Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Cease Fire in the Middle East!

It sure would be nice if the United States and Israel would agree to a cease-fire in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Then there would be no more hostilities in the entire region, right? Wrong. Cease fires in the Middle East come a dime a dozen, and are always broken.

"[T]here have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent." —Thomas Sowell

Yasser Arafat was the king of cease-fire violation. If you click on the image associated with this post, you will see Arafat stating "We are implementing the cease fire." To his left, the translator says "We are temporarily out of ammo and need time to reload." Why would Israel suddenly begin trusting either Hamas or Hizballah, who have been working hand in glove with the PLO since Arafat was in his prime?

If the United States had any trust that the terrorist insurgency would allow the democratic process to continue in Iraq if they left, the US would agree to a cease fire in a heartbeat. Everyone knows that with a cease fire the opposite would happen, because you can't trust the terrorist insurgency. Even the Sunnis have realized that it is in their best interest for the American military to stay in Iraq.

If Israel had any trust that the Hizballah terrorists would stop threatening the Lebanese, would stop making incursions into Israel, and would stop launching rockets into Israel with reckless abandon, Israel would agree to a cease fire immediately.
Everyone knows that with a cease fire the opposite would happen, because you can't trust the terrorist Hizballah. Most Lebanese, despite their frustration with the currently Israeli action, know that Hizballah cannot be trusted.

Hizballah would love a cease fire, because they are getting their butts handed to them. Israel is discovering a lot about how Hizballah has been financed and in other ways aided by Syria and Iran by the Iranian soldiers they have killed, and by the bunker complexes, built with Syrian and Iranian aid, that they have conquered.

I'll bet Iran wants a cease fire as well. Actually, they've already asked for one. So they can reload their nukes.

For those that sincerely believe that Israel has acted in Lebanon with disproportionality, do you think that Hizballah and their puppet masters would abide by a cease fire this time?

3 comments:

Elizabeth said...

Frank: Israel has violated many agreements. Hamas tried to initiate a cease-fire with Israel; Israel just continued shooting and bombing Palestinians, and stealing their land.

Hezbollah has killed fewer than two dozen Israelis in the past decade and their rocket attacks have been against the stealing of the Shebaa farms area by Israel. Don't you think that the real reasons for the violence concern the territorial theft by Israel?

Frank, do you know anything at all about what Israel did in southern Lebanon? Have you ever heard of the Sabra and Shatila massacres?

I ordered a book for you and I am going to send you a package in a few weeks, so you can cite facts instead of things you heard from right-wing propagandists.

Elizabeth said...

I was going to leave this on your other blog, but I don't know how often you look at it: I found another Mormon blog; there must be more of you than I thought! (Mormon bloggers):
http://lazymormon.blogspot.com/

Stram said...

"Everyone knows that with a cease fire the opposite would happen"

Ok, and your point? Who cares? You should not have been sent to Iraq. They weren't a threat, they weren't responsible and those who are responsible are still free. Thanks for serving. Too bad it wasn't in the 'just' cause, which is Afghnaistan.