The Redhunter

- Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

- Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory ... ;

- Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

... the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

- deployment of an international force in Lebanon ... ;

- establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

- elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the
consent of its government ... ;

- Requests UNIFIL (the UN Interim Force in Lebanon), upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons;

There's more, but these are the essentials. The Jersulalem Post has the full text of the proposed resolution.

These terms are all fine and good, but as Rich Lowry points out, it will "be meaningless if Hezbollah doesn't accept the ceasefire, which seems quite possible." Lowry doesn't say why, but I would think that they will only accept the cease-fire if they believe that the attempt to disarm them and keep them disarmed will not be serious.

Beyond that, words on paper are all very fine, but as we saw in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Security Council was very good at passing resolutions, but very poor at enforcing them. Why should Syria and Iran stop arming Hezbollah? Anyone who suggests that a package of economic and other incentives will work wins the dunce-of-the-day award. The reason why UNIFIL, which has been in southern Lebanon since 1978, hasn't done anything is that one, the nations donating troops to that effort don't want any of their soldiers killed, two they see peacekeeping as a money-making operation, and three, many outright sympathize with Hezbollah.

And why should Iran and Syria cease arming Hezbollah? Both know, or think, that the chance of being attacked by the US is nil. They're not interested in economic incentives. Syria will probably that they'll stop arms shipments, but will secretly begin to do so. Israel and the US will detect some of the shipments, the usual suspects will shake their heads and tut-tut that the shipments should stop, but that will be it. Then, once things have calmed down for awhile, Hezbollah will resume it's attacks on Israel and we'll be right back where we started.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad says that the solution is to destroy Israel.