ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

So the US takes the lead of those UN troops, if I understand you correctly.

Any link for that?

I don't think I said that. So of course, if I didn't say that, I have no link.

That's wonderful- Mr. Hinteler- When the 3,000 German troops arrive and are engaged in disarming Hezbollah, I promise I will send Angela Merkel a letter of congratulations.

Is that why the French say they will not send more than 400 troops?

Because they know that one German Soldier is worth 10 French cowards?

If German troops will go there, they will have to act according to the Un resolution and not to what you, some "legal expert" or others expect them to act.

The United States will not contribute ground troops to the international force, btw, said Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, head of the Pentagon's European Command. But he said U.S. military involvement may - MAY - include logistics and communications.

No way arguing with these kind of arguments. Any links?

The French are ready to send up to 1500 men.

Are they cowards like the 58 who died in Lebanon in 1983?

Sure. Why not. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think that the French offer of leading the UNIFIL mission would provide a viable way.

My question was rather due to the fact that France, in spite of its offer, was criticized here in the most snotty and condescending ways.



I will concede that American unilateralism alone is something criticized a lot. Of course, what annoyed a good many people in the run up to the Iraq war (I suppose that's what you're referring to) was that members of the US administration often criticized other countries in a most snotty and condescending ways (I specifically remember Donald Rumsfeld's comments about Germany.)

Anyways, compare Iraq to Afghanistan, and you might be tempted to argue that voting for a multilateral way of handling these issues might have a certain advantage.



I can't quite follow this argument. "Steps up first for a change", Foxy? What countries specifically would you critisize for not "stepping up" e.g. in the case of Afghanistan? I still think that it makes sense if a country rather wants to establish the context of a UN mandate first before sending troops to some foreign country.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: other countries depend on such things as "international law" and, by implication, on international institutions such as the NATO, the UN, yes, even the EU. They are not easily willing to give up their standing in the international community for an ill-advised impromptu PR event like the "Coalition of the Willing", which has no legal standing whatsoever (and I'm not specifically talking about Iraq here and don't really want to repeat that part of the discussion).

Anyways, the United States can act outside all of these institutions, and can do this alone, without the help of any other country.



I guess France has volunteered. We'll see.

If it wasn't so sad, Francis, it would really by fun to argue with these intellectuals!




New York Sun, 17.08.2006, page 7:

I just learned that Israeli commandos just hit a Hez base purportedly to stop the resupply of weapons from Syria. Some suspect that they were making an effort to retrieve the kidnapped soldiers.

Israel says this was legal because the international and Leb forces are not yet in place.

The first 'hits' in a cursory search a little while ago - most excerpted here:

NY Times - July 24MORE HERE

Reuters version yesterday
By Evelyn Leopold | August 18, 2006
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations appealed to Europeans on Friday to commit soldiers to the first wave of 3,500 troops for a U.N. force in Lebanon and the United States urged France to be among the key contributors.

Despite hesitancy from Paris, which has only offered 200 new troops, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said France was still studying new rules of engagement distributed to dozens potential troops contributors on Wednesday.

"After they have done so, I am sure they will come back with a more complete and final response as to what their ultimate contributions will be," said Casey. "I suspect we haven't heard the last from them."
President Bush also appealed to France from the Camp David presidential retreat. "There's been different signals coming out of France," he said. "We hope they send more."

Mark Malloch Brown, the U.N. deputy secretary-general, welcomed promises from Italy and Finland to deploy troops and firm commitments from Muslim nations Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, saying he wanted a balanced force.

"That is enormously helpful and a major contribution," Malloch Brown said. "But we want this force that we deploy to have a kind of multilateral character so it enjoys the confidence of both sides."
"The particular appeal I want to make today is that Europe comes forward with troops for this first wave,' he said.

Israeli officials have protested the inclusion of troops from countries without diplomatic ties to the Jewish state.

The United Nations hopes to send 3,500 troops within two weeks to oversee a truce and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after more than a month of fighting between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas.

The world body wants all contingents deployed by November after the U.N. Security Council on August 11 authorized up to 15,000 troops, including the 2,000 there now in the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL.

Much of the scrambling was prompted by France's refusal to send more than 200 troops to Lebanon in addition to the 200 now serving in UNIFIL. Another 1,700 troops are off shore but will not join the U.N. contingents France had said it would lead.

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has criticized troops being under UNIFIL command, rather than a separate force. France, during negotiations on the August 11 resolution, insisted on that arrangement to meet Lebanese demands.

She also said troops would not have the right to shoot to defend themselves, although the resolution says the force can "take all necessary actions" in resisting hostilities.

Still, Malloch Brown said France's representative had confirmed that the rules of engagement "were very acceptable and correct and a reflection of the resolution that France had obviously been an author of."
Italy approved sending troops and its defense minister said his country might eventually lead the mission. Officials said Italy might contribute up to 3,000 troops. Finland has promised 250 soldiers but not until November and both Germany and Denmark have volunteered maritime monitoring of the borders.

Spain and Belgium were among Europeans countries considering sending soldiers after their defense ministries study rules of engagement presented at a meeting of 49 nations on Thursday, about 23 of them potential troop contributors.

Nepal, a predominately Hindu nation, has also offered troops, now in the U.N. mission in southern Sudan, and may be able to get them to Lebanon quickly, Malloch Brown said.
SOURCE

CBS 8/17/06SOURCE

VOA News (whoever the heck that is)
Several nations offered troops at a meeting Thursday, but Malloch-Brown appealed to European nations to firm up their commitments in order to create a balanced multinational force.

"The firm commitments came from Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Nepal. That is enormously helpful and a major contribution. But we want this force that we deploy to have a multinational, multilateral character so that it enjoys the confidence of both sides. We said before that a Muslim-European or a European- Muslim force because of both groups' interest in this situation, but they bring when you combine them a legitimacy that satisfies both sides to this conflict. It is very important that Europe now steps forward."

Malloch-Brown says questions about the scope of the mission and specific information about the rules of engagement have been answered and he hopes government officials and military planers in European capitols will make decisions over the next days. He says the U.N. force is not an offensive force, but will use force if necessary to guarantee Israel's security.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-18-voa63.cfm

AP Today
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed to member states to provide desperately needed UN peacekeeping troops for Lebanon and assured them the UN force would not "wage war" on Israel, Lebanon, or Hezbollah.

"It is not expected to achieve by force what must be realized through negotiation and an internal Lebanese consensus," Annan said in a report to the UN Security Council on implementation of the Aug. 11 UN resolution calling for an end to the brutal Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

A key concern of many countries is whether the UN force will be called on to disarm Hezbollah fighters, as called for in a September 2004 UN resolution. They want to study the rules of engagement and concept of operations for the force, which were distributed Friday, before making a decision on troops.

Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown told reporters Friday morning "the core thing that capitals have to get over the hump on ... is that it is not an offensive force, it's not going to go in there and attempt large-scale disarmament."

He appealed to European countries Friday to contribute troops to an expanded UN force to balance the commitments from Muslim countries so that both Israel and Lebanon will view it as legitimate.

Malloch Brown welcomed Italy's announcement that it will contribute, though it gave no numbers, and Finland's pledge of 250 troops. But he stressed that more European nations are needed for the vanguard force of 3,500 troops that the UN wants on the ground by Aug. 28 to help ensure that the truce between Israel and Lebanon holds.
SOURCE

from what i've read in a variety of newspapers /mags/ websites this weekend :

- the french are willing to commit several thousands of soldiers to a U.N. forece , IF they will be given the mandate to actively engage in operation ; they do not want to be restrained to a purely 'peacekeeping' operation (similar to their role in the early part of the 'peacekeeping' operations in the former yugoslavia when they were not allowed to use weapons except in 'self-defence') ;
the way i interpret the french position is , they see it as a combat mission
and want to be assured that they will not be criticized should they shoot at a combatatant on the israeli side ;
will they be given such authority ?
doubtful in my mind !

- as far as a german contribution to the U.N. force is concened , i see it somewhat similar to the french situation - even more so !
perhaps someone might comment on this possible scenario :
german U.N. contingent in trying to separate lebanese and israeli combatants gets into a firefight with both sides and kills both lebanese and israeli soldiers !
anyone care to tackle this ?
i don't see how germany can contribute groundforces to separate lebanese/israeli warriors ; the 'political/ethical' risk is simply too high imo .

i listened some years ago to a dicussion between politicians and middle-east experts on how to resolve the conflict . there was a great of deal of talk about separation , reconciliation , agreements ... finally some of the participants said : "it'll end when both sides are so exhausted and bloodied , that they'll realize that both will have to make considerable concessions to achieve some kind of truce ".

will peace ever happen ? i won't bet any money on it , sorry !
hbg

I always have hope Hamburger, and I don't believe God ever allows an unsolvable problem. We just have to have the will to solve it.

Looking at all the news clips, I am not optimistic that there is the will at this time. I think the Israelis would be total idiots to sign onto any plan that does not include a lot of nations friendly to Israel and I would be very dubious about any plan that does not disarm Hezbollah. (One account quotes Kofi Annan as saying that the peacekeepers will not be asked to disarm Hezbollah.)

And those issuing their terms before they'll send troops seem to want permissions from Lebanon but nobody seems to care much what Israel thinks aobut it.

I am with the French if that account you posted is correct though. Send these guys in there with orders to shoot to kill if their orders are disobeyed. And give them orders to disarm and disband Hezbollah and ensure that Syria and Iran aren't resupplying guerilla fighters. And then if Israel doesn't stand down and abide by the agreement, Israel forces are fair game too.

I think that's the only way any lasting peace will happen.

It is often forgotten here that the French suffered considerable losses under similar circumstances in Lebanon when our Marine barracks (and theirs) were simultaneously blown up by terrorists. It is interesting to note that afterwards we considered a joint retaliatory strike, both of us using our carrier aircraft - we even rehearsed the operation using USS Dwight D Eisenhower and either Foch or Clemenceau (can't remember which). I was the joint strike leader atr that stage. However, later our government decided to forego the operation and bugged out -- the French went ahead on their own.

So Israel violated the ceasefire, but insisted that the truce held... Well then. Excuse me if I can't quite follow that logic.

Oe writes


Israel is also saying that their agreement to stand down was based on Syria and Iran not rearming Hezbollah. They have every right to prevent that happening until there are sufficient UN peacekeepers there to do that duty in Israel's place.

Not according to the UN resolution, which was violated by the Israeli commando raid. I can see the reasoning, but it is not a very constructive move. Very short sighted.

What does Israel gain by intercepting one movement of Hezbollah? What does Israel loose if the truce doesn't hold, Lebanon stops the deployment of its army to the South, and Hezbollah starts again launching rockets at Israel?

Anyhow. As long as it is an isolated incident, let's hope both sides will refrain from further attacks.

On second thought, Israel could argue that according to the UN resolution, which



it was only performing a defensive military operation.

<sigh>

Anyways. Not a very smart move, in my opinion.

Actually, I am a firm believer that it takes all kinds of people to make the world work (excluding those attempting to prevent the world from working properly via suicide bombing and terrorism of course), and the French strike me as interesting to some extent.

Hollywood has gone brain-dead pretty much these days and, amongst the foreign films I've watched recently (to take up the slack) is a full-blown DVD performance of Jacques Offenbach's Orpheus in the Underworld.

Watching that, you have to get the impression that the conduct of the Olympians is basically the French idea of a near perfect society, and the question you end up asking yourself is what would French society look like if there were no other nations, i.e. if they did not think that anybody else was watching, or might have reporters in their midst.

Things like public displays of chastity or sobriety or anything like that would be illegal of course, people would run naked unless it was very, very cold outside, public fornication would be not only legal, but required, legally as well as socially....

I mean, the couple pictured in American Gothic and/or the man in the grey flannel suit wouldn't have a prayer in such a place.

Gunga's finally lost what little sanity it ever had.

Another angle on it, and I can't remember exactly where I read this other than that it was in one of the West Point military history series, the basic claim is that France has always had the agricultural basis to support twenty times the population of any of her immediate neighbors, and you have to figure that with anything even remotely resembling competent leadership (as opposed to intrigue, wine, women, and song 100% of the time), France should have dominated Europe militarily ever after the fall of the Roman empire in the west.

If Hizbollah is permanently disarmed by others, Israel will return back behind its borders ... and the conflict will be over.

If Hizbollah is not permanently disarmed by others, Israel will pour over its borders into Lebanon and try to disarm Hizbollah itself ... and the conflict will escalate to massive killings of Hizbollahs, massive killings of non-hizbollahs in Hizbollah neighborhoods, and massive killings of Israelies.

If the Israelies were not to respond this way to the failure of others to disarm Hizbollah, then there would only be massive killings of Israelies.

That's reality whether you like it or not, whether you like Israel or not, whether you like Hizbollah or not, whether you like Lebanon or not, whether you like Muslims or not, whether you like Jews or not, whether you like Christians or not, whether you like America or George Bush or not, whether you like the UN or Kofi Annan or not.

I for one think Israelies would be crazy to do otherwise. I think a large majority of the Israelies think the same. They think that if they are destined to be nearly exterminated again, an awful lot of others will be likewise nearly exterminated in the process. They are not willing to accept their deaths passively like most of them did the last time.

So, the West has little choice. The West must permanently disarm Hizbollah. It's non-negotiable.