You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
The pros and cons of an int'l force in Lebanon
2006-07-29
LT.-GEN. (RET.) YA'ALON and Maj.-Gen. (Res.) Amidror

Discussions about security arrangements in Lebanon at the end of the war have included the proposal to station an international force in that country. Yet the UN has a very bad name in terms of confronting strong forces in areas where it is stationed.

The only logical basis for an international presence is the creation of a force whose primary mission will be assisting the Lebanese army in disarming Hizbullah (as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 1559). Such a force should be deployed close to Beirut, at Lebanese-Syrian border crossing, and deep in the Bekaa Valley.

An international force has no role in southern Lebanon along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel is deployed along its northern border to defend itself and prevent the strengthening of Hizbullah, should it try to move southward.

To complement this deployment, there should be an agreement prohibiting the building of fortifications in southern Lebanon - as in the agreement between Israel and Egypt. In addition, the UN should establish a supervisory force like UNSCOM to deal with locating and clearing out Hizbullah's arms caches and preventing the building of new ones.

Posted by:anonymous5089

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-07-29 21:19  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-07-29 20:01  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-07-29 19:42  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Oldcat   2006-07-29 13:58  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: bernardz   2006-07-29 13:37  

00:00