http://www.torontosun.ca/Comment/Commentary/2006/07/29/1709669.html
Editorial....What peace is there to keep.
The safe position to take on the Middle East today is that there needs to be an immediate "ceasefire."
A ceasefire maintained by "peackeepers."
Let's examine those two terms.
To begin, here's what a "ceasefire" would mean right now.
It would mean Hezbollah gets to reload.
Believing that a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel right now would bring any real peace to Lebanon, Israel, or the region, is as naive as believing that a United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon would do the same.
There's been a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for almost 30 years.
Anyone notice any peace breaking out there recently?
In reality, any "peacekeeping" force in southern Lebanon, composed of UN, NATO or other forces, would have to be a fighting force capable of keeping Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.
That's what the beleaguered Lebanese government failed to do after Israel voluntarily withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. That's why Hezbollah was able to launch a sneak attack on an Israeli military outpost from southern Lebanon, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others. And that, everyone agrees, is what started this latest confrontation.
So, who in the world's up for that job? Canada? Not with our military already stretched to the limit in Afghanistan.
The United States? Great Britain? Australia?
Impossible. Any of those forces acting as peacemakers in southern Lebanon would become prized terrorist targets themselves, perhaps even more so than Israeli soldiers.
The European Union?
How effective have most members of that alliance been in fighting terrorism since 9/11?
The Arab League? The only thing its members might ever conceivably agree on, if they thought for a moment they could actually win, would be to attack Israel. Fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon simply isn't on their radar.
Russia? Japan? China?
Okay, now it's getting silly, isn't it?
So let's hear from those advocating a "peacekeeping" force to maintain a "ceasefire" along the Green Line between southern Lebanon and northern Israel. And be specific.
Whose soldiers would man it? How many? What will be their rules of engagement? Will they be able to shoot first, or only shoot back? What will be their mandate if Hezbollah hides among civilians while attacking them? Will their response have to be "proportionate"? What does that mean -- that you have to take as many casualties as the enemy or stand down? Name a war where that rule has ever applied -- to either side.
Those are the kinds of questions that underlie simplistic calls for a "ceasefire" maintained by "peacekeepers."
That's why Stephen Harper, the first pro-Israel Canadian prime minister since, well, 1993, got it right last week when he said the only way a lasting peace can be achieved is if the nations IN THE REGION want it. And that would mean nations like Syria and Iran (among many others in the Arab/Muslim world) being prepared to fight terrorism instead of supporting and financing it. Needless to say, don't hold your breath.