Of course, I understand the political factors that compelled Israel and Hezbollah to accept this patently-flawed UN resolution. But I’m indignant at the world leaders who brokered it (especially George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac) knowing that this cease-fire resolution has no teeth and that they are more accepting than the warring parties are of its terms. After all, it’s self-evident that Israel and Hezbollah regard it as little more than an opportunity to regroup:
Hezbollah – to figure out new supply routes for more rockets and munitions from Iran, since Israel has bombed all roads, bridges and airport runways; and Israel – to figure out the flaws in its military strategy, since the more it claims to have degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities, the more rockets Hezbollah fires off and the more Israeli soldiers Hezbollah kills.
Indeed, as I questioned, rhetorically I assumed, in this recent article almost 2 weeks ago:
….[D]oes anyone have any confidence that the diplomats engaged in political warfare at the UN will negotiate a resolution that’s worth the paper it’s written on?
Because, I continued:
…unless a new resolution calls for a peacemaking force comprised of troops from countries like France, Russia, China, Egypt and Jordan (as opposed to monitors from Fiji and Togo), all of the talk at the UN is just a waste of time. After all, Hezbollah does not even need to look at Saddam Hussein’s violation of over 17 such resolutions between 1990 – 1999, with impunity (until the U.S. invaded in 2003), to know how much force a UN resolution carries. Because, it has fared pretty well – having violated UN Resolution 1559, which called for the “disbanding and disarmament” of Hezbollah, with rockets-red-glaring impunity (until Israel invaded a few weeks ago).
Yet it seems a perverse form of cognitive dissonance that the world is so focused on this new UN Resolution 1701, which again calls, inter alia, for the disarmament of Hezbollah. (You probably saw the ridiculous “Countdown to Cease-fire” promo that was featured on CNN and other cable stations – as if they were heralding a Happy New Year or marking something truly noteworthy like the launch of the space shuttle!)
Because, even though it signed on to the resolution, an emboldened Hezbollah has already vowed that it will not disarm under any circumstances. And no one believes that the Lebanese army and a contingent of UN soldiers (no matter how robust) will pick a fight with Hezbollah to enforce this critical provision of 1701.
Meanwhile, even though it also signed on to the resolution, a humiliated, if not defeated, Israel has already vowed that it will not withdraw its troops from South Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed; and that in any event, it intends to retain a substantial amount of the territory it gained to establish a demilitarized (cease-fire) zone on its own terms.
Therefore, given these realities on the ground, my cynical prediction – that this UN Lebanon resolution won’t be worth the paper it’s written on – seems more prophetic today than it was weeks ago….
NOTE: Here’s a chicken and egg question that might help explain why this war will never end: If Hezbollah maintains that it’s only retaliating against Israel’s bombardment, and if Israel maintains that it’s only retaliating against Hezbollah’s rockets, then which of these two armed forces do you think will be prepared (or required: Hezbollah by Iran, and Israel by the U.S.) to absorb the final blow for lasting peace? (Talk about a game of chicken….)
I fear lex talionis (a.k.a an eye for an eye) will determine the outcome of this conflict, not UN resolutions (now at 8 and counting…).
Israel, Hezbollah, war in Middle East
Paris ib says
This Peace Will Hold.
Why
ALH ipinions says
paris ib
Your engaging points are undermined by the fact that you are making them about the wrong war. This is Israel, not Iraq! (Indeed, your “Sweet Neo Cons” are fomenting this war every bit as much as the Académie française are fomenting the war in Iraq….) Read a little about America’s historical commitment to the state of Israel to appreciate why neo-cons have little to with this alliance.
But about the war in question: Your synthesis for Middle East peace, which calls for Israel to reject its U.S. alliance “for a peach which is “manageable”, derives from a demonstrably fatuous premise. After all, everyone knows that, but for its U.S. alliance, Israel would’ve been “wiped off the map” long ago.
Moreover, to disabuse you of your preoccupation with the American (Jewish?) neo-cons who you seem to think dictate U.S. Middle East policy, consider for a moment that former President Bill Clinton could hardly be said to have been under their spell. Yet for 8 years, even he could not get Israel and its perennial Arab (and Persian) neighbors to stay on the roadmap for peace.
Finally, “This Peace Will Hold”? It’s already been broken with the reported killing of 6 Hezbollah fighters. (However, I’ll concede that for Israel, picking them off one by one is consistent with a peace which is manageable!)
But, like I said, this cease-fire will hold only in so far as it gives both sides time to regroup.
Paris ib says
The outcome will speak for itself.
Let’s wait and see.
ALH ipinions says
It seems your hope for peace in the Middle East is surpassed only by your hope for longevity. But past being decidedly prologue in this case, I doubt either one of us will be around to see the “outcome”.
Thanks for your comment paris ib. I really appreciate it.
Em Asomba says
Hi Anthony,
You rightly pointed out the main issues with this peace/truce or whatever somebody wants to name it “accord”.
It is simply incredible that such an arrangement was constructed, but given the desperate situation, desperate actions needed to be carried out. I guess that now we are entering another stage in this conflict where political scores are going to be settled, and of course Olmert should start thinkink more about what’s left for his political future and ambitions. From all accounts it seems to me that hezbollah is coming out strengthened in its political strategy. So what’s next time will tell.
ALH ipinions says
Hello em asomba
I believe you’re right not only about the perceived strength of Hezbollah’s Nasrallah but also the weakness of Israel’s Olmert in light of this cease-fire.
It must be said, however, that Hezbollah’s self-declared victory is pyrrich at best….