European nations are essentially committing suicide by backing any plan that would call for an immediate ceasefire and “protect Hizbullah” – I’m struggling with this world view, as I am with this conflict in general. I can’t seem to get my head completely around any of it. I can comprehend this part or that part on its own, but I can’t pull it all together…and I have an inkling that I’m not the only one.
Here’s the way I’m seeing things right now…apparently there are two options on the table:
Option 1: W’s “let ‘em duke it out like we did back in Texas” solution.
Basically, what we’re looking at is a sanctioned ass-whooping in the Middle East. Condy swings by Beirut says, “I’m sorry, but ya’ll fucked up by trying to live with Hezbollah. We feel terrible (fake sniffle, force out a tear) that your countrymen are dying as a result of this (not to mention a few UN observers), but a ceasefire will simply reinforce the old status quo and lead to future outbreaks.” She then heads for Israel and says, “OK fellas, get after it. You’ve got about week to do as much damage as you can, and we ain’t gonna hold ya’ll accountable for any of it…and, oh yeah, don’t worry, we’ll send more bombs.” The idea here is that it’s time to abandon diplomacy because it’s failed to this point in the Middle East. We let Israel lay down the law and create “security zones” at the Lebanese border…and probably do something similar in Gaza (don’t forget, that’s where this all started). A longer-lasting peace can be imposed by establishing military might and taking an aggressive stance.
Option 2: The rest of the world (less Germany and GB) says, “STOP FUCKING KILLING EACH OTHER.”
This isn’t yet a fully developed plan (and probably won’t become one, b/c let’s be honest, even though the US has lost a lot of international clout, we’re still in the driver’s seat), but the gist of it is this: stop the fighting now, figure the rest out afterwards. There is too much collateral damage being done. Israel is not strategically striking Hezbollah targets, but instead mortaring Lebanese trying to escape embattled cities. They’ve over-reacted horribly to the situation and everyone needs to step back and take a look at what’s going on…in the meantime you should all stop killing each other.
Option 2 is scary because it doesn’t come with any answer for the big questions about what will happen in the future. No one knows how to make a ceasefire last in the Middle East, and there’s no plan for talking about who must take what posture once the bullets stop flying. It also comes with the suicide clause that seems incredibly outlandish to me. If we don’t allow Israel to kill Lebanese people now we’re essentially helping Iran and Syria gear up to beat on us in WWIII??? Not buying that story.
Option 1 is scarier because the basic idea is that Israel gets to kill until we decide that they’ve “disabled” Hezbollah, but there’s still no guarantee of a lasting ceasefire, and it’s anyone’s guess as to how long this fighting will last before Hezbollah is really disabled. Already, guerilla fighters from Iran are trying to enter Lebanon via Turkey and Syria to volunteer in this “holy war.” Continuing the fighting only serves to incite Muslim extremists in other nations to join the fight.
Option 1 also comes with some fun ulterior motives. There’s the end-timer theory…the end-time prophecy can only be fulfilled once Israel establishes itself and Solomon’s Temple is rebuilt. This obviously can’t happen with constant turmoil, so the Middle East must be redrawn to favor Israel. There’s also the Iran/Syria involvement theory…this is the start of a war with these nations and we must let Israel show its (our) strength and resolve. And I’m sure you can come up with others.
My choice? I say when you’re faced with two alternatives that both come with highly unpredictable results…choose the one that kills less people in the meantime. But hey, maybe that’s just me being simple minded.
For a more professional rehashing of the US position check out this NPR piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment