In August of 2007, the international community penned a multilateral agreement, including cease-fire conditions to end the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, a terrorist organization dressed up as a political party which has won seats in the Lebanese legislature. The agreement was, in effect, another step toward the destruction of Israel and ensures greater and more widely-spread violence in the future.
UN member states claimed to be appalled by the civilian casualties and hurried to intervene to save innocent lives. (Apparently, innocent lives in the Middle East are more valuable than innocent lives in Africa, where close to one million Rwandis died while the world looked on.) With trepidation, the world watched the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict escalating and pronounced judgment: The violence must stop. Then, having so proclaimed, it brokered a truce between Israel, whose very survival depends upon its resolve, and Lebanon-Hezbollah -- without extracting any commitments from the puppeteers Syria and Iran, two rogue nations known for their hatred of Israel and their sponsorship of state terrorism.
Multilateral intervention was a mistaken course.Israel should have been allowed (even encouraged) to continue and finish the fight against Hezbollah.
There are several reasons why stopping short was a bad strategy for Israel.First, Hezbollah was and is unlikely to honor any truce agreement “officially” brokered between Israel and Lebanon long-term. Many Arab leaders believe that agreements made with infidels can be broken when they are not advantageous to Muslims.Frequently referenced is the Treaty of Hudaibiya made in AD 628 between the Muslims and Quraish by Mohammed.The treaty ensured a truce that was to last ten years; it was broken by Mohammed after just two years, when the Muslims had the upper hand and their armies were able to annihilate the Quraish.It has been interpreted that Allah does not require Muslims to honor agreements that are harmful to them.Thus, Israel has no reasonable expectation that Hezbollah will stop the violence.
And it is not just Hezbollah, which depends upon support from Syria and Iran in the form of cash, intelligence, weapons and human capital.Iran’s leaders have publicly called for the destruction of Israel (and the United States, for that matter) and have been in relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons, which should have long since served as a wake-up call to anyone who does not take Islamic extremism seriously.Everyone is endangered when third-world civilizations achieve first-world armament.When said third-world civilizations are also Arab extremists, Israel especially is endangered.
The international community has actually already intervened on this issue once, with little success.UN Resolution 1559, approved in 2004, called for, among other things, Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon, which Israel honored.It also required the disarmament of Hezbollah and other militia groups, which Lebanon did not honor.Instead, in the time that elapsed between the passage of 1559 and the current conflict, Hezbollah managed to procure tens of thousands of rockets and other sophisticated weapons from Syria and Iran.Those rockets were launched by the thousands into Israel last August, and the additional weaponry was used to hold off the Israeli advance. Now that they have the space to regroup, what are the chances that Hezbollah will simply lay down its remaining weapons and allow the peace process to work? Hezbollah leader Nasrallah was quoted last year as saying that disarming Hezbollah now would be "wrong timing and immoral."
Even if the Lebanese army could get Hezbollah to lay down its arms, the effort would likely result in civil war, a state from which Lebanon only recently emerged.Lebanon is simply not strong enough to disarm and control Hezbollah.But Israel could have – and should have.
The international community pats itself on the back for the lives that were saved and the violence that was ended by its truce agreement.But let’s look at the reality of the brokered ceasefire.Iran and Syria claimed victory and were convinced that Israel’s military is much weaker than they thought – an assessment that encourages and emboldens future action against Israel.The president of Iran continues to make bold statements and thinly veiled threats against our interests.The morale of Hezbollah fighters received a tremendous boost and a lot of publicity.Not only was Hezbollah able to hold out against the Middle East’s most powerful army, but the world demonstrated a willingness to collectively prevent the use of force as a response to terrorist acts of war.
The reality is, a stronger Hezbollah will only cost more lives and inflict more violence on the world.Historically, the use of force has been an effective deterrence to terror, but if the world cannot stomach the consequences of such a response, it cannot overcome or defeat terrorist organizations.Anytime terrorists are involved, there will be casualties, because the terrorists do not care whether thousands of innocent people die.They believe that their brethren who die (whether as civilians or soldiers) will receive their heavenly reward and that the infidels who die are receiving their just end.They are willing to use civilians as shields, and masquerade as civilians themselves, storing weapons in heavily civilian populated areas. They are also ready and willing to sacrifice their own lives for their acts of terror.Westerners never seem to understand this element of extremism.
In the West, we are looking to a changing of the guard in November.This week Barack Obama sealed the democratic nomination for the US presidency.As the primaries have progressed, much attention has been paid to Mr. Obama’s stance toward Israel, with mixed assessments.This past week, the Illinois senator pledged his unwavering strong support for Israel at a speech before AIPAC, America’s most well-known pro-Israel lobby.But Obama’s Muslim roots combined with his association with known anti-Semites cause skepticism in his sincerity where support for Israel is concerned.
But potentially even more disconcerting than Obama’s political associations is his seeming naiveté in the realm of foreign policy.Obama has been an advocate of outreach toward Iran and has suggested that Iran is justified in its current posturing because it has been provoked by our actions in Iraq.He introduced a bill that he co-sponsored (the Iran Divestment Bill), which would require the US to publish every six months a list of companies that have an investment of 20 million dollars or more in Iran’s energy sector, to serve as a disincentive for companies to invest in Iran and a deterrent for US companies to do business with foreigners who do choose to invest in Iran.
This is Mr. Obama’s idea of “getting tough” on Iran.
At the same time, Obama continues to call for complete nuclear disarmament of all countries of the world, expressing that the US should “lead by example”.Does Mr. Obama really think that if the US and Israel destroyed all of their nuclear weapons, the rogue nations of the world would happily destroy theirs as well, or discontinue the development of such weapons?Really?Really??
Senator Obama, in a panel discussion at the Arab American Institute conference in Detroit, implied that the stagnancy of the peace process is to blame for the actions of terrorists.Given the volatile environment in which Israel fights to survive and thrive as well as the events of the past seven years, can we afford a president who fails to understand the complex dynamics surrounding the hostility that plagues Israel, not to mention our interests in supporting and protecting the only working democracy and our strongest ally in the region?
Looking back at the events of last August, had Hezbollah been effectually taken out by Israel, Lebanon would have been on a clearer path toward peaceful governance, Israel would be able to concentrate on its central peace process (much, I am sure, to the delight of Senator Obama), Syria and Iran would have been sent a strong message that terrorism does not go without swift, violent response and dire consequence, and the world would be rid of one of the most lethal, extremist organizations in operation today.
The world got it wrong. Can we be certain that Mr. Obama will get it right?
One of the things about diplomatic talks and political attempts to de-escalate violence, is that it can provide room for your own side to empower itself and get leverage.
While I agree with many of the concerns in this article, I also think that diplomatic efforts and de-escalation gestures are useful. Everyone knows in diplomacy that there are lots of lies and posturing going on, but gentle or polite attitudes are appreciated nonetheless, while diplomats know that under one's breath or behind one's back one is muttering hideous things. Using non-military means is quite helpful. Using non-military means can give you leverage for when eventually you do resort to force (overt or covert).
Whoever wins an election, they are advised by many advisors, of varying quality, and with varying motives and allegiances, and they also may be checked by congress and others.
I don't trust any of the candidates, but I do hope that enough of the checks are sufficiently working, and working in the right ways, to prevent the worst travesties.
A force which demonstrates it has a higher ethical standard on human and civil rights, which defends itself wisely, ought to be able to handle at least some of the diplomacy issues by appealing to others who value such standards. But any use of torture, casual attitudes towards concerns about war crimes or civil/human rights abuses, or the appearance of recklessness, can all undermine the attainment of ethical higher ground, and can result in the corrosion of other allies' support which might have been based in part upon such higher ground.
For that reason, great efforts should be taken to DEMONSTRATE not only effective defensive forcefulness, but also the higher ethical ground, for all to see. The US and also Israel, must work at this, highlight this, SHOW IT CLEARLY and CONSISTENTLY. Of course they must also be careful and serious about defense.
