The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Sunday, August 06, 2006

I thought it was Hezbollah not Lebanon

MyWay is reporting that Lebanon has rejected the UN cease-fire resolution. Huh?! I thought Lebanon was an innocent party here and that it was Hezbollah (who happens to be in Lebanon) fighting against Israel. According to MyWay:
The Lebanese parliamentary speaker, a prominent Shiite who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah, rejected the U.S.-French draft of U.N. cease-fire resolution on Sunday because it did not include the government's plan for ending the fighting.

Nabih Berri said Lebanon would not accept any terms that did not include a government plan calling for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Oh, so it is a parliamentary speaker negotiating for Hezbollah. Not if you continue reading:
"Lebanon, all of Lebanon, rejects any talks and or any draft resolution that does not include the seven-point government framework," Berri said at a news conference in Beirut.
So it is all of Lebanon that is rejecting a cease-fire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel. When this first started we were asked (and continue to be asked) why Israel is punishing Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. We later heard the head of Hezbollah admit he had conferred with the Lebaneze prime minister before taking the two soldiers and beginning it rocket campaign. Now Lebanon is negotiating for Hezbollah and taking a personal interest in the agreement. So are they separate entities or cohorts in this conflict?

The agreement at first seems to reward Hezbollah for its behavior:
The seven-point proposal calls for a mutual release of prisoners held by Israeli and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. It foresees the Lebanese government taking control of southern Lebanon with the help of an international force.
So the reason they claimed for kidnapping the soldiers (being a prisoner exchange) is being rewarded by making it a part of the cease-fire agreement. So Israel giving back hundreds of prisoners in exchange for two is being rejected by Lebanon. One wonders why. Then you go on to read:

The U.S.-French proposal, which was expected to go to the floor of the U.N. Security Council early this week, calls for Hezbollah to stop all military operations and for Israel to stop its offensive drive against Lebanon. The proposal would allow Israel to strike back if Hezbollah were to break a cease-fire.

There it is. The agreement allows Israel to go back in and continue to kick their rear if Hezbollah were to break the cease-fire. In the eyes of a terrorist that simply is not fair. The terrorist insists upon having no rules imposed upon them, while demanding their enemies to have both arms shackled behind their backs. Somehow the world body thinks this a fine arrangement. The fact is that as I have said before, asking Hezbollah to honor a cease-fire is like a child with Attention Defecit Disorder being asked to sit still during a boring church sermon. It will not happen. They will not rest until Isreal is destroyed. So giving Israel the right to respond to what they are already planning is simply not acceptable. Apparently, "innocent bystander" Lebanon concurs.


  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger EvilConCarne said…

    For someone who claims to care about ethical and honest reporting, you really have twisted many of the facts in your post.

    First of all, the Prime Minister of Lebanon was not conferred on the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, prior to the kidnapping. Hizbullah had always stated before that was their the Lebanese government is not involved.

    Secondly, the majority of the Lebanese government is anti Hizbullah, but they still have ministers within that act as a bridge to the group...who else will the US and UN negotiate with?

    Lastly, Lebanon rejected the resolution because they knew they cannot get Hizbullah to agree to it (what is the point of a watered down resolution if one party will not accept it). At the very least the resolution should mention Israeli withdrawal once they hand over to the UN.

    So please don't act as if you are knowledgeable and objective when you obviously are misinformed and biased.

  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    So the points you think I am misrepresenting are:

    1) That the PM was not conferred on the kidnapping.

    - The Hezbollah leader claimed that he was so you will have to take up the argument with him.

    2) The majority of the Lebanese government is anti-Hizbullah.

    Please provide some trustworthy evidence of this and I will admit I am in error.

    3) Lebanon rejected the resolution because they knew they cannot get Hizbullah to agree to it

    I think if you read what I am saying we are in agreement. To insist Israel withdraw before Hezbollah proves they can play nice is not realistic. That goes well beyond a cease-fire agreement. We need to take it one step at a time. You are insisting that we take it two steps at a time.

    So please don't act as if you are knowledgeable and objective when you obviously are misinformed and biased.

    I am quite open about my bias toward Isreal. If Israel were proven to be the monster that the Palestinians claim they are in their Pallywood productions, I would be less inclined to be so supportive. Such proof simply has not materialized.

    As for being misinformed, you will need to go into more detail. You can see from the material I have been pointing to that there is a definite push to skew the truth in favor of Hamas and Hezbollah. Perhaps your information comes from Pallywood.

  • At 11:52 PM, Blogger EvilConCarne said…

    1) Where does the Hizbullah leader claim that? Please show me a link to this revealing source of information.

    2)The majority in the Lebanese government is made up of the March 14th forces, who are backed by the United States, and were the main force behind the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. This group including the PM is a pro Western democratic group that has been trying to get out of the influence of Syria and Iran.

    Hizbullah has only 14 seats out of the 128 seat parliament, with the majority trying to weaken them but can't because they are the only armed group.

    It doesn't help much when Israel continues to weaken this government. What is the Israeli aim in destroying Lebanon and its government? That only makes Hizbullah more powerful.

    3. The point of my last comment was that the resolution should have been stronger and allowed for the immediate expansion of UNIFIL to take over the security situation and have Israel withdraw to their borders.

    What you are saying basically amounts to Israel occupying Lebanon for 20 more years so that Hizbullah plays nice...that didn't work the first time, and it won't work this time.

  • At 12:16 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    I knew I should have saved the link when I had it. Took me 20 minutes to find it again. Here is the link:

    It is the third section down. A key section states:

    Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"

    Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."

    2) So you are saying that since only 14 of 128 are officially Hezbollah that this automatically means that the 114 are anti-Hezbollah. I doubt that is the way it works.

    3) Please tell me you are not serious about the solution involving UNIFIL which should be renamed UNIFAIL. They have completely failed in their mission and have become far too chummy with Hezbollah.

  • At 12:21 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    One last point on occupation. No, I want Israel out of there as soon as possible. First the cease-fire is to be agreed upon, then if both sides keep their agreement (yeah, right) then a plan for Israel to withdraw and be replaced by an international force would be the next step. If Hezbollah breaks the cease-fire, Israel will then be free to continue their destruction.

    If Hezbollah and Lebanon cannot agree to this cease-fire, then Israel will just do the destruction part now.

  • At 1:05 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    I saw a Lebanese high official (not the Prime Minister, but up there--sorry I can't remember his title) on Fox News Sunday. He outlined Lebanon's proposal, which they're holding out for over the French/US plan. They want an immediate cease-fire, Israeli withdrawal of troops, and the Lebanese Army to move into South Lebanon to keep Hezbollah from reestablishing itself. He said there wasn't time to wait for a multinational force to form up and get over there.

    My question is, where was the Lebanese Army after Israel pulled out the last time? How effective were they in keeping Hezbollah under control? And why should we expect better results this time?

    The only thing I agreed with him on was that the French idea stinks.

  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    They want an immediate cease-fire, Israeli withdrawal of troops, and the Lebanese Army to move into South Lebanon to keep Hezbollah from reestablishing itself. He said there wasn't time to wait for a multinational force to form up and get over there.

    Well since there is not time to form an international force, why an immediate cease-fire. Just let Israel keep Hezbollah from reestablishing itself while the international force forms.

    I don't think the Lebanese army would actually engage Hezbollah. And what if Hezbollah continues to camp out among civilians. Is the Lebanese army going to fire on its own citizens. Will they then be called terrorists as men in green helmets parade dead children around?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home