The ugly cycle of cease fires that prolongs the war in the Middle East

CNN:

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday announced that they would support a U.N. cease-fire resolution to end the Mideast crisis and the use of a multinational force to stabilize southern Lebanon.

The leaders said the force would help Lebanese troops take control of the south.

Fifty-one Israelis and 398 Lebanese have been killed since the July 12 capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerillas. (Full story)

The two sides have been pummeling each other for 17 days. Hezbollah has been lobbing dozens of rockets a day into northern Israel as the Jewish state has used airstrikes, artillery and ground troops against targets in Lebanon.

...

There is more to this sorry story. One of the reasons this war has festered for nearly 60 years is that when ever the Muslim forces are on the ropes the whining victimhood lobby steps in the bail them out so that they can lick their wounds and rearm for the next war. Of all the cease fires since 1948 has there ever been one that was to Israel's advantage? Cease fires do not promote peace in the Middle East they prolong the conflict and give the Muslims another chance. Every cease fire with Hezballah has seen them come back even stronger and still determined to destroy Israel. So why not let Israel destroy Hezballah and make the world a better place? Will the next war with Hezballah be with an Iranian nuke? Is there any Mechanism that the UN could put in place that would be effective to stop them? Certainly Resolution 1559 was an abject failure. It was another example of the impotence of the UN just like their so called "peace keepers" on the border.

If the UN and the rest of the world bail out Hezballah again, it is just going to lead to a much more violent confrontation in the future. It is also going to again highlight the impotence of the UN, because the chances of it getting Hezballah disarmed are at best remote. What is more likely to happen is that it will be incorporated into the Lebanon army and put back in the same positions it has held for the last six years.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more