Well, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1701 calling for a ceasefire between Israel and the terrorist thugs of Hezbollah. Cue the news media’s orgasmic paroxysms of joy. Peace! Finally, we have peace for our time! Release the white doves and put flowers in the rifle barrels. Peace! We finally have peace!

Yeah, right.

The problem is that Lebanon’s army can’t force Hezbollah to disarm. Here is the news as reported in The Australian News site:

IT was supposed to be the day the maligned Lebanese army took control of the country’s borders and policed the UN ceasefire.

Instead, the military commanders were left humiliated and troops stranded as Hezbollah told them not to disarm its fighters.

The first infantry units were preparing to head south when Hezbollah showed who controls the area by announcing it would not surrender its weapons.

General Michel Sleiman, commander-in-chief of the Lebanese army, and his lieutenants had been invited to join cabinet meetings to finalise plans to deploy the 15,000-strong force south of the Litani River.

But they were lectured by Hezbollah’s two ministers in the coalition Government on what the army could and could not do.

What a surprise! Hezbollah appears to have its own agenda and doesn’t want to kowtow to the Lebanese government. This is something that Orson Scott Card wrote about back on July 16, 2006, before Israel launched its land campain:

If Israel sends its troops into southern Lebanon, you can be sure that it will be condemned as a violation of “Lebanese sovereignty.”

What Lebanese sovereignty?

Either the Lebanese government controls southern Lebanon or it doesn’t.

If it is sovereign Lebanese territory, then Lebanon as an entirety is responsible for the terror missile attacks launched against Israeli civilians by the Hezbollah forces that openly rule there. Therefore, Lebanon has committed acts of war against Israel, and Israel is perfectly justified in any military action it takes against the entirety of Lebanon.

But if the Lebanese government declares that it is not responsible for missiles launched from that region of their nominal territory, then by that admission they confess that it is hot territory for which the Lebanese government claims responsibility. In which case, Hezbollah is the ruler of that territory (which it is), and Israel, regardless of lines on a map, has a right to invade Hezbollah territory and destroy the capacity of that enemy to make war against them.

It appears that the Lebanese government doesn’t control southern Lebanon after all. Are you really surprised?

UPDATE (8/14/2006 4:39:48 PM): Looks like the dynamic duo of Cox and Forkum have identified this same problem:


The useless U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1701 calling on a cease fire in Lebanon between the Israeli military and the Hezbollah thugs funded and armed by Iran.

Interestingly enough at the time of this writing, the lead graphic on the U.N.’s page for the “Situation in the Middle East”, has some text about the fighting in Lebanon, but contains a shifting image of an oil spill with the following caption highlighted by me: “The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is gravely concerned about the impact of an oil spill along Lebanon’s coast.”

UN wacky priorities

But I digress.

Every time I hear someone gush about how wonderful this resolution is, I get a flashback of Neville Chamberlain waving a bit of paper and proclaiming, “I believe it is peace for our time.” And I think this will be as effective as that resolution was. I’m not the only one who see this as meaningless. Hezbollah thug-in-chief, Sheik Hassan, also sees this as meaningless for peace:

He called continued resistance to the Israel offensive “our natural right.”

The Shiite cleric also predicted more hard fighting to come.

“We must not make a mistake, not in the resistance, the government or the people, and believe that the war has ended. The war has not ended. There have been continued strikes and continued casualties,” he said in a taped television address.

Claudia Rosett of National Review Online recognizes this cease fire for what it really is. It won’t be a time of Hezbollah beating their swords into plowshares and singing “Kumbaya” arm-in-arm with Israelis.

Unfortunately, if Resolution 1701 has any effect at all, its real meaning is that we now embark on a period in which Hezbollah will seize the opportunity to regroup and reload. The feeble and compromised mix of U.N. peacekeepers and the Lebanese army, which is the force authorized in this resolution, will fail to stop them. Iran and Syria will proceed apace with their terrorist infection and subjugation of Lebanon. The U.N. will wave around this latest piece of paper to try to prevent Israel from defending itself, or, for that matter, defending the rest of us against the “Death to Israel! Death to America!” Hezbollah agenda. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, enjoying yet another confirmation of the U.N.’s mincing impotence in the face of guns, bombs, rockets, and terror, will continue his fevered preparations to roll out the nuclear bomb.

Cox and Forkum sum it up well with their political cartoon titled, “Snatching Defeat”:

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

UPDATE (8/12/2006 10:25:54 AM): John Hinderaker of Power Line sees that this call for peace is destined to fail:

So Hezbollah is to be disarmed. By whom? When? How? The resolution is silent. In fact, the disarming of Hezbollah isn’t going to happen; it can’t, unless Hezbollah unilaterally decides to disband. And why would it do that? Likewise, the resolution decrees that no weapons will be shipped into Lebanon except with the approval of that country’s government. That isn’t going to happen either. Iran and Syria will continue to supply Hezbollah.

So the agreement will fail. Hezbollah will emerge with heightened stature as the first Arab force to fight Israel without being crushed. And Israel will have to renew the battle at some future date, under conditions that will almost certainly be more difficult than at present.

So it’s hard for me to see this deal as anything but a defeat for all who want to vigorously oppose the advance of Islamic imperialism in the Middle East and beyond.

There are vocal people standing up for Hezbollah and against Israel, and there are people who are calling for peace.

The simple symbols printed on their T-shirts and signs summed up the reason for their protest.

They want peace.

A group of about 40 people, wearing and holding peace symbols, gathered Thursday at the corner of Sanborn Street and Pine Grove Avenue in Port Huron.

They “demand peace” by calling for an end to the Iraq war and fighting in the Middle East.

But the reality is that they are not demanding that peace break out, they are demanding that the fighting stop immediately. Unfortunately, that is not the same as peace. Thomas Sowell explains this well in his townhall.com post today:

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

“Peace” movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called “peace” movements — that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war….

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said “war is hell” more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia — not by cease fires or bowing to “world opinion” and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

“World opinion,” the U.N. and “peace movements” have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

I would label the protesters in Port Huron who are demanding peace as “hand-wringers demanding a ceasefire.” They don’t like the war, so in the name of peace, they demand that we leave Iraq right away. And what would be the result if we did that? Would it be peace? The last time we pulled out of a major engagement due to public pressure, the result was millions of murdered people in Vietnam and Laos. There was a form of peace there after we left — the peace of the dead.

Peace comes through winning the war and making the loser beg to sit at the negotiation table. Peace does not come from going to the negotiation table and signing some documents, unless the war has already been fought and won. Don’t believe me? In an attempt to appease the Germans, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sat down at the negotiation table with Hitler, but there was no peace. Germany annexed the Sudetenland that same year, invaded Poland the next, and invaded the rest of Europe by 1940. That was no peace. But after Japan signed the terms of surrender on the USS Missouri, there was peace between the U.S. and Japan for more than 60 years.

I’ll take real and lasting peace through victory any time.