Bush has said that to call for an immediate cease-fire is useless, since it doesn't solve anything. The peace has to be sustainable, he says. Yes, to a point, that is true. A temporary cease-fire will not do much long term good; some constructive dialogue has to occur between the warring parties. But let's face it, is it possible to come up with a comprehensive, Middle East peace plan in the next few days that's going to solve all the conflicts there (including Israel vs. Hezbollah, Israel vs. Palestinians, etc.)?? I read a column once written by a successful manager, & he (or she, I don't remember the gender) said that goals should be set realistically. That means, aim for the realistically attainable, one goal at a time, rather than one grand goal. This creates building blocks upon which you can grow your business, rather than setting one big goal down the line that may likely cause disappointment. It also has the advantage of your employees focused on achieving shorter term goals, with a longer term goal in mind, rather than chasing an abstract long term payoff at the end of the tunnel. Shouldn't the Israel-Hezbollah conflict be approached in the same way? Call for a cease-fire now to stop the carnage, & then have each side sit down to work out a solution. Bush is unrealistic in expecting to work out a sustainable peace agreement in one sitting, especially since his administration doesn't even talk to the other side! And if there is no diplomacy between the U.S. & the Arab nations in question, any "resolution" proposed by the U.S. is likely to be one-sided. Why would Hezbollah/Syria/Iran accept what the U.S. is trying to shove down their throats?