2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict / United Nations should disarm Hezbollah
This is the approved revision of this page, as well as being the most recent.
Position: United Nations should disarm Hezbollah
This position addresses the topic 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
For this position
|
"Now France thinks it can't spare more than a few hundred soldiers. Reason, so stated: The UN ceasefire resolution does not sufficiently spell out the rules of engagement. France, you'll recall, was a co-author of the very resolution it is complaining about." | 
|
From Not worth the paper it's written on, by New York Daily News editorial board (New York Daily News, August 19, 2006) (view)
|
|
"This is no time for the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. to be saying, when asked about the creation of an international force, that "this really is a responsibility of the Secretariat." Maybe officially, but if we are not working frantically behind the scenes to make sure that this preposterously inappropriate body actually gets real troops in quickly, armed with the right equipment and the right mandate, the moment will be lost. And with it, Lebanon." |
|
From A Moment to be Seized in Lebanon, by Charles Krauthammer (The Washington Post, August 18, 2006) (view)
|
|
"For France to have retreated from a key role to the realm of “symbolic” gestures “symbolises” only one thing: a French loss of nerve." |
|
|
|
"Unifil must now disarm Hizbullah, and be seen to do so. If it does not, then Iran's ambitions in the region, and its transfer of arms, will only burgeon." |
|
|
|
"The implementation of Resolution 1701 will not only benefit Lebanon and Israel; it also has important regional implications. Simply put: This is a victory for all who are committed to moderation and democracy in the Middle East -- and a defeat for those who wish to undermine these principles with violence, particularly the governments of Syria and Iran." |
|
|
|
"So Israel has settled for international acknowledgement that its actions in Lebanon were justified, and has agreed to cede control of the ground it seized there on condition that United Nations, Lebanon and France maintain control of it. Chalk up a pragmatic victory for Israel." |
|
|
|
"The resolution adopted on a 15-to-0 vote, if implemented faithfully by all sides, would significantly reduce Hezbollah's ability to cause trouble." |
|
From A Month of War, by The Washington Post editorial board (The Washington Post, August 13, 2006) (view)
Against this position
|
|
"I find it near unbelievable that anyone can propose sending foreign troops back into Lebanon, as in 1958, 1976, 1978 and 1982. [...] The only settlements in the region have been a result of wars, whether with Jordan, Syria or Egypt. It is local people, the resolution of force on the ground, that will alone resolve the latest conflagration." |
|
From The humanitarian urge is morphing into thirst for war, by Simon Jenkins (The Guardian, July 25, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Border wars can continue for decades without destabilising their regions. Even as this one engages powerful allies on both sides - from Iran to America - it need not embroil the wider world. Some conflicts are best left to their participants to resolve, however brutally." |
|
From The pundits' platitudes do nothing to solve this crisis, by Simon Jenkins (The Guardian, August 9, 2006) (view)
Mixed on this position
No results