[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If the cease-fire doesn't hold, whose fault will it be: Israel's, or the US? Time to pay attention, and keep your scorecards handy.

UT asks an important question. Whereas this conflict once threatened to draw others into a big war, it now appears to be getting a logical response.

However the ceasefire is grossly flawed. It mostly ignores underlying reasons and threatens to put a too small and too lightly armed international peace force between two sides who have not yet been hurt sufficient to want peace. Hurt enough only to want a pause. A pause that still does not address the underlying disagreement.

From the New York Times:

U.N. Council Backs Measure to Halt War in Lebanon
A senior administration official in Crawford, Tex., where Mr. Bush is on vacation, said that it increasingly seemed that Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory, a realization that led the Americans to get behind a cease-fire.

Which answers how long Condi Rice could run interference for Israel. NY Times continues:

The Lebanese are also likely to be unhappy with the resolution’s failure to order Israel to relinquish control of Shebaa Farms, an area of the border that it seized in 1967 and that, while declared to be part of Syria by the United Nations, is claimed by Lebanon.

The resolution simply asks the secretary general to develop ideas on how to solve the dispute and report back on his findings in 30 days.

The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel. The measure says it is “mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging of the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel.”

The Washington Post adds further background:

Annan said the United Nations' failure to act sooner has "badly shaken the world's faith" in the body. "I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the council did not reach this point much, much earlier," he said.

The United States and France dismissed Lebanese demands for an immediate cease-fire that would prohibit Israel from carrying out even defensive military actions. Instead, the resolution requires Hezbollah to immediately cease all attacks, while calling on Israel to immediately cease only its "offensive military operations."

Ceasefire is a flawed compromise. It will be enough in the short term. But the world needed a long term solution. Ceasefire may have been too early for all sides to address real reasons for conflict - including too many Israeli centrist still thinking like extremists.

One more problem. Israel has done about 20 years of damage to Lebanon. The country is $40billion in debt due to the last unjustified Israeli attack on Lebanon. As Dr Landis of U of Oklahoma notes, who in their right mind is going to loan any money to Lebanon? That makes Lebanon unstable and a festering pool of extremism. It makes the Lebanon government unstable and weak. Another wound that was healing until Israel tore that wound wide open again. This so that the Israeli government could brag to its extremist that it too had a 'big dic'.

The entire conflict was unnecessary - a classic result of leaders with too much ego and too little respect for why healing takes 30+ years. They simply put the Middle East right back to 1980s.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government will fall as Israelis learn how weak this man was. He is a pathetically weak leader. He took a cheap and knee jerk reaction to appear strong and politically correct rather than act like a leader. He is weak and not leadership material - which is obvious once this latest war is analyzed from a logical and unemotional perspective. Sharon's and Arafat's leadership skills both were so superior to Olmert - who has about as much leadership ability as Gerald Ford.

That's a shame because it puts Likud right back in power.