With a complete lack of logic Secretary ConDUHleeza Rice said that a cease fire would be useless because violence would just break out again in 6 months, or 9 months or a year.
This of course is the "Why Bother" doctrine.
It is the same logic I like to use when avoiding cleaning my house...why bother, it will just get messy again...
Perhaps ConDUH should try consulting with one of her predecessors -- perhaps someone with intellect and integrity who could offer her some advice.
I'd suggest she talk to Warren Christopher because he was the Secretary of State for Clinton when violence broke out between Hezbollah and Israel in 1996.
Yes. 1998. 10 years ago. Seems to me that an 8 year cease fire could be worth quite a bit. Perhaps they could use the ceasefire time to attempt to enter into negotiations.
That is what Secretary Christopher did in 1998. He spent 6 days in Damascus brokering a ceasefire.
Don't get me wrong, I am an ardent supporter of Israel. I think they should do whatever they can do to deter others from trying to destroy their country and their people. I just don't see how a ceasefire is harmful to anyone.
Clearly "diplomacy" and "negotiation" are not in the vocabulary of this Administration.
The arrogance would be bad enough but combined with their incompetency it is nothing but frightening.
This is worse than the Cold War. Bush has dragged us into an international nightmare.
Correction & Update
Several commenters have pointed out that I was sloppy in my description of what Rice said today. Admittedly I was sloppy. But I was listening to her statement after having read the Wall Street Journal article titled "Bush's Risky Mideast Strategy: Seek Change, Not Quick Peace".
The basic message of the article is that Bush is "emphasizing fundamental change over short-term peace and stability" and that neither Bush or Rice have any "intention of launching a similar round of diplomacy" [such as Clinton did] and that "a ceasefire isn't their most pressing aim".
The article also notes that Bush is seeking to correct the "root cause" of the problem. Well, that is certainly the correct approach to problem solving -- go after the root cause. But letting all hell break loose in the interim isn't an appropriate part of the process.
(I apologize for not posting a link to the article, but I only have the paper copy and do not have online access.)
There hasn't been peace in the Middle East since the beginning of time. I don't think that is a basis though to forego a cease fire.
I would contend that a ceasefire is a condition precedent to achieving any long term peace in the region.