...Bush establishes priorities at the G-8 summit.
For the second day, Bush spent part of it mountain biking.
What would be your quibble with calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization?
As for "bad diplomacy," what about the yeoman's work done by the Clinton Administration? You may think they deferred too much to the Palestinians, but they had deal that may well have have brought lasting peace to the region. Yasser Arafat, though, would have none of it. His death does not seem to have as beneficial to the process as many (myself included) expected that it would be. At some point, the Palestinians will have to decide whether they want to build a state or destroy Israel. Maybe a sustained beating will help them decide.
Finally, as far as the Israelis starting this latest conflict, we may wish to know a bit more about the events of June 9th. Pardon the highlights, but the original page is gone. I do love me some google.
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Saying Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is fine for a journalist, blogger or commentator, although I might quibble with the definition. You and I have no sway in this argument. Unfortunately, it’s Bush defining this situation as simply a battle against terrorists that results in our impotency in world affairs.
Giving up a piece of land will not in and of itself bring peace to the Middle East. I proposed more than just Gaza and more than giving back land.
That diplomacy has failed doesn’t mean diplomacy won’t. Bad diplomacy has failed. One-sided diplomacy has failed. The Muslim world has longed for respect from the Western world for centuries. They don’t feel they get it. One reason is that every time there’s conflict over the last 60 years, they get blamed for starting it while we ignore the larger picture.
And as for who started this latest conflict, it depends on where you start. Note that The Washington Post has the Israelis starting it. The first military action is by the Israelis when they killed 18 Palestinians on June 9 and 13.
And the Arabs have claim to the land that is now Israel, too. Again, it depends on how far back you want to go. Like I said, a viable West Bank and Gaza Strip state, along with massive aid to improve their lives and international peacekeepers, and you have just as good a chance as you have with military action. There is a time for military action. No question about it. But I don’t think we can bomb the Muslim world into submission on the Palestinian question.
Posted by: Bob | July 16, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Bob, I don't see any problem with calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization. That's what it is. Al Qaeda builds roads and schools and whatever (just ask Sen Murray). Are its members somehow not terrorists?
What makes you believe that if Israel turns over even more territory to the Palestinians the situation will be any more conducive to peace? They abandoned Gaza to the Palestinians and are now getting rocket attacks from that area for their trouble. I see no evidence that "land for peace" is going start working anytime soon if ever.
Diplomacy had failed for a long time now; a military solution may be the only thing that will start to change a seemingly intractable situation.
As far as the idea of "disproportionate response" goes, should Israel allow Hezbollah to attack across its border without response? The blame for civilian casualties lies primarily with Hezbollah. They are the ones firing rockets from apartment buldings and schools. The deaths of human shields are the fault of those who are using them for cover.
By the way, I live in VA. So far as I know, the Jews haven't been living here for millenia with at least as strong a claim to the land as anyone else.
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2006 at 01:31 PM
I'm more inclined to agree with Fan. First of all, assessing this situation requires going beyond calling one side terrorists. That seems to end the conversation right there and make the choice black and white. Which is exactly what Bush does and which is exactly why we find ourselves five years after 9/11 with the world much more dangerous and ourselves isolated.
Hezbollah, which operates schools, social services organizations and conducts a guerrilla war against Israel, captures two soldiers, so Israel bombs the hell out of Beirut. It’s an overreaction in my view.
Moreover, if we don’t start putting aside who started the latest skirmish and deal with the larger issues, the world will increasingly become unstable. We may be tough. Nobody will push us around. And in the end our children will live in a world doomed to be finished by the first crazed character who has the bomb.
For all the bluster among supporters of the Palestinians, I wonder how much terrorists would be neutralized -- through the lack of support of middle east Muslims -- if we recognized they have legitimate gripes that go back at least 60 years.
Brian, you asked what should be done. What about demanding Israel retreat from the entire West Bank and east Jerusalem, that either it or the world provide some type of reparations for the land that was confiscated from the Palestinians after WW II, that the world then agree to massive aid for the Palestinians and the Israelis to help restore their economies, and that the UN guarantee the integrity of both lands with some commitment of a UN force to keep the peace until things stablize?
Others will have much more sophisticated solution sets, but in the end, if you want to know how the Palestinians feel, ask yourself how you would feel if, after WW II, the world, wanting to make reparation for the Holocaust, decided to give Jews worldwide Virginia, or New Jersey, or wherever you live.
You, of course, can go back centuries and see conflict between Jews and Muslims, but at this point, I think repairing the damage done after WW II would probably dissolve the support many radical Muslims now enjoy. It wouldn’t stop the violence immediately, but over time, their influence would wane.
Brian, is there really any other choice? Do we really believe we can bomb them into submission?
Posted by: Bob | July 16, 2006 at 07:41 AM
Actually, Hezbollah and Lebanon are unfortunately intertwined. It's too bad so many Lebanese support those terrorists. Israel's reaction to the Hezbollah attack is really quite restrained. President Bush's take seems just about right, so far.
Posted by: Brian | July 15, 2006 at 11:21 PM
He should be dealing evenhandedly with the situation, instead of endorsing and encouraging Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Lebanon is not Hezbollah. The Lebanese people (and 25K Americans there) need help from this overblown reaction from Israel.
Posted by: Fan of Integrity | July 15, 2006 at 10:20 PM
So, what should he be doing?
Posted by: Brian | July 15, 2006 at 04:54 PM