Israeli commandos renew attack on Tyre
AP - Via Yahoo.com
TYRE, Lebanon - Israeli naval commandos battled with Hezbollah in the southern port city of Tyre early Saturday (8-5-06), while Israeli air raids killed at least eight people in multiple strikes across Lebanon and a Hezbollah rocket barrage killed three in northern Israel. After days of negotiations, the U.S. and France reached agreement Saturday (8-5-06) on a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at getting a cease-fire, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said.
2 comments:
I think the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah is just the latest manifestation of the Arab – Israeli conflict. The fighting has and will continue to have an impact on U.S. politics and that the U.S. will continue being more involved, diplomatically, but in this case not militarily. I think that the U.S. will work with other nation to provide a solution to the major issues of dispute on both sides of the broader issue. The U.S. is already part of passing a resolution at the U.N. though our seat on the Security Council. Also the United States government worked and will continue to work with other nations to refine other resolutions until consensus is reached and the current hostilities cease. It would be in the world’s best interest, if all nations continue to promote negotiations to create a lasting peace. I believe that many nations including the U.S. realize that the Israeli military is one of the worlds strongest and has probably greatly weakened the morale and power of Hezbollah fighters. So the new multi-national force will just need to act as a buffer and not need to a military strength to the situation. So with this peace keeping force why not let nations who don’t have lots of military strength act as a buffer and preserve the stronger more powerful militaries for other issues. I don’t think the U.S. military will get very involved in the multi-national force that will be securing the Israel-Lebanon boarder, since it is still busy, with service men and women on missions, securing Iraq and Afghanistan. I also think the U.S. will not help with military support because there are other areas that look like issues of major world dispute that may arise within the next few years, such as the North Korean nuclear situation. The U.S. may also want to have a fresh military to be on hand if Syria and Iran keep supporting and supplying terrorists.
As for the US getting involved, I bleive that the US is the world power best suited to ending this crisis, but lets be honest. The US is stalling. For comparison, The UN passed a resolution demanding that North Korea withdraw from the south on the SAME DAY of the North Korean invasion of the south. US troops were committed 5 days after the invasion, and started making a presence on the battlefield within 10 days after the initial invasion in the Korean War. The US and UN can mobilize themeselves quickly when they want to. Now, it has been roughly a month and a half since the isreali hostages were taken and isreal attacked Lebenon. I ask, honestly, who has stepped up? The US? UN? not in any significant way. The US is stalling right now. It could be to give Isreal more time to hurt Hammas (and Iran by proxy) or simply because the US doesn't want to get heavily involved.
"It would be in the world’s best interest, if all nations continue to promote negotiations to create a lasting peace."
"I believe that many nations including the U.S. realize that the Israeli military is one of the worlds strongest and has probably greatly weakened the morale and power of Hezbollah fighters. So the new multi-national force will just need to act as a buffer and not need to a military strength to the situation. So with this peace keeping force why not let nations who don’t have lots of military strength act as a buffer and preserve the stronger more powerful militaries for other issues." - Megan
You do realize that you first said that you support peace but then called for military intervention, right? If that isn't a flip-flop, realize that if the US or another nation joins the war on the Isreali side, such an act would undermine that same nation's negociations with the palistinians. I apologise for singling this out, but do realize that I mean nothing personal.
Also, I wish to address the notion that this is 'just another conflict in the endless mid-east cycle of violence'. It is different this time. Israel was attacked 1948 after it was created. It was then that they first occupied captured territory. (note, this was not Gaza) The violence became wars again in 1956, 1967, and 1973. However disproportionate the violence has been, the palistinans could rationalize it by saying they were resisting an occupying army. Israel withdrew from Gaza earlier this year to its internationally reconized borders. Less than a week after the withdrawl, the palistinians started firing rockets into Israel. The old pretext of resisting an occupying force no longer existed - now it can only be considered an offensive move against Israel. This time it is not the same.
While I could go on, now is probably a good time to return to the origional question. I think the US will slowly become more involved, and that the cheif effect of the fighting will be to distract the public from the civil war in Iraq.
Post a Comment