Kinda what they wanted from the beginnning, no? But only in today's upside-down world can you start a war, get your butt kicked, then pompously demand that you be awarded the victory:
The U.S.-French draft circulated Saturday calls for "a full cessation of hostilities," with Hezbollah immediately stopping all attacks and Israel ending offensive military operations. But Israel would still be allowed to take defensive action and there is no call for the withdrawal of its 10,000 troops from southern Lebanon.
Lebanon opposed the draft, saying it favored Israel. The Lebanese government demanded that the cessation of hostilities must be complete and said all Israeli troops must leave, warning that their presence would be viewed as a new occupation and citing Hezbollah's threat to shoot at any Israeli soldiers in the country.
Lebanon also wants the resolution to include a commitment to release Lebanese and Israeli prisoners, an agreement to put the disputed Chebaa Farms area on the Lebanon-Syria-Israel border under U.N. jurisdiction, an extension of Lebanese government authority throughout the country, a beefed-up U.N. force in southern Lebanon and international help to rebuild the country.
So Lebanon wants to regain the land used to launch attacks on Israel (presumably so that it can launch future attacks?), wants to take additional terroritory from Israel (Sheeba Farms) that even the UN doesn't recognize as Lebanese territory, demands the release of all captured terrorists (so that they can continue their war on Israel), and requests the same toothless UN force (that allowed Hezbollah to become such a threat in the first place) be allowed to return to "police" the area.
Hey, why not? Every time the Arabs lose a war of aggression, the UN awards them victim status, allowing them to pursue future wars knowing their actions will go not only unpunished, but actually rewarded, even if they are militarily crushed. So isn't this UN policy of allowing the Arabs to win every war they lose actually causing future conflicts and guarenteeing additional civilian casualities?
From a reader of the Washington Post, a salient analogy is made:
Bill Cosby tells a story many parents can identify with. "Your older child is holding a toy. The younger child is grabbing at it and screaming. What do most parents do? Yell at the older child, of course. 'Just give it to him! Can't you see he's crying!' Because parents," explains Cosby, "are not interested in justice. They want quiet."
And what kind of child will you wind up with in time? Uh huh....
UPDATE: Morality from France:
Referring to American "reservations" about the proposal, Chirac said that he feared such concerns could torpedo the plan and lead to "the most immoral solution, that we accept the current situation and that we renounce an immediate ceasefire."
No, Chirac, immorality is to allow aggressors to gain victory through the EU and UN when they have failed to get it by slaughtering innocents. An immediate ceasefire will only lead to an exponential increase in civilian casualities down the road. That is immoral, Jacques....and that is why we don't see eye-to-eye with you quisling appeasement-dogs anymore...