A False Peace
An Agreement That Binds Only One Side Is No Agreement At All
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in War — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You need only review the latest statements from Kofi Annan (here and here) to grasp the fraudulent nature of the cease-fire in Israel's war with Hezbollah. While I had initially regarded the cease fire as a good idea in theory that was impractical in light of the facts on the ground, it is increasingly clear that it's not even defensible on paper. Annan is demanding verifiable compliance by Israel, by a date certain, with specific terms regarding the withdrawal of troops and the lifting of a blockade. He makes no similar demands on Hezbollah, but merely expresses his hope that Lebanon will make progress in dealing with Hezbollah:
Mr Annan said that the Lebanese authorities yesterday assured him they were taking measures to stop the flow of weapons from Syria and Iran their ally Hezbollah via sea and air, and that he believed Israel's security concerns could be addressed.
"In the meantime, I do believe the blockade should be lifted," Annan said.
He added: "I had serious discussions with the Lebanese leadership and I am really convinced that they are serious about implementing Resolution 1701 in its entir[e]ty."
The same goes for the Israeli hostages:
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Wednesday morning that he'll do everything he can to return the captured Israeli soldiers.
Cease-fire agreements are contracts. Contracts require verifiable compliance by both sides. This deal has specific requirements on Israel and nothing but hope and promises to which no one can be held, on the other.
I remain undecided as to whether the cease fire was a wise move by Israel. Supporters of the agreement have argued that sooner or later it will be clear enough that Hezbollah can not and will not comply with even its most minimal terms regarding disarmament and the release of hostages, and that this will enable Israel to reopen hostilities with greater international backing. Either way, however, one can not possibly take this agreement at face value as being worth anything at all.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Another Public Announcement: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the VFW and the American Legion — Comments (5) »
A False Peace 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I didn't know it was scandalous to give our allies what they wanted in terms of diplomacy. And by allies I mean Israel, not France.
This is all on Olmert, not Bush, Rice, or any American. It's up to him to prove that this was a good idea, or up to him and his cabinet to take responsibility for its failure.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
that would be easier to believe had Rice not been the architect and pricipal advocate for the Resolution. Rice's public statements in support of the Resolution were pretty unrealistic. She made herself look rather naive.
Pin it all on that hopelessly starry-eyed Condi Rice. I mean she doesn't know squat about how the world works right? Clearly she went in with this grand idea, sprung it on the Israelis completely by surprise, and engineered this whole diplomatic situation.
I mean, that's the situation you're describing isn't it?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
UNSC 1701 again. It is not premised on disarming Hezbollah.
Seems to me we really don't have a dog in this fight and as Olmert signed on to the ceasefire you should blame people who are actually involved.
The US does appear to have been part of pressuring Israel to make this happen when it happened, as were many other members of the "international community" but I do think it's almost entirely Olmert's fault for winding up in that situation - we clearly and publicly gave him a diplomatic blank check at the start of the war to press on to victory and he frittered it away to the point where we were among those whose interests were served by stopping the fight.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
one sided.
Israel is expected to keep them to the letter, while everyone else just needs to be better understood.
If Israel cared what the world thinks, it wouldn't exist. So it's up to them to MAKE it work to their advantage.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I think that both Israel and Iran/Hezbollah had tactical reasons for a pause in the war, and hence agreed to the cease fire.
For Israel, the tactics of rooting out Hezbollah weren't working very well. Israel was taking casualties and not cleaning Hezbollah out once and for all. So Israel could use time for a rethink of how to destroy Hezbollah right.
For Hezbollah, Israel clearly hurt them more than they admitted. They lost a lot of men, and no matter how many rockets they started with, I'm sure that they could use resupply. Not to mention food, etc.
For Iran, they had demonstrated their power to cause disruption and otherwise make trouble if the West confronts them over their nuclear program. Point made and acknowledged. Time for Iran to test whether they can split the Security Council members re: sanctions. Iran can order the resumption of the war any time. After all, the fighters are only Arabs, who Iran despises anyway. If the West puts their soldiers on the border, so much the better; Iran can attack them as well.
Viewed this way, all the players had reasons to stop the war, for a time. The US and Europe really didn't call the shots in this one.
Neil and Streiff are correct that Olmert failed to make the most of the blank check he received from the administration in the first weeks of the war. And he was certainly consulted before we agreed to 1701. But it is incorrect to say that 1701 did not include disarming Hizbollah. It reaffirmed 1559, which calls for Hizbollah to be disarmed.
The administration may indeed have concluded that our ally, Israel, was not up to the task at the moment, and accordingly accepted our other ally, France's, position on a watered down 1701. The point made by Crank is that 1701 is being interpreted by the UN as simply a directive to Israel, not an "agreement". And my point was intended to be (but not well-expressed) that the administration makes things worse by accepting this interpretation, remaining silent as Kofi preens in his central role, hectoring Israel alone.
"[O]ne can not possibly take this agreement at face value as being worth anything at all."
How right you are. The lack of mutuality is further underscored by Annan's statement that Israel is the only party that has "violated" the agreement. Of course, if the other parties have no obligations, how can they possibly violate them?
This is a complete sham. The cease-fire was premised on disarming Hizbollah. So much for that. And now there is not even an enforceable mechanism to prevent rearming the terrorists.
The scandal in this is that Bush, Rice and Bolton are all apparently willing to let Annan play hall monitor on this.