Covering the UN Resolution

Mary Katharine Ham
|
Posted: Aug 14, 2006 8:56 AM

Powerline calls it a Cascade of Bad News.

Both Israel's government and ours will try to suggest that this cease-fire is consistent with the rather limited goals that Israel articulated from the beginning of the conflict. But there was never a list of objectives that did not include the return of the kidnapped soldiers. How could Olmert's government have agreed to a deal that did not even cover that fundamental, and relatively achievable, point? Who could possibly believe that Hezbollah will be disarmed, when Israel can't even get its kidnapped soldiers back?

Betsy notes it's all part of a depressing pattern.

The Washington Post headline says it all (it's on the front page, but not after you click through to the story): Cease-Fire Takes Effect; More Fighting Expected

Ahh, the incredible futility of the U.N.

Ouch. Dean Barnett calls Olmert the Jimmy Carter of Israel.

I keep forgetting to link this, but Michael Totten has pictures from the Israeli-Lebanon border, where he is.

Is the cease-fire a trap for Hezbollah? I knew Rove was in on this.