"Hope is itself a species of happiness, and, perhaps, the chief happiness which this world affords: but, like all other pleasures immoderately enjoyed, the excesses of hope must be expiated by pain; and expectations improperly indulged must end in disappointment."
– Samuel Johnson
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
– Attributed to Albert Einstein
The diplomatic arrangements that produced the current cease-fire in Lebanon look remarkably like the arrangements that produced the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon some years back. We are expected to believe that this time the results will be different, though the previous arrangements created the situation that made the current conflict so destructive. The problem is the same now as then. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. There can be no end to conflict until and unless Hezbollah is disarmed. Hezbollah will not disarm voluntarily. Therefore, the conflict will continue.
After the last negotiated resolution, Hezbollah used its supremacy in southern Lebanon for a military build-up. With its forces well entrenched and facing what it thought was a dovish government in Israel, the Hezbollah leadership provoked a confrontation with its cross-border aggression last month. The Israeli government responded with unexpected resolve. A bitter, but thus far indecisive battle ensued, highly destructive to the people of Lebanon and their assets. The opportunity for a military build-up, combined with the perception of an Israeli government that would likely make a deal rather than make a fight of it, led to Hezbollah's attack, which it then followed up with a frenzied barrage of rockets directed against Israeli civilians.
Logically, it is fair to conclude that all the destruction and tragic death that we have seen in the last month or so is the result of feckless diplomacy that purported to end violence when in fact it encouraged Hezbollah's capacity and willingness to do violence. Once the shooting starts, the so-called peacemakers heap opprobrium on the terrible killing and destruction. Like the contractor after the building collapses, they want everyone to ignore the inferior concepts and materials that went into its design and construction. What should we say when the same firm shows up with the same design and materials, implying nonetheless that we should expect a different outcome?
The logic of the situation is clear. Hezbollah will either disarm voluntarily or it will not. If it refuses to disarm, it will be disarmed by force or it will not. If not disarmed, any diplomatic arrangements merely provide a cover for its military preparations and a shield against Israeli actions aimed at disrupting those preparations. Under this cover, pressure builds toward a more destructive renewal of the battle.
Is there some reason to believe that Hezbollah will disarm voluntarily, despite its repeated statements to the contrary? The most likely outcome seems to be a temporary cessation of open Hezbollah military activity used to camouflage the redeployment and re-supply of its forces. The irregular nature of those forces lends itself to this deception. Will the combined Lebanese/U.N. forces have the will and wherewithal to interfere with Hezbollah's preparations for a renewal of the battle? Will they be willing to go to war to stop Hezbollah?
The only ray of real hope for peace coming out of the present U.N. resolution arises from the possibility that Lebanese/international forces would not hesitate to do so. Their efforts might not arouse the same fervent calls for an instant cease-fire that greeted Israel's determination to defend herself. Lebanese government forces may enjoy greater sympathy than Israel if they come under assault from Hezbollah. True, they probably lack the military strength to deal with that assault, but in alliance with a properly constituted international force, they could prevail.
Nonetheless, the only way the present arrangements can lead to peace is through a Lebanese/international force that is prepared in will and armament to make war. Such preparation would have to include the kind of air power Israel has been directing against well dug-in Hezbollah fighters. Absent such forces, the present cessation of battle is a transparent delusion, a mirage in an international landscape where intelligent and courageous leadership is as scarce as water in the famous deserts of the Middle East.
War might not be necessary if the countries that have agreed upon the current U.N. resolution clearly and credibly declare their determination to do whatever it takes to disarm Hezbollah. This might be a deterrent. Tragically, as agreed upon, the U.N. resolution has the telltale signs of an obvious bluff. Hint No. 1 is the fact that the international force will wear the discredited UNIFIL label, as peacekeepers, not war makers. The war-averse bleats and whimpers currently in evidence from the French and others only confirm this suggestion. They send the message to Hezbollah that its wager of violence and terror, though more costly than Hezbollah expected, has, in fact, paid off. Its lawless acts have produced a result that places Hezbollah's territorial demands on the table of diplomatic discussion, while pushing its practice of terror into the background.
If the U.N. effort is implemented, discussions will go forward with U.N. forces held hostage to the possibility of battle on the ground in Lebanon, a battle that the timid leaders responsible for them seem desperately inclined to avoid. Absent the will to do battle, those forces pose no obstacle to Hezbollah's military reconstruction, while effectively precluding Israeli interference. (Israel has been hammered for defending herself against open aggression and terror. God knows what would happen if she gave even the appearance of imperiling or challenging the U.N. force.) In effect, Hezbollah will bring both guns and terror to any so-called peace talks while everyone else checks their weapons at the door. If this is a new triumph for peace, it fits an age-old description. How about pyrrhic diplomacy?
Related special offer:
"Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad"