Why?
The only possible answer is: To benefit the side that's currently losing.
And which side is that?
The bad guys.
Yes, absurdly simplistic, black and white, whatever. But the answer has the advantage of being true.
What's that got to do with anything? In the US liberal party and its MSM PR team the question is, "Does the answer support the liberal agenda?" not "Is the answer true?"
What rock have you been hiding under?
Shalom.
In 1973, the UN didn't seem to care that Egypt was on the outskirts of Elat, having retaken the enitre Sinai penninsula, and Syria was pressing hard on the Northern front. It wasn't until that Israel had pushed the Egyptians all the way back across the Sinai, and even crossed the Suez canal, having surrounded the Egyptian army, and in the north, was less than 50 miles from Damascus, Syria, that the UN stepped in. Israel ignored the UN, deciding that it needed to put an end to the ability of her arab "neighbors" to make war on her, but when the USSR threatened to step in and begin fighting, turning what was in effect a proxy war, into a real shooting war between the US and the USSR, Israel agreed to a UN brokered cease fire.
Has anyone else noticed here that many of the people screaming for a "cease fire" are the same people who ravaged the Bush Administration over their "cease fire" in Tora Bora, which allowed Bin Laden to escape?
Mark
A lot of well-intentioned liberals and centrists think that no war is preferable to war in all circumstances. However, if war is not carried out to its bitter end, you will just have another one further on down the road ... and another one ... and another one. That was the lesson of WWI and WWII, and the difference between a cease fire and unconditional surrender.