quote:

---

Updated Sat. Aug. 19 2006 7:22 AM ET

Associated Press

ANTIGONISH, N.S. -- Canada won't send any troops or ships to help enforce the United Nations-sponsored ceasefire in Lebanon, says Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

MacKay says Canada's defence personnel are committed to Afghanistan.

The cabinet minister made the comments during an announcement of funding for a study centre at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish.

---

The news story is a week and half old but I think this policy is still operative,

Should? The NDP supports sending peackeepers to Lebanon and I agree with this position. There is a legitimate UN mission being put together, the freely elected host government wants the international force, and as long as it remains an actual peace-keeping mission, I think we have a moral responsibility to be part of it.

quote:

---

Annan said Hezbollah could not be disarmed by force.

"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah, let's be clear on that," he said.

---

But then the French seem to be trying to have it both ways:

quote:

---

France's foreign minister said Friday that the United Nations will establish an "exclusion zone" in south Lebanon where it will disarm unauthorized groups.

"We think the best solution for disarming Hezbollah is to make an exclusion zone with the retreat of the Israeli army on one side and the deployment of the Lebanese army on the other, reinforced by the UN troops," Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

"Our objective is clear, to disarm Hezbollah," Douste-Blazy said, but he added that military force was not the answer. "The only solution is to have a political solution."

---

I agree with your point that this looks like a proxy army. Let's hope not. Israel has not lifted the air and sea embargo; a few days ago they "helped" enforce the cease fire by sending paratroopers into Lebanon; they seem quite picky about what countries participate in the UN force (perhaps not without legitimate concern).

Doesn't look terribly hopeful. Also, given Washington's obsession with birthing a bloody baby in those lands. This may be no more than a speed bump.

quote:

---

How Washington Goaded Israel
Stephen Zunes | August 21, 2006

The Bush administration's larger goal apparently has been to form an alliance of pro-Western Sunni Arab dictatorships—primarily Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan—against a growing Shiite militancy exemplified by Hezbollah and Iran and, to a lesser extent, post-Saddam Iraq. Though these Sunni regimes initially spoke out against Hezbollah's provocative capture of the two Israeli soldiers that prompted the Israeli attacks, popular opposition within these countries to the ferocity of the Israeli assault led them to rally solidly against the U.S.-backed war on Lebanon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
The federal NDP now supports sending "peacekeepers" to Lebanon?? Crikey. Canada should get out and stay out of the MiddleEast until there's an actual peace to keep; Pearson's old ideal of Canada being an "honest broker" doesn't fit the present "war on terror" context.

---

quote:

---

To call it a peace keeping mission is a crime against the language. This is a proxy army for Israel. The UN resolution aims to achieve those objectives the Israelis were denied.

---

quote:

---

If Canada shouldn't support a peacekeeping mission like this, Canada might as well disband its military.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Not a bad idea. Imagine if we spent the funds on assisting people instead of always blowing them up?

---

Meanwhile, there is still uncertainty over the mandate and rules of engagement of the UN force. Consider, for example, the following apparently contradictory statement from a news story:

quote:

---

Annan said agreement was reached on new rules of engagement that authorize the peacekeepers to use deadly force against those preventing them from doing their job.

''If, for example, combatants, or those illicitly moving weapons, forcibly resist a demand from them, or from the Lebanese army, to disarm,'' then armed force could be used, he said. He added, however, that disarming Hezbollah - a central goal of two U.N. resolutions on Lebanon - ''is not going to be done by force.''

---

quote:

---

If Canada shouldn't support a peacekeeping mission like this, Canada might as well disband its military.

---

The purpose of an army is not peacekeeping, but defense.

Because of the US veto, the UN is increasingly losing it's ability to be a neutral arbitrator.

This mission in Lebanon is doomed to fail as there are no clear guidelines, in term of these soldiers defending themselves from IDF aggression (the real danger) or being used to take on Hezbollah as proxies for the IDF.

quote:

---

Especially with Harper's craven support of Israel's murderous attack on Lebanon

---

Unfortunately, it's that reasoning above that shows that we shouldn't.

The UN peacekeeping force must be made up of Neutral (perceived neutral at very least) or the force will do more harm than good. Harpers support of Israelis 'Measured' war is obvious evidence that our soldiers and our nation is not neutral... Canada's presence simply detracts from the nuetrality of the UN force.

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

Heh, Arborman beat me to my post ^^

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

Although is it possible that we could regain our much tarnished reputation as a nation of peace if we join a force that serves only as a buffer and not as a proxy army to disarm Hezbullah?

Also,do we have troops to send? Do we have the 500 - 1000 men and women to don the blue berets? I am not sure that we have them. What role would they play? Headquarters? Logistics? boots on the ground?

quote:

---

Although is it possible that we could regain our much tarnished reputation as a nation of peace if we join a force that serves only as a buffer and not as a proxy army to disarm Hezbullah?

---

I would suggest if Canada still has a role to fufill within Lebanon, it is not military. There are alot of Lebanese Canadians civilians that give Canada a unique civilian based position. That position could be used to substantially aid the rebuilding process... Unfortunately since the homes destroyed are often Hizbollah supporters homes (not always mind you) and the classification of Hizbollah as a terrorist organization makes this quite difficult.

quote:

---

Layton wants to send Canadian troops to Lebanon.

---

Norman Spector brought up a good point on the radio today: whatever happened to peacekeeping to stop the genocide in Sudan? Why is Layton advocating the use of our extra soldiers in Lebanon when the could be stopping an actual humanitarian crisis that no one seems to give a damn about.

quote:

---

The NDP is looking horribly contradictory and unrealistic on the foreign affairs portfolio.

---

That Islaamist groups are taking power in that area and providing security in the area almost makes it too late for the west to exert inflence? The Heezbullah model of aid and social work, in addition to the military arm, makes it a likely model for Sudan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
Odin, if Canada was in Sudan, would that not be as a supporter of UN policies? While many talk about Darfur, and Kofi Annan tries and pleads for help, there seems to be some resistance to support the UN by the US. John Bolton seems ineffective as a diplomat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odin:

Norman Spector brought up a good point on the radio today: whatever happened to peacekeeping to stop the genocide in Sudan? Why is Layton advocating the use of our extra soldiers in Lebanon when the could be stopping an actual humanitarian crisis that no one seems to give a damn about.

The NDP is looking horribly contradictory and unrealistic on the foreign affairs portfolio.

---

Time to nip this false meme in the bud as well.

Layton wants Canada to lead on Darfur mission.

""Our view is that this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported,'' Layton said Sunday. "

Too many people, including Spector apparently, seem to think that their failure to do 10 seconds of internet research means the NDP is being inconsistent.

An amazing number of people seem to require an NDP representative to stop by their house every morning to outline the various positions the NDP currently holds. If the NDP fails to do so, then they are 'contradictory and unrealistic."

My more nuanced response is that the NDO, in taking positions on today's issues, are not necessarily selling out other issues.

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

This is exactly what Canada should be doing.

Not Afghanistan (where we are an illegal force of occupation and aggression); not Sudan (where we have not been invited by U.N. or Sudan); but Lebanon.

The U.N. ceasefire resolution represented a significant defeat for Israeli aggression, in my opinion, and domestic Israeli politicking these days confirms that view. A robust international force, with the authority of all nations that have blessed the ceasefire, is just what the doctor ordered. The fact that Harper is a pro-U.S. scumbag in no way detracts from the role that Canada can and must play in such a force.

quote:

---

Too many people, including Spector apparently, seem to think that their failure to do 10 seconds of internet research means the NDP is being inconsistent.

---

Layton is right on the money. He opposed the mission in Afghanistan in the clearest terms I've heard yet from an NDP spokesperson. Mind you, he kept saying Canada should engage in "peacemaking and peacekeeping" work, never forgetting to use both terms. I don't like the sound of that.

For anyone who didn't hear the interview tonight, he said the NDP had used Access to Information early this year to disclose military briefing notes that said Canada could spare 1,200 peacekeepers, even over and above the Afghan aggression (I believe he used the term "mission").

quote:

---

Back on topic. Should Canada send troops to Lebanon? I say yes, definitely, now.

---

I'll pretty much reiterate... In theory, not a bad idea. In reality, the presence of a western nation (any that have openly supported the Israeli 'measured' slaughter of Lebanese citizens) is going to be much more harmful then helpful. As it sits, American soldiers will be as welcome on Lebanese soil as Canadians will be. We are no longer neutral and our presence within the UN peacekeeping force comprimises the neutrality of the peacekeeping force (mindyou, I doubt very much the force is neutral... Call it even less neutral if Canada is there).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

...(any that have openly supported the Israeli 'measured' slaughter of Lebanese citizens) is going to be much more harmful then helpful.

---

Well Hiz-h for once would be the first on the list of organizations that openly supported the slaughter of Lebanese citizens. They've caused the whole thing at a first place while hiding their precious asses under the buildings or villages full of people. Their presence in Lebanon therefore has been very harmful already.

There is no neutral position, unless we are talking of Switzerland, but for that there were some historical presidents. It's like trying to sit on two chairs at once- possible, but hardly and it is very uncomfortable. I do agree that Canada should play a more pro-active role in peace-building and their presence in Lebanon (in any form) alongside other democracies would therefore be for good.

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: venus_man ]

As always,you're hiding in your own deluded world. Ever feel like visiting reality for a change?

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Well Hiz-h for once would be the first on the list of organizations that openly supported the slaughter of Lebanese citizens.

---

Ever occour to you that the Hizbollah are Lebanese citizens? They garner a larger popular vote than the bloc does here in Canada. The first fighting force for Hizbollah are known as village reserves. People like you or me that defend their homes from an invading force (say if America invaded, and you fought back).

quote:

---

They've caused the whole thing at a first place while hiding their precious asses under the buildings or villages full of people. Their presence in Lebanon therefore has been very harmful already.

---

Agreed, lets kick the 400'000 Hizbollah supporters (that a lowball figure now, support for Hizbollah has shot up since). Or we can go with what you appear to advocate, lets kill em all. Israeli cluster bombs are certainly doing a great job of removing children as they play.

Got any others for me? I can go through your old posts if you really want ^^

quote:

---

You know the reality that is for real!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

Then why does the democratically elected Lebanese government support both the UN resolution and the international force? Are they a "proxy for Israel" also? Isn't the prime objective to get the Israeli army out of Lebanon as quickly as possible and stop the killing and mayhem of innocent civillians?

---

Yes. They just happened to approve of it. This was completely unrelated to a month long bombing campaign by another regional state.

quote:

---

The UN Security Council resolution draft on Lebanon reflects a new stage of Western colonialism in the Middle East, and perhaps a historic precedent: for the first time, the UN Security Council – should the resolution draft be endorsed – breaches the fundamental principle of the right of people under occupation to resist, and in fact legitimizes the violent partition of the sovereign state of Lebanon.

The American-French draft reflects the interests of three central colonial powers in the region: the U.S., the main colonial power in Iraq and Afghanistan; its client and proxy Israel, which is occupying the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as well as part of Syria, and occupied south Lebanon for 22 years (1978-2000); and France, the former colonial empire in Lebanon after WWI. No wonder that the draft, which pays lip-service to Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, in fact suggests a partition of this small land.

---

URL=Ran Hacohen

I mean why oh why is a former colonial power being allowed to make up such a large part of the UN contingent? Didn't we learn anything from the Belgian sudden diecision to withdraw from Rwanda?

Any clearly fair decision would place the UN control on both sides of the border, and encompass Sheba farms, which the UN could then determine the soveriegnty of.

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:

...but for that there were some historical presidents...

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: venus_man ]

---

No doubt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:

…something like you know the reality, so it’s like you are severely enlightened and your knowledge is on 100% real. You know the reality that is for real! Wow, it is unreal, honestly, for someone to realistically know what is really going on, wow.

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: venus_man]

---

Shit. My head is spinning.

But don't stop, man, this stuff is EXCELLENT.

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: Merowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odin:
The purpose of an army is not peacekeeping, but defense.

Kinda like saying, "If Canada can't give free health care to the world, then we might as well discontinue medicare."

---

That’s true. And, in your hypothetical, Canadians are the direct beneficiaries of healthcare. Therefore, it wouldn’t make sense to discontinue healthcare when “Canada can’t give free health care to the world”.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merowe:

Shit. My head is spinning.

But don't stop, man, this stuff is EXCELLENT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

If Canada shouldn't support a peacekeeping mission like this, Canada might as well disband its military.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

Asking them to do what the primary agggressors in the last war failed to do, disarm and disperse the Hizbollah, is wrong in either sense of the word. Peacekeeping in any particular area is supposed to be voluntary for any particular nation.

---

The job of the U.N. force will not be to disarm or disperse Hizbollah. This is not in the ceasefire resolution; Kofi Annan specifically stated that is not part of the mission; and the Lebanese government and Hizbollah have said so. Why would you make such a statement?

As to "voluntary", the Lebanese government and Hizbollah have both welcomed and supported the U.N. ceasefire resolution, including the peacekeeping force. If that's not "voluntary", what is???

Noise says Canada can't be neutral because Harper took a pro-Israel stance. Well guess what, asshole Harper doesn't like this U.N. resolution and ceasefire. It's a defeat for Israel. That's why the butcher of Ottawa has been stand-offish about contributing troops, while continuing to gloat and cheer every time another Canadian child comes home dead from Afghanistan. By sending troops to the U.N. mission in Lebanon, Harper's propaganda will be deflected and the people of the world will begin to respect our pro-peace and neutral role once more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yst:
Regardless, at this time, it is quite unclear what a large peace-keeping force deployed to southern Lebanon could achieve. This would of course be heavily dependent on how matters evolve in the near term and how Israel progresses there and on the border. But even if Israel didn't throw any wildcards into the mix prior to and during a deployment, it's impossible to know for certain how Israel would respond to the presence once deployed. It's an extremely risky venture.

---

Either way I do Not think the NDP should be encouraging Canada into conflicts that show no real signs of ending, particularly one so close to where the 'war on terror' is centred. No-one, not even the UN, can guarantee a positive outcome. Not unless I missed Israel agreeing to some substantial conciliation in return. I'd rather see troops from Afghanistan being reassigned to Darfur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Koffi Annan says onething, the US says another. Last I heard on BBC they said they'd check for weapons which are visible' but not go looking for them...

I'd rather see troops from Afghanistan being reassigned to Darfur.

This is a switch, Unionist defending Layton and me criticising, great notes to end off on.

---

It's a switch superficially, I guess. When Layton says or does atrocious things (like promote crackdowns on crime or support the Clarity Act or find some good in a baby bonus or waffle for many months on Afghanistan or play electoral politics to the exclusion of principle...), I call him bad names.

When he does something good - like changing his mind on Afghanistan, or condemning the softwood lumber agreement, or call for Canada to help police the ceasefire in Lebanon under U.N. command - I encourage and praise him.

The U.N. has clearly stated that the UNIFIL force will not be tasked with disarming Hezbollah:

quote:

---

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it was not the United Nations' task to strip the guerrillas of their weapons.

"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah. Let's be clear about that," he said after meeting with EU ministers. He said disarmament is an issue for Lebanon's government, and "cannot be done by force."

---

No wonder, since the unanimous Security Council resolution didn't mention that, and Hezbollah supported it. As I said, this is not rocket science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The job of the U.N. force will not be to disarm or disperse Hizbollah. This is not in the ceasefire resolution; Kofi Annan specifically stated that is not part of the mission; and the Lebanese government and Hizbollah have said so. Why would you make such a statement?

---

The UN forces in Haiti weren't supposed to involve themselves in murder and the suppression of the pro-Aristide movemnet, but they did just that.

The official mandate of the new international force is uncertain and subject to change:

quote:

---

The unanimous vote in the Security Council for resolution 1701 masked over the underlying differences, but did not resolve them.

Israel and the US are continuing to insist on the complete disarming of Hezbollah. The American ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, is seeking to introduce a new resolution to this affect, while Israel is contemptuously ignoring provisions of the cease-fire that stand in its way. Source

---

quote:

---

Under the present circumstances, such a force — which the US, the EU and Israel all favour — would have the task of consolidating the territory gained by the Israeli aggression. Such a force would be stationed in southern Lebanon to prevent the re-emergence of opposition to Israel and the US. It would free up the US to launch further provocations against Syria and Iran. Its mission could be compared to that of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in Afghanistan, who keep the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai in power, meanwhile freeing up the US for its military deployment in Iraq.

A basic condition for any peace in the Middle East is the withdrawal of all imperialist troops from the region, and above all the removal of American forces from Iraq. Source

---

The primary motive for the expansion of the UNIFIL force is to keep Hizbollah, not Israel, in check. Leftists should not be supporting it.

If ISAF "morphed" into an aggressive occupation force, that was not the mandate of the U.N. If you're saying that a robust UNIFIL force could somehow be taken over by the U.S. and used against the people of the region, well I suppose anything can happen... The Security Council and the U.N. could be coopted too... Is that a reason to abandon or condemn them?

My view is that there is no benefit to any of the people in the region from hostilities between Lebanon and Israel - ever. Hezbollah's abduction of Israeli soldiers was wacky, or shall we say, criminally negligent. An act of solidarity with Gaza? An attempt to create a new front and weaken the Israeli offensive? How did it benefit the people? Likewise, who benefited from over 20 years of Israeli aggression and occupation in southern Lebanon?

The key to bringing change to the Middle East is Palestine and the Palestinians -- has been for almost 60 years. That's my opinion, anyway. Their subjugation perpetuates war and aggression in the region and provides the U.S. and its allies with a pretext to intervene and dominate. It keeps the Arab peoples from pursuing their struggle to rid themselves of reactionary regimes. It is an undone task which allows no other task to be accomplished. Any diversion from that task - such as war between Lebanon and Israel - merely postpones the day of judgment.

There are risks in such a UNIFIL venture, and I'm no expert on the political or military situation. This is mostly my gut talking. I never want to see another shot or soldier or bomber or rocket cross that border.

ETA: The government of Lebanon is not a puppet regime. That draws another important distinction between the role and behaviour of ISAF and that of a peacekeeping UNIFIL force.

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Last I heard on BBC they said they'd check for weapons which are visible' but not go looking for them.

---

The only visable arms within Lebanon will be tiny cluster bomb pellets left unexploded across civilian regions waiting for someone to step on em. It'll be a challenge for the UN engineers to disarm these cluster bomb minefields.

quote:

---

Noise: The only visable arms within Lebanon will be tiny cluster bomb pellets left unexploded across civilian regions waiting for someone to step on em. It'll be a challenge for the UN engineers to disarm these cluster bomb minefields.

---

Not quite. The Israeli minefields from their last invasion and occupation of Lebanon still haven't been cleared up. Seems the Israeli aren't interested in sharing the maps that give the location of the mines with the Lebanese authorities.

G.W. Bush, Condy Rice, and Stephen Harper didn't want a ceasefire until Hizbullah had been destroyed, and perhaps Syria and Iran brought to heel. Nor did Israel. They didn't get their wish. I don't believe this is "their" ceasefire at all.

Bush and Harper have said they will not contribute troops to UNIFIL.

In addition to what I said before, those are two good reasons to support Jack Layton's call.

quote:

---

G.W. Bush, Condy Rice, and Stephen Harper didn't want a ceasefire until Hizbullah had been destroyed, and perhaps Syria and Iran brought to heel. Nor did Israel. They didn't get their wish. I don't believe this is "their" ceasefire at all.

---

All signs pointed to this as a planned invasion by Israel that they jumped the gun on, then hesitated and failed within their goals. Blair let slip that he was aware of these invasion plans prior to the kidnappings and Nasrallah seems firmly convinced, that the invasion plans were well underway for a fall invasion.

The UN does deserve some credit as to the speed and enforcement of the ceasefire... It's presence will ensure that the ceasefire stays in tact, if anything else because Israel cannot risk the public backlash if they press the attack with UN troops on Lebanese soil. Hizbollah won't break the ceasefire (they stand only to lose if they do so).

You are completely right with that analysis Unionist, despite all the American diplomatic cores efforts to block a ceasfire and buy as much time for Israel to try to wipe Hizbollah off the map... They failed in this goal. The ceasefire came as a bit of a slap in the face to those that supported action to eliminate the Hizbollah.

added:

Taken from BBC

quote:

---

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora says his government will pay $33,000 in compensation to families whose homes - numbering 79,000 - were destroyed in the conflict

---

Just so we all know how many civilian homes were destroyed during the month war

[ 30 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

(If disarming Hexbollah was the objective, which I am not entirely sure it was.)

I think this possibility has to be considered, especially in the light of more than a few instances where the UN became the tool of the specific agendas of a set of powerful national interests.

Very much, it seems to me the UN is losing whatever credibility it has a neutral actor, and more and more a tool of the power bases that resolve around the old European powers, which comprise the SC.

Again, it seems exepcially strange that France is participating at such a signifcant level in this operation.

[ 30 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The UN plan, such as it is, fails to address the real issues underlying the conflict. For example, neutralizing Syria’s involvement would require the return of its occupied territories by Israel. How soon is that going to happen?

There also seems to be a taste in the international community for efforts to stop the flow of arms to Lebanon, while at the same time continuing to allow the flow of fighter jets, nuclear submarines, cluster bombs, etc. to Israel. The lopsided vision being promoted by the UN is one of a disarmed and defenceless Lebanon coexisting in an uneasy truce with a heavily armed Israel.

Is the international force supposed to preserve the status quo – i.e. Israeli troops on Lebanese territory, Israeli fighter jets in Lebanese air space, Israeli ships blockading Lebanese ports? Or is it a prelude to change? If so, you can be sure that whatever changes the international community decides to impose on the situation will be more in keeping with Condi Rice’s vision of the “New Middle East” than with the liberation of the occupied territories. Unable to “break Hizbollah” by war, Israel and its US backers now want an international military presence to push the resistance away from the border, back to the north of the Litani River.

Hizbollah arose in 1986 not as a terrorist organization, not as a theocratic Islamist organization, but as a resistance to the Israeli invasion of 1982 and occupation of about half of Lebanon. Despite the many religious, ethnic, and class enmities among the Lebanese Hizbollah has never taken Lebanese lives. It did eventually succeed in reclaiming from Israel all but the Shebaa Farms territory, thereby becoming the only entity, in some 60 years of Israeli colonial-settler enterprise, to have forced Israel, by armed resistance, to give up any captured territory. Disarming Hizbollah – assuming that were possible without killing every last one of them – would leave Lebanon virtually defenceless against Israeli aggression.

Hizbollah has come to enjoy political support from all sectors of Lebanese society – not just the Shias in southern Lebanon and the slums of Beirut. The vast majority of the Christian and Sunni Lebanese supported the resistance of Hizbollah to the latest Israeli aggression. Its political stature and popularity in Lebanon has increased as a result.

The Lebanese government should resist pressure to disarm Hizbollah. To do so would be to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,” to quote George Galloway, not to mention likely triggering a civil war (much to the glee of Israel). Hizbollah should be considered as part of the Lebanese armed forces – a necessary part of its national defence against Israel.

quote:

---

Noam Chomsky: My expectations were pretty low, but the coverage has been
worse than I expected, at least. There are scattered and good reports about the
suffering of the Lebanese. But overwhelmingly, it's presented from the Israeli
point of view. And there is only oblique indication of the fact that it is a
US-Israeli attack, not an Israeli-attack. One might do a count of the phrases
"Iranian-supplied" and "US-supplied." The ratio should be about one to 50,
maybe, but I suspect it's more like 50 to 1. And the US influence is vastly
greater than any Iranian influence, but rarely discussed, because it's taken for
granted that it is right and just, even "an honest broker." Same in Iraq. The
journals of the occupying armies report Washington's concerns about Iranian
intervention. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.

---

Although:

quote:

---

The vast majority of the Christian and Sunni Lebanese supported the resistance of Hizbollah to the latest Israeli aggression.

---

I would tred carfully with the latter there, although the siutation may be different within Lebanon, the Sunni people that I know and spoken to here are very firmly anti-Hizbollah. Although that being said, they weren't exactly pro-zionist either.

quote:

---

Most of the goals therefore were achieved.

---

Venus_man it's interesting to see your post here

quote:

---

I don’t think that was in anybody’s plans to wipe out the Hiz-h completely.

---

When you've been quote in atleast 2 of the Israeli-Lebanon threads as:

quote:

---

Bomb the bastards i say, destroy them and restore US government’s full control of its own territory if they wish so, but it would be wise to protect our own country and its people as a first priority.

---

Flip flopping or starting to see straight?

[ 30 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
I would tred carfully with the latter there, although the siutation may be different within Lebanon...

---

quote:

---

A poll on Thursday confirmed what was apparent during the television discussion: Some 96 percent of Shiites expressed support for the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, as did 73 percent of Sunnis, 54 percent of Christians and 40 percent of Druze. Most of the participants in the poll felt that Israel will not be able to defeat Hezbollah. Source

---

quote:

---

According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis. Source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Hizbollah arose in 1986 not as a terrorist organization, not as a theocratic Islamist organization, but as a resistance to the Israeli invasion of 1982 and occupation of about half of Lebanon. Despite the many religious, ethnic, and class enmities among the Lebanese Hizbollah has never taken Lebanese lives. It did eventually succeed in reclaiming from Israel all but the Shebaa Farms territory, thereby becoming the only entity, in some 60 years of Israeli colonial-settler enterprise, to have forced Israel, by armed resistance, to give up any captured territory.

---

Not entirely accurate. The combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq forced considerable conessions from Israel during the 1973 Yom Kipur war. At this time Israel came a hairs breadth from losing the Golan Heights, and was driven back 20 miles (?) from the East edge of the Suez Canal.

This resulted in the Camp David Accords negotiated by Anwar Sadat in 1975, where Israel returned the Sinai desert, in exchnage for a comprhensive peace treaty. Other treaties were expected to follow, but it seems the Israeli's cynically manipulated the unilateral nature of the talks with Egypt, deviding their Arab opposition, to knock out the most significant Arab military force as an opponent, and then proceeded to hang on to the Golan and the West Bank, so far indefinitely.

[ 30 August 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Although is it possible that we could regain our much tarnished reputation as a nation of peace if we join a force that serves only as a buffer and not as a proxy army to disarm Hezbullah?

After all consider Cyprus, I's sure there are other examples, where it just has to be that two parties are better served by being divided and that is an excellent role for the UN. Who knows after a generation or two or three someone with common sense may appear on the horizon of both Israel and Lebanon.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Ok first off, I want to know what you mean by a "buffer army". If I get deployed to lebanon as part of a 'buffer' mission I hope you don't expect me to stand idoly by while I'm getting shot at from, either side. Screw that! If I'm not allowed to fire back I'm moving out of their way. If I am allowed to to shoot back I don't care if they are Hizballah or IDF, they are getting double tapped center-mass. And don't think the blue helmet is a magic shield which will stop aggressors from attacking. Medak Pocket is one example where Canadian 'Peacekeepers' fought back when one side decided to attack. Just make sure they give us air-defence batteries.

Secondly, apart from Cyprus there aren't many if any examples where separation has resolved comflict. Israel is trying to do that with a concrete wall around Palestine and this crowd calls it a crime against humanity. No, separation and isolation only allows hatred to fester and sides to re-arm. Canada was in the Golan heights for 30 years and it failed to stop any kind of aggression. To solve the problem you need to face it head on and deal with all matters openly and in a fair manner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Back on topic. Should Canada send troops to Lebanon? I say yes, definitely, now.

For anyone who didn't hear the interview tonight, he said the NDP had used Access to Information early this year to disclose military briefing notes that said Canada could spare 1,200 peacekeepers, even over and above the Afghan aggression (I believe he used the term "mission").

---

You don't work in a human resources department do you? There won't be very many married soldiers left if you keep a deployment tempo like that. It takes 8000 soldiers to support a 2200 soldier deployment overseas. You may think 8000 is a small number considering Canada's 80 000 member reserve and regularforce millitary. But that's 80 000 devided amongst the Army, Navy and Airforce. Already there are soldiers who have spent 18 months of a 5 year marriage overseas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

Also,do we have troops to send? Do we have the 500 - 1000 men and women to don the blue berets? I am not sure that we have them. What role would they play? Headquarters? Logistics? boots on the ground?

The answer can not be a simple take them out of Afghanistan and send them to Lebanon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ebunny:

Secondly, apart from Cyprus there aren't many if any examples where separation has resolved comflict. Israel is trying to do that with a concrete wall around Palestine and this crowd calls it a crime against humanity.

---

Which crowd is that, ebunny? You have some rowdy people over at your place smashing beer bottles and commenting on the Apartheid Wall? Call the cops, I'm sure they'll help you clear them out.

Or perhaps you mean the International Court at the Hague, which declared your Wall illegal in 2004? Is that the "crowd" you're concerned about? Those pampered jurists can't be expected to comprehend the security concerns of victims like Sharon and Olmert, surrounded by screaming fanatics.

You see, I know for sure that when you say "crowd" you don't mean babblers, who are by and large a progressive lot that tries to sympathize with the underdog. That's why I was wondering if you could clarify your remarks.

As for not sending Canadian troops to Lebanon because it might cause marital discord back home, I must admit I hadn't thought of that. I'm thinking about it now... Wait for it... Ok, here it is:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]
You see, I know for sure that when you say "crowd" you don't mean babblers, who are by and large a progressive lot that tries to sympathize with the underdog. That's why I was wondering if you could clarify your remarks.

---

I thought I had balanced out that argument in the second half of the paragraph which you conveniently left out of your quote, Unionist.

As for which "crowd" I regard to, I regard to the crowd that naively follows the underdog without taking in considerations that perhaps ALL parties (Israel, Hizballah, Hammas, America) are at fault in this conflict and ALL need to be dragged to the negotiating table by their ears.

Blindly following one side... Sounds like something FOX news would do.

[ 31 August 2006: Message edited by: ebunny ]

quote:

---

"How can the deployment of the expanded UN force in southern Lebanon, brought about by Israel's attack on its northern neighbor, facilitate the broader goal of achieving regime change in Iran?"

That's surely the question uppermost in the minds of Bush administration neocons as they seek to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat following Israel's costly and unsuccessful effort to destroy Hizbollah. Urged on by the Bush administration (while condemned by the rest of the world), Israel undertook its invasion not for the reason advertised (in response to recent Hizbollah attacks) but to deprive Tehran from using the Shiite militia in retaliation for the long-planned attack on Iran. If the Lebanese fighters can be driven from the border area back behind the Litani River, they will be unable to launch missile attacks such as the 3800 provoked by Israeli's most recent invasion.

The deployment of a UN-legitimated, probably French-led force in south Lebanon is in theory designed to "secure the border." But UNIFIL itself has reported nearly daily violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel since the Israeli withdrawal from the area in 2000. (Lebanese of all faiths credit this withdrawal to the efforts of Hizbollah fighters.) In reality the expanded UNIFIL mission is intended to eliminate Iran's ability to respond to imperialist aggression against itself through the use of its Lebanese allies. It's a mission preparatory to that aggression, preceding Iran's expected rejection of the U.S.-backed "generous offer" to Iran and reiteration of its inalienable right according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium.

---

quote:

---

But even if things don't pan out precisely as planned, the UNSC-brokered peace on the Lebanese border may spark a chain reaction producing an American empire, friendly to Israel, corporate America and permanent U.S. military bases, from the Mediterranean to the Khyber Pass.

---

Huh?

Also, he could at least have ventured a guess as to why the UNIFIL force has been supported by Beirut and by Hizbollah, and why the U.S. and Canada refuse to send troops. Is it so subtle that we to view it through a mirror to understand it?

But I don't share your bafflement about the positions of Lebanon, Hizbollah, Canada and the US regarding the expanded UNIFIL.

Hizbollah has "no problem with U.N. forces in the region as long as their aim is not to disarm Hizbollah.” A perfectly logical position for them to take.

The weak, pro-US Lebanese government has no choice but to support the U.N. force. From their point of view, it's better than the alternative of continued indiscriminate bombing by Israel and a huge refugee crisis.

I agree with the Lebanese govt. (however pro-U.S. it may be) that the ceasefire and UNIFIL are better than continued indiscriminate bombing.

I believe the ceasefire was far from the first choice of Bush and Harper - they clearly stated their bloodthirsty desire of letting Israel carry on until it achieved some sort of "victory". I don't see the "birth pangs" of the new Middle East anywhere on the horizon. And even the U.S. doesn't veto every resolution they don't like - tell me exactly how this resolution serves their aims (without Leupp-style fanciful "the U.S. will now take over the world" scenario), and I will definitely listen, but honestly Spector, I don't see it.

But Israel couldn't accomplish its objectives. It underestimated Hizbollah. It is widely acknowledged to have lost the war. Moreover, the longer the war continued, the more world opinion turned against Israel, and demanded a ceasefire. Almost from day one the EU and other allies of the US and Israel were condemning the lack of "proportionality" in the attacks on Lebanon. Kofi Annan and the Security Council members other than USA were eventually obliged to press for a ceasefire. The US would have preferred a "final solution" to Hizbollah, but had to settle for the "semi-final" solution - Plan B was an international force to neutralize Hizbollah.

So the expansion of UNIFIL is seen as an opportunity to keep Hizbollah in check and push it back from the Israeli border - something Israel was unable to do by force. Leupp's thesis, as I understand it, is that this is part of the preparation for an attack on Iran by USA and/or Israel - an attempt to secure the Lebanon border against a "second front" being opened up by Hizbollah in support of Iran.

Linda McQuaig drew the link between Lebanon and Iran on July 16 when she wrote:

quote:

---

Is it really Iran that is pushing for war? Think about it. Why would Iran want to provoke a war with Israel and the U.S. - both heavily armed nuclear powers - when it has no nuclear weapons itself?

The U.S. and Israel, on the other hand, are very keen to attack Iran. In a recent series of articles in New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed Washington's plans to attack Iran. Israel has called Iran a “major threat” that “must be stopped” from developing nuclear weapons.

But the U.S. and Israel don't want to look like aggressors. They insist their intentions are purely defensive. Recall that Washington also claimed its invasion of Iraq was purely defensive - to protect itself from Iraq's arsenal of deadly weapons, which, it turned out, didn't exist.

So when Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon seized two Israeli soldiers last week, a perfect opportunity arose. Since Hezbollah has links to Iran, presto, here was a prima facie case that Iran was gunning for confrontation.

---

quote:

---

The Bush administration is attempting to fashion a NATO-led force to eventually enter southern Lebanon in a move that would further extend the alliance's mandate from European defence to a deeper engagement in the global struggle against Islamic militants.

In doing so, Washington is signalling that it has little confidence a UN-led force would be able to intervene effectively in southern Lebanon.

Instead, the United States is pushing for a robust fighting force led by NATO but with a United Nations mandate to disarm Hezbollah and extend the sway of the ineffectual Lebanese army.

The operation would be similar to one that NATO countries — including Canada — are undertaking in Afghanistan where they are attempting to shore up the government of Hamid Karzai and prevent a resurgence of the Taliban.

---

ETA: When (not if) the attack on Iran begins and Hizbollah decides to open up the second front, do we want Canadian soldiers in UNIFIL trying to stop them?

[ 31 August 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

So the expansion of UNIFIL is seen as an opportunity to keep Hizbollah in check and push it back from the Israeli border - something Israel was unable to do by force. Leupp's thesis, as I understand it, is that this is part of the preparation for an attack on Iran by USA and/or Israel - an attempt to secure the Lebanon border against a "second front" being opened up by Hizbollah in support of Iran.

[...]

ETA: When (not if) the attack on Iran begins and Hizbollah decides to open up the second front, do we want Canadian soldiers in UNIFIL trying to stop them?

---

Your quote from the Globe in July talks about a NATO force. This is a U.N. force - not what Bush, Harper or the rest wanted.

McQuaig says what everyone knows - that the imperialists have aggressive intentions toward Iran, and they seized on Hizbollah's inept move to attack it. But they miscalculated also and ended up strenthening Hizbollah politically. How does that speak to the question in this thread?

Finally, and most disturbingly I must admit, is your ETA. The job of the anti-war and progressive forces everywhere is to stop the U.S. attacking Iran. If that ever happens, however, I sincerely hope Hizbollah will not be suicidal and stupid enough to launch a "solidarity" attack against Israel! That's sort of what they did in July ("solidarity with Gaza"). It didn't help Gaza. And it reminds me of the stupidity of Saddam Hussein, who after getting suckered by the U.S. into invading Kuwait (following a decade of being suckered by the U.S. of making war against Iran), he then reacted brilliantly by... firing SCUDs into Israel!! That really helped the cause, now didn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Your quote from the Globe in July talks about a NATO force. This is a U.N. force - not what Bush, Harper or the rest wanted.

---

I'm not here to advise Hizbollah on what they should do if and when USA/Israel attacks Iran. If they were to open up a second front in "solidarity" I would not be surprised, nor would I condemn them for it. I certainly wouldn't want Canadian troops in UNIFIL serving as a rearguard for Israel in such a circumstance, however "stupid" the Hizbollah strategy may turn out to be.

I don't accept the "proxy of Iran" theory. Maybe Hizbollah has no intention of joining in a war between Iran and Israel. I don't think Gary Leupp is saying they do (how would he know?). But I don't think he is necessarily wrong in supposing that the attacks on Hizbollah this summer were motivated by a desire to make sure that they were out of the picture before hostilities against Iran commence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And BTW, what are the "mistakes" of Hizbollah that they must learn from?

---

Their misguided attack on Israeli soldiers in July, for example. It's not me saying it was a mistake. Nasrallah said he miscalculated and that he never would have done it had he predicted the response. When you speculated about Hizbollah opening a "second front" if U.S. attacks Iran, the thought occurred to me that maybe Hizbollah will not do so, having learned from its mistake of July.

Or did you think its July action was a good move?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Their misguided attack on Israeli soldiers in July, for example. It's not me saying it was a mistake. Nasrallah said he miscalculated and that he never would have done it had he predicted the response.

---

quote:

---

Expressing his regret over the events that followed the capture of two Israeli soldiers, the Hezbollah leader said “We did not think, even one percent; that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. If you’re asking me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not."

---

As Linda McQuaig said, "So when Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon seized two Israeli soldiers last week, a perfect opportunity arose" for Israel to start a "defensive" war and try to make it look like evil puppetmaster Iran was the real aggressor.

Hizbollah didn't want a war. Had Nasrallah known the Israelis would seize the occasion as a casus belli they would not have seized the soldiers.

Was that a "mistake"? Assuming it was, what lesson must Nasrallah learn from it? Don't mess with the IDF? Forget about trying to arrange prisoner swaps? The Israelis are totally unpredictable? Be prepared for another war at the slightest opportunity? Help me out here.

ETA: I just realized I was not clear when I said "When (not if) the attack on Iran begins and Hizbollah decides ..." I should have said: "When (not if) the attack on Iran begins and if Hizbollah decides..." Sorry.

[ 01 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Finally, and most disturbingly I must admit, is your ETA. The job of the anti-war and progressive forces everywhere is to stop the U.S. attacking Iran. If that ever happens, however, I sincerely hope Hizbollah will not be suicidal and stupid enough to launch a "solidarity" attack against Israel! That's sort of what they did in July ("solidarity with Gaza"). It didn't help Gaza.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I'm pretty sure I've linked to this before, but I think it's worth a close reading. It's a law professor's analysis of Resolution 1701 explaining why (in his opinion) Hezbollah accepted it; inferring a deal between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government which would effectively nullify the arms embargo and the clauses calling for no "armed groups" in the south other than those of the Lebanese government; etc.:

The UN MidEast Ceasefire Resolution Paragraph-by-Paragraph

---

Hear hear on the prof's inference, I'd concluded very much the same thing. We're not hearing too much about the facts on the ground in Hezbollah land and I suspect that is in part due to some business that needs to happen quietly, out of the limelight. Basically, the integration of Hezbollah units into regular Lebanese army positions. Insofar as Hezbollah appear to have some legitimate status as a local agency this would be an elegant solution to the matter of 'disarming' them.