Comments on: More wars or appeasement in the Middle East?

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:47:06 +0000

Brian Angliss- I agree. Right after the latest conflict Hezbollah was visible in the streets of Lebanon handing out wads of cash from Iran, and helping homeowners rebuild. There is nothing Israel or the Lebanese government can do to combat that kind of PR.

Making life difficult for the Lebanese, and destroying their infrastructure will only unite them behind Hezbollah in the goal to wipe Israel off the map. I’m not sure why the Israelis declared victory after their withdrawel- I really didn’t see much militarily (except they got Hezbollah to fire off many of their missiles) and it was a PR disaster for them and the U.S.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:18:59 +0000

I believe that there may be another option for Israel – learn from Hezbollah and co-opt their successful strategies. Hezbollah succeeds because they support the locals with money, health care, infrastructure improvements, etc. And so long as Hezbollah continues this strategy, Israel will have a very difficult time of defeating Hezbollah. Israel’s strategy thus far has been to make life so painful for locals that they’ll cast Hezbollah out from their midst, and it’s not neccessarily a bad strategy – if it worked. IMHO, it’s not working, so it’s time for Israel to change their strategy, and I propose that the new strategy should be for Israel to help rebuild southern Lebanon and to use propoganda to Israel’s advantage. It probably wouldn’t be quite this simple, but it’s a starting point.

I have a more detailed proposal for the U.S. in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon on my website here.

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:49:15 +0000

Territorial concessions are precisely what lead to the recent war with hezbollah. It boggles my mind that anyone can still suggest additional territorial concessions for peace is the proper course.

By: grognard

grognard — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:12:28 +0000

I agree with Elrod, but would also note the Neville was also trying to buy some time for Britain to build up itâ€™s military forces. I am not sure that he did not think that at some time there would be a day of reckoning between Germany an Britain. You could even make a good case that if France had followed British advice and had struck Germany while they were attacking Poland the war could have ended earlier and differently, and Neville might have been hailed the hero.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:12:57 +0000

The available choices are a bigger war or wars of attrition for decades to come; or a sudden change of heart in Israel to make peace at the cost of major territorial and other concessions

Major terroritorial concessions indeed: Israel has to destroy itself in order to establish some kind of peace in the Middle-East. I said it once and I'll say it again: Hizbullah and Hamas are not fighting to 'liberate' their people, they are also not fighting because Israel is settling on soil that doesn't belong to it. Read Hamas' charter: their goal is not two states. Their goal, like that of the Muslim brotherhood logically, like that of Hizbullah, logically, is to destroy Israel completely.

By: C.Prez

C.Prez — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:57:05 +0000

It’s almost like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Very disheartening, in my opinion.

By: Holly in Cincinnati

Holly in Cincinnati — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:32:49 +0000

Even if “a sudden change of heart in Israel to make peace at the cost of major territorial and other concessions” it would do no good because Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aksa Martyr Brigades, Al-Qaeda etc do not want peace with Israel but rather to destroy Israel.

By: David B

David B — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:19:08 +0000

I could contend that

a sudden change of heart in Israel to make peace at the cost of major territorial and other concessions

is deceptive: Israel has made lots and lots of concessions, and what exactly has it gotten for these concessions? More war, and more terrorism.

No, the decision not to fight needs to be made by Hizbollah and its associated groups.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:58:05 +0000

Your analysis is sound, as usual. But please use care in employing the explosive term “appeasement.” The term conjures up Neville Chamberlain’s delusion about “peace in our time” and giving in to Hitler. But the historic parallel almost never applies when it is brought up in today’s context against Islamist terrorism. Nobody earnestly believes that Islamist terrorists will somehow lay down their arms if given a set of political demands. Cheney and other delusional neo-con warmongers raise the specter of appeasement any time somebody doesn’t agree with the most outlandishly aggressive policy. (When not using the term “appeasement”, they use the word “unserious”, which seems to apply more to the neocons than their critics.)

The question is means. How do you confront Hizbullah? Israel tried a direct confrontation approach and discovered that, absent a massive ground invasion a la 1982, total victory against Hizbullah was impossible. Does that mean Israel decided to “appease” Hizbullah by agreeing to the UN plan? No. It means they determined that the future costs of war far outweighed continuing the military track they were under. It may have been a tactical defeat for Israel in the end. It may have even been a long-term strategic defeat. But it wasn’t appeasement. Nor was it appeasement when Europeans and the UN tried to intervene. There were real concerns about civilian casualties and destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure, economy and government. It may have been unwise, in the end, for Europe and the UN to intervene. But it wasn’t “appeasement” in the sense of craven, self-serving cowardice.