princesspupule wrote:Washington Post compares Israel's response to Lebanon to India's response to the communter train bombings, then goes on to claim that most gov'ts are waiting for the U.S. to step up and solve the Middle East's problems... Not quite sure what the author makes of Israel's attempt to solve its own problem since that's how I see their response; am I reading bassackwards again? Is Mallaby saying that Israel ought to wait for the U.S., like India did?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600702.html
(Just in case the link doesn't work, the article is called
The Fighters and the Freeloaders by Sebastian Mallaby)
Actually Mallaby is saying that Israel needs to wait, not for the US, but for Russia, China, and to a lesser extent the Western Europeans.
To his credit, he is also saying that Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, Western Europe has to stop sitting back and allowing the US to do all the heavy lifting, and to stop viewing these crisis situations as being in their strategic interests because they cause trouble for the US.
Clearly Mallaby believes that India's and not Israel's was the proper response to a terrorist attack: Take no aggressive action, but seek help from the Great Powers to pressure the state sponsoring the terrorist
to get them to stop doing the sh*t.
At least Mallaby is realistic enough to realize that it is only a better approach if all of the powers who have the necessary influence are willing to exert it.
There are, of course, important differences between the Israeli and India experiences.
1) Pakistan is a nuclear power - neither Syria, nor Iran are (yet).
2) Hezbollah does not operate within the borders of its state sponsors as does Lashkar-e-Taiba. An attack against Hezbollah, cannot be taken as an act of war by its state sponsors
3) The Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks while perhaps not singular in nature are not a daily occurrence. While India waits for the US, China and the UN to pressure Pakistan, it is not under daily rocket fire.
4) Lashkar-e-Taiba does not seek the destruction of India, but it's withdrawal from Kasmir. Hezbollah does not seek Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory, it seeks its destruction.
5) The US, the only major power willing to exert influence in these situations (as Mallaby rightly suggests) has influence over Pakistan. It has no influence over Iran and Syria.
It is questionable whether or not India would have taken the same approach if Lashkar-e-Taiba were operating out of Nepal or Bangladesh.
Still, if the diplomatic approach has a real chance of working it is clearly preferable to military action. The key, of course, is whether or not it has any chance of working.
Has the past proven to Israel that it can rely upon Russia, China, the UN or even Western Europe to protect its citizens or ensure its security? Sure it can rely upon the US to a large extent, but the only player in this mess that the US can pressure is Israel. The countries, in the region, with which the US does have influence (Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) are not involved.
It is easy to say that military action will not succeed in the situation facing Israel, and there is historical evidence to support such an argument, but there is also historical evidence to support the argument that diplomatic efforts will not succeed either. In the meantime Hezbollah fires rockets and, now, missiles at Israeli cities.
If the historical diplomatic "solution" transpires here, there will be a ceasefire, and eventually prisoners will be exchanged. Hezbollah will still exist in strength, will still have it's supply of armaments (which undoubtedly will continue to grow), and will still be a part of the Lebanese government. Within time, there will be another crisis and more deaths.
The UN has already recognized the real solution and issued a resolution to spell it out: Hezbollah must disarm, and the Lebanese Army must move into Southern Lebanon. In other words the continuing threat posed by Hezbollah to Israel, must be eliminated.
Can anyone imagine any circumstances under which Hezbollah will voluntarily disarm and forswear the destruction of Israel? If not, the elimination of the Hezbollah threat to Israel will only be accomplished through force. The Lebanese Army cannot accomplish such a task. Who will? What nation or group of nations are willing to send troops into Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah?
There is one other possible way (and here we return to Mallaby's piece) Iran and Syria might be persuaded to stop financing and arming Hezbollah or to yank back hard on their chains.
But who will do the persuading?
Europe's persuasive powers over Iran are essentially nil, and to the extent it has any real influence over Syria, that is being undermined and replaced by Iran's.
Whether or not Russia and China have any real influence over Iran is questionable, but if they will not use it to keep a country that is closer to their borders than ours from obtaining nuclear weapons, why would we expect them to exert it to protect Isreal's security?
Diplomacy is a whole lot more than getting everyone around a table and helping them to understand each other's points of view. It is pressuring, cajoling, promising, and threatening. In order for Iran and Syria to eliminate the threat that Hezbollah presents to Israel, they must either receive something they want to have or be made to fear that they will lose something they want to keep.
What are we going to give Iran
so that they will stop supporting terrorists? Permission to build a nuclear arsenal?
What are we going to make them fear? Again, if the world can't come together to agree on sanctions that are intended to halt nuclear proliferation, why should anyone, let alone Israel, believe the world will do anything to stop Iran from supporting Hezbollah?
