A Bad Ceasefire

In many ways it seems as though the ceasefire proposal currently under negotiation at the UN has actually increased the violence rather than reduced it. Writing in Arutz, Ted Belman considers that no ceasefire is better than a bad ceasefire, and he outlines some alternative proposals:

Under no conditions should Israel allow Hizbullah to win any concessions. They would simply validate its "resistance". Israel should say "no" to an exchange of prisoners other then the prisoners captured subsequent to the kidnapping of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, and should say "no" to the retreat from Sha'aba Farms.

As part of a long-term plan, Israel should cause all Lebanese south of the Litani River to move north of it. Most have already done so. The purpose of this being threefold: 1) Israel will be able to remain in occupation up to the Litani River without being attacked on the ground; 2) it will end the Katyushas being fired at Israel; and 3) it will keep the pressure on Lebanon to sign a permanent peace agreement. If Jordan and Egypt can do it, then why not Lebanon? As with Egypt, this would be a land-for-peace deal.

Finally, Israel should continue attacking Hizbullah and prevent any missiles from entering Lebanon.