PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS DEAD WRONG ..... AND SO IS BIDEN

Has Israel repeated the mistake of 2006 with its ceasefire?

Unlike Hamas to the south, Hezbollah has not been destroyed; it continues to exert influence over the country, and Iran can quickly rebuild it. 

 

By Mitchell Bard

 

JNS

Dec 4, 2024

 

 

Israeli forces operating in Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War, Aug. 12, 2006

 

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon war mirrored the current war in Gaza in terms of the U.S. and international reaction to the civilian casualties and displacement of large numbers of people. Like President Joe Biden, President George W. Bush initially opposed a ceasefire. “He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves,” Bush spokesman Tony Snow said, “and also that we think it’s important that in doing that they try to limit as much as possible so-called collateral damage, not only to facilities but also to human lives.” Snow added, “The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel.”

A month later, however, the president changed his tune. He was angered by what he saw as Israeli indifference to the death toll and international opinion. As today, he feared that the war could escalate and alienate America’s Arab allies. Another concern was that Hezbollah would gain influence because Israel could not achieve a decisive military victory.

Bush obtained support for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 to create “an effective international force to deploy to Lebanon,” which he said was “essential to the freedom of Lebanon.” After Israel withdrew its troops, this force would “help the Lebanese army meet its responsibility to secure Lebanon’s borders and stop … Hezbollah from acting as a state within a state.” Furthermore, he reassured everyone, “An effective international force will help give displaced people in both Lebanon and Israel the confidence to return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives without fear of renewed violence and terror.”

Bush said the “root cause of the problem … was you have a state within a state. You have people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.” He said it was imperative that Lebanon “exert control over the entire country” and that an international force “make sure that the Hezbollah forces don’t rearm, don’t get arms from Syria or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.”

He and other officials, notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, repeatedly used the word “robust” to describe the international force that would be created to keep the peace. “The language [of the resolution] says that anything and anyone who keeps them from fulfilling their responsibilities is to be challenged on that, and they even have the right to use force if they need to,” Rice said. “That mandate was written in a very robust fashion.”

That force, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), was to be 15,000-strong.

“One thing is for certain,” Bush said, “when this force goes into help Lebanon, Hezbollah won’t have that safe haven or that kind of freedom to run in Lebanon’s southern border… Hopefully, over time, Hezbollah will disarm. You can’t have a democracy with an armed political party willing to bomb its neighbor without the consent of its government, or deciding, well, let’s create enough chaos and discord by lobbing rockets.”

Interestingly, while in one breath he talked about a force that would enforce the resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah, in the next, he expressed the hope it would disarm.

The new ceasefire agreement calls for the deployment of 10,000 Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to the southern border, in addition to the UNIFIL force that has consistently failed to be “robust” over the past 18 years.

“An international force requires international commitment,” Bush said and promised to assist “with logistic support, command and control, communications and intelligence.”

Sound familiar?

The Biden White House said, “Our job will be to receive complaints of violations and provide training and support to the LAF.” Unlike 2006, an official claimed, when “the international community reached the agreement and then abandoned the scene, here we remain committed to be on the ground day to day, watch what’s happening, and to let everybody know, whether it’s Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations, that the world is watching.”

The world watched from 2006 until the day the ceasefire was signed and did nothing. The official acknowledged that UNIFIL failed in its mission to enforce the ceasefire and yet UNIFIL will be expected to enforce the new agreement. In both a nod to political reality and an unwillingness to literally put skin in the game, no U.S. combat troops will participate.

Bush acknowledged that Iran and Syria were “working to thwart the efforts of the Lebanese people to break free from foreign domination and build their own democratic future. The terrorists and their sponsors are not going to succeed. The Lebanese people have made it clear they want to live in freedom. And now it’s up to their friends and allies to help them do so.”

Again, neither Bush nor his successors took any action against Iran or Syria.

Biden said “this deal supports Lebanon’s sovereignty and so it heralds the new start for Lebanon” that “can put Lebanon on a path toward a future that’s worthy of a significant past.”

Is there any reason to believe the outcome will differ from when Bush said the same thing?

The new ceasefire agreement reiterates Resolution 1701’s requirement for the “disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon” but does not require the LAF to take any action against Hezbollah troops deployed north of the Litani River. It only requires the prevention of future smuggling of weapons into Lebanon. Only Hezbollah installations south of the river are mentioned for dismantling.

So why did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree to the ceasefire?

Israel asserts while the U.S. denies that the Biden administration threatened to block further weapons deliveries and would not veto another U.N. ceasefire resolution. Just a week earlier, Netanyahu had boasted of repeatedly defying Biden; however, this time, he acknowledged that Israel needed its weapons resupplied. After agreeing to the ceasefire, Netanyahu said the issue was resolved, and the administration subsequently announced a $680 million arms sale to replenish precision weapons depleted during the war.

When Bush discussed the 2006 ceasefire, he also referenced the geopolitical situation that is relevant today. “I remember right after Hezbollah launched its rocket attacks on Israel, I said, this is a clarifying moment. It’s a chance for the world to see the threats of the 21st century, the challenge we face,” Bush said on Aug. 21, 2006.

But the world did not see it that way. Hezbollah was allowed to build up its arsenal to the point where it threatened not only Israel but regional stability.

Bush also recognized the Iranian threat. “They encourage a radical brand of Islam. Imagine how difficult this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon,” Bush said. He thought the danger could be managed through the U.N., which passed a Security Council resolution demanding Iran cease its enrichment activities.

He was wrong again. A decade later, the Iranian nuclear threat had grown to the point that President Barack Obama negotiated a deal to halt its progress towards acquiring a bomb. That deal failed, as did Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign and Biden’s appeasement strategy. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) now reports that Iran has enriched uranium to 32 times the amount allowed under that agreement and could produce multiple atomic bombs if its stockpile is further enriched to weapons-grade levels.

There should have never been any doubt that the war in Lebanon would end on Biden’s terms. As I wrote last November, presidents, and not prime ministers, end Israeli wars. Netanyahu capitulated but, predictably, claimed victory even though Hezbollah was not destroyed (a tiny fraction of its forces was killed), it continues to exert influence over the country, and Iran can quickly rebuild it.

Israel does derive short-term benefits: saving the lives of soldiers, the acceleration of U.S. weapons deliveries, the opportunity to focus on Iran and finish off Hamas, and getting a desperately needed respite for reservists. It is not clear, however, that the ceasefire achieved the war’s objective of allowing the residents of the north to return to their homes, given that Hezbollah was firing more than 100 rockets a day before the ceasefire and could do so again at any time.

Israel has a better claim to victory in the south. The IDF has killed most Hamas terrorists, and the survivors are no longer firing rockets. As in the north, however, the American president will determine the outcome. President-elect Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants the war to end before he is inaugurated. There will be a heavy price, but Netanyahu will likely comply to avoid Trump’s wrath.