Passing the buck: a conspiracy theory
The United Nations has finally come up with a plan for a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. It looks like Right-Wing blogs are not going to approve of this UN Resolution either; Michelle Malkin considers the deal depressing, for example.
The deal is depressing, of course, because there is no moral imperative to negotiate with terrorists, even when a nation like Israel launches a full scale assault against them. There is only a practical imperative to negotiate. If negotiating gives Israel more than it gives the terrorists, it might just be worth it.
But the involvement of France (the former Mandatory power in the area) in this affair has me suspicious. After all, this is France we're talking about. If it wasn't acting suspicious, it wouldn't be doing its job. My suspicion is that France is acting as a go-between in a game of "good cop, bad cop" being played with the real opposition in Lebanon: Syria. Syria, as we all know, is the regional power backing Hezbollah, although presumably Syria is funneling support from Iran to Hezbollah as well. Syria is also presumed to be a regional staging area for insurgents preparing for operations inside Iraq. So the only real way to make a deal with Hezbollah and get it to stick is ultimately to make a deal with Syria, one way or another.
What could a cynically Machiavellian American president be telling the Syrians to take advantage of the situation? Perhaps that the Israeli government has finally "lost it" this time and are going to run riot over Lebanon and Syria out of sheer fury. But the United States might just maybe be able use what little influence it has with Israel to get it to agree to a cease fire. It might also be wise for Syria to crack down on Iraqi insurgents operating in its terrority to give the United States some political cover as more United Nations peacekeepers -- perhaps some American troops previously stationed in Iraq -- move into southern Lebanon.
The deal is depressing, of course, because there is no moral imperative to negotiate with terrorists, even when a nation like Israel launches a full scale assault against them. There is only a practical imperative to negotiate. If negotiating gives Israel more than it gives the terrorists, it might just be worth it.
But the involvement of France (the former Mandatory power in the area) in this affair has me suspicious. After all, this is France we're talking about. If it wasn't acting suspicious, it wouldn't be doing its job. My suspicion is that France is acting as a go-between in a game of "good cop, bad cop" being played with the real opposition in Lebanon: Syria. Syria, as we all know, is the regional power backing Hezbollah, although presumably Syria is funneling support from Iran to Hezbollah as well. Syria is also presumed to be a regional staging area for insurgents preparing for operations inside Iraq. So the only real way to make a deal with Hezbollah and get it to stick is ultimately to make a deal with Syria, one way or another.
What could a cynically Machiavellian American president be telling the Syrians to take advantage of the situation? Perhaps that the Israeli government has finally "lost it" this time and are going to run riot over Lebanon and Syria out of sheer fury. But the United States might just maybe be able use what little influence it has with Israel to get it to agree to a cease fire. It might also be wise for Syria to crack down on Iraqi insurgents operating in its terrority to give the United States some political cover as more United Nations peacekeepers -- perhaps some American troops previously stationed in Iraq -- move into southern Lebanon.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home