PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing 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,
...PP4: 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,
...
OP3. Emphasizes 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;...
Does anyone in all seriousness think Hassan Nasrallah is going to willfully surrender his arsenal as required by the U.N. resolution (If not, who is going to disarm him? UNIFIL? The Lebanese Army?) or release Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev unconditionally?
What if Hizbollah becomes the ruling party in the Lebanese parliament?
And for Heaven's sake, Hizbollah is not even mentioned by name in the resolution.
Olmert and Bush have blinked and Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah have won.
What a joke.
Update at 10:30 pm EDT:Yoni explains Olmert's ultimate treachery:
It is one thing to go to war in Lebanon to destroy Hizballah and follow through with it to the end.
It is an other thing to ask the IDF to fight Friday night and Saturday until the cowards and traitors in the cabinet on Sunday vote to accept the UN cease fire.
Update at 10:45 pm EDT: John Loftus, on the John Batchelor Show, sees the UN resolution as a trap set for Hizbollah by US and France: Iran balks on the deal and sends Nasrallah before Manar's camera to reject the terms. IDF, poised at the Litani, crosses the river, seals the Syrian border and destroys Hizbollah.
Update on Saturday, August 12, 12:05 am EDT: Even the analysts at Stratfor are at at a loss to explain PM Olmert's Hamlet complex.
In looking at Israeli behavior -- which has become the most interesting and perplexing aspect of this conflict -- we are struck by an oddity. The Israeli leadership seems genuinely concerned about something, and it is not clear what it is. Obviously, the government doesn't want to take casualties, but this is not a political problem. The Israeli public can deal with high casualties as long as the mission -- in this case the dismantling of Hezbollah's capabilities -- is accomplished. The normal pattern of Israeli behavior is to be increasingly aggressive rather than restrained, and the government is supported.
When a government becomes uncertain, it normally reverts to established patterns. We would have expected a major invasion weeks ago, and we did expect it. Something is holding the Israelis back and it is not simply fear of casualties. The increasing confusion and even paralysis of the Israeli government could be explained simply by division and poor leadership. But we increasingly have the feeling that there is an aspect to Israeli thinking that we do not understand, some concern that is not apparent that is holding them back from doing what they would normally do.
Hezbollah has fought well, but it is hard to believe that the Israelis can't defeat them or that Israel can't take casualties. (Interestingly enough, Iran and Hezbollah, who are aiming for an imminent cease-fire to claim victory in this conflict, have remained silent while the discussion of a coming cease-fire intensifies.) As the pressure to act mounts and Israel doesn't act, the question of what is restraining them becomes increasingly important. We can't speculate on what their concern might be, because we don't know it. However, Olmert is acting as if he doesn't want to become too aggressive, and the reasoning is unclear.
Stratfor's premium content is behind a subscription wall but here is the way around it.
