Decision ‘08

More Barnyard Cosmetics

Delusions are everywhere regarding the new cease-fire; witness this asinine commentary being issued by our own State Department:

The UN-declared cease-fire in Lebanon, if fully implemented, would be a strategic setback for Iran and Syria because it strengthens democracy in Lebanon and stabilizes the border with Israel, the State Department said Monday.

“You will not have Hizbullah roaming freely in the south of Lebanon,” spokesman Sean McCormack said. “Iran and Syria will not have had the ability to rearm Hizbullah.”

The militia, designated as a terrorist group by the department, have fought for 34 days with Israel. The guerrillas used rockets and other weapons provided by Iran and channeled through Syria, according to US and Israeli officials.

The UN resolution sets the stage for 15,000 Lebanese troops and 15,000 foreign troops to be deployed in southern Lebanon, the main staging area for decades for Hizbullah cross-border attacks on Israel.

Two years ago, the UN Security Council required Hizbullah to disarm, and that principle is carried over by the new resolution approved unanimously last week. McCormack said when the two resolutions are implemented “that would represent a setback for Hizbullah.”

How McCormack can say this with a straight face is beyond me; the Lebanese have made it abundantly clear that THEY won’t disarm Hezbollah, and God knows the UN will not - so how exactly once again is the principle of disarming Hezbollah carried over to this new resolution?

Then again, I am living under a delusion myself if I expect the UN to take any forceful action against Israel’s enemies:

IT IS important to note that the Syrians and Iranians were able to engage in one of the biggest terrorism-sponsorship events in history, at no cost whatsoever - a point that will surely not escape the attention of those countries’ leaders. Not only did they avoid any direct material damage to their countries, there was no serious international criticism or call for sanctions.

Those with a macabre sense of humor might note that paragraph 15 of the UN cease-fire resolution calls on member countries - including Syria and Iran - to ensure that arms are not smuggled into Lebanon.

Does anybody believe anything will be done when Syria and Iran inevitably break that provision? Will such a violation even be reported, much less punished?

On the public relations front, Israel came in for far more condemnation than Teheran and Damascus. This in itself is a victory for the latter. Imagine being able to arm, train and incite a terrorist group to violate an international border and deliberately target another country’s civilians, suffer no cost, and make your victim come out looking worse!

In the terrorism sponsorship business it doesn’t get any better than that.

MOST IMPORTANT of all, the stock of Iran and Syria has risen across the Arab world. They are now the heroes of the resistance. For the first time, the Persian/Arab, Shi’ite/Sunni wall has been breached. Within Syria, though not Iran, the adventure also increased the regime’s domestic popularity. This is a definite win/win situation.

Within Lebanon, the cease-fire arrangements solve none of that country’s real internal problems. Those who criticize Syria and Iran and Hizbullah know that their lives are in danger and the West won’t help them.

There’s no getting around it; this is catastrophic. Israel has bungled a golden opportunity and instead, with the inexplicable support of the United States, has agreed to be bound by a ceasefire that strategically places them in a position where even clear-cut self-defense will result in worldwide condemnation (though that would have come in any event - we are talking Israel, after all).

I can’t escape the feeling that we have suffered a humiliating defeat, both Israel and the United States, one whose repercussions will be severe and long-term. My faith in diplomacy, never great to begin with where the Middle East is involved, is pretty well shattered, and I must say I have lost a great deal of respect for Condoleezza Rice, whose shoulders no doubt carry the primary burden of supporting this sham of a solution.

Rumsfeld and Cheney may not know how to handle an occupation, but at least they could diagnose the threat properly…

6 Responses to “More Barnyard Cosmetics”

1 peter Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I agree completely (except for the last sentence: if they diagnosed the threat from Iraq properly, we wouldn’t have invaded).

Things are as bad now in the Middle East as I have ever seen them –
2 Dmac Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Appeasement never works in the Middle East - it’s just another sign of weakness to their many enemies. Let’s hope Bibi takes over ASAP - he may not be able to rectify the present mess, but he won’t be shy about responding to future provocations.
3 mason Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Dmac, I am unfamiliar with the structure of the Israeli government. How soon could there be a shift of power from Olmert to Bibi?
4 Sean P Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Olmert’s party does not control a majority of the seats in the Knesset, and is therefore at the mercy of the other parties in Olmert’s coalition. Once enough of them pull out that Olmert no longer has a majority, he has to call new elections. How soon they can pull out, how many parties need to pull out and how soon thereafter that the elections are held are factors I don’t know.
5 Dmac Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Mason - Sean pretty much nailed your question, as Olmert is indeed a man without a party, a party that was predicated on Sharon’s personality and leadership. Most political analysts in Israel expect a return to the two - party system shortly (Likud and Labor), with Bibi making a strong push to take Olmert’s place.

Hope this recent story from the Jerusalem Post helps fill out the blanks:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525874437&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
6 mason Says:
August 15th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Thanks for the info and link!