Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2024, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Upon reading further, one would discover, for instance, that "Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a close Hezbollah ally who negotiated the deal on behalf of Lebanon, spoke to officials at the White House and French presidency late Monday and expressed concern about the state of the ceasefire, the sources said."

This request, as the article doesn't neglect to point out, comes from the de-facto Hezbollah (a proxy of Iran) representative in Lebanon's Parliament, and allegedly the richest man in Lebanon with close political and financial ties to Bashar Assad (an ally of Iran), the dictator of Syria, and is not a formal request from Lebanon's government.

The same Berri, a Hezbollah representative, came up with the 54 alleged violations of the cease fire agreement by Israel.

The same two officials are instrumental in delaying the implementation of enforcement mechanism which is, as you mentioned, "has been behind the curve".

In the mean time, while the cease fire agreement is not being enforced, Israeli troops on the ground have to deal with Hezbollah's infiltration back into Southern Lebanon (https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-831777). Is this not a fundamental violation of the cease fire agreement? And who is left to deal with it but the IDF? The terms of the cease fire agreement certainly permit IDF, at their discretion, to do just that.

Or are you proposing Israel should withdraw its troops without the monitoring mechanism to enforce the terms of the agreement being put in place and take Hezbollah's word that they will be good boys and never ever move back into Southern Lebanon and will never ever again fire their Iran-funded missiles into Israel's civilian centers?

aspect of the supposed US/French "enforcement" aspect that should have been in place but is not and won't be for a fair amount of time. So once again it highlights the worthlessness of assurances of anything by Western nations who are supposedly honest arbiters of peace and who profess to have deep concerns for the lives of the average Lebanese. The violations were not "manufactured" by someone. The fact that some people around the world can't own up to wrongful acts committed by all parties is self evident in comments.

I am on record for a very long time detesting all of the parties in the region and their state supporters around the world who have continued for over 100 years to act in their own interests while falsely claiming to care about the lives of average people in the Middle East.

Your supposed infiltration back into Southern Lebanon has nothing to do with an IDF attack on a Lebanese Army position in the far north of Lebanon. But apparently for some around the world any and all actions by the Israeli government and the IDF, Security personnel etc. are not to be discussed unless someone does a "both sides" in the article. I remember your lengthy word blast the other day about how you were showing all of the aspects of the complete ceasefire agreement. But nowhere did you talk about the US having committed to an enforcement role. I happen to think it's important to highlight that because maybe we as US citizens should have a right to know what the hell we're on the hook for regarding money, troops etc. So I have highlighted the fact that in this entire matter we are now committed, apparently with our military generals, to be in charge of monitoring and enforcement. I also felt it was important in that context of Lebanon complaining about violations to point out that this supposed "enforcement" mechanism/organization seems to be on an after the fact schedule and seems to only later this week even having beginning discussions as to how that organization is to structured, staffed, implemented, timelines for implementation, specific duties, resources committed, funding, rules of engagement etc.

Some people around the world apparently feel that people should just ignore it all now that the magic word "ceasefire" has been wrapped around the situation and turn a blind eye to anything and everything that goes on. I likewise don't think that most Americans that heard about a "ceasefire" in Lebanon knew that an apparent promise of putting the US on the hook for enforcing it was involved.

and is not intended to fall on the US or France, or any other party to the cease fire agreement.

Quoting from Articles 6 and 7 of the agreement:

All of the above is the responsibility of the government currently controlled by the allies of Iran, as I demonstrated earlier. All your criticisms and concerns specifically related to the worthlessness of attempts to enforce the cease fire agreement should be directed to this government, and should not be confused or conflated with the responsibilities of any other party to the agreement. The text of the agreement makes this point pellucidly clear and is not subject to conjecture or alternative interpretations. These commitments took effect on 4am, November 27, 2024, and are still in effect.

What you call "the supposed US/French "enforcement" aspect" of the agreement is, per the agreement, to take effect "Upon the commencement of the cessation of hostilities" and is intended to involve, as per Article 9 of the agreement, "Israel and Lebanon resolve, in co-ordination with Unifil, to reformulate and enhance the tripartite mechanism (hereinafter: “the Mechanism”). The reformulated and enhanced Mechanism, hosted by Unifil, chaired by the US, and including France, will monitor, verify, and assist in ensuring enforcement of these commitments".

Monitor, verify and assist. As you can see, all the talk of "enforcement" on the part of the US and France is entirely made up and, therefore, the ensuing criticism of any party other than the Lebanese government in enforcing the agreement makes up for one nice long indulgence in a Strawman fallacy.

When you say "Your supposed infiltration back into Southern Lebanon has nothing to do with an IDF attack on a Lebanese Army position in the far north of Lebanon", you are stating the obvious. Except for the "your supposed infiltration" part. I am not supposing the infiltration of Hezbollah into Southern Lebanon, it is a matter of fact. And, since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, I only see one reason that you would bring it up: an attempt at deflection, and an excuse to rant about some individuals around the world. And, while you are at it, recall the word blast I previously quoted from the cease fire agreement which you apparently failed to consult before posting. Obviously, nowhere would you find me talking about the US having committed to an enforcement role because... well, consult the cease fire agreement for LEBANON's enforcement role, your feelings on the subject notwithstanding.

And you appear to be absolutely right in thinking that most Americans that heard about a "ceasefire" in Lebanon knew nothing of an apparent promise of putting the US on the hook for enforcing the agreement. No one who read the text of the agreement knew anything of it, for the obvious reasons stated above.

The question is how you got to know something that no one else knew about.

agreement. Unless you think the US General and his French counterpart are simply there to partake in coffee.

Would I by any chance find this mysterious side agreement in the cease fire agreement?

And no, I don’t think the US General and his French counterpart are simply there to partake in coffee.

I think that they are there to monitor and assist, not enforce. I saw nothing in the cease fire agreement alluding to coffee.

Did you?

is in the article.

Because I see no mention of a side agreement either in your quotes, or inside the article, or inside the article in their quotes.

Nor do I see any mention of US or France being responsible for any enforcement, either in the cease fire agreement, or in the accompanying US letter of guarantees to Israel.

Where else can I possibly find this side agreement? Since you mentioned it, you must know something about it, no?

I am pretty sure it goes something like that...

umpteenth time that when a publication with an agenda or lean is sourcing from others it is that outside sourcing that is of interest and scrutiny. Do not think for one minute that I take on face value anything from Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Naharnet etc.

When an article like I put up is excerpted to reference something I point to for possible awareness and discussion it is precisely that and not every other nook and cranny or reference in an article. The excerpts were in direct reference to the supposed "Commission" of the Americans and the French charged with monitoring and enforcing the ceasefire. Especially important in light of accusations of violations from both Israel and Lebanon. So the excerpts also included a reference to that as well.

I had not seen this reference to this Commission in the previous discussions leading up to the ceasefire and so this would seem to be an important detail quite worthy of discussion regardless as to the source. Are the US and the French now far deeper into being committed in Lebanon and to what limits? What resources? What deployment of personnel? What rules of engagement? Why so behind the curve to the actual ceasefire date?

But in some eyes apparently if a news source you don't like says there's been an accident that is now blocking traffic then they would ignore that information and keep driving rather than saying "Hmmm......I didn't know that maybe I should think about this and check it out further."

As far as the issue of the "Commission" being so behind the curve it is valid to ask ourselves "If they thought it was such a good idea why didn't they have this ready to go?" Instead of polishing the car prior to the wedding wait until the rice is thrown and then a month later polish the car? Planning and readiness anybody?

On the whole subject of this "Commission" I'm curious as to how this came about and why it wasn't a very open part of discussions. I for one do not want the US drawn further and further into this madness because none of the state parties anywhere in the Middle East can be trusted in the slightest. I would put a great deal of apprehension out there about the French as well given over 100 years of their history in the region. Between the French and the British they should have swung from a yardarm long ago for their treachery in the region.

But now my tax money, military resources used etc. to clean up after the disingenuous, dishonest governments and their actions. As always it will be US tax money that goes to try and clean up the aftermath. It sure as hell won't be the governements of Israel or Iran sending their money to hospitals trying to fit children with artificial limbs and to pay for patching up horrendously burned bodies. What those two governments will do instead is to spend their money continuing to arm themselves and plot for how to further go at each other.

Yet someone wants to question why US citizens should be concerned about being drawn in deeper and deeper and the source that has the information that spurs the discussion? Well I am not afraid of discussion of topics because of the source that spurs the thought. I am intellectually secure enough to be able to read from many sources and not be afraid that I'm not able to think for myself.

So I make no apology to anybody nor should I because if someone is afraid of reading something because they aren't able to filter the bias and take something useful from the reading then that weakness is on them. They should improve themselves rather than relying upon some selected organization to tell them who to read.

If someone is incapable of seeing that the subject of making the US in any way responsible for monitoring and enforcement is setting the US up to take the blame when these parties keep going at it. Just like was done with UNIFIL. Did the American people who hoped for a ceasefire and peace know they were signing up to be the new UNIFIL? I highly doubt it. It might in fact be different if any of the state actors in the region could be trusted. But over 100 years of actions shows that none of the parties have demonstrated they should be trusted including the major Western governments.

the US and France are not there to enforce any terms of the cease fire agreement, therefore the non-commission is not behind the curve in enforcing anything,

The questions you have about the extent of US involvement in Lebanon, the reasons for it, the allocation of resources for the enforcement of the agreement, the deployment and the constitution of personnel, the rules of engagement, the commencement date of the cease fire, as well as several other topics, are all spelled out in the cease fire agreement or, in a few instances, referred by the text of the agreement to UN Resolution 1701.

You are welcome to take any content from any source and bring it up as long as you cite your sources, but if you want to raise awareness of a topic and bring it up for discussion, wouldn't it be helpful to be minimally aware of that topic and be able to discuss it on some basis that is material to that topic?

Oh, and Al Arabiya is still a questionable right wing source, a fact that is certainly material to the topic of the Lebanon-Israel cease fire agreement, and is well within the context of the awareness you want to bring and the discussion you want to have. While you may not be afraid to use it, the DU terms of use may not appreciate your bravery.

US/French role. It is lightly touched on here in a Reuters article from 11/27/24. So your doubt of the same reporting in Al Arabiya is unfounded and bias by a reader towards any publication when it is reporting a matter brought up for the purposes of discussion displays intellectual insecurity. Even in the Russian media there are items printed that spur further discussion and examination.

"One of the sticking points in the final days leading to the ceasefire's conclusion was how it would be monitored, Lebanon's deputy speaker of parliament Elias Bou Saab told Reuters.
A pre-existing tripartite mechanism between UNIFIL, the Lebanese army and the Israeli army would be expanded to include the U.S. and France, with the U.S. chairing the group, Bou Saab said.
Israel would be expected to flag possible breaches to the monitoring mechanism, and France and the U.S. together would determine whether a violation had taken place, an Israeli official and a Western diplomat told Reuters.
A joint statement by Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron said France and the U.S. would work together to ensure the deal is applied fully.
The U.S. and France will work within the Military Technical Committee for Lebanon (MTC4L) to enable and achieve a total Lebanese armed forces deployment of 10,000 soldiers to southern Lebanon.
The Lebanese armed forces will deploy forces, set road blocks and checkpoints on all the roads and bridges along he line delineating the Southern Litani area.
Israel and Lebanon will report any alleged violations to the tripartite mechanism and UNIFIL."

But in this case Al Arabiya reported on the same subject as Reuters had previously. I had not seen the Reuters article until today and so when I saw the reference in Al Arabiya I felt it was worth discussing. Now based on the confirmation that it was also in Reuters previously the slur against Al Arabiya for reporting the subject shows the problem of biased reading.

Furthermore to the topic of the US/French role if it is only to be one of receiving complaints of violations and then determining the validity of the complaint then certainly that is not some terribly complex matter that requires weeks and meetings to implement. Everybody knows each other's phone numbers. Pick up the phone and call. Send out the UNIFIL troops to ascertain the facts. Forward to each party the findings and any corrections needed. Basically the same as UNIFIL has been doing that everyone ignored anyway.

But Reuters also notes some glaring major issues of different interpretations by the parties about the ceasefire. The existence of which further validates that questioning the lack of preparation for the monitoring/reporting/investigation of accusations of violations is completely appropriate. Why was this not in place to coincide with the beginning of the ceasefire? Or did we really just get an announced start but without structure for conduct? It would appear so and we already see in the first week that accusations of violations aren't handled by the "committee" that doesn't exist yet and is late to their duties.

"Israeli officials have insisted that the Israeli army would continue to strike Hezbollah if it identified threats to its security, including transfers of weapons and military equipment to the group. An Israeli official told Reuters that U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, who negotiated the agreement, had given assurances directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel could carry out such strikes on Lebanon. Netanyahu said in a televised address after the security cabinet met that Israel would strike Hezbollah if it violated the deal. The official said Israel would use drones to monitor movements on the ground in Lebanon.

Lebanese officials (said this) is not in the deal that it agreed, and that it would oppose any violations of its sovereignty.
The provision is not in the deal published by the Lebanese cabinet and Lebanese officials say that it would oppose any violations of its sovereignty."

[ Please not my parenthesis words above are not in the original article from Reuters but were inserted to correct their editors missing sentence construction.]

The committee/group/commission is pointed out by Reuters, in the first quoted segment, even as some people around the world think that a grouping of UNIFIL, Israel, Lebanon, France and the US is not a "commission" or a "committee" however the Deputy Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament is quoted by Reuters as saying the US is chairing the group. Golly Mr. Peabody I think when you are the "chair" it means you're the head/control of something. Apparently we aren't supposed to call it a "commission, committee or group" but instead we shall forever pretend it doesn't exist.

So the "new" scheme is now....... what? I guess everybody thought it would work to make it up on the fly. That always works so well.

https://www.reuters.com/world/what-does-us-brokered-truce-ending-israel-hezbollah-fighting-include-2024-11-27/

My claim:

The US/French role, as described in the cease fire agreement:

and

and


These are the only parts of the agreement that mention US and/or France and the extent of their roles with respect to the agreement. Point out any specific claim that I made which is erroneous with respect to the agreement. Just one. I dare ya!

You can't.

It is interesting that your posts are full of references to third parties reporting on the agreement, and not a single reference to the agreement itself. Why such reluctance to cite what's in the source and such reliance on the carefully curated snippets from third-hand media reports on the source? And why such determination to deflect from the source?

While the discrepancies between third-party reporting on the same matter are to be expected, no matter who the parties are, I never relied on those discrepancies, unlike yourself, to make my points. For this purpose, I use the original source absent of any interpretations. The reason I do this is because it is reliance on third parties for interpretations at the expense of the source that is a sign of intellectual insecurity, and I am surprised you brought the subject up considering your choices of references. It is as if you are interested in spurring all further discussions on the cease fire agreement entirely on the basis of examining tertiary reports of your choice rather than the original source itself.

Sorry, this approach will never produce a halfass objective examination or a worthwhile discussion of the issue. Not interested.

text of the agreement unless you've been in the room where anything was done. Furthermore you yourself describe a committee etc. "chaired" by the US. Obvious to most of us around the world is that if you are the "chair" then it is of an entity whether you call it a "group", "committee" etc. But let me check for a moment: Golly Mr. Peabody is it possible to be a "chair" of just yourself? No Sherman everybody knows if you are the "chair" of something that means there are multiple parties and common parlance calls that a group or a committee. If they have a specific charge of duties they can also sometimes be referred to as a commission. But tell me Sherman who is having such a difficult time understanding this basic concept? Never mind Mr. Peabody. It is best thought of as an inscrutable mystery.

The text of the agreement in its entirety has been made public long ago. What is not in that agreement is speculative by definition.

It is not I who described the the US role in facilitating the cease fire, it is the cease fire agreement itself. And the US role is limited by the said agreement to, and I quote, this: " Israel and Lebanon resolve, in co-ordination with Unifil, to reformulate and enhance the tripartite mechanism (hereinafter: “the Mechanism”). The reformulated and enhanced Mechanism, hosted by Unifil, chaired by the US, and including France, will monitor, verify, and assist in ensuring enforcement of these commitments."

Monitor, verify and assist Israel and Lebanon through the above described mechanism.

What is so unclear about this? Couldn't you come up with a slightly less obviously misdirected and misguided failure of a sarcastic remark than the tirade I just read? How does any of what you insinuated change what the agreement says about the role of the US, and how does this role differ from anything that I previously stated it is?

If your rant constitutes anything resembling a basic concept, it is the the parties to the cease fire agreement, not the above referred to Sherman, who are having difficulty understanding it or your claims of its relevance to the agreement. The authors of the document must have been totally out of their minds to attempt to compose a document whose basic concept they were so poorly prepared to grasp.

Thank you for the honest non-response.