| « | Democratic ReligionQuest |
»
|
|
Friday, July 14, 2006
“What Are We Supposed To Use? Harsh Language?”
If that's your preferred tactic, perhaps you belong in the United Nations:
The United States cast the first U.N. Security Council veto in nearly two years Thursday, blocking an Arab-backed resolution that would have demanded Israel halt its military offensive in the Gaza Strip.The draft, sponsored by Qatar, accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force" that endangered Palestinian civilians, and it demanded Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza.
Earlier Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced he will send three veteran U.N. officials to the Middle East in a bid to defuse what he called a "major crisis" there, the United Nations said Thursday, as the European Union criticized Israel for using what it called "disproportionate" force in its attacks on Lebanon.
It's never been clearer that the Muslim world wants Israel to stand naked and motionless before its blows. The terrorists in the Gaza Strip, on the West Bank, and now in Syria and Iran are doing Allah's work: progressively rendering Israel uninhabitable by peaceably inclined Jews. And of course, apart from a statement from Saudi Arabia condemning Hezbollah's missile attacks and Israel's response, the Muslim Middle East speaks of the most recent assaults on Israel wholly in approving tones.
We see here the penultimate stage of state-sponsored terrorism. The terrorists are now openly striking at their target from the territories of their sponsors. Meanwhile, the sponsors regretfully announce their inability to restrain the terrorists, disclaim all involvement in the attacks...and denounce the target for daring to respond in kind. The intent of the Muslim governments is as it has always been: to inflict as much damage as possible on Israel while inhibiting a forceful response. Up to now, they've been well pleased with the results of their tactic.
But that's the penultimate stage. The Israelis appear disinclined to let matters rest there. They've forced the conflict into the ultimate stage: the casting-off of pretenses about the "uninvolved" Muslim states and the waging of open, admitted warfare against the terrorists' sponsors and shelterers. Since all the Muslim states in that region are militarily weak, this has finally stricken them with fear.
Israel's military, though superbly trained, equipped, and motivated, cannot take the battle to all its covert foes simultaneously. Five million Israelis simply cannot pacify a quarter billion Muslims; it would be a big job even for the United States. So Israel must deal with its enemies one at a time. The most obvious place to begin is Lebanon, as it has been since the years after the Yom Kippur War. Since Hezbollah, one of the largest and most vicious of the Islamist-terrorist organizations, is effectively in control of that nation, and since there have been overt acts of war against Israel launched from Lebanese territory, Israel has all the casus belli it needs.
Those who insist that a military assault is unjustified, and that the Israelis should simply press the government of Lebanon to exert control over its residents, must cope with this:
Many in Lebanon — particularly opponents of its ally Syria — resent Hezbollah's free hand and feel that the government should do more to assert its authority. However, the dangers of taking on the group over its arms and the state-within-state role it has assumed in southern Lebanon carries serious risks."The 'state of Lebanon' held responsible by Israel for yesterday's Hezbollah operation does not exist and may never exist in the foreseeable future," wrote Sarkis Naoum, political editor of the respected Beirut daily An-Nahar, in a column Thursday.
"How can such a state exist when the war-and-peace decision is not in its hands and its influence on the Lebanese who have it, that's if indeed they have it, is little or in fact nonexistent?"
This is a wholly appropriate assessment of a government unable to prevent its subjects from committing acts of war against a neighboring state. In effect, Israel has gone to war against a chaotic and hostile territory that lacks a real government. (Your Curmudgeon will refrain from honoring it with the term "anarchy"; he'd prefer to reserve that word for peaceful ungoverned realms that observe the rule of law.) The challenges will be considerable, but alternatives are lacking.
The critical questions are about the next steps:
- Will Israel prosecute its military thrust into Lebanon all the way to the toppling of Lebanon's pseudo-government?
- If so, will Israel attempt the same sort of "nation-building" exercise the United States has attempted in Iraq?
- What are the odds of a military response by one or more Muslim states to Israel's initiatives? Ought they to be worried about Iran? Syria? Anyone else?
- Will the United States remain staunch in Israel's support? In particular, will we continue to provide the Israelis with weapons on request, and caution their neighbors against any rash moves?
- Finally, once Israel's adventures in Lebanon, whatever their extent, are over, will it then turn its eyes to its other Muslim neighbors, or will it return its attentions wholly to dealing with the Palestinian proto-state?
Your Curmudgeon has his preferences: first Lebanon, then Syria, then Iran. The latter two wars must be in coalition with the United States. Israel's involvement would be almost purely positive as long as American forces constitute the bulk of the expedition.
The upside would be that at the end of the campaign, the Arabian Peninsula states and Egypt would be regionally isolated: cut off from direct territorial contact with Europe. With Iran's and Iraq's oil in friendly hands, OPEC would be neutralized both politically and economically. The damping effect on terrorist activity would probably be considerable. Even Hugo Chavez would have to sit up straight.
The downside should be obvious. The campaign would require virtually the whole United States military. There would be tremendous short-term costs in blood and treasure, and enduring diplomatic hostility from Old Europe, Russia, and China.
Few persons would venture to state that we're in any way committed to this course of action. Though it could mount considerable pressure on us, Israel could not compel us to such a commitment. But to these eyes, it's the clearest and most direct course against the menace of Islamist expansion and state-sponsored Islamic terrorism. It's also the course that best leverages what our governments -- indeed, what all governments -- do well: kill people and break things.
Harsh language hasn't done anything for the Israelis, and little more for us. It's time to get serious. As Michael Ledeen would say: Faster, please.
Comments
I doubt Syria will jump in. I don’t think Assad Jr. really has the military and intel behind him after the botched Hariri hit that flew right back in their faces.
They know what Israel would do to them and it wouldn’t be a pretty sight.
Posted by Purple Avenger on 07/14/2006 at 05:03 PMI fear ever more for a bad outcome in the ‘08 elections. The moment the United States abandons Israel (which moment stands a substantial chance of arriving in late January of 2009), the odds of a nuclear war in the middle east go way up.
Israel can’t give its neighbors the peace of friendly regimes without a lot of our help...but it can give them the peace of the grave, if it finds itself with absolutely no other choice remaining.
Posted by Matt on 07/15/2006 at 01:13 AMThis seems a logical continuation of the course we began with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We ought to gird our loins and soldier on with Israel and git ‘er done, finally. It appears the only other option favors the enemy; a continual wearing on the nerves and the resources until we surrender from exhaustion and apathy.
Let the Left scream themselves into hysterical laryngitis. Here’s yer proportional response right here, ralphie.
Posted by on 07/15/2006 at 10:41 AMThe terrorist expectations of Isreal to just stand naked and take it, sound very like spouse abuse. “Don’t make me hit you. Now you’ve done it! Get over here, I’m gonna let you have it now!! Don’t you dare try an’ hit me back!!! Bitch, I’ll kill you for that!” Etc. Oh, and Kofi is sending three (!!!) veteran officials to defuse the crisis. Are their names Ringling,Barnum and Bailey? The UN’s record of defusing crises, wretched hive of scum and villainy that they are, is 0-11387-3.
Posted by Kerry on 07/16/2006 at 10:16 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
