So today, the leader of Hezbollah
threatened to attack Tel Aviv:
"If you hit Beirut, the Islamic resistance will hit Tel Aviv and is able to do that with God's help," Nasrallah said in a televised address.
He justified it this way:
"You attack our cities, our villages, our civilians, our capital, we will react," he said. "At any time you decide to stop your aggressions on our villages and towns and cities and our civilians, we will not hit any settlement or any Israeli city."
Trying not to sound too biased, I guess I'd have to say that sounds reasonable. Notice that when Israel temporarily suspended airstrikes, Hezbollah stopped firing rockets? And that when Israel resumed airstrikes, Hezbollah fired more rockets than ever before?
While it's true that Hezbollah provoked the whole mess, it was a minor provocation compared to what has followed; they attacked an Israeli military patrol, not civilians. Israel has responded by punishing the whole country of Lebanon and killing civilians (and don't say it isn't deliberate -- if you level apartment buildings, you at least don't care if you kill civilians). In return, of course, Hezbollah has done likewise, firing rockets at Israeli cities. This is the nature of warfare. Both sides try to inflict pain on the other.
Now, why has Israel responded so drastically to a minor provocation? After all, the two sides have been skirmishing at the border for a long time now. So, why? Because new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert needs to show he's a tough guy. He wasn't seen by the Israeli public as being a strong military leader, the way Sharon was. He views this as his opportunity to beat his chest and establish his bona fides.
By most accounts, Israel has been waiting for the right provocation to justify this operation. Notice everyone seems to have mostly forgotten about those 2 abducted soldiers. And besides, Israel now has 30 or 40 more dead soldiers, plus a couple of dozen dead civilians. Worth it? Not to save 2 soldiers it isn't, especially when Hezbollah offered a prisoner exchange. They've exchanged prisoners with Israel before.
Now, here's Condoleezza Rice's response to Hezbollah's latest threat:
"The international community needs to say to Hezbollah that these kinds of threats are also not helpful at a time when the international community, the Lebanese people, the Israeli people, all want an end to the hostility," she told "Larry King Live" in a taped interview to be broadcast Thursday night.
So, it's okay if Israel makes threats, and targets civilians and infrastructure. It's not okay when Hezbollah does it. Got it. And America is trying to pretend to be a moderating force here? They arm one side, and make excuses for one side. They are on Israel's side, and everyone in the World knows it, so let's not try to pretend otherwise. For Lebanese people, that must hurt; Lebanon has been the most pro-western and pro-American country in the Middle East, not to mention the only natural Arab democracy.
By the way, opinion polls do not support Rice's assertion that the Israeli people want an end to the hostility.
America allows Israel to continue its offensive, ostensibly to give it time to weaken Hezbollah, but can't abide Hezbollah fighting back? Got it. And who really suffers here anyway? Israeli civilians, and much more so, Lebanese civilians. Sounds like a plan.
Punishing all of Lebanon, of course, is the point. Israel wants to punish the Lebanese people until they decide that supporting Hezbollah isn't worth it. On the contrary, I think Hezbollah is going to come out of this with more popularity than ever.
I hope Israel and America end up with a big black eye over this. I don't approve of Hezbollah's continuing fight with Israel (after Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon a few years ago), but at this stage, I hope they have the last laugh. And I bet they will.
Labels: america, israel, lebanon, politics