The lowered alert levels came just as the cease-fire came into effect. Are they merely coincidental? Or did the USA and the UK force a cease-fire upon Israel in part in response to a Hizballah/Iranian/jihadist threat to them? IOW: Did Bush and Blair - and Olmert blink?
Regardless of whether they reacted to potential global threats, or merely to Middle Eastern ones, I think they blinked: Pressuring Israel to stop - when Israel could have continued until they smashed and erased Hizballah - was a mistake. No question about it. BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT THE ENEMY - AND MANY ON THE RIGHT ARE SAYING: it doesn't mean that we lost.
Israel smashed Hizaballah, killing a thousand of their fighters, demolishing their infrastructure, and destroying most of their weapons. Israel successfully took territory from Hizabllah; it was not the other way around.
Nasrallah and the Arabs might call that a victory but it isn't - at least by any rational measure. SURE: the MSM - acting as the propaganda arm for the enemy - portayed it as a Hizballah victory, but most of that fake-news was a pure lie - as phony as Jeningrad.
Which is why I am shocked that so many on the Right feel like Israel lost: It's as if they believe the crap the MSM was spewing, as if the toys were real, as if the Green-Helmet man was real, as if Qana and Houla were real, as if that old lady with her raised arms was real, as if - well, you get the idea:
Those who think the IDF did poorly should remember that the intifadas against Israel lasted much much longer and exacted much higher real losses for Israel. And both ended with Israel being much more politically isolated than they are now. Arafat may have called the intifadas victories, but they weren't. And this wasn't an Arab victory either.
Hizballah and its host nation were counter-attacked and not a single Arab nation came to their direct aid. Now, he UNSC has said that it will finish the job. That's not a defeat. It's a moment of truth for the UN the EU and the Arab nations: either they finally do what they should've done in 2000, or they must let Israel finish the job. Either way, very soon, the job will get finished. Maybe very soon; maybe after Assad is indicted; maybe after we preemptively neutralize Iran's nuke assets. But we shall soon see. The day of reckoning nears.
BOTTOM-LINE: In principle I'm opposed to letting the enemy off-the-ropes; we should have gone in for the kill and shown no mercy. And if the revamped UNIFIL fails, then the IDF will do just that - on day of it's choosing.
AND ANOTHER THING: Maybe Bush was using this moment to gain capital with the UN/UNSC - capital he will need to crank up the pressure on Iran? I think this is likely. And shrewd. And I think Olmert would see the value in that. Iran is the ultimate enemy, and we mujst keep our eye on that at all times. If this is why Bush forced isrsel to acceot the ceasefire - and if it does indeed get hium the leverage he needs to get the UNSC to back sanctions and an attack on Iran - then it was the right thing to do. AS THEY SAY: The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. We shall soon see. Anyway you look at: we shall soon see...
ASIDE: CAUTIONARY WORD TO THE RIGHT:
BTW: If some pollster asked me if I was happy with Bush, I'd answer "NO!." But it would be big mistake for the pollster to infer that this means I'd vote Democrat. I want a POTUS to be more of a hawk on the GWOT and immigration than Bush, not less. Bush is too compassionate and not conservative enough for me.]
Regardless of whether they reacted to potential global threats, or merely to Middle Eastern ones, I think they blinked: Pressuring Israel to stop - when Israel could have continued until they smashed and erased Hizballah - was a mistake. No question about it. BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT THE ENEMY - AND MANY ON THE RIGHT ARE SAYING: it doesn't mean that we lost.
Israel smashed Hizaballah, killing a thousand of their fighters, demolishing their infrastructure, and destroying most of their weapons. Israel successfully took territory from Hizabllah; it was not the other way around.
Nasrallah and the Arabs might call that a victory but it isn't - at least by any rational measure. SURE: the MSM - acting as the propaganda arm for the enemy - portayed it as a Hizballah victory, but most of that fake-news was a pure lie - as phony as Jeningrad.
Which is why I am shocked that so many on the Right feel like Israel lost: It's as if they believe the crap the MSM was spewing, as if the toys were real, as if the Green-Helmet man was real, as if Qana and Houla were real, as if that old lady with her raised arms was real, as if - well, you get the idea:
The MSM lied in order to make Hizballah look like the victim - and to hurt Bush and Israel. The blogosphere proved they were lies, yet many on the Right seem to have believed them, anyway. I mean POWER LINE and NRO.IMHO: Ed Morrisey is closer to the mark. And, these comments on background from an Israeli gov't official seem true to me.
Those who think the IDF did poorly should remember that the intifadas against Israel lasted much much longer and exacted much higher real losses for Israel. And both ended with Israel being much more politically isolated than they are now. Arafat may have called the intifadas victories, but they weren't. And this wasn't an Arab victory either.
Hizballah and its host nation were counter-attacked and not a single Arab nation came to their direct aid. Now, he UNSC has said that it will finish the job. That's not a defeat. It's a moment of truth for the UN the EU and the Arab nations: either they finally do what they should've done in 2000, or they must let Israel finish the job. Either way, very soon, the job will get finished. Maybe very soon; maybe after Assad is indicted; maybe after we preemptively neutralize Iran's nuke assets. But we shall soon see. The day of reckoning nears.
BOTTOM-LINE: In principle I'm opposed to letting the enemy off-the-ropes; we should have gone in for the kill and shown no mercy. And if the revamped UNIFIL fails, then the IDF will do just that - on day of it's choosing.
AND ANOTHER THING: Maybe Bush was using this moment to gain capital with the UN/UNSC - capital he will need to crank up the pressure on Iran? I think this is likely. And shrewd. And I think Olmert would see the value in that. Iran is the ultimate enemy, and we mujst keep our eye on that at all times. If this is why Bush forced isrsel to acceot the ceasefire - and if it does indeed get hium the leverage he needs to get the UNSC to back sanctions and an attack on Iran - then it was the right thing to do. AS THEY SAY: The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. We shall soon see. Anyway you look at: we shall soon see...
ASIDE: CAUTIONARY WORD TO THE RIGHT:
When you agree with the enemy, you're probably wrong: When the Left calls for immediate USA withdrawal from Iraq, they are agreeing with the enemy, and they are wrong; When the Right calls the cease-fire a victory for Hizballah, they agree with Hizballah and they are wrong.[NOTE: If FDR or Truman or Churhcill - or even Thatcher and Sharon had been around, then I don't think Hizballah would've gotten a cease-fire. But Bush is the best Hawk we've got, right now. I worry about whom we might get next. Someone even less hawkish and with a similar lack of resolve will be a disaster.
BTW: If some pollster asked me if I was happy with Bush, I'd answer "NO!." But it would be big mistake for the pollster to infer that this means I'd vote Democrat. I want a POTUS to be more of a hawk on the GWOT and immigration than Bush, not less. Bush is too compassionate and not conservative enough for me.]
No comments:
Post a Comment