US & Hezbollah – a Tale of 2 UN Resolutions No One Cared About Before Israel Started Winning

The Wall Street Journal on Thursday posted an amazingly joyous picture – if you are part of Western civilization, obviously – of the late mega-terrorist Hassan Nasrallah’s portraits in a dumpster somewhere in Beirut. It was a vitally important image, equal to images of Adolf Eichmann in a glass cage in a Jerusalem court, Joseph Stalin’s Saddam Hussein’s toppled statues, and, God willing, someday, Yahya Sinwar’s body hanging from a tree.

So much for Naches.

State Dept. Spokesman Matthew Miller was asked by a reporter on Wednesday, “I think in the last sort of two weeks you’ve started using 1701 as a sort of a repeated talking point. But in the actual three-week ceasefire that you were proposing two weeks ago, that was sort of a temporary ceasefire that would hopefully lead to a resolution. Do you want an immediate cessation of the violation to move to a diplomatic –”

Miller responded, cutting him off, “We do want to ultimately get to a ceasefire,” and added, “The situation on the ground has changed from where we were two weeks ago, and we hope that this change in the situation on the ground will change Hizballah’s calculation, ultimately.”

By the situation changing, the spokesman was referring to the Bibi maneuver, for which the PM no doubt got cursed out royally by the man in the White House: he made believe he was going to accept the ceasefire, and was about to say so at the UN; but once he stood before the microphones, he had already given the order to turn Hassan Nasrallah and his top lieutenants into puddles of liquid.

Miller continued: “Because even when we were putting forward that ceasefire proposal and trying to get to the full implementation of 1701, I can tell you there were a lot of people – and you see people publicly commenting on this – quite skeptical of whether Hizballah even at the end of a 21-day ceasefire was going to fully agree to go back to the Litani River, given the fact that they have refused to do that for the past 18 years.”

But, of course, the reporter was right and the spokesman was fibbing. Until Israel started pounding Hezbollah terrorists, first blowing up their pagers, then their two-way radios, then their leaders in parking lots all over south Beirut, there was not even a hint that anyone at Foggy Bottom had even heard of UN 2006 Resolution 1701.

TWO RESOLUTIONS

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, passed in 2006 in the wake of Hezbollah’s war against Israel, calls on Hezbollah to immediately cease all attacks, and on Israel to cease all offensive military operations. In addition, it sets guidelines for both parties, under certain conditions, to refrain from hostilities, maintain stability, and withdraw completely from south Lebanon. Israel is to retreat south of the border, and Hezbollah to the area north of the Litani River, some 18 miles from the Israeli border. The area in between was to be governed by UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army.

But there was another UN resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in 2004, calling for the disarmament of all armed militias in Lebanon, as well as their cooperation in allowing the Lebanese State to assert its sovereignty and facilitate a free and functioning political system.

All the Christian, Druze, and Sunni militias obeyed and turned in their arms. Hezbollah, the Shiite militia, refused.

Needless to say, neither the US nor France, nor any of the civilized nations of Europe have taken any meaningful step in the 20 years since 1559, and the 18 years since 1701, to enforce these resolutions. As the pesky reporter at the State Dept. pointed out, it’s only been two weeks since the US has been pushing the 1701 talking points like they were old an acceptable policy.

The reason for this hypocrisy on the part of the Biden administration is that it has been in place since 2008, governing the US approach to Israel’s “right to self-defense,” repeated so often by politicians the world over. US policy as can be delineated from US behavior, is to maintain Israel in a limbo whereby its existence wholly depends on US goodwill. When Israel gets rowdy, as has been the case since October 7, 2023, America, alongside the UK and France, will do its best to curb its enthusiasm. They won’t let Israel be defeated, but they also won’t allow it to establish a secure future, free from malignant threats from the rabid antisemites in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan.

This policy has always been in the background of US-Israeli relations, but in 2008 it received its impromptu status as the Obama Doctrine.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

Two US presidents have invested trillions of dollars, as well as caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people across the Middle East, to reach a point where America is less trusted from Baghdad to Jerusalem than even China and Russia. They are George Bush II and Barack Obama. In this context, VP and later President Joe Biden is to be condemned only because he knew better and still supported this vain and needlessly murderous policy. Having served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for so many years, Biden knew the Middle East better than the other two clowns. I know, because when Biden ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008, the foundation of his Middle East policy was allowing the Kurds to have their own independent country, which would have stabilized––with American support––Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. But the coward that he is, Biden switched to the exact opposite view after Obama picked him to be his VP.

If Bush and Obama were useful idiots, Biden is an evil joker.

If you dig in several reports from 2009 to 2005, you’ll see that President Obama’s foreign policy doctrine was characterized by recognition of limits to American power and influence – hence his preference for the Iran nuclear deal that put Israel’s future in jeopardy; selective engagement based on core national interests – in other words, stay out of regional conflicts for as long as possible; and focus on “leading from behind.”

And then came Obama’s speech at Cairo University which, rightfully, frightened pro-Israel people everywhere.

From the lectern in a beautifully decorated hall at Fuad University in Cairo, Obama advocated for a two-state solution for Israel and the Arabs, while also acknowledging the longstanding tensions that exist between the United States and the Muslim world—remarks reminiscent of those made by previous US presidents.

Obama’s perspectives on fostering democracies internationally and the inevitability of establishing a Palestinian state represented a significant shift from Bush’s stance, indicating a revised vision for America’s engagement in the Middle East. Furthermore, Obama refrained from mentioning terrorists or terrorism, which severely hindered the modernization efforts of numerous nations.

One of the most significant alterations presented in the Obama Doctrine, as articulated by the president in Cairo, was the emphasis on encouraging undemocratic nations to initiate internal reforms of their governance, rather than having the United States impose a democratic system upon them.

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq,” Obama said. “So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

What followed was a decade of upheaval in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia, and intense repressions in other Arab countries by their rulers who did not wish to be swept away by the waves of history. Instead, they killed opposition members, as they had been doing since Biblical times.

Interestingly, when the multitudes in Iran attempted to free themselves from the repressive rule of the Ayatollahs, the Obama government did little to help, in the most cowardly example of leading from behind since Munich of 1938.

In the end, the purpose of the Obama Doctrine was and continues to be the degradation of US power in the world, except when it came to Israel, or, specifically, PM Benjamin Netanyahu who was loathed by both Obama and his VP Biden.

BLINKEN WANTS TO FIX LEBANON (OY VEY)

Having invested nothing over the years in protecting Lebanon against its Hezbollah tormentors, Secretary of State Antony Blinken is all of a sudden dedicated to righting the Lebanese wrongs, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday (with the Naches-spreading Hezbollah in the dumpster image as illustration). All of a sudden, the Biden administration is advocating for the utilization of Israel’s military actions against Hezbollah as an opportunity to terminate the terrorist group’s prolonged influence by facilitating the election of a new president in Lebanon.

The US initiative signifies a departure from the administration’s recent appeals for an immediate ceasefire. However, there are concerns among various individuals within the nation and the region that advocating for the empowerment of a candidate at this juncture may trigger the kind of sectarian violence that has historically devastated the country.

Yes, another US administration is going to mess up yet another Lebanese attempt to take care of business. Maybe start by dumping a billion dollars from a plane, to calm the spirits? It’s largely what the US has done in Iraq, with remarkable results.

WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE SYRIA

Here’s what will happen if the US throws its weight behind a presidential candidate: hen would be assassinated by the Syrians. Because while everybody is focusing on freeing Lebanon, Syria continues to be an Iranian client state, with President Assad owing his life and continued rule to the Iranians and their dedicated Hezbollah fighters. And Assad will follow Tehran’s instructions obediently.

On September 14, 1982, an explosion occurred during a gathering of the right-wing Christian Kataeb Party, commonly referred to as the Phalanges, in Beirut’s Achrafieh district. The blast resulted in the deaths of militia commander and Lebanese president-elect Bachir Gemayel, along with 23 other politicians affiliated with the Kataeb Party.

The assault was executed by Habib Shartouni, and orchestrated by Nabil Alam, both of them members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP).

On February 14, 2005, Rafic Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, was assassinated in a bombing in Beirut that also claimed the lives of 21 others. The explosion, which involved explosives equivalent to approximately 1,000 kilograms of TNT, occurred as his motorcade passed near the St. George Hotel. Among the casualties were several of Hariri’s bodyguards and Bassel Fleihan, a former Minister of the Economy.

Hariri was a prominent figure in the anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon. His assassination sparked the Cedar Revolution, a popular uprising that ultimately compelled Syria to withdraw all its military forces from Lebanon by April 2005.

In response to the assassination, the United Nations established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to conduct an investigation. This inquiry, along with an independent investigation led by Lebanese Brigadier General Wissam al-Hassan, uncovered substantial evidence implicating Hezbollah in the assassination. One of the investigators, Wissam Eid, was murdered in 2008.

So, as I said, rather than promoting some poor presidential candidate to his death by Syrian assassins, dump a couple of billion dollars from the air in Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre. It’ll give people something to do and some of them might be able to pay their gas bills.

The Lebanese constitution maintains that the president must be a Maronite Christian. The latest holder of the post of President was Michel Aoun, from October 31, 2016 until October 31, 2022. Blinken should hurry up before Lebanon runs out of Maronite Christians.

Share this article on WhatsApp: