Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

The resolution would chart a path toward a lasting peace with a cease-fire monitored by international troops. If passed, it would be the most significant international response to the crisis and raise hopes of ending combat that has killed at least 600 and left Lebanon in tatters.

The resolution must now go before the full 15-nation Security Council and gain Israeli and Lebanese acceptance — and initial reaction from both sides indicated that would not be easy.

Hezbollah warned it will not abide by the resolution unless Israel withdraws from Lebanon entirely and indicated the lack of a timetable for such a withdrawal was perhaps the biggest sticking point with the text.

"We will abide by it on condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land. If they stay, we will not abide by it," said Mohammed Fneish, one of two Hezbollah Cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government.

In Israel, Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog said the agreement was an "important development," but Israel would not halt its assault on Hezbollah for the time being. Still, he appeared to acknowledge the draft meant Israel's offensive would have to wind down soon.

PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah'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,

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 settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

OP2. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

OP3. Also reiterates its strong support 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;

OP4. 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 for verifiably and purely civilian purposes, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

OP5. 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 and authority;

OP6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements: ...

- 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;

- deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below;

- establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

- elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;

- provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

... Let's face it, Israel's counter offensive in Lebanon doesn't seem to be going very well. Liberals are saying it. Conservatives are saying it. Plenty of Israelis are saying it. But here is the odd thing: nobody is paying very careful attention to the alternative. The criticism of Israel's ground campaign - however sound much of it may be - takes place against an assumption that peace could be at hand if only Israel stopped fighting.

Let's examine that idea. The United Nations types argue that Israel should withdraw from Lebanon and cease its airstrikes and that an international force should patrol southern Lebanon. But every country that could contribute to such a force has insisted they don't want to fight Hizbullah. Kofi Annan has said that a "cardinal principle" of any peacekeeping force would be obtaining Lebanon's consent. And neither Hizbullah nor the Lebanese government has evinced any willingness to remove Hizbullah's forces from southern Lebanon.

From the doves there is a persistent disconnect between the goals they desire and the means to achieve them. Here is what former President Carter wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed article: "The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hizbullah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented."

The passive voice in this last clause - "attacks be prevented" - is telling. Who is going to prevent them? Israel went into Lebanon because nobody else had the desire or the inclination.

So the doves' implied solution is that Israel withdraws from Lebanon and stops bombing, and that Hizbullah goes on its way. This is why they've pointed out that not many Israelis have died from rocket attacks since 2000.

But the death toll doesn't quite capture the damage wrought by Hizbullah. The purpose of the missile attacks is to force Israelis to live under a constant threat - missile attacks or cross-border raids that, while sporadic, can occur at any time. No nation would consider that condition acceptable. And even if Israel learns to take periodic attacks from Hizbullah with good cheer, there's no guarantee that the attacks won't get worse. After all, Hizbullah is acquiring newer, more powerful rockets from Iran.

So, what can Israel do? The conventional wisdom holds that any military action is counterproductive. The doves point out that the Israeli counteroffensive has boosted Hizbullah's standing in the Arab world.

Well, sure. But Hizbullah's prestige was also boosted by Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon. If aggressive Israeli actions boost Hizbullah, and conciliatory Israeli actions boost Hizbullah, then maybe Israel's actions aren't really the prime mover here. Maybe Hizbullah has figured out that it can become the champion of the Arab world by putting itself forward as Israel's chief antagonist, and it will continue to do so regardless of how Israel responds.

The doves are right that any solution that involves attacking innocent civilians is a terrible one. It's heartbreaking to see houses flattened and children killed. But when you have a nation populated in part by murderous religious fanatics who delight in killing enemy civilians and see the deaths of their own civilians as a strategic boon, any option is going to be terrible. ...