Decision ‘08

Olmert Hangs Tough: No Cease-Fire

Recognizing that a cease-fire imposed anytime soon would be a huge propaganda victory for Hezbollah, the Israeli Prime Minister responded to Condi’s assertion that a cease-fire is imminent with a flat denial:

Just hours after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she had achieved general agreement on terms for a U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not agree to a cease-fire.

“The fighting continues. There is no cease-fire and there will not be any cease-fire in the coming days,” Olmert said in a speech to local officials in Israel, Reuters reported.

Israel’s defense minister told parliament the army would continue to “expand and strengthen” its ground campaign against Hezbollah.

Olmert is under tremendous domestic pressure to continue the offensive, as Wretchard notes:

…[E]ven with an Israeli victory apparently distant — even with an Israeli resumption of hostilities so uncertain — international diplomacy has expressed confidence that a ceasefire and lasting peace was attainable within a week. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, “As I head back to Washington, I take with me an emerging consensus on what is necessary for both a cease-fire and a lasting settlement. I am convinced we can achieve both this week.” Tony Blair said “You know the position of Israel, now there’s a statement from the UN Security Council which shows the right degree of unity in the international community. What’s important now is that we have a real chance of getting a UN Security Council resolution, which will give us an opportunity both to have a complete cessation of hostilities and to do so on a sustainable and lasting basis.”

The only way the distance to victory can be reconciled with the apparent nearness of a ceasefire is to assume that one of the parties at war had dropped a basic demand in the “lasting peace” formula; that one of the parties is willing to settle for less than they started for. That party, absent any evidence to the contrary, is likely to be Israel. Perhaps sensing this, Netanyahu has brought up the decisions of the “security cabinet on the 13th of this month” to warn to Olmert not to renege on an earlier decision to win “a strategic victory”; to “complete the job”

But the latest accounts of IDF activities in Lebanon which have been described as “reshaping the border” cannot be described as a strategic campaign in any meaningful sense of the word. It is still a preparation if it is anything. The strategic part of the campaign implicit in Netanyahu’s words: “a strategic victory. Those were the objectives set out by the government, justly, wisely, and boldly. They were presented to the security cabinet on the 13th of this month” — the campaign the cabinet decided on — was not yet in evidence. The question is whether it remains on the agenda. Netanyahu added that “midway there’s a difficult junction where we must decide whether we continue to climb the mountain or stop, and I call on the government: Don’t stop midway. Complete the job.”

Completing the job sets up a direct collision with the ceasefire scheduled within the week. It’s possible to have a strategic campaign or a ceasefire. But it will be very difficult to have both.

Temporary ceasefire or lasting peace…is it either/or? That’s the question, and I’m afraid the answer is ‘yes’…

4 Responses to “Olmert Hangs Tough: No Cease-Fire”

1 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
“Lasting piece”? Freudian slip? The answer to THAT would be “yes”.
2 too many steves Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Olmert and Israel could agree to a cease fire today, now even, if Hezbollah stops bombing and agrees to return the kidnapped soldiers. It would do irreparable harm to Israel’s negotiating position to suggest anything else absent movement by the other side.

I saw all the outrage and watched all the handwringing over the Israeli bombing and destruction of that building over the weekend and am left wondering which tv channel is showing the carnage and resulting outrage at the bombs that are constanting raining down on Israel from Lebanon.
3 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Whoops, I will correct - thanks…
4 Fargus Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 6:28 am
Lasting peace? How are they getting any closer to a lasting peace as this bombing campaign goes further and further? Is some magical window going to open up or something after the 1000th bomb is dropped or something?

Sure, I’m being a little facetious here, but as Arab support for Hezbollah deepens and more Lebanese civilians die, I don’t see anything but a move AWAY from chances for “a lasting peace.”

Understand, of course, that I’m not trying to excuse Hezbollah, or say that they don’t have to stop their bombing, either. Of course they do.