Ceasefire in Lebanon: Sooner Or Later?

The ceasefire agreement in Lebanon has many holes in it sufficient to drive many Israeli tanks through. This agreement is clearly a diplomatic slight of hand. Everyone thinks they got something from the agreement, but clearly there is no teeth, no enforcement provisions, and parties involved, especially Israel, will do whatever they want until the peacekeeping force is in place.
Israel for it's part is grabbing the high ground all over south Lebanon anticipating an extensive mop up of Hizbullah fighters while the peacekeepers get organized. Then, if necessary, the Israelis will put peacekeepers at risk to gain sometime to complete their mission to wipe out Hizbullah south of the Litany River. While the "ceasefire" will be accepted Monday by the Israeli government, in actuality, it's days if not weeks away.
Jerusalem Post

The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1701 Friday evening, calling for a cessation of hostilities between Hizbullah and Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will recommend to the cabinet that it accept the UNSC resolution at its weekly meeting Sunday. The agreement was expected to go into effect by Monday morning.


However, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman told the UNSC that unless the means to enforce the resolution were to be defined, "We will be back [in the UNSC], if not in a week, then in a month or a year." He warned that Hizbullah would be embolded by the United Nations' lack of decisiveness and would undoubtedly be resupplied with even more deadly weapons.


The resolution authorizes the deployment of 15,000 UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon in support of Lebanese army forces, which are to move into the region and replace Hizbullah in parallel with a withdrawal of Israeli forces. Israel is not required to withdraw until the deployment of UN and Lebanese forces begins.

Reuters.com

Hizbollah said on Saturday it would abide by any U.N.-backed ceasefire in Lebanon, but would resist Israeli troops expanding their offensive in the south. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shi'ite Muslim guerrillas, said Hizbollah would cooperate with Lebanese and U.N. troops due to be deployed in south Lebanon under a Security Council resolution adopted on Friday to end the month-old war. "Once there is an agreement to stop the hostilities or the military operations, the resistance will abide by it," Nasrallah said in a speech broadcast on Hizbollah's al-Manar television. But he said Hizbollah had the right to resist any Israeli soldiers who remained on Lebanese soil.


Despite the U.N. resolution's demand for a "full cessation of hostilities", the Israeli army pushed deeper into Lebanon and air strikes killed up to 20 people on Saturday. Helicopters lifted hundreds of Israeli troops into the south as part of an expanding offensive launched even though Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has backed the U.N. vote. Olmert was expected to ask his cabinet to approve the resolution on Sunday. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said the final resolution was a victory for Lebanese diplomacy.


[...]Israel's top general said the offensive would go on until it was clear how any U.N.-backed ceasefire would take effect. "We will continue to operate until we achieve our aims," Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz told reporters.


Bush said the U.N. resolution aimed to "stop Hizbollah from acting as a state within a state, and put an end to Iran and Syria's efforts to hold the Lebanese people hostage to their own extremist agenda".


French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy made clear in an interview with Le Monde newspaper that the mission of the larger UNIFIL would not include disarming Hizbollah by force. "We never thought a purely military solution could resolve the problem of Hizbollah," he said. "We are agreed on the goal, the disarmament, but for us the means are purely political."


[...]Relief officials said Israel was still denying permission for aid convoys to reach distressed civilians in south Lebanon.


[...]At least 1,061 people in Lebanon and 124 Israelis have been killed in the war that began after Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

The winds are changing in Israel. The right-wing continues to push for a costly war. However, public opinion is waivering, clearly not wanting to sacrifice casualties for an unwinnable war. Perhaps they are beginning to recognize they can no longer dominate their neighbors if their neighbors can't control their own population.
Irish Independent

AFTER four weeks basking in almost unwavering public support, Ehud Olmert yesterday awoke to a fusillade of criticism from the Israeli press. Opinion polls questioned the Israeli Prime Minister's handling of the Lebanon war and one front-page headline even demanded: "Olmert must go."


Hawkish generals had reportedly been pressing a reluctant prime minister to mount a larger offensive to the Litani river, even as diplomats talked of reaching the basis of a negotiated solution. Mr Olmert and his military commanders were attacked from the right for putting their faith in airstrikes to stop Hizbollah's rocket attacks instead of flooding Lebanon with troops early in the campaign, and by others for planning a huge escalation that would probably incur hundreds of troop casualties.


A poll in 'Haaretz' newspaper found only 48pc of respondents were satisfied with Mr Olmert's performance - down from 75pc. Only 20pc believe Israel is winning the campaign.


This was directly contradicted by another poll, in the rival 'Yedioth Ahronoth', which found that 66pc believe that Mr Olmert has performed well and 78pc think that he was right to go to war, rising to 87pc among the country's Jewish majority.


Crucial to Mr Olmert's future is who will be able to claim they won after the fighting ends.