Hezbollah's Armaments

It should be abundantly clear that Hezbollah is not just a simple militia, but is a state supported and supplied military force. Maybe the talking heads on the idiot box have underestimated the Israeli intelligence with regards to their assessment of Hezbollah's weapons.

Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made Milan missiles, the army confirmed on Friday.

In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks _ mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles.

"They (Hezbollah guerrillas) have some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in the world," said Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior military intelligence officer who retired earlier this summer.

"This is not a militia, it's an infantry brigade with all the support units," Kuperwasser said.

Israel contends that Hezbollah gets almost all of its weaponry from Syria and by extension Iran, including its anti-tank missiles.

The UNSC resolutions are not doing much discussing of the disarmament of Hezbollah. In fact it looks like Lebanon would prefer to have no resolution rather than having the fighting stop.

Lebanon's parliamentary Speaker, Nabih Berri, who represents Hezbollah in negotiations, said the biggest problem is the failure to order Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. He called the draft one-sided. "If Israel has not won the war but still gets all this, what would have happened had they won?"

While not rejecting outright the draft resolution, Lebanon has demanded it be amended. Under a proposal put forward by Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahoud, Israel would relinquish the territory it has captured to United Nations peacekeepers who would then, within 72 hours, assist the Lebanese army in deploying throughout southern Lebanon.

But surely no one should be surprised that a "cessation of hostilities," as opposed to a more permanent ceasefire, would permit the parties to hold their ground while also agreeing to hold their fire.

The problem, said a European diplomat close to the negotiations, is that not only is Israel to be permitted to hold its ground, but it's also to be given a right of self-defence not accorded to Hezbollah. (The resolution calls for "the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.")

I find it baffling that Hezbollah would be afforded a right to self-defense when they were the aggressor in the first place. I'm also baffled by the thought that the UN peacekeepers would assist the Lebanese army in taking control of southern Lebanon. From what we've seen in the past few weeks, there is very limited separation between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah. I'd think it would be more prudent to have a reactionary force in place in southern Lebanon for a period of time to ensure that Hezbollah is disarmed prior to letting the Lebanese army take control.

I'm also wondering how the UN is going to deal with Hezbollah firing rockets from positions in close proximity to their positions. With the past reputation of the UN peacekeeper forces, I would think that Hezbollah would have a wonderful shield that would only be protecting Hezbollah. For you know that if Israel defends itself and strikes a peacekeeper, the world is going to go insane. Exactly what Hezbollah would want.

Why the UN would assume that a terrorist organization will allow itself to be disarmed and not attempt to use the UN as a propaganda device is frankly puzzling.