ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-uD Translate – Hebreo / Arabe / Español / Francés / Italiano
Why doesn’t the Lebanese Military engage with Israel? Why Hezbollah as the active military agent? Contrary to popular Hasbara 101, the outcome of UNSC Res 1701 is very much in Lebanon’s favour. Is there a strategy behind the Lebanese Military not engaging? Or is it merely the law at work?
Key Points
1) Hezbollah are Lebanon’s legitimate/official resistance movement. Hezbollah are not the official Lebanese Military. Lebanon is a sovereignty. As such it can choose to have an official resistance movement whether other folk have classified that movement as a terrorist organization or not.
2) Were there to have been engagement with the Lebanese Military, Israel would have been at war with Lebanon.
3) If Israel was at war with Lebanon, UNSC Resolution 1701 would surely say as much
Key document – UNSC Res 1701
At the top: “SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR END TO HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH, ISRAEL,”
The implications ought be apparent. Israel was not at war with Lebanon the state. Lebanon the state could only be asked to control the elements within it’s Sovereign territories, which Israel was required to acknowledge and withdraw from.
—————-
Furthermore, the resolution assists Lebanon, by reinforcing the Lebanese Military and leaving the decision as to which of it’s legitimate armed forces (Lebanon’s legitimate armed forces) can or cannot be armed to the Lebanese Government.
Preamble: “Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such 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, welcoming also its commitment to a United Nations force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon,
“Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,
“Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area,
“Welcoming the unanimous decision by the Government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties,
In both instances The UNSC observes Lebanon’s Sovereignty over the territories encompassed during the war. Israel must withdraw.
It observes Lebanese Sovereignty INCLUDING a Sovereign’s right to arm WHOEVER it wishes, within it’s own Sovereign boundaries. It offers to HELP the Sovereign to achieve this aim. Israel must withdraw.
“Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security,”
‘in Lebanon’. Not in Israel… Israel must withdraw.
“It also calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a long-term solution based on, among others, full respect for the Blue Line by both parties; full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords; no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its Government; no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government; and provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of landmines in Lebanon in Israel’s possession.”
The above extracts are reiterated in point in the text of the Resolution.
Additionally “14. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request; If the Government of Lebanon the Sovereign State consents and requests…….. under the resolution, the implications ought be apparent to almost anyone but the most hardened Israeli apologista.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY : 5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, 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;
IT SAYS : “Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.” Israel was declared independent of Palestine May 14th 1948. Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories to it’s sovereignty. The Armistice agreement says PALESTINE, not Israel!!
Oh…. BTW http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/article.asp?ln=en&id=18041
First, find out what isn't true... 
