Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, August 15, 2006


In this article in FrontPage Magazine, David Hornik accuses the United States of 'selling out' Israel with the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. I will say at the outset that I disagree. I believe that Israel brought that resolution on itself. I said a couple of days ago that I believe that it will eventually come out that it was Israel that insisted that the United States support the resolution and not vice versa. Like the old saying goes, "you can bring a horse to trough, but you can't force him to drink." The United States helped bring Israel to the 'trough' where it could have decimated Hezbullah. Israel's leadership did not have the courage to do what needed to be done. Anyway, here's an excerpt from Hornik's article:
If America got fed up with Israel and decided to accede to a UN “ceasefire” resolution, there were reasons for it. For a month an inexperienced Israeli prime minister who had said he was tired of fighting and wanted to turn Israel into a fun place, with a Peace Now, Marxist defense minister at his side, paraded Israel’s delusions in an effort to defeat Hezbollah on the cheap.

First was the attempt to triumph from the air—a basic plank of Olmert’s “disengagement” and “convergence” philosophy that says Israel can safely cede territory to its worst enemies because the air force can handle any problems that arise. [This sentence was what first caught my eye about this article, because it's something I had not thought of. But he's right about that. It makes sense to me that the reason that Olmert so stubbornly pursued an 'air only' strategy and then a 'limited engagement' strategy is because his utopian political platform requires that there never be any need for Israel to 'return' to territory it leaves surrenders. So that part actually makes sense. CiJ] Then there was the attempt to stop Hezbollah’s rocket fire with limited ground forays and a pathetically narrow “security zone” a kilometer or two into Lebanese territory—reflecting a hope that Israel could prevail without mobilizing or losing any significant number of soldiers. [We could have prevailed without losing a significant number of soldiers if we had worried more about protecting our soldiers and less about protecting Hezbullah's often willing human shields. CiJ]

In recent days, though, Olmert and the Israeli leadership had shown that they were on a learning curve and were preparing a major ground incursion up to the Litani River and possibly beyond. At the very least, Olmert realized he was finished politically unless he could show the distressed Israeli public that he could stop the rockets once and for all. [The second sentence is more likely to be true than the first. Olmert has political survival instincts because he's a corrupt, opportunistic, selfish politician. And that's what comes first - even before his wife's and children's pacifist philosophies. Those come next. But it's Olmert specifically - not really the 'Israeli leadership.' The only other people among the leadership I would blame is the Kadima Achora party who continue to pretend that Olmert is Prime Minister material and that his 'plan' is real and wise and capable of execution - to the detriment of the entire country. CiJ] Hezbollah, finally, was in for a drubbing. That is why it is so tragic that at this moment, America decided to bend to international pressure, put the brakes on Israel, and endorse a document that is a shameful exercise in moral equivalence and facilitation of ongoing terror. [It took an awful long time for America to bend. Friday afternoon, they were still holding out for Israel. How much can the Bush administration take? CiJ]

Security Council Resolution 1701 “Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbullah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations,” drawing a precise parallel between jihadist aggression and the effort to ward it off. The document also calls for the release of the abducted Israeli soldiers only in the preamble, while also claiming a need to “settl[e] the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel”—in other words, terrorists who include the sadistic child-murderer Samir Kuntar. [Yes, it does. And does every other horrible thing that Hornik says it does too. But we have to be big boys and take the blame. This is our (or our government's fault). We brought this on ourselves. Time to stop hiding behind America. That's a cop out. CiJ].
Read the whole thing.


At 6:54 PM, Blogger lila said...

Carl--I agree that Olmert is responsible for this debacle but I am so ready to left Bush off the hook (I voted for him).

If what you say is true and Olmert made the request--fine--then I will adjust my opinions BUT Bush can be double minded on his "war on Terror" and who is or isnt a terrorist.

The resolution was nonsense-- and at the very least-- regardless of what Olmert wanted we should not have gone along with such dreck.

Bush's "green light" was as much for his own agenda (albiet a good one) as it was for Israel's.
This all leads me to see this goverment as a bit of a fickle friend.
No other US prez has forced Israel to the table for a 2 state solution that is nothing less than giving in to terror--something we claim we would not do.

I could go on but I wont--I enjoy so much your blog. A big thankyou from Wisconsin.

At 6:56 PM, Blogger lila said...

Carl--I agree that Olmert is responsible for this debacle but I am NOT so ready to let Bush off the hook (I voted for him).

(sorry for the mistake--just got back from hospital)


Post a Comment

<< Home