UN's Lebanon peace bid under fire

[leftchick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5252478.stm

As Arab foreign ministers meet in the Lebanese capital Beirut to discuss the continuing violence in the Middle East, the Lebanese government has criticised a draft UN resolution for failing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

Its objections are being echoed by both Syria and Iran.

Although the draft resolution calls for a "full cessation of hostilities", no-one expects that to mean an actual halt to the violence.

Indeed the remarks of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, suggest it is only a step towards what the Lebanese government is so desperate to achieve - a complete ceasefire.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is also demanding something else that is not in the draft - the withdrawal of Israeli forces from south Lebanon.

[Kagemusha]

1. Makes it sound like Israeli withdrawal is horribly unreasonable.

Sad it's come to that.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

2. The problem is Lebanon doesn't want to accept the occupation

That is the main thing that is holding up them signing it, but I don't know if they really need them to sign it, since America and Israel have OKd it, and it is just a UN resolution anyway. We would never let them have one that was against Israel but even if we did, that would not mean that Israel would stop the occupation, or the bombing if they felt like it was necessary for their security.

I know we used to let them have resolutions that criticized Israel but that is my point, Israel just didn't pay any attention to them. You only have to obey those resolutions if we say you do, like Iraq, remember they said that justified the invasion because Saddam didn't obey a UN resolution.

[rodeodance]

3. yes, the primary goal is to get the resolution and then for the US to use

it as a big hammer (as you say).

Also, there is a provision for Israel--they can defend themselves.