Blue Crab Boulevard

Hezbollah’s Pipeline

Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius is rapidly turning himself into a pipeline for Hezbollah propaganda and an outright enabler of that organization. His latest column in the Post is, quite frankly, appalling. First, he gives us his view of what happened in the Yom Kippur war in 1973, then he waxes rhapsodic on the heroic Egyptian sneak attack and it's aftermath.

Yet in the long lens of history, the importance of the 1973 war is that it opened the door to peace. The Arabs, humiliated by earlier wars with Israel, could now claim a measure of dignity because of Anwar Sadat's bold attack across the canal. The Israelis learned that their Arab adversaries wouldn't run from battle as they had in the 1967 war. That gave them a stake in making peace, too.

After the war ended, Egypt and Syria joined in active diplomacy, masterfully orchestrated by Kissinger, who managed to create enough distance between the United States and Israel to allow some negotiating room. Sadat felt confident enough as the "hero of the crossing" to make his famous trip to Jerusalem. Even the terrorist group of the day, the Palestine Liberation Organization, was drawn into a web of secret liaison with the CIA.

The 1973 war marked a historic turning point, in ways that no one could initially have predicted. And it is just possible that the current conflict offers a similar opportunity. The key missing element, so far at least, is a Kissinger-level diplomatic commitment by the United States. Condoleezza Rice came close to a Lebanon peace deal last weekend, but to pull it off, she will need to move more toward Kissinger's stance of honest broker.

To turn the Lebanon disaster of 2006 into an opportunity, each side will have to alter its view of the other. In dealing with the Palestinians and the Lebanese, the Israelis will have to revise their doctrine that their adversaries can be coerced solely by military force. As Gal Luft, a retired Israeli military officer, commented at a conference in Washington last week, the days are long past when Arab fighters would see the advancing Israeli army, discard their boots and flee in terror.

So all Israel has to do is let Ignatius' good buddy Nasrallah do is, you know, win just enough. That's all.

The strategy of Israel's (and America's) enemies today is to lure the military superpower into a protracted conflict. To accept the bait, as the Israelis did in assaulting Lebanon and as America did in Iraq, is to risk stepping into a trap. As Lawrence Wright says in his new book, "The Looming Tower," the master of this approach is Osama bin Laden: "His strategy was to continually attack until the U.S. forces invaded; then the mujahadeen would swarm upon them and bleed them until the entire American empire fell from its wounds."

The Israeli and American resolve in this grim summer of war should be: No more falling into traps. In the age of missiles, there's limited value in a "security fence" or "security buffer." The evidence grows that you can't achieve real security without negotiating with your adversaries, and you can't succeed in such negotiations without offering reasonable concessions.

For the Arabs, the opportunity of 2006 lies in the surprising success of Hezbollah and its leader, Hasan Nasrallah. Their resistance on the battlefield makes them more dangerous adversaries — but also more plausible negotiating partners. Little in Nasrallah's past suggests that he will use his new stature and confidence to encourage indirect negotiations with Israel, but, as 1973 reminds us, the aftermath of war can produce big surprises. U.S. officials recognize that Nasrallah is likely to emerge as the strongest political force in Beirut, and they hope he will make strategic choices that will build a stronger and more stable Lebanon.

Well, hell. We don't even have to wait for Israel to let Nasrallah win. Ignatius has already counted the score cards an made the decision on points.

You know what? After reading this particular column, I really need to go take a long, hot shower. Someone at the WaPo should really think long and hard about having a partisan pipeline for terrorists on their staff.

Media, War | Gaius August 1, 2006

By Mike's America, August 1, 2006 @ 11:22 pm

President Bush offered the world a choice after September 11th:

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

It’s amazing that there are people in this country who choose to side with the terrorists.

They’ll believe any atrocity and blame Israel. They’ll refuse to listen to any alternative explanation of what appear to be tragic events like Qana.

We’re dealing with an enemy that is commanded by Allah to cheat, steal from and kill the infidel. Lying seems to come naturally to them.
By crosspatch, August 2, 2006 @ 12:33 am

I have a feeling that as long as Israel restricts her efforts to the taking apart of Hezbollah, there really isn’t going to be much of an outcry from the world. She could probably keep it up for another week or two without much howling if the coastal blockade could be lifted somewhat to allow inspection of ships and those with non-military cargos to be let through.

Nailing Nasrallah is going to be difficult as he could be hiding in Syria.
By crosspatch, August 2, 2006 @ 1:05 am

Found a link to this over on Rantburg. It was written in 2002. Thought it might be of interest.

http://www.freelebanon.org/articles/a246.htm
By Phil, August 2, 2006 @ 3:33 am

“…U.S. officials recognize that Nasrallah is likely to emerge as the strongest political force in Beirut, and they hope he will make strategic choices that will build a stronger and more stable Lebanon.”

So tell me, who will be the first in the administration to negotiate with a group that killed hundreds of marines and others? and whose doctrine is to destroy another country – Israel?

Free Press and all, but it is amazing how newspapers such as the NYTime and Washington Post are often un-American in their viewpoint. It is fair to be critical but to be a tool for our advisaries is absurd and amazing. I can’t imagine anyone that is Jewish and/or supports American policy or mourns the loss of our citizens at the hands of terrorists – subscribing to newspapers such as these? amazing world we live in… http://www.what-a-world.com
By Guy, August 2, 2006 @ 7:36 am

Some scattered and disconnected thoughts:

It’s interesting that our friend Ignatius fails to tell his readers that the Israelis eventually split a seam between two advancing Egyptian armies and were able to completely cut one of them off, just as the cease fire was signed.I would propose that it was not so much Egypt’s attack that brought about the negotiations, but the fact that they(the Egyptian’s)were getting their butts kicked by the Israelis.

It’s also interesting that Ignatius calls the affair in Lebanon a disaster. I would ask, “for whom”?

“In dealing with the Palestinians and the Lebanese, the Israelis will have to revise their doctrine that their adversaries can be coerced solely by military force.” Good grief…what on earth can Ignatius be thinking of? What does he have to say about the ill fated Land For Peace proposition?

And finally, Arafat and Hamas were looked upon only as a terrorist and his organization until they were recognized diplomatically by Bill Clinton. Hopefully, we’re not seeing the same theme played out with Nasrallah and Hezbollah.
By Gregg Carlstrom, August 2, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

Ignatius also totally overlooks an important reason for Sadat’s signing the peace treaty: It started a flow of foreign aid and investment into the country. Hizballah is not going to be persuaded with rational economic interests… it isn’t even a state. It’s a terrorist organization. And it’s being used by Tehran to fight a proxy war in Lebanon.

There are far too many extenuating circumstances for the 2006 war to turn out like 1973.