Ceasefire

[R. Richard]

There will never be peace in the Middle East because the people in charge of the various factions do not want peace.

They want victory, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

Actually Rob, I think the Israelis want their kidnapped soldiers back.

JMHO.

 

[oggbashan]

...Will the Cease Fire break down? Of course it will. This is a CEASE FIRE. The war isn't over. Will it happen soon? I doubt it. Will it happen in one to three years? I'm sure of it.

There have been long cease fires.

The Korean War is still at a cease fire.

The Russians and Japanese are still at a cease fire from WWII although the Russians shot a Japanese fisherman this week for illegal fishing in the Kurile Islands that the Russians occupied at the end of WWII.

The City of Berwick-on-Tweed declared war on the Kaiser's Germany with the rest of the UK at the start of World War I in 1914 but were excluded from the signatories to the 1919 Peace Treaty that finally ended that war. They made peace with Germany in the 1990s.

The town of Sandwich in Kent, UK, was at war with the French town of Harfleur from the 14th Century when the French killed Sandwich's Mayor in a raid (in reprisal for an English raid, in reprisal for a French raid, in reprisal...). The Mayor of Sandwich wore a black robe instead of the 14th Century red, to commemorate the death of his precedessor until the 1960s when they signed a twinning agreement and made peace... The Mayor of Sandwich now wears red again.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

I disagree. Europe has dealt with large groups of terrorists.

In WWII, the French Resistance, the Maquis, and the various Yugoslav groups and others waged war against Nazi Germany with considerable effect. Of course, because they were on 'our' side, we don't count them as terrorists.

The Germany Army, the SS and the other police units had some successes but the resistance groups continued to operate and were effective in tying down numerous German formations prior to and after D-Day.

The Germans were ultimately unsuccessful in defeating an enemy supported by the local population and supplied from beyond the borders.

Og

I am aware of the groups you mention, but why not go back further? After Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, there were many, Vercingetorix in particular, who were restive against the occupiers. He probably had more men under his command than the total members in the Maquis.

I am also aware that it has been said many times: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is true, of course, but I think terrorists can be defined by their objectives and by their tactics. If a group is fighting against an occupying force to get them to leave, they are freedom fighters. Did the Maquis blow up churches where French people were worshipping? Did they blow up markerts where French people were shopping? Did they blow up city buses that were being ridden by French people? If they did these sorts of things, they were terrorists. If they did not, they were not terrorists, although Hitler might have said they were.

Iraqis who fight against the allied occupiers can fairly be called Freedom Fighters, even though they are misguidedly fighting against their own best interests. Those who blow up mosques or markets or schools and kill their countrymen, or who destroy Iraqi infrastructure are terrorists, whatever their objective. The Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof Gang were not fighting against an occupying force and their tactics involved killing and abducting their countrymen so they were terrorists.

Maybe we need a definition of "occupiers". Are the British occupiers of Northern Ireland? I would say they are not because they have been there for hundreds of years and the people there, at least most of them, consider themselves to be citizens of the UK. Is the US occupying California? I would say no since it has been about 160 years since the territory was taken from Mexico, although some Mexicans would disagree. Most Californians, including me, think of themselves as US citizens.

Are the Israelis occupying the land they call Israeli? I would say they are not. Their ancestors came there thousands of years ago and many more have immigrated there in the last sixty years. They do occupy the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank but that is another matter.

 

[Pure]

Note to the bettors

Today's news speaks of Israel conducting a raid--armed search and destroy mission--arguably in violation of the ceasefire.

Israel says it was 'defensive' in that they were going after those engaged in 'resupply' of Hezbollah arms.

Further, Israel asserts a right, under the ceasefire, to do these 'defensive' acts--prevention of resupply-- whenever they see fit.

So let's see which persons were accurate? WHO is the winner?
ADDED: I SEE NO ONE VOTED THAT ISRAEL WOULD VIOLATE THE CEASEFIRE IN UNDER A MONTH OR UNDER SIX MONTHS. ONLY A SINGLE PERSON VOTED FOR 'ISRAEL' BREAKING IN UNDER A YEAR, BUT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.

HENCE--SORRY GUYS. NO WINNERS. EVERYONE SIMPLY PREDICTED WHAT THEY WANTED TO HAPPEN.



====

Israel Re-Enters Lebanon, Battles Hezbollah[/i]

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, August 19, 2006; 1:02 PM

BEIRUT, Aug. 19 -- Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold in the Bekaa Valley early Saturday in what Lebanon called a "flagrant violation" of a fragile six-day-old cease-fire.

Hezbollah, which battled the Israeli military for 33 days until the truce took hold Monday, said its fighters encountered the Israeli commandos in a field near the town of Boudai and engaged them in a fierce gun battle, inflicting casualties and driving them off.

The Israeli military, confirming the raid, said its commandos carried out the operation to cut off the resupply of Hezbollah fighters with weapons and munitions from Iran and Syria. It said one Israeli officer was killed and two soldiers were wounded, one seriously.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told reporters in Beirut that the attack was a "flagrant violation" of the U.N. cease-fire and that he planned to lodge a complaint with the U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan.

Hezbollah issued no immediate reaction. But Lebanese officials worried that the militant Shiite Muslim movement would retaliate, risking a chain of cease-fire violations that could rekindle the devastating war that drove nearly a fourth of Lebanon's inhabitants from their homes and inflicted an estimated $3.6 billion in damage to bridges, roads and other infrastructure.

In accepting the cease-fire, the Hezbollah leader, Hasan Nasrallah, warned that his militia reserved the right to attack Israelis as long as they remain on Lebanese soil. At the same time, the Israeli military declared it reserved the right to respond to attacks and prevent resupply of Hezbollah guerrillas in the southern border hills until an international force is in place.

In practice, however, Hezbollah has held its fire even though an unknown number of Israeli troops remain in observation posts scattered across the rocky Lebanese hills just north of the border. Until Saturday, Israel also had refrained from attacks of any size on Hezbollah fighters in the border area or on other Hezbollah installations farther north. The restraint by both sides had led to optimism in Beirut that the truce would hold and that rebuilding could begin -- optimism that suddenly came under doubt Saturday.

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the raid on Boudai "was absolutely not a violation" of the cease-fire because it was carried out to stop rearmament, which is barred by the U.N. resolution. "Whenever we have knowledge of weapons being transferred to Hezbollah, it's our duty to stop it," he said. "Since no one was doing it we have the obligation to stop it. We have an obligation to defend our people."

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Pure, as the terms of the ceasefire where that Hezbollah disarm, I believe they broke the ceasefire the second it went into effect. And resupplying their arms caches also violates the ceasefire. JMHO.

 

[Pure]

So it was a pretty silly question, wasn't it? Like asking of two boys in a sandbox and fighting, "Who started it?"

 

[wazhazhe]

They are not hired soldiers/mercenaries.

I have a relative currently working as a contractor in Iraq. The position is in no way police/security related.

So which of those listed are paid directly by the U.S. Government?

I don't think the U.S. military uses these "rent a cops" to do battle with insergents in Iraq or to preform any military missions.

1. The government pays the contracting firm and the firm pays the individual contractor.

2. You would be wrong.

 

[Pure]

Checking the resolution, zeb,

it did not say that one 'term' of the ceasefire was Hezbollah's immediated disarmament. hence there was no immediate Hez violation in the second after the resolution.

here is the BBC text of the resolution.

HOWEVER, i'm sure you'll read the resolution as saying what you want it to, so this whole discussion is pretty pointless isn't it?

====

Last Updated: Saturday, 12 August 2006, 01:33 GMT 02:33 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Text: UN Lebanon resolution
The text of Resolution 1701, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council aimed at ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006), 1680 (2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its president on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June, 2000, of 19 October, 2004, of 4 May 2005, of 23 January 2006 and of 30 July 2006;

Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons;

Emphasising the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasising the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;

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;

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;

Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest;

Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area;

Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from Unifil as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties;

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution to the conflict;

Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

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) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so 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;

4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

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;

7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;

8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:


Full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;

Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;
No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;
No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;
Provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

9. Invites the secretary general to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;

10. Requests the secretary general to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within 30 days;

11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of Unifil to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):


a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;

b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;

c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel;

d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;

e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;

f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;
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;

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;

14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11 to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft;


a. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and;

b. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11;
16. Decides to extend the mandate of Unifil until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

17. Requests the secretary general to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;

18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

 

[Boxlicker101]

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...

Almost immediately after the cease fire was signed, the government of Lebanon announced that his government would make no effort to disarm Hezbollah. This is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the agreement.

Israel wants nothing more than to live in peace and this means that they don't want an armed band of thugs and killers massed just north of their border, in position to conduct raids into their territory or to launch missles against them. I'm certain their understanding was that Hez. would be disarmed, otherwise they never would have agreed to the cease fire.

I believe Hez. and the governments of Iran and Syria think of this as a hudna, rather than a peace, and they will resume their attacks once they have rearmed and replenished their forces. When, not if, that happens, Israel will launch another assault, and this time they will complete the job.

 

[R. Richard]

I have a relative currently working as a contractor in Iraq. The position is in no way police/security related.

If you would give me contact information for a United States or United Kingdom based company that employs real hired soldiers, I would be most grateful. I am not talking about convoy guards or garrison troopers, but field deployed hired soldiers operating on a detached basis.

I am aware of certain US/UK engineering, medical and aid personnel operating in Iraq. However, I am not aware of US/UK companies hiring fighting men.

 

[Pure]

Box //When, not if, that happens, Israel will launch another assault, and this time they will complete the job.//

And what would that entail, Oh Box?

Ohlmert is in need of advice; said to be headed for election defeat. Needs your wisdom.

 

[wazhazhe]

If you would give me contact information for a United States or United Kingdom based company that employs real hired soldiers, I would be most grateful. I am not talking about convoy guards or garrison troopers, but field deployed hired soldiers operating on a detached basis.

I am aware of certain US/UK engineering, medical and aid personnel operating in Iraq. However, I am not aware of US/UK companies hiring fighting men.

Blackwater is the company I am most familiar with.

 

[Pure]

more employment opportunities, rr

hi rr,

you're right there are no specifically designated private combat soldiers in Iraq.

you should not expect every bit of contract soldiering to be labeled as such; laws against 'mercenaries' dictate some discretion.

the field of private soldiering is booming, however, see,
US Army War College Quarterly
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/adams.htm

The New Mercenaries and the Privatization of Conflict by THOMAS K. ADAMS © 1999

in the past, you might have tried Executive Outcomes

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16671

for private military work. but they've been transmuted.
====

there was Sandlines International, but they've apparently been absorbed into Aegis. check Aegis

http://www.aegisworld.com/

====

From some clips below, one sees some of the 'action'. Sounds like you'd get what you want.



www.haaretz.com
///One South African security contractor, Gray Branfield, who was killed in Iraq in April, had admitted to having been part of the death squad that killed a senior official of the South African ANC party in 1981.///
====

Private military companies in Iraq: profiting from colonialism By James Conachy

The American firm Blackwater has become the best known of the PMCs for one reason: four of its employees were ambushed, killed and had their corpses publicly paraded through the streets of Fallujah on March 30. The secretive company has 450 personnel in Iraq, supplying security for CPA facilities, escorting convoys, and providing the personal bodyguard for Bremer. On April 5, eight of its contractors defended the CPA headquarters in Najaf from an attack by Shiite militiamen. In a joint operation with US Army helicopter gunships, the company used two of its own helicopters to re-supply its men with ammunition.
Many of the personnel on Blackwater’s payroll are ex-US special forces.
====

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/10/we_597_01.html
The Pentagon's Private Corps

//The British/South African company Erinys has the $100 million-plus annual contract to provide security at Iraq’s oil facilities and pipelines. Erinys employs some 14,000 Iraqi security guards on wages of $150 per month, supervised by dozens of former British and apartheid-era South African military.

Four South African Erinys employees were killed during in a guerilla attack in January. It was revealed one of them was Francois Strydom, a white South African who had fought with a pro-apartheid paramilitary in Namibia. Another Erinys contractor who was wounded in the attack, Deon Gouws, had been a member of the South African secret police Vlakplaas and was charged by the South African Truth Commission for murdering an anti-apartheid activist in 1986. A former South African judge Richard Goldstein told the press he knew of 150 former apartheid-era security operatives working as mercenaries in Iraq.//

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box //When, not if, that happens, Israel will launch another assault, and this time they will complete the job.//

And what would that entail, Oh Box?

Ohlmert is in need of advice; said to be headed for election defeat. Needs your wisdom.

I don't know what they will do or should do. First, they wouold warn all civilians and anyone who is not a member of Hezbollah to leave the area. After that, who knows. Maybe a small nuclear bomb, if they actually have them, but that might be excessive. If they have MOAB's, maybe use them, followed by incendiaries, followed by ground troops to mop up. After that, maybe annexation of the area south of the Litani River.

They did warn Lebanon before they left that this was the last time they would do that. When Hezbollah once again starts their attacks, the response might be more decisive.

I'm not saying they will or that they should, just that they might.

 

[Pure]

yep, nuke the ragheads, i say.

if mere MOABS have to be used, you forgot to add to sow the soil with salt, Roman style.

 

[Boxlicker101]

yep, nuke the ragheads, i say.

if mere MOABS have to be used, you forgot to add to sow the soil with salt, Roman style.

A small nuclear bomb would be one solution, but I think it would be excessive. I also don't believe in using racial or ethnic slurs like you apparently do.

Sowing with salt wouldn't be a good idea either. If the Israelis do annex the area, they would invite the Lebanese to come back and live there, probably even helping them rebuild. There is no animosity against the Lebanese, only against Hezbollah and Hamas and others who wish to wipe out Israelis and Jews everywhere.

If the Lebanese did return, they would probably be better off than they were under Hez. Generally speaking, Arabs in Israel are better off materially and in terms of personal freedom than those in Arab nations.

 

[Pure]

you're just full

of good ideas! box,

If the Israelis do annex the area, they would invite the Lebanese to come back and live there, probably even helping them rebuild.

hey, call Ohlmert. tell him you have an idea for

longer borders of a greater israel
a couple hundred thousand more Arabs to be in this new country.

 

[R. Richard]

The information is from Mossad. The cease fire is apparently only in Lebanon, not in Iran or Syria. Comment?

Turkey forces one Syrian, 5 Iranian arms planes to land at Diyarbakir military base

August 20, 2006, 11:47 AM (GMT+02:00)

Six Iranian ILDT type 4-cargo planes and a Syrian aircraft were forced to land at the southeast Turkish military airport last Thursday after US spy satellites spotted that they were loaded with missiles, missile launchers and eight boxes of Chinese made C-802 missiles, dubbed by Iran “Nur.”


Military sources disclose: The flights were bound for Damascus and Syrian military air bases just across the Turkish border. The C-802 is the advanced ground-ship missile which crippled the Israeli Navy’s gunship off Beirut, and killed three of its crew on July 14, two days after the outbreak of the Lebanon war. Searches by the Turkish authorities disclosed that one of the planes was carrying crates of Fajer rockets which Hizballah fired at Israeli towns. Two of the Iranian cargo planes have not been permitted to take off from Turkey unless they fly back to Iran.

Four flights, carrying light ammunition including anti-tank weapons, were allowed to complete their journey to Syria after their pilots presented documents proving they were purchased in Iran for the Syrian army.

This is the first time American military satellites have been openly revealed to have aided in the UN embargo against arms transfers from Syria and Iran to the Hizballah.

Military sources also disclose that the Iranian and Syrian cargo flights were bound for three Syrian military airfields, two of which were transferred at the end of July to the control and supervision of the air wing of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. The flight carrying the C-802 missile was destined for the military section of Damascus’ Mezze international airport. The launchers and Fajer rockets would have been unloaded at Syria’s Nasiriya air base, 40 km from the Lebanese border. The anti-tank rockets and ammunition were bound for al Qusayr, north of Damascus and only 25 km from Lebanon’s northern Beqaa Valley.

 

[Pure]

hi rr,
surely you're not surprised. iran, through syria, arms hezbollah.
the US arms Israel.

iran and syria are not part[ies] of the ceasefire agreement.

according to the pres of Lebanon and certain UN officials, the Israelis have already greatly imperilled the ceasefire, with an armed incursion.

 

[R. Richard]

hi rr,
surely you're not surprised. iran, through syria, arms hezbollah.
the US arms Israel.

iran and syria are not part of the ceasefire agreement.

according to the pres of Lebanon and certain UN officials, the Israelis have already greatly imperilled the ceasefire, with an armed incursion.

Text from ceasefire agreement:
8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

* Full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
* security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;
* Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;
* No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;
14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11 to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft;

a. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and;

b. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11;

Note: Paragraph 8 definitely applies to members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard discovered by the Israleis in the Soith of Lebanon.
Note: Paragraph 15 a. most certainly addresses Syria, as Syria is the only practical port of entry for heavy weapons into Lebanon.
Note: Israel has defended the recent raid into Lebanon as necessary to stop entry of heavy weapons into Lebanon from Syria. [I do not accept, nor yet do I reject the Israeli position.]
As to the UN, is this the same UN whose soldiers in Africa have been proven to have exploited teenage/pre-teenage girls for sex so that the families of the girls may have something to eat? If it is, then I will not accept anything the UN has to say.

 

[Pure]

hi rr, i meant to type "parties". syria and iran are not among the parties to the agreement.

note the phrase
a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

this is pretty vague, and certainly doesn't translate as "the instant application of the following principles" --as you suggested-- (e.g. regarding disarming Hezbollah).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The information is from Mossad. The cease fire is apparently only in Lebanon, not in Iran or Syria. Comment?

Turkey forces one Syrian, 5 Iranian arms planes to land at Diyarbakir military base

My comment is that I guess that you missed the reports about the Israeli (who unlike Syria or Iran is a party of the agreement) military planes landing on the Azores air base en route from the US (who unlike Syria or Iran took part in writing said agreement) carrying bellic material.

 

[R. Richard]

My comment is that I guess that you missed the reports about the Israeli (who unlike Syria or Iran is a party of the agreement) military planes landing on the Azores air base en route from the US (who unlike Syria or Iran took part in writing said agreement) carrying bellic material.

There is nothing in the cease fire preventing Israel from obtaining more/new weapons. I am aware of the shipment of weapons to Israel.

You may have missed the reports of the war that continues in the Gaza strip, as Hamas not only fights Israel but also murders Fatah operatives who are in the Gaza strip. Israel will need weapons, lots of them, regardless of what happens in Lebanon.

 

[oggbashan]

As to the UN, is this the same UN whose soldiers in Africa have been proven to have exploited teenage/pre-teenage girls for sex so that the families of the girls may have something to eat? If it is, then I will not accept anything the UN has to say.

If that is your position, then you shouldn't accept anything that any country that has an army has to say.

US forces in the Phillipines, in Vietnam and elsewhere have behaved in just such a way.

British forces too...

In each case, what happened was against the military code and laws and breaches should be punished after trial.

Some forces have behaved in such a way with the consent and encouragement of their local commanders, or government policy as an extension of the fighting e.g. Japan in WWII, the Germans and Russians on the Eastern front, and it is still happening in parts of Africa.

You cannot judge the UN, or a nation, by the criminal acts of individuals who are part of its forces in the field otherwise you have to judge every nation by what its criminals do. You should judge if it is national policy.

Og

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Israel will need weapons, lots of them, regardless of what happens in Lebanon.

And you think Syria won't?