Israel Does Everyone's Dirty Work, Gets Condemned Anyway
Remember when we made fun of Saniora's plan to have "the world" disarm Hezbollah - because the plan was really stupid?
What's this talk about a ceasefire? Does Saniora think that a well-maintained Hezbollah militia will be easier to disarm than one that's been leveled by the IDF? And if he does, does he have an idea of who in "the entire world" is going to do his dirty work for him? Even if they were willing to risk another dust-up in Lebanon (which they're not), the US isn't going to move troops from Iraq to Lebanon. Russia has warmer ties with Syria and Iran than they do with Lebanon, so they're out... let's be honest: Europe, armed forces - discuss. So that's not going to work... Saniora knows that nobody but Israel is going to take on Hezbollah... when he says "Israel should declare a ceasefire and other people should take on Hezbollah".. he actually means is "Israel should declare a ceasefire".
Not to brag, but it turns out that we were right:
Support is building quickly for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but there remains a small problem: where will the troops come from? The United States has ruled out its soldiers participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it, a highly unlikely development. "All the politicians are saying, 'Great, great' to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground," said one senior European official. "Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus."
Obviously. But that certainly won't stop European politicians and diplomats from pretending that their idea for an Israeli ceasefire followed by a multinational force is actually viable. It's a stark example of how diplomacy operates in the Middle East: everybody pretends that all sides will equally toe the rule of law's line, even while everybody knows that the solution will be inequitable and that Israel will end up disadvantaged. The real question isn't how the dynamic works. The pattern for international interventions has been the same since at least 1967:
(1) Israel's Arab enemies try to destroy Israel
(2) They start losing
(3) They get the UN to quickly impose a ceasefire
(4) They regroup
(5) They throw out the peacekeepers (Nasser) / violate international law (Hezbollah) / declare themselves unfettered by treaties (Hamas) / etc
(6) They try to destroy Israel again.
The real question is how Middle East diplomats can be so shameless as to pretend that international law is anything but a rigged game where Israel repeatedly fights its way out of the gallows, only to be required to quietly put its head back in the noose within a few days.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
What's this talk about a ceasefire? Does Saniora think that a well-maintained Hezbollah militia will be easier to disarm than one that's been leveled by the IDF? And if he does, does he have an idea of who in "the entire world" is going to do his dirty work for him? Even if they were willing to risk another dust-up in Lebanon (which they're not), the US isn't going to move troops from Iraq to Lebanon. Russia has warmer ties with Syria and Iran than they do with Lebanon, so they're out... let's be honest: Europe, armed forces - discuss. So that's not going to work... Saniora knows that nobody but Israel is going to take on Hezbollah... when he says "Israel should declare a ceasefire and other people should take on Hezbollah".. he actually means is "Israel should declare a ceasefire".
Not to brag, but it turns out that we were right:
Support is building quickly for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but there remains a small problem: where will the troops come from? The United States has ruled out its soldiers participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it, a highly unlikely development. "All the politicians are saying, 'Great, great' to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground," said one senior European official. "Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus."
Obviously. But that certainly won't stop European politicians and diplomats from pretending that their idea for an Israeli ceasefire followed by a multinational force is actually viable. It's a stark example of how diplomacy operates in the Middle East: everybody pretends that all sides will equally toe the rule of law's line, even while everybody knows that the solution will be inequitable and that Israel will end up disadvantaged. The real question isn't how the dynamic works. The pattern for international interventions has been the same since at least 1967:
(1) Israel's Arab enemies try to destroy Israel
(2) They start losing
(3) They get the UN to quickly impose a ceasefire
(4) They regroup
(5) They throw out the peacekeepers (Nasser) / violate international law (Hezbollah) / declare themselves unfettered by treaties (Hamas) / etc
(6) They try to destroy Israel again.
The real question is how Middle East diplomats can be so shameless as to pretend that international law is anything but a rigged game where Israel repeatedly fights its way out of the gallows, only to be required to quietly put its head back in the noose within a few days.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
