Soccer Dad: Violation!

August 20, 2006

Violation!

I suppose it was inevitable. (Courtesy Sam Ghattas; AP)

Hezbollah fighters battled Israeli commandos who landed near the militants' stronghold deep inside Lebanon early Saturday, killing one soldier, in the first large-scale violation of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between the sides.
. . .

Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid � the first major violation of the U.N.-imposed cease-fire that took effect Monday following 34 days of fighting.

. . .

Lebanon's foreign minister said he immediately informed a visiting U.N. delegation of Israel's violation.

In the first few paragraphs Mr. Ghattas, ~~propagandist for Hezbollah~~ reporter for the AP reports that the Israeli action is a "violation."

Remarkably though, Ghattas reported this too:

Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the U.N. cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.

What else does the ceasefire resolution demand?

Here's paragraph 15a

OP15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft,
(a) the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories ...

This seems pretty clear, though the resolution doesn't mention foreign occupiers Syrian and Iran explicitly. Unless Lebanon wants these arms to reach Hezbollah - in which case it's complicit in violating the ceasefire too - it would appear that Syria (and possibly Iran) is in direct violation of the ceasefire. Israel's actions apparently are the ony ones that could prevent this violation.

I don't doubt that the UN will side with Lebanon, Syria, Iran and the terrorists against Israel as it did six years ago. (Daled Amos and The Volokh Conspiracy.David Kopel have details)

Here's the IDF's announcement

During the operation one IDF officer - Lieutenant Colonel Emanuel Moreno, 35, of Tlamim - was killed, and two other officers were wounded, one severely and one lightly. Even so, the mission's objectives were achieved in full. The wounded were evacuated for medical treatment. Their families, and that of Lieutenant Colonel Moreno, have been notified.

IDF reiterates and clarifies that until such time as a force is organized to supervise the Lebanese border area, operations will continue to prevent, disrupt, and foil terror activities in the area.

From Israel's Foreign Ministry statement

Israel cannot tolerate a situation in which Hizbullah�s long-range missile capability will be replenished and Israeli citizens will once again be the targets of barrages of Hizbullah missiles launched from Lebanese soil. Under these conditions, Israel reserves the right to act as it has, in self defense and in support of UNSCR 1701, if there are continued violations of the cease-fire in the future.

The New York Times reports

Both any resupply of weapons and the raid itself appear to constitute violations of the cease-fire resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council.

I wish that Erlanger would explain how the ceasefire is supposed to work without any mechanism for enforcement. How is responding to a violation mentioned as a violation too? Or is the meaning of the ceasefire that Israel must cease fire, but that Hezbollah may re-load and prepare to fire again?

Hours before the raid, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed to European countries in particular to supply troops for the newly expanded Unifil, which is supposed to grow from about 1,990 troop to a maximum of 15,000 and help the Lebanese Army patrol southern Lebanon.
The appeal, the raid and the alleged renewal of arms supplies also underscore the fragility of this cease-fire, which appeared to conclude a 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah with an international commitment to exclude the Hezbollah militia from Lebanon south of the Litani River and disarm it.

This is fascinating. Hezbollah and Lebanon declared that they had no intention of abiding by the terms of the ceasefire and it's Annan's appeal that underscores "the fragility of this ceasefire?!" If one side says that it will not abide by the terms of a ceasefire, that shows its fragility. Or to put it more bluntly, its uselessness.

He [the Israeli officer - SD] also made it clear that the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, remains a target for Israel as the head of a group that Israel and the United States have labeled terrorist. At one point in the interview, he said simply: "This man must die."

Hezbollah is a terrorist group by definition. This is editorializing. If antything's in doubt it's Lebanon's sovereignty given that its foreign relations seem dictated by Iran and, to a lesser degree, Syria.

Still I give Erlanger credit, at least, for interviewing an Israeli officer on background, which gives a little substance to the article.

The Washington Post's Edward Cody has an interesting way of describing things

In accepting the cease-fire, the Hezbollah leader, Hasan Nasrallah, warned that his militia reserved the right to attack Israelis as long as they remain on Lebanese soil. At the same time, the Israeli military declared that it reserved the right to respond to attacks and prevent weapons shipments to Hezbollah guerrillas in the southern border hills until an international force was in place.

In practice, however, Hezbollah has held its fire even though an unknown number of Israeli troops remain in observation posts scattered across the rocky Lebanese hills just north of the border. Until Saturday, Israel also had refrained from attacks of any size on Hezbollah fighters in the border area or on other Hezbollah installations farther north. The restraint by both sides had led to optimism in Beirut that the truce would hold and that rebuilding could begin -- optimism that suddenly came under doubt.

So Hezbollah "held its fire" to maintain the ceasefire even while refusing to disarm in direct violation of the ceasefire. Nice bit of equivalence.

Captain's Quarters has it right

If the Lebanese want to restart the war, they will find the Israelis more than willing to do so. Israel may count on precisely that reaction, as well as the inability of Siniora to enforce his end of the cease-fire agreement. If this cease-fire fails, the Israelis will have no further constraints by the UN and can take all the time necessary to complete their overall mission, and Siniora will have no way to stop it. All the crying in the world will not cover the fact that he had an opportunity to rid himself of Hezbollah and chose to endorse it instead.

Vital Perspectives headlines an item on the raid in a way that the MSM never would Hezbollah Violates UN Resolution By Smuggling Arms; IDF Disrupts Transfer

UPDATE: Not surprsingly Kofi Annan has condemned Israel's self-defense. Jiblog writes

The defiencies of the UN have become more and more glaring since the Gulf War came to an end. History may well look back and ask why we put so much faith in an organization that at best could not halt the march to war, and at worst contributed to it.

UPDATE II: Fellow Watcher Rhymes with Right has a scorecard

Hezbollah has not been disarmed -- and was being resupplied. The Lebanese government has continued to allow Hezbollah to operate in violation of multiple UN resolutions to the contrary. The UN has acted like the UN -- justifying Arab terror agains thte Israelis. France has shown its usual cowardice.

via Buzztracker

Technorati tags: Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon.