A "no cease fire" policy?

I find it ridiculous - the only argument I have heard that borders on credible is that a "cease fire" is not actually going to happen - so calling for one, or worse, declaring one, does nothing more than make everyone look helpless and ineffectual.

But, that's a bit defeatist isn't it? Not really the sort of argument I'd expect from professional diplomats. I can't see that a call for cease fire would hurt even if it did fall on death ears.

howard is my homeboy

Surely its better to have a cease fire that is temporary and ultimately fails than not to have one at all isn't it? Apparently not.

How do you propose stopping Hezbollah, or its replacement, from re arming?

Fall on death ears was a deliberate pun?

Things need to change on the ground, the situation needs resolving in some way, rushing to simply stop the firing will help no-one in the medium-long term, even if it saves lives now.

Surely it would help the person whose life was saved?

Joking aside, I take on board your point but I cannot see any harm in a "call (to both sides) for peace".

And does it help them in the medium-long term to have them, their family and their country subjected to even heavier attack in future? A cease-fire now with no proper resolution will simply lead to future conflict which will be more destructive, trying to save some lives now will lead to many more dead in the relatively near future. And if that's the unhappy choice, I'd rather see future conflict and even higher future death tolls averted even if it means some more fighting now. A ceasefire will make every death so far completely in vain and set the stage for more. Better to accept the death and destruction so far and make sure some purpose is achieved and future conflict is prevented.

Never mistake a 'ceasefire' for 'peace'.

Besides, you are speculating that a temporary cease fire today would sow the seeds for greater future conflict. That's not necessarily the case.

My bad.

Hezbollah is dedicated to Israel's destruction. A ceasefire called before Israel damages and weakens them enough for the Lebanese Army or a Multinational force to be able to suppress and dismantle them will simply lead to the inevitable re-rise of Hezbollah and more conflict. It would also sow the seeds of Hezbollah fighting with the Lebanese Army or Multinational Forces, something that would lead to high death tolls. Ironically enough, only Bush, Blair, Olmert, Harper (for all the criticism of them) and a few others seem to be able to see that - the UN would seemingly prefer a higher death toll then, than a proper resolution now. I think we live in a world that would rather bury its head in the sand than face the difficult problems that are there.

There have been numerous supposed 'ceasefires' with the palestinian terror groups, most of them unilaterally declared (not that Israel wasn't stills topping dozens of attempted ttacks a day during them) - all that happens is they re-arm, re-group and then after a while find some excuse to start it all off again.