Last week, the fabled United Nations Security Council passed a resolution which, it is hoped, will end the fighting between Israeli troops and Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon.

We're not holding our breath.

The resolution calls for 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers to be deployed along the Israel-Lebanon border. The idea, of course, is to separate the combatants and maintain a cease fire.

Incredibly, Israel and Lebanon both agreed to the terms of the resolution. As of this writing, the fighting has stopped and Israeli troops are withdrawing from southern Lebanon.

But there are, needless to say, several serious flaws with the U.N.'s Solomon-like solution.

The first is that Hezbollah isn't a nation and so it isn't a U.N. member (well, at least not yet). Hezbollah is, instead, a private army funded directly by the Iranian government. As such, it's better equipped and better armed than many of the nations in the region, including, it turns out, Lebanon. That's why the Lebanese government has very little power to force Hezbollah to actually do anything, even if it wants to, which is far from given. It's also why the feel-good declaration that the Lebanese army is going to move into southern Lebanon to help keep the peace is, at best, an interesting exercise in fantasy.

The second flaw is that the U.N., to no great surprise of any regular observer, is conveniently ignoring a fairly important fact. In this case, the U.N. has decided to overlook the fact that it has had peacekeepers on the Israel-Lebanon border for a generation, and that its peacekeeping troops were there, carefully observing, as Hezbollah began lofting rockets into Israeli towns. After such an effective display of keeping the peace over the past few months, what reason does anyone have to believe that U.N. peacekeepers will be able to prevent new attacks in the future. The answer, of course, is none whatsoever.

Backers of the new U.N. "solution" argue that this peacekeeping force will be different. After all, they say, it's much larger. There will be actual troops with actual guns. Which brings us to flaw number three.

Many governments around the world – usually from nations with large Islamic populations – do not officially recognize Israel's existence. In U.N.-speak, those nations "do not maintain diplomatic relations" with Israel. In plain English, these are the nations most likely to be Israel's enemies or to be supportive of the kinds of terrorist or extremist movements that advocate Israel's destruction.

Needless to say, they were among the first to offer to contribute soldiers to the U.N.'s ballyhooed peacekeeping force. But it's not hard to guess what will happen if these troops are put in charge of keeping the peace. They'll turn a blind eye to Hezbollah's resupply and next wave of rocket attacks – if not openly support the terrorists' efforts. It's no wonder that Israel formally asked the U.N. to exclude forces from those nations. No word yet on whether the world body will honor that request.

The final flaw in the U.N.'s plan to keep the peace is the world body itself. For decades, the U.N. has been openly hostile to Israel. Throughout its history, the U.N. agenda has been thoroughly consumed by governments that hate the very thought of Israel. There is no real reason to believe that view has changed.  Had U.N. Resolution 1559, intended to disarm Hezbollah, been enforced, the latest battle might not have occurred at all.

So why did the international community, including the United States, back the plan? In the end, it's not altogether clear. Simply ending the fighting isn't a good enough reason. After all, with terrorists attacking, kidnapping and killing its citizens, Israel struck back and moved to eliminate the threat, albeit not as competently as in the past. In so doing, the Israelis were attempting to strike a blow for freedom by eroding Hezbollah, a major terrorist threat not only to Israel and the Middle East but to the entire world.

The United States should have been thanking them, standing by them, and providing whatever help they needed. Instead, we went looking for a way to stop the fighting. And we found it with a U.N.-led solution that doesn't solve anything. It only postpones the fight for another day, at which point Hezbollah will only be better armed by Syria and Iran and more entrenched in Lebanon.