Status quo ante

At the beginning of the Lebanon War II, the US and Israel were in agreement. Neither wanted to return to the status quo ante. Both were looking for a new balance of forces where the Siniora government would be strengthened and Hizbullah and its mentors, Syria and Iran, run out of town.

Not only could they not avoid the status quo ante but what they got was worse. Syria and Iran are openly rearming Hizbullah. The expanded UNIFIL2 is more intent on stopping Israel’s over flights then stopping the rearming.

Furthermore, Hizbullah is now calling for a veto over any Lebanese actions which might be intended to limit their “resistance” and it is also threatening to bring down the Siniora Government.

When Rice caved in on her demand at the Security Council that only one resolution be passed that would create an expanded UNIFIL with a robust mandate, and accepted France’s position on a two resolution process, the jig was up.

The promised second resolution which was to articulate a robust mandate, was not and is not in any way in the cards though it was held out at the time as a certainty.

While Lebanon represents a significant defeat for the US and Israel, the Gaza retreat represents a calamitous setback. Not only did the touted benefits of disengagement not materialize, but the military threat from Gaza increased exponentially.

This was due in large part to the Rafah Agreement that was forced on Israel by Secretary Rice. Hamas is now arming and training in order to be as potent a threat as Hizbullah is.

Egypt has openly permitted the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and has threatened Israel to get her to refrain from bombing Rafah to destroy the tunnels. In fact, Egypt has taken the position that the Gaza-Egyptian border is none of Israel’s business.

The US is powerless to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza or Lebanon. It proposes to add to the problem, with Israel’s agreement, by rearming Fatah, believing that it is not part of the problem but rather, is part of the solution. In both cases, Gaza and Lebanon, the US is betting on the weak horse. It is doomed to fail in both places.

Storm clouds gather in Gaza

Even so, my biggest complaint is with Israel. Israel is not making mistakes so much as it is wedded to the wrong policies. In Lebanon, it decided to avoid a massive land invasion for fear of ending in another occupation. Avoiding occupation is its guiding principle, rather then victory.

Had it fully invaded Lebanon and destroyed Hizbullah, it would have succeeded in not returning to the status quo ante. Now it is continuing over flights and reporting on the rearmament of Hizbullah but is not doing anything about it. Here we go again.

Similarly in Gaza, the storm clouds are gathering but Israel is dithering. God forbid Israel should destroy Hamas and re-occupy Gaza. Peretz keeps telling everyone that Israel has no intention of remaining in Gaza. He justifies the present activity on the basis of the need to stop the firing of Qassams into Israel.

Why not on the need to totally rout Hamas and destroy their growing arsenal of weapons?

I believe this is significant. The former is obviously an act of self-defense. The latter smacks of pre-emption and you know how the Left feels about pre-emption.

Iran another problem

If these problems weren’t bad enough, Israel is now faced with an Iran that is not only proceeding to develop nuclear weapons but has just tested missiles capable of carrying them all the way to Israel. Will Israel pre-empt? I hope so.

Israel is also faced with an Iraq more radicalized than ever. If the US fails in Iraq it will be a calamity for the America but even more so for Israel. The status quo ante with Hussein in power is looking pretty good.

In fact, if the US can recommend that Israel release convicted murderer Barghouti as a peace move, why can’t it release Hussein as a means to restore order. Surely this is better than letting Iran take over.

It is clear that the US and Israel must reevaluate their goals and their strategies.

The big picture in the ME pits the “moderates” (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Fatah) against the radicals (Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Syria and the Shia in Iraq). The radicals are supported by Russia and France. So far the “moderates” are losing.

James Baker is soon to release his recommendations for a new US policy. It is expected to include a negotiated deal between these groups. Is such a deal possible? Is it achievable? Can it be achieved without sacrificing Israel? Will Israel be stronger or weaker for it? All questions of great concern for Israel.

Israel must also change its policies from containment and disengagement to preemption and occupation. The threats from Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria and Iran must be wiped out. The best way is for Israel to invade South Lebanon and force the population north of the Litani.

In this way, the new occupation will be sustainable. It should only withdraw on the signing of a peace agreement if at all. Similarly, Israel should invade Gaza. If Gaza won’t be pacified, the population must be moved to Egypt.

Only then will there not be a return to the status quo ante. On the other hand the status quo ante the Oslo Accords is looking pretty good now.