Well, there you have it. The world gave Israel 30 days to get rid of Hizb'Allah. They couldn't hold out any longer. Now they have passed a resolution that allows Hizb'Allah to stay in business.
How, you say, when Resolution 1701 specifically states, "full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon"? The Prime Minister of Lebanon, Fuoad Siniora, has expressed his 'gratitude' to Hizb'Allah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah for "sacrificing their lives for the country" [YNET, July 30, 2006]. It's quite obvious that Siniora has no intentions of disarming Hizb'Allah, as stated in section 3 of the resolution, "Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon." Look at it closely. (The entire resolution can be found here.) Hizb'Allah is a member of the Lebanese government and, with the Prime Minister's backing, their not going anywhere.
What happened to the cries by the United States, Britain, and others that Israel must fight until Hizb'Allah is unarmed? U.S. Secretary of State Rice and the US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, both stated that you can't make a ceasefire agreement with a terrorist organization. Does this mean that, like Yasir Arafat, Hizb'Allah leader Hassan Nasrallah will soon be up for a Nobel peace prize?
I really believe that certain nations wanted Israel to defeat Hizb'Allah but, after they didn't do it right away, it was no longer politically expedient. Hence the rush to a ceasefire with the Hizb'Allah terrorist organization. Whoever said "it's the economy, stupid" was correct; it's all about economics — the economy, if you will. If you watch any movement by any government — including the U.S. — you will see that all the decisions are based on how it will effect the economy. It doesn't matter how much good something will do, if it's not economically rewarding to the economy — i.e., big business — it doesn't see daylight. To quote someone else, "show me the money!"