XDA

The New York Times has a stern editorial today that is laughable in its politically correct pollyannaishness (if that's a word). Here are some tidbits followed by some snark (and a cold dose of reality):

Lebanon needs more than U.S. marines to evacuate Americans. It needs the fighting to stop and the international community to step in and guarantee the security of Israel and Lebanon. That will require not only a cease-fire and peacekeepers but also a guarantee that Hezbollah will be forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia.

Are the NYT editors unaware that the UN has had peace keeping forces in southern Lebanon for decades now? A guarantee that Hezbollah will halt attacks on Israel forever and disband its militia. Wow, can I get a flying pig and a lantern with a djinn in it?

So it is not surprising that the Israelis are skeptical that another Security Council resolution will make any difference. A robust resolution is nevertheless a prerequisite for robust diplomacy and clear threats of punishment for all who resist. Ideally, the resolution would not only require all sides to stop fighting and authorize the deployment of a peacekeeping force, it would also order Hezbollah to withdraw from Israel's borders and begin to disarm -- and order Syria and Iran to stop supplying their client. The price for refusing should be international sanctions and complete isolation.

At least the editors seem aware that there was a UN resolution two years ago that robustly called for Hezbollah to disarm. Robust resolution..robust diplomacy. Are the editors high? Diplomacy with a body like Schwarzenegger used to have is but a flyspeck compared to a single, well aimed 155 mm round. International sanctions, as I seem to remember, only cause suffering in the little people, the leaders continue to live high on the hog (like Arafat or Saddam). Sanctions don't seem to have much effect in a dictatorship or in a country dominated by another country and a stateless band of fanatics whose only reason for existence is the extirpation of the state of Israel. The NYT should pull its collective head out to see the change from the general reaction in the rest of the Muslim world with fellow Arabs this time blaming not Israel but Hezbollah for the current troubles, and that Israel is accomplishing just what the NYT says it wants--Hezbollah disarmed and away from the border. Complete isolation--oooh, the horror.

The United States will have to take the lead, not least because it's the only country Israel trusts. That means Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- who has been dragging her feet to give Israel more time to fight -- needs to get on a plane and visit Damascus as well as Jerusalem. The longer she delays the more lives will be lost, and the harder it will be to build a lasting peace.

The United States is the only country that has been an unwavering, generous supporter of Israel. That won't change as long as Republicans (other than Pat Buchanan) are in charge. The only thing that can build a lasting peace on Israel's northern border is the utter defeat of Hezbollah by Israel. The only thing that appears able to prevent that end is a cease fire. So the NYT has it exactly wrong. Again.