With the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon growing, the United States continues to reject calls for an immediate ceasefire. The administration has been clear on this point, with everyone from
Tony Snow:
...we would love a cease-fire yesterday. But, unfortunately, the conditions for a durable and sustainable peace are not yet present.
To Condoleezza Rice:
We have to have a plan that will actually create conditions in which we can have a ceasefire that will be sustainable.
And the president himself:
...it's essential that we do what's right and not necessarily what appears to be immediately popular.
...weighing in. The administration wants a lasting peace, not a quick fix, right? Maybe...
Or perhaps it's a reflection of Bush's long held belief about "balance." Consider
these thoughts from Bush, while discussing Palestinian refugee camps in January, 2001 (courtesy of
Talking Points Memo):
We flew over the Palestinian camps," Bush said sourly. "Looked real bad down there. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation."
And that was it, according to [Paul] O'Neill and several other people in the room. The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess, and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own.
[Colin] Powell said such a move might be hasty. He remarked on the violence on the West Bank and Gaza and on its roots. He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and Israeli army. "The consequences of that could be dire," he said, "especially for the Palestinians."
Bush shrugged. "Maybe that's the best way to get some things back in balance."
Powell seemed startled.
"Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things," Bush said.
That's what Bush said in 2001. It's interesting to note that during yesterday's press briefing when talking about the Israeli, Lebanese conflict, Bush said:
...I said the other day after these attacks took place. I said this should be a moment of clarity for people to see the stakes in the twenty-first century.
So the question is, why is this administration so opposed to an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon? Is it because the administration is genuinely searching for a long term solution to the seemingly non-stop violence in the Middle East, or is it a question of "balance"? We already know that the consequences for the Lebanese people has been dire. Is this another show of strength that will "clarify" things, as he said in 2001...and as he said yesterday?