Time for hesitation is over
Doubt and hesitation are only commendable when a bold and original decision, one that brings about real change, is made at the end of the process
The fourth week of the war appears to have been wasted from a militaristic point view: the call up to an uncertain front is showing signs of fatigue and irritation. The enemy is continuing to shell and Israel is continuing to fight, while paying the terrible toll involved in purging the Shiite villages, which were supposedly already in IDF hands, and whose conquest was unnecessary to begin with.
This has happened because the Olmert government, say its critics, didn't wage the war in Lebanon with full momentum and force. It hesitated, it weighed each move a thousand times, it flinched at the option of a massive ground assault, it "didn't flatten Shiite villages," it stuttered and was inconsistent. Only on Wednesday, the critics add, did the government make the decision to expand the assault, a decision that should have been taken on the fourth or fifth day of the war.
Hesitation not always a drawback
This is all true, but only partially; hesitation, slowness and fear of radicalism are not always drawbacks. They are often the positive traits, necessary ones. The second war in Lebanon broke out under completely different circumstances to the first. Israel didn't want it, and wasn't even prepared for it properly, as is continually being reported live from the fighting. Therefore, it is permissible and advisable to hesitate, to doubt, to warn, to scratch one's head, to carefully deliberate each option, and occasionally think twice before pulling out the IDF's steel fist.
The hesitation expressed by Olmert and his cabinet stemmed from its awareness to its limitations, its sense of responsibility and from its long term strategy. These are doubts worthy of praise.
Israel not "hungry for territorial gains"
Israel must not appear as though it is hungry for "territorial gains." Those who dreamed of seeing the lines of IDF tanks rolling into Lebanon three weeks ago – dreamed of an empty show of force. It's not what happened, we would have buried hundreds of our troops and would have returned posthaste to the international border, to the blue line with Hizbullah on the other side. Not because Hizbullah would have defeated us, but because the world would have sent us back, without any achievements.
Hesitation that brings about real change
However, doubt and hesitation are only commendable when a bold and original decision, one that brings about real change, is made at the end of the process. An Ariel Sharon type of decision: surprise the enemy, hit him where it hurts, gain exchange collateral and accelerate the political course that serves Israel's best interests. Let's hope that this is what was decided at Wednesday's cabinet meeting. History won't judge the war in Lebanon inside and out, it will judge it by its results. Ariel Sharon hesitated for a year before giving the go ahead to re-occupy the cities of the West Bank during Operation Defensive Shield.
The operation began in 2002, following the massive terror attack carried out at the Park Hotel in Netanya. Initially, the operation sparked much criticism, particularly after suffering so many casualties. Only towards the end of 2002 did the Israeli public begin to understand that the tables had been turned on the war of terror. The Intifada and the acts of terror waned.
Surprising political results
The war in Lebanon has brought about some surprising political results. The French-American brokered UN draft resolution, as it was submitted to the Security Council (even if it is amended), heralds a significant achievement for Israel. This was evident in the perplexity the text created throughout the European media hostile to Israel. All of a sudden it became apparent that France also believed that Israel is the attacked party and is looking for a settlement, and that Hizbullah is the aggressor refusing the draft. The ramblings about the Israeli massacre in Lebanon are also quietning down vis-a-vis the inconceivable reports by the Arab media.
Dramatic change
Even the Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's seven-point plan, particularly his readiness to deploy Lebanese army personnel in the south, presents a dramatic change from Israel's point of view. This was exactly the move demanded of the Lebanese government within the framework of UN resolution 1559. But it had refused to abide by this resolution for the past six years, and only IDF's assault persuaded it to change its mind.
The war in Lebanon may continue for many weeks with many casualties. There may still be many tears to wipe away beside the gravesites. And rockets may land in Tel Aviv. However, comparisons to other Israel-Arab wars are misleading. The IDF has not embarked on this war in Lebanon to defeat the enemy army attacking us. It embarked on this war to shatter the illusion adopted by Moslem terror organizations, that it can defeat Israel by means of rockets, missiles, abductions and terror acts. And that it can, in such a way, push back the entire Zionist entity, without risking a severe Israeli retaliation.
The time for hesitation is over, we lingered enough – that's why we shall win.
