Cease-fire: Must Hezbollah Disarm?

http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2492

What precisely did Israel get out of the cease-fire in Lebanon? Well, it got a (temporary) cessation of rocket attacks on its cities. And … well, not much else.

As Douglas Davis wrote for the Spectator, “Israelis emerged from their bomb shelters to find that nothing much had changed, apart from the devastation that was caused by about a thousand Hezbollah missiles. The message that greeted them was that their protection against future attacks would come not from their army but from a United Nations resolution which promises much but is unlikely to deliver. There is little confidence among Israelis that a UN resolution can succeed where the combined might of the Israeli army, navy and air force failed” (August 19).

Not only was Israel’s greatest tool of deterrence—the perception of its invincibility—smashed. Not only are the two Israeli soldiers who were taken hostage still in Hezbollah’s hands. Not only is a psychologically boosted and popular Hezbollah still flourishing right over the border. Not only have the main culprits—Iran and Syria—gotten off scot-free.

In addition to all these unsavory realities, the cease-fire Israel agreed to makes no provision for Hezbollah to be disarmed.

Of course, Hezbollah refuses to disarm. The Lebanese government says it won’t forcefully disarm Hezbollah. The United Nations force has not been assigned the job. What’s more, though a 15,000-man UN force has been promised as part of the cease-fire agreement, few countries are committing troops until Hezbollah disarms voluntarily.

Who then, pray tell, will disarm Hezbollah?

Stratfor wrote yesterday,

The main complication underlying the extremely fragile cease-fire currently hovering over Lebanon is Hezbollah’s refusal (and lack of incentive) to disarm. Despite the fact that Israel has failed to cripple the resistance movement militarily, the international community is now talking as though it will be able to do so diplomatically. The Lebanese Army will coexist with Hezbollah—a far cry from forcing it to disarm. The task of taking on Hezbollah fighters thus falls on the shoulders of the United Nations—though most contributing countries have volunteered only on the condition that Hezbollah first disarm voluntarily.

What it comes down to is, no nation will cross Hezbollah: No one is prepared to forcefully disarm this band of terrorists, and no nation will enter the fray until it is disarmed. Perhaps this is as good as it gets: The French daily Le Monde quoted a high-ranking UN official as saying, “We are not going to actively seek out Hezbollah’s arms …. But if, during a patrol, we come across a cache, our mandate is to seize those rockets.” Surely that must have Hezbollah running scared.

And this is the agreement Israels have invested their faith in?

As Douglas Davis wrote, this cease-fire “simply guarantees that the next round will be even more devastating, vicious and deadly.”

The UN will accomplish nothing, they never have and never will.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday called Israel's air and sea blockade of Lebanon a "humiliation," while Israel said it won't end the embargo until peacekeeping forces on the border can prevent Hezbollah guerrillas from importing new weapons.

Annan said the United Nations hoped to double its 2,500-member force in southern Lebanon by Friday, but that number was still far short of the 15,000 international troops authorized under a Security Council cease-fire resolution approved Aug. 11.

An Italian task force, led by the country's only aircraft carrier, the Giuseppe Garibaldi, sailed from southern Italy for Lebanon. Three landing platform dock ships also left the port of Brindisi, and a small frigate already in Cyprus was scheduled to join the Italian mission, the Defense Ministry said.

Italy on Monday approved sending 2,500 troops, the largest national contingent so far. The plan now goes to Parliament for approval, but the ships were to set sail ahead of the vote and reach Lebanon on Friday.

"We will follow you with trepidation because it is a delicate mission of huge historic significance," Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told about 1,000 soldiers bound for U.N. peacekeeping duties. "But we will also follow you with pride and trust, knowing that although you carry arms, you're going to Lebanon exclusively to bring peace."

Some of the crew shared the mixed feelings.

"This mission came all of a sudden," said Sgt. Gaspare Scavone, 33, on his first mission abroad. "We're still in the dark as to what we will have to do once we're in the area."

Spain's Defense Ministry said a marine unit was ordered to prepare for deployment to Lebanon to join the U.N. peacekeeping force. The ministry would not disclose the number of troops but Spain's Socialist government reportedly is considering sending between 700 and 1,000. The government is expected to approve the deployment at a Cabinet meeting Friday and then must seek Parliament's approval.

A battalion of 900 French soldiers will arrive in Lebanon in mid-September to help boost the peacekeeping force, the Defense Ministry said. France now has about 400 soldiers in the force and plans to expand that number to 2,000.

On Monday, Turkey's Cabinet decided in favor of sending peacekeepers and its parliament was to debate the deployment later this week or early next week, said Turkish government spokesman Cemil Cicek.

Turkey ruled Lebanon for some 400 years during the Ottoman Empire and many Turkish officials want their country to have a say in an area that they regard as their country's backyard.

Any bets that the Italians don't even leave the ships?

Any bets that the French contingent doesn't ever leave thier compound?

quote:

Originally posted by thegunny:
Any bets that the Italians don't even leave the ships?

Depends...what's in it for them?

quote:

Any bets that the French contingent doesn't ever leave thier compound?

The French have a lot of interest in the area....they may even make an effort.