Soccer Dad: Learning the correct lesson

May 3, 2007

Learning the correct lesson

In today's Washington Post, David Makovsky write in "The Next Mideast War?"

The first underlying issue is the failure to enforce U.N. resolutions. Israel resorted to military action last July largely because the United Nations and the international community did nothing to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 (passed in 2004) or Resolution 1680 (passed in 2006), which made clear that Hezbollah should disband and be disarmed. Israel was left to fend for itself after Hezbollah crossed a U.N.-demarcated line, killed three soldiers and kidnapped two soldiers it still has not released.

The end of the war led to the passage of Security Council Resolution 1701, which deployed thousands of U.N. peacekeepers to southern Lebanon. The presence of such forces there has constrained Hezbollah, even though the peacekeepers have not attempted to disarm Hezbollah fighters. However, a key provision of the resolution -- an international embargo to prevent weaponry from entering Lebanon -- has not been met. Just two weeks ago the Security Council voiced concern that this resolution has not been implemented fully. It has been widely reported that arms from Syria are being smuggled into Lebanon, and Israeli officials say that Hezbollah is hiding Syrian-manufactured 220mm rockets just beyond the jurisdiction of the peacekeepers but within range of northern Israel. There is open speculation in Israel and Lebanon about the possibility of the conflict resuming this summer.

For the editors of the NY Times who absolutely worship the idea of a dipoomatic agreement, this problem is, of course, ignored. But in the end the war was started last year not because Israel was too quick to respond. The criticism from the Winograd commission is that the war waged without adequate planning.

Unfortunately the editors of the Baltimore Sun show a case of myopia in their take on the Winodgrad commission's report in "Israel's rush to war"

If Mr. Olmert and Mr. Peretz, because of their inexperience, relied too much on the military, they also were ill-served by the top army commander, who, according to the Winograd committee, misrepresented his troops' preparedness and squelched opposing views. Mr. Olmert's march into Lebanon cost the lives of many more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah gunmen and rocked Lebanon's fragile democracy, which has yet to recover.

The assertion that the war cost the lives of more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah terrorists is questionable. Because members of Hezbollah don't wear uniforms it's hard to get an accurate casualty total, but Gen Yaakov Amidror wrote

Hizballah casualties were not less than 500 and may have reached 700 - a figure greater than all the casualties Hizballah has suffered during the last twenty years.

Still how is it that Israel's war against Hezbollah has weakened Lebanese democracy? If Hezbollah threatens Lebanon's government now, it's because Lebanon has failed to act against Hezbollah as required by the same UN Resolution that Israel fulfilled by withdrawing from Lebanon. Lebanon had an obligation since 2000 to prevent Hezbollah from sitting on the border with Israel and attacking. Lebanon failed in that obligation.

Additionally, Hezbollah is the proxy of Iran and Syria and somehow the responsibility those countries bear for Lebanon's problems escapes the scrutiny of the Sun's editors.

In the end of the editorial there's mention of a new "pardigm" in war and the limits of conventional war. But that's wrong. In no sense did Hezbollah win the war. Its capabilities were degraded, but it survived. In that sense it won. But that's a mightly thin reed to hang one's laurels on.

It's also possible that Hezbollah won the war in the media, in a sense, demonstrating that the pen is mightier than the sword. But Marvin Kalb ackowledged this and asked what responsibilities come with the media's new power?

The editors of the Sun failed to note that under the Geneva conventions, hiding among civilians doesn't render a combatant immune from attack. (And that the combatant is responsible for the resulting collateral damage.)

The editors of the Sun failed to acknowledge that Hezbollah continued to operate even though its raison d'etre, Israel's occupation of Lebanon was over. This would demonstrate that treaties and international law do not deter terrorists.

The editors of the Sun didn't note (as David Makovsky did) that the UNIFIL forces were not keeping to the terms of the resolution ending the war last summer.

But failing to inform its readers of these relevant facts the Sun has effectively covered for a terrorist organization. Perhaps it ought to consider a new paradigm where it will inform its reader of the facts instead of transmitting its own skewed prejudices.

They could learn a lot by reading David Makovsky.

Israel