Israel / Hezbollah Ceasefire Close?

[calculoso]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...ain/index.html

The U.N. Security Council was expected to vote Friday on a six-page proposal aimed at ending the monthlong conflict between Israel and Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said he expected the Security Council to pass the draft resolution unanimously.

...

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will recommend the resolution be accepted by the government, an Israeli government official said.

Hezbollah has not responded to the proposal.

Actual UN Resolution draft:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...aft/index.html

Very nice. I'm glad to hear that the UN Security Council has managed to barter out something that everyone should agree on. It remains to be seen if Hezbollah agrees to it (doubtful IMO), and what the global reaction will be if they don't.

[arsenal]

If it does pass, and all parties agree to the terms laid out in the agreement. It will be intersting to see who flinches first, and the whole thing starts up again.

[Flash Walken]

Seeing that this proposal is a complete sham, I don't see it going anywhere. How can you hope to impliment a cease-fire when there is no requirement that the aggressor nation withdraw from invaded territory.

If this does pass, it's essentially making defense of one's own territory illegal.

Unbelievable.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Seeing that this proposal is a complete sham, I don't see it going anywhere. How can you hope to impliment a cease-fire when there is no requirement that the aggressor nation withdraw from invaded territory.

If this does pass, it's essentially making defense of one's own territory illegal.

Unbelievable.

Are you saying Israel should withdraw? Or that the UN should actually enforce the resolutions they've already made, declaring it illegal for a militia group to set up in Lebanon?


If the defense of one's own territory is supposed to be legal, Israel should be able to defend its own territory against Hezbollah rocket attacks.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Seeing that this proposal is a complete sham, I don't see it going anywhere. How can you hope to impliment a cease-fire when there is no requirement that the aggressor nation withdraw from invaded territory.

If this does pass, it's essentially making defense of one's own territory illegal.

Unbelievable.

What are you talking about? (bold emphasis below is mine)

Originally Posted by Draft of UN Resolution, linked above

PP5. Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon,

PP6. Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,

.....

OP3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;

...

OP8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties,

- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,

- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,

- no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government,

- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government,

- provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are you saying Israel should withdraw? Or that the UN should actually enforce the resolutions they've already made, declaring it illegal for a militia group to set up in Lebanon?


If the defense of one's own territory is supposed to be legal, Israel should be able to defend its own territory against Hezbollah rocket attacks.

You aren't worth my time, so this will be my last reply.

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

Explanatory Notes:

This list deals exclusively with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, a fifteen-member body consisting of five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) and ten non-permanent members elected for rotating two-year terms representing various regions of the world. The Security Council's primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, is for the maintenance of international peace and security. For a resolution to pass, it must be approved by a majority of the total membership with no dissenting vote from any of the five permanent members. Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined. In the vast majority of these cases, the U.S. was the only dissenting vote. The preceding list, therefore, includes only resolutions where the United States voted in the affirmative or abstained.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2417

[Vulcan]

Pretty strong condemnation of Israel, Flash, and deservedly so. The trouble is, when push comes to shove, we'll be on Israel's side, right or wrong.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If this does pass, it's essentially making defense of one's own territory illegal.

Odd, I didn't know the Hezbulloh had territory. Whats the capital of Hezbullistan anyways?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Odd, I didn't know the Hezbulloh had territory. Whats the capital of Hezbullistan anyways?

Lebanon?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Ah yes, the list of UN resolutions against Israel that the US has vetoed.

Pretty damning isn't it?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Lebanon?

So Hezbollah is defending Lebanon?

Is that what you call launching rockets from residential areas to ensure civilian death and the world's outrage against Israel for defending itself?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Lebanon?

So that explains why the Lebanese Army, you know, the one formed to defend the nation of Lebanon, is right beside them helping out?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Lebanon?

So you're saying Lebanon is terrorist run country?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You aren't worth my time, so this will be my last reply.

You know, I really would have responded if you wouldn't act like a complete jackass towards someone with a differing opinion.

But, I will anyways.

I would take the UN more seriously if they could enforce one resolution....

On September 2, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1559, coauthored by France and the United States. Echoing the Taif Agreement, the resolution "calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon" and "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1559

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would take the UN more seriously if they could enforce one resolution....

I would take the UN more seriously when Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Belarus, etc. will lose their voting rights.

But you are right.

[Lucky boy]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I would take the UN more seriously when Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Belarus, etc. will lose their voting rights.

But you are right.

hahahahaha

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I would take the UN more seriously when Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Belarus, etc. will lose their voting rights.

But you are right.

Agreed.

Even worse, the countries the violate human rights the most, sit on the human rights panel.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I would take the UN more seriously when Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Belarus, etc. will lose their voting rights.

But you are right.

I don't see why most of those countries shouldn't have voting rights... If the UN is to be a democratized body, they have to.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I don't see why most of those countries shouldn't have voting rights... If the UN is to be a democratized body, they have to.

How serious can the UN resolutions be when representatives of regimes that oppress and murder people in their countries sit in the UN and can vote about whether or not has Isreal the right to defend itself? Countries like Syria and Iran with one goal in mind - destruction of Isreal - vote on the declaration whether Isreal has the right to defend itself against terrorist militia supported and funded by Syria and Iran. How can you take the UN seriously?

The UN is given way too much credit, while it deserves little to none.

[Calgaryborn]

It should be pointed out that most of the permanent members of the security council have economic interests in Arab oil and vote accordingly.