Evaluating the Ceasefire

In catching up on the news pertaining to the proposed cessation of hostilities between Israel and Iran's Lebanese subsidiary, I found two assessments from the Right to be particularly interesting.

First, the one I most agree with is this one, which I encountered over at Michelle Malkin's blog. Such pessimistic assessments as Andy McCarthy's (as quoted by Malkin) were fairly easy to find.

Hezbollah wins this big just by being legitmized. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, not a country. The resolution we are signing on to, however, addresses it as if it were a country. The resolution doesn't purport to direct any UN member nation to make Hezbollah cease firing -- least of all Lebanon, the purported sovereign of this territory. Instead, it appeals to Hezbollah directly -- in the same paragraph in which it addresses Israel, as if there were no difference in status between the two -- and "calls on" it to stand down.

How do we sign onto that? Didn't we just say about 24 hours ago that we are dealing with "Islamo-fascists" who cannot be reasoned with? Yet, recognizing that no one is willing to fight them, we are joining the "international community" in calling on Hezbollah terrorists to stand down? And when they don't what happens? Will we write them a strong letter? [bold added]

And then we have the second, which is surprisingly optimistic. (HT: Instapundit)

The cease-fire proposal put the onus on them to cease their attacks on Israel and to dismantle their military wing. I warned earlier that such a requirement would eliminate the need for Hezbollah at all; their entire raison d'etre for the Lebanese people has been as a shield against the Israelis. If the Lebanese Army took that function away from them, they just become another terrorist militia, a construct of which the Lebanese have rightly tired.

Nasrallah knew this. He signaled his approval yesterday of the cease-fire but objected to the arms embargo and the disarming of his organization. Perhaps he thought the Israelis would reject it, but when the Israeli Cabinet adopted it unanimously, it looks like Nasrallah had his bluff called.

Unless Siniora gets this resolution adopted in the next couple of hours, Israel will push past the Litani into Bekaa -- and this time they will have the tacit endorsement of the UN Security Council. [bold added]

This is indeed an interesting way to look at this, except that....

Shouldn't Israel already have the "tacit endorsement of the UN" to invade on the grounds that the Party of God was never disarmed, on top of the fact that it has the right to self-defense (something even the UN has acknowledged in similar situations)?

One could perhaps make the case that this latest round of diplomacy will serve to emphasize the culpability of the Party of God in this conflict, but if hiding behind Lebanese civilians while firing unprovoked at Israeli civilians won't do the job, why would a scrap of paper? If there are any hidden merits to remaining in the United Nations, they are far beyond me to discern. Indeed, this fantasy that somehow, this time, a UN resolution will be worth the paper it's written on reminds me of a similar fantasy held by the Left, that Robert Tracinski elaborated upon recently in TIA Daily.

[T]he left senses that a regional war is coming, that Iran is hell-bent on starting it, and that there is no way to avoid it. But all of this runs directly counter to their whole world-view. Rather than questioning that world view, they simply assert that this can't be happening. They have to believe that something, anything -- no matter how implausible -- will stop it from happening. If we just get everyone together and talk, and we keep tinkering with diplomatic solutions until we find something that works, surely we can find a way to avoid a regional war in the Middle East. Can't we? Please?

And so the left confirms the right's sense that the appeasement of the 1930s is the best historical precedent for the current era.

The difference between the delusion of those on the Left who think peace can be had by negotiation with our enemies, and that of those on the right who think that diplomacy in the UN can "smooth the way" for the legitimate interests of America and her allies, is merely one of degree.

The time to engage in conversation with the various Islamic states that sponsor terrorism is long gone. In fact, the very act of sponsoring terrorism is beyond the pale of civilized behavior. Were the United Nations really about promoting peace, it would summarily expel any member state found to support terrorism in any way. The fact that Iran and Syria remain members of the United Nations is a sure sign that it no longer serves American interests to remain a member.

No matter which assessment of the cease-fire applies, it is clear that the UN has injured the interests of an American ally in some way. In the first case, the United Nations allowed Hezbollah to be elevated on the world stage to quasi-nationhood. In the second case, concerns about gaining approval (again) from the United Nations have led to a loss of valuable time on the offensive and risk ending a much-needed war prematurely.

-- CAV