I have to admit that I’m baffled by the US policy against the establishment of an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in the latest Middle East conflict, especially given the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon. The twisted rationale for this stance seems to be that an immediate ceasefire won’t contribute to a lasting peace. In other words, let the killing continue.
By definition, a ceasefire is simply a suspension of hostilities. It is in no way connected to longer term peace deals, and nor should it be. However, ceasefires are generally a step in the right direction when it comes to negotiating such deals. The longer this conflict lasts, the greater the potential for it to expand beyond the borders of Israel and Lebanon. And that makes me wonder if that is exactly what the Bush Administration wants to happen.
With conservative and religious pundits, as well as tele-journalists (see Media Matters for America here, here and here), discussing the coming of World War III and Armageddon, the American public is being primed for the next military intervention. An immediate ceasefire would only stand in the way of a possible escalation in hostilities in the region and thus might remove any justification for further US military involvement in the Mid-East. I do hope that I’m wrong about this, however al-Qaeda’s declaration of a holy war against Israel is surely a step in the wrong direction.
In the meantime, Israel has been given a virtual license to kill in Lebanon even though US diplomats claim that isn’t the message being sent. However, the Israelis know how to read between the lines and they’ll continue the violence until the international community forces them to stop.
4 comments:
I agree, I was baffled by the logic of Rice. More killing will lead to a lasting peace??? But now I see this morning that Bush & Blair are calling for a cease fire, I guess a flip flop by Bush & Co. is A-OK.
Oops, sorry, I was not quite correct, Bush & Blair did not call for a cease fire but said: "We agree that a multinational force must be dispatched to Lebanon quickly to augment the Lebanese army as it moves to the south of that country. An effective multinational force will help speed delivery of humanitarian relief," I guess that is a diplomatic tip-toe around actually calling for a cease fire.
And even after the civilian deaths in Qana, still no call for a ceasefire or truce. In fact, the US was against using such language in any public statements. The realistic possibility that something will improve beyond the pre-war status quo, which is the Bush Administration's bar for a ceasefire, is unlikely in the short term. Again, is that what they want?
As I read it, Bush is setting up four or five preconditions that involve agreements with Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the UN all to be made before calling for a cease fire. Does anyone actually believe anything near to that will happen? Bush needs a reality check.
Post a Comment