Distilling Rhetoric from Reality: the United States, Israel and Opportunity

To many elites in the media, the recent crisis in the Middle East proffers yet another opportunity to focus suspicion on the United States and blame on Israel, while directing empty hope and blind faith in the United Nations’ feckless diplomacy and intervention. For those interested in seeing the whole picture of the current conflict, minus the selective sins of historical omission courtesy of the mainstream media, it would serve to backtrack for a moment to 2004 to see the current crisis in full context.

The ever-ineffectual United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1559 in 2004 which had, as its goal, Israel’s withdraw from Lebanese territory, with the assurance that Lebanon and the United Nations would work together to once and for all deal with the menacing presence of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Sound familiar? A UN Security Council resolution emasculated by the dizzying equivocation on behalf of those who signed on to it, and their predictable refusal to back it up with the threats that it promises. So, the old “land for peace” policy was, once again, embraced by all sides. Israel, fulfilling its end of the deal, withdrew from the territory in question with the sincere hope that its deference to Resolution 1559 would result in lasting peace. In retrospect, perhaps such faith in the resolution’s efficacy was naïve, given the proven track-record of terrorist groups to defy rational diplomacy and negotiation. But at least Israel tried it. For their part, Hezbollah, instead of disbanding and disarming, dug in its heels and bided time to reorganize and beef-up their instruments of terror. Understandably, Lebanese officials were reluctant to go it alone against the forces of this potent terror group, fearing reprisals of merciless havoc and destruction. Blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers were stationed in the area to oversee the elimination of these militias of terror and provide general security, but they obviously failed miserably. Is anyone surprised?

Fast-forward to July 12, 2006. Hezbollah brazenly kills eight Israeli troops, abducts two more, and then has the chutzpah to issue forth a litany of demands for the release of the soldiers. Israel replies to these criminal acts with a refreshing, “Enough is enough” policy and commences a military response to the Hezbollah threat. This presents Israel with a golden opportunity to rid their border of the scourge of Hezbollah, for their sake and for that of a politically fragile Lebanon. Regrettably but predictably Hezbollah has intentionally taken refuge among the civilian population in Lebanon and has refused to let civilians escape to safety. This sets the stage for the narrow analysis of selective news reporters, taking their talking points and action lines from the factions of Hezbollah, accusing Israeli forces of recklessly firing upon innocent civilians. If any lesson can be drawn from the playbook of terrorists over the past several years, it is that their principle modus operandi is to mesh into the civilian population. The benefits, from their point of view are twofold: from the defensive analysis, it allows them the ability of disappearing into innocuous crowds to hide from and confound their attackers. From the offensive point of view, they are afforded an opportunity to strike their enemy, easily identifiable donning military garb, from the shielded veil of the general public. What are the Israelis to do? Many from the United Nations, among the most notable, the ne’er-do-well Kofi Annan, are calling for an immediate cease-fire, while criticizing Israel for using “excessive force”. United States Ambassador John Bolton injected a refreshing dose of realism into the chorus of “cease-fire” shrills, asking rhetorically, How do you affect a “cease-fire” with terrorist organizations? The very idea of negotiating a cease-fire with groups that routinely flaunt accepted standards of international protocol is frighteningly and patently absurd.

Hezbollah fighters entrenched among the civilian population

Where does the United States fit into the equation? Ever since Israel began its military response to Hezbollah, critics in the media and UN have expressed dismay over Bush Administration’s alleged reticence and its refusal to join the chorus of diplomats calling for an immediate cease-fire. This administration is approaching the conflict with a strikingly different attitude than previous administrations, in that it is guided by clear realism instead of naive diplomatic pipedreams of negotiating cease-fires and land for peace agreements with maniacal terror militias. The president and his advisors recognize that the past 30 years of Middle East intervention has proven to be a miserable failure. The crux of the problem remains: Islamofascist terror groups inevitably return to their old tricks of terror and infiltrate Israeli society, chaos erupts, death and destruction ensues. Land for peace policies simply don’t work, history proves it. The United States sees a unique opportunity when Israel resolves to uproot Hezbollah once and for all. Among other things, the destruction of Hezbollah would serve to stabilize the delicate democracy in Lebanon and free that country of a diabolical parasite. As John Bolton has stressed, Lebanon, a peaceful country, deserves that Resolution 1559 finally be taken seriously. But given the UN’s sorry game of endless resolution equivocation, how will Resolution 1559 be successfully enforced and who will enforce it? In addition neither the UN nor the mainstream media want to discuss the deeper roots of this conflict; namely, the dark web weaving together Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and perhaps more ominously, their links to China and Russia, two powerful countries on the UN Security Council. It’s time for the world to wake up, face reality and end the silly diplo-speak talking points and nauseating kumbaya world-view currently animating most UN and media elites. Iran must be confronted. The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah may be the door to do just that.