That’s how Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post describes the cease-fire agreement, and I don’t think she’s overstating things by much. Here are some of the points she makes that we have not focused on:
[T]he resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hizbullah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself.
The resolution presents Hizbullah with a clear diplomatic victory by placing their erroneous claim of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shaba Farms, or Mount Dov – a vast area on the Golan Heights that separates the Syrian Golan from the Upper Galilee and is disputed between Israel and Syria – on the negotiating table. In doing so, the resolution rewards Hizbullah’s aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of aggression, in contravention of the laws of nations. . . .
[P]aragraph 8 puts both the question of an arms embargo and Hizbullah’s dismantlement off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon agree to the terms of a “permanent cease-fire.” In addition, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hizbullah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member.
While the resolution bars Israel from taking measures necessary to defend its territory and citizens, by keeping UNIFIL in Lebanon it ensures that no other force will be empowered to take these necessary actions. Furthermore, paragraph 2 “calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment [of the Lebanese military and UNIFIL] begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel. This means that Israel is expected to withdraw before a full deployment of Lebanese and UNIFIL forces is carried out. As a result, a vacuum will be created that will allow Hizbullah to reinforce its positions in south Lebanon.
Finally, the resolution makes no operative call for the release of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev now being held hostage by Hizbullah. By relegating their fate to a paragraph in the preamble, which then immediately turns to Hizbullah’s demand for the release of Lebanese terrorists held in Israeli jails, the resolution all but eliminates any possibility of their returning home.
What about the claim, raised by a few of our readers, that by working with France and others the U.S. has improved its position when it comes to dealing with Iran?
The UN resolution does not strengthen the US hand in future Security Council deliberations regarding Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program because the states that object to any action against Iran – Russia and China – will continue with their refusal to sign on to any substantive action.
Indeed, Russia’s behavior regarding the situation in Lebanon, including the fact that a large percentage of Hizbullah’s arsenal of advanced anti-tank missiles was sold by Russia to Syria and Iran, exposes that Moscow’s role in the current conflict has been similar to the position taken by the Soviet Union in earlier Middle East wars.
Furthermore, because the resolution strengthens the UN as the arbiter of peace and security in the region, the diplomatic price the US will be forced to pay if it decides to go outside the UN to contend with the Iranian threat has been vastly increased.
There’s much more. Read the whole thing if you have the stomach for it.