Isn't it generally assumed that when two countries are at war, that it is the right and duty of those countries actually in the conflict to decide when that war might be over and how it is prosecuted? Certainly other nations might attempt to diplomatically intervene to help resolve the crisis but, when all is said and done, isn't it still the duty of the warring parties to arrive at their own conclusions?
Not according to The New York Times. The Times has pronounced it the duty of the "World Powers" to end Israel's security measures in Lebanon as if neither Israel nor Lebanon have a thing to say about it.
Naturally, it's all the USA's fault that they couldn't agree on a policy, too.
"World powers failed to agree Wednesday on a plan to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, underscoring the power of the United States to prevail when it comes to dealing with Israel."
So, these "world powers" want to stop the war, quite regardless of what caused it, but that darned old USA has taken sides again.
"In their formal statement, the United States, the Europeans, and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia expressed a vague 'determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities.'”
But, here is something that contradicts the claim that these “world powers” have a place to interdict here. On one hand, these "world powers" seem to think that they have the right... no the duty.... to intervene in this conflict and stop the war, yet when it comes to creating a military force that could help ensure this "peace" they imagine is their duty to create, suddenly that effort is one that they don't think is their job!
"But the Europeans, who are expected to make up the bulk of any force, as well as the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said that it would be impossible politically to send the world’s most powerful military alliance, which is so closely identified with the West, to police a conflict between Israelis and Arabs."
Why is it OK for these powers to interdict on one hand but not the other? Isn’t that a clear contradiction in the story that the Times is not pointing out?
So, let me get this right, New York Times: It's OK for these "world powers" to make the claim that it is in their power to stop the war, but it ISN'T in their power to create a force of their own people that they can send to help enforce this peace?
It is hardly disputed that this action in Lebanon started over the ultimate refusal of the Lebanese government to live up to its promised UN commitments to eliminate Hizbullah. Yet, Jaques Chirac insists that the same "world powers" that insisted Lebanon eliminate Hizbullah now won't even ask them to live up to that agreement anymore.
"Mr. Chirac, who did not rule out French participation or even command of a force, said it could only be deployed after a cease-fire and a solid political agreement was in place. In the absence of a political agreement, he added, an international force would not “have the capacity or the mandate to disarm Hezbollah,” which he said had to be done by the Lebanese authorities."
So, he'll trust the same government that already failed to fulfill its past commitments to fulfill them now, but he won't agree to force them to do so to get his sought after "peace"? Chirac's refusal to admit to the fact that Lebanon's failure to fulfill its agreement was the entire reason the Israelis went into the area in the first place reveals his support of Hizbullah and bias against Israel.
Chirac is, in essence, saying that the entire onus is on the Israelis and none on the Lebanese. Yet, the French still demand that the fighting stop, even though they are directly and wholly supporting Israel's enemy, giving them succor and protection, and offering Israel nothing in return to entice them to the bargaining table.
“'We demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities, and the majority of the other parties insisted on our line,” the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in a telephone interview from Rome, but the Americans disagreed."
This story is one contradiction after another.
