NYT Definition of Diplomatic Progress: What Hezbollah Wants
The implication that this is news seems a little strange:
Moreover, in Lebanon the talk was of exchanging the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah for prisoners in Israel, while the Israelis clearly want a more comprehensive deal that will end the risk that Hezbollah poses on their border.
The Times acts as if these are two equal bargaining positions (the implication being more or less that a compromise should be found somewhere in the middle). But of course, "exchanging the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah for prisoners" isn't a bargaining position to end the war - it's the motive that began the war in the first place. In other words, that 'peace deal' is nothing short of full victory for Hezbollah (in exactly the same way that 'compromise' with Hamas meant 'full victory for Hamas').
Moreover, Israel's demand for a 'more comprehensive deal' isn't something that they should have to trade Hezbollah terrorists for - it's what Lebanon has been obligated to do since Israel left the Security Zone over half a decade ago. This entire setup seems to have a strangely familiar feel, in which the sophisticated diplomatic and journalistic position is that Israel should cave to its enemies' demands in return for something that they were supposed to get the last time that they caved to their enemies' demands.
Moreover, in Lebanon the talk was of exchanging the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah for prisoners in Israel, while the Israelis clearly want a more comprehensive deal that will end the risk that Hezbollah poses on their border.
The Times acts as if these are two equal bargaining positions (the implication being more or less that a compromise should be found somewhere in the middle). But of course, "exchanging the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah for prisoners" isn't a bargaining position to end the war - it's the motive that began the war in the first place. In other words, that 'peace deal' is nothing short of full victory for Hezbollah (in exactly the same way that 'compromise' with Hamas meant 'full victory for Hamas').
Moreover, Israel's demand for a 'more comprehensive deal' isn't something that they should have to trade Hezbollah terrorists for - it's what Lebanon has been obligated to do since Israel left the Security Zone over half a decade ago. This entire setup seems to have a strangely familiar feel, in which the sophisticated diplomatic and journalistic position is that Israel should cave to its enemies' demands in return for something that they were supposed to get the last time that they caved to their enemies' demands.
