Because the kidnapped Israeli soldiers haven’t been returned yet. The resolution doesn’t require that, though: the preamble “emphasiz[es] the need for an end of violence … including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,” but there’s no executory provision to that end in the body of the document. It’s an aspiration, not a demand. Which tells you everything you need to know about the resolution.
This is precious:
As for the United Nations force meant to deploy in southern Lebanon, Livni noted that Israel expects it to be a force of high quality, with real military capabilities, which will deploy in the field as soon as possible.
“This force should be able to fulfill the Security Council resolution word for word, with the support of the international community,” she said, making it clear that “there will be no vacuum in Lebanon…
The UN secretary-general agreed that the situation in Lebanon “cannot return to what it was.”
No more status quo, in other words. Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s struck a “compromise” with the government whereby they’ll retain their weapons and remain in the south — an egregious breach of paragraph 8, particularly the second and third dashed items. Their top man in the region declares it … a return to the status quo:
The government decision does not mention collecting Hezbollah weapons, but only that there will not be an “armed military presence” of Hezbollah in the south, or of any factor aside from the Lebanese army or UNIFIL.
Hezbollah’s top official in south Lebanon, Sheik Nabil Kaouk, told reporters in Tyre that the group welcomes the Lebanese army’s additional deployment in the south.
“Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now,” he said.
We close with two op-eds. The first comes from someone in the Hezbollah steno pool posting at a website devoted to progressive America’s elder statesman. The second comes from Daniel Pipes and makes a nice complement to Bryan’s post earlier. Reminds me of the scene in Raging Bull where they decide to throw the fight:
[T]his phenomenon of each side parading its pain and loss inverts the historic order, whereby each side wants to intimidate the enemy by appearing ferocious, relentless, and victorious…
Proclaiming one’s prowess and denigrating the enemy’s has been the norm through millennia of Egyptian wall paintings, Greek vases, Arabic poetry, Chinese drawings, English ballads, and Russian theater. Why have combatants (and their allies in the press) now reversed this age-old and universal pattern, downplaying their own prowess and promoting the enemy’s?
Because of the unprecedented power enjoyed by America and its allies… Such power implies that, when West fights non-West, the outcome on the battlefield is a given.That settled in advance, the fighting is seen more like a police raid than traditional warfare. As in a police raid, modern wars are judged by their legality, the duration of hostilities, the proportionality of force, the severity of casualties, and the extent of economic and environmental damage.
“You win, you win. You lose, you still win.”
Update: Yaakov Menken is on the same page.