Sunday, August 13, 2006

How effective can a cease-fire be?

Someone else has probably come up with something similar, but with the upcoming cease-fire, I couldn't help but think of this. Here's a news article that might have appeared in an alternate universe:
U.S. Presses for European Cease-Fire
May 24, 1940

Washington, D.C. - President Roosevelt yesterday morning reiterated his call for a cease-fire between Germany and France, urging the two countries to renew diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. League of Nations General Secretary Joseph Avenol issued a simultaneous statement from Geneva, calling upon both nations "to set an example for world peace."

As the Germany army continued its seemingly unstoppable drive toward Paris, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud once again threatened to take "the Hitler regime" to the Permanent Court of International Justice for "this unjustifiable aggression." He also urged the League to strengthen the Disarmament Commission and deploy peacekeeping forces along Germany's borders with France and the Low Countries.
In that same universe, perhaps the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938 was also hailed as a "cease-fire" in the best interest of world peace. Oh, pardon me, it basically was in this universe too: "peace for our time."

A cease-fire will not work if only one side will honor it; that much should be obvious enough, right? So what did Israel get in return for withdrawing from Gaza? When it receives the very same -- namely more of their civilians killed as the terrorists sign with one hand and backstab with other -- for this new "cease-fire," it will only prove the truth of George Santayana's observation about those who do not remember the past.

I cannot believe Israel bowed to "international pressure" and accepted the agreement. I am even more incredulous that United States officials, representing the country that is Israel's only true friend in the world, naively sought any cessation of hostilities. Israel will cease its attacks in about an hour from now, and he who thinks the terrorists will ever uphold their end is a fool. It has been said that "Ye shall know them by their fruits," so ask yourself: who have always deliberately and unrelentingly targetted Israeli civilians? They may not fight under the Hezbollah name after Monday morning, but you can safely bet a dinar that they'll never stop. Regardless of their name, they'll still be the same people, from the suicide bombers to the leaders.

With the last six decades to illustrate how trustworthy the Arab nations are in their dealings with Israel, how can any reasonable, intelligent people, especially those who are ostensibly "pro-Israel," push for this outright farce? We should have let Israel clean up once and for all, for in war, the only end you should want is through total victory. Total victory, meaning the complete destruction of the enemy's will to wage further war (think Hiroshima and Nagasaki), is the only option when the enemy cannot be trusted to honor an agreement.


Blogger Mike said...

"We should have let Israel clean up once and for all, for in war, the only end you should want is through total victory."

The IDF and most of the Israeli population would agree with you. Unfortunately, PM Olmert did not. You have the causation backwards regarding the U.S. pressure for an agreement; everything I've read seems to indicate we only called for it to give Olmert diplomatic cover after he indicated he wanted one.

Olmert is on his way out; within weeks, I'd wager. He's basically been a complete failure as PM.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home