Imagine it's 1939 all over again.
Imagine we haven't learned the tragic lessons of appeasement.
Imagine there are still people in the world – in powerful and influential positions – who believe that you can build lasting peace with evil forces upon foundations of paper.
You don't have to imagine such a world. It's here. You can see it in the U.S. State Department's eagerness for a cease-fire in Lebanon. You can hear it in the cries for same from the four corners of the world. And you can read it for yourself in yesterday's editorial in the New York Times.
I don't normally pay all that much attention to the Times any more. But, once in awhile, the editors and management of this institution show their real colors so obviously it is worth pointing out.
The Times is hysterical about the need for an immediate cease-fire.
"Diplomats still dither over cease-fire details," the editorial said. "Innocent people still keep dying."
The Times editors have it all figured out. If only they would be permitted to mediate between Israel and Hezbollah, they could have this thing worked out by the end of the day.
"Enough," the editors rail. "This is the week that the international community must impose a truce, to be followed, in short order, by a political settlement and the dispatch of a robust international force to patrol Lebanon's oft-violated border with Israel."
I wonder if any Times editors will volunteer to be a part of that international force? Are they aware a U.N. force has been on the ground for years – including during the period Hezbollah launched its attacks on Israel? Are they aware the only thing they have accomplished is to become part of the collateral casualties?
What is the key to "the Times peace plan for Lebanon"?
It turns out the international military force should be comprised of soldiers from France, Italy, Turkey and Australia. But, the paper acknowledges, none of these countries will "want to send soldiers if either Israel or Hezbollah is going to keep shooting."
So, really, this isn't a military force at all. It's at best a show force. But everyone knows going in that these guys will run the other way at the first threat of violence. How in the world is that supposed to solve any of the problems in Lebanon?
The Times editors know. It's called deceit.
Knowing full well that the international force won't have any more potency than the U.N. force currently in place in southern Lebanon, the Times editors explain that the political settlement is the key to maintaining peace. And that political settlement needs to be imposed on the parties in a way that allows the terrorists to save face – and even claim victory!
"Therefore the political settlement has to be packaged so that both sides can claim some sort of victory," is the way the Times editors explain their plan.
Isn't that exactly what Neville Chamberlain had hoped to achieve in his peace treaty with Adolf Hitler?
Someone needs to remind all those clamoring for a cease-fire that Hezbollah is still sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state and all of the Jewish inhabitants of that state.
Someone needs to remind all those clamoring for a cease-fire that Hezbollah is doing the bidding of its sponsors in Iran who look at Israel as an arm of the real enemy – the United States of America, also known as "the Great Satan."
Someone needs to remind all those clamoring for a cease-fire that lasting peace only comes when hateful aggressors are soundly defeated by peace-loving, freedom-loving people.
Related special offer:
"Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad"