Så er våbenhvilen trådt i kraft, og indtil videre overholdes den – sådan da.
For en vurdering af udfaldet citeres her en artikel af Tim Hames. Den er så positiv over for Israel, at man næppe skal regne med at finde noget tilsvarende i danske MSM. Selv nærværende punditokrat, der lider under en sejlivet optimisme, må tage forbehold for hans tro på, at en genoptagelse af fjendtlighederne fra Hizbollahs side vil få FN til at tage parti imod dem. Men resten virker fornuftigt nok.
IF ONLY Israel were as effective at public relations as at military operations, the results of the conflict on and around its border with Lebanon would be so much starker. As it is, however, the real meaning of the UN resolution that will start to come into force today is being widely misrepresented. Hezbollah is hailing a "victory" of sorts, albeit one of a presentational character. In a bizarre situation, Israeli politicians on both the hard Left and the hard Right appear to agree with the terrorists. All are profoundly mistaken.
What, after all, does this Hezbollah claim consist of? The organisation considers it a triumph that it has not been completely "destroyed" after just four weeks of fighting. It contrasts this with the dismal record of several Arab armies combined in 1967. It has not yet been disarmed and may not be formally neutralised in the near future. Nor has it been discredited on the Arab street, where it has enhanced its popularity. The Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, thus proclaims himself a "new Nasser".
As victories rank, not being destroyed, disarmed or discredited is not that impressive. It is hardly Henry V at Agincourt. The idea that the Six-Day War represents the military standard for the Arab world is a somewhat humiliating notion. Allowing for the feeble record of the original Nasser, Israelis should not be too disturbed by the prospect of another incarnation. Nor was the Arab street that equivocal about Israel's existence before these clashes started.
Når vi nu er i gang med at give jer, hvad I næppe kan finde i danske MSM, er her en artikel fra den forhenværende Bush-medarbejder, Michael Gerton hvis beskrivelse af udfordringerne i Mellemøsten slutter sig til min tidligere posting ndf. om defaitisternes vagtparade (som ikke kommer som kronik. Thanks, but no thanks. I må nøjes med det her).
Her er et par løsrevne citater, men læs selv det hele her:
From those events [9/11, red.], President Bush drew a fixed conclusion: as long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure. Dictators in that region survive by finding scapegoats for their failuresfeeding conspiracy theories about Americans and Jewsand use religious groups to destroy reformers and democrats. Oil money strengthens elites, buys rockets, funds research into weapons of mass destruction, builds radical schools across Africa and Asia and finds its way to terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizers exploit the humiliated and hopelesschanneling their search for meaning into acts of murderand plot, as London 2006 proves, to surpass the mad ambitions of 9/11. …
There are still many steps of diplomacy, engagement and sanctions between today and a decision about military conflict with Iranand there may yet be a peaceful solution. But in this diplomatic dance, America should not mirror the infinite patience of Europe. There must be someone in the world capable of drawing a linesomeone who says, "This much and no further." At some point, those who decide on aggression must pay a price, or aggression will be universal. If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. …
A second point: the promotion of democracy in the Middle East is messy, difficult, but no one has a better idea. …
Realism, however, is not always identical to pessimism. Arab societies, in fact, have strong traditions of private association, private property and a contractual relationship between ruler and ruled. It is not realism to ignore unprecedented elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and serious reforms elsewhere. The past half century has shown that the cultural obstacles to democracy are less formidable than many predicted, from Roman Catholic Southern Europe to Orthodox Eastern Europe to Confucian Asia. Our times provide strong evidence that liberty improves life and that people in many cultures eventually prefer liberty to slavery. And Americans, of all people, should not be surprised or embarrassed when our deepest beliefs turn out to be true. …
Other critics of the democracy agendawhat might be called hard realiststhink democracy in the Middle East may be possible, but it is not desirable because elections are likely to bring anti-American radicals like Hamas to power. …
But it is something else to claim that democracy itself is a threat in the Middle East because dictatorships are more stable. This duplicates the argument of the dictators themselves: it is us or the Islamists … the junta or the jihad. But the choice is false. Political oppression in nations like Egypt has increased the standing and appeal of radicals and forced all opposition into the mosque, while state media continues to provide a steady supply of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. The real choice to be made in the Middle East is between radicals and democrats; both groups have been emboldened by the events of the last five years. We may have limited time to take the side of democratic forcesnot merely as an act of altruism, but as an act of self-defense. …
Ja det er lidt usselt at Hizbollah kun holdt 4 uger vs. 18 år sidste gang….
Jeg ved godt at idrætsanalogier går lidt ved siden af i dette forum. Men ude i virkeligheden er de meget anvendt, så jeg prøver lige:Opgjort efter europacup-regler har Israel fået uafgjort på udebane med målscoring. Konflikten punkterer nemlig et par sejlivede myter omkring krigsførelsen mod Israel:Myte 1. David mod Goliat eller “Palæstinenserne har ikke andet værn mod israelske kampvogne end stenkastning”. Forkert. Palæstinenserne har masser af raketter og veltrænede militærenheder. Desuden har de stærke allierede i form af Syrien og Iran.Myte 2. FN har moralsk autoritet og arbejder for freden. Forkert. Kofi Annan har virkelig vist sit sande ansigt denne gang som en fjende af Israel. Og den nye styrke i Libanon er virkelig FNs sidste chance. De har på den lange bane langt mere at tabe i situationen: HVis Hezbollah efter et pusterum ufortrødent genoptager raketangrebene vil FNs uvilje mod at gøre noget ved det blive tydeligt udstillet. Og hvis Israel gengælder, kan de ikke gøre noget ved det.Myte 3. “Internationale nyhedsagenturer viser bare, hvad der sker”. Hæhæ, det er længe siden jeg har troet på den, men det har jeg så været ret alene med. Det bliver jeg ikke ved med at være…Summen af dette er en langt mere udbredt erkendelse i den vestlige verden af, at arabernes casting af sig selv i en offerrolle ikke holder. Langtidsvirkningen af sådan et trendskifte kan være betydelig.Mazel tov!
Du får næppe FN til at tage parti imod Hizbollah, men hvem regner i øvrigt FN for noget mere. Nok om FN…Der er grund til at være optimist. Også i Israels kamp for overlevelse. Det gode argument findes i dagens udgave af Berlingske Tidende, hvor ex-punditokrat Jalving bringer et lækkert interview med den fremragende forfatter David Frum. Langt om længe kan danskerne læse Frum. Han har ellers været gemt langt væk af journalisterne herhjemme (udover lidt skriverier vedr. Frums kampagne mod Harriet Miers). Frum svarer til Jalvings spørgsmål om han virkelig tror Vesten vinder i denne fjerde verdenskrig?:”Jeg er slet ikke i tvivl. Vesten vil vinde. Det skyldes først og fremmest vores konstante selvkritik. Tag nu bare din avis. At I ringer til mig, er et eksempel på denne konstante debat og undersøgelse, eller hvad man kunne kalde for korrektionens genese. Den er vores bedste våben. Du kan også se det i Libanon. Mens Hizbollah fejrer, at de ikke blev totalt udslettet, spørger israelerne sig selv, hvorfor de ikke vandt en fuldgyldig sejr, og næste gang vil israelerne kæmpe anderledes, mens Hizbollah vil kæmpe på den samme måde”.