There are so many “plans” to stop the violence in the Israeli-Islamist War that I thought I’d lay them out in one post so that you can see how hard it is going to be to achieve a halt anytime soon.

The major players at the UN - France vs. Britain and the US - and the Middle East – US/Israel vs. Lebanon/Hizbullah – all have their own ideas on how to stop the war. And the differences are not insignificant, not by any means. Let’s look at the US-Israeli positions first.

US/ISRAEL

1. No “cease fire” (an important word choice) until an international force is “in place.”

2. International force would occupy a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon (size to be determined)

3. International force must have rules of engagement that allow it to shoot back in order to keep Hizbullah from re-occupying the south.

4. Hizbullah must be disarmed – either by the Lebanese themselves or by the International force.

5. Immediate release of Israeli prisoners.

6. Lebanese Army will take over from the International force once they are trained and deployed.

7. Lebanese government will have sovereignty over all of Lebanon.

Now here’s the Lebanese government/Hizbullah formulation:

LEBANON/HIZBULLAH

1. Immediate cease fire along with an immediate withdrawal of IDF forces.

2. No international force – only an augment to the UNIFIL force already there.

3. No buffer zone and Hizbullah gets to re-occupy positions in the south.

4. Lebanese government will disarm Hizbullah following discussions carried out in the context of the National Dialogue.

5. Release of all Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails in return for the two captured IDF soldiers.

6. Resolution of the Shebaa Farms issue with the UN turning over the tiny slice of land to Lebanon.

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah (who is temporarily calling the negotiating shots) has made it clear that any international force not connected to UNIFIL will be considered invaders. And the Israelis have agreed to release 3 Lebanese prisoners in exchange for their two captured soldiers.

Now, what’s going on at the UN?

UNITED NATIONS

Roughly speaking, France has taken the Lebanese positions while Condi Rice has modified the American position marginally in order to come a little closer to what the French are asking:

Efforts are under way at the United Nations to set up a mechanism that would facilitate “direct or indirect” Israeli-Lebanese discussions, senior Israeli diplomatic officials said Thursday.

According to the officials, under this proposal “everything would be discussed: a cease-fire, the Shaba Farms issue, the prisoner exchange, and deployment of the multinational force.”

According to UN and American officials, an arrangement of this kind, which would include a pair of Security Council resolutions, is now within reach.

Here is the French proposal:

FRANCE

1. Immediate cease fire.

2. No discussion of other issues until the guns stop.

3. All “political issues” like the disarming of Hizbullah and deployment of the Lebanese army to be worked out before France or any international troops occupy the buffer zone.

4. Weak rules of engagement for the international force.

How close can Condi come to that position? Here’s what she and the Brits have come up with:

The solution to these divergent positions has come in the form of two resolutions. The first, to be voted on in the coming days, will establish a “cessation of hostilities” and articulate a political framework for the future.

Israeli officials said that this document would likely be similar to a statement issued by the G-8 soon after the crisis began last moth, and include a call to release the captive Israeli soldiers, for a cessation of hostilities, and for beefing up the Lebanese army.

The first resolution would be window dressing. It would call for “a cessation of hostilities” rather than a “cease fire.” In the cuckoo land of diplomacy, this makes everyone happy. It is immediate which pleases the French but it doesn’t use the words “cease fire” which pleases us and the Israelis.

We also want to append a call for sanctions against any nation that resupply’s Hizbullah. France is frowning on that because they want to engage the Syrians to help rein in Hizbullah. But as we’ve seen with sanctions elsewhere, there are ways around them so in the end, France will probably give in.

This resolution will be trumpeted by the media but will mean little. It is the second resolution that will have teeth (if any) and that will tell the tale as to whether or not any cease fire will mean a pause of a couple of weeks or a genuine solution:

The second resolution, which would follow after an as yet determined amount of time, would set the composition and mandate of a multinational force and the contours of a new buffer zone in southern Lebanon. It would also assert the authority of the Lebanese government and propose help to the Lebanese Army to gain control of its borders.

Israel’s position is that the IDF first needs to clear the buffer zone, one currently being carved out by the IDF, in order for the multinational force to move in. Israel wants this force to be “an international army,” not an observer force like UNIFIL, but rather one strong enough that it can impose its will.

The real sticking point here is what happens to the buffer zone in the meantime? France wants Israel to withdraw and the UNIFIL force occupy the buffer zone until the International force can be constituted. Israel and the US naturally are balking at that idea.

The solution may involve a token international “rapid response” force that could be flown in immediately and buttress UNIFIL’s efforts. Israel quite naturally is very wary of this and may put the kibosh on the entire idea – unless Washington insists:

There are two possibilities for solving this remaining problem. The IDF could maintain its position until the arrival of an international force, a position clearly favored by the Israeli government and opposed by Lebanon, among other countries. The other option is for the current UNIFIL mission to be beefed up. Its troops could then be integrated into whatever larger, more robust force arrives. Israel, considering UNIFIL to be weak, opposes this solution.

This remains a major point of contention between the American and French. As French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told France-Inter radio on Thursday, “We are working well with the Americans, working night and day. We are advancing toward a common resolution, but we’re not yet there. There is still work to do.”

That actually sounds more hopeful than is realistic. After spilling all that blood (and having Washington stick its neck out in support of Israel’s offensive) it is doubtful that we will compromise when it comes to Israeli forces in the buffer zone leaving until a sizable force of International soldiers who can enforce their will by having “robust” rules of engagement is in place. This will probably be a sticking point that takes another 10 days to 2 weeks to resolve.

In the meantime, here’s my speculation.

The first resolution calling for a “cessation of hostilities” will pass easily. Israel will probably stop bombing outside the buffer zone in Lebanon (or perhaps stop bombing all together). This will put pressure on Nasrallah to make good on his promise to stop launching rockets into northern Israel. It will not stop the IDF from carrying out “mop-up” operations in whatever buffer zone they can carve out between now and the passage of that first resolution.

The Security Council will have a devil of a time coming to an agreement on the second resolution. In the end, Hizbullah will probably be kicked out of southern Lebanon but still get to keep their guns. The Lebanese government will be just as weak as it was before the conflict started but will perhaps have assistance from the international community in training its army (which I predict will include Hizbullah as an independent command thus making them part of the army rather than a militia that needs to be disarmed) and rebuilding its devastated infrastructure.

And then both sides will lick their wounds, re-arm, and get ready for the next go around.