Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Caipirabob; All
You won't believe the editorial in today's Washington Post. Thoroughly well-thought-out. The Kerrys of the world will read it and weep.

A Solution for Lebanon

Behind all the rhetoric, there's a consensus that Hezbollah must be weakened and contained.

DESPITE THE terrible bloodshed in Lebanon and Israel over the weekend, including the tragic death of scores of women and children in the village of Qana, the United States, Israel and the Lebanese government continue to seek the same outcome to the war. That is the removal of Hezbollah's militia from the Lebanese-Israeli border as well as steps toward its disarmament; the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south; and the extension of the Lebanese government's sovereignty to all of the country's territory. Despite all the rhetoric about an immediate cease-fire and the predictable focus by media outlets around the world on Israel's mistakes and excesses, every party in the Middle East other than Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors believes that a resolution to the crisis that fails to achieve those conditions would be a catastrophe.

In other words, it's not just President Bush who believes that a solution in Lebanon must address "the root cause of the problems." The administration's rhetoric about the crisis as "an opportunity" for "a new Middle East" may horrify Washington's self-described realists. But a more hardheaded way of spelling out the same stakes came from Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader who is no friend of the United States or Israel. "Either we will have a state able to establish its control over the country or we will have . . . a reduced weakened state and a strong militia beside the Lebanese army that decides war and peace at any time and has its schedule decided by the Iranians and the Syrians," Mr. Jumblatt told The Post's Anthony Shadid. "I don't see a state of Lebanon surviving with a militia next to an army. That's it."

This quiet consensus explains why Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was vowing yesterday to get a cease-fire resolution through the U.N. Security Council sometime this week, but also saying that it must be accompanied by a mandate for disempowering Hezbollah. All sides -- including Israel -- understand that the movement, which represents many Lebanese Shiites, cannot be destroyed or entirely disarmed by military means. But it can, and must, be weakened, forced to retreat and deprived of the ability to attack across the international border at will.

The trick is determining how much of this should be left to Israel's ongoing military campaign, how much to the international force the United Nations will be asked to authorize for Lebanon, and how much to the political and diplomatic pressure that might be exerted by Lebanese political parties on Hezbollah, or by Western and Arab governments on Iran and Syria. While it would be convenient to conclude that no further military action by Israel is needed, its army's slow progress suggests otherwise. In fact, any Israeli stand-down will depend heavily on whether European governments and other Security Council members are prepared to authorize and supply an international force with sufficient strength and authority to deter Hezbollah.

As for diplomatic leverage, a first step in the right direction was the Security Council's passage yesterday of a resolution ordering Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program and reiterating an offer of incentives in the event it does. In the coming weeks both the Iranian and Syrian governments need to hear a consistent message: A decision to cooperate in stabilizing the Middle East, from Iraq to Lebanon and Gaza, will ease their present isolation. But attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction or wage proxy war through groups such as Hezbollah will be answered with strength, not appeasement.

Couldn't have said it better myself!
198 posted on 08/01/2006 2:52:43 AM PDT by Timeout (I hate MediaCrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]


To: Timeout

Good morning. I am trying to catch up. Best go make breakfast for Mr Marple, first.


199 posted on 08/01/2006 3:00:00 AM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Amazingly, Jimmuh Carter--in an op ed on the same page---provides the wooly-headed-liberal view. You have to read it to believe how naive it is. But here are some snippets:
The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented [Of course, the first aim is achievable, but Carter fails to explain how the rest would be accomplished]. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners [Amazing! He never mentions the kidnapped Israeli soldiers]. Yet yesterday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected a cease-fire.

Snip...

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability. [Carter so misses the mark, one wonders at his mental stability. The part about the Palestinians doesn't even make sense, but the nut of the problem is that ISRAEL'S NEIGHBORS KEEP ATTACKING HER!]

I can't do any more. He's not worth my time.
202 posted on 08/01/2006 3:12:46 AM PDT by Timeout (I hate MediaCrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

To: Timeout
predictable focus by media outlets around the world on Israel's mistakes and excesses>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anyone familiar with Israeli campaigns of the past would hardly say that Israel has made mistakes and suffered excesses. A truer picture would be rendered by saying that any mistakes Israel has made are because she has been too wary of excess.

If this were the 1970s Israeli forces would be entering Beirut by now after having decimated the Syrian Army arrayed on Lebanons border. The fact that this has not ocurred has inspired the Islamofascists to think that their victory is at hand.

213 posted on 08/01/2006 4:05:55 AM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson