Israel Can't Keep on Like This
Qana horror exposes limitations of beating Hezbollah by bombing civilians.
EDITORIAL
Los Angeles Times
August 1, 2006
'IT'S TIME," SECRETARY OF STATE Condoleezza Rice said Monday, referring to the need for a cease-fire in Lebanon. It certainly is. The horrific Israeli airstrike that killed nearly 60 civilians in the town of Qana on Sunday ratcheted up the outrage over the scale of the Israelis' 3-week-old retaliatory attack on Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist terrorist group.
If Rice appeared shaken in Israel on Sunday, it's because the United States, which had implicitly granted Israel a blank check to smash Hezbollah for a limited period of time, is held accountable for Israel's actions in most quarters. And because it was the site of an uncannily similar attack on a U.N. refugee camp a decade ago, Qana itself conjures up among many in the Arab Middle East a sense of victimization at the hands of the U.S.-backed Israeli military. The Qana strike forced Rice to cancel her trip to Beirut.
Israel entered this conflict with the moral upper hand. Hezbollah crossed the border to attack Israeli troops several weeks ago, and since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, neither the international community nor Lebanon have been able to disarm the group. The danger now is that Israel's bombing campaign is driving much of the aggrieved population into Hezbollah's camp. If most Lebanese were hostages to Hezbollah at the outset of the conflict, a few more weeks of Israeli bombardment may turn them into Hezbollah recruits.
The challenge for Rice and the U.N. Security Council is to craft a cease-fire and mobilize a multinational force in a manner that does not constitute a victory for Hezbollah. It is still the case that a cease-fire at any cost, one that does not address the need to disarm Hezbollah and bolster the Lebanese state, would be a costly mistake. Within the next week, the Security Council needs to authorize the deployment of a force that can back up the Lebanese army, ensure Israel's security and disarm Hezbollah.
A traditional U.N. peacekeeping force is not up to this task, especially because there is no preexisting peace to police. Whatever new acronym is conjured up for this force, battle-ready NATO troops, presumably with large French and Turkish contingents, need to make up its core.
If the idea is for these troops to occupy a land vacuum, then expect a related debate about a timing vacuum — between the moment a cease-fire is declared and the arrival of the multinational force. Israel is understandably wary about this potential window of opportunity for Hezbollah; hence its approval of a more ambitious ground offensive into Lebanon. Israel may well have to occupy the southernmost strip of Lebanon until the arrival of a multinational force, but it cannot indefinitely continue its air campaign. It is proving too costly, not only to its own long-term interests but to those of the United States.
EDITORIAL
Los Angeles Times
August 1, 2006
'IT'S TIME," SECRETARY OF STATE Condoleezza Rice said Monday, referring to the need for a cease-fire in Lebanon. It certainly is. The horrific Israeli airstrike that killed nearly 60 civilians in the town of Qana on Sunday ratcheted up the outrage over the scale of the Israelis' 3-week-old retaliatory attack on Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist terrorist group.
If Rice appeared shaken in Israel on Sunday, it's because the United States, which had implicitly granted Israel a blank check to smash Hezbollah for a limited period of time, is held accountable for Israel's actions in most quarters. And because it was the site of an uncannily similar attack on a U.N. refugee camp a decade ago, Qana itself conjures up among many in the Arab Middle East a sense of victimization at the hands of the U.S.-backed Israeli military. The Qana strike forced Rice to cancel her trip to Beirut.
Israel entered this conflict with the moral upper hand. Hezbollah crossed the border to attack Israeli troops several weeks ago, and since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, neither the international community nor Lebanon have been able to disarm the group. The danger now is that Israel's bombing campaign is driving much of the aggrieved population into Hezbollah's camp. If most Lebanese were hostages to Hezbollah at the outset of the conflict, a few more weeks of Israeli bombardment may turn them into Hezbollah recruits.
The challenge for Rice and the U.N. Security Council is to craft a cease-fire and mobilize a multinational force in a manner that does not constitute a victory for Hezbollah. It is still the case that a cease-fire at any cost, one that does not address the need to disarm Hezbollah and bolster the Lebanese state, would be a costly mistake. Within the next week, the Security Council needs to authorize the deployment of a force that can back up the Lebanese army, ensure Israel's security and disarm Hezbollah.
A traditional U.N. peacekeeping force is not up to this task, especially because there is no preexisting peace to police. Whatever new acronym is conjured up for this force, battle-ready NATO troops, presumably with large French and Turkish contingents, need to make up its core.
If the idea is for these troops to occupy a land vacuum, then expect a related debate about a timing vacuum — between the moment a cease-fire is declared and the arrival of the multinational force. Israel is understandably wary about this potential window of opportunity for Hezbollah; hence its approval of a more ambitious ground offensive into Lebanon. Israel may well have to occupy the southernmost strip of Lebanon until the arrival of a multinational force, but it cannot indefinitely continue its air campaign. It is proving too costly, not only to its own long-term interests but to those of the United States.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 10:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home