Justus For All

Listen to Rice’s comments about “ceasefire” and you will realise just how effective this is going to be.

What will happen when a member of the International Force shoots the second Israeli sodier to cross the line? All shooting hell is going to break loose.

Who’s fault will it be?

Perhaps Probligo you could inform us what comments indicate how effective this will be and why you think it indicates whatever you think it indicates.

As for your second scenario, it seems highly unlikely to me.

(Preface) Hmmm, fascinating. I went here to find the “official” version of the story and guess what? It just is not there. According to State Dept Rice was going to Lebanon but nothing happened there worthy of report until she reached Israel. There is no report for 7/22 at all. Well that is the only reason I can think of. Which is a pity, because I would like to read the full transcript, not just CNN’s clip.

Dave, the greatest hurdle will be finding someone to stand in the middle. Let’s just imagine for a moment that a force comprising Poland, South Africa, and India volunteer.

What will be their terms of engagement (TOE)? If they see rockets going south, are they empowered to shoot at Lebanon? If they see rockets heading north, are they empowered to shoot at Israel?

There has never yet been a UN Force that was given deadly fire engagement terms of operation. In saying that I am assuming that Korea was not a UN operation, and I believe that to be correct. In every instance of peacekeeping forces to date, the TOE have limited the role of UN attached forces to “observation and defense”. (One might recall here that the TOE in Rwanda is at the root of “the ineffectiveness of the UN” in that instance because the UN was not thought to be “under attack” and was permitted only to defend themselves).

So, as usual, the UN (or whoever else sponsors the proposed force) is being set up as the Israeli / US pratfall. For that reason alone, no one will want to volunteer.

Any nation that does volunteer (other than the US) will be held “responsible” for the failure of the exercise by both sides. That has to be another good reason for not volunteering.
_______________________________________________

Now, if there is a volunteer, if the TOE allows “prevention” as distinct from “observation”, and an Israeli military aircraft heads north with intent does the UN force shoot it down (given that the US would allow them the capability to be that effective - another moot)?

Then, if the shoot down was successful….

And there, I have joined the dots for you.

The converse is, of course, that if an international force (as Rice proposes) is not permitted “prevention” but is limited to observation and self defence, then WTF would it be doing there? Absolutely nothing… except perhaps being killed in yet another “tragic mistake”.

Dots joined for you again.

What will that lead to?

The US will provide the force, outside of international or UN control. Follow the dots from that point onward… Israel will get what they want - someone else to do their dirty work for them. The US will be the international bad boy once again because the only side they would shoot at would be Lebanon (and Syria of course). The US will take that on the nose because “they are furthering their interests” in ME under the supposed aegis of the UN.

Parkinson would call that a nice piece of non-origination indeed!

There have of course been numerous multinational forces operating with and without U.N. approval with vastly different ROE than what you describe.

The objective of a multinational force deployed into Southern Lebanon would not be to simply sit between the two forces, the objective would be to disarm Hezbollah, as the international community promised to do in 2000 when Israel withdrew from Lebanon. The international community failed to keep that promise, with the consequences we are seeing now.

I don’t know who would volunteer. It appears that Egypt and Turkey have agreed to do this. Whether any other nations would step forward will have to be seen.

All that asside though, you don’t want Israel in Southern Lebanon, you don’t want a multi-national force in southern Lebanon, what is your solution?

Hey Dave, where did I say “Don’t want”?

Yes, I am aware that Turkey and Egypt have stepped forward. But have you read the right-whinger’s response? Most seem to think that would be worse than handing the prison keys to the criminals.

And therein lies my second point that “Any nation that does volunteer (other than the US) will be held “responsible” for the failure of the exercise by both sides. That has to be another good reason for not volunteering.”

I personally would have no problem with there being “Islamic” forces in Southern Lebanon.

I suspect, however, that there will be a number of extremely powerful people take exception to the idea.

It is likely too that any failure (and I predict with sadness that to be the most likely outcome) would be blamed on the fact that Turkey and Egypt would not be seen to be fair, independant, or objective in their “police action”.

Syria occupied Lebanon for 30 years, an occupation that was seen in the beginning as a “stabilising saviour” of the nation. Their ability to effectively disarm the private militias that were at war (with the one exception of Hizbollah) brought peace in place of civil war. Is it still the boon it was then? I say “Yes!, A thousand times YES!” But how much of that success was achieved with the assistance of Hizbollah? How much of Hizbollah was the outcome of Syria’s success?

Is the Lebanon of today the same nation that was at war with Israel in 1948? Is that history to be remembered or forgotten?

Step forward; how long do you think Turkey and Egypt will “occupy” Lebanon? How long before Israel starts seeing shadows moving in the walls again?

What would I do?

How do you set right a nation where the election turnout in the last three elections was less than 40% overall, where the Shi’ite turnout lifted that with their 55%+ voting - mostly for Hizbollah? It is not a case of corrupt or despotic government.

At worst it is a very effective minority with the ability and power to influence and even ignore the government - in its power base it IS the government.

What do you do when that minority is 40% of the nation?

I certainly didn’t mean to put any words in your mouth. I assumed that since you were convinced that a multinational force would be ineffective that you didn’t want that.

I am still confused as to what you do want, as you totally failed to answer that question.

I think it is somewhat difficult to gauge how popular Hezbollah is in the territories they control. There seems to be a fairly large degree of intimidation and the last election (and the only recent one without Syrian interference) was virtually uncontested in some of the Hezbollah controlled regions.

Regardless, an armed Hezbollah is profoundly undemocratic. Political parties in a democracy do not, and cannot, be a private army as well. That is incompatible with basic democratic principles. The Lebanese Government is too weak to take on Hezbollah directly, so the international community should live up to its obligations, both to Lebanon and Israel and disarm Hezbollah, by force if necessary.

Dave, I think that the relationship between Hizbollah and its electorate is far closer and more friendly than you might imagine.

As I understand it, Hizbollah has effectively created “a state within a state” in Southern Lebanon. Yes, they have a well equipped and effective army. Hizbollah also provides welfare, health and education to its electorate. To that extent they are as legitimate “government” in South Lebanon as Hamas is in Palestine.

There is no connection between that and the problems of a buffer force between Israel and Lebanon.

There is a difference between “not wanting” something, or “providing an answer” on the one hand and on the other trying to develop a debate on how to overcome apparent difficulties before arriving at a solution to the problem.

OK, the simple answer is “let Egypt and Turkey be the policemen”. Simple. Uncomplicated. I could also say “Simplistic”, “Complicating”.

It is one of the things that makes me quite angry, not at you personally but at people who find solutions to problems with no consideration of just what new problems their simplistic approach might cause. Primo example number one - US trying to introduce “democracy” into Iraq and then getting surprised when the country starts splitting into three irreconcilable factions, and at the cross-border implications of two of those factions.

So, I think the proposed solution in Lebanon is “simplistic in the extreme”. Doesn’t mean I oppose it, just “be aware of what could happen”. Doesn’t mean I have a better answer. I haven’t.