If the Times truly believes that what they recommend from the comfort of their editorial room would work in the violent world of terror, they have been in the room too long and become even more irrelevant with this 'solution.' In a more perfect world, this would all be wonderful advice. In the violent world that confronts us, it is mere pap for its readers.
"The United Nations called on Hezbollah to disarm nearly two years ago. But the United States and Europe never brought real pressure to bear, believing that Hezbollah would shed its weapons as it was drawn deeper into electoral politics. It did not. Hezbollah, which sparked this crisis, believes mayhem is in its long-term interest, especially if it further weakens the Lebanese Army and government.
So it is not surprising that the Israelis are skeptical that another Security Council resolution will make any difference. A robust resolution is nevertheless a prerequisite for robust diplomacy and clear threats of punishment for all who resist. Ideally, the resolution would not only require all sides to stop fighting and authorize the deployment of a peacekeeping force, it would also order Hezbollah to withdraw from IsraelÂ?s borders and begin to disarm Â? and order Syria and Iran to stop supplying their client. The price for refusing should be international sanctions and complete isolation."
The U.N. cannot and will not enforce its resolutionsUnfortunatelyly, history shows they are corrupt, powerless in the face of evil, and can provide only words in the face of serious conflict. Yet the Times thinks they are relevant. So sad.
However, the Washington Post had it right on July 18, 2006 when their editors wrote:
"SOMEWHAT remarkably, the world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg managed to grasp the most important point about the current Middle East crisis: It "results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace." In other words, the current warfare in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel stems not from Israel's occupation of Arab lands or its holding of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, but from a blatant bid by Iran and Syria and their allies in Hamas and Hezbollah to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon.
It follows that the only satisfactory outcome to the conflict would be a decisive defeat for those extremist forces. Should Hamas and Hezbollah fail militarily, Arab democrats and those who favor the creation of a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel would see the removal of their largest obstacle, while the pernicious influence of Iran and Syria in the region would be curtailed."
No comments:
Post a Comment