Mitri Vs Gillerman

It was a cultural battle at its best. Both men where smart enough to point out the strong points that their respective parties have. Mr. Mitri focused on the suffering of the Lebanese, and on the Lebanese government plan to put an end to this conflict. He was direct, clear, and straight to the point. Mr. Gillerman, on the other hand, used his usual literature techniques. He makes you wonder how can they be so peace-loving and yet kill almost 1000 civilians in one week! Both men referred to historical events, and while Gillerman was smart in mentioning the ancient cooperation of both nations, Mitri was brilliant in pointing out the destruction Israel made to the same city that once sent cedar trees to king Solomon.

Gillerman focused that he's country is in danger because of terrorism, and that while he's sad to innocent casualties, but he tried to justify that by saying that they are going to war to make peace!

Mitri was more practical, he proposed a solution as seen from Lebanese prospective, and Gillerman didn't disagree. Both men, together with Qatar foreign minister, showed the intentions to establish a ceasefire.

The open confrontation has ended, I don;t think we can talk about who won and who lost, because both sides -each with its own point of view- seemed eager to end this struggle. It's now up to UN to do what it takes to put an end to this war, hopefully...