Posted on 08/09/2006 6:54:20 PM PDT by mdittmar
UNITED NATIONS: An Arab delegation warned the UN Security Council yesterday that Lebanon would erupt into a civil war unless there was an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the country's south.
Qatar's Foreign Minister Shaikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani, representing a three-member Arab League team, told the council that adopting a nonenforceable resolution would have "grave ramifications" for Lebanon.
"If we adopt the resolution without fully considering the reality of Lebanon, we will face a civil war," the minister said. "Instead of helping Lebanon, we will destroy Lebanon."
Faced with strong Arab objections, France and the United States are revising their draft resolution aimed at ending the four-week-long warfare between Israel and Hizbollah fighters and setting terms for a permanent peace.
"My goal is to incorporate in the text some ideas that have been proposed in recent days," France's UN ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said.
Under discussion is when and what kind of an international force would go in to support the Lebanese army, which US officials believe is not strong enough to subdue Hizbollah.
Lebanon's acting foreign minister, Tarek Mitri and the Qatari minister, whose country is the only Arab nation on the Security Council, pointed to the draft resolution, which called on Israel to stop all offensive actions in Lebanon and said the Jewish state contended all its actions were defensive.
"A cessation of hostilities means the end of fire," he said.
The current draft calls for a "cessation of hostilities" and lays out terms for a political settlement. A second resolution was planned to authorise the international force if fighting had stopped.
The United States and France differ on when an international force, expected to be led by France, should move in and when Israel should withdraw.
Israel says it will only withdraw when a foreign force and the Lebanese army take over to keep Hizbollah at bay, and the United States backs this position.
"The operating principle is that you don't want to leave a vacuum in southern Lebanon," US State Depart-ment spokesman Sean McCormack said.
"You don't hand the keys back to the terrorists who started all of this."
French President Jacques Chirac threatened to introduce his own resolution if no compromise was reached but said he hoped there could still be an agreement.
"I can't imagine that there would be no solution ... which would be the most immoral result, that we accept the current situation and that we abandon an immediate ceasefire," he said.
Diplomats are still working on a UN resolution aimed at ending the war but no Security Council vote seems imminent.
US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch held talks in Beirut as part of efforts to win agreement for such a resolution, but appeared to have made little headway
You must stop killing terrorists or civil war will erupt in Afghanistan,Iraq,Lebanon
Nice try,go Israel.
Personally, I would welcome a Lebanese civil war as long as the good guys are allowed to win this time. Half of the Lebanese people left when the Hizzybaloos moved in.
Let them have their civil war, by all means.
A Lebanese civil war might be a good thing--the kind of catharsis it needs right now. Let the Shiites and Sunnis go at each other.
go Israel
See you next year in Damascus.
Let me get this straight. The writer of this article is saying that's a bad thing? These guys are going to be killing someone. It might as well be each other. I think they go on these Jihads so their wives won't make them install indoor plumbing.
France can have one too!
The MSM keeps telling us 90% of Lebanese back Hezbollah now. So why would there be a civil war? \Sarc
Can we have another one, too?
"I can't imagine that there would be no solution ... which would be the most immoral result, that we accept the current situation and that we abandon an immediate ceasefire," he said.
Didn't someone else say this during other past conflicts between Arabs and Israel. Those previous ceasefires worked so well that we should do the same thing this time, next time, next time, next time, next time and next time?
For goodness sake let's try something that might work this time like smashing an enemy who has made known to the world that their intentions are death and destruction of a sovereign state for no other reason than hate. This time they can't claim occupation because there wasn't any directly affecting Hezbollah or Hamas in Gaza. Israel withdrew so now we hear other excuses. It's time to quit talking to radical arabs and go about the business of destroying them.
"French President Jacques Chirac threatened to introduce his own resolution if no compromise was reached "
AND WHAT WE SHOULD DO::::
We string the French along that we'll support their resolution and congratulate them on their hard work and at the last minute just before the vote we announce our intention to veto it.
So if there's a civil war, does that mean the citizens will rise up and exterminate Hezbollah to the last fighter? As Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing."
"Lebanon would erupt into a civil war unless there was an immediate ceasefire"
So this mean Hezbollah will attack its host? Bad boys... bad...
"French President Jacques Chirac threatened to introduce his own resolution"
No we're really scared...
LOL! Lebanon does not even know what a civil war means...Go ahead @-holes..have one. Don't blame it on Israel!
They don't have the guts or love of Country,some day they might,we know what civil war means,550,000 dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.