Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Revisiting Res 1701 otherwise known as Livni’s fiasco

Ted Belman

Jpost has an editorial Lebanon tipping-point? in which it reviews the deteriating situation in Lebanon. I thought I would review how Livni sold Res 1701 to Israelis just as Olmert “sold” Israelis that the Lebanon War II was a success.

The Lebanese Cabinet just approved a policy statement that observers say is a green light for Hizbullah’s armed operations against Israel. It is now to come before Parliament for approval. It is ironic that it is being passed almost to the day two years after Resolution 1701 was passed. It thereby ends the Livni’s hope, speculation or prayer that somehow 1701 would make a difference. When Foreign Minister Livni addressed the Cabinet in Israel just after it was passed she couched her embrace of it with these words.

- “resolution is good for Israel and, if implemented,”

- “I am aware of the fact that not every resolution is implemented. I am aware of the difficulties, and despite all this I say with complete confidence that the Security Council resolution is good for Israel.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “It is important to state that, from the beginning, when we understood that, in fact, these goals had to be achieved by political means, and because it was obvious to us that the entire international community understood the cause of the recent incidents and that it was necessary to implement Resolution 1559, we ourselves acted to initiate the procedures and resolutions that would promote the goals we had set ourselves.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “and assuming that it is implemented - compared with the situation that existed before, could create a dramatic change in southern Lebanon.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “Even in the last hours before passage of the resolution, we wanted to ensure that this embargo would be enforceable and substantive, preventing the transfer of arms from these countries to Hizbullah, in fact, to anyone other than the Lebanese army. Now the embargo is part of the UN resolution and the terms and formulation of this article are acceptable to Israel and express our opinion - a proper embargo.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “And it is important to say that, one way or the other, responsibility has been imposed on the Lebanese government to ensure that arms do not enter in order to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “The question has been asked about whether everything is now dependent on decisions or requests from the Lebanese government with regard to the international forces, … From our standpoint, any entire process that involves placing power in the hands of the Lebanese government so that it can enforce its sovereignty is a positive one which, of course, creates a genuine change in the situation in Lebanon.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “It is also clear that the entire process is intended to lead, in the end, to the disarming of Hizbullah, not just to the Lebanese army moving southward, not just to an embargo, but to a process completed by the disarmament of Hizbullah, as was required from the start in the previous resolutions, but today we are also creating the way to enforce this process at a practical level.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “regarding the international force - should it become apparent that the forces that were decided upon are not adequate, the resolution opens the way that will allow for improving the mandate and creating a proper force so that it will be more effective, with a broader mandate than this one. This is already determined in the resolution.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “Israel, of course demanded that the kidnapped soldiers be returned to their families as this was and still is our goal. This statement now appears in the Security Council resolution. True, it appears in the preamble, which is referred to as the “declarative section,” but the soldiers are mentioned as the cause of the dispute for which the citizens of Israel and some of the citizens of Lebanon have paid dearly and which created the urgent need to deal with the factors that led to the current crisis, including releasing the kidnapped Israeli soldiers unconditionally.” TOTAL FAILURE

- “In my estimation, especially due to the events of the past month, the international community as well as the Lebanese government understands that Israel will no longer accept a situation whereby a terrorist organization sits on its border and fires Katyushas at Israeli citizens or, alternatively, attacks Israeli soldiers whenever it wants to. So as I stated earlier, in comparing the political situation on the day before and the chance that this resolution will change the situation in Lebanon, with the goals we set for ourselves here two days after the beginning of the conflict and what we hope to achieve following termination of the military operation, without addressing the question of when and how it will end, we have attained most of the goals in the Israeli initiative which, in effect, we placed as the first draft on the table of the international community.”





I didn’t intersperse comments here other than highlighting certain words that convey the message.

Before and after the resolution was passed, I wrote the following

The ceasefire resolution doesn’t require anyone to disarm Hezbollah
August 14, 2006
The UN resolution doesn’t contain any obligation to disarm Hezbollah. What are 30,000 soldiers for? Window dressing to sell the resolution.

A “Robust International Force” is a Crock
August 7, 2006
A strong independent, international fighting force in Lebanon will never happen, and drafters of the resolution know it.

No ceasefire is better than a bad ceasefire
August 5, 2006
The prosecution of his war by Olmert’s left-leaning government has been a disaster, based on its overwhelming desire to avoid another occupation.

How can anyone want Livni to be Prime Minister?

No comments: