When will there be a Cease Fire in Lebanon?

Update [2006-8-1 10:59:29 by Steven D]: Things look even bleaker for a cease fire than I first reported. Check out this story which indicates Israel has decided to expand it’s ground campaign in South Lebanon:

JERUSALEM (CNN) — Israel’s Security Cabinet has approved an expansion of the ground campaign against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Israeli officials said early Tuesday.

The announcement came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his military was inflicting heavy damage on Hezbollah and rejected international calls for a cease-fire until Israel has pushed the Shiite Muslim militia back from its borders.

“Quite a few days of fighting are still before us,” Olmert told a conference of local officials.

—————————————————————————————

Not for a long time if <a href=this report is accurate:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday told British Prime Minister Tony Blair that as soon as an international force deploys along the Israel-Lebanon and Lebanon-Syria borders, “it will be possible to implement a cease-fire.”

Also Monday, government and defense officials said that Israel will release two Lebanese prisoners in return for the two soldiers abducted by Hezbollah as part of a cease-fire agreement.

The sources added that the UN Security Council would call for a cease-fire in Lebanon on Friday, and it could take effect as early as Saturday.

Alternatively, the fighting might continue for a few more days.

Seems positive, at first glance, but here’s the rub. Who will be willing to send their nation’s troops to join this International force in South Lebanon? Other Arab countries? Unlikely. NATO forces? Again a problem, especially considering the fragile nature of the Lebanese government which might be ready to collapse at any moment, sending the country into further chaos. Any force, but particularly a European comprised force will be seen as occupiers.

That pretty much leaves the USA and the UK to form the bulk of this force, by my reckoning, neither of which has any credibility in the Arab world at the present time. Much less, the objection I can see coming from Syria, which will resist as much as possible allowing an American force on it’s borders, in light of the current rhetoric issuing from the Bush camp regarding the necessity for regime change.

I may be wrong. Perhaps Germany, France and some other NATO countries from Eastern Europe will step up to the plate and pledge troops for this force, but I wouldn’t count on it. If Israel is insistent on this position that UN troops must deploy as part of any cease fire, we may be in for a long period of continued fighting between Hizbollah and Israel, with the danger of a wider conflict with Syria always a concern.

Besides that, it dosesn’t appear the US is really all that eager for a cease fire just yet:

(cont.)

Meanwhile, differences of opinion emerged yesterday during preliminary talks among the U.S., France and other Security Council members regarding the priorities for a cease-fire.

Lebanon has asked to express its position during the deliberations, and a senior minister allied with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is expected in New York.

Lebanon on Monday demanded that Israel agree to an immediate ceasefire as the two nations sparred at a special UN Security Council meeting on the new Middle East crisis.

A draft resolution is to be proposed by France, although sources at UN Headquarters said that the U.S. is also considering proposing a resolution of its own. The differences of opinion revolve mainly around the centrality of a cease-fire and when it should take effect.

France is demanding an immediate cease-fire as a central goal, saying that this would enable implementation of Resolution 1559 and the deployment of an international force. However, the U.S. wants a resolution designed to advance a number of elements that would form the basis for a long-term cease-fire.

Seems our President wants to continue taking advantage of his “oppportunity” to remake the Middle east for quite a bit longer, now doesn’t it? Oh, and by the way, guess who the neocons are back in love with:

However, after months of disillusionment, America’s neo-conservatives have fallen in love again with the Bush administration because of its support for Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon. […]

“This is exactly the right strategy, which you could call ‘Don’t just do something, stand there [while Israel continues its military campaign]’,” said David Frum, a former speechwriter to George W. Bush, who helped draft the president’s 2002 ‘Axis of Evil’ address.

“What we are seeing are precisely the same divisions as we saw over Iraq with the neo-conservatives rallying behind Mr Bush and almost everyone else feeling rising panic at the direction of American diplomacy,” said Francis Fukuyama, a former neo-conservative. […]

In spite of the American public’s scepticism, Mr Bush is largely insulated from a political backlash by the muted stance of the opposition Democrats, who are nervous of being painted as weak on national security in the build-up to mid-term elections in November.

Isn’t that convenient. Note that last paragraph. Cowering Democrats afraid to speak out against Bush’s bully boy foreign policy because of fear of being called “softies.” Just in time for the mid term elections, you say? And we thought Karl Rove had been removed from all his policy functions. Silly liberals, we are. The real reason Israel launched this war now is coming clearer every day.

Israel