France shivs US on Lebanon ceasefire resolution

Le cheese eating surrender monkey



You can always depend on the French,non?

The UN actually came up with a resolution for ending the war in Lebanon that actually had a slim chance of ending the conflict in the long term, mainly hammered out between the US and France, who had agreed to supply some troops for an international peacekeeping force.

Trouble is, it would have ultimately involved disarming Hezbollah and eliminating the security threat to Israel. And we can't have that now, can we?

It's amazing how craven things get once the French are involved in anything.

First the French Foreign Minister, Phillipe Douste-Blazy met with his Iranian counterpart in Beirut - you know, Ahmadinejad's Iran. "a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region " according to what Douste-Blazy had to say afterwards.I'm certain the Mullahs let France know that anything that diminished Hezbollah as Iran's occupying army in Lebanon was unacceptable.

Then, the Arab League weighed in to shred the resolution even further...and you know how the French hate to upset their Arab friends.

So, at a point where things were set for what actually could have been the framework for a realistic ceasefire, things are back to square one.

The original proposal called for a truce, and didn't require Israel to immediately withdraw its troops from Lebanon until a `robust international peacekeeping force' was in place, something the Israelis no doubt insisted on to keep Hezbollah from simply returning to its positions after their rocket arsenal and heavy arms were replenished by Iran.

It also called for “immediate cessation of all attacks by Hezbollah,” and of "offensive military operations" by Israel...which would have allowed the Israelis to retaliate and defend themselves from any attacks.

The original draft resolution would have set up a second resolution and asked Israel and Lebanon to agree in the future to a set of principles on long-term peace, including an arms embargo on arms shipments to Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the creation of a buffer zone up to the Litani River.

All this would have been risky, but at least had a possible chance of success.

Now things have changed.

The French, responding to the Iranians and the Arab Leauge now want a couple of significant changes.

Instead of the international force originally called for, the French now want to force an immediate IDF withdrawal to the Israeli border, followed by deployment of the existing UNFIL forces and 15,000 Lebanese army troops to South Lebanon to form a buffer between the IDF and Hezbollah forces instead of the `international peacekeeping force'. What's more, in practice a number of Hezbollah fighters would stay exactly where they are, since they qualify as `civlian residents'.

Another change involves those Lebanese `prisoners'. The new proposal wants to mandate talks on the exchange of prisoners, so that Hezbollah can get its child murderers out of Israeli custody.

The new proposal also calls for Israel to evacuate the strategic Shaaba Farms/Mount Dov area..which the UN itself already agreed was part of Syria!

If the French, Iran and the Arab league get their way, not only would we have a return to the Lebanese status quo, but Syria and Hezbollah would actually get a reward for their aggression.

Financial assistance would flood into Lebanon to repair the damage caused by the war; Israel would have to foot its own bill for the destruction wrought by Hezbollah's attacks and damage on one third of the country.

Needless to say, Israel isn't exactly embracing these changes.

The US is leery as well of a settlement that essentially gives Hezbollah a victory and leaves them as an armed force in the country, as well as giving them additional territory.

For now, diplomacy is pretty much stalled, and the results are still to be determined on the battlefield.

Stay tuned...