Will it hold? Hezbullah is already firing at IDF troops, and the AP is already spinning it as if Israel is firing on Hezbullah for no reason.
BINT JBAIL, Lebanon Aug 14, 2006 (AP)— Lebanese, Israeli and U.N. officers met on the border Monday to discuss the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and the deployment of the Lebanese army in the region after a U.N.-imposed cease-fire halted fighting in the monthlong conflict.
Meanwhile, Lebanese civilians defied an Israeli travel ban and streamed back to their homes in war-ravaged areas. Israeli forces fired on two Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon just hours after the guns fell silent, highlighting the tensions that could unravel the peace plan.
But for the first time in a month, no Hezbollah rockets were fired into northern Israel.
The impetus for the war—the kidnapped soldiers—were not part of the agreement. Now Olmert is appointiong an ex-Mossad chief to “oversee the return” of the three missing for a month now.
Hezbullah is claiming victory. And why shouldn’t they? Olmert said no cease-fire without several conditions: The unconditional return of the soldiers, the disarmament of Hezbullah, and the withdrawal of Hezbullah forces from southern Lebanon. None of these aims were achieved.
Seymour Hersh is claiming it was all a Bush plot to invade Iran, with his usual anonymous sources. His credibility has long been shot. Not that this will stop the Israel-haters and conspiracy nuts from saying, “AHA! WE TOLD YOU SO!”
Caroline Glick says Hezbullah won.
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.
I find her to be too pessimistic for my tastes, but there’s no denying she’s telling the truth in much of her article.
This was not a win for Israel, no matter how Michael Oren spins it to Michael Totten. Hezbullah still exists, is still armed, and is still in southern Lebanon. Hezbullah dictated the Lebanese cease-fire terms. And its sponsors, Iran and Syria, are untouched.
My take on things: The cease-fire is a fragile, temporary thing. War will break out again, and soon.
I have to agree with Michael Oren on this.
In 2000, Hezbollah claimed a great victory when the IDF voluntarily left Lebanon. The spin was that only Hezbollah could keep Lebanon free of Israelis.
Fascinating.
Now in 2006 the MSM, even AP!, acknowledges that Israeli troops are freely operating in Lebanon.
Hezbollah seems to be able to murder civilians.
But they have a demonstrated lack of ability to deter or repel invasion.
This one goes to Israel on points.
If Hezbollah isn’t smashed now, in two years they will have command-and-control of the Lebanese army.
I would expect at that point there will either be civil war, or simply dhimmitude or refugee status for Lebanese Christians and Druze. The smart ones will escape to Israel. The rest may find themselves in camps called Sabra and Shatilla II: The Revenge.
Qualifying my comments, with the fact I believe Israel may have missed a great opportunity to rid themselves of the scourge of Hezbollah.
In balance, you have to consider what Israel would consider a victory,
and what Hezbollah consider a victory.
Israel expects a victory like the 6 day war, this will never happen again.
War causes causalities, loss of life, that’s plain to see.
Ask yourself was Israel expecting too much of this war?
1. No Hezbollah…um they live in Sth Lebanon.
2. Disarming of Hezbollah.
(Theres a lot less weapons now, and a lot less Hezbollah.)
3. Release of the Soldiers….Inexcusable policy change.
(Was it really Olmert that made this ‘little’ concession?)
4. Ultimately the ‘end of Nasrallah’ that is almost certain with time.
What does Hezbollah want to scream victory?
Enough energy left, to stand up and say ‘we won’.
How Hezbollah can stand there and say they won, is truly an amazing insight into their mind.
I wish them many more victories like this one.
If Hezbollah won this war, then all Israelis would like to have changed places with the victor.
I can see the lines forming now…
Before we rip apart our PM, yes he made mistakes. Remember who grows in strength, from us attacking Olmert.
The real tragedy of this war, is Israel’s dependence on both world opinion, and even more so on the necessity of another countries approval.
I hope Israel learns from this warfare, to equip our soldiers better against anti tank missiles, to lower our expectations of what constitutes a victory to more reasonable, realizable levels, and just as importantly to be more successful in running the ‘media campaign’ that is necessary in modern warfare.
That’s my 2 cents.
..and before we write any one off, if you seriously think this war is over, your crazier than Nasrallah.
Yeah, beacuse there has been so much reason for optimism. Sadly, Glick’s pessimism is in contrast to the optimism that brought us such great events as Oslo, the Gaza disengagment and the “victory” over Hizbollah.
Optimism has not been kind to our people and right now I’m not sure anyone not named Condli, Olmert or Peretz is willing to give it to you now.