Olmert backs joint EU-Arab force for south Lebanon

[bemildred]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert supports the idea of a combined force of troops from European and Arab states that would be deployed in Lebanon.

The force would be charged with stripping Hezbollah of its long-range rocket arsenal, deploying along the border of Israel in southern Lebanon and preventing the transfer of arms from Syria to the radical Shi'ite organization.

In talks with German Foreign Minister Frank Steinmeier yesterday, Olmert said that "Israel will agree to consider the deployment of a force with military capability and fighting experience, comprising European Union countries, and only after its mandate is determined, which must include control of the passes between Syria and Lebanon, the deployment in southern Lebanon and assisting the Lebanese Army; and especially the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559 calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah."

In a telephone conversation with members of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, Olmert expressed support for the idea of incorporating troops from Arab states in the multinational force.

Haaretz

[bemildred]

1. Syria 'must be blocked from supplying weapons to Hizbullah'

Israel is demanding that any peace deal with Lebanon includes agreement on international control or monitoring of the country's border crossings with Syria to block the delivery of weapons to Hizbullah fighters.

Katyusha rockets and other equipment are still being sent from Damascus into Lebanon as fighting continues in the south, a senior Israeli foreign ministry official told the Guardian today.

Israel says Syrian or Iranian-supplied military material has been hit in its air strikes on the Beirut-Damascus road, though Israel has been reluctant to reveal this for fear of exposing its intelligence sources. Syria claims the vehicles are carrying humanitarian or medical supplies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1827918,00.html

[DELUSIONAL]

2. Oh -- now Israel wants UN help???? after thumbing her nose at the UN?

Interesting that Israel is demanding implementation of Security Council Resolutions when it suites her aims but thumbs her nose at dozens and dozens of UN Resolutions directed at Israel.

Can't have it both ways Israel -- oh I forgot -- Bolton works for Israel also. Never mind .. . The UN can just close its doors -- Bolton can do the job of the whole UN. That saves money -- just pay one fat white guy a big fat salary.

[ShortnFiery]

5. I don't think NATO or the UN will be there for Israel ...

Sooner or later, "The Bully" must stand alone or with a couple cronies at most.

Lucky Brits & USA! Rah ... :grr:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funnymanpants]

7. Absolutely false

Israel has been in violation of over 70 UN Security Council Resolutions. For instance, it is violating 242 and 338 even as we speak.

Here is a full list.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2417

[sabbat hunter]

19. UN resolution

UN resolution 242 goes both ways you know. it gives israel rights too. like safe and defensible borders (not a complete withdrawl from west bank and gaza like some think), like a complete halting to hostilites.

It also calls for the recognition of all established states by belligerent parties (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) of each other and calls for the establishment of defensible boundaries for all parties.
It was reaffirmed and made binding by UN Security Council Resolution 338, adopted after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

so far syria has refused to recognize israel.

furthermore it goes on to say

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

ie not a right of return but a just settlement.

in 1947 jordan annexed the west bank (it is when it changed its name from transjordan to jordan). it was only after israel conquered the west bank that jordan reliquished that annexation.

why didnt jordan allow a palestinian state to exist in 1947?

[funnymanpants]

22. Not really correct

Much of what you say about 242 is correct. But the preamble clearly states that you cannot acquire any territory through war. That is what it states. So yes, it does mean Israel has to withdraw to the 1967 lines. Yes, Israel should have secure borders. That doesn't mean it build settlements and then claim it is for security.

I never said 242 guarentees the right of return.

As far as Jordan's actions go, Jordan is a dictatorship which did not care about the Palestinians. Israel likewise does not care about the Palestinians. Because Jordan acted illegally does not give Israel the right to do so.

[hadrons]

24. thanks for the list ....

I can use it

[funnymanpants]

8. Further, you are just smearing

Calling someone anti-semitic just because he is against Iraeli aggression is just a smear. Do you have any proof that the UN security council resolutions that America vetos are anti-semitic? Or are you just playing the race card.

All human rights groups that have looked at the conflict--Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, B'Tsleem (based in Israel), a Palestinian Human Rights Organization, and the UN Human Rights commission, have found Israel to be guilty of "deliberate killings" and "torture," to quote a UN human rights report, endorsed by something like 140 nations and only opposed by 2, Israel and the US.

Are you saying that the whole world is anti-semitic, and that all these human rights groups are also anti-semitic?

[IndianaGreen]

10. There is that pesky UN Security Council Resolution 242 and Bolton's veto

First, there is that pesky UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 that calls for a withdrawal of all lands occupied in the June 1967 War:

Resolution 242 (1967)

of 22 November 1967

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

And then we have the fact that while the UN General Assembly has been expressing the world's views regarding Israel's Occupation, the United States has protected Israel in the Security Council by the use of its veto.

Just last week, the US stood alone in opposition to a UN Security Council Resolution calling for a ceasefire. Bolton vetoed the resolution, the world be damned!

[funnymanpants]

11. Agree

Apologists for Israel's expansion state two reasons why 242 does not mean Israel must get out of the West Bank, Gaza, and E. Jerusalem. (Note: Israel has partially withdrawn from Gaza, though it still controls its borders and air space and hence is still an occupying power.)

1. The absence of the word "the" when describing the territories.

2. The clause that states both sides must negotiate, which the apologists have interpreted to mean Israel can take as much as she wants.

Just do a search on 242 and you will find literally hundreds of sites echoing these talking points. Here is the rebuttal:

1. The preamble of the resolution clearly states that land cannot be won in a war. Israel did not control the occupied territories before the 6 day war. It did after. It cannot keep this territory according to the UN charter, which 242 affirms.

2. The French version of the text does include the word "the."

3. The ultimate arbitrator of the meaning of the UN resolutions is the UN itself, which has repeatedly stated that Israel is in violation of 242.

Since Israel cannot hold land captured in a war, and since it continues to build settlements in the occupied territories, deemed a "war crime" by the Red Cross, the international body that determines these matters, Israel is clearly violating 242.

Also, how can you call a cease-fire anti-semetic? Is the desire to stop the fighting, and therefore stop the killing of innocent civilians, somehow the same as hating Jews?

[IndianaGreen]

13. Israel has no more a legal claim to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and

Gaza than Saddam had on Kuwait.

[sabbat hunter]

20. the palestinians

have no more of a legal claim on east jerusalem either then. under the UN partition jerusalem was supposed to be an international city. I think the way it is run now is fine. Israel capital, holy sites in old city ran by the respective religions.

[funnymanpants]

23. wrong: UN explicitly states activity is illegal

What Israel is doing is completely illegal.

Resolution 452 found here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un452.htm

states:

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Here is a map of settlements in E. Jerusalem:

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/images/jer_maps/Settlements.html

(Edit: I thought 338 dealt with Jerulalem and I was completely mistaken.)

[confludemocrat]

3. Israel wants the UN or NATO to save them from themselves

and protect them from hezbollah. Their game: destroy Lebanon and when they're through, they and the US will engage in a "peace offensive" that has one of these entities shielding them from the consequences of their actions. This is not going to work. Why should NATO subsidize the unjust actions of Israel and once they have turned south Lebanon into a wasteland, be required to shield Israel from the outrage that will follow?

[ShortnFiery]

4. Sure, lots of contracts and war profiteeing to be accomplish. eom

[funnymanpants]

9. UN Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for kidnapping

Sorry if this is just a bit off topic, but the discussion about Israel's violation of UN Security Council Resolutions helped me turn up a UN Security Resolution condemning Israel for kidnapping.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un347.htm


1. Condemns Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon;

2. Condemns all acts of violence, especially those which result in the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, and urges all concerned to refrain from any further acts of violence;

3. Calls upon all Governments concerned to respect their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law;

4. Calls upon Israel forthwith to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians;

5. Calls upon all parties to refrain from any action which might endanger negotiations aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

On Edit: this resolution dates from 1974. Just to be clear.

[KittyWampus]

12. yeah, well... DU'ers should stuff the snark and hope some kind of deal

gets made and right quick.

Or perhaps some would prefer the carnage continue so the sarcasm etc can pile up even more?

[anotherdrew]

14. gee, maybe he could have started out with this position

controling the international arms trade would have gone a long way to preventing non-state actors from buying military grade weapons too, but OF COURSE the terrorists in the bushgang wouldn't dream of cracking down on arms merchents, hell just the opposite, we're using them ourselves!

[funnymanpants]

15. Why has this forum been moved?

I thought the policy was to keep threads on the ongoing war in the latest breaking news section?

For another thing, the article is not about the Israli-Palestinian conflict, but about the Lebanon-Israeli conflict. Most importantly, this article is pretty important. It signals a cease-fire may be on the way.

[funnymanpants]

17. Thanks for the timely response, moderator

Once again, real debate on Israel's actions have been stifled. The I/P forum is equivelent to the free speach zones in the US. The idea is to give people the illusion that they can practice free speach, but make sure no one can hear them.

If you want to know why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on, the actions of DU are a good place to start. Israel has aggresively stollen land since 1967 (and even before that, really), and whenever activist try to make this an issue, the pro-Israel-no-matter-what-crowd protest vehemently. Many, if not most of these pro-Israel types are liberals or part of the activist community. Other liberals and activist don't even want to split the community, so they stifle debate. And Israel goes and steals more land.

[cali]

18. I don't agree that such an

equation can be made. The I/P forum actually filters out a lot of garbage, and the level of debate on I/P is far more sophisticated and thoughtful than that on DU in general. Not to mention that DU is a private board. Think of it as being a guest in someone's home.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Olmert has a good idea, BUT it doesn't go far enough!

Let's put a massive NATO-Arab military force on the pre-June 1967 borders, and let's reroute Sharon's Wall so that it runs along the pre-June 1967 borders, and thus separate Israel from her neighbors.

[pelsar]

21. and will that force..

be willing to confront and engage in combat with the various jihadnkim...and bring back bodies to their home countries?......

[Recursion]

25. I can answer that one: no

This is pretty shrewd on Olmert's part, though, to include Arab forces in the peacekeepers. We'll see if Jordan and Egypt really will put their troops where their mouths are and work to prevent attacks both into and from Israel.