WB: The Portmanteau Resolution

August 6, 2006

Billmon:

Personally, if I were Sheikh Nasrallah, I’d take the first part of the resolution (the immediate ceasefire part) and not worry too much about the second part. If the IDF’s footholds in southern Lebanon are as precarious as I think they are, the Israelis will be looking for ways to give them up before too long — particularly if the proposed multinational force never materializes or (as I suspect) proves to be not much more than a glorified version of UNIFIL. And the other conditions for a "permanent" solution (disarmament, Lebanese Army control in the south, the arms embargo) can either be evaded, tapdanced around — for example, by simply grandfathering Hizbullah units into the Lebanese Army — or just plain ignored. I mean, who exactly is going to seal the Syrian border against resupply?

The Portmanteau Resolution

Posted by b on August 6, 2006 at 05:55 UTC | Permalink

Comments

That “slightly different phrasing” as Billmon calls it is very important. It is not the IOF, after all, but the IDF that is laying waste to Lebanon, in defense of Israel, of course.

Posted by: ww | Aug 6 2006 6:36 utc | 1

Gideon Levy: The real estate war

This miserable war in Lebanon, which is just getting more and more complicated for no reason at all, was born in Israel’s greed for land. Not that Israel is fighting this time to conquer more land, not at all, but ending the occupation could have prevented this unnecessary war. If Israel had returned the Golan Heights and signed a peace treaty with Syria in a timely fashion, presumably this war would not have broken out.
Peace with Syria would have guaranteed peace with Lebanon and peace with both would have prevented Hezbollah from fortifying on Israel’s northern border. Peace with Syria would have also isolated Iran, Israel’s true, dangerous enemy, and cut off Hezbollah from one of the two sources of its weapons and funding. It’s so simple, and so removed from conventional Israeli thinking, which is subject to brainwashing.
…
The war against the Palestinians is therefore unequivocally a territorial war, a war for the settlements. In other words, in the West Bank and Gaza, people were killed and are getting killed because of our greed for land. From Golda Meir to Ehud Olmert, the lie has held that the war with the Palestinians is an existential one for survival imposed on Israel when it is actually a war for real estate, one dunam after another, that does not belong to us.
…
But the current war could yet turn out to be only an appetizer for the coming wars, which will be far more dangerous. The saying that time is on our side is another delusion. The Arab and Muslim world has armed, in all of this time, and the danger of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is already hovering over our heads. The only response to that is maximum neutralization of the flashpoints, before the bomb arrives. But Israel has chosen to close its eyes and build its future on a horrifyingly temporary quiet, or on more and more war operations.
Just when territory is losing its military importance because of the development of new fighting technology, Israel is using security excuses to stay in the territories. Former-prime minister Ehud Barak criminally missed the opportunity to sign a peace treaty with Syria after he got “cold feet,” as witnesses said, and retreated at the last minute. That’s how it works with us. When the other side is quiet, why return territories? And when they do go to war, “there’s nobody to talk to,” and certainly not while we are “under fire.”
…
As in the case of the peace with Egypt, the move that has guaranteed Israel’s security for years far more than any war, and which was put together behind the America’s back, America would not be able to oppose a peace agreement with Syria. Now, after we’ve hit Hezbollah and ruined Lebanon, the prime minister of Israel should declare: the Golan for peace. That could contribute a lot more to our security than a thousand useless daring operations in Baalbek, but it would take a lot more courage than going off to fight another unnecessary and useless war.

Posted by: b | Aug 6 2006 7:54 utc | 2

Ok Billmon I’ll play.
‘If I were Nasrallah’ I’d publicly demand as part of any permanent cease fire agreement, that Israel pay war reparations for reconstruction of all of Lebanon.
This way I solidify Hezbollah’s standing among non-Shiites as defender of Lebanese soevreignty and win the next elections in a landslide. As leader of the new government, I then get to dole out all that wonderful International reconstruction (pay off) money to my friends and uncles in the construction business.
That’s what I’d do. Am I thinking too parochially?

Posted by: Night Owl | Aug 6 2006 8:08 utc | 3

This miserable war in Lebanon, which is just getting more and more complicated for no reason at all, was born in Israel’s greed for land.
In other words, in the West Bank and Gaza, people were killed and are getting killed because of our greed for land.

All the geopolitical theorising wiles away the hours, but occam’s razor cuts to the quick.
Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon… greed, old-fashioned, garden-variety greed is at the bottom of all of it.
The admonition against greed is pre-Christian, it is Mosaic. The same-old, same-old mistakes in endless profusion. The history of mankind.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 6 2006 9:04 utc | 4

Aside from the explicit omission that allows Israel’s “maximum neutralization” of Lebanon (got that phrase from b’s Haaretz post) to continue as long as they only do so defensively while demanding that Hesbollah just lie down and take it, the Lebanese have specified that the proposed resolution is a non-starter because it doesn’t call for the withdrawal of Israel’s occupationary forces.
Hesbollah will not stop fighting as long as the Israelis are in Lebanon. Hmm… makes sense to me. No matter what the US/Israeli side says they began this war and invaded Lebanon.
How many outsanding SC resolutions are honored in their breech in the Middle East right now? Is Israel the champion breecher? I don’t know. Resolution 242 sticks in my mind.
While the members of the UN SC fiddle Lebanon burns. It is the United States of America that is ultimately to blame here. They could rein-in the mad dogs in Israel in a minute if they wanted to. They turned the dogs loose to begin with.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 6 2006 9:19 utc | 5

You mean like this quote, JFL:
“Wars can be prevented just as surely as they can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent them, must share the guilt for the dead.” —Omar N. Bradley

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 6 2006 14:55 utc | 6

Sorry, not everyone may know who Omar Bradley was.
Gen Omar Bradley

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 6 2006 15:02 utc | 7

on the article posted by b (Levy)
From Israel’s pov. it needs land – and what comes with the land, resources. Israel has zero fossil fuels, practically no water, and its agriculture is intensively fertilised (i.e. run with fossil fuels.) The Litani river is a material thing, and highly symbolic as well. Israel will not forbid swimming pools and desalination plants are very expensive. Running a country with water that costs more than wine (say) is best avoided. That is just one point, minor strategically maybe at this time, but it is these kinds of considerations that fuel aggression; always have, always will.
It remains true that bigger countries have more power and influence than smaller ones. Israel itself is often quoted as an exception to this ‘rule’ – but then Israel has the fourth most powerful army in the world, care of the the hegemon.
Without territory, one holds nothing, as the US adventure in Iraq shows, though we haven’t seen the lasting results of that experiment yet. ‘New fighting technology’ as mentioned in the article is a technotopic dream, not decisive on the ground in local conflict, as Hizbulla’s success shows.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 6 2006 15:52 utc | 8

To pursue, no matter how one looks at the invasion of Lebanon, it represents a convergence of US and Israeli interests. (Imagining their respective povs, I think Isr. is least best served.)
Difficulties and ad hoc actions arise because these two parties do not have the same fundamental underlying aims, and one partner is subservient to the other (US the dominator.) Taking Israel as a), the US as b):
a) local territorial aims, related to unclear, disputed borders, territorial patches of various kinds, ugly walls, etc. Defense turned to agression.
b) global hegemonic aims – here, a desire to smash a supporter or branch of Iran and work towards the creation of the new ME. Wide, global, attack.
a) the desire to obtain resources for personal use and buffer a limping economy; attract quality immigrants; have many trading partners, shine, etc.
b) unconcern for the ‘economic problems’ of the people in the short range (neo-con)
a) a racist framework, with discrimination and oppression acted out face-to-face
b) an anti-racist, ‘democratic’, idealistic, neo-fascistic, corporate model of the world
a) a desire to be like everyone else. Why couldn’t Israel be just like any other small first-world country? Happy on the Mediterranean?
b) a desire to be like nobody else and rule the world
Israel’s concerns are practically medieval – trade, water, land, looking after its own, keeping the infidels out.
The US, to survive, needs a grander strategy.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 6 2006 16:06 utc | 9

Noirette,
“US the dominator”.
Wrong of course, but interesting, because it is such a common idée fixe in Lebanon. Where does it come from, this magical thinking in Lebanon about Great Powers?
Once upon a time I was owed money by a crook in Beirut. After several fruitless efforts to collect, I paid a cop to go to the crook, and claim that my Great Power Embassy was mightily displeased with my predicament. “Bad things might happen.”
The crook, who previously had been nothing but evasiveness and derision, got scared, and started paying. It wasn’t the cop who managed to scare him, it was the mirage of the wrathful Great Power embassy.
(The embassy incidentally had told me they couldn’t do anything for me).
Is this Great Powers idea a God substitute? I am curious.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 6 2006 17:02 utc | 10

The US with its nu-ku-lear threat and its military superiority, that has cost its people dear, IS the hegemon. It controls international politics, trade (sloppily), the UN, the world bank, and all the rest. Or at least appears to, and fights to do so (Bolton, Wolfie, etc.) with some success, holding its own, for the moment.
The US could stop the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon in 5 minutes flat.
Are you saying the US and Western powers did not destroy Yuglosavia and bring Russia to its knees? It is all a fantasy?

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 6 2006 18:32 utc | 11

Even Newsweek makes clear that Israeli assault on Lebanon is opening salvo in NeoNut agenda:
And Israeli Ambassador to Washington Daniel Ayalon told NEWSWEEK on Saturday that Israel expects Hizbullah to do more now than just hold its fire. “What is important to us is not just that Hizbullah’s operations end but also the arms shipments from Iran and Syria. And first they must release the two abducted soldiers.” In that case, countries like France and Italy would be reluctant to honor pledges to send peacekeeping troops. “An international force arriving in Lebanon without the war having been stopped … would be exposed to Iraq-style risks,” said Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema. Worse, they would be up against Hizbullah. link
Israel is NOT offering to – Remove its troops from Lebanon or Negotitate release of prisoners it holds & its demands that Iran stop rearming Hez- makes it clear that Syria & Iran are it’s real targets.

Posted by: jj | Aug 6 2006 20:09 utc | 12

Yes the US is the hegemon, but not Israel’s hegemon.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 6 2006 20:27 utc | 13

But if you are a designated terrorist organization without advanced weapons, and you try to participate in the “democratic” process, you’ll get thrown in the slammer. No UN Security Council resolutions for you.
“Hamas on line two.”

Posted by: Night Owl | Aug 6 2006 23:14 utc | 14

@ Noirette #9:
Nicely formulated.
@ Guthman Bey #10:
Great story. That’s whats called using soft power. As the realists know it is much more effective. Had you gone after him, he could have retaliated and killed him, this way he remains in fear and awe of you.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 7 2006 5:40 utc | 15

Back to Main