Couldn't See That One Coming, Now Could We?
Hezbollah Wants Peace To Rebuild
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The other day the contributors had a heated private discussion about Ehud Olmert's rush to peace. It seems to a lot of us that he has held back his troops from waging an aggressive war while at the same time criticizing them for not being as successful as he wants. He was also very willing to accept a U.N. Resolution and cease fire, though it would leave Hezbollah un-destroyed. Perhaps some of us have rushed to judgment. It seems Olmert may realize what the rest of us already knew, but just played his cards very close to his chest.
Hezbollah will not disarm. That is a key tenet to the United Nation's resolution. Hezbollah must disarm. Their ministers in the Lebanese Government intended to accept those terms. Then they informed the government that militarily they could not disarm. At the same time Iran is publicly questioning why Hezbollah should disarm. Now Lebanon's government stands on the verge of collapse and Olmert looks like a man running for peace and forced into war.
Read on . . .
A senior Lebanese government official told The Times that Hezbollah was refusing to give up any of its weapons or to move out of an agreed “arms-free zone” south of the Litani river. As he spoke, 30,000 Israeli troops waged a fierce ground offensive against Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon and Israeli jets bombed more than 50 towns and villages as well as Beirut.
Olmert has, despite massive public criticism in his country and from his military accepted the UN Resolution and the Israeli Cabinet has called a cease fire. Should Hezbollah fail to disarm, as we all knew they would do, Olmert will have not only won the ability to go in and destroy Hezbollah, but he will have also won a major publicity coup.
The world wants peace in the Middle East and Olmert was willing to give it. But Hezbollah will not and now Hezbollah can be destroyed despite Kofi Annan's lecturing. Olmert must now be willing to unleash hell. Hezbollah must be destroyed. The successor to Sharon must not fail.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Reality is beside the point — Comments (27) »
Couldn't See That One Coming, Now Could We? 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Israel gains nothing, The terrorists will continue to attack, and now they will be protected by French and Lebanese forces.
How could anyone not born yesterday not foresee this?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
test test test test testing Yay!
Well, with that out of the way, heh, you're joking, right? Are you aware that there has been an 'interim' UN force in Lebanon throughout this period of hostilities? Israel hasn't had anything to fear, and won't have anything to fear, from any more 'peacekeepers'.
Another round shouldn't deter Olmert one bit. Especially not the FRENCH.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Hezbollah would have to cease its operations long enough for the multi-national force to deploy alonside the Lebanese Army and move south of the Litani. I can't see that happening.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
But it's a dangerous roll of the dice.
The UN, et al. really has no interest in the Hezbos disarming - they "know" the real problem is Israel, so their focus will be on pressuring Israel to accept whatever "compliance" the Hezbos might offer. Right down to engaging in whatever self-delusion is required to forgive the Hezbos if they flat out refuse to disarm. As in, "How could you really expect them to disarm when the Lebanese army is a paper tiger & the IDF is sitting just across the border, ready to slaughter them the second they're unarmed?"
If the Hezbos refuse & the Lebanese government falls, then we can expect Syria to get involved, both to buck up the Hezbos & to assert power in Lebanon.
(whether or not it was Ohlmert's intent)
the other big plus as I see it is no more distractions (at least in the unliekly event that Hezbollah does disarm, or pauses before breaking the resolution). everyone seems quick to forget the initial consensus that this was all being directed by Iran to draw attention away from its nuclear program. If we get even a momentary lull, they're back in the spotlight. And that is what those drawing the "unmitgated disaster" / "surrender to Hezbollah" conclusions are overlooking, IMO. I think Bush, Rice, et al. know what they're doing.
Interesting point on Iran. Maybe they've read too much of their own propaganda, banking on Bush being a 'cowboy,' the Israelis being bloodthirsty, etc. etc.?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
I think Olmert is looking to get world opinion on his side to move into Lebanon and finish the fight, but the world will not care if Hezbollah violates a UN Resolution.
As bad as it seems, it has to get worse before it gets better before peace is an option because the Arab mentality will only accept complete defeat.
rewrites the cease fire agreement and wants Israel to agree to a cease fire where Hezbollah gets to keep their weapons.
France will suggest it.
"He hates these cans!" - Navin R. Johnson
If Hezbollah backs out, Israel looks like its been fighting for peace and is forced to continue the battle. If Hezbollah is forced to accept UN forces in South Lebanon then when they get shot up by Hezbollah, world opinion once again returns to Israel's side.
International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.
the only reason is that it gives Israel more time to kill Hezbollah terrorists and hopefully they will cross the river and go into the Beka Valley where they will have the opportunity to destroy terrorist training bases, weapons caches and maybe even find Saddam's WMDs.
There is just no way that the "International Community" will ever agree that Israel is "fighting for peace and is forced to continue the battle." Israel is ALWAYS the aggressor, always has been, always will be. World opinion will NEVER return to Israel's side and BTW, it's never been on Israel's side. Israel has exactly ONE ally and it's us.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Is that html in your signature, or did you put in underscores?
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
Piece of advice though: Please change the <i/> in your signature to </i> in order to make it correct HTML. Well that, or start using the Filtered HTML and use underscores instead!
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
As Conservatives We have suffered through the Republican debacle in Washington for this. Before this week we could at least say that the Bushies and the GOP got the one big issue right:
As to the others:
Taxes: A week attempt to immitate Reagan gone bad.
Spending: Who knew we could out do the libs with big government and earmarks
Gas Prices: Motto: We won't drill, We won't build, Don't touch the gas tax or the caribou, but hang the oil execs.
States Rights: We're in power now. No need.
Social Security: No can do
Judges: Quit whining, we gave you a couple
Immigration: What laws?
Medicare: Hey I won't be here when it all comes down
Is there one issue that the Republicans and Bush are willing or able to confront?
The war on terror was one until yesterday. Bush has waived the white flag and guaranteed to Iran that there are no impediments to Iran's dream of holding Israel and the world hostage. For the life of me I don't understand why we don't see the tnreat for what it is.
Hezbollah is the second leading terrorist killer of Americans in the world and is far more dangerous than Al Queda. Yet we are recogizing them as a legitimate middle east broker because Bush and his neocon friends have been scared ****less by the fact that both the Shiites and Sunnis believe in Jihad more than democracy. Israel and the U.S. have ceded the battlefield and are left to play uninspired and tentative defense against a ruthless foe.
The Republicans will and deserve to take a beating this November. If only the alternative was not so much worse? This is beyond Republicans and Democrats. We are fighting for our very survival and way of life and we could care less.
The ending will be written in Arabic.
but how can you say it's in any way a win for Israel? It seems to me like it's a freaking disaster in every way shape and form.
World opinion will never favor Israel, no matter what happens. And Hezbollah will never disarm. They might pretend to, then get even better rockets from Iran. Olmert screwed this one up by his foot dragging.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
And that's a Big "IF", Olmert smashes in Lebanon and then Syria with the Full force of the Israeli Army after the Hezbos prove they are incapable of living in peace, then yes, this is a win win. Just don't expect world opinion to care.
If he does not, then he proves how weak I have feared he is, and everyone loses. The terrorists and their backers will be More adventurous and More ruthless, and Israel and America will be less...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
After saying all day on here that I want to give Bush and Olmert the benefit of the doubt, here you come swooping in with a theory that I like very much.
Let's hope this is how it works out, and that he is willing to send in all he's got if Hezbollah/Lebanon (are they distinguishable anymore?) break the deal.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong