The forces for evil in the world can count on one thing from the western democracies.  We all want peace.  Certainly, there are strong disagreements about how that goal is reached, but there is little doubt that it is the goal of virtually everyone in western society.  It is good for business, it is good for politics, it is good for families.  Sure a few businesses might prosper in wartime and a few mercenaries are allowed to ply their trade, but on balance, peace is popular.

This desire for peace on our part is the strongest diplomatic weapon on the side of those who want to promote their ends through war and terror.  We are seeing it in Lebanon now. 

Every reasonable observer believes that Israel was wronged by Hezbollah.  Once again, there are some disagreements on how Israel responded, but that Israel was wronged, and had a right to set things straight is not challenged. 

But now comes the diplomatic weapon of peace.  Perpetrators of terror and war always profess to want peace.   And you can even catch them negotiating for peace, whenver they start losing a war.   But the peace that is offered is never really peace.  It is merely the substition of a cold war for a hot war.  Even after this cease fire goes into effect, we know that Israel will have troops at the ready in case (rather, WHEN) the cease fire fails.  The entire country will be expecting more attacks, and will probably see their fears realized. 

It didn't start here in Lebanon.  It has happened for much of the last 100 years.   The Germans in 1918 could count on the Allies accepting their armistice offer.   Hitler knew that breaking the arms control agreements of the Versailles treaty would not be enough to drive the Allies into a hot war.  Stalin could be certain that his violations of Yalta would never be enough to cause a hot war.  Saddam violated major parts of his negotiated cease fire treaty with the United States after the 1st Gulf War.   But Saddam's violations never were considered strong enough to demand action on the part of the United States. 

In the west, there are always politicians who reject the substition of cold wars for hot wars, knowing that it only pushes painful decisions into the future, or relegates entire nations to a miserable existence.  But generally these politicians end up being reviled (see Bush and Churchill).

So the cycle in Lebanon has gone like this for too many years.  Enemies of Israel attack Israel from another sovereign nation.  Israel responds.  Advocates for peace win the day and convince/force Israel to back off from their military options.  A cease fire is arrived at.  Western democracies brag about the "peace" they have brought to the region, but which is merely a cold war.  Enemies of Israel regroup and strengthen themselves.  Back to the top.

The two "hottest" wars right now are in Iraq and Lebanon, two places where a lasting peace could have been achieved, but where that goal was supplanted by a negotiated "cold" war.  The most dangerous spot in the world right now might be North Korea, another area where a "cold" war solution was imposed after a hot war.

It is unfortunate that unconditional surrender is almost always the only precursor to lasting peace.  It is a tough choice for our leaders, but is the only one which historians will find worthy or endorsement.