Cease with the Ceasefires

Thomas Sowell points out the obvious:

The Middle East must lead the world in cease-fires. If cease-fires were the road to peace, the Middle East would easily be the most peaceful place on the planet.

 "Cease-fire" and "negotiations" are magic words to "the international community." But just what do cease-fires actually accomplish? In the short run, they save some lives. But in the long run they cost far more lives, by lowering the cost of aggression.

At one time, launching a military attack on another nation risked not only retaliation but annihilation. When Carthage attacked Rome, that was the end of Carthage.

But when Hamas or some other terrorist group launches an attack on Israel, they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressures from the United States. It is not at all clear what Israel's critics can rationally expect the Israelis to do when they are attacked. Suffer in silence? Surrender? Flee the Middle East? 

Or -- most unrealistic of al -- fight a "nice" war, with no civilian casualties? General William T. Sherman said it all, 150 years ago: "War is hell." 

If you want to minimize civilian casualties, then minimize the dangers of war, by no longer coming to the rescue of those who start wars. Israel was attacked, not only by vast numbers of rockets but was also invaded -- underground -- by mazes of tunnels.

Which is why what Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem, and Almodovar is not only dumb, naive, but also harmful.