In her column today, the ever incisive Caroline Glick objected to Olmert's acceptance of the UN Ceasefire on a number of grounds. One was:
This is the case first of all because the resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hizbullah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself.
Want further proof? This is a picture of a UNIFIL position, proudly flying the flag of the UN and the banner of Hizbollah.
So much for fairness.
[Hattip: Jameel]
2 comments:
My neighbor Benzi suggested --better a ceasefire than to continue to put our soldiers in the dangerous hands of the current military and political leadership.
I agree that there's something to that. However, once the army has been allowed to do its thing (as the people are clamoring for it to do) it performs wonderfully.
Also, we keep forgetting that anything less than smashing defeat is taken as victory by the other side. Hence, in Muslim terms, a ceasefire is an invitation to a worse confrontation. It sounds Orwellian, but that's the Quran for you.
Post a Comment