Want more terrorism? Reward terrorist aggression. That seems to be what the increasingly moronic NY Times editorialists are urging. From an editorial yesterday:

It is now 26 days since Hezbollah and Israel began their latest combat [1] — a very long time for the world to allow such a deadly conflict to rage in the Middle East powder keg. Yet the fighting still continues. Diplomats still dither over cease-fire details. Innocent people still keep dying.

Enough. This is the week that the international community must impose a truce , to be followed, in short order, by a political settlement [2] and the dispatch of a robust international force to patrol Lebanon’s oft-violated border with Israel [3].

The Security Council now appears within reach of an agreement on how to make this happen. Two successive resolutions will be offered.

The first, based on an agreement over the weekend between the United States and France, would call on both sides to stop fighting, with their forces, at least for now, remaining in place. The resolution would also outline steps for achieving a permanent cease-fire along with a more lasting political settlement [4]. For now, the truce would be monitored by a beefed-up version of the weak United Nations monitoring force already present in south Lebanon.

A second resolution, meant to follow in two to three weeks, would fill in the details of the political settlement, to be worked out in consultation with Israel, Lebanon and Syria, and would authorize the long-term international force.

Several crucial details remain to be ironed out. The first resolution, as it currently stands, would permit Israeli forces to remain in Lebanon, at least until the second resolution is approved and the new international force put in place. That provision has sparked sharp opposition in the Arab world. The longer Israeli troops remain on Lebanese soil, the more likely they are to become a magnet for renewed Hezbollah attacks [5]. Israel would, of course, respond, and that would be the end of any truce.

Efforts must therefore quickly turn toward negotiating a comprehensive and lasting political settlement [6]. This needs to go beyond immediate issues like returning the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, releasing Lebanese prisoners [7] and determining the size of the zone to be patrolled by the international force.

It also needs to address such festering issues as Hezbollah’s refusal to heed U.N. requests to disarm, and Hezbollah’s claim, contrary to U.N. findings, that some of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is not part of Syria [8], but really belongs to Lebanon. Anything not resolved now risks setting off new fighting in the future.

Troops must also be lined up for the international security force. The idea is to draw them from NATO countries like France, Italy and Turkey, along with perhaps Australia. None of these countries want to send soldiers if either Israel or Hezbollah is going to keep shooting. Therefore the political settlement has to be packaged so that both sides can claim some sort of victory [9].

1. Actually, Hezbollah began the combat, as anyone with half a brain (not a NYT criterion for employment) knows
2. Been tried before, but, as usual, the Islamists don't abide by agreements
3. Like the Hezbollah enablers called UNIFIL?
4. Like Resolution 1559?
5. Because Hezbollah was so friendly towards the Israelis after they withdrew from Lebanon
6. Hezbollah's raison etre is to destroy Israel. there is no negotiating with that.
7. Maybe if Samir Kuntar killed Bill Keller's daughter, the NYT wouldn't be such apologists for Hezbollah. Whom are we kidding.
8. Right. The best way to get Hezbollah to bow to the international community is for the UN to backtrack, negotiate with itself and accomodate Hezbollah's demands in response to acts of terror. Brilliant! Now, any time an Islamist disagrees with a UN finding, all he's got to do is start a war and that will trigger all sorts of concessions.
9. The NY Times is now on record recommending that Hezbollah be provided with a way to claim victory. This may be the most astonishingly inane, idiotic, absurd and downright stupid bit of lunacy that has ever been published. Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran, which is flexing its regional muscles and, oh by the way, developing nuclear weapons as part of an apocalyptic mission. How, exactly, will bolstering Iran's terrorist arm help the world confront the Iranian threat?

Bill Keller's editorialists have made some naive and remarks in the past. But this editorial reveals so much ignorance of global affairs, not to mention middle eastern history, that it boggles the mind how the NY Times is considered the newspaper of record.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/4000

---

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

What is the Vice-President's last name?

(NOTE: You must get this correct, otherwise, your comment will be rejected.)

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)