Poor Billmon
Here Billmon does his utmost to convince himself the new UN resolution is a total victory for Hizbullah. An acceptable outcome for Israel would surely be gall to him.
The Head Heeb provides an analysis much more informed by reason than emotion, disproving several assumptions in the above along the way. Read the comments for more detailed (and in part skeptical) discussion.
Update (13 Aug): a skeptic discusses the "Israel benefits" POV.
U^2 (14 Aug): A spectrum of viewpoints from NPR's Talk of the Nation here.
The Head Heeb provides an analysis much more informed by reason than emotion, disproving several assumptions in the above along the way. Read the comments for more detailed (and in part skeptical) discussion.
Update (13 Aug): a skeptic discusses the "Israel benefits" POV.
U^2 (14 Aug): A spectrum of viewpoints from NPR's Talk of the Nation here.
posted by rilkefan at 23:09
3 Comments:
I thought for example
"The real question mark is Hizbullah, which would have to accept three conditions that it had vehemently rejected up to today: a ceasefire with IDF troops still on Lebanese soil, an augmented international force south of the Litani, and the loss of its military presence in the border region."
was worth noting. It might also help if one thinks Edelstein is perhaps the best, fairest, smartest blogger on the I/P conflict. And as noted there's more in the comments.
Certainly it seems to me Billmon would be galled to see an outcome ok for Israel, and I see his post as attempts to reach the desired conclusion.
Of course even an ok outcome for Israel might not in any way justify the loss of life.
Note that that Cordesman essay is from last month, and note that I'm not claiming "a strategic win". The essay looks to me to make the error of implying "Policy X is bad because it won't solve all Israel's problems".
The NYT at least has been describing this as not-too-bad-for-Israel, so far at least. I can't claim to understand the complexities of Israeli politics, but Olmert is getting attacked from the left _and_ the right (though not e.g. Peres) and I don't know that that will lead to only the right benefiting.
I can see a path to an ok outcome for Israel - an international committment to disarming H will be of great propaganda use going forward, for example, and the UN won't have an excuse to wink at rocket attacks on Israel now. And if H can't bring itself to sign on to the resolution, or having signed on to abide by it, that will also be a useful propaganda tool. I don't think that will make the last month worthwhile, but my point was simply that the situation is complex and Billmon has a strong confirmation bias.
Cool.
I should probably explicitly admit I strongly hope this doesn't come out too badly for Israel and that colors my reactions.
Post a Comment
<< Home