What is Necessary to End the War in Lebanon

[BluffTHIS!]

Of course the diplomatic push is on to end the fighting in Lebanon and Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, and various elements of such a diplomatic solution are being discussed. Of particular importance is that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have called upon Syria to stop aiding Hezbollah. It should also be noted that while political factions in Lebanon that don't support Hezbollah and want to see it dismantled don't like Israel's attacks, they also don't seem to be chomping at the bit to have the Lebanese army involved as has been threated, other than of course various Shi'a factions.

It would seem that the following elements are the minimal ones necessary to end this conflict:

1) Syria agrees to stop supplying Hezbollah.

Syria won't want to do this of course, especially because the attention will return to the investigations of its alleged involvement in the assasination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Also it may be necessary for Egypt to pledge to block any arms shipments through the Suez canal from Iran.

2) Lebanon agrees to and takes immediate steps to implement UN resolutions calling on it to have their army occupy Southern Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah.

This is going to be essential. Israel must not be constantly subject to missile attack, and the only way to achieve that is by disarming Hezbollah and not allowing their militia to exist and control a geographic area of Lebanon. Their militia is also a legacy of the warlord militias from the Lebanese Civil War that all were supposed to be disarmed or disbanded as were other ones in 1991.

In an account in a Lebanese newspaper I read the other day, some leaders were calling for the integration of the Hezbollah militia into the Lebanese army. If this means integrating individual soldiers into existing units, then maybe that might work. But any attempt to just regularize their militia units and say that they are under the Lebanese military command when in reality they still operate freely as they please would be seen for the sham it is.


3) Israel agrees that in the future when there might be isolated instances of missile attacks, it will give the Lebanese army a reasonable amount of time to deal with the perpetrators before taking action in Lebanese territory itself.

4) Lebanon agrees to a peace treaty ending the formal state of war that has existed for years and both countries recognize each other's right to exist.



It seems to me that the above are the minimal elements for a true diplomatic solution and that if any one them either aren't included or are not sincerely implemented, then any ceasefire that might come about shortly will only be a temporary lull in a war.

And the bottom line is that if Lebanon wants to be treated with the dignity and rights of a sovereign nation, then it has to act like a sovereign nation and control all its claimed territory. Otherwise it should renounce southern Lebanon and leave them to their own fate.

[adios]

Fine analysis but based on what you write in this post I don't think a diplomatic solution is coming soon because I don't see that any of the four conditions will be met. But I agree that these conditions provide a suitable framework for ending the conflict. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Copernicus]

It all ends at 1, not gonna happen.

If it did, there is some small chance that 2 could be effective, but not a big one unless Israel has time to cripple Hezbollah before the cease fire. Even without Syria they are too strong for Lebanon to handle. Their strategy of being both a terrorist organization and a strong humanitarian force within Lebanon ensures both bodies and funding if a viable base remains.

3. is plausible, depending on timeframes and the autonomy they have to respond if Lebanon is incapable.

4. I thought this happened already before or with 1559?

[in48092]

1) Syria agrees to stop supplying Hezbollah.

If hizballah is largely dismantled, this could remove #1 from the equation. Now that they have no troops in lebanon, syria is relegated to the few intel guys they have there, and hizballah as their "arm" in lebanon. If hizballah is disarmed and dismantled as a militia, there will be no cohesive group for syria to arm.

For syria to agree to stop arming hizballah, they would need to be given something in return. Assad has been quoted as saying something to the effect of, "we are not a charitable organization" essentially saying that if syria is to concede something, they want something in return. however the chuckleheads in power in syria don't deserve to be given anything because they are essentially trying to blackmail the west/israel.
frankly, there is probably no way short of all out war on syria to get them to stop meddling in syria. the syrian regime seems to think that their influence in lebanon is to important to give up. however, the cost benefit does not add up for israel to attack syria. the truth is, syria's involvement with hizballah hurts lebanon alot more then it hurts israel. the last thing syria wants is a functioning democracy next door in lebanon, particularily if lebanon and israel reach a peace aggreement. if this "nightmare scenario" occured the syrian people might start wondering if maybe they would be better served under a democracy as well. syria's general foreign policy seems to be to spread destruction to it's neighbors thereby legitimizing itself by the relative security enjoyed in syria, and by focusing the syiran populaces attention on external problems.
the real question is, how to address syria, and is it worth it for israel/the u.s. to do so?

[cpk]

Israel has a clear objective here: Permanently (or at least indefinitely) removing Hezbollah's warfighting ability, thereby removing Syrian and Iranian influence in southern Lebanon in one fatal blow. If this is not to happen, Israel would have to have clear evidence that Lebanon would be up to the task of containing Hezbollah. This is not likely to happen.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
4. I thought this happened already before or with 1559?

[/ QUOTE ]


Although there was a UN brokered withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon after their 1992-2000 occupation of it along with their surrogate SLA, to my knowledge Lebanon and Israel have never signed a peace treaty. The two countries have never had formal diplomatic relations either as far as I know. Thus, whether they have considered themselves in a perpetual technical state of war as with Israel and Syria, they certainly haven't considered themselves on good terms either.

[iron81]

The main flaw with Bluff's plan is that it does not involve talking to Hezbollah, who after all are one of the sides in this conflict. I have called Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but I am beginning to rethink that statement, mostly because Hezbollah does not employ suicide bombers that I am aware of. I think war criminals might be a better label, insofar as indiscriminate targeting of cities with rockets is a war crime. I say this because Hezbollah is too big to be destroyed by Israel and too integrated into the Lebanese peace agreement to be disarmed by the Lebanese Military. Therefore, Israel is going to have to talk to Hezbollah. Therefore, I propose a much simpler plan to end the war.

1) Hezbollah agrees to give back the captured soldiers
2) Israel agrees to give up 5-10 Hezbollah prisoners.

This plan has the virtue of being more feasible than Bluff's plan and allowing the Lebanese to deal with Hezbollah later, which I believe they need to do to avoid another civil war. It is my opinion that Hezbollah can be a much better negotiating partner than Hamas because it is my understanding that Hezbollah had been behaving themselves since the Syrians left Lebanon. If necessary, this can include the UN/NATO peacekeeping force being discussed, but if Hezbollah can hold their fire for the previous year, they can do it again.

[BluffTHIS!]

iron,

I didn't even list an exchange of prisoners as that is a given, and the taking of hostages was only the proximate cause of a flareup of a simmering conflict. Exchanging prisoners only is really no plan at all. Israel simply is not after all of this going to let Hezbollah remain where they are within rocket range and continue to threaten their civilian population at the behest of Iran and Syria.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. I thought this happened already before or with 1559?

[/ QUOTE ]


Although there was a UN brokered withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon after their 1992-2000 occupation of it along with their surrogate SLA, to my knowledge Lebanon and Israel have never signed a peace treaty. The two countries have never had formal diplomatic relations either as far as I know. Thus, whether they have considered themselves in a perpetual technical state of war as with Israel and Syria, they certainly haven't considered themselves on good terms either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to their recognizing each others right to exist..I thought Lebanon already had done that.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Israel simply is not after all of this going to let Hezbollah remain where they are within rocket range and continue to threaten their civilian population at the behest of Iran and Syria.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I think that is a lot more likely than Iran and Syria cutting off Hezbollah. If Israel could live with a relatively peaceful Hezbollah on the border two weeks ago, they can live with it now.
2. If they won't, we will need international peacekeepers. I hear that France and Turkey are working on a plan that has a lot of promise on that front.

I also want to address those who believe the solution will be a military defeat of Hezbollah. Its not gonna happen. Israel could spend the next ten years occupying Lebanon and when they are done Hezbollah will be on the border cheering their departure. The only military option Israel has for destroying Hezbollah is the glass parking lot.