Brutalising Lebanon

To the dying, the semantic difference between a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities is of no consequence. What is important is that, the inhuman bombing of Lebanon, on the excuse of self-defence and for the purpose of neutralising the Hezbollah, should stop forthwith. Thus, we feel that the call by our prime minister for an immediate unconditional ceasefire and cessation of hostilities is not only timely, it certainly echoes the sentiments of the international community.

It is also undesirable that the major powers should fail to bridge the gap in their perception of the modus vivendi of peace in Lebanon. It is even more unacceptable, for the major powers, who are also the troop contributors, to insist on a 'durable ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement first' before investing troops.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It has been grossly unethical on the part of the major powers to oppose any suggestion of a ceasefire. And the abortive Rome conference, organised to address the catastrophe aggravated by Israel's attack on Lebanon, failed to demand of Israel to stop its aggression in Lebanon. Decision of the world powers not to call a halt to the Lebanon offensive has been taken by Israel as a carte blanche to continue with its indiscriminate bombings and to embark on a ground offensive across the international borders into Lebanon.

Finalising a mandate for a new force in the area is likely to be time consuming. And a permanent solution of the Lebanon crisis can only be possible within the context of the Middle East situation, and no permanent solution can emerge without addressing the Palestinian issue; while both are essential for 'endurable peace' they are also time consuming. But in the meantime, what the international community, led by the UN, can and must do is to stop the bludgeoning of Lebanon, through an immediate ceasefire.