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.