If the good and the just are sacrificed for the benefit of the world peace, I then, choose war as peace built on a lie will never last as no good can be a derivative of evil.
Hezbollah is claming victory across the board; the Lebanese are celebrating in the streets the major victory against “the puppet of the western power”.
If anyone still fails to understand what is truly going on around the world – they can’t be helped; they can’t be helped because they live in their own intergalactic zip code where no facts of reality find their way into.
Radical Islamic fascists scored their victory with help of two major nations in the Middle East. When one does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians then being victorious against women and children is sweet indeed. Personally to me this seems like cowardness beyond that shown by those stabbing their friend in the back.
And for such victory the terrorists were rewarded by a toothless UN resolution that doesn’t have any grounds to stand on. The resolution will fail and we will, once again, be right back attempting to identify what caused the problem.
Based on the previous 50 years old track record – does anyone have any illusions on how effective Blue Helmets are gong to be in disarming the militia?
I suspect I was right to suggest in one of my previous memos the United States should leave the UN, withdraw the funding and participation effort, and employ tactics our government believes will address the issues. I have virtually no trust left in the senate but the little I have left is infinitely more then the amount of trust I have in the “international community”.
Today, we yet once again, got a clear confirmation of how truly sad the reality is. My analysis of resolution 1701 are below, yet before I get there, I’d like to point out to my second memo written a few days back, where I have made a statement the civilians are complicit to the actions of the government and in this specific instance - almost to the same degree as the Hezbollah. Back then my analysis were based on historical view, today the analysis were confirmed by fireworks and jubilation in the streets after Hezbollah leader made a victory speech.
I have read the resolution UN think-tank came up with and never stops to amaze me how one-sided the text is.
Skipping useless text lets just see what the resolution truly says:
Resolution 1701:
Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel
Comment:
What happened to Israeli hostages detained by Hezbollah?
Resolution 1701:
Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese prime minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
Comment:
Anyone dares to ask where the Lebanese army was during the conflict? Why have not they intervened and cry ‘help us’ after being beaten to a pulp by the militia? Or could it be because half of Lebanese army personnel do not to be redeployed to the south as they have been there for past 30 days learning how to fire Iranian and Syrian made rockets?
Resolution 1701:
3. Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004)
Comment:
Much talked about Resolution 1559 called for disarmament of Hezbollah, in most recent statements Hezbollah as much as said they are not laying down their arms. Resolution 1559 is two years old, if Lebanese army could not do the disarmament trick before, what makes anyone thing they will succeed now? The blue helmets wont employ any force – with my failing memory, - does anyone has any example when force was employed by the UN army?
Resolution 1701
6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;
Comment:
At the very least UN could have worded the paragraph as something like “… extend financial aid based on the damage absorbed during the conflict….” – this one sided “we must help Lebanon” type of a statement continued to underscore UN’s inability to act objectively and to perform its true function.
Resolution 1701
12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes Unifil to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
Comment:
This is interesting, while on the surface it seems as blanket permission for UNIFIL to employ force; things are still open for interpretation – as in:
- what exactly is “area of operations”? Is it a guardhouse? A barrack? the entire southern Lebanon? There seems to be no definition in sight.
- “resist attempts by forceful means.” - but that’s only from those trying to keep UN from discharging its duties and protect UN personnel.
The ambiguity makes me wonder if Unifil will actually do anything when the shooting starts once again.
Resolution 1701
13. Requests the secretary general urgently to put in place measures to ensure Unifil is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges member states to consider making appropriate contributions to Unifil and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to Unifil in the past;
Comment:
For Christ’s sake – I was always under the impression any measures to enforce something were identified and put in place BEFORE an attempt of enforcement.
A call for money is not something that should be discussed here; it should have been brought up to the corrupt financial offices of the UN where millions have gone missing and not as a part of peace resolution.
“18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,…”
could this paragraph be any emptier then it is?
With individual nations and ways of life being attacked and attackers being protected by the international community abstracted by the vagueness of United Nations, I have only to conclude - the United Nations acts as an instigator of a world wide terror as it prevents those few capable from holding the guilty accountable for their crimes.
If the good and just are sacrificed for the benefit of the world peace, I then, choose war as peace built on a lie will never last as no good can be a derivative of evil.