The Israelis have begun to discuss the details of an acceptable situation for a cease-fire, the AP reports, as Ehud Olmert has given the dimensions of the security zone Israel wants in southern Lebanon. He proposes a 2-kilometer buffer zone (1.2 miles) that would initially have an international military force patrolling to keep Hezbollah out of range of Israel's cities and towns:

"We want a two-kilometer (1.2-mile) space from the border in which it will not be possible to fire rockets toward soldiers and civilians' houses and in which there will not be contact with military border patrols," Olmert was quoted as telling the committee.

Israeli soldiers patrolled a "security zone" during Israel's 18-year occupation of south Lebanon, but Olmert indicated the new buffer zone would be different. "We do not have any intention of returning to the security zone but want to create an area where there will be no Hezbollah," he was quoted as saying.

Olmert also reiterated Israel's call for an international force with muscle to be deployed along the Israel-Lebanon border.

"We need international intervention forces that have military capabilities and ability to respond and enforce, and not forces similar to UNIFIL," he said, referring to U.N. peacekeepers who have been deployed in the area since 1978."

The strip appears to include the hot spots of Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil, two towns that have served as Hezbollah. Israel wants all of these outposts of terrorism cleared out and then screened from reoccupation by the Syrian and Iranian proxies, who have continually waged war against Israel for the six years since Israel's evacuation of southern Lebanon. Obviously, Israel does not trust anyone else to clear out the Hezbollah guerillas from the proposed security zone, and they intend on finishing that job before allowing an international force to enter.

Just as obviously, the Israelis will not allow that force to be a reconstruction of UNIFIL. They want a force that will actually use force to keep terrorists out of the security zone. UNIFIL has singularly lacked the will and the mandate to do so, and this war shows just how ineffective UNIFIL has been at "peacekeeping". Israel wants NATO forces in the area, or at least have NATO command the forces that get deployed in the security strip. Unlike the UN, NATO will allow their forces to engage violators in a DMZ, and until the Lebanese Army gets strong enough to assume control of the area, the international force will have to take action when needed.

France, however, has surrendered on behalf of the organization to which it contributes so little militarily. Jacques Chirac has announced that France will oppose a NATO deployment in Lebanon because it would lack credibility:

French President Jacques Chirac said Wednesday that NATO should not lead a proposed international force in Lebanon, saying the alliance is seen in the region as "the armed wing of the West."

"As far as France is concerned, it is not NATO's mission to put together such a force," Chirac told the daily newspaper Le Monde. "Whether we like it or not, NATO is perceived as the armed wing of the West in these regions, and as a result, in terms of image, NATO is not intended for this."

Israel has suggested it would prefer a NATO-led coalition in Lebanon, not the traditional UN peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon over the last three decades. France has said a multinational force should be placed under United Nations authority.

Sorry, Jacques, but the UN lacks a lot of credibility where it counts: on the ground. Hezbollah learned quickly that the UNIFIL forces would not defend the supposed security zone they were sent to maintain. This war shows how badly Hezbollah infiltrated the area, digging holes for rocket launchers all over the place and holding towns like Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeir as command centers. Israel will not agree to a hair of the dog this time, not after the demonstration of strength Hezbollah has shown under UNIFIL's noses.

Chirac may worry about NATO being seen as the "armed wing of the West", but that's precisely what it is and what it is meant to be. Hezbollah has no respect for the UN, but they may learn some for NATO. Under more competent command and better strength, a NATO-led coalition will respond in force to provocations, a lesson that the Balkans learned, even if NATO had no plan for the future there. This time, the plan will be simple: keep the ground clear of Israelis and Hezbollah until the Lebanese Army can develop the strength to hold its own against the terrorists. Even Israel appears willing to agree to that.

Oddly, Chirac never voiced these concerns when the Balkans erupted. His voice was among many who called for NATO intervention even after Russia vetoed any assistance at the UN Security Council. Chirac appreciated the "armed wing of the West" when it suited his purposes, but now worries about its credibility in Lebanon, a conflict with much more potential for destruction than anything in the former Yugoslavian provinces. Maybe that springs from the fact that NATO's mission in the Balkans protected Muslims from Christians, rather than Jews from Muslims. (via It Shines For All, and make sure you check the link to Truth Laid Bear's interactive map!)

UPDATE: Refined the first link to NZ Bear's map, which focuses readers on Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil. Thanks to the Bear for the assist!

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Israel Wants 2-KM Security Zone; France Surrenders On Behalf Of NATO:

» Diplomacy and the Hounds of Hell, Part IX from A Blog For All
Any talk about international forces in Lebanon must start and end with the Syria/Lebanon border. That's the key to ending this conflict, not the Israel/Lebanon border despite the focus being on Israel and Lebanon. Hizbullah is being supplied across t... [Read More]

Tracked on July 26, 2006 12:54 PM

» Who’s Fault Is It Again Kofi? from Flopping Aces
The question that should be asked is that if these UNIFIL workers had come close to friendly fire for over a week why had they not been moved back when they were obviously too close to Hezbollah? Did they believe Israel would back off in this fight fo... [Read More]

Tracked on July 26, 2006 2:09 PM

» Who’s Fault Is It Again Kofi? from Flopping Aces
The question that should be asked is that if these UNIFIL workers had come close to friendly fire for over a week why had they not been moved back when they were obviously too close to Hezbollah? Did they believe Israel would back off in this fight fo... [Read More]

Tracked on July 26, 2006 2:09 PM

» Of Gay Bars & the United Nations from Gay Patriot
Back in the early 1990s when I was coming out, a friend who had come out about the same time as I used to go to gay bars alone every weekend. He never really had a good time and never succeeded in finding a boy friend there. Despite his lack of succe... [Read More]

Tracked on July 26, 2006 3:14 PM