[I accidentally posted this elsewhere yesterday. Now it's where it was meant to be]
It has been a hard day in Israel, one of those days where we all unite in mourning. For better or worse, Israelis are good at that.
The swap this morning of five live Lebanese prisoners, one of them a cold blooded murderer, for the dead bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, tells you all sorts of fundamental things about Israel, but I'm not going to repeat what has been said endlessly all day long. If you didn't follow the Israeli media, there are two good summaries in the New York Times, here and here.
In the early afternoon of July 12th 2006, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah knew that all he was holding were two dead bodies. I don't know what international law has to say about such things, nor am I much a fan of international law in any case. I do know that international custom dictates rules of behaviour regarding POWs, and no-where is there even the slightest possibility of justifying Nassrallah's two-year refusal to give any indication about the conditions of his "prisoners". Even when everyone knew the two men were no longer alive, even when the agreement on the exchange had been signed, even then he and his spokesmen still did their utmost to torture the family members with hints that perhaps, just maybe, who knows...
Despicable. As are the celebrations in Lebanon this evening of the return of the hero, Samir Kuntar, whose heroism consisted of murdering a young man in front of his daughter, and then smashing her head on a rock. Worse than despicable, he and everyone who celebrated this "liberation".
But it has occurred to me this afternoon that Nassrallah's actions should have been despicable even by the weird moral standards or lack of them in his own society. As the IDF began pounding the Dahiya, the Hezbollah section of Beirut that evening of July 12th, and it was becoming clear that those crazy Israelis were going to inflict lots of pain, why didn't he call in a representative of some third party - the Turks, say, or the Norwegians - and tell them that since all he had were two dead bodies, the Israelis should call off their fury and their attempts to retrieve the two kidnapped men. He would have saved the lives of lots of Lebanese, including many hundreds of his own loyal men.
As if that was ever a consideration for him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yaacov, we agree on everything.
However, Nasrallah's actions are fully in line with the "weird moral standards in his society", for it's a culture praising death. These guys yearn for just one thing more than everything else: being a victim. And if the Israelis or Americans or who else don't do them the favour, they victimize themselves. Quite logic. Though weird.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Nah, I disagree.
I think Olmert "used" the continued debates with Lebanon, to keep Bush and Condi Rice at bay. You should have noticed that the "trade" worked at canceling out the White House requests to "trade land for pieces." And, it also canceled out Condi's requests to "leave settlements at once."
So, in all, it wasn't a bad deal.
Yes, it was done on the public (vaudeville) stage run by the media conglomerates. Which is just a fact of life, here.
You think Israel got a bad deal? Why?
Israel doesn't have to go into Lebanon and clean anything up. And, for the Lebanese? Now, IF you were talking wholesale; you'd be talking about a very bad outcome, indeed. Because the Hezbollah are thugs.
I know there have been threats that the Lebanese Army will be so close to the border, down South for them, with Israel, they can blow kisses over the fence.
So what?
This Lebanese Army wasn't gonna fight Nesrallah. So all you know is that it was a "lack of contest." And, Michel Suileman told Saniora that he'd send his troops back to the baracks (to sleep), instead of sending them in to do battle with the thugs in Beirut.
SO, yes. I am telling you the Lebanese is the same army. Good at following orders "to go back to their barracks." Not so good in the field. Let alone, against the IDF. (Where the IDF doesn't want to take an inch of Lebanon. Why not? Because the opportunists in America's White House would step in, and start handing prizes out to the Saud's.) Gee. This is so easy you should be able to figure this out BASICALLY. It's not even a Talmudic question. Which would involve "spliting hairs."
Olmert gained time.
And, to make sure the decision didn't come back and bite him in his arse; he put it to a vote in the Knesset. So, he got all the approval he needed.
Did you learn from these events? REALLY? Did you learn that the Red Cross "played with" with the widow of Goldwasser, making her a stooge. Where she believed her dead husband was gonna come back, alive. "some day." It's news to you not to trust the Red Cross?
While, let me tell ya, Israel would be foolish to complain about Bush. It would raise Bush's sympathy levels, which are currently in the toilet. Since the man can't find his "legacy" anywhere.
Let alone during the whole circus he never once opened his mouth and threatened the Lebanese.
What kinds of threats would have worked? Gee. I dunno. But America has battle ships out there, circle-ling-a-ding-ding around Lebanon. And, she never even squeaked that it was necessary to return the two dead Israeli soldiers.
Instead? The putz'es in the media were allowed to play on.
It's a game. Where you can only play the cards you are dealt.
Olmert played a brilliant game.
Bush didn't.
ANd, Lebanon can go to hell. Won't make a difference, as long as you keep your border CLOSED.
And, ya know what? The more Lebanon keeps behaving as she does, the LESS TOURISTS she gets to see. (Even though, yes, the hashish supplies keeps bringing in the "dopes." Plenty of dopes.) But weak, when it comes to collecting tourist dollars.
Go ahead, see if I care.
Post a Comment