Israel to cave on UN peacekeepers? (Update: Iranian Hezbollah threatens U.S.) (Update: One week?)
posted at 9:46 am on July 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The world’s most populous Muslim country is offering to contribute troops.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni hinted Tuesday that Israel would not object to a temporary international force in south Lebanon, despite earlier an outright Israeli rejection of such a plan.
Speaking after a meeting with a United Nations delegation headed by special envoy Vijay Nambiar, Livni said that while Israel would prefer the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south of the country, “we will consider other solutions put forward.”
“If there is a need to strengthen the Lebanese army somehow, so that the military in south Lebanon is effective, and prevents Hezbollah from returning, we will consider ways to do achieve this,” Livni said…
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also met with the UN team, despite saying previously that he would not do so.
Olmert told them the IDF won’t relent until Israel’s security is ensured, which could take three or four days, or a week, or several weeks. Livni says the diplomacy won’t affect the army’s operations, but former foreign minister Silvan Shalom knows better: he says their window to deal Hezbollah a serious blow is closing.
There’s another round of articles about the X factor this morning, too. When even Shimon Peres is pessimistic, it’s time to go to Plan B.
Otherwise, not much going on. Business is booming for the flag industry in the Gaza strip, but then isn’t it always.
Update: Breaking on Fox — a boat sent to get Americans out of Beirut has been halted by the blockade. That’ll give the Israel-haters something to add to their webpages about the USS Liberty.
Update: America isn’t the only country with a loose-lipped media.
Update: The Tehran chapter of Hezbollah is ready to oblige Newt Gingrich:
Iran’s Hizbollah, which claims links to the Lebanese group of the same name, said on Tuesday it stood ready to attack Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.
“We have 2,000 volunteers who have registered since last year,” said Iranian Hizbollah’s spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli, speaking by telephone from the central seminary city of Qom.
“They have been trained and they can become fully armed. We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardise Israel and America’s interests. We are only waiting for the Supreme Leader’s green light to take action. If America wants to ignite World War Three … we welcome it,” he said.
Update: Jim Woolsey says it’s time for America to airmail a payload or two to the Damascus airport.
Update: A friend of mine just e-mailed to say he’s been discussing the situation with an Israeli analyst, who told him the problem with attacking Iran is that “you can’t scare a prostitute with a penis.”
To which I replied, “You can if it’s big enough.”
Just felt like sharing.
Update: Good cop, bad cop: the speaker of Iran’s parliament declares that no part of Israel is safe from Hezbollah … while the country’s foreign minister allegedly is busy telling Nasrallah to rein it in.
Update: The Guardian says the IDF is on the clock. Why is a scheduled withdrawal a good idea here but a bad idea in Iraq? I wonder.
I also wonder what the region would look like today if the U.S. hadn’t been so “helpful” in restraining Israel over the years.
Peres says there won’t be a ground invasion. There won’t be, either, if the Guardian’s story is accurate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Uhh… there are already UN peacekeepers there… and they are being just soooo effective, now aren’t they.
Most of the world correctly laughs at anyone in a blue helmet… why do they think it will make a difference now???
Only way this works is if some country lends troops to the Lebanese, not under UN control and rules, and Leb actualy uses them to man the border…. but I don’t see it happening due to “political considerations”.
Romeo13 on July 18, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Yeah, a small force is there now. 2,000 or so.
Allahpundit on July 18, 2006 at 10:09 AM
“Peacekeepes” . . . nonsense, that’s nothing but a waste of time, money and resources. After Israel obliterates Hezbollah they can send in those worthless U.N. yo-yos to police up the battelfield.
rplat on July 18, 2006 at 10:11 AM
What they really need is a UN force of Beekeepers, and the Muslim countries are going to contribute burkas for beekeeping duties. After all, isnt that the land of milk and honey?
BelchSpeak on July 18, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Olmert certainly isn’t the heir to Sharon.
Clark1 on July 18, 2006 at 10:35 AM
The Lebanese need assistance dealing with Hezb-allah. They don’t have the strength or loyalty across their current forces to do the job. However, a UN force is a big fat waste of time.
This is a job for NATO or a voluntary multi-national force that has the character and resources to do the job. It would have to be an Anglosphere effort supported by eastern Europeans.
dung.
Moose Dung on July 18, 2006 at 11:05 AM
The UN is active in the destruction of democracy world-wide ,and an accomplice in the attempts to destroy Israel,keep them out of there and let the IDF do what needs to be done,utterly destroy Hezbollah.
bbz123 on July 18, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Wonder if this is just the Israeli way of BSing or if they lost the national will already
Defector01 on July 18, 2006 at 11:14 AM
The only people afraid of the UN are young girls. Are we really going to send in Kofi’s rapists to deal with Hizballah? LMAO.
mcgilvra on July 18, 2006 at 12:02 PM
Iran, meet the Health Inspector.
Kid from Brooklyn on July 18, 2006 at 12:30 PM
When the UN group was attacked in Iraq they pulled an instantaneous French Advance and got the heck out of there. The United Nations is a straw man, and a corrupt straw man, at that. The very Arab states who will scream that Israel has defied the UN by continuing to defend itself…disproportionately…themselves defy the United Nations, which established Israel in 1948. So Israel should listen to the UN, but the Arab states don’t have to?
If the Arab states believe the UN is ignorable, that’s good enough for me. Keep their ‘Peacekeepers’ out of Southern Lebanon, as they will be human shields who would do nothing about the rockets being fired over their heads into Israel.
Their presence would make the situation worse, and would draw out the conflict, at a higher cost of lives.
Doug on July 18, 2006 at 1:31 PM
I don’t know if it is true, but there was a thread over at FR last night/this morning by someone ‘on the ground’ trying to get out of Lebanon… He indicated that the ‘blue helmets’ were just about the first people to evacuate….. That they got out even faster than the French.
LegendHasIt on July 18, 2006 at 4:20 PM
Ha!
A blogpost that has both the UN Peacekeepers AND a penis joke. What A Day!
Joe on July 18, 2006 at 6:41 PM
When pacifist Japan and former Clinton CIA chief James Woolsey are taking positions much more macho than the GW when it comes to handling North Korea and Iran respectively it should be a signal for Bush to take back his foreign policy from the cowardly State Department. Unfortunately it looks as if Israel is also lacking a leader with ‘cohones’.
MaiDee on July 18, 2006 at 6:53 PM
Pointed out twice, there is [was?] a UN presence on the southern border. Either UNIFIL or UNFIL, I’ve seen it written both ways. It was very interesting to follow some of the Lebanese and other bloggers linked @ TTLB and read of the frustration/ fury during the first few days. The impression I gathered was that the Lebanese Army could not be posted to the south, far from Beirut, in Shia dominated country, without certain splitting along sectarian lines. A significant portion of the Lebanese Army is Shia and, apparently, more Shia than Lebanese.
Limping along after booting out Syria [officially], pursuing justice against Syria for the Prime Minister’s assasination, trying to prop up a government after the civil war, they knew they could not send the Army south. From what I have read, the US was in tacit understanding that it was too soon to send the Lebanese Army south.
The window may be closing, but the world’s fingers are in the sash. If this gets put off again, for the hundredth time in fifty years, we will be back here again and things will be worse.
flaco on July 18, 2006 at 7:13 PM
If we stop them now it will be far worse than the senior Bush failing to finish off the first Gulf war,and for that matter reigning in Patton from destroying the Soviets.Bad mojo Batman.
bbz123 on July 18, 2006 at 11:08 PM
speed647 on July 18, 2006 at 11:10 PM
Sorry guys, I REALLY wish we could preview our posts…
:-(
speed647 on July 18, 2006 at 11:12 PM
I may be naive… but are we really controling Israel’s foreign policy to that extent?
Makes for a good Bush conspiricy, but I don’t buy it.
Romeo13 on July 19, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Our big problem is we tend to go after their people. There are just too many of them for that tactic. We would be better off finding every one of the clerics preaching jihad, foreign and domestic… and putting a bullet or two in their heads. I don’t think we can kill one and a half billion muslims, but whacking 25-50,000 of the crazy’s leaders would sure slow them down.
AntiAntiAmericans on July 19, 2006 at 1:37 AM
I’ve had a change of mind. I WANT the UN Peacekeepers there.
But I want them on Israel’s side, maybe lining the rooftops in Haifa. And I want to pick which Peacekeepers get to face the Hezbollah rockets. First and foremost, I want Kofi Annan in a blue helmet right there where it’s most dangerous. I want the other Peacekeepers to be those guilty of raping the young girls in Africa when they were supposed to be keeping the peace. For defense give them those little paper umbrellas found in cheap drinks.
Doug on July 19, 2006 at 1:56 AM
Just in case anyone’s not sure, Ehud Olmert is a leftist, at least on issues of our national territory, and supported Ariel Sharon’s retreat from Gaza (and expulsion of Jewish families there). You may be surprised, but his wife Aliza considers herself a “leftist”, his youngest son refused to serve in the army, and his daughter was involved just last month in an anti-Israel rally. That’s why the news you found may not be too surprising. In fact, Haaretz itself is an anti-nationalist newspaper, and as of today, I’m pleased to say that, like the New York Times, their readership has plummeted.
So let me assure you that, if you’ve got any misgivings about Olmert for sensible reasons, you’re quite welcome to say so. He’s got quite a record of shady activities, which I posted about on my blog here, as did also Ariel Sharon (see also this PDF file), and state attorney Menny Mazoz is now launching an investigation into one of Olmert’s scandals. If Olmert’s indicted, trust me, he’s asking for it.
Avi Green on July 19, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Good. If Sharon were at the switch, he would have already put the wood to Syria, and we would have probably seen Osirak, Part Deux. Last I checked, Bibi’s still available, right?
Kid from Brooklyn on July 19, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Yes. In fact, Sean Hannity also interviewed Netanyahu a few days ago.
Avi Green on July 19, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Supreme Leader? Who’s the Supreme Leader? Green Light? They have traffic lights for camels? Now there’s progress!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 19, 2006 at 3:16 PM
No need to wonder. There would have been peace a long time ago if we had allowed Israel to take off the glove and finish this thing. Instead we have restrained them an have thus only contributed to prolonging the conflict and ensuring that generation after generation suffers.
Yes, “restraint”. Ain’t is just wonderful.
thirteen28 on July 19, 2006 at 4:02 PM
I think the strategery the UN has in mind is to put those panty-waist blue helmets in southern Lebanon not as effective troops, but as human shields for hizb’allah.
The UN, representing the world at large, is disgustingly anti-Israel. History consistantly provides a long and disgraceful series of examples.
Israel should do exactly what everybody else in the ME has been doing… completely ignore them and get on with the business of wiping hizb’allah and hamas out.
Ignore the whining islamists and get the job done.
Go IDF!
techno_barbarian on July 19, 2006 at 5:14 PM
Whoa!
Rudi Baktiari on FNC is showing those sick ass cartoons that are shown to the islamist children about giving themselves as suiciders.
Good! Finally!
The US and the rest of the world needs to see this.
Excellent. Education and exposure to just what the islamists actually DO should be more than enough to turn the tide of public opinion away from them.
May it be so!
techno_barbarian on July 19, 2006 at 5:29 PM
I became nauseated and chilled–no, really–at the thought that the U.N. could insinuate itself into the war. Then I thought how far the U.N. is from being able, first, to get any appreciable force anywhere, especially without U.S. help; moreover, they couldn’t keep them supplied in a real war zone. My appreciation of the logistical problems of warfare is due to my having read How to Make War by James Dunnigan. Based on that information, I don’t think the U.N. could even keep “human shields” supplied without the acquiescence of Israel or the cooperation of the United States.
It’s been some fifteen minutes, yet I still feel chilled and numb. As I try to think through my strong reaction, it seems to me that what I dread is the moral stature of the U.N. among the shitheads in my own country. The U.S. Government makes a show of honoring the U.N., as do the news organizations in the U.S. Even most criticism of the U.N. is couched in terms of reform, not eradication. My understanding–and, God, I hope I’m wrong–is that the result of all the pretense of veneration of the U.N. is widespread belief in the U.N. as a legitimate governmental institution, and a worthy one. Granted, one has to be an utter fool to believe such things, but utter fools are legion, and they vote. I see that respect for the U.N. among the legions of shitheads as the fundamental reason even the Bush administration has wasted so much time and energy on U.N. resolutions.
God, I’m amazed at how sick I feel.
Kralizec on July 19, 2006 at 9:10 PM
LOL! The UN couldn’t “keep the peace” at a conscientious objector rally!
NRA4Freedom on July 20, 2006 at 2:28 PM
Doug, 7/19/06 0156 had an interesting suggestion. It was pointed out when this story was first posted that the UN is already stationed in south Lebanon. They have been for years.
I loved the idea of the UN contingent in north Israel, except I’m not sure that Israel could accept the security risk.
flaco on July 20, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Israel is the doctor; Hezbollah is the cancer; (democratic) Lebanon is the patient. Prediction: the operation will be a success; unfortunately the patient will die.
honora on July 21, 2006 at 9:44 AM
honora
patient is fighting the doctor with the cancer. Prognosis, not good
Defector01 on July 21, 2006 at 12:05 PM