Hooray for Israel

I'm going to speak out on the latest conflict.  Of course I support Israel, as apparently do most world leaders, and half the Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia all blame Hezbollah for the current crisis).  But I think Israel's declared goal of eliminating Hezbollah is bold and even visionary.  Sharon would be proud.  Here's why.

Prior to the Kadima party, Israelis had three answers to the problem of terrorism and Arab aggression, particularly on the part of the Palestinians:

Labor: Let's negotiate.
Moderate Likud: Measured military response.
Extremist Likud: Let's kick them all out and keep Greater Israel for ourselves.
(There is also an anti-violence contingent in Israel, but they are so small that they barely deserve mention.  I hasten to point out that Yitzhak Rabin was a famous war hero before he became the head of Labor.)

None of those solutions are viable.  If Rabin had stayed alive, it is possible that the negotiation solution would have worked.  But he was the only one with the clout and the charisma to pull that off.  Deporting all the Palestinians would never have worked either; it would have been akin to ethnic cleansing, and would have flown in the face of Jewish values.  And the "proportional response" strategy obviously wasn't working.

But that's the beauty of the Kadima party, which has already proven to be Sharon's true lasting legacy.  Sharon realized that the old cycle was not working and he needed to break it.  He realized that the only way to break the cycle was to do things differently.  This means making difficult decisions and, sometimes, very difficult sacrifices.  Thus, the Father of the Settlers unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, for the sake of peace.  Olmert is no Sharon.  But, as head of the Kadima party, he embodies the same mentality: we need to do things differently.  Terrorists have kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians before, for which they have been rewarded.  Hezbollah has made pinprick attacks into Israel before, for which they have barely been punished.  Olmert instantly saw that it would be useless to continue that cycle.  So he decided to break the cycle.

What will be the outcome?  Hezbollah's back will be broken.  It is almost impossible to truly destroy an insurgent organization with tens of thousands of supporters.  But Israel will destroy their ability to attack inside of Israel.  Once Hezbollah is weak, the Lebanese central government can move in and impose order.  Thus, Hezbollah will loose their political and military power.  Nasrallah will continue to hide in his cave somewhere, just like Bin Laden, but his ability to make Israel bleed will be reduced to nearly nothing.

I'd also like to add that I'm thrilled that Canadian Prime Minister Harper has thrown his unequivocal support behind Israel.  Why is it that conservatives always seem more pro-Israel than liberals?  Maybe it's because conservatives understand that sometimes war IS the answer.

In addition, I find it hillarious that Putin is criticizing Israel's reaction for being "disproportionate."  Are you kidding?  This from the guy who destroyed the entire town of Grozny using heavy artillery.

Moreover, I think the idea of an UN peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon is a nice idea, but doomed to failure.  THERE'S A UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE THERE RIGHT NOW.  And, predictably, they're useless.  2,000 soldiers, just sitting there watching the rockets being launched.  Blair, Putin, Chirac, and Kofi Annan all think a new, "more capable" peacekeeping force is the answer.  Just one question: when has the UN actually been able to stop a shooting war?  Oh yeah--the Korean War, when you had Americans wearing blue helmets.  But even America has a history of failure in Lebanon, at the hands of Hezbollah.

Another thing: I'm not worried about this escalating into a regional conflict.  Iran and Syria talk tough now, but they both know they'd get pasted by Israel in a direct conflict.  That's why they prefer to fight by proxy and let the Palestinians do the dying for them.

Finally, I've noticed some commentary pointing out that there seems to be an internal split in the Arab world, and predictably this split follows religious lines: Shiite versus Sunni.  Mubarak has already described what he sees as the "Shiite Crescent," which includes archs from Iran, through Syria, and down to Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.  Sunni states, like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, not only stay out of the conflict, but they resent the actions of those in the Shiite Crescent.  Moreover, it seems apparent that the Shiite Crescent has been pursuing their aggressive policies out of a desire to become regional leaders.  Hezbollah has been largely sidelined since Israel pulled out six years ago, but now Nasrallah is on the front page of every paper in the world.  Iran has been building nukes and ballistic missiles.  As the ambitions of the Shiite Crescent grow, the rest of the Arab world will probably resent them more and more.  Even attacking Israel isn't the rallying cause it once was.
I've been reading a good half dozen articles on the conflict every day since I got back from the Canadian back country.  There are a lot of good articles out there, but I will only link to this one: In the cockpit | Jerusalem Post

P.S.: I'm reminded of the Mideast peace plan I wrote with some fellow students--Jews and Muslims--in undergrad.  It was a great plan at the time, but I don't think there's any bilateral peace plan that will work at this point.  In fact, I don't think there is any viable option other than Israel doing what it needs to do, on its own.