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.
In a pessimistic column in the Wall Street Journal last
Tuesday, Bret Stephens wrote:
“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.”
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:
In 1970 Israeli military moves against Syria saved King
Hussein and the moderate pro-American Hashemite monarchy of Jordan.
In 1982 American-made Israeli fighters engaged the Syrian air
force, shooting down 86 MiGs in one week without a single
loss…
While novice Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert deserves criticism
for his wavering leadership and failure to authorize a major ground
offensive earlier in the current conflict, it is worth noting that
all of the prior examples of Israeli dominance were instances of
conventional warfare, whereas the current conflict against
Hezbollah is asymmetric.
The United States used superior military power to win quick
victories in the conventional phases of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but years later, it is still battling a terrorist
insurgency in Iraq and remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan. If
the most powerful military in the world could not eliminate these
insurgents in years, why should Israel be expected to destroy
Hezbollah (one of the fiercest and most well-funded terrorist
groups in the world) in a matter of weeks?
Critics of the American-led war in Iraq say they oppose the war
on grounds that Iraq was not a direct threat to the U.S. and that
the invasion was unprovoked. That argument is specious with regard
to Iraq, but indefensible with regard to the current conflict
between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah started the fighting by
killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and perpetuates it by
firing hundreds of rockets into Israeli towns each day. And
Hezbollah (as well as its nuclear aspirant sponsor in Tehran)
leaves no doubt about its ultimate goal of destroying Israel.
Proponents of a quick ceasefire believe that such an action will
spare civilian lives, but they are gravely mistaken. While an
immediate end to the current conflict may save lives in the
short-term, in the long run it will only put more civilians at
risk.
The reason is that by putting a timeline on any Israeli military
action, it sends a message to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups
that they don’t actually have to defeat Israel (as Arab nations
tried and failed to do through conventional warfare), but simply
run out the clock. And the most effective way for terrorists to run
out the clock is to continue to fire rockets and store weapons
among civilians, which will cause Israel to act more tentatively
and expedite international calls for a ceasefire.
The Israelis themselves are willing to do whatever it takes, for
as long as it takes, to ensure that Hezbollah cannot threaten their
cities again. Last week the Jerusalem Post cited a poll showing that 95 percent of Jewish
Israelis approved of Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s initial
attack, and 82 percent thought Israel should continue more
forcefully.
President Bush has chided critics who have called for a timeline
for withdrawal in Iraq by arguing that it would embolden the
terrorists. He has instead stressed the need to “stay the course.”
It’s time that Israel be allowed to stay the course as well.
