A Middle Road

Submitted by Bruce P. (United States), Mar 22, 2010 at 22:09

I think asking Obama a simple question would be a good start:

Which do you think is more damaging to Middle East peace, 40,000 missiles aimed at civilian populations with the trigger held by an international terrorist organization with a track record, or 1,600 apartments aimed at housing 1,600 Israeli families, and all built on Israeli property?

If Obama tries to skirt the question, which he must, maybe Netanyahu could make the fully logical case that those missiles, and no doubt other weapons, pose a greater and more immediate threat to peace than Iran's future nukes and even Hamas. Hezbollah fired thousands of those missiles during the 2006 war.

He could then hand Obama a document he is no doubt unfamiliar with:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/465/03/PDF/N0646503.pdf?OpenElement.

This is UN Security Council Resolution 1701 agreed to by Lebanon and Israel to end the 2006 war. Among its more relevant statements supported by the world community: "

Para. 8. . . . require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;

– 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 "Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):
(a) Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
e) Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;

11.

Obama should be told that before the 2006 war initiated by Hezbollah, they were reported to have about 12,000 missiles; today they have at least 40,000, despite the UN Resolution. The U.N. has done nothing! Immediately after the war ended, Shimom Peres wrote in the Guardian:

In Lebanon we have experienced a new form of battle. Terrorist organisations are armed with a wide range of missiles and rockets that enable them to bypass frontlines and hit tanks, planes and concentrations of soldiers. This type of war is more ballistic in nature than territorial. It is driven more by a religious ideology than by nationalistic motivation, seeking to target populations wherever possible, even before trying to control territory. Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/04/syria.israel

Speaking at Tel Aviv University, Biden claimed that Hezbollah's weapons represent a threat to both "Israel and Lebanese civilians." He stressed the persistence of Washington in supporting Lebanon's institutions and working on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 "to stop the flow of arms to Hezbollah," according to his terms.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=112641

This could be a middle road toward reigning in Iranian and Syrian violations as they continue to arm Muslim combatants throughout the region. Obama has made his position clear by diverting weapons from Israel. Let's see what he is willing to do about some more immediate threats. Then re-ask Obama if he really thinks it serves the enhancement of peace in the Middle East to publicly harm its only ME ally over 1,600 apartments, regardless of the relatively petty timing issue, and ignore such obvious dangers. Obama should know that Lebanon has been overrun by a terrorist organization, and armed, trained, and financed by Iran and Syria. "That, Mr. President, is a clear and present danger to peace, not 1,600 apartments."

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".