I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

Why doesn't Lebanon surrender?

Fantasy Lebanon surrender:

We, the elected government of Lebanon, being too weak to implement UN SC 1559 and disarm Hezbollah, a militia residing in Lebanon, being too weak to stop Hezbollah from illegally firing rockets targeting Israel, being too weak to stop Hezbollah from illegally murdering Israeli soldiers, being too weak to stop Hezbollah from illegally kidnapping Israeli soldiers, being too weak to force Hezbollah to return the soldiers;

We, the weak government of Lebanon, cannot resist Israeli will,

Therefore, in order to minimize casualties and damage, in order to most quickly cease further fighting,

We, the duly elected representatives of the Lebanese people, surrender, unconditionally.

We call on all Lebanonese to accept Israel as the occupying and controlling power, and declare any resistance to Israeli rule as illegal.  Control of the Lebanese Army will be given to the Israel selected Occupation governor, as will ultimate control of security forces.

We call on Israel, as an Occupation Power, to speedily establish order and security throughout Lebanon,  to use minimum force in ending any illegal resistance, and to prepare Lebanon for fair and free elections as soon as the whole country is secure. We call on them to accept cooperation with UN forces, NATO forces, and the forces of any democracy which supports peaceful, democratic development of Lebanon -- forces sufficient to disarm the illegal Hezbollah militia forces.

We offer the current Lebanese government, and members thereof, as available for giving advice, or accepting limited responsibility.

Signed ... current members of the Lebanese government.

----
I greatly doubt that this fantasy will occur, but why not?  Isn't the basic problem exactly the weakness of the democratically elected Lebanese gov't, and their inability to stop Hezbollah?  Why not let Israel have a free hand in rooting out Hezbollah, and doing the dirty work that the Lebanese gov't can't, or won't, do?

Since I think it's an excellent "outside the box" thought that I haven't seen others note, I thought I'd take this opportunity.  Of course, it's also good training for the "world community" in what to do about failed states; and S. Lebanon was a failed state.  I support a NATO based Human Rights enforcement group.  Especially focused on US and India cooperation.

Unconditional Surrender was a successful WW II ending; most since have been far less successful.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/17/06 00:17 | link | comments (15)
democracy, world cop, israel palestine

Comments:

#1  17 July 2006 - 02:23

 

good stuff.

Anonymous

#2  17 July 2006 - 02:55

 

They're Arabs. They don't surrender to infidels.

Anonymous

#3  17 July 2006 - 08:24

 

And with free elections, they'd just vote for Hizbulla.

The only practical solution is Ann Coulters: Kill their leaders and force the rest to become Christians.

Anonymous

#4  17 July 2006 - 11:16

 

WHAT?
What type of logical sense are you using to create such an idea?
First all, Lebanon, which was an democratic state since it's inception, went to 30 years of chaos, 16 of those years it was involved in a civil war during which Hizballah was created and became powerful by Syria and Iran. Lebanon was only freed of Syrian interference a year ago. A weak government? A weak government that was trying to disarm Hizballah but realized that would only cause a civil war so they tried to dissolve the existence of Hizballah. How? By going to the UN and requesting the demarcation of the borders, hence to prove that Shebaa Farms in the south is Lebanese soil, which means Israel would have pulled out by default, and there would be no need of a resistance group in Lebanon, since nothing would have been occupied by any foreign nation. BUT the UN wasnt capable of forcing Syria to accept to demarcate its borders. So, the UN is weak, and we all know that... so why don't they resign.

Also, for the 3rd person who commented, Lebanon holds free elections, and only 2 chairs in the ministry were won by Hizballah.

Force the rest to become Christians? I am a Christian, but I would not force anyone to become a Christian. Our issue is not a sect issue, our issue is an illegal militia called Hizballah.

Anonymous

#5  17 July 2006 - 23:04

 

Well, rampurple, what do you suggest? How can Lebanon get rid of Hezbollah, and stop a member of its gov't from murdering Israelis?

I think surrender is the fastest, quickest way to get Israeli peace and victory -- peace thru victory.

No "ceasefire" -- only a peace agreement, with enforcement against any militia violating it.

TomGrey

#6  18 July 2006 - 07:13

 

its quite obvious that u never kept up with lebanese politics and anyone who has knows you're talking plain nonsense.

Anonymous

#7  18 July 2006 - 07:15

 

What kind of statement is that???? "Why Doesn't Lebanon Surrender?" Seems you really falling in to American sensationalized news and getting a one-sided story about "the poor isrealis" being attacked. You need to hear the whole story and hear both sides of the problem.

The country of Lebanon has nothing to do with this war. The country, the people, the army, that government are not involved. Its all the doings of Hezzbolla...a policital/religious group...not the entire country. But of course...the Hezbolla are using Lebanese land/soil for their cause in this war, and the true Lebanese people (not Hezbolla) and paying the price as causualties and deaths, and the country in ruins...CIVILIANS ARE BEING KILLED in a war they dont believe in and dont even want!!!!

And speaking of your commenters...."Kill their leaders and force the rest to become Christians.
".....thats more of an extremist way fo thinking. And you say that muslims are radical and extremists.

overall, not a valid nor persuasive post...in fact...its just plainly absurd!

Anonymous

#8  18 July 2006 - 20:07

 

Previous unlogged visitor:

What you need to keep in mind when addressing Tom is that he doesn't simply, on occasion, propose an idea that is plainly absurd. He is actually, completely and totally, batshit insane.

The man is crazy. Or very, very stupid. The semi-literacy of most of his writings is probably a big clue in one direction or another. But let's be serious: if Tom were to propose, seriously, that his preferred solution would be for magical unicorns to swoop down from the sky and carry the various waring parties to a glittery Candy Land in the heavens, where instead of fighting they'd eat candy and swim in pools of moon beams and ride the unicorns and play badmitton with dragons, it would be about as feasible as suggesting "a sovereign nation should hand over its sovereignty to another country that has, in the past, violently invaded parts of that country".

Seriously. One does not say "my preferred solution requires magic" and get to be taken seriously thereafter.

Anonymous

#9  19 July 2006 - 00:56

 

It would be more realistic, to convert Jews to Christianity. Then the (former) Jews can join the Lebanese Christians and live in peace.

Anonymous

#10  19 July 2006 - 02:43

 

Wow Tom... so much to say but I guess other people have said a lot of it.

But "any resistance to Israeli rule as illegal" ?? Really? Tom, you're kidding when you say you're a libertarian, right?

MintBloodflower

#11  19 July 2006 - 15:05

 

Oops, I meant "violent resistance". Peaceful protests should be fine.

Thanks for having a name, unlike so many here.

I think temporary Israeli rule to impose security to allow Free Speech and Free Religion is the kind of idea that would work.

To the substantive critique that: "The country of Lebanon has nothing to do with this war. The country, the people, the army, that government are not involved. Its all the doings of Hezzbolla" -- this is patently false. The President of Lebanon has just said they will not turn over Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Hezbollah received many votes in the recent election; Hez is part of the Lebanese gov't.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese problem that the weak Lebanese gov't has not been able to solve in a year. I somewhat agree with many critics that Israel has overreacted -- but I'm not sure.

It's obvious to me that a "ceasefire" means allowing Hez to fairly soon fire rockets at Israel again. I think it's fair for Israel to say this is unacceptable; and it's up to those who are serious about peace to propose something that IS acceptable to Israel, and that DOES have some chance of stopping Hezbollah from firing rockets.

"Civilians are being killed" -- that's the fault of Hez, part of the elected Leb gov't, attacking and killing Israeli soldiers, and killing Israeli civilians.

"in a war they dont believe in and dont even want!" The Hez murderers want the war; the Hez murderers do NOT wear uniforms, so are not so identifiable; the Hez murderers live in Lebanon. The "people" of Lebanon need to NOT want war enough to fight Hez to stop Hez from attacking. So far, they don't want war enough to fulfil their state responsibility.

Libertarians believe in self-defense. If you offer an alternative process which results in safety for Israeli civilians, who don't want war, I'd be very interested in details.

Rampurple, "its quite obvious that u never kept up with lebanese politics and anyone who has knows you're talking plain nonsense."

Why is surrender plain nonsense? It worked in WW II; and most other solutions tried have NOT worked since then.

TomGrey

#12  19 July 2006 - 17:17

 

"Surrender worked in WW II"

Jesus Christ in heaven, Tom, what a trip it must be to live in that crazy head of yours.

I love, just love, the total insanity that lurks just behind the notion that "surrender" is a solution to a problem.

I mean, where else can we apply this solution? America has a big debt, so I suggest we find the first country with a balanced budget and surrender to them. I mean, we tried other solutions that didn't work, right? Well, why not hand over our sovereignty to another country that has its, and not our, best interests in mind? What could possibly go wrong with allowing another country's government to decide the fate of your citizenry?

Anonymous

#13  20 July 2006 - 15:53

 

pretty free with other people's death ain't you

Anonymous

#14  21 July 2006 - 01:42

 

I believe Lebanese surrender will result in the fewest number of deaths.
If the alternatives are 5k 10k or 20k of deaths, I choose the 5k if I can.

What makes real choices tough is that such deaths are in the uncertain future -- so that anybody can hope for fewer deaths with some other strategy.

TomGrey

#15  21 July 2006 - 13:24

 

You know which strategy would result in the fewest deaths? If everyone wished, really hard and at the same time, that instead of war, there were puppies and candies raining from the sky.

This has about as high a probability of ocurring as one sovereign nation suddenly surrendering to another sovereign nation because they think it's a good...policy option.

Anonymous

Comments: