Katz to UN envoy for Lebanon: Israel will show 'zero tolerance' for ceasefire violations

[moniss]

This is the title to an article dated 11/26/24 in Reuters regarding he statement of the Israeli foreign Minister about the proposed ceasefire. Apparently everyone at the UN is too afraid to ask "Shouldn't the 'zero tolerance' go both ways?" Oh silly me for bringing up the periodic UNIFIL reports that referenced lots of violations by both sides month after month for year after year. But only one side is lectured to. The side doing the lecturing chooses to answer about none of their own violations. It's not a question of one violation causing another but rather simply put a violation is a violation. Unless of course things are to be one-sided and if that is the case the history of one-sided treatment in agreements is that the people receiving the benefit of that one-sided agreement find ways to always claim being wronged as cover for further actions. They do so because there is no mechanism to restrain them from violating the agreement and gaining advantage after advantage over the other party to the agreement who is now helpless and has no recourse about those violations.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/katz-to-un-envoy-for-lebanon-israel-will-show-zero-tolerance-for-ceasefire-violations/

[marble falls]

1. Funny (not in a funny way), Hamas and Hezbullah say the same thing. Only Palestinians civilians ...

... pay for all those "violations" (pretexts, rationalizations, excuses, KYAs etc) with their blood.

[jimfields33]

3. I think it's fair for Israel to say, we will keep the peace

as long as both sides do so. Smart strategy since it’s always Israel who keeps them and the others don’t. Hopefully Hamas and others will heed the warnings this time.

[marble falls]

4. Destroying Palestine is not just a result of Israeli tactical strategy. It's the entire goal. It's war crime.

[jimfields33]

5. The good news is Hamas can stop it by keeping the peace.

They have the control now.

[moniss]

7. It is not Hamas.

This is about Hezbollah in Lebanon.

[Mosby]

11. Thats stupid

Israelis just want to live in peace, something that the people hate them don't want, along with their western supporters.

Just leave Israel alone ffs.

[marble falls]

18. Peace means cull Palestinians from Gaza, land that came from Egypt controlled territory ...

Israel wants the Palestinians out and they do not care how they leave or where they go.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-half-of-gazans-can-be-encouraged-to-leave-within-two-years/

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, praises ‘very valuable’ potential of Gaza’s ‘waterfront property’
https://apnews.com/article/jared-kushner-trump-israel-waterfront-property-901895eeafee867e69d0c4582a4deb47

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s former White House adviser and his son-in-law, praised the “very valuable” potential of Gaza’s “waterfront property,” suggesting that Israel should remove civilians while it “cleans up” the area.

“Gaza’s waterfront property, it could be very valuable, if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner said in an interview dated Feb. 15, posted earlier this month on the YouTube channel of the Middle East Initiative, a program of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and reported first on Tuesday by The Guardian. “If you think about all the money that’s gone into this tunnel network and into all the munitions, if that would have gone into education or innovation, what could have been done?”

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but I think from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner added. “But I don’t think that Israel has stated that they don’t want the people to move back there

[Mosby]

20. Is Kushner an Israeli?

Is Trump Israeli?

Not seeing a point here.

[moniss]

6. The history reveals otherwise and the UNIFIL

periodic reports back to the UN about violations cited both sides with large numbers of violations month after month, year after year. The parties set up the last agreement years ago to have UNIFIL be more of a reporting/observer force as opposed to a take action force. Israel may be quite understandably upset about Hezbollah/Iran pumping weaponry into the southern Lebanon region and pointing out the violations.

But if Israel is wanting to say that UNIFIL should go in and take action, guns blazing because of a violation then there should be no complaint when UNIFIL shoots down IDF aircraft violating Lebanese air space during all of these years which were violations of the previous agreement also. Sauce for the goose and the gander if we're going the route of saying people should have "forcefully" stopped violations.

[Mosby]

12. Why is Lebanon attacking Israel?

Stop it.

[moniss]

14. I'm not going to get into some circular back and forth over this. nt

[Mosby]

15. Then stop making excuses.

Hezbo and Hamas can stop this anytime.

Stop with the excuses.

[Beastly Boy]

2. There is history at the UN of showing extreme tolerance of Hezbollah routinely violating their Resolution 1701.

Hezbollah was not supposed to have armed presence in South Lebanon to begin with. As per Resolution 1702, Hezbollah was not supposed to have weapons of any kind, anywhere in Lebanon. UNIFIL was supposed to enforce this.

The UN failed miserably, leading to today's war between Israel and Hezbollah.

For decades, Hezbollah was left free to ignore the UN. A good reason to warn the UN that this will no longer be tolerated, don't you think?

BTW, there was no issue with Israel holding up to their end of Resolution 1701 until Israeli civilians became targets of Hezbollah's rockets and the UN standing idly by and doing nothing about it.

[moniss]

8. This is not factual and you can go back over the years and years of

UNIFIL periodic reports about violations from both sides on a constant basis. UNIFIL was purposely set up as a neutered force by demand of all of the parties to the agreement. There ability to use force was strictly limited even for their own protection as we saw when observation posts were attacked by Israel during this latest conflagration. It is disingenuous to say the "UN failed" when the parties to the agreement, including Israel, set the parameters for UNIFIL as far as capability to respond to violations with force. I would suspect it was because they didn't want to be held to account by force for their own violations.

The violations of Lebanese air space by the IDF were constant and ongoing throughout from the beginning of the last Resolution. But apparently we have a new paradigm in international relations where violations by one side to a multi-party agreement are OK while other parties are supposed to be held to account by a "force" that was so purposely hamstrung by design of all of the parties that it can barely defend itself and retreat is the main defense left to them.

So don't anybody on any side of this cry to me about violations and engage in finger pointing because there are no clean hands here as usual to any actions or agreements in this region going back over a century and more.

[Beastly Boy]

9. What is not factual?

The UN Resolution 1701 is factual. The call for Lebanon's government to exercise sole and full control and sovereignty of Lebanon's territory is factual. The establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL is factual. The requirement to dismantle all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State is factual. The demand that no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as
authorized by its Government is factual. The decision to deploy 15,000 UNIFIL troops to assist the Lebanese government in implementing all of the above is factual. The UN authorizing UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces to insure the implementation of all of the above is factual.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/581053?v=pdf

The presence of an armed group in Southern Lebanon exceeding that of Lebanon's armed forces is factual. The continued arms supplies to Hezbollah are factual. The failure of UNIFIL to prevent either is factual.

So what is not factual or disingenuous in stating the obvious? Clearly, the UN failed to implement or enforce the terms of its own resolution, as the said resolution set forth in its text, your righteous indignations over "anybody on any side of this cry... about violations and engage in finger pointing" notwithstanding.

It's just factual. And if you consider anything to be not factual, I would appreciate you referring to the txt of the resolution to demonstrate how it is not.

[moniss]

10. Your assertion that the violations have been all one way

and your painting the UN as being at fault for the limited response capabilities of UNIFIL. Those response limitations were insisted upon not by the UN but by Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon otherwise they all refused to sign on to the ceasefire plan. Don't try and tell me that Israel wanted a strong and equal military response to violations by the parties. Of course they would have loved a one sided forceful approach but the first IDF aircraft shot down for violating Lebanese air space would have been met with massive response from Israel and demands for aggressive response to violations by one side and a pass for the other.

[Mosby]

13. Why are Lebanese shooting rockets into Israel?

STOP IT.

[Beastly Boy]

16. Are my assertions factual or not?

This is the only thing I am trying to tell you.

This is not a matter to get defensive over, just a matter of getting the facts straight.

Are you going to address the facts or aren't you?

[moniss]

17. I responded to what I felt I was addressing all along and

at length and repeatedly. If you wish to dispute the idea of Israeli violations of the ceasefire and Resolution over the years feel free but the UNIFIL reports are there and reference repeated violations by Israel as well as by the others. I am not defensive about it at all. It simply becomes useless to repeat the same thing over and over with the sourcing indicated only to have someone come back to some other aspect etc. or making circular argument. Really just leave it. You will never convince me that I didn't read the words I read and it doesn't matter to me how much you claim they don't exist. You can believe whatever you want I really could care less.

[Beastly Boy]

19. I don't particularly wish to dispute anything that is not backed by facts.

It seems you don't particularly wish to address anything that is.

I am just fine with that. I will stick with my facts, and you are welcome to stick with your opinions.