|
July 23, 2006
Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.
Springs
So though George Bush thought that the conflict had broken out because Syria used Hizbullah to create a provocation, the war was a long-planned Israeli war of choice. Will Israel's conventional military superiority e deliver the security it seeks.?To de-fang Hezbollah implies the effective dissolution of the Shi'ite community in southern Lebanon. Yet Hezbollah is likely to survive as a political player in Lebanon and that is something the US and Israeli are going to have to accept.
At the heart of Israeli policymaking today lies a faith in the benefits of unilateral action over diplomatic engagement; in tactical military redeployments over comprehensive military withdrawal, and in conflict "management" over conflict resolution.
The Washington neo-cons still thunder away: what is happening in the Middle East now is an Islamist-Israeli war, part of the wider war between Islamist totalitarianism and liberal democracy and moderate Islam. To fight this war, the US has to confront not just terror networks but the states that sponsor them. Israel is dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah: America should be going after Syria and Iran. Unilateral action by the US - including the threat and use of force - is deemed to be the key to fighting the war against global radical Islamism.
|
The Israeli foreign minister was in the WaPo on the weekend in an interview. Kivni claimed that the Israeli use of force was to help the Lebanese Government control Hezbollah;
She says this is to aid Lebanon in asserting its sovereignty over the entire country.
This neatly sidesteps that Hezbollah representatives got elected. Which suggests the issue isnt that simple in Lebanon. Israel explains this away by;