Wherein We Disagree With the EU's Priorities
The EU kind of sort of but not really called for a ceasefire:
The European Union called for an immediate end to fighting in the Middle East but failed to demand a formal ceasefire straight away, as Israel extended its ground war in Lebanon. Papering over lingering differences, the EU's Finnish presidency said that an emergency meeting in Brussels of the 25-member bloc's foreign ministers had laid the foundations for a peace plan to be reached at the United Nations.
Yeah whatever. We're more interested in what Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said:
"The Council (of EU ministers) calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire," Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja told reporters after three hours of talks. When asked repeatedly to explain the difference between the two, he said curtly: "The most important thing is that no weapons will be fired."
We disagree. We think hat the most important thing is that Hezbollah return the soldiers that they kidnapped from sovereign Israeli territory. Then we think the next most important thing is that they divest themselves of the rockets and missiles that they've been raining down on Israeli towns. Then - and only then - it might be the case that the list reaches "no weapons being fired". Why is it so unreasonable that the side that started the war should have to make the first gesture toward ending it?
The European Union called for an immediate end to fighting in the Middle East but failed to demand a formal ceasefire straight away, as Israel extended its ground war in Lebanon. Papering over lingering differences, the EU's Finnish presidency said that an emergency meeting in Brussels of the 25-member bloc's foreign ministers had laid the foundations for a peace plan to be reached at the United Nations.
Yeah whatever. We're more interested in what Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said:
"The Council (of EU ministers) calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire," Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja told reporters after three hours of talks. When asked repeatedly to explain the difference between the two, he said curtly: "The most important thing is that no weapons will be fired."
We disagree. We think hat the most important thing is that Hezbollah return the soldiers that they kidnapped from sovereign Israeli territory. Then we think the next most important thing is that they divest themselves of the rockets and missiles that they've been raining down on Israeli towns. Then - and only then - it might be the case that the list reaches "no weapons being fired". Why is it so unreasonable that the side that started the war should have to make the first gesture toward ending it?
