Saudi pressure, American disengagement
From Reuters:
I'd like to know what the Saudi ambassador meant by "Israel's ambitions" -- Self-preservation? The right to exist in peace as a sovereign state? Some measure of security in an insecure region dominated by its foes? Probably not. I suspect he meant something much more sinister.
And consider this: If there is to be any quick resolution to the conflict, it may be necessary to "balance the interests of all the conflicting parties in such a way that they all feel they have achieved something of importance without a loss of face," as the ambassador put it.
But what would Hezbollah, the instigator of this conflict, have achieved? A mythologized reputation for having repelled the Israeli offensive? Political legitimacy in Lebanon and beyond? The inculcation of fear among the Israelis? And what about Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's enablers? What would they have achieved? A step closer to regional hegemony? A reputation as an Islamist bulwark against Israel and America? The confidence to strike again?
Why should it matter that Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria come out of this looking good?
Turki rightly blamed Hezbollah for starting this conflict with a "reckless adventure" but said that "these unacceptable and irresponsible actions do not justify the Israeli destruction of Lebanon or the targeting and punishment of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations" -- in other words, it's now Israel's fault and Israel must be stopped.)
But let's give Turki some credit. He was right to criticize Bush for failing thus far to take a diplomatic lead to resolve the crisis. He sent Rice to Beirut, but that's been about it. The American "green light" has shielded Israel from its critics at the U.N. and has essentially allowed Israel to conduct its offensive without interference, but the U.S. needs to take a more active role in the peace process, or whatever process will end this conflict.
With (super) power comes (super) responsibility, right?
Saudi Arabia has exhorted the United States to take the lead in efforts to immediately end the fighting between Hizbollah and Israel and faulted President George W. Bush for not following through on earlier peacemaking appeals.
"The United States must play the role of pacifier and lead the world to peace and not be led by Israel's ambitions," said the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal.
I'd like to know what the Saudi ambassador meant by "Israel's ambitions" -- Self-preservation? The right to exist in peace as a sovereign state? Some measure of security in an insecure region dominated by its foes? Probably not. I suspect he meant something much more sinister.
And consider this: If there is to be any quick resolution to the conflict, it may be necessary to "balance the interests of all the conflicting parties in such a way that they all feel they have achieved something of importance without a loss of face," as the ambassador put it.
But what would Hezbollah, the instigator of this conflict, have achieved? A mythologized reputation for having repelled the Israeli offensive? Political legitimacy in Lebanon and beyond? The inculcation of fear among the Israelis? And what about Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's enablers? What would they have achieved? A step closer to regional hegemony? A reputation as an Islamist bulwark against Israel and America? The confidence to strike again?
Why should it matter that Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria come out of this looking good?
Turki rightly blamed Hezbollah for starting this conflict with a "reckless adventure" but said that "these unacceptable and irresponsible actions do not justify the Israeli destruction of Lebanon or the targeting and punishment of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations" -- in other words, it's now Israel's fault and Israel must be stopped.)
But let's give Turki some credit. He was right to criticize Bush for failing thus far to take a diplomatic lead to resolve the crisis. He sent Rice to Beirut, but that's been about it. The American "green light" has shielded Israel from its critics at the U.N. and has essentially allowed Israel to conduct its offensive without interference, but the U.S. needs to take a more active role in the peace process, or whatever process will end this conflict.
With (super) power comes (super) responsibility, right?
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
9:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home