Sustainable ceasefire?

During the war in Lebanon the chief complaint against the West was that
instead of demanding an "immediate" ceasefire, they continued discussing a
"sustainable" ceasefire, in effect "fiddling while Rome burned."
Liberals in the UK went into conniptions because PM Blair was following Pres.
Bush, as they saw it, in delaying a ceasefire so that Israel could "finish
Hizbollah off." They saw a dark conspiracy in which the US gave Israel carte
blanche to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure and carry out "disproportionate"
attacks on Lebanon, causing massive human casualties. In fact, the casualties
were moderate and the destruction was clearly limited to either strategic
targets (ports, bridges) and south Lebanon where Hizbollah was located and
there was fierce fighting. There was NO DAMAGE to all other areas of Lebanon,
including the Christian, Druse and Sunni areas that constitute the major part
of the country, although reading the media you would not have known this.
Now that the UN resolution SC1701 has been passed after extensive discussions,
and has been accepted by both sides, we can see how useless such pieces of
paper can be, particularly if they have the name of the UN on them. After
unanimously accepting the resolution, requiring in specific terms the removal
of Hizbollah from the region of Lebanon south of the Litani River and its
disarming, the Lebanese Government has now done a deal with Hizbollah, that
contravenes the resolution. Sheikh Nasrallah, following Pres. Assad of Syria
and Ahmedinejad of Iran, has stated that now is not the time to disarm
Hizbollah, so the Lebanese Government has agreed to allow Hizbollah to keep
"secret" caches of weapons in south Lebanon, as long as they don't show their
weapons openly, and Generals of both the Lebanese Army and the UN
international force have stated publicly that it is not their job to disarm
Hizbollah.
So Pres. Bush's repeated assertion that he wanted a ceasefire that would not
result in a continuation of hostilities in an hour, a day, a week or a month
has been repudiated. If Hizbollah are not disarmed and are still present in
south Lebanon, then nothing has been achieved in the war in which Israel lost
117 men and much of south Lebanon was destroyed. What is the point of having
an expanded UNIFIL if it is as useless of the original? What is the point of
a "robust" force if the nations that pushed for an immediate ceasefire are
hypocritically not even prepared to send forces that could disarm Hizbollah
according to the resolution that they wrote (particularly the French)? Many
who have good reason not to trust the UN, foresaw this specific difficulty.
And UN Secty. Gen. Kofi Annan is now backpedaling, trying to negate the very
resolution that he supposedly worked so hard to achieve. FM Tzipi Livni is
due to make a lightning trip to NY to meet with Annan. We hope she is going to
tell him that if resolution 1701 is not implemented as stated, then like the
previous resolutions 1550 and others, it will be merely remembered as a piece
of paper, thrown into the trash bin while the ink was still wet. And Israel
will have to consider reactivating the IDF to accomplish by military means
what the diplomats were supposed to have accomplished by this resolution.
One wonders why the IDF is in such a hurry to evacuate south Lebanon
given the actual situation.