The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Ehud Olmert told the members of the Knesset that the:

“… UN Security Council Resolution 1701 “will change fundamentally our strategic situation on the northern border.”

Good grief.  Let me be as clear about this as I can.  UN Security Council resolution 1701 will change nothing as regards the strategic position on the northern border except to give Hezbollah a reprieve to re-arm and re-group.  Benjamin Netanyahu was on point with his retort:

“The [kidnapped] soldiers weren’t returned home, the Hizbullah was not disarmed … Right now, we are [merely] in an interim period between wars,” Netanyahu warned. “And there is no one who will prevent our enemies from rearmed and preparing for the next round.” 

I am growing weary of the silly language being used to describe the state of affairs.  The phrase “cessation of hostilities” is used to denote stopping combat with the enemy, and “crisis” is used to denote the war.  Israel is at war with its enemies.  This is not a “crisis” in which there are “hostilities.”

I was listening to a news commantator who was discussing the “cessation of hostilities,” which is [according to this commentator] “what we all want to see.”

Where did this person get the notion that we all want to see the cessation of hostilities?  I don’t.  I have called for the absolute destruction of Hezbollah, the assassination of Nasrallah, and attack of Hezbollah by the U.S. Marines.

Given the following circumstances:

• An enemy that has sworn the genocide of your race.
• Stopping the war gives Hezbollah a chance to re-arm and re-group.
• Stopping the war gives Hezbollah an opportunity to claim victory and hence become stronger in Lebanon.

 … the question then logically follows.  Can anyone give me a single good reason for a “cessation of hostilities?”

Oh, and in the shocker of the day, Hezbollah told the Lebanese army to pound sand.  The Australian is reporting (hat tip Michelle Malkin’s web site – Karol Sheinin):

Is was supposed to be the day the maligned Lebanese army took control of the country’s borders and policed the UN ceasefire.

Instead, the military commanders were left humiliated and troops stranded as Hezbollah told them not to disarm its fighters.

The first infantry units were preparing to head south when Hezbollah showed who controls the area by announcing it would not surrender its weapons.

General Michel Sleiman, commander-in-chief of the Lebanese army, and his lieutenants had been invited to join cabinet meetings to finalise plans to deploy the 15,000-strong force south of the Litani River.

But they were lectured by Hezbollah’s two ministers in the coalition Government on what the army could and could not do.

And so continues the “cessation” of “hostilities” brokered by the UN under the rubric of a “ceasefire.”