Monday, August 07, 2006

"They are attempting to gain diplomatically what they failed to achieve militarily"   [Rich Lowry]

One fascinating aspect of the current conflict is that, for the first time in history, it is an Arab force that has the upper hand military, and a U.N. resolution contemplates disadvantaging it anyway. It has always been the other way around. This occured to me when I saw this bit in the New York Times today:

"Arab analysts and diplomats in the Middle East were skeptical about the resolution having any chance of halting the fighting. 'They are attempting to gain diplomatically what they failed to achieve militarily,' said one diplomat with long experience in the Middle East. 'I expect the cease-fire to be rammed through, but it will turn into a war of attrition.' "

This report in the Arab press gets at the same thing:

"According to the Lebanese government and the Arab League, the point is that the US-French draft, if voted, would practically substitute a non-existent military victory of Israel with a Security Council decision which, discharging the request of amendment by the Lebanese government, would practically ascribe defeat to Lebanon in the absence of an Israeli victory by casting the Israeli military goals into the form of a UN Resolution."

This is why it is seems so unlikely to me that Hezbollah would accept a cease-fire. Why would it? It's had a pretty good war, then it's supposed to turn around and disarm and leave southern Lebanon?

08/07 03:56 PMShare