Lebanese government will let Hezbollah keep hidden weapons

[Watser?]

BEIRUT: A compromise agreement currently being hammered out between Hizbullah and the Lebanese government is expected to allow the party to keep hidden weapons in South Lebanon, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Tuesday.

While Hizbullah would need to keep the weapons it possesses south of the Litani River hidden, an agreement for areas north of the river would be "left to a long-term solution," the paper said.

If the proposed compromise is accepted by Premier Fouad Siniora's Cabinet, it would violate the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And it is also a violation of the "one weapon" principle of Siniora's seven-point plan.

Resolution 1701 calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a solution based on previous UN resolutions requiring "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon" apart from state security forces.

While the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) within the new resolution does not require foreign troops to disarm Hizbullah themselves, the force is authorized "to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind" and to support the Lebanese Army in asserting control over all of Lebanon.

Daily Star

These terms leave plenty of room for Hezbollah to build up a new arsenal like they did the last time. After all they didn't use it for 'hostile activities' until attacked. So now there will still be Hezbollah, heavily armed but keeping their weapons hidden, protected in a sense by the Lebanese army (such as it is..) and with foreign soldiers as potential hostages. I can see the foreign troops just pouring in, jumping for joy to be in Southern Lebanon

[Watser?]

Jumblat Lashes out at Assad, Says Hizbullah Should be Integrated into the Regular Army
Druze leader Walid Jumblat lashed out at Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday for failing to open the front in the occupied Golan Heights and said the Lebanese army is deploying in the south in line with an "ambiguous" formula.
"Did anyone prevent you from opening the front on the Golan? No, but it is easier to use the Lebanese front," he told a press conference.

Jumblat hailed the unprecedented army deployment in southern Lebanon, but warned that "dangers could be looming ... and Lebanon will remain a battleground" for regional conflicts unless Hizbullah is integrated into the regular army and respects the 1949 armistice agreement with Israel.

"Why can't instead the army be responsible for holding the balance of power? Why can't the rockets be under the command of the army?" he said.

He said the army's deployment south of the Litani river was in line with an "ambiguous and unclear" formula because the military does not have the mandate to disarm Hizbullah fighters there.

He said in 2000 there was Lebanese "consensus" when Hizbullah liberated southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation. But added that Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah did not consult anyone before kidnapping two Israeli soldiers on July 12 2006. The capture unleashed an Israeli offensive on Lebanon that lasted for more than one month.

Jumblat also said that he believed the U.S. interest was primarily Israel's security.

"We don't want Lebanon -- or south Lebanon specifically -- to be a testing ground of pre-emptive wars by America and Israel against Iran and Syria or the other way around," he told reporters.

Naharnet

[Sauron]

Good. Maybe Israel will think twice again, and maybe the USA won't be so confident in trying to attack Iran.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Good. Maybe Israel will think twice again, and maybe the USA won't be so confident in trying to attack Iran.

On the contrary, I think it will encourage Israel that if Hezbullah misbehaves again, they will not accept an international force, and will go all out to do the job right themselves next time, and to heck with the civilian or international side-effects.

NTM

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

On the contrary, I think it will encourage Israel that if Hezbullah misbehaves again, they will not accept an international force, and will go all out to do the job right themselves next time, and to heck with the civilian or international side-effects.

NTM

I am afraid that this is probably what will happen (not that they ever gave a shit about the civilian 'side-effects'). The Israeli government is crumbling and the only ones who will profit from that is the right-wing opposition. Plus Israelis are spreading the myth that the army was 'stabbed in the back' and 'not allowed to finish the job'. When in reality this cease-fire saved their asses:

"We were like sitting ducks. There was a sense of panic. We were surprised and helpless as the best tanks we own were ripped apart by the advanced technologies Hezbollah was using. All we cared about was scrounging for food and staying alive until the cease-fire.

Haaretz

"They sent us into a village they knew 15 Hezbollah fighters were holed up in at mid-day, we were like sitting ducks, it was total insanity. Two of our comrades were killed because of that. We are being used as though we were in the Chinese army, where it doesn't matter how many are killed," he said.

Haaretz

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

On the contrary, I think it will encourage Israel that if Hezbullah misbehaves

Except that it was Israeli misbehavior that started this; they wanted the war with Hezbollah. That's why the security / IDF ignored their own High Court ruling and refused to turn over the prisoners.

They knew that would back Hezbollah into a corner, and Hezbollah would be forced to do something to maintain its credibility. And when that happened, Israel would have the pretense it needed to start the war that it wanted.

again, they will not accept an international force, and will go all out to do the job right themselves next time, and to heck with the civilian or international side-effects.

NTM

Except that once Israel realized that airpower wasn't going to succeed, they *did* switch to a ground invasion. It still didn't work. Their failure to dislodge Hezbollah demonstrates the mistake in assuming that they could undo 6 or 7 years of preparation in a single lightning action. The only way to do that would be with a long, protracted war and occupation of Lebanon - which they just ended in 2000, after 18 years. That's the requirement, and it's the requirement that Hezbollah is betting Israel is not prepared to accept.

[California Tanker]

We were like sitting ducks. There was a sense of panic. We were surprised and helpless as the best tanks we own were ripped apart by the advanced technologies Hezbollah was using. All we cared about was scrounging for food and staying alive until the cease-fire

In fairness, staying alive until the end of the war is pretty much all any soldier cares about. Or in my case, staying alive until we rotated out. The bit about Hezbullah using 'advanced technologies' to destroy tanks is ignorant claptrap. Nothing advanced about it. We saw this in the US a few years ago when M1 Abrams tanks were having holes punched in them: Too many people believing their own propoganda and watching the Military Channel thinking that their tanks were totally invulnerable. We're discussing this psychological effect on another board and generally think that this reality check is a good thing. It's nothing like the Yom Kippur incident the soldier referred to, where the Egyptians really did have advanced technology that the Israelis didn't know how to deal with.

Except that once Israel realized that airpower wasn't going to succeed, they *did* switch to a ground invasion.

One possible explanation. Two other possible ones are that the UN was taking forever to decide to deploy a force, and that Israel wanted to provide a bit of an incentive since bombs alone weren't doing the job, or that with troops on the ground, the Israelis could define by default the size of the UN-controlled buffer zone.

There may be other explantions other than the three we've mentioned.

The only way to do that would be with a long, protracted war and occupation of Lebanon

Since you know that, and I know that, it seems to me quite likely that the Generals of today who were Battalion level officers back then are entirely aware of that as well. I believe that the Israeli action was actually far more Machiavellan than many are giving credit for: The obvious answer just as obviously was never going to work to achieve its officially declared goal: There must have been another method to the madness if we sit back and have a think about it.

NTM

[Dingfod]

I don't think air power alone has ever defeated another country.

[California Tanker]

In fairness, there are those who think that the Serbs were forced out of Kosovo by air bombardment, but it took a hell of a while.

I'm not one of those, I think the threat of ground offensive is what actually did the job, but that's just me.

NTM

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The bit about Hezbullah using 'advanced technologies' to destroy tanks is ignorant claptrap. Nothing advanced about it. We saw this in the US a few years ago when M1 Abrams tanks were having holes punched in them: Too many people believing their own propoganda and watching the Military Channel thinking that their tanks were totally invulnerable. We're discussing this psychological effect on another board and generally think that this reality check is a good thing. It's nothing like the Yom Kippur incident the soldier referred to, where the Egyptians really did have advanced technology that the Israelis didn't know how to deal with.

You're probably right about that. The Israelis have become used to policing the occupied Palestinian territories, where all they face are kalashnikovs and the occasional roadside bomb. Even so Hamas managed to blow up a few of those invincible Merkava tanks in Gaza shortly before the Israelis decided to pull out of there. Personally I think that is one of the reasons Sharon decided the settlements in Gaza could not be maintained.