Saturday, August 12, 2006

"Olmert will abide by UN Resolution"

* billmon:
"The thing is, though, if the IDF really launches a complex, month-long offensive operation, and has to pull it to a grinding halt after, say, three or four days, it could end up spread out all over southern Lebanon -- with vulnerable supply lines, units that aren't in contact with each other, lots of gaps in the line for Hizbullah to infilrate through. The ideal position for a guerrilla counteract, in other words, if Hizbullah decides to ignore the ceasefire.

If Olmert really is going for it, he's taking an mighty big risk -- and an awfully stupid one, in my opinion."

* clemons:
"I just had a call from Jerusalem and have been informed by a senior source inside the Israeli government that Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will abide by the terms of the UN Resolution which has support of all the key members of the UN Security Council."

* glenn:
"Hezbollah would not be disbanded nor disarmed, and its re-supply route from Syria would neither be destroyed nor impeded. Given the grand pronouncements with which this war began -- that Hezbollah would be destroyed, that it was the start of the epic war of civilizations -- any honest person (and even many who are not honest) would acknowledge that this is a defeat for Israel and for neoconservative dreams of a wider war. As a result, many in Israel are predicting, and vigorously calling for, the resignation of Israel's Prime Minister.

The disappointment and anger of neoconservatives over this ignominious end must be severe, and it is almost certain to be a source of very intense conflict between them and the Bush administration.
When this all started, neoconservatives were in full bloodthirsty glory, salivating over the complete obliteration of Hezbollah and much of Southern Lebanon, as the start of the "great opportunity" -- "our war" -- in which we would do the same to Syria and Iran. Instead, they got a joint U.S.-French U.N. resolution engineering a cease-fire dependent upon French troops protecting Israel from the Hezbollah militia, and even Israeli hawks lamenting the humiliation suffered at the hands of Hezbollah (assuming Hezbollah, which clearly has the strongest hand here, agrees to all of this).
The neoconservative dream for broader war, at least for the moment, has collapsed on its shattered foundations. Nobody should consider a Hezbollah victory to be anything remotely a cause for celebration; that should go without saying. But the plan the neoconservatives harbor - and thought they were finally able to execute - is as dangerous a threat as anything else in the world, and anything which puts a stop to it, and which drives a wedge between them and their enablers in the Bush administration, is something which, independent of all else, is a constructive development."

incidentally, i saw Dennis Ross (over-rated israeli hack, IMHO) on Fox (or somewhere) saying that israel hasnt lost, but that Hezbollah will claim it as a win, and because israel is an open society, and there will be debate about whether israel lost, then it might, in fact, appear that israel lost after all. got that?


Miguel said...

Is this an indication the invasion of Iran is off the table?

lukery said...

i, for one, havent joined in any of the trouncing of the neocons, or celebrated this agreement as serious.

let's hope so, and also, lets wait till monday