Nice story, but it leaves out reports that Israel had planned for this war for years and, with the U.S. egging them on, used the kidnapping of a few soldiers as an excuse to dust off those plans and put them into action. Never mind that Israel had kidnapped civilians prior to the Palestinian and Hezbollah kidnappings.
Tom Tom further ignores the fact that the U.S. is the only country preventing an immediate cease fire between Lebanon & Israel, in an effort to draw Syria and Iran into the fray as part of their long standing plan to reorder the Middle East to their own liking.
Tom, I honestly don't know how you can keep writing this stuff, knowing your fictions prolong immoral wars and contribute to untold deaths. How the Hell do you and your editors sleep at night?
The Morning After the Morning After
By Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times
With every war there are two days to keep in mind when the guns fall silent: the morning after, and the morning after the morning after. America, Israel and all those who want to see Lebanon’s democracy revived need to keep their eyes focused on the morning after the morning after.
Here’s why.
The only way that the fighting in south Lebanon will be brought to a close is if all the parties accept a cease-fire and the imposition of a robust international peacekeeping force, led by France, along the Israel-Lebanon border — supplanting Hezbollah.
The morning after that cease-fire goes into effect, everyone knows what will happen: Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah — no matter how battered his forces and how much damage his reckless war has visited on Lebanon — will crawl out of his bunker and declare a “great victory.” Hezbollah, he will say, fought the Israeli Army to a standstill inside Lebanon and rained rockets on northern Israel. Meanwhile, military analysts everywhere will write that Israel has “lost its deterrence” vis-à-vis Arab forces, and blah, blah, blah.
Sorry, been there, heard that, and I don’t buy it. What matters in war, alas, is the balance of destruction on the ground and the political weight it exerts over time.
On the morning after the morning after, Lebanese war refugees, who had real jobs and homes, will start streaming back by the hundreds of thousands, many of them Shiites. Tragically, they will find their homes or businesses badly damaged or obliterated. Yes, they will curse Israel. But they and other Arabs will also start asking Nasrallah publicly what many are already asking privately:
“What was this war all about? What did we get from this and at what price? Israel has some roofs to repair and some dead to bury. But its economy and state are fully intact, and it will recover quickly. We Lebanese have been set back by a decade. Our economy and our democracy lie in ruins, like our homes. For what? For a one-week boost in ‘Arab honor?’ So that Iran could distract the world’s attention from its nuclear program? You did all this to us for another country?”
As Michael Young, opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star, put it an article in Slate: “Hezbollah’s ... test will be to rapidly alleviate the suffering in its own community and, therefore, avoid losing its base. The party still has substantial backing among its coreligionists, and it is not about to see this disappear. But soon the fate of the hundreds of thousands of Shiites now living in schools, tent cities, and even public parks will be an overriding concern for Nasrallah. Many have fled areas partly or wholly destroyed, to which they might not return for months or years. ... Hezbollah will have to provide funding for reconstruction and rehabilitation that is likely to run into the billions of dollars. ... The party will have a monumental task to revive not only Shiite morale but confidence that Hezbollah can take care of its own. ... Even the party’s most optimistic interpretation of the current war — that it is a heroic achievement — will not spare it having to tiptoe very carefully through Shiite trauma.”
Moreover, if and when a French-led international force is placed along the Israel-Lebanon border, it will be a big loss for Hezbollah. The Shiite militia will no longer be able to directly touch Israel and start a war for Iran or Syria whenever it chooses. And, if Hezbollah tried to lob missiles over the peacekeeping zone, or penetrate it, it would clash with forces from France, Italy and Turkey, the likely peacekeepers. That means Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would not be able to hurt Israel without also hurting their own relations with the European Union.
Israel needs to keep its eyes on the prize. It’s already inflicted enormous damage on Hezbollah and its community, but Nasrallah will only have to pay the full price for inviting all that destruction once the guns fall silent on the morning after the morning after. So let’s get there as soon as possible. That will deter him. What would deter him even more, though, would be if the U.N. would go ahead and impose sanctions on Iran for its illicit nuclear bomb program. After all, it was Iran, Nasrallah’s master, that ordered up this war to distract the U.N. from doing just that. It would be nice to say to Iran: You ravaged Hezbollah for nothing.
Beyond those two limited objectives, there’s no storybook ending for Israel in Lebanon, and it shouldn’t throw more good lives after some elusive knockout blow. It’s just not that kind of neighborhood. As they say in the movies, “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
Photo credit: Thomas Friedman. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)
Related Articles:
- Deflating Middle East Extremism
"We have to get past the anti-Israel rhetoric of Hamas and Hezbollah and start talking to them."
Technorati tags: Tom Friedman, New York Times, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, news, commentary, op ed
9 comments:
Israel had planned for this for years? Really.
So that means that the 14,000 missiles Hezbollah had collected from Syria and Iran were in Lebanon by accident? "Sorry, we didn't know where they came from?"
UC is too smart to buy this nonsense.
If anything, Hezbollah really did surprise the Israelis. The proof is that an Israeli soldier was kidnapped in Gaza at almost the same time that a couple of Israeli soldiers were kidnapped in Lebanon.
Why should Israel CHOOSE to fight a war on two fronts?
Now Israel has an experienced army which plans for any possible situation.... unlike ours, which was "surprised" that the looting occured in Iraq. Is that what you mean by Israel was "planning" for this war?
Tom Friedman may have been wrong about Iraq, but if you think he doesn't know Lebanon, you'd better read his book about the country.
Mickey, first, yes, it has been reported by several credible sources that Israel had plans to attack Hezbollah for years and that the kidnapping of the two soldiers gave them a reason to implement them.
Israel knew that Syria and Iran were supplying Hezbollah with weapons, certainly. Whether they knew exactly how many and to what extent, I doubt it.
"Surprise" isn't the issue. The Israeli's miscalculated how the world would react to a plan that victimized innocent Lebanese and Hezbollah alike. Further, their bombs have destroyed much of the infrastructure of Lebanon and created a humanitarian nightmare. And for what? Hezbollah continues to shoot hundreds of missiles into Israel daily. The current Israeli leaders are not skilled military strategists and have attempted to fight a war against guerrillas using traditional weapons. They have made the same mistake we made in Iraq--which is no accident. Our Idiot in Command hasn't learned squat from that fiasco and has encouraged Israel to keep up their attack under the misguided assumption that they could easily "defeat" Hezbollah. Not.
The kidnappings in Gaza and Lebanon occurring at almost the same time was coincidence and not by plan. The Palestinians have their own agenda and are totally separate from Hezbollah. This has even been discussed by Perez. Hezbollah did not expect Israel to attack them; they kidnapped the soldiers in order to have leverage to demand that hundreds of Lebanese prisoners, held illegally for years in Israel, be released.
As for Tom Friedman, what he knows and how he colors it are two different things. Tom Friedman has always supported BushCo's neo-con, empire building scheme. Frankly, anyone who supports that either has zero understanding of the Middle East--or chooses to ignore reality. Anyone who understands the region and its people realizes that "The Project for a New American Century" is a plan guaranteed to produce more US enemies and more insurgents ("freedom fighters" deemed "terrorists" by the US) who resent the United States attempt to reorder the Middle East in order to profit from and control the region.
The US supports Israel because it needs a strong, secure military proxy in the region--unfortunately, Israel would be better off without the kind of strategic "support" the US is currently offering. What Israel needs is an administration that can bring all of the parties together, treat the grievances on all sides even-handedly, and help bring peace to the region -- which is what the majority of people in Israel and it's neighboring countries want.
Instead, BushCo, following its own selfish agenda, has made the situation far, far worse. Hatred of Israel and anti-semitism are at a new high. Hatred does not bring peace, my friend. It breeds more hatred, frustration and violence.
I would ask they you read Noam Chomsky, Robert Scheer, Robert Fisk, Mike Whitney, and other alternative sources--including Middle East journalists--before you accept what Friedman says as gospel. The man has an agenda and that agenda is evident in everything he writes.
You seem to have skated over my argument about who was planning for what and when they started planning for it.
You don't collect 14,000 missiles unless you are planning to do something with them. And you don't receive them from Syria and Iran unless Syria and Iran expect you to do something with them.
Should Israel have just ignored the kidnapping of its soldiers? Does any country in the world ignore the kidnapping of its soldiers?
This is not about Israeli tactics, which I agree are neither effective nor morally acceptable. An air assault is bound to kill innocents. It is also bound to miss most of the missiles for which it was organized.
The question, which I asked earlier (and which has been ignored) is... if you were Ehud Olmert, what would you do? Would an apology to Lebanon for previous occupation be enough? And, most importantly, after an apology, release of prisoners and withdrawal of settlers to pre-1967 borders, what would you do when a missile flies over those borders, or a kidnapping crew comes across to kidnap or kill your people?
Before you just toss Friedman off as some sort of Neo-Con hanger-on, you had better read "From Beirut to Jerusalem." Unlike the usual Neo-Cons, he has spent some time in the area. He also did not approve of the first Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
I've read most of the people you recommended I read. Have you read Robert Baer?
The fact that Hezbollah has been supplied with missiles from Syria does not mean they were planning to attack Israel. Ever heard of self defense? The US has been supplying Israel with weapons that make those of Hezbollah's look like child's play. When faced with an aggressive, nuclear-armed country on your border, chances are you might want to have a few missiles of your own.
As for the kidnapping, again you ignore the point that Israel has been kidnapping Lebanese and Palestinians for years -- including the day before the soldier kidnapping. You keep ignoring that fact just as Friedman does. Given that fact, what justification does Israel have to start an all out war after the kidnapping of their soldiers--who they knew full well were taken in order to free illegally held Lebanese prisoners!
You seem to only see one side of the conflict, Mickey, which is no surprise, given the propaganda that passes for news 24/7 we are asked to swallow by the mainstream media.
Also missing from your argument is the fact that Israel is not acting independently of the U.S. The U.S. goal--if you haven't figured it out yet, is to widen the war in the Middle East. So Israel fighting a war on 2 fronts is par for the course.
Really, the point isn't who planned to do what when. This conflict did not start with the present war. You have to look at the root causes of the conflict going back to the formation of Israel and subsequent events over the years. You are approaching this conflict as if it started with the kidnapping of 2 soldiers. Far from it.
Asking me what I would do if I were Olmert is a bit silly (I didn't see where you asked me this question earlier, sorry)--I would not have followed the aggressive policies of his predecessor and I would have been pressuring Washington to help broker a peace agreement. If I were Olmert, this war would probably not have taken place.
You write: "Would an apology to Lebanon for previous occupation be enough? And, most importantly, after an apology, release of prisoners and withdrawal of settlers to pre-1967 borders, what would you do when a missile flies over those borders, or a kidnapping crew comes across to kidnap or kill your people?" Obviously, an apology is insufficient and apologies are due on both sides. As for releasing prisoners, yes, prisoners should be exchanged--if just that much had been done after the kidnapping, no war would have taken place. The UN has required that Israel go back to pre-1967 borders and they should. As for bombs being lobbed across the border? Hezbollah has no reason to lob bombs if they are allowed to live in Lebanon in peace without Israelis shooting at them from the border. Again, you still see Israel needing to kill neighbors to insure her security--which, in fact, only makes her less secure. Until the killing stops on both sides, no one will be secure, and the cycle of war will continue as it has for years.
The definition of stupidity is to stay the course when the course has failed. That is the US mistake in Iraq and Israel. They just don't get it.
As for Friedman, let's just agree to disagree. His foreign policy opinions, in my estimation, are influenced by his beliefs in American empire building and colonization of countries--with little concern for how it may harm those countries and peoples. If not a neo-con, he shares many of their goals. I don't.
I don't argue that Friedman is knowledgeable about the region. But his experiences are colored by some preconceived beliefs about world order, many of which I do not share.
Yes, I've read Baer--don't agree with everything he proposes--he tried to push Clinton into overthrowing Saddam Hussein and failed, for instance. But I think he's interesting and makes some good observations.
Whew, I'm running over at the mouth....Thanks for a great debate. Not sure we'll ever agree completely, but it is a complex problem that demands new, creative solutions other than more wars which solve nothing.
Peace, friend.
UC says, "Not sure we'll ever agree completely, but it is a complex problem that demands new, creative solutions other than more wars which solve nothing."
I certainly agree. I also agree that Israel's tactics are making the situation worse. What I would remind UC about is that Hezbollah does take its orders from Iran. Remember Iran/Contra? It was an attempt (during the time of Reagan) to buy off Iran so that Iran would talk to Hezbollah so that Hezbollah would free kidnapped Americans. UC may not believe me, but it seems Robert Baer does...Hezbollah was under the complete control of Iran. Iran would not have moved to kidnap those soldiers in the first place... unless Iran had ordered it.
Regarding your comments on Iran, you will be most interested in the following article and its accompanying links: New Facts Surface By Mark H Gaffney :
"...In 2003 Iran offered to negotiate directly with the US. In its proposal the Iranian government agreed to accept the most stringent new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocols on its nuclear program. The protocols would involve onsite inspection of all nuclear sites, something that our own government has never accepted. These tough verification measures would make cheating virtually impossible.
Iran also changed its long standing rejectionist policy on Israel. It agreed to support the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which offered Israel an end to the conflict if the Israelis would abide by UN Security Council resolutions (242 and 338) on Palestine. This was an extraordinary development, yet, it was not even reported in the US.
But Iran went still further. It also agreed to end its logistical support of Hezbollah in the event of a political settlement with Israel. Gareth Porter’s excellent backgrounder provides details about the 2003 initiative.
According to Chomsky, Iran’s head mullah Ayatollah Khamenei again reiterated these offers in June 2006.... "
This is but one reason why I continue to believe that it is the US who is fanning the war flames and who continue to be the greatest threat to peace in the region.
I agree that Iran has offered to stop logistical support for Hezbollah if Israel accepts 224 and 338... and if the US agrees to talks. And I agree that the US has not agreed to talks, even in the recent case: President Ahmadinijad's "rambling" letter (not my quotes) being ignored, and all.
But I note that the proposed offer by Iran is a condition which has not yet been accepted. (The reasons for which non-acceptance you and I agree completely about.)
So this implies that, in the absence of this acceptance, Iran will continue to provide logistical support (and more...) to Hezbollah. And the result of that is an unprovoked attack on Israel. (The attack was not provoked by a single action for which Israel was responsible, hence unprovoked.)
When was the last time Israel crossed the international border with Lebanon and kidnapped a Lebanese citizen? Has Lebanon protested about such kidnapping to the United Nations or anywhere else? Had the kidnapping of the Israel soldier occured immediately after the kidnapping of a Lebanese citizen, then Lebanon or Hezbollah could be said to be provoked. I think the gap in time is a bit too long to make such a statement. The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers certainly seemed unprovoked.
Putting aside the United States for a while, if you were Ehud Olmert, how would you respond to such an unprovoked attack across a recognized international border?
Mickey, the Olmert question is far too hypothetical to give a simple answer. Depends on type of attack, reason for it, risk to Israeli population, etc.
I think we are beating a dead horse and going around in circles at this point. I've enjoyed the debate and thank your for making me think. But now, I've got to get back to blogging, friend.
I propose the Olmert question because what I see everywhere on the web is comments such as "Oh, isn't what Israel doing terrible!" or "More and more Israelis turn against the present policy, and refuse to fight against Hezbollah," etc. (The latter seems a wonderful example of wishful thinking, by the way.)
The very idea that Israel's response to the "unprovoked" (my quotes) kidnapping has been "disproportianate" (everybody else's quotes) cries out for a definition of what would be "proportionate," and this whole discussion cries out for a suggestion as to what Mr. Olmert should have done, as opposed to what he did do.
As UC has mentioned earlier, it would be very nice if we could all play nice with each other. But I would like to see some suggestions here, instead of just tears and wringing of hands.
In order to give those suggestions, whoever takes Olmert's role will have to imagine Olmert's priorities (which most of the opposition to Israel seems unwilling to imagine.)
Unless you are willing to look at both sides (and I suggest that UC has done an admirable job of trying to see both sides) I suggest you are not going to convince anybody of anything.
Post a Comment