Ceasefire

Submitted by John R (United States), Aug 13, 2006 at 21:14

I agree that there should be no cease fire until Hezbollah is destroyed. As to what the terms are of the new resolution, whether it would engage international forces into disarming Hezbollah or not, I do not know, but if it does not include a framework for disarming Hezbollah, I would have to say the Israelis have lost.

Certainly one can argue that Israel have won but the key is the Arab world's perception, not the US or the Western World. In this case, I'm afraid a ceasefire would be taken by the Arab or Muslim world as victory because Hezbollah was able to sustain itself and do damage against Israel, that it's able to stand up, that is has worn out the Israeli military, giving the impression that Israel is now very much vulnerable.

John R.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".