Saturday, August 12, 2006

Here is why I believe a UN ceasefire is a bad thing:

First things first, the details of the ceasefire resolution are right here. But secondly, my analysis. I believe that a ceasefire prior to winning sends the wrong message. It sends the message that terror is okay. It sends the message that Israel does not have the cajones to go after the bastards with the might necessary to get the job done. (that said, I do not believe that Israel does have requisite cajones under Olmert, but that is a different story) More than that, this ceasefire accomplishes nothing. It will allow Hizballah to rearm and reestablish themselves as a terror threat. It does not directly demand the release of the Israeli soldiers who were captured. And it involves the UNIFIL forces, who are inept, and not even allowed to fire guns unless directly shot at. Please. These UNIFIL soldiers were also there to enforce UN Resolution 1559, and we all saw how well THAT turned out! The UN is a hapless, corrupt, terror supporting organization. It legitimizes terrorists. They aid and abet Hizballah. And this will be the same UN to enforce a peace??? Oh, and to top it all off, it will be lead by FRANCE of all countries. This is the nation that brought us modern antisemitism, under the Dreyfuss Affair. And it is a nation that continues to have an anti-Israel foreign policy. THIS is the nation we are entrusting with the lives of Israeli citizens? It is disgusting that Bush would hypocritically push for this ceasefire. Israel gets one month in Lebanon, and the US gets 3 1/2 years+ in Iraq, and almost five years in Afghanistan??? Talk about hypocrisy! This is what I have been saying for years now. I wouldn't vote for Bush based on Israel alone, because I didn't know if I trusted him per se on Israel. After all, the Republicans also brought us James Baker and G.H.W. Bush. Bush Jr is now proving he can live up to the standard his old man set. I wish I was surprised. This policy is doomed, a ceasefire prior to Israel winning is doomed, and you know that Israelis are turning against Olmert when even a Haaretz columnist is calling for Olmert to resign. Shlemazl said that he was for the ceasefire because Israel was not making any traction in the war. Well, of course they were making no traction! Given the incompetence of Olmert in delaying boots being on the ground in Lebanon, how was Israel going to really accomplish what needed to be done? Israel was being constrained in its ability to fight Hizballah from day one, and so it is not surprising that they would accept this ceasefire. But make no mistake about it...the ceasefire will be seen as a sign of weakness in the Arab world. All I can hope for is, as Atlas Shrugs is hoping for, Nasrallah will be too stupid to accept the ceasefire, just as Arafat was too stupid to accept the Barak plan, and will save Israel from themselves.


shlemazl said...

"Given the incompetence of Olmert in delaying boots being on the ground in Lebanon". It wasn't just the tactical problems. Israel's strategy for this war was messed up:

1. They assumed a Yugoslavian scenario would work in suppressing HA missiles and getting the Lebanese Government to act. Bad mistake.

2. Their order to get bunker-busters early on demonstrated that Israel was unprepared. You don't order a new type of bomb AFTER the war has started. They could not use these bombs because it takes time to install them. Israel relied on its own bombs to blow up locations where HA keeps its launchers and personnel. These weapons proved to be useless.

3. Sometimes it's better to draw than to win a war. In my view the consequencies of '73 were far better for Israel than the consequences of 6-day war. It is impossible to predict the outcome. We don't even know whether this war is over.

4. No doubt ground offensive would result in Israel taking over territory. So what? HA command is far away and they can get as many recruits as they want to replace their dead. They don't care.

Back to the drawing board.

Red Tulips said...

Okay you make some good points.

But I still am skeptical about this UN plan.

Render said...


HizbAllah isn't fighting the way the PLO tried to fight in south Lebanon. No tanks. Lots more bunkers, lots more suicidally intent.

HizbAllah (Amal) has been stockpiling a lot more than just the rockets and missiles than the major media outlets are revealing.

Extremely large numbers of sophisticated medium and heavy guided infantry anti-tank weapons have been recovered at this point. Enough so far that HizbAllah has been using these expensive systems against infantry targets, resulting in the majority of Israeli casualties, so far.



1: Circumstances kinda forced IDF into its current response pattern. They tried to stop the rockets and missiles by air strikes on the launcher sites. They proved that modern combat air power still hasn't achieved perfection and will never take land. Damage was done to HizbAllahs launchers, crews, and resupply routes, but given HizbAllahs choices of launcher sites, civilian casualties were inevitible.

IDF is now faced with an extremely unfriendly to armor environment. Filled with well contructed bunkers and anti-tank traps. This means manpower, on foot. While the IDF has fought manpower intensive battles before, it does not welcome them, and they are to be avoided as much as possible, for obvious reasons.

The usual IDF response given the current situation is to get very methodical. Slow, cautious, and with overwhelming force at key points, in order to minimize casualties as much as possible.

2: They, (being the US and Israel), just started testing these bunker-busters a year or so ago. They were still in prototype stage last winter. US military gets priority on first production. While these weapons may yet prove to be useless to this point, it's not over yet.

3: Nah. War is, was, and always will be a "victory or death" kinda thing. That's what seperates it from sports...

Over? This war is a long way from over...Israel is just one front.

4: The first benefit of taking ground is that that ground no longer contains launcher sites. HizbAllah actually only has a limited number of "fighters," numerous foriegn "volunteers" have been captured already.

Kill enough of them, and they will care. You will know it when they ask for Hudna. And they have asked...

While they themselves would never grant quarter.



Mark said...

I dunno how anyone could be anything but skeptical of anything the UN is involved in, I'd be more concerned UN troops would side with the hezbo's and fight the Israeli's

Arafat not accepting Barak's giveaway was not a mistake on his part, that conflict make Arafat a billionaire, why would he want peace?

nasrallah doesn't either, and mainly for the same reason, appeasers will throw billions at him too, if he plays his cards right, and he knows it.

shlemazl said...


I think we agree on most points. You are wrong on bunker-busters. US offered them to Israel a couple of years ago, but Halutz said "no thank you" and went for an Israeli altetnative that did not work: