An unmitigated disaster

By Caroline B. Glick


From: http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There is a good reason that Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which sets the terms for a cease-fire between his jihad army and the State of Israel.


The resolution represents a near-total victory for Hizbullah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria, and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States. This fact is evident both in the text of the resolution and in the very fact that the US decided to sponsor a cease-fire resolution before Israel had dismantled or seriously degraded Hizbullah's military capabilities.


While the resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and so does not have the authority of law, in practice it makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hizbullah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale.


This is the case first of all because the resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hizbullah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself.


The resolution makes absolutely no mention of either Syria or Iran, without whose support Hizbullah could neither exist nor wage an illegal war against Israel. In so ignoring Hizbullah's sponsors, it ignores the regional aspect of the current war and sends the message to these two states that they may continue to equip terrorist armies in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq with the latest weaponry without paying a price for their aggression.


The resolution presents Hizbullah with a clear diplomatic victory by placing their erroneous claim of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shaba Farms, or Mount Dov — a vast area on the Golan Heights that separates the Syrian Golan from the Upper Galilee and is disputed between Israel and Syria — on the negotiating table. In doing so, the resolution rewards Hizbullah's aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of aggression, in contravention of the laws of nations.


Moreover, by allowing Lebanon to make territorial claims on Israel despite the fact that in 2000 the UN determined that Israel had withdrawn to the international border, the resolution sets a catastrophic precedent for the future. Because Lebanon is receiving international support for legally unsupportable territorial demands on Israel, in the future, the Palestinians, Syrians and indeed the Jordanians and Egyptians will feel empowered to employ aggression to gain territorial concessions from the Jewish state even if they previously signed treaties of peace with Israel. The message of the resolution's stand on Shaba Farms is that Israel can never expect for the world to recognize any of its borders as final.


By calling in the same paragraph for the "immediate cessation by Hizbullah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations," the resolution treats as equivalent Hizbullah's illegal aggression against Israel and Israel's legitimate military actions taken in defense of its sovereign territory.


Operational Paragraph 7, which "affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 [which calls for a cessation of hostilities] that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons," all but bars Israel from taking military action to defend itself in the future. Any steps Israel takes will open it to accusations — by Annan — of breaching this paragraph.


Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had let it be known that Israel's conditions for a cease-fire included the institution of an arms embargo against Hizbullah. The government also insisted that the international force it wished to have deployed along the border would work to dismantle Hizbullah.


However, paragraph 8 puts both the question of an arms embargo and Hizbullah's dismantlement off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon agree to the terms of a "permanent cease-fire." In addition, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hizbullah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member.


While the resolution bars Israel from taking measures necessary to defend its territory and citizens, by keeping UNIFIL in Lebanon it ensures that no other force will be empowered to take these necessary actions. Furthermore, paragraph 2 "calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment [of the Lebanese military and UNIFIL] begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel. This means that Israel is expected to withdraw before a full deployment of Lebanese and UNIFIL forces is carried out. As a result, a vacuum will be created that will allow Hizbullah to reinforce its positions in south Lebanon.


Finally, the resolution makes no operative call for the release of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev now being held hostage by Hizbullah. By relegating their fate to a paragraph in the preamble, which then immediately turns to Hizbullah's demand for the release of Lebanese terrorists held in Israeli jails, the resolution all but eliminates any possibility of their returning home.


Aside from the resolution's egregious language, the very fact that the US has sponsored a resolution that leaves Hizbullah intact as a fighting force constitutes a devastating blow to the national security of both Israel and the US, for the following reasons:


It grants the Lebanese government and military unwarranted legitimacy. The resolution treats the Lebanese government and military as credible bodies. However, the Lebanese government is currently under the de facto control of Hizbullah and Syria. Moreover, the Lebanese army is paying pensions to the families of Hizbullah fighters killed in battle, and its forces have actively assisted Hizbullah in attacking Israel and Israeli military targets.
Indeed, the seven-point declaration issued by the Lebanese government, which the UN resolution applauds, was dictated by Hizbullah, as admitted by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Nasrallah last week.


It incites Shi'ite violence in Iraq. From a US perspective, the resolution drastically increases the threat of a radical Shi'ite revolt in Iraq. Hizbullah is intimately tied to Iraqi Shi'ite terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr.
In April 2003, Hizbullah opened offices in southern Iraq and was instrumental in training the Mahdi Army, which Sadr leads. During a demonstration in Baghdad last week, Sadr's followers demanded that he consider them an extension of Hizbullah, and expressed a genuine desire to participate in Hizbullah's war against the US and Israel.

It should be assumed that Hizbullah's presumptive victory in its war against Israel will act as a catalyst for violence by Sadr and his followers against the Iraqi government and coalition forces in the weeks to come. Indeed, the Hizbullah victory will severely weaken moderate Shi'ites in the Maliki government and among the followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.


It empowers Iran. Iran emerges as the main victor in the current war. Not only was it not condemned for its sponsorship of Hizbullah, it is being rewarded for that sponsorship because it is clear to all parties that Iran was the engine behind this war, and that its side has won.

The UN resolution does not strengthen the US hand in future Security Council deliberations regarding Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program because the states that object to any action against Iran — Russia and China — will continue with their refusal to sign on to any substantive action.


Indeed, Russia's behavior regarding the situation in Lebanon, including the fact that a large percentage of Hizbullah's arsenal of advanced anti-tank missiles was sold by Russia to Syria and Iran, exposes that Moscow's role in the current conflict has been similar to the position taken by the Soviet Union in earlier Middle East wars.


Furthermore, because the resolution strengthens the UN as the arbiter of peace and security in the region, the diplomatic price the US will be forced to pay if it decides to go outside the UN to contend with the Iranian threat has been vastly increased.


Many sources in Washington told this writer over the weekend that the US decision to seek a cease-fire was the result of Israel's amateurish bungling of the first three weeks of the war. The Bush administration, they argued, was being blamed for the Olmert government's incompetence and so preferred to cut its losses and sue for a cease-fire.


There is no doubt much truth to this assertion. The government's prosecution of this war has been unforgivably inept. At the same time it should be noted that the short-term political gain accrued by the US by forging the cease-fire agreement will come back to haunt the US, Israel and all forces fighting the forces of global jihad in the coming weeks and months.


By handing a victory to Hizbullah, the resolution strengthens the belief of millions of supporters of jihad throughout the world that their side is winning and that they should redouble efforts to achieve their objectives of destroying Israel and running the US out of the Middle East.

The old rope a dope if ya ask me

Hezballah are the winners in this cease fire.
They will regroup, do some maintenance on their equipment, get new fresh terrorists, some more training by Syria and Iran, and after a rest to build up their energy they will be ready to get at it.
They wil not dis-arm or return the two soldiers as requested by the UN agreement and the UN will not push them to do so. Coffee Anon never even mentioned Hezballah in his final speach about the cease fire.
Israel is the looser (and so is the rest of the Western World). This was another victory for terrorism.

How can we say terrorist won the war?. They use guerilla method to win the war.

I say so far they won this war because they are still around laughing in Israels' face and have not returned the two soldiers. They also do not lay their arms down as the UN resolution requires. Coffee Annon is a terrorist supporter.

The US was wrong by pushing for this cease fire. They let Israel down for political correctness.

I'm dissappointed with George and Conny unless they have some backroom discussions going and want to use a different strategy.......

The UN acts like the ill fated League of Nations before World War 2. The League of Nations were used by Hitler against his enemies. Unfortunately history is repeating itself. In a very similar fashion, todays UN is being exploited by terrorist sponsoring nations. The UN like the League of Nations has simply outlive its usefulness.

This pretty much is it. Hezballah may not have been mentioned in the final speech because terrorist groups are not officially recognized by any governement, although those same governements can and do perform the same kind of acts. (arguably) The definition of a terrorist implies an illegal involvement in political affairs (extra curricular to ) designed to disrupt law and order and to bring about an anarchy which is intended to dissolve or to minimize that governemental power. The rogue governements allow them residence and support because they share the same goals as the terrorists and can use them to bring about their purposes without having to accept direct responsibility for the results. Iran and Syria are having a field day.

You are right. The impossible situation just got more impossible (from Israel's perspective) But God is on their side. An ideal mix at the day and time of ground zero. I just finished reading 2 Chron ch 20...feel a leading in deliverance is coming soon.

II Chron. 20:26 talks of a valley of Berachah which is 10 miles north of Jerusalem now named valley of Bereikut.

On the fourth day after his victory over the Ammonites, etc., in the wilderness of Tekoa, Jehoshaphat assembled his army in the valley of Berachah ("blessing"), and there blessed the Lord. Berachah has been identified with the modern Bereikut, some 5 miles south of Wady Urtas, and hence the "valley of Berachah" may be this valley of pools, for the word means both "blessing" and "pools;" and it has been supposed, therefore, that this victory was celebrated beside Solomon's pools (2 Chronicles 20:26).
These pools were primarily designed to supply Jerusalem with water. From the lower pool an aqueduct has been traced conveying the water through Bethlehem and across the valley of Gihon, and along the west slope of the Tyropoeon valley, till it finds its way into the great cisterns underneath the temple hill. The water, however, from the pools reaches now only to Bethlehem. The aqueduct beyond this has been destroyed.

Back to the time of Solomon, when he made those pools (Ecc. 2:6), the area around Jerusalem was so fertile, so full of natural life, trees bearing fruits, cattle, etc.
Now, it is all rock and houses. No pools of water to feed Jerusalem.

I just don't think even God wants that place.

I keep searching that place for any pools around Bethlehem and all around there; the Dead Sea even is drying up and there is no flowing rivers, it has all been dammed up by the greedy, thirsty, filthy people.

The Jordan river, where Jesus was baptized, is now mostly raw sewage pumped into it from Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

When people cannot get enough water, their systems go into convulsions; they fight, they war, they will do anything to get out of the hell they are in, while the tourists bathe in the water thinking that the baptism of Jesus flowed down.

The cause of the wars is over water and who controls it.

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.”

If you were able to look into the backrooms of Israel's government you would find that they have no faith invested at all in this agreement. They made an error and they know it. Bush and Rice also know.

They regret to have agreed with the cease fire. The opportunity was lost to destroy Hezballah.

This thing is not finished yet. It's going to be messy with European troups caught in the crossfire, mark my words.

There's only one solution for Israel, and it's not hard to figure out what that solution is.
They will have to deal with Iran and Syria, that's the only way to stop Hezballah.

As I said before, they need to get the real guns out in order to stop evil forces to wipe them off the map.

It's either "get wiped off the map", or nuke Tehran. One way or the other, Israel needs to deal with it now or later. Better do it now, and they know it.

Bible prophesy in the making.