Was talking to an Israeli official a little earlier. He thinks things are tough, but headed in the right direction generally. Israel’s diplomatic strategy is to say to every envoy who shows up demanding an immediate cease-fire, “We’re in favor of a ceasefire too–now, what are you going to do about Hezbollah to make it happen?” The hope is that the Security Council will reaffirm 1559, and perhaps put some more teeth in it to make it clear that the re-arming of Hezbollah is a violation of it. And, obviously, Israel wants an international force that is not going to be as useless as UNIFIL. If Israel were to agree to an immediate, condition-less cease-fire, it would lose all its leverage toward these diplomatic goals. Again, as I tried to argue in this column the other day, the military campaign has a diplomatic purpose, and the pre-mature ending of it would amount to diplomatic unilateral surrender on the part of Israel. On the military front, this official says the sentiment of the Israeli government is that Israel is stronger every day and Hezbollah weaker, a fact that is thought to be reflected in the calls for a cease-fire coming from the Hezbollah side. In some ways, the international argument over this conflict closely mirrors the debate over Iraq in this country–the doves want an immediate ceasefire or a time-line toward a ceasefire; the hawks want a cease-fire only when certain conditions are met.