In the Washington Post, historian Michael Oren argues that Israel must target not only the terrorist leaders that threaten it, but also their national sponsors: "Israel has no realistic option but to convince [Syria and Iran] that the price of promoting aggression is prohibitive. If Israeli soldiers and civilians are the targets of Iranian- and Syrian-backed terror, then the Iranian and Syrian militaries must become targets for Israel."
I still prefer my wording
A real war is better than a false peace (the Clinton doctrine of empty agreements is bearing fruit). States that support terror must be isolated and held responsible for the terrorists they support. Syria and Iran can not wage war through proxy against Israel and the United States and not expect serious consequences
but the argument is the same, its time for everyone to chose sides, and those that chose the wrong side (there is a right and wrong side here, cultural relativism, MY ASS) will be included in the assisted-suicide pact that Hezbollah and Hamas (and the current leadership of Iran and Syria) have joined into by provoking Israel.
So far the Saudis, the Egyptians, the majority of Lebanese, the Iraqis, and everyone else have chosen to side with the right side on this matter.
Rhetorically, Israel is taking a beating in Europe, but that's nothing new, anti-semitism coupled with the reflexive desire to appease tyranny seem to be bred into the DNA of the chattering, diplomatic and bureaucratic classes of Western Europe.
I appreciate Reader I Am's more measured approach (and link rich) to the goings on in the region, but I think some conclusions can be safely reached, anyway. It's crystal clear who the bad guys are in all of this, and they aren't the ones who fly the flag with the Star of David in its center. The war against Israel has been ongoing since its founding, when the war flares up and turn into a shooting conflict, some folks like to pretend that these are separate unrelated events (often blaming Israel for these flare ups).
Some countries (Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, most of Lebanon, even many Palestinians) accept Israel's right to exist and understand that for the region to flourish, a lasting equitable peace must be agreed upon.
The crazies must be isolated and attacked, not molified or ignored.
The problems of the region aren't intractable or inevitable. Once the crazies are taken care of, the sane folk will realize that Israel as a partner in peace is much better than Israel as a foe in conflict.
That's why the Bush Doctrine is so necessary, and so clumsy and painful at the same time. It's easier and seemingly less costly in terms of money and lives to coddle and appease the crazies, but all that buys is a little time in the short term and the promise of even worse attacks in the future (the whole 20th century should have proven that to anyone paying attention). The 90s also should have proven that. Again and again, the Clinton Administration's reflexive desire for empty agreements and 'legacy building' only put a lid on the pressure cooker, they did nothing to turn down the heat. The Bush Administration has decided to tear the lid off, and let everything come to a boil, but at the same time they are working on real ways to eliminate the sources of all the heat so that small provocations won't build into explosive situations now and in the future.
3 comments:
I think your blind spot is ignoring that Israel (and it's supporters) do not lack for crazies either.
I agree with you that Israel isn't 'the bad guys' in the wider conflict, but they work pretty hard at not being the good guys either. And I don't see how broadening it out to a wider war does much to solve the to-some-degree legitimate resentment of Israel by the populous of its Muslim neighbors.
I know I'm not helpful, because I don't have a good solution either (other than one which will clearly never happen, such as turning Jerusalem into Vatican East minus a pope.) But I don't see the hardes of the hardlines being either practical or especially effacacious in more than the medium term - even assuming that Israel could topple the Syrian, Egyptian, Iranian, etc... regimes, what then?
I certainly don't see Israel as the "bad guys"; you can definitely count me among its supporters, despite its occasional excesses. I just think it's a little too early to tell if its current strategy will work or not, and whether it will ultimately redound to its own benefit or that of the region overall. And I was particularly referring to the differing analysis (though more so in my second post) as to who is really the target, or main threat.
As to whether broadening specific conflicts into a broader war solves anything, I guess I'd have to confess a utilitarian, even cynical attitude: If it works, it does. If not, the ill-will etc. will have been ratched up to a whole new level for years to come.
I guess I'd have to confess a utilitarian, even cynical attitude: If it works, it does. If not, the ill-will etc. will have been ratched up to a whole new level for years to come.
WRT to this conflict (and probably India/Pakistan as well) that is probably the best attitude to take, as enough dastardly deeds have been done by both sides to make any moralizing both empty and ineffective (no, I'm not saying both are equally bad - I'm saying both have reached the threshold which allows them to be seen, somewhat rationally, as bad actors)
Post a Comment