Condi and Resolution 1701

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote a piece about the war in the Middle East, the cease-fire, and the hope for peace.

From The Washington Post:

For the past month the United States has worked urgently to end the violence that Hezbollah and its sponsors have imposed on the people of Lebanon and Israel. At the same time, we have insisted that a truly effective cease-fire requires a decisive change from the status quo that produced this war. Last Friday we took an important step toward that goal with the unanimous passage of U.N. Resolution 1701. Now the difficult, critical task of implementation begins.

The agreement we reached has three essential components:

First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers.

...Second, this resolution will help the democratic government of Lebanon expand its sovereign authority.

...Finally, this resolution clearly lays out the political principles to secure a lasting peace: no foreign forces, no weapons and no authority in Lebanon other than that of the sovereign Lebanese government.

The implementation of Resolution 1701 will not only benefit Lebanon and Israel; it also has important regional implications. Simply put: This is a victory for all who are committed to moderation and democracy in the Middle East -- and a defeat for those who wish to undermine these principles with violence, particularly the governments of Syria and Iran.

I think Condoleezza Rice is a brilliant woman. I have the greatest respect for her.

And what she lays out here sounds good, and it would be good, in a perfect world.

Resolution 1701 is supposed to be, as she puts it, "a good first step."

Theoretically, it would be. Realistically, it's not.

Why should we even entertain the thought that the resolution will ever be implemented?

Rice doesn't mention UN Security Council resolution 1559.

Had that 2004 resolution been implemented, then the bloodshed of the past month may have been avoided entirely.

Lebanon did not do what it agreed to do then. Why would it follow through now?

Why are we pretending that UN resolutions have any value whatsoever?

1701

1559

What difference does it make?

The Israeli hostages haven't been returned.

Hezbollah isn't disarming; it's reloading.

Rice warns:

This is a fragile cease-fire, and all parties must work to strengthen it. Our diplomacy has helped end a war. Now comes the long, hard work to secure the peace.

All true.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I must be realistic. For the cease-fire to hold, "all parties must work to strengthen it."

They aren't going to work together and they won't, because the terrorists don't want peace.

She concludes:

Innocent people in Lebanon, in Israel and across the Middle East have suffered long enough at the hands of extremists. It is time to overcome old patterns of violence and secure a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. This is our goal, and now we have laid out the steps to achieve it. Our policy is ambitious, yes, and difficult to achieve. But it is right. It is realistic. And ultimately, it is the only effective path to a more hopeful future.

Overcoming the "old patterns of violence" is long overdue.

Innocents have suffered far too long at the hands of extremists.

The problem is that the extremists are still there and celebrating what they claim has been a military victory.

I agree that the policy Rice explains is an ambitious one and will be difficult to achieve.

I disagree with her when she says, "It is realistic."

It's not.

The extremists have no intention of turning over a new leaf and letting go of their old patterns of violence.