I knew it – Hezbollah “likely” to keep weapons

I expressed concern over the weekend about the UN’s Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire agreement, and one of my concerns was that the agreement didn’t require Hezbollah to disarm, but instead asked for Israel and Lebanon to work out a compromise where Hezbollah would have to disarm. My worry was that this was a recipe for disaster.

Today my worries (and those of many others who also had issues with the agreement) were confirmed (emphasis added):

Hizbullah likely to retain weapons

Hizbullah will not hand over its weapons to the Lebanese government but rather refrain from exhibiting them publicly, according to a new compromise that is reportedly brewing between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

The UN cease-fire resolution specifically demands the demilitarization of the area south of the Litani river. The resolution was approved by the Lebanese cabinet.

In a televised address on Monday night, Nasrallah declared that now was not the time to debate the disarmament of his guerrilla fighters, saying the issue should be done in secret sessions of the government to avoid serving Israeli interests.

“This is immoral, incorrect and inappropriate,” he said. “It is wrong timing on the psychological and moral level particularly before the cease-fire,” he said in reference to calls from critics for the guerrillas to disarm.

According to Lebanon’s defense minister, Elias Murr, “There will be no other weapons or military presence other than the army” after Lebanese troops move south of the Litani. However, he then contradicted himself by saying the army would not ask Hizbullah to hand over its weapons.

“Refrain from exhibiting them publicly” … yep, you read it right.

So, what exactly did Israel get out of this ceasefire agreement again? Captain Ed posts a reminder, but I’m not totally convinced. I’m more with Rick Moran, who writes:

The irrelevancy and impotence of the United Nations in the face of Islamic fanaticism embodied in groups like Hizbullah and Hamas and countries like Iran should be obvious to even the most doe-eyed, peace-at-any-cost, why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along liberal loon out there. And to ask any country caught in Islamisms crosshairs to rely on the world body to protect it or to depend on it to somehow moderate the fanatic’s pernicious effects on human civilization is stupidity.

There is nothing new in Resolution 1701 as it relates to Hizbullah’s disarmament or the necessity of having the terrorist group allow the Lebanese government full sovereignty over its own territory. The very same strictures against Hizbullah were contained in UN Resolution 1559 passed in 2004. One wonders if Hizbullah fails to abide by this latest resolution if another will be forthcoming. And then another. And another, and another until the paper piles up so high that perhaps the UN expects to bury the terrorists under wads and wads of useless, pious, platitudinous, peace loving compositions better used to wipe one’s bum than try and rein in the murderous thugs who mock them.


In the meantime, the US frets, Israel smolders, and the UN dithers. Round Two of this war may be coming sooner than anyone thinks.


Comments are closed.