Israel & Lebanon: Jim Geraghty Weighs In

Jim Geraghty, weighing in at TKS:

No, sometimes we can't just talk it out
07/18 08:37 AM

Do you get the feeling that some folks’ opinions and rhetoric regarding Israel and its neighbors have been stuck on autopilot?

For example, one of the safest, least controversial, and least substantive responses to the crisis is to call for a diplomatic solution.

Yes, we would all like that, as we would like to be rich and for chocolate to be a health food. When the reaction to a withdrawal – take your pick, the Lebanese border or the Gaza Strip – is setting up military positions, kidnapping soldiers, and firing rockets into cities, it’s a pretty clear signal: One side isn’t interested in negotiating.

On a related note:

A former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright - speaking unusually bluntly considering the traditional injunction in U.S. politics against speaking ill of foreign policy while the president is abroad - said of the administration, "I'm stunned, I'm frankly stunned that they have not been involved" more in the region. "I wish that the secretary had announced that she was leaving St. Petersburg and going with other foreign ministers to the region to begin shuttle diplomacy," she said on ABC-TV. "We can't wait for the violence to stop."

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, agreed that Rice should head to the region immediately.

"We're late into this game," he told Fox News. "This could spin out of control to such a degree that we could have a major, major war in the Middle East."

We send Rice to the region, and… then what? Just how do you see these folks see negotiations progressing?

Rice: How about you guys cease fire? Or at least stop bombing Beirut?
Olmert: No.
Rice: How about you guys stop sending rockets into northern Israel?
Hezbollah: No!
Rice: How about releasing the kidnapped soldiers?
Hezbollah: No!
Rice: How about using your influence to get Hezbollah to knock off this, er, stuff, as the President said?
Bashar Assad: No!

Many of the same folks who rhetorically flay President Bush for hubris seem to think the U.S. has enough leverage over all the parties to get them to stop defending themselves. Sure, we have some leverage over Israel, but not enough to get them to stop bombing guys who are firing missiles into their cities. And if we had much leverage with Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria or Iran, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

E.J. Dionne offers this suggestion:

The "international community'' cannot engage in its usual dithering. When British Prime Minister Tony Blair called Monday for an international force to disarm Hezbollah, it seemed an impossibly impractical demand. But if there's something more practical than avoiding a full-scale regional war, I don't know what it is. And in this case, it will take a genuine international effort, not a narrow "coalition of the willing."

So let there be at least a brief cease-fire so the world can take account of the catastrophe on its doorstep.

Of course the whole world should join together to form an international military force tasked to disarm Hezbollah. And after that, we can join Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sugar Plum Fairy at the Teddy Bear picnic. Look, no nation is going to offer a significant number of its forces to go in and step into a war zone, with fanatics and extremists, a stockpile of Iranian and Syrian weapons, and attempt to "disarm" groups that have enthusiastically embraced massacres and suicide bombings in the past.

And frankly, we can take account of the catastrophe on our doorstep while the fighting is still going on.