, but its not relevant now) To fully destroy Hezb would take months, and the US cant wield its veto to stop a ceasefire indefinitely, at an acceptable diplomatic cost, with so many other irons in the fire. Besides, suppose you DO kill every Hezb militant, and destroy every missile, at the cost of alienating EVERY Lebanese, and destroying all the anti-Syrian and anti-Iranain elements in the Leb govt. What then? Israel still has to leave at some point. Then the Iranians, who set up Hezb in the first place, just come back and create Hezb 2.0.

There IS no way to destroy Hezb now. The BEST outcome is a ceasefire, and some improvement in terms of an international force, Leb army troops, and keeping Hezb away from the border. The arguement within Israel now is HOW to achieve that, whether to focus on diplomacy, or another week or two of fighting to improve bargaining leverage.

The rockets are NOT now threatening Israels existence. If Hezb is pushed north of the Litani, their short range missile are out of the picture, and its only their costlier, yet innaccurate long range ones that matter. In the worst case, if they fire off the heads of the international force and the world does nothing, they cant threaten Israels existence. Meanwhile youve given the US more room to deal with the bigger threat, which is Iran itself.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-11 10:18  

#23  "...release of captive IDF soldiers while not making mention of the release of Lebanese soldiers."

No resolution will end this conflict if there is any perception of humiliation on either side. (Especially Hizbullah) Call it what you want…but it’s a fact. With that said, if Israel capitulates on the unconditional release of their abducted soldiers (with the exception of captured HAMAS “legislators”), they will have publicly acknowledged that kidnapping is a legitimate tool for negotiation.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-08-11 10:05  

#22  What does the agreement gain Israel?

An end to senseless bloodshed. Israel has been defeated morally by Hezb' Allah. They apparently do not now have the will to fight this war. Therefore, it is senseless and immoral to continue killing people to no end. Israel needs to have an election and decide if they want to survive as a nation or if they are really going to throw in the towel.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-11 09:30  

#21  Correct the double negative: "didn't not work" and spelling of Mein Kampf. Sorry.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-08-11 09:22  

#20  I'll reserve judgment on this "enemy reload agreement." What does this agreement gain the West? What does the agreement gain Israel? Why is resoultion 1559 not enforced, i.e. disarmament of Hezzballah. We are going to end up paying a greater price later. Rembember the mass murder of the 241 Marine peacekeeping force in the early 1980s. Doing nothing only emboldened these terrorists and the countries behind them. Nassarallah, Hezzballah, Syria, and Iran are going to view this agreement as a win and become more emboldened. The price for addressing the problem in the future will be even greater. The West had better count their collective fingers after shaking hands on any agreement with these guys to see if any of them are missing. This agreement will just be another step towards achieving the islamofacist's overall goal of power and world domination. Their pursuit of this goal is widespread, focused, relentless, and driven by religion. There is no appeasement with these guys. It didn't not work with Adolph Hitler and it will not work with these folks. Appeasement just emboldened Hitler to seize more and kill more to accomplish his objective. Hitler stated in Mein Kamf what he intended to do. He proceeded to do what he said. The Iranian nut case has basically stated his intentions, i.e. to destroy Israeli. Why is this not clear to the world?
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-08-11 09:18  

#19  Seems to me that weapon is likely to result in too much collateral damage. Israel needs to get someone with Infantry experience to head the IDF and then go kill Hezbos one by one until they are all dead. They would be finished by now if they had started a month ago. The objective is simple. Kill All Hezbos.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-11 08:08  

#18  Bigger war s near.
Posted by: Clerert Uneamp2772   2006-08-11 07:40  

#17  Latest update.
Lebanon: Cease-fire draft 'unacceptable'
A new obstacle arose over the latest UN draft proposal to stop the fighting between Israel and Hizbullah on Thursday night, when Lebanon refused to allow the French to enforce its mandate as allowed by the UN's chapter VII regulations.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said in an interview with Al-Jazeera news station that he was opposed to the draft proposal because it did not call for an immediate cease-fire.

Posted by: gromgoru   2006-08-11 05:13  

#16  Here is the link to the New York Times article:

Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-11 05:11  

#15  Israel Seeking American ‘Wide BlastÂ’ Rockets

11:22 August 11, 2006


(IsraelNN.com) Israel is calling on the United States to speed up the delivery of M-26 short range cluster munitions rockets, which deliver a wide blast to the target area.

The rockets would be particularly effective against Hizbullah missile launchers. They are fired by the dozen and strike a wide range area.

Some State Department officials are seeking to delay approval of the rockets, the New York Times report, explaining opponents fear the use of the rockets would sharply increase civilian casualties.

The deal involving the M-26 rockets has been approved, but shipment did not take place prior to the start of the war against Hizbullah in July. Israel is now working to expedite delivery.

---------------------------------------------

So... the war may last...
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-11 05:03  

#14  IsraelNationalNews just said that "30 Israeli tanks have been destroyed by [Hezbonuts]" and that "The militaries are surprised how easily Hezboschmucks are able to destroy tanks, with top-of-the-art Russian anti-tank rockets".

I wanted to post the link, but the news disappeared strangely from their site.
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-11 05:01  

#13  So it looks like this then ...

There will be a force now deployed South of the Litani. Hezbollah is now free to fire their rockets from North of the Litani and if Israel wants to get them, they now have to fight their way through a UN force first. In other words, the UN transforms from a Hezbollah "monitoring" force, to a Hezbollah protection force.

Wonderful ... just fricken wonderful. What jeenyus thought this up?
Posted by: crosspatch   2006-08-11 04:46  

#12  #10, Well said Kalle, well said.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-08-11 04:16  

#11  " The senior minister added that there are several points that must be included in any ceasefire plan, including the deployment of a multinational stabilization force in southern Lebanon, removing the threat of future Katyusha rocket attacks against Israel, disarming Hizbullah and setting in motion a plan towards the release of captive IDF soldiers."

1. deployment of a multinational stabilization force in southern Lebanon=Israel's myopia!

2. removing the threat of future Katyusha rocket attacks against Israel=Israel's on crack!

3. disarming Hizbullah and setting in motion a plan towards the release of captive IDF soldiers=Israel's hallucinating erotic fantasy!
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2006-08-11 04:06  

#10  I reserve judgment until more facts come to light.

Let's give it another 12 days. It sounds like the Lebanese are unwilling to let any form of UN-sponsored obstacle be erected in front of Hizb'Allah. So be it.

I suspect that the fog of war is dense. I expect that the enemy will provoke a larger fight. I worry that this campaign in WW IV will only be remembered as a prelude to major battles.

I believe the US, Israel and a strong, small, willing coalition are ready for anything the Islamofascists will throw at us. The last 40 years have strengthened and emboldened our enemy, without and within. We will suffer large losses. Our leaders and intellectuals have painted us into this corner -- and the only way out will be worse than any sane person would hope for.

Even when it may seem we are losing, or about to lose, always remember that the Western Way of War will prevail. If needs be, the spirit of Leonidas and his men can be found in our midst. We are at war. A war that will last a long time, cost us dearly -- and lead to the annihilation of our enemy.

Diplomats and ceasefire plans are but smoke. Who is shaping the battlefield behind that smoke's screen?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2006-08-11 03:07  

#9  Plenty of blame for both Olmert and Rice here.
Posted by: JSU   2006-08-11 02:57  

#8  Olmert don't want to fight and we can't make him. I am sorry but the US is not going to hold his hand. What is that old saying "sh*t ot get off the pot."
Posted by: djohn66   2006-08-11 02:55  

#7  Yes, yes, Rex. The fact is, USA has plans for the Middle East. Ones' that do not include the only way Israel can become really secure.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-08-11 02:39  

#6  Not so sure gromgoru - if recent accounts are true. We gave them all the green light they needed and Olmert didnt' pack the sack necessary. Now Condi is out there trying to salvage what we can thanks to spineless Olmert. I don't see any backstabbing on our part....at least not yet.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-08-11 02:34  

#5  When a state fighting for its life is backstabbed by its only ally, Rex Mundi...
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-08-11 02:25  

#4  So Israel sends it back for modification, just like Lebanon did last week, and we go round and round and round....
Posted by: Oldcat   2006-08-11 02:02  

#3  When the survival of the state has been established to be very much in doubt - when the duly elected government has brokent their vow to protect the populace especially when that same populace has made it clear they wish the enemy to be crushed, then I would think the military has every right to remove them. Olmert's government is on the brink of declaring itself illegitimate.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-08-11 01:33  

#2  Will Olmert's missing spine be found before it's too late?
Posted by: Kirk   2006-08-11 01:15  

#1  So, let me get this straight (If there is anything in the world that is straight anymore). You, THE WORLD are beholden to demands of terrorists and it is not only US and France policy to negotiate with terrorists, but the UN's point of view as well?

You are walking on eggshells with me. All of you.
Posted by: newc   2006-08-11 01:03  

00:00