Mark,
No disrepesct is at all intended, but I was hoping for a more decisive address to the complete dismantling of the hezbos. And, not to be a pessimist, but I fear those young Israeli soldiers aren't in Lebanon, and quite possibly no longer alive. What then?

Why couldn't this have been done sooner? Why did the US wait two weeks before lifting a diplomatic finger.

What have the past three weeks of bombings done but make the disarmorment of hezbollah harder?

There was a perfect chance about a week or less into the war for the US to pound out a similar agreement, only then Israel would still have the moral high-road in this conflict and hezbollah would not have the support it does now from many in Lebanon and the arab world. Not to mention the hundreds of innocent Lebanese and Israeli lives that would have been spared.

" put the Democrats in charge, and we would have had a deal to provide Hezbollah with new missiles to replace the old on the understanding that they promise to never use them against Israel..."

This is about the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

It pegs guilt for the war right where it belongs: on Hezbollah.

And what price will they pay? None. So much for guilt.

It demands the release of captured Israelis unconditionally, but does not address, other than in very general terms, any release of captives held by Israel.

The release of the Israeli prisoners is called "unconditional" but that is diplo-talk for "the release is not mandatory nor will the failure to release them impede any part of this resolution" - in other words, it means nothing.

Hezbollah is unlikely to accept it

That is our only hope now.

...unless the United States was prepared to veto.

Which would have been the right thing to do. The only way it would not have been is if the US has some secret inside information that because of poor leadership in Israel they were unwilling to prosecute the fight.

As that would be politically as well as morally wrong - we must never forget that any chance at peace must be grasped

Hogwash. Sounds good for a political sound bite, but beyond that - hogwash.

This resolution essentially boxes Hezbollah in, puts the Lebanese government on the spot and allows Israel sufficient flexibility to continue destroying Hezbollah.

It puts Hezbollah in the driver's seat. The so-called peace-keeping force is ... Lebanese! Many of those are Hezbollah. We've already seen how effective UN "observers" are. There will be no peace.

This is what we get when we have clear-headed adults running our foreign policy...

I will take a wait-and-see approach but this thing stinks to high heaven. Perhaps the US and Israel know that Hezbollah will not accept it and therefore the "agreement" buys some more time. Otherwise, it is nothing but a major capitulation on the part of the US and Israel and I am saddened by it.
It pegs guilt for the war right where it belongs: on Hezbollah.

And what price will they pay? None. So much for guilt.

It demands the release of captured Israelis unconditionally, but does not address, other than in very general terms, any release of captives held by Israel.

The release of the Israeli prisoners is called "unconditional" but that is diplo-talk for "the release is not mandatory nor will the failure to release them impede any part of this resolution" - in other words, it means nothing.

Hezbollah is unlikely to accept it

That is our only hope now.

...unless the United States was prepared to veto.

Which would have been the right thing to do. The only way it would not have been is if the US has some secret inside information that because of poor leadership in Israel they were unwilling to prosecute the fight.

As that would be politically as well as morally wrong - we must never forget that any chance at peace must be grasped

Hogwash. Sounds good for a political sound bite, but beyond that - hogwash.

This resolution essentially boxes Hezbollah in, puts the Lebanese government on the spot and allows Israel sufficient flexibility to continue destroying Hezbollah.

It puts Hezbollah in the driver's seat. The so-called peace-keeping force is ... Lebanese! Many of those are Hezbollah. We've already seen how effective UN "observers" are. There will be no peace.

This is what we get when we have clear-headed adults running our foreign policy...

I will take a wait-and-see approach but this thing stinks to high heaven. Perhaps the US and Israel know that Hezbollah will not accept it and therefore the "agreement" buys some more time. Otherwise, it is nothing but a major capitulation on the part of the US and Israel and I am saddened by it.

This is about the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

Only if you never read your own comments...

how that double-posted I'll never know...

My main qualms about this is that like so many cease-fires before it, there are no teeth. Will Hezbollah follow suit as it has in the past and use it as a time out to re-arm?

What penalties will the UN impose should Hezbollah decide the time is ripe to attack again?

Until Arab nations decide to resign themselves to Israel being where it is, this will just keep going on. Or, as Golda Meir is said to have once stated, "when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us, there will be peace." (paraphrase)

Mark, I am affraid this "cease fire" will be no more effective than any before. Olmert needs to replace his Defense Minister with some one who will get ready for the next round. Which should start about the time that they confirm those two IDF soldiers are dead or in Syria or Iran.

Now, what are they going to do about Hamas and Gaza? There is still another young man being held there. Or did Hamas get him out thru Egypt?

If a real International Force, with teeth and determination were going in, this might work. But as it stands, IF Hezbollah accepts it, they will be able to call it a victory, they outlasted this round. What really needs to happen is Isreal needs to push Hezbollah to the sea, and then disarm them as they are removed, taking the leaders into custody.

There is fallout from this resolution and the prosecution of the war in Lebanon for Olmert:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert faced a backlash on Friday over a U.N. proposal to end the war in Lebanon, with army officers saying they were held back and right-wing rivals calling for new elections.

"Olmert must go," read a front page headline in Israel's left-leaning Haaretz newspaper.

Opinion polls, conducted before details of the proposed Security Council resolution emerged, showed public support eroding for Olmert, a career politician who lacks the combat credentials of many of his predecessors.

Twenty percent of those surveyed by Haaretz believed Israel was winning the war.

Leading members of the right-wing opposition Likud party called the resolution a victory for Hizbollah.

"We will work to bring down the government," said Likud's Silvan Shalom. Yuval Steinitz, also of Likud, said the Israeli government should resign and call new elections.

The Left and the Right are calling for his head. And in their form of government, a vote of no-confidence could happen in a couple days and the Olmert government will be gone. Netanyahu is standing in the wings and he's no pacifist.

If Netanyahu returns to power, the war will resume. He will inform the UN that the new government repudiates the proposal and only the total capitulation of Hezbollah and Hamas with the return of the kidnapped soldiers will end the fighting. I wonder if this is in part what Bush/Cheney saw as a possible outcome?

The other outcome is that Hezbollah rejects the proposal, and Olmert replaces his Defense Minister and allows the army to really go to it.

Either works for me, as it causes Hezbollah to be knocked out. Thanks for the heads up Rev.

One of the points in this UN resolution is for UN forces to disarm Hezbollah using force if necessary. Why do I see this rarely used, if at all? I can't see UN forces being effective with this at all and on this basis alone I feel it will fail miserably.

One of the points in this UN resolution is for UN forces to disarm Hezbollah using force if necessary.

I'm sorry, but my reading of the resolution says no such thing. The UN forces are there for observation and advisory functions only. There is no provision for the masses of UN troops, nor ANY combat ready UN units. The major "force" will be Lebanese, 15,000 strong - and I use the term strong with tongue in cheek. The top leaders in Lebanon are Hezbollah controlled and sympathizers and the military is rife with Hezbollah. There will be no disarming and likely the cease-fire will afford Iran the opportunity to re-arm Hezbollah in the South via Syria. There will be no disarming of Hezbollah. The only ones who can do that are the Israeli troops and this resolution prevents that from happening.

"As that would be politically as well as morally wrong"

Morally wrong? When our american government has for years, lived and died by the noble idea that we would never negotiate with terrorists(and I don't care how many governments hezbollah is able to infiltrate, the fact remains that they are still terrorists)and now we are helping force our greatest ally into a peace agreement that will ultilmately fail. That is what I would call morally wrong.

Gen. 12:3 I will bless them that bless thee.
that means that God will bless those that bless Israel. If we continue down this path were we allow Israel to be steamrolled by the international community. I believe God will take his blessing away from this country.

"Why couldn't this have been done sooner? Why did the US wait two weeks before lifting a diplomatic finger."

Most diplomacy is done behind the scenes. This is the result... you have no idea what was involved in bringing the other UN counsel members to agreement with the current wording. Just because you didn't see all the machinations doesn't mean nothing was being done.

"I can't see UN forces being effective with this at all and on this basis alone"

You are correct if only because the UN forces are as impotent as Al Franken in the company of a beautiful woman.

How many people in the ME do you believe have read this resolution? Not too many, right? Then IRAN gets to claim victory against the "Paper Tiger", the USA and Israel.

You may not be bothered by this, but I have been heavily into ME politics. This is a lose-lose situation unless Israel is allowed to squash Hizbollah. Something neither the UN nor the Lebanese government is CAPABLE of doing.

Israel is capable of not only taking care of Hizbollah, but also Syria, Gaza and the West Bank all at the same time.

We are fighting a war against the terrorists, right? Okay. Who are we to step into someone else's war when they are doing the same? We shut about Russia's and China's human rights. They, however, did not shut up about made up claims against us.

If you will pardon me, I am still so upset I cannot see straight. I guess our Marines don't mean that much to you...because this is the bastard who killed them. Have a good day.

Tom Shipley - - I wouldn't be so concerned about the "timing" of everything - I have always been of the mindset that "we the people" really don't "know" everything that is going on when it comes to decisions our government makes with Middle East issues, War issues. Timing is indeed everything...I trust the Bush administration in their timing of when they acted diplomatically. Mark has a good point, though you thought it was c--p....Democrats historically want to "be fair" and "nicey nice" even with our enemies. Don't ask me why - the only thing I can think of is when you are of the liberal mindset, there is no good and evil; everything is "relative." Not a good lense to look through when dealing with groups and countries that want the U.S. and her friends destroyed.

Rev,

News reports today indicate that Isreali forces have reached the line of the Litani river...meaning that all of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is cut off. There are as-yet unconfirmed reports that Israel will halt offensive operations Monday - about 36 hours from now. More than enough time to tidy up the cordon and ensure that no more arms can get in to southern Lebanon.

I would have done it differently - but I'm not exactly in charge of the Israeli military and this is they way they've chosen to carry out the mission.

What we've got is Hezbollah in a pickle and they have to either accept the cease-fire, drop their weapons and move north in to central Lebanon, or reject the cease fire and be destroyed in place as their ammunition and other supplies run out.

Tom,

Why not sooner? Because Israel wasn't in the position necessary to ensure that Hezbollah in southern Lebanon disarms or is destroyed.

You really need to grasp this, Tom: We can't negotiate with terrorists, we can only dictate terms to them after we've defeated them. They aren't rational - they aren't moral; they are insane and immoral. Death is all they know, and death will have to be dealt out to them until they are destroyed, or come to their senses.

Mark, I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. This is total victory for terrorists. Rice and the United States, the country sworn to fighting terrorism, handed Hezbollah and every terrorist all over the world a victory on a silver platter. They capitulated to Hezbollah demands, and there is NOTHING in this Resolution that puts the situation in any better situation than it was before. I an entire article on how Rice basically went back on everything she vowed would be necessary to NOT return to the status quo ante. This resolution is NO BETTER than 1559.

Did you actually read the Resolution??? The part that calls for Hezbollah to unconditionally return the kidnapped soldiers is found in the INTRODUCTION, not in the actual draft. There are more UNIFIL troops that CANNOT actually do anything. This Resolution is nothing but a capitulation to terrorist demands.

Sadly, and unfortunately, Condoleeza Rice has lost all credibility in my eyes. I was hoping to vote for her for President. Not anymore. Not after this. She just sold my country down the river. The country that rightly refused to negotiate with Bin-Laden when he proposed a cease-fire forced Israel to sit down and capitulate to the demands of a terrorist organization that many politcal analysts regard as more lethal, more advanced, and more organized than Al-Queda.

Hezbollah is a world-wide terrorist organization that is responsible for the hundreds of deaths of US Marines. It seems that the the United States has completely ignored this fact as they voted yes for a Resolution that put Israel and the WORLD in a more dangerous position than it was even 4 weeks ago.

You think this past week's foiled terror plot seems bad? The United States just handed over the most dangerous weapon to terrorists everywhere: HOPE. They have seen Hezbollah bring the West to its knees. Watch and see how many terror attacks are planned and/or carried out now that the terrorist and despot world have wittnessed this week-end's events. Welcome to a more dangerous world. Thanks US. Thanks United Nations. Where do I send the thank you card?
-OC

Olah,

Well, let us hope that I'm right and you're wrong - the number of IDF troops in Lebanon has been tripled over the past couple days, they've reached the Litani river, all Hezbollah south of the river are destroyed or surrounded...I think its been a splendid effort.

The alternative to this was continued Isreali movement north of the Litani, which would have just forced Hezbollah more and more back upon its real base in the Bekaa valley...a nastily well-fortified area which would extract a high blood cost for conquest, or a necessity of invading Syria to surround it.

The whole picture has to be kept in view - and the central focus is shifting rapidly to Iran, and this whole effort by Hezbollah was orchestrated by Iran in an attempt to concentrate the world's attention - and especially the Moslem world's attention - to Israel. It should be kept in mind that before Hezbollah struck, the Arab world was coming to grips with the necessity of confronting Iran over its nuclear program...Hezbollah, by fighting the Israelis, neatly took everyone's mind off the real issue...except, that is, for President Bush, Condi Rice and PM Olmert.

This UN resolution is a Greek tragedy.

FoxNews: "Hezbollah Leader Accepts U.N. Cease-Fire But Vows to Fight."

News reports today indicate that Israeli forces have reached the line of the Litani river...meaning that all of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is cut off.

Based on what I know, the Israelis had virtually cut off Hezbollah in the South several days ago by executing a penetration on the Hezbollah line and executing a turning maneuver which virtually cut off Hezbollah and put their backs up against the Israeli border. So the fact the Israeli army has now made it to the Litani River adds little to their advantage.

There are as-yet unconfirmed reports that Israel will halt offensive operations Monday - about 36 hours from now.

They are more than "unconfirmed" as you put it. The next time the Israel cabinet meets - which is Monday, they will decide whether to honor the resolution - but Olmert has already announced that they will. So it will happen on Monday for sure.

More than enough time to tidy up the cordon and ensure that no more arms can get in to southern Lebanon.

I want to meet the guy who will put that in writing. They still can be supplied via the sea and the Syrian border and that's bound to happen now.

I would have done it differently - but I'm not exactly in charge of the Israeli military and this is they way they've chosen to carry out the mission.

What they are doing and agreeing to is crazy. So of course you'd have done it differently, so would I. But the military is not crazy about this either - it is extremely poor leadership on the part of Olmert and he will pay dearly for it.

What we've got is Hezbollah in a pickle

You have an undefeated and armed terrorist group who the UN has now mandated that Israel must stop attacking. The cease-fire will quickly evolve into a re-arming exercise for both Hezbollah and Syria. All will be dutifully watched by the UN "observers" and the 15,000 Hezbollah-loving Lebanese troops while Israel can do nothing. Before this resolution, you had a full-scale invasion by the Israelis just starting with the stated goal to destroy Hezbollah. Now that will be halted. Some pickle.

and they have to either accept the cease-fire

They will say they accept it.

drop their weapons and move north in to central Lebanon

That will not happen.

or reject the cease fire and be destroyed in place as their ammunition and other supplies run
out.

Which is the desired outcome. So what good does the resolution do? None.

...

I haven't read the resolution, nor am I familiar with the composition of the Lebanese forces involved. But if Olah is right (that the UN forces don't have Ch. 7 authorization), and if Scaramonga is right (and even a stopped clock is right twice a day) that the Lebanese forces are heavily infiltrated by Hezbollah, then this resolution basically kicks the can down the road a couple a' three years. If so, then one has to hope that other behind-the-scenes activities are planned. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. But not much. At the moment I'm going with my first impression (pardon the mixed metaphore): this resolution looks like a kicked can and quacks like a kicked can.

What should have been included in the resolution is the territory of southern lebanon that Israel occupied prior to may of 2000. If they hadn't originally agreed to that pullout we wouldn't be talking about this today.

Once again, Ego Tom simply cannot grasp the fact that just because HE didn't know something was going on, it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't going on.

I just love the way the oppositional BDSers just throw stuff out there, such as Tom's claim that the United States did not attempt any diplomatic intervention for two weeks, as if they had the slightest idea of what did or did not happen.

The reasonable among us figured that long before Israel started in on Hezbollah, we had dipomatic discussions under way. That is so obvious.....
But in a Tom-centric world, if HE didn't know about it, it didn't exist.

I'm afraid I have to go with the majority on this one, Mark.
There are only two outcomes to this resolution.
1) Hezbollah rejects it. In which case the State Department and Bolton have been wasting their time.
2) Hezbollah accepts it. In which case the terrorists win. Any circumstance in which Hezbollah is not broken, their troops scattered and their power base destroyed, is a win, because - as you yourself have pointed out - the organization will simply rearm, recruit, and restart their attacks. Jihadists think in decades, not news cycles.

Hezbollah has spent years carving hidey holes all through the mountains of South Lebanon and filling them with ordinance. It will take years to find them all, assuming that the UN force even tries, and is not pulled out because of renewed fighting.
This resolution gives Hezbollah the perfect out. It stops losing men and ground, but retains status, sympathy, and allies.

Ahhh...screw it...let's just let the Israeli forces do whatever the heck they wanna do. The UN is bogus anyway.

This is about the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

lol--Shipley commented on his post before he posted it to the blog. His crap follows.

Why couldn't this have been done sooner? Why did the US wait two weeks before lifting a diplomatic finger.

Rather hypocritical, isn't it, how the lefties want us to butt out of other nation's business, unless their heroes are getting blown up?

Why is it our business, Tommie-boy, what Israel does to your poor widdle terrorists, who illegally trespassed into Israel and kidnapped two soldiers?

Wah! Tommie's upset because we didn't become the world's police. Tommie, you're a big cry-baby. War

There, I've gone back and read the rest of the posts, having been sidetracked by Tommie the whiney-boy.

I'm sittin' on the fence on this one, because I can't believe we've returned to the status quo. However, having checked some Jewish blogs, it appears we have.

If so, then my faith in my own government has been seriously harmed. War

I'm sorry, but this is a "Kerry Administration" resolution.

The ONLY way this is any kind of "victory" is if the Israelis were botching their operation so badly that we went for this rather than allow them to suffer a military defeat.

Lebanon is incapable of disarming the Hezbos - of course, that's of little import, because it has no desire to disarm them.

UNIFL is a joke - it's not there to interfere with Hezbo activity, it's there to prevent Israel from defending itself.

There isn't one nation on the Security Council - not one - that would accept for itself what it is forcing on Israel.

It is maddening that the Israelis are the only people on earth who are not allowed to defend themselves. Further, it is maddening that an Administration that supposedly "gets" the war on Islamofascism would support something this stupid.

This is sad - the 'war on terror' is becoming "All Hat, No Cattle."

From the Jerusalem Post we have this:

There is a good reason that Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which sets the terms for a cease-fire between his jihad army and the State of Israel.

The resolution represents a near-total victory for Hizbullah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria, and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States. This fact is evident both in the text of the resolution and in the very fact that the US decided to sponsor a cease-fire resolution before Israel had dismantled or seriously degraded Hizbullah's military capabilities.

While the resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and so does not have the authority of law, in practice it makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hizbullah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale.

Guess Hezbollah won't be rejecting the cease-fire.

All,

Lot of valid worries - but I'm sticking with the President and the Israeli PM on this one: what has happened is consonant with the larger issues. To restate them how I see it:

1. Iran. Iran. Iran. All eyes MUST be on Iran at all times. Rather hard to do that when there's an Arab/Israeli war going on in Lebanon.

2. Hezbollah is Iran's creature - Israel can fight and fight and fight Hezbollah from now until the Crack of Doom, and not completely desroy Hezbollah because Israel, for all its power, does not have the capability to march on Tehran.

3. What we want is Hezbollah - and its Iranian-supplied rocket force - far enough back from Israel that short range rockets cannot be used, thus forcing the Iranians to use long-range rockets is they wish to strike at Israel...and the long range rockets are capable of being destroyed in-flight with Israel's rather sophisticated anti-missile system (while we dithered on SDI through the 90's, Israel went ahead and built one).

4. The line of the Litani is the most defensible position in southern Lebanon - Rev, you're wrong about Hezbollah still being able to get supplies from Syria with the IDF on the Litani...check the map: that northern panhandle of Isreal, plus a bit of territory up to the Litani, now held by the IDF, completely cuts off southern Lebanon from Syria. Meanwhile, don't go to the Litani and you haven't secured southen Lebanon; go past the Litani and you open up whole news cans of worms best left closed for now.

5. Some sort of resolution had to happen - and this resolution was first floated about 10 days ago. That was lickety-split work, huh? We delayed it long enough to ensure that the IDF would be on the Litani in force prior to the implementation of a cease fire.

6. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is now cut off - they can fight in place, or surrender. Isreal clearing out Hezbollah pockets in southern Lebanon is in now way an offensive action, and thus not prohibited by a cease fire.

We're getting what we need...and now we can turn our attention back to Iran, where it belongs.

Rev, you're wrong about Hezbollah...check the map:

I disagree. The Israeli forces will indeed march to the Litani. And tomorrow they will cease-fire. And they will, if they comply with the resolution, only fire when fired upon. Hezbollah can get truckloads of equipment and drive right by them as long as they don't shoot at the Israelis as they pass by them.

Even the Israeli papers say that without a full-scale invasion and the likely expansion of hitting some Syrian targets would it be possible to stop the flow of arms. additionally, as long as we are map gazing, what about the approaches to Southern Lebanon from the Mediterranean Sea? To secure the Syrian border - all of it and the sea approaches would take several hundred thousand troops - and they would have to have the green light to fire when they saw a target. The Israelis have, by agreeing to this resolution, insured they will have neither.

Another thing to keep in mind. A couple of days ago, some statistician said best estimates are that Hezbollah had fired approximately 3,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel. Before the fighting got started both Hezbollah and Iran were bragging that Hezbollah had 12,000 of these rockets. That leaves about 9,000 unaccounted for. Do you think the Hezbollah fighters will surrender them? I don't. Also, it was estimated that Hezbollah has upwards of 14,000 potential fighters to commit to the fight. Israel claims to have killed about 400 so far. Where are they going? Right where they are. As the Israelis retreat back to Israel (mandated by the UN resolution) and their positions are "taken over" by the Lebanese army - now there's a joke - Hezbollah will quickly come out from hiding and beside the weapons they have managed to keep throughout this fight they will quickly re-arm from Iran via Syria. Nothing in the resolution will stop it.

Their next attack on Israel, in my opinion, will START with the long-range missiles that Iran will supply in large numbers. Iran wants this fight. And they will use Hezbollah to get it. Thanks to the UN, it is now certain.

Mark,
Rev is right on target with this one.The UN has a awesomely poor record with enforcement of the resolutions it spews forth. Even if, for example, they did have a record of enforcing resolutions unbiasedly, which will never happen. It fails to address the rearmerment of hezbollah. The focus needed on Iran is not hindered by the conflict between hezbollah and Israel. Iran is in fact placing itself in it's desired position, to have the hezbos pose a continued threat which will require the Israelis contant vigilance. The Israelis know that the UN will not be able to maintain peace in the region as long as hezbollah remains a power in Lebanon. Therefore, Iran and Syria can continue their rearming for an even more catastrophic strike against Israel. As the UN turns a blind eye to the real danger. I am not as well versed as Rev, but hope that this post comes across as intended!

mary,

The UN really won't be enforcing this one - from what I've heard, what is expected is that the Lebanese Army will cooperate with the IDF to ensure real security, while the blue helmets march around wasting time and resoures, as per usual. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the Lebanese goverment and people really don't like having a heavily armed, Iranian-owned military force occupying 1/4 of the country. The Shia are powerful, but still a very decided minority in Lebanon.

My view - and we'll have to wait for events to see if I'm right - is that the cease fire deal allows Israel to take whatever defensive military action it wishes...and the resolution doesn't define "defensive"...if Israel did something that someone wanted to pitch a fit about, then they'd have to go to the UN for a resolution, which we wouldn't allow to go forward.

Time will tell - but this has the approval of President Bush, who long ago proved his trustworthiness on the matter of terrorism...I'm following his lead unless and until actual events show an error in policy.

Rev,

I don't see how that could be...on the map, it looks to me that southern Lebanon is sealed off by the IDF tight as a drum...

Barry Rubin, writing in the Jerusalem Post under an optimistic headline of Analysis: Not so bad in theory also tries to be optimistic. Here's one example of him being about as positive as he can be:

But the central contradiction in the document is between OP11 and OP12. OP11 basically makes UNIFIL action dependent on the Lebanese government asking for help. In other words, only if the government asks UNIFIL to fight against terrorists in southern Lebanon or interdict arms smuggling can it act.

It should be noted that the Lebanese armed forces are a polite fiction. Just as Hizbullah is part of the government coalition, it has also deeply infiltrated the army. Half or even more of the soldiers sympathize with Hizbullah and will not do anything to - as they think of it - "protect" Israel from attack. It is not a highly disciplined military with a reliable chain of command. If a Lebanese soldier fires at Hizbullah, the entire army could split into two warring factions, something the government and politicians will want to avoid at any cost.

As to my pointing out that Hezbollah can get rearmed from the sea, he says:

There were other things that could have been done easily - but were not. For example, there could be an international naval force to inspect ships coming to Lebanon or a unit at the airport to look at cargo planes. Instead, everything is being left in the Lebanese government's questionable hands.

Rubin concludes:

For Lebanon, though, it is a political disaster. Certainly, the terms are not going to let a strong Lebanese government emerge or stymie Syrian and Iranian ambitions. It will permit an end to the current war and reconstruction, but only until Hizbullah, Damascus, and Teheran decide they want to fight on Lebanese territory again.

I add that it is also a political disaster for Israel - Olmert is finished - and the US who signed up to this insanity.

Now that double post was entirely my fault. I apologize. Please delete one, Mark or Matt.

Here's some info from Pajamas Media and a Lebanese source on the emergency meeting of the Lebanese cabinet to discuss how to proceed in fact of the UN resolution:

* Mohammad Fneish (Minister of Energy, and one of two Hezbollah in the cabinet): The position of Hezbollah is NOT TO DISARM in any part of the country until the Shebaa farms are liberated.

*Fneish then challenged both the Government and Lebanese Army to search and destroy Hezbollah’s weapons by force — ‘If you are men!’

* Michel Sleiman (General of Lebanese Army) stated that the Lebanese Army will not deploy one soldier until Hezbollah agrees to the whole political and deployment schedule.

There's more at the link but this doesn't look like there's any hope of disarming Hezbollah.

oshua Muravchik writes in today's Washington Post a piece titled Standing By Bush which is advice to the conservative and neocon wing of the Republican party to not give up on Bush and/or his foreign policy. He brings up some good points one should consder, and ends the piece like this:

None of this is to say that Bush's performance, including the campaign in Iraq, is above criticism by conservatives -- or liberals. I worry, for example, about whether he is conceding too much to our U.N. Security Council partners regarding Iran. But if he is going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities -- as I believe he will have to do and will not shrink from doing -- his position will be strengthened by having exhausted every diplomatic possibility. I worry, too, about indulging North Korea. But no president can tackle every problem at once.

Bush has taken on the one problem that is by far most important, and he has done it with remarkable perseverance. He led our nation into a war that is both just and necessary and that he knew could not be finished on his watch -- a thankless undertaking. For this he deserves unflagging support from neocons and other conservatives, and indeed from all Americans.

over at Powerline Blog, Paul Mirengoff says:

But Muravchik doesn't point to any policy decisions since Rice became Secretary of State that justifies his assumption that Bush won't shrink from bombing Iran. Time will tell, and my stance towards administration foreign policy is wait-and-see.

Wait-And-See and both say Iran's the key.