Remaking history: An opportunity for peace in the Middle East
The conflict in Lebanon was eclipsed in the news media yesterday by ongoing reports of the thwarted terrorist plot in Britain, but there seem to be some signs that the conflict is about to end. Here's the latest from Haaretz:
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton sounds uncharacteristically optimistic -- optimistic that an agreement can and will be reached in the very near future. The U.S. and France are in the process of hammering out a mutually satisfactory resolution that according to "a senior Lebanese political source" would resolve the present conflict:
An advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says that any such agreement "may bring the war to an end". A key sticking point, however, seems to be the Shaba Farms.
According to Haaretz, "the Defense Ministry and the IDF General Staff are fiercely opposed to the emerging cease-fire," but an Israeli "[g]overnment source" acknowledges that diplomacy is Israel's best option: "It's true that the problem of Hezbollah has not been solved, but we are also not in a position to solve it militarily."
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz has stated that the government is "considering all options". But what this means is that the window will only be open for a diplomatic resolution for a short period: "If diplomacy fails, Peretz said, Israel will 'use all of the tools' to win the war against Hezbollah". One of these "tools" would be "an expanded ground operation" that has already been approved by Israel's security cabinet -- and put on hold: "The cabinet resolved that the plan's implementation would depend on diplomatic developments."
**********
As some of you may know, I have conditionally supported Israel throughout this conflict. I have argued that Israel must be allowed to defend itself against an enemy that wishes to destroy it. However, I do not wish to see an escalation of the ground campaign at present. A continuation of the war may be necessary if diplomacy fails, or, beyond that, if no lasting peace can be established along the Israeli-Lebanese border and Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, continues (or renews) its campaign to terrorize Israel.
Ultimately, Israel needs to be secure as a sovereign state. In other words, its very existence must be secure. It must be allowed to exist in peace.
I hope that this diplomatic effort at the U.N. works. I hope that this current conflict comes to an end with the joint withdrawal of Israel and Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, as well as with border security provided by an international force. But an end to the current conflict, should it soon come, ought to be seen as an opportunity for further efforts to resolve the much larger issue of Israel's security and existence, as an opportunity to establish lasting peace in the region. The status quo ante -- the one with Israel surrounded by enemies armed with increasing sophistication by Iran -- is simply not acceptable. If such an opportunity were to be neglected, with short-term peace welcomed for its own sake and with no regard for long-term solutions -- there will be war again -- much like this one, only far more devastating.
Should the current conflict continue, should Israel mount an even more aggressive ground campaign, there may yet be another opportunity for peace. But at this key moment in the history of the Middle East, one with global ramifications, this opportunity ought to be pursued.
History is doomed to repeat itself. Unless those who are in a position to do so break the cycle and remake history anew. Now is the time for the peacemakers, armed with the tools to enforce peace, to chart a new course away from the turbulent waters of perpetual war.
It is time to make history.
The parties involved in diplomatic negotiations for a UN-brokered cease-fire resolution aimed at ending the fighting in Lebanon made a breakthrough Thursday, raising hopes that a truce deal would pave the way for the stationing of international troops in Lebanon as part of a package that would end the month-long confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah.
The UN Security Council will convene Friday to discuss the new proposal, which has been agreed to by the United States as well as France.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton sounds uncharacteristically optimistic -- optimistic that an agreement can and will be reached in the very near future. The U.S. and France are in the process of hammering out a mutually satisfactory resolution that according to "a senior Lebanese political source" would resolve the present conflict:
The breakthrough is based on the inclusion in the call for a cessation of hostilities for a progressive Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory to go simultaneously with the deployment of the Lebanese army backed by reinforced UN peacekeepers.
An advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says that any such agreement "may bring the war to an end". A key sticking point, however, seems to be the Shaba Farms.
According to Haaretz, "the Defense Ministry and the IDF General Staff are fiercely opposed to the emerging cease-fire," but an Israeli "[g]overnment source" acknowledges that diplomacy is Israel's best option: "It's true that the problem of Hezbollah has not been solved, but we are also not in a position to solve it militarily."
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz has stated that the government is "considering all options". But what this means is that the window will only be open for a diplomatic resolution for a short period: "If diplomacy fails, Peretz said, Israel will 'use all of the tools' to win the war against Hezbollah". One of these "tools" would be "an expanded ground operation" that has already been approved by Israel's security cabinet -- and put on hold: "The cabinet resolved that the plan's implementation would depend on diplomatic developments."
**********
As some of you may know, I have conditionally supported Israel throughout this conflict. I have argued that Israel must be allowed to defend itself against an enemy that wishes to destroy it. However, I do not wish to see an escalation of the ground campaign at present. A continuation of the war may be necessary if diplomacy fails, or, beyond that, if no lasting peace can be established along the Israeli-Lebanese border and Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, continues (or renews) its campaign to terrorize Israel.
Ultimately, Israel needs to be secure as a sovereign state. In other words, its very existence must be secure. It must be allowed to exist in peace.
I hope that this diplomatic effort at the U.N. works. I hope that this current conflict comes to an end with the joint withdrawal of Israel and Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, as well as with border security provided by an international force. But an end to the current conflict, should it soon come, ought to be seen as an opportunity for further efforts to resolve the much larger issue of Israel's security and existence, as an opportunity to establish lasting peace in the region. The status quo ante -- the one with Israel surrounded by enemies armed with increasing sophistication by Iran -- is simply not acceptable. If such an opportunity were to be neglected, with short-term peace welcomed for its own sake and with no regard for long-term solutions -- there will be war again -- much like this one, only far more devastating.
Should the current conflict continue, should Israel mount an even more aggressive ground campaign, there may yet be another opportunity for peace. But at this key moment in the history of the Middle East, one with global ramifications, this opportunity ought to be pursued.
History is doomed to repeat itself. Unless those who are in a position to do so break the cycle and remake history anew. Now is the time for the peacemakers, armed with the tools to enforce peace, to chart a new course away from the turbulent waters of perpetual war.
It is time to make history.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
12:04 AM
2 Comments:
Michael, I appreciate the sentiment toward compromise and diplomacy. However, I'm skeptical. Stanley Kurtz of NRO voices my feelings (in a different context):
"No, I don't think our venture in Iraq has gotten us into this mess. I think this mess has gotten us into Iraq. And the mess will not go away, whatever we do. Our Islamist enemy has proven himself implacable -unwilling to relent in the face of either dovish or hawkish policies. That means we're facing years - maybe decades- of inconclusive, on/off (mostly on) hot war, unless and until a nuclear terror strike, a major case of nuclear blackmail, or a nuclear clash among Middle Eastern states ushers in a radical new phase."
I will never say that diplomacy should be shunned or rejected. But given radical Islam's penchant for absolutism, I'm skeptical that it can be placated.
By
cakreiz, at 10:48 AM
Your "history doomed to repeat itself" suggestion bothers me, in that it overlooks that Israel has repeatedly tried over the years to reach peace through diplomacy. One could argue that it has bent over backwards in this area. And in the case of Egypt, it was successful, thanks to the moderate Sadat. As Kurtz notes above, radical Islam has been intransigent to both hawkish and dovish policies.
By
cakreiz, at 11:35 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home