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

[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.