According to the logic of the New York Times Editorial Board:
So, Hezbollah and Israel began their latest combat? How about Hezbollah has not stopped and continues, with Israel finally saying enough is enough. Even with enough being enough, Israel figths with its hands voluntarily tied behind its back. Roughly 12 hour heads ups with leaflet drops so that civilians have time to leave, which of course gives Hezbollah time to adjust.It is now 26 days since Hezbollah and Israel began their latest combat — a very long time for the world to allow such a deadly conflict to rage in the Middle East powder keg. Yet the fighting still continues. Diplomats still dither over cease-fire details. Innocent people still keep dying.
Enough. This is the week that the international community must impose a truce, to be followed, in short order, by a political settlement and the dispatch of a robust international force to patrol Lebanon’s oft-violated border with Israel.
"Lebanon's oft-violated border....?" Violated by Israel, I imagine is how the NYT looks at it. Give me a break! What should Israel do?
Well, according to the "board," well, wait on two resolutions from the UN Security Council of course. The first supported by the U.S. and France: stop fighting and remain in your positions and Israel may remain in Lebanon until a "beefed up" UN security force can take up residence in the border area. This second piece has Arab nations up in arms with the fear of Israel remaining a "magnet" for attacks, which of course would be followed by an Israeli response.
Here's one place where the UN is loudly the joke that it is. How about having Arab nations chill out and try to do some good rather than thwarting anything other than Israel do all the backing down?
The rest of the editorial is just clap-trap-crap. Israel is an equal if not greater aggressor in their eyes. Hezbollah is a respectable and equal political entity, which is just ludicrous...
