Killing the Cedar Revolution
When Israel responds to attacks on its soldiers by bombing Hezbollah and Hamas, I say bomb away. God has more than sufficient capacity to sort them out. I understand that in the Middle East, one must acquire a certain retaliatory credibility.
But at the risk of provoking the mother of all flame wars in the comments section, I cannot understand why Israel is also bombing bridges and runways that belong to the newly elected government of Lebanon, which had neither a role in the attacks nor the capacity to prevent them. Remember the Cedar Revolution that gave us such hope, so recently? The Lebanese government is just beginning to consolidate its fragile nation state after decades of civil war and Syrian occupation. It’s in no condition to take on Hebollah, which still controls half of Lebanon’s territory with its Iranian and Syrian backing (have you seen Michael Totten’s blogging about his travels in Hezbanon?).
A long-term solution to the terror that plagues both Israelis and Lebanese isn’t amenable to a hot-tempered response, although doing serious damage to Hezbollah’s infrastructure will briefly advance that cause (the effect will be fleeting if it’s not sustained). A more prudent Israeli response would be to gradually build its alliances with Lebanon’s more moderate Sunnis, its smattering of moderate Shiites, and with its Druze and Christian populations. The intelligent move is to build non-Hezbollah Lebanon into a viable nation-state capable of regaining control over its own South and the Bekaa Valley, by that particularly Levantine combination of force and diplomacy. Attacking the Lebanese government for failing to do what it lacks the capacity to do — reign in Hezbollah — seems counterproductive in the extreme, and harms the U.S. interest in spreading democracy in the region.
Worse, this could offer Syria the justification to gradually reinsert itself into Lebanon, which had proven to be a lucrative colony. It could even complicate our own fragile alliance with the Iraqi Shiites.
Sadly, Lebanon made its own bed when it invited Hezbollah into the government.
Moreover, it looks like only Hezbollah targets are being hit.
Still, it would be a good time to liberate Syria. That would solve a lot of problems.
That last sentence in Joshua’s commentary is the really the essence of the immediate danger. I’m all for Isreali sovereignty but it seems that they have become so astute at politicizing their victimhood that they forget to stop doing it when it would be more practical to do so. I’m not going to give Syria the credit either for recognizing a practical opportunity when it appears but their chaotic nature will attract them back into Lebanon and deprive that country of order in the near future.
On a slightly different note, it’s amazing how events in and around Israel can so captivate the American audience that the development of nukes in North Korea is old news already. I really do wonder if that is a question of the audience or the source of the news.
MrChips: On a slightly different note, it’s amazing how events in and around Israel can so captivate the American audience that the development of nukes in North Korea is old news already. I really do wonder if that is a question of the audience or the source of the news.
Like it or not, any brigade-sized invasion of a foreign country by an American ally is big news, especially when scores of rockets are landing in that ally’s cities. Heck, even the Somali Islamic Courts issue was pretty big news, and that was no more than a few hundred Muslim bandits taking on their opponents. Another important aspect is the possibility that Israel’s invasion will unite all of the Arabs around Lebanon, potentially touching off a multi-front conventional war with Israel, a la 1967 or Yom Kippur in 1973. The region is always big news because of oil. Without oil, it would be just another desultory clash between rival states, much like Eritrea vs Ethiopia. The threat to oil supplies is what makes the Israeli invasion interesting. Note that the 1973 war was accompanied by an Arab oil embargo.
“I cannot understand why Israel is also bombing bridges and runways that belong to the newly elected government of Lebanon.”
So true. The Lebanese government is far from perfect, but it is that rarest of creatures in the Middle East – a democracy. Such is the new government’s eagerness to appear “tough” in the face of terrorism, it is prepared to destablize a democratic country on its doorstep. Very silly.
Zhang Fei, you’re definately right that oil makes the middle east region a more attractive media story (I can’t think of a better way to say that though there probably is). I’m not sure that it can fully explain the discrepancy in media coverage enough for me though. Israeli activities are indirectly tied to oil issues since neither Israel nor any of their immediate neighbors are rich in fossil fuel resources. It’s the politics behind the Israel vs. Muslim stand-off that gives the media the zing in their news stories; that politics is, I think, more complicated than any other political scenario in the world making opposing sides more militant and the large chunk of us in the middle more befuddled by what these two contestants are doing. I think there is something in the middle east beyond oil/economic pressures that draws American interest where the far east or other parts of the world draw only a passing interest. Now, certainly that could change if enough of an economic crisis were to take place in Asia, but in that case the interest would be solely economic without the political baggage that goes along with a Zion/Franj vs. Salah al-Din fantasy that runs through anything even trivial that takes place in the middle east. I might be taking that too far, granted. However, I think there is something going on between American media and the American audience that makes this a more high profile area of the world than it is to other audiences in the world.
I disagree with Joshua on this one. This being the Middle East, you play by “Hama Rules,” not by the Marquis of Queensberry rules.
As an Israeli officials said, if the Hizbullah and their Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian allies make life difficult for northern Israel, Israel ought to make their lives a living hell.
Remember, the IDF unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon. Hizbullah had no “it’s the occupation” excuse to launch attacks on Israel or abduct its soldiers.
Deep inside, I think the Lebanese would understand that Hizbullah launched a naked aggression on Israel, which is inviting retribution in return. They are likely to blame Hizbullah for the result no matter what their officials say in public.
Besides, this appears to be entirely at the behest of Syria and Iran. If anything, this will convince even more Lebanese people that their national interests are being sold out to carry out the whims of Damascus and Tehran.
The Cedar Revolution has helped to enable Israel to carry out the current attacks. The Cedar Revolution led to the withdrawal of the Syrian military from Lebanon, which has weakened Hezbollah. Israel is taking advantage of this by attacking Hezbollah.
Who is mi-hwa and why is he/she/it wrong on just about everything?
To Johnny K: I dare you to prove with facts that I’m wrong. Just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean that you are right and I’m wrong.