Fallacy of Chain Logic

Peace in Lebanon requires all belligerents to agree.
It requires Hezbollah ceasing fire which they say is contingent on:
1. Israel ceding Syrian-claimed Shebaa Farms near the Golan Heights
2. Israel leaving before Hezbollah agreeing
3. An exchange of the captured soldiers for prisoners

Israel ceasing fire which they say requires:
1. Rocket attacks have to stop and a strong international force come in before Israel leaving
2. Kidnapped soldiers must be returned before cease fire

For an international force to come in:
1. There must be an agreement before coming in
2. There must be a cease fire before coming in
3. There must be a willing country to do the deployment

There are other actors that have other things to do such as Syria, Iran, US, Russia and China among others.

These are logically inconsistent and quite unlikely even if the basic inconsistencies get resolved by some miracle. I get a gestalt from the reporting that peace is just a matter of putting more pressure on the parties and that it is a minor issue that divides them. The logical fallacy is that we have a number of unlikely events that must all happen for peace to be achieved and pundits are treating the chain as strong as the strongest link: that Israel and Hezbollah both agree that a prisoner exchange would be a good idea.

My prediction is that we will have no partnership, no peace and that Israel will re-occupy Lebanon north to the Litani River, there will be a new wall, and Hezbollah will be envigorated to continue killing Israeli soldiers at the rate of 50-100/year which was the pre-2000 level. Israel will accept this as a trade vital to keeping Northern Israel free of short range rockets and unacceptable levels of civilian deaths. Lebanon will be a war zone until Hezbollah is beaten by some other force in the rest of Lebanon.