The American Spectator

President Bush should be commended for granting Israel additional time to carry out its military campaign against Hezbollah, but it is a sad state of affairs when even Israel’s strongest ally accepts the underlying assumption that Israel must eventually be reined in. Simply put, why should a sovereign nation have to face any timeline to defend itself against aggression by an enemy?

Israel’s quick and decisive military victories of the past, most notably in 1967’s Six Day War, have raised expectations that Israel should be able to win any military conflict in a matter of days or weeks. During the current conflict, many staunch supporters of Israel have been contrasting its grueling war against Hezbollah with its historically swift victories.

p>In a pessimistic column in the Wall Street Journal last Tuesday, Bret Stephens wrote: br> /p>

“During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israelis were stunned by their early reversals against Egypt and Syria, yet they eked out a victory over these two powerfully armed, Soviet-backed adversaries in 20 days.”

br> In a Washington Post column last Friday, Charles Krauthammer argued that by failing to make short work of Hezbollah, Israel may lose support from the United States in the future by showing itself to be less strategically valuable to the U.S. Krauthammer also highlighted past Israeli military successes: br>