More To Be Proud Of

[filkertom]

Our government's official line:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States declined to join calls for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, insisting such a pact would only be a temporary fix for the worsening crisis.

"What ... everybody wants to see is a cessation of violence," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"But nobody wants to see a cessation of violence done in such a way that you end up back where we are today at some point in the future."

A United Nations team, European Union foreign ministers and other key political players have called for a ceasefire, but Hezbollah has already rejected such a step on terms laid down by Israel.

A senior State Department official meanwhile spelled out Washington's objections to an immediate ceasefire.

"A ceasefire is a very specific term," the official said. It implies some sort of temporary status.

"You want to get to a place where you actually have a cessation of violence not only in the immediate term, but the longer term. Ceasefire implies a state of suspended hostilities which is not what you want," the official said.

"In order to have a lasting cessation of hostilities, you have to take those steps where the government of Lebanon exercises control over its entire space and Hezbollah is dismantled," the official said.

The official's comments bolstered the view of analysts who have interpreted Washington's statements on the crisis to mean that the Bush administration wants to allow Israel space to wipe out Hezbollah's infrastructure.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday said a ceasefire would only be considered on three conditions: that Hezbollah release two captured Israeli soldiers, the firing of Hezbollah rockets on Israeli towns cease, and that the militia be disarmed in line with a UN resolution.

In Damascus, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, whose country is a key backer of Hezbollah along with
Syria, called for a ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners between Israel and Arab militants.

"We need to reflect in a reasonable and just manner so that we can put an end to the crisis," Mottaki said after talks Monday with President Bashar al-Assad. "A ceasefire could be pronounced which would be followed by an exchange."

[Emphasis mine.]

So, basically, our State Department is demented.

Comments

[glitchphil.livejournal.com]

I won't dispute that our State Department is totally fucking demented.

But I agree. A ceasefire is absolutely necessary, but still only a temporary solution.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. But it's a little difficult to have a conversation when both sides are BOMBING EACH OTHER....

[glitchphil.livejournal.com]

Heh. Well you knouw our administration. They love a challenge!

Wait, no. They loved challenged people.

P.S.: I'm talking about Bush lol

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

So... We WANT an end to hostilities, but not at the cost of ending hostilities?

[nuveena.livejournal.com]

Well, of COURSE they don't want a stop to the fighting. War in the Israel will bring on the RAPTURE, and we'll ALL be TAKEN HOME TO JESUS!

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

Word, I'm afraid.
And it isn't the State Department that's so nuts, it's who's giving them their marching orders.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Devil's advocacy time, with a note that I do kinda wanna see much of the Administration rendered down into a wall, up against which its senior members would be placed:

That State Department quote has a point, though. I think there's something else in that bolded definition of "ceasefire" that's worth keeping in mind. Hostilities that are suspended and hostilities that are ended are different things, and the latter actually is preferable to the former in pretty much all cases.

If you just plonk down a ceasefire - out of the blue, without much of an attempt to address or fix the issues behind the conflict in the first place - then you really are likely to be back where you started in the end. Look at Korea, or the Middle East after 1956, 1967, 1973, Chechnya after the Russian defeat in 1996, and so on. While it can be preferable to the alternative, it's not a lasting solution.

Now, the other half of that problem is that actually ending the hostilities would involve a lasting solution of some sort or another, but I'll be buggered if I know what one is. Israel has their own ideas (either drive Hezbollah out of range of Israel, get Lebanon to disarm it, or destroy it themselves), to which I'm not entirely unsympathetic at this point, but if anyone out there has any ideas that are going to lead to a decade - or a week - of peace in the region, they don't seem to be saying much about it.

I dunno. I can't think of a way to handle this that won't be back at square one in a year.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

I think the point Tom is making is that you need a ceasefire before you can have diplomatic talks...

You can't end hostilities without first holding a ceasefire in order to DISCUSS the end of hostilities....

[thealien.livejournal.com]

Or, if there is no cease-fire, Israel will keep demanding what nobody is agreeing with right now...and they'll keep reducing everything in their path to a smoking ruin.

Some might say that if not saved by a cease-fire, Lebanon will have to give in.

(I'm not saying that I am one of those people. But that's certainly something that some people have to be thinking about.)

[skemono.livejournal.com]

Israel will keep demanding what nobody is agreeing with right now

What, the release of captured soldiers, and Hezbollah stop bombing them and finally disarm?

No, no-one agrees with that.

[thealien.livejournal.com]

Uh. Oooookay. I thought it was clear who I was talking about. Apparently not. Let me explain it for you...

The people who aren't agreeing are the ones having things demanded of them. You know, the ones who could actually agree to the demands? Neither I nor my government could hand over any IDF personnel that I'm aware of. I don't think we HAVE any. So that leaves the people I was talking about. Lebanon. Syria. Iran. Hezbollah.

Does that make sense now?

[skemono.livejournal.com]

Ah... my apologies. I'm very literal-minded, so when someone says "nobody" I take them to mean "nobody at all", period.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's true. Folks have to be careful not to equate an armistice with a peace agreement, to breathe a sigh of relief and then change the channel the moment people stop shooting and pull back for a moment.

(And you certainly can end hostilities without a ceasefire, but this particular instance isn't nearly one-sided enough for that to be feasible.)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. As I've said elsewhere on LJ, I'm making no comments about any side's rightness, wrongness, whatever. I don't know enough about either side's grievances, issues, history, etc., etc. What I know is, I don't like people killing each other. And, if any peace is going to be had, they're gonna have to stop killing each other for at least a few minutes and say, "All right, let's talk."

BushCo saying, effectively, "Listen, it really doesn't matter until everything's nailed down, so until then we're not going to encourage people to stop killing each other" is as evil as anything they've ever done... and they've done a lot.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Damn right! No wussy-ass suspended hostilities for US! We demand ACTIVE hostilities! U-S-A! U-S-A!....

Keep fighting, men! Some day all this smoking rubble will be OURS!

[don-tzu.livejournal.com]

Normally, I agree with you about 99% of the time Tom. But in this case, I have to disagree. Even when the militant groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) are 'at peace' with Israel, there is fighting. The difference here is that Israel is now fighting on its own terms rather than just combating an insurgency. Notice that the entire hostage taking was originally aimed at a prisoner exchange. It was a tactic to get more of the militant fighters back for another round. Now Syria and Iran are suggesting a peace proposal... a cease fire and prisoner exchange.

Each side has an agenda. Iran and Syria want to continue the war against Israel and the ideological war that it is a part of. Israel wants to end the war with their neighbors, preferably on favorable terms and with lots of dead militants. The US wants to see someone kick the crap out of Iran's favorite client organization. The EU would like to see their own Middle Eastern ethnic population happy so they want the fighting stopped for now but not permanently (what will make that segment happy). Russia and China want Iran happy because they like Iran's money in the former case and Iran's oil in the latter. Oh, and the UN would like the fighting stopped because they would really like all fighting to stop. I find that to be the best of all of the sides.

It's the oldest game currently running and not one that the players are done wanting to play. As a result, I think it will take an amazing charismatic leader to fix things... but I don't see one. Until then, standing between people that desperately want to destroy one another seems like a bad idea. They have to decide they are done fighting.

[skemono.livejournal.com]

I agree. As I commented in a previous post, the last time Hamas declared a "cease-fire" with Israel, all that really happened was that the media wondered whether the "ceasefire was threatened" by Israel retaliating to the attacks that Hamas never really ceased.

[kimpire.livejournal.com]

Explain to me why "Israel wants to end the war" is an agenda on par with "Iran and Syria want to continue the war" etc.?

[antongarou.livejournal.com]

'Cause that's our agenda?At least I *really* hope that's what the goverment wants.We have our agenda, they have theirs.I don't see him saying they are equal morally speaking-call me biased, but when one side wants peace and the other one wants a continuation of conflict to destruction I tend to see the first as having better moral standing.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

What makes you think it's just the State Departent that's demented...?

That conversation that got caught by a mic that should've been off, shows that both Tony and Bush are dead set against peace. They want the war to continue, everywhere, anywhere... all the time.

Right about now I'm seriously considering wether there's some sort of Evil spirit possesing them all, or something. Because the other explaination is that somehow they've all gone completely howling at the moon bonkers!

[antongarou.livejournal.com]

Actually, that remark that got caught is nearly on the money.Until Hizbullah stops firing rockets at Israel *nothing* will happen except more bloodshed.

[kimpire.livejournal.com]

The conversation that got caught by the mike demonstrates an understanding of the region far beyond anything you usually attribute to Bush and Blair. The UN doesn't seem to understand that merely declaring a unilateral cease-fire (and not retrieving Israel's lost soldiers, not doing anything to remove a terrorist organization from its borders, etc.) merely allows them to regroup and continue massing forces on our border for the next incursion.

Never forget that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was universally recognized as complete and that Hizbullah, as a part of the Lebanese government, has committed a direct act of war from one sovereign state to another. It wasn't an act of "resistance", of "freedom fighting", or any of the other bullshit that Europe tends to use to legitimize Islamic terrorism. And putting up a cease-fire won't solve the root of the problem: Iran and Syria trying to reduce international pressure on their own regimes by focusing the world's attention elsewhere through a terrorist proxy. Bush and Blair's conversation demonstrates an understanding of this that many other people seem to lack.

[zachkessin.livejournal.com]

A few thoughts from Israel

First of all this is not a war that is only supported by the far right wing. This war is pretty much supported by the entire political spectrum of Israel. You will note that the current defence minister is the head of the Labor Party and formally head of the major trade union here.

This started when Hamas and Hesbullah kidnapped Israeli soldiers in cross border raids. Not to mention fired over a thousand missles at Ashkalon, Sderot and other towns in the North west corner of the Negev.

As and Israeli I must say that any cease fire that does not include a return of the 3 Israeli soldiers who were captured, and a complete disarming of Hamas and Hesbullah's missle infrastructure would be met with a firm "NO". Hesbullah had at the start of this about 12,000 missles (maybe more) that have been fired at every city in the north of Israel.

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered why the U.S. government supports Israel at all, and Israel's actions in recent weeks strongly reinforce my doubt. I think a large component of our support is due to the fact that our defense contractors sell boatloads of expensive killing toys to Israel.

When the 1947 UN Partition Plan (UN General Assy Resolution 181) partitioned the land into Jewish and Arab states, the plan was unacceptable to the Arab inhabitants from the very beginning. From Wikipedia: "The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). Arab leaders also argued a large number of Arabs would be trapped in the Jewish State as a minority. While some Arab leaders opposed the right of the Jews for self-determination in the region, others criticised (sic) the amount and quality of land given to Israel. (The proposal, however, was not solely for the Jews in Palestine but for a secure homeland for Jews outside of Palestine.)"

"The 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukraine, United States, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen."

I think we can look at the last 60 years of history, nod, and say, "that was predictable." Maybe we should tell the Israeli government that they need to draft a peace treaty acceptable to all parties, and until they do, the U.S. is going to cut off financial support. Yes, they will have to give up land, including good land, water, settlements, and money. But I believe every conflict has a line of compromise that will dissatisfy all parties equally. How else will there ever be peace there? Blowing the opposition into the dark ages with U.S.-made weapons does not make me proud. You?

[antongarou.livejournal.com]

No it does not make me proud but you seem no to understand the main problem here:Hizbullah, Hamas and the rest of the muslim fanatics holding the sane population of the area hostage will not stop working until they annihilate Israel.They have declared so repeatedly and openly, rejecting attempts at diplomacy repeatedly except as a way to gain themselves time to prepare for further attack, for example when Hamas was elected Israel would probably have talked things over with it if they would have removed the parts of their charter calling for jihad and destruction of Israel, instead their announcements only grew more militant and extreme.Hizbullah hasn't stopped operations against Israel after the retreat of 2000 from all Lebanese soil, by UN resolution, instead of disarming itself and going on as a political party it continued shooting at Israeli soldiers, kidnapping them(and an Israely civilian) and generally thumbing its nose at UN resolution 1559, sometimes with the passive or active abettment of Unifil.

The only treaty the Hizbullah and Hamas will accept is one that includes our destruction.That result is unacceptable(at least to me), so we're stuck with fighting them until someone manages to find a way to make them wither and die, or change radically.I also recommend you read *this* (http://sandmonkey.org/2006/07/17/our-left-their-left/) before you continue, and take into account we've been at peace with Egypt for the last 20-30 years.

[batyatoon]

"But nobody wants to see a cessation of violence done in such a way that you end up back where we are today at some point in the future."

As opposed to a continuation of violence done in such a way that we end up back where we are today at some point in the future?

[mneme]

*shrug*. As much as I dislike the Administration, I think they're right here.

It's one thing to stop violence when the other guys are talking shit about you. It's another when they're planning to attack you.

It's a third thing when they're at this moment firing missiles at you and launching raids.

The cycle of violence is real, and a real problem. But the cycle of -hate- is just as real, and simply unilaterally ceasing violence doesn't make it go away -- especially when it's largely nationally and religously -based.

Near as I can tell, the long term possiblities for Israel are threefold:

1. Remove Israel from the Arab World.
2. Change the Arab world enough that it accepts Israel.
3. Accept a never-ceasing state of war.

#3 is the status quo.
#1 is unacceptable to Israel.
#2 is...very difficult.