In some ways, we live in a very complex world; in other ways, it's all very, very, simple.
We have seen a recent escalation in violence in the Mideast, provocatively started (most recently) by the kidnap/capture/seizure (we'll come back to this terminology debate later -- don't worry) of two Israelis soldiers by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization with state sponsorship from Shi'ite Iran and Syria, with some hooks in the democratic Lebanese government as well. The Israelis have responded by demanding the return of these soldiers (who were on the Israeli side of the Blue Line -- this makes it a kidnapping -- an abduction. It's not capture, it's not seizure. Seizure is what happens to illegal wire transfers.) and attempting to disarm Hezbollah, in accordance with UN Resolution 1559. Some Arab governments have called on Hezbollah to bring an end to the impasse, but neither side is particularly enthusiastic to give in to the demands of the other.
As for the supporting roles in this play, we have Russia, the EU (Europe speaking with one voice, we assume), the US, and perhaps a few others later (India? China? Pakistan?).
First, we have the Russians, who are hesitant to support too much Israeli unilateral action, and worried about making the Iranian masters of Hezbollah too angry. Russia at least has the purest of motives for calling for Israeli self-restraint -- crude, base, self-interest. But at least it's genuine, and predictable.
Next, we have the EU, typically making the perfect the enemy of the good, ignoring the parts of international law that say that 1) states have an obligation to defend themselves, and 2) states have an obligation to prevent domestic militias from starting wars with outside countries. A state's monopoly of violence is not merely for the prevention of domestic insurgency -- it also prevents foreign wars. The EU ignores these older, more fundamental tenets of international law (perhaps we should use the word "custom" rather than "law"), and criticizes Israel's self-defense for precipitating a humanitarian crisis. But Israeli self-defense was itself a reaction to Hezbollah's violation of the fundamental rules of war and sovereignty. It is clearly the armed -- illegal -- militia invading a soveriegn state that is precipitating the humanitarian crisis, exacerbating it by hiding its weapons caches and fighters amongst innocent civilians -- another violation of the most basic tenets of "civilized" war. In spite of more numerous and more severe violations of the conventions of war, Hezbollah gets a free pass from the EU (and the UN, for that matter), while Israel is criticized for living in a bad neighborhood. The moral equivalence is disturbing -- the EU is calling for a cease-fire and diplomacy, but that would necessitate legitimizing the illegitimate. Negotiation only gives legitimacy to the genocidal organizations that would push the Jews into the Med. The relevant hallowed UN resolutions call for disarmament of Hezbollah, but that would require good men with spines and guns.
The US is standing cautiously aloof of the situation (in and around Israel, anyway), arguing that it is waiting to hear from the UN. This is a truly absurd excuse -- the US really doesn't need to hear from the UN about the situation. The US is simply waiting for Israel to kill a few more people willing to die to exterminate Israel, and this waiting will hopefully augment the security situation in Israel's favor. The US also has fish to fry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cannot reasonably guarantee troops even under the aegis of some weak-mandated blue helmet force.
Some Arab governments with decent relationships with Israel are critizing Hezbollah. There are two reasons for this. First off, nations like Egypt remember 1967, and would rather not tangle with the Israelis again. Secondly, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt recognize that Iran only gains power when Hezbollah and Hamas become stronger. It is a stroke of Kissingerian genius that the US has started playing Arab autocracies against each other for the benefit of Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan.
The simple fact is this: Hezbollah is Hamas is Iran is al-Qaeda is Syria is militant Islam. We would do well to have a Kissinger in this war. After all,
Santorum was right -- I would call this the next Cold War, rather than World War III. We will need to drive wedges between the religious autocrats, like Nixon did with China and the USSR (if you don't think Marxism is a religion, reread
The Communist Manifesto. It has its story of the world's founding, its prophets, its demons, its "specters" or Holy Ghosts, and its messianic views), speak in the context of containment when talking about Iran, offer incentives for coöperation with the US, and initiate rollback where possible. Europe, for its part, should work to prevent the wicked ideologies from manifesting themselves as political platforms. It is impossible to believe that Muslims will not start to form Muslim political parties in Europe, and the West must not capitulate to these elements, any more than it did to communist parties in France and, of course, Italy. In this case,
France and the
UK will perhaps be the most vulnerable to Islamic parties.
Incidentally, if the ACLU was as outraged about the Hezbollah militia firing missiles into Haifa as they are about the Minutemen calling border agents with cell phones... oh wait,
they're on Hezbollah's side.
