Lessons Learned: A cease-fire in Lebanon is a terrible idea
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair want to send an international force to separate Israel from Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Mr. Blair said a U.N. force should be sent to “stop the bombardment coming over into Israel and therefore [give] Israel a reason to stop its attacks on Hezbollah.” Mr. Annan said such a force could “pursue the idea of stabilization.” But their idea assumes, first, that a cease-fire would protect those worthy of protection and, second, that restoring the region’s antebellum “stability” would promote long-term peace. Both assumptions are utterly false.
Hezbollah is not some small, ragged band scattered around Lebanon. It is a huge terrorist structure, built over decades, that includes thousands of men, weapons, positions, offices and everything that enables it to control southern Lebanon. Israel is now destroying that infrastructure. A cease-fire would benefit Hezbollah and threaten Israel. It would protect both Hezbollah and the nations that support it–Syria and Iran–as well as the Lebanese who have accepted the terrorist organization as a legitimate part of their government. A cease-fire would allow Hezbollah to rebuild its power base and enable it to resume its attacks whenever Damascus and Tehran desired. For Israel, a U.N. force would create no security whatever against future attacks.