"France said it would send just 200 new troops to Lebanon and set a host of conditions before it will send more, in a setback for hopes that an effective international force can be deployed rapidly as a buffer between Israel and the Hezbollah militia.

The French position, announced on the day that about 50 nations gathered at the United Nations in New York to work out the precise mission and rules of engagement for the Lebanon force, came as a blow to U.N. officials who had expected Paris to take the lead.

Diplomats worried yesterday that without the French lead, it will be hard to persuade other countries to offer the big contributions needed to create a force of 15,000, as called for in last Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution that France co-wrote. Italy, which has said it could offer as many as 3,000 troops, lined up behind France's wait-and-see position.

Nice joke on the BBC today, Iran and Syria have volunteered 300,000 troops for peacekeeping operations in Lebanon.

Anyway.

Are not Lebanese Shi'ites the principal population of southern Lebanon? Are they not currently represented by Hezbollah in the national parliament? What other political organizations operate in the region and what political ideologies do they represent?

Has not the central government acceded much local social/political control to Hezbollah so that they are the de facto government? Such that efforts to disarm Hezbollah, by national or international forces, would incite insurrection among the local population? Is the scenario more Iraq-like than we care to imagine, with the mooted UN force being sent in, as Israel would have it, to take over/suppress local government and replace it with....? Central authority?

What compelling reasons exist to displace the 'facts on the ground' of local Hezbollah control? Their regular provocations of Israel which in truth are scarcely more than a nuisance? The strong language they use about Israel?

I suspect some subtle accomodations are in the works which will see Hezbollah remain in south Lebanon with the proviso they keep their heads down for a bit. Israel will not like it and continue to violate the ceasefire as it sees fit.

I also agree with Seymour Hersh's analysis that the original kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was a tactic to take pressure off of Hamas in Gaza.

Which brings us back to the Palestinians. Sort the West Bank and Gaza and you have peace.

But the more I consider this post-war situation, the messier it becomes. Time to research.

[ 19 August 2006: Message edited by: Merowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merowe:

Has not the central government acceded much local social/political control to Hezbollah so that they are the de facto government? Such that efforts to disarm Hezbollah, by national or international forces, would incite insurrection among the local population? Is the scenario more Iraq-like than we care to imagine, with the mooted UN force being sent in, as Israel would have it, to take over/suppress local government and replace it with....? Central authority?

---

The fix for this is pretty obvious.

What will happen is that local units of Lebanese Army reserves will come into existance, and Hezbollah units will be incorporated into the national army fully constitued under the same Hexbollah command structures that exist now.

quote:

---

I don't see what all the hulla baloo about a UN peacekeeping force is about. What is needed is an arms embargo on Israel.

---

Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute

quote:

---

JUAN GONZALEZ: And your report indicates that Israel has always been the largest recipient of military aid from the United States, but that that’s actually increased since 2001?

FRIDA BERRIGAN: We’re looking at incredible increases in U.S. military aid and weapons sales to Israel. Military aid stands at about $3 billion a year. That’s about $500 for every Israeli citizen that the United States provides on an annual basis. And then, weapons sales, most recently, since the Bush administration came into power, we’re looking at $6.3 billion worth of weaponry sold to Israel.

Israel's relationship with the United States is unique in a number of ways. And one of those ways is that essentially the United States provides 20% of the Israeli military budget on an annual basis, and then about 70% of that money that is given from the United States, from U.S. taxpayers, to Israel is then spent on weapons from Lockheed Martin and Boeing and Raytheon. Most other countries don't have that sort of cash relationship, where they go straight to U.S. corporations with U.S. money to buy weapons that are then used in the Occupied Territories and against Lebanon.

AMY GOODMAN: What kind of leverage does the U.S. money, the U.S. aid for Israel provide?

FRIDA BERRIGAN: Well, when you’re talking about 20% of the Israeli military budget, you’re talking about a huge fulcrum of leverage, right? The United States could today say, you know, “This incursion into Lebanon, the killing of civilians, the bombing in Gaza, all of this is not internal security, all of this is not self-defense, and we’re cutting it off.” And they could cut it off tomorrow. And that would essentially not only send an incredibly strong message to the Israeli military, but it would remove the tools of the occupation, the tools of the bloodshed and the suffering that’s happening in Lebanon and in Gaza.

It was interesting to sort of place the very weak statements that have come from the administration -- “Oh, there should be” -- you know, they have said things, like “They should practice restraint,” and stuff like that. Meanwhile, just on the 14th, the United States decided to sell $120 million worth of jet fuel to the Israeli military. The little notice that announced the sale from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said, “This fuel will be used to promote peace and security in the region.” And then, meanwhile, you have jets strafing villages, bombing civilians, taking out bridges, destroying water treatment plants. So the United States could decide and would have a very strong case and a historic precedent for deciding to cut military aid

---

quote:

---

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."

---

The ratio is probably about right.

Chomsky adds:

quote:

---

There is also outright suppression. The current sharp escalation of violence began after the Hamas capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on June 25, and the capture of two Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Lebanon border on July 12. Each case elicited enormous outrage in the US, and strong support for very harsh Israeli retaliation. On June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, the Muammar brothers, a far worse crime.

That was scarcely reported and quickly dismissed to oblivion. The timing demonstrates with unusual clarity that the posture of outrage over the capture of Israeli soldiers is cynical fraud, facts underscored by the (null) reaction to the regular Israeli practice over many years of kidnapping Lebanese. It also follows at once that there is no moral legitimacy to either of the two major escalations against the populations of Gaza and Lebanon. And of course if we look at the ratio of killings, it's overwhelmingly US-Israel, always.

---

[ 19 August 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]