Military Intervention in Syria?

It now seems like Bashar Assad's war crimes are equal to, if not greater than, those committed by Muammar Gadhafi. It is logical to ask, then, why is the world intervening in Libya but not in Syria. I heard one analyst say that the answer is that nobody knows who will win in Syria, while in Libya, it seemed clear that Gadhafi was a gonner. I'm not satisfied by that answer. After all, the Brotherly Leader is still holding on. Maybe the answer is oil? I just don't know.

There is one more factor that should be taken into consideration, and is probably on the minds of NATO leaders. If NATO attacks Syria, Assad could retaliate by attacking Israel. Hezbollah, which has reportedly sent thugs to help the Alawites suppress the demonstrations, could also launch missiles at Israel, hoping such an action would help secure the regime of one of their two patrons. After all, nothing can unite an Arab nation more than hatred for Israel.

For this admittedly self-centered reason, I oppose military intervention in Syria. I support other kinds of sanctions against the regime.

After the Skirmish: Israeli Stupidity

Following this week's deadly border skirmish between Israel and Lebanon, the Israeli government is now demanding that the officer in charge of the Lebanese unit involved in the shooting be fired. If no steps are taken against him, my genius government says, Israel will treat the Lebanese Army as an enemy army.

First of all, aren't we already treating it like an enemy? After all, it is. We may prefer the Lebanese Army to control Southern Lebanon rather than Hizbullah, but Lebanon is still our enemy, just like Syria. It doesn't mean we should attack them or go to war, but it means we should be much more vigilant on their border than on the borders with Egypt and Jordan, with whom we have peace agreements. Hopefully, one day we'll have peace with Lebanon as well, but until then, it is our enemy.

Second of all, does anybody in their right mind think Lebanon will do something just because Israel demands it? In fact, if Israel wants the Lebanese to do something and says so publicly, the chances of our wishes being fullfilled is much lower than if we had kept our mouths shut. We'd never fire one of our own officers if Lebanon demanded it. We probably wouldn't do it even if it was our closest ally, the United States, that made the request. Why should we expect the Lebanese to be any different?

So, in this case, is the government just stupid or belligerent (or both)? If they realize nobody on the other side is going to fire the officer, then this demand is tantamount to a declaration of the Lebanese Army is our enemy. As I said before, I think it's our enemy anyway, but making a special declaration about it just sounds like a needless and dangerous provocation. The international tribunal investingating former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's murder is expected to announce indictments against top Hizbullah operatives next week. Do we really want to give Hizbullah a way to avoid the internal turmoil that would stem from the charges by providing them with some external turmoil instead?

Why Israelis Feel Threatened

Historian Benny Morris (of "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" fame) has an excellent op-ed piece in today's New York Times about why Israel feels threatened. He outlines two general sources and four specific causes of Jewish Israelis' anxieties.

The first general source is the fact that the Arab and Muslim world have never accepted Israel and still oppose its existence. Generally, he's right about this, but the Saudi Initiative is a glimmer of hope in this regard. On the other hand, the Arabs don't seem to be willing to give up the right of return, so I'm not very optimistic.

The second general source is the deminishing Western public support for Israel. I think this can be countered at least in part by taking steps toward a peace deal that would end the occupation, but there are many bleeding hearts in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the United States, that will always blame Israel for everything, and as long as the right of return isn't implemented, they'll still see Israel as owing the Palestinians something.

The four specific causes of Israel's sense of threat are Iran's nuclear program coupled with their leaders' desire to see a world without a Zionist state, Hezbullah's large arsenal of long-range weaponry and control of South Lebanon, Hamas's control of Gaza and the radicalisation of the Arab citizens of Israel.

As Morris points out, these are all unconventional threats. The first one is a potentially nuclear armed country, two are radical Islamist terrorist groups who reject the existence of Israel, and the fourth is one fifth of our own citizens.

Israeli Soldiers Dead, Kuntar Should Be Too

Today, Israel received the dead bodies of Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the two soldiers abducted by Hezbollah two years and 4 days ago. In return, Israel will release a few Lebanese prisoners, hundreds of bodies of Lebanese terrorists and, at a later date, a few Palestinian prisoners will be released as well. One of the Lebanese prisoners being released is Saleem Kuntar, the cold-blooded murderer who killed a father and daughter, as well as a policeman, in 1979. Kuntar shows no remorse.

This deal's stupidity angers me. I hate the idea of Hezbollah terrorists holding parties for this horrible murderer and the other prisoners, while Israel mourns the death (or confirmation of death) of its two reservists. I truly do hope that one of the people in charge of transporting Saleem Kuntar will shoot him in the head. This way, it is not the Israeli government that reneges on the deal. It is just a single person losing his cool with a lowlife terrorist that should have been hanged long ago.

I know this is politically incorrect. I don't care.

Endangering Gilad Shalit

Israel has decided to release several Lebanese prisoners in exchange for two dead bodies of the Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, abducted by Hezbollah in 2006. This decision makes the release of Gilad Shalit less likely to come to fruition soon. Remember, it is known that Shalit, the soldier being held by a faction of Hamas in Gaza, is alive. This means he's much more important than the dead bodies in Lebanon.

The verbal diarrhea of our stupid leaders is doing as much, if not more, damage as the deal with Hezbollah. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, for example, have both said that soldiers will be less willing to serve if Israel doesn't "do everything" to release them if they are captured by the enemy.

They're addressing their words to Israeli soldiers, but also our enemies hear them. Hamas now knows it can inflate its demands in the Shalit deal, which means it will take longer for a deal to be reached (if ever). It also encourages more kidnappings.

Numerically, it might seem like this deal is better than the deal Ariel Sharon reached in 2004 since we're releasing about 75 times less prisoners this time. The truth is that because of the fact that Gilad Shalit is still being held prisoner this deal is much more dangerous that the previous one. A deal over the live soldier should have been reached before the deal over the dead ones.

No Live Prisoners For Dead Soldiers

A deal seems to have been reached between Israel and Hezbollah. In exchange for the two Israeli soldiers abducted by the terrorist group in 2006, Israel will release six Lebanese prisoners, including Samir Kuntar, who murdered 4 Israelis, including a man and his 4 year-old daughter, in 1979. If one or two soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, are alive, than it is a great deal, considering the fact that a few years ago we released 450 prisoners for 3 dead soldiers and one living drug dealer, and right now Hamas is demanding thousands of Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit, the soldier who is being held captive in Gaza.

If both Goldwasser and Regev are dead, as is most likely, this deal should not go through. In exchange for the dead bodies of Israeli soldiers we should only release dead bodies of Lebanese who either died during fighting with Israel or while in Israeli prisons. Living prisoners, especially those who may pose a threat to Israelis in the future, should only be released in exchange for living soldiers.

We should not release Samir Kuntar just so the soldiers' families can have emotional closure.

Hezbollah and Lebanon

I can't say I really know what's going on in Lebanon right now. I hope things calm down, since it doesn't seem that the government is powerful enough to assert itself. The worst thing for Lebanon and the Middle East would be if Hezbollah took over the country. They're already in control of most of it, so some would say it might be better if they were openly in control rather than secretly the puppet master of Lebanon. That isn't the case, though. As long as they are only in partial control Lebanese secularists and moderates can gradually get stronger and eventually assert themselves.

It seemed odd to me that Sheikh Nassrallah said the Lebanese government declared war on Hezbollah. Isn't that like an acknowledgement that they are a state within a state? How can war be declared on a political party?

Yay! Imad Mughniyeh Is Dead

An explosion last night in Damascus killed terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyeh, a top Hezbollah leader. He was responsible for a series of bombings in the Middle East in the 1980's and the bombings of the Israeli embassy in Argentina and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in the 1990's. These deeds got him on the FBI's most wanted list and he was wanted by Israel as well.

The world is a better place without Mughniyeh. His death should have come a long time ago.

Hezbollah is already blaming Israel for the Damascus blast. I have no idea whether we did it or not (it certainly is a possibility). They better not start lobbing rockets at Northern Israel.

Hezbollah's Body Parts

Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah, head of Lebanon's Shi'ite terrorist militia Hezbollah, has declared he has the body parts of Israeli soldiers. He graphically described the heads, limbs and even one almost complete body in his organization's possession.

The consensus seems to be that the "body part speech" was shocking and disgusting. He hit a new low, everybody says. I disagree. Talking about body parts is nothing compared to what he has done. Deliberately trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible seems to me as something much worse than any of his words.

Anyway, Israel should not negotiate over body parts. These soldiers are dead. Does it really matter where their bodies are, especially when most of their body is already buried and the families have a grave to grieve upon?

The President Who Cried Wolf

In hindsight, going to war in Iraq was a grave mistake. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There's nothing new or groundbreaking about that statement.

Now the world is abuzz with talk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. A lot of people feel like this is deja vu all over again, and in a way they are right. President Bush and most of the presidential candidates seem to be on a war footing with Iran, but people don't believe the WMD argument anymore. Bush used it up in 2003 and it turned out to be false. Why believe in the Iranian nuclear threat this time around?

I believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I admit I believed the same thing about Iraq four years ago, but this time around I'm more convinced. For one thing, Ahmedinijad has made several statements about Iran's nuclear program, though he claims it is for peaceful purposes. Why does this oil rich country need nuclear power? Have the ayatollahs suddenly become environmentalists? Second of all, a lot more countries are warning of Iranian nukes than there were countries that supported an invasion of Iraq. Changes of leadership are not the only cause of this major difference. Both France and Germany have said they are truly concerned.

President Vladimir Putin is trying to play against the United States and Europe in this matter. He's shortsighted here. Though he acknowledged Iranian nukes would be a threat to Russia, he doesn't think they are being manufactured. He thinks it is in Russia's best interest to side with Iran on this issue, but that is extremely dangerous for his country, exactly because Iranian nukes are also threats to Russian national security.

Having said all this, I still oppose a war against Iran at this point. A war is the second worst option on the table, only being better than letting Iran get nukes. A war would be disastrous for everybody. Even with a large international coalition, such a war would be devastating to many countries and wouldn't assure the destruction of Iran's nuclear program. The United States military is stretched thin and Israel would be bombarded by missiles from the east and north, courtesy of Iran and their Lebanese subsidiary, Hezbollah.

The best option is harsh sanctions until Iran allows sufficient inspections. This is the only option that would avoid disaster, but countries like Russia and Venezuela are making the success of such a move doubtful.

The Surprising Hezbollah Swap

Israelis were surprised yesterday by the sudden swap of one Israeli dead body in exchange for two dead Hezbollah fighters and one 50-year old Lebanese prisoner. Not only did we not know there was a deal in the works, we never even heard of the dead Israeli before, even though he had been missing since January 2005. Gavriel Davit apparently drowned in Israeli waters near Haifa and his body was swept away by the currents of the Mediterranean into Lebanon. The deal also included information about the whereabouts of Israeli Air Force officer Ron Arad, who was captured in Lebanon in 1986. Apparently the info was neither new nor useful.

This is quite an odd deal. It's supposed to be a trust-building step on the way to a bigger prisoner exchange which would include the return of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, the two Israeli soldiers whose capture by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006, triggered the Second Lebanon War. But Hezbollah is still insisting that a precondition to any information about their condition is the release of hundreds of prisoners. Unfortunately, this probably means that Regev and Goldwasser are already dead, so there isn't any real reason to keep talking to Hezbollah. Prisoners should not be released in exchange for information or dead bodies - only in exchange for live captives.

The release of one prisoner yesterday is not that bad compared with the release in 2004 of four hundred terrorists in exchange for three dead soldiers and one Israeli drug dealer, but it isn't that great either. The Israeli government says that since he's in his 50's and apparently lost his sanity in prison, he's not a threat to Israel. Alright, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Unless I'm wrong about the two soldiers being dead, I don't see how yesterday's exchange is a positive move in any direction. It isn't as if we're in peace talks with Hezbollah. Peace is not on their minds.

Wisdom of Ahmedinijad

Mahmoud Ahmedinijad's lecture and Q&A at Columbia University turned out to be a farce. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia, opened with an attack on his guest, calling him a petty and cruel dictator. Interesting. I thought being a petty and cruel dictator should bar a person from speaking at a university. When it came his turn to speak, the Iranian president said nothing new, except for the revelation that homosexuality doesn't exist in his country. Other than that, he pretty much repeated old mantras.

In the end, the event didn't do any harm, but it didn't do any good either. If anything, it harmed Ahmedinijad and Columbia University. It still should not have taken place. As could be expected, it did not turn into an intellectual dialogue. Bollinger and the audience insulted Ahmedinijad without really challenging him with specific questions. Ahmedinijad gave general replies, but didn't really answer anything.

A Christiane Amanpour interview with Ahmedinijad is scheduled to air Wednesday night on CNN. I hope she'll ask him the pointed questions that should be asked, like what specific aspects of the Holocaust have not been researched - a question he probably won't have a good answer for.