By Ted Belman
Caroline Glick in her latest article, The path to the next Lebanon War recommends that Israel and the US be wary of appeasement. Her point being that appeasement invites war.
In the lead-up to both [Gaza and Lebanon] withdrawals, Israel’s national leadership told the public that the only reason terrorists from these territories were attacking us was that we were there. If we went away, they would stop hating us and we would be safe. We were the problem, not them, so we could solve the problem by giving them what they wanted. [..]
The second lesson the public learned is that when a nation goes to war against an enemy that seeks its destruction, it must fight to win. You cannot fight a half-war against an implacable foe. And if you fail to win, you lose.
Glick argues that “Olmert believed it was possible to fight to a draw without losing.” but says he was wrong.
“..there was only one way for Israel to defeat Hezbollah – by regaining control over southern Lebanon”.
Although she says,
“But Olmert – and Livni – wouldn’t even consider retaking control of South Lebanon. The option was discarded contemptuously as a delusional recipe for forcing Israel back into the “Lebanese quagmire.” The fact that the “Lebanese quagmire” came to Israel after we left Lebanon, and that it will only end when Israel defeats Hezbollah, was completely ignored.”
While I totally agree with this I do not attribute it, as she does, to a policy of appeasement. I attribute it entirely to an abhorance of being occupiers. Its all about ending the occupation, not extending it.
But maybe that’s semantics only. If we were focussed on keeping Judea and Samaria rather on ending the occupation. We would be far better off.