Here's a quick question which I beg regarding the provocative statement by Israel's Ambassador to the UN who says:
The Bush Administration understands that this not just a war for the security of Israel's north, this is the opening round of the war between Iran and the West, and therefore if Israel manges to set the stage for the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebonon that won't only improve Israeli security but it will be a mojor blow to Iran's efforts to acheive regional hegemony.
I think we have to be very clear if the Lebanese are going to be the Magyars here. That is to say are they going to be the abandoned allies who get overrun?
If Damascus and Iran have some say outside of the UN as to what conditions apply to a ceasefire, I think we have every reason to believe that their interests are material. That is to say if I were Sec'y Rice and I had anything to do with the negotiations, I would create a situation in which the Syrian and Iranian machinations on behalf of Hezbollah were made manifestly clear. It's something our newspapers don't seem willing or able to say, especially the dimwit Dickey in today's interview with Terry Gross. I mean he's spinning exactly like the Left is with regard to this 'stalemate' when he ought to know that relative to Israel's military strength, they haven't even begun to put a fraction of the force they are capable of. I mean he literally implied that the mighty Israel who defeated three Arab nations in the Six Day War is now incapable of handling the 3k fighters of Hezbollah. Now I'm suspicious all the time I'm listening but I listen to the glib way he's speaking and I know he's talking down (if he were capable of handling more detail), and until I hear Amb. Gold saying only battallions are being called up not divisions, that I realize how hesitant Israel is in really pounding Hezbollah.
So it seems to be what pressure our domestic politics are brought to bear on Bush and therefore by the US against Israel's possibility of using the Powell Doctrine and smash Hezbollah.
So the alternative seems to be to let Assad-like bash and smash backdoor diplomacy go forward. That is to say let Muslims go and kill the muslims so we don't get blamed for it. Or to let Israel bite the bullet and back its take-few-prisoners approach to southern Lebanon if the Israelis are ready to go that far for a few months. Lebanon doesn't have much of a choice in this.. they're not sovereign really.
Damascus and Tehran don't want to let this be a bilateral ceasefire. So is Nasrallah the man or not? Probably not. So let's not pretend that they're not in it. Hezbollah has to go down because there is nothing stopping Iran from working through them to pick at Israel. There is no land for peace. That direction of appeasement is dead. Now the prices must be paid, and countries need to step up and say what they stand for.
The entire question of Lebanon is a pawn in this battle. If Syria or Hezbollah wins, Lebanon loses. Well, maybe Lebanon is a goner either way, seeing as they are motivated against Israel. Their opportunity to be free of Nasrallah was lost six years ago after the pullout, and yeah I think part of that lies squarely with the UNIFIL.