On FoxNews, Greta had on Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a guest. Greta asked the Secretary for an opinion on the Hezbollah/Israel conflict.
Greta; What will happen if Israel steps over "the line" into Lebanon?
Sec; I think it makes whole situation more dangerous...
Israel is drawn into a conflict which they are not fighting from outside but from the inside. Israle wants very much not to be occupiers any longer, they have learned this from past experience. They [Israel] need to deal with hezbollah as military threat.
Greta; Does stepping over the line into lebanon invite Syria or Iran to play bigger role?
Sec; Well it depends on the spin which comes out of this...
Not every detail is palnned ageah... there could be an accidental bombing into a Syrian area.. so there are unintended consequences and that's the problem... We are at a cross roads time in all of this where this could go in a very bad direction into spreading into a regional conflict... We need to try to get a resolution not allowing Hezbollah to regroup, and allow to feel safe within their own borders.
Greta; UN Resolution 1559 did not disarm hebollah, why should we think another Resolution would work? (Greta/Sec clarified the Sec; was not actually thinking of another UN Resolution, but simply an answer to the problem.)
Sec; I think what needs to happen, this cannot be solved militarily in the long run, we need diplomatic action in the long run... There are a number of diplomats in the region.. I hope very much Secretary Rice takes a larger role in this.. I am sure Sec Rice is in New York right now trying to figure out a more diplomatic method ...
I don't think hezbollah can be disarmed completely with military action.. and I think Israel is just going to get more sucked in...
Greta; What kind of diplomatic solution with hezbollah?
Sec; Well what has to happen, lebanon needs to control it's own territory, Hezbollah needs to be surrounded with international forces of some kind..
and the thing that is so interesting, frankly what is happening in the Middle East
is some of Sunni leaders [Saudi and others] are very critical of Hezbollah, that particular aspect of it needs to be strengthened.. That is something we need to work with...
Greta; will Arab's opinion change if Israel takes too long or take, what would appear to be, excessive force?
Sec; I think that is one of the real dangers here. Some of leaders are critical of Hezbollah, but are people on the street are thinking of Hezbollah.
Israel is in their right to protect themselves... The Katyusha rockets are coming from Hezbollah.. but at what moment does this go in a different direction.. where they seem to be the aggressors and lose their support in Arab Nations?
Like the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Iraq... throughout region this is a billiard table, very dynamic... be carefull this does not spin out of control.
I believe Greta asked the right questions and was relatively hard hitting. I also think the former Secretary did some dancing with the questions. She spent much time just restating facts and not giving her opinion. When the opinion was given I agreed with some.
MoreThanCorn agrees with Sec;
1) Israel has right to defend herself
2) Sunni leaders (governmental and religious) are critical of Hezbollah and the rest of the world needs to work with this...
3) The Middle East is analogous of a billiards table, very dynamic.
4) The "spin" from this could change everything.
MoreThanCorn disagreements with Sec;
1) Military force will not disarm Hezbollah in the long run.
2) Hezbollah needs to be surrounded by international troops
3) Israel could accidentally bomb in a Syrian area?
There is one new point above which I have yet to hear, number 4, Spin playing a role in this defensive action by Israel. Sec Albright impressed me with this. The media's coverage of this could change the direction and outcome. It could assist or desist in the resolving of this conflict with eventual peace or it could draw other nations into the conflict and escalate. The media needs to be extremely ethical and conscious of their reports and pictures. I will not hold my breath.
The disagreements are beyond recognition. The Secretary is absolutely wrong with all three above. I believe she is downplaying the significant role this "offense makes the best defense" method Israel is taking. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with 200+ US soldiers deaths notched in their headboards and 60+ Jews in this conflict alone. The total Jews killed is I am sure in the thousands. These people are not those who would sit down with cup of warm Green Tea and negotiate or voluntarily give up their remaining 12,500 Katyusha rockets, even if the tea has a hint of Jasmine. Hezbollah are terrorist/civilians, as I have heard them defined. Civilians store rockets in their homes and aid and abet Hezbollah even if they do not participate in the conflict themselves. They want Jews exterminated again and it appears revel in the hopes of this coming to pass.
The only time Diplomatic means would assist is for continued work on above "agreement #2, continued critical speech toward Hezbollah. There is where a veteran cheerleader could do some good. The military is there for one reason, insure Israeli security. This is accomplished well (and in the long run) through extermination of terrorists and exploding their rocket caches. The Secretary says, then the Lebanese government can move in troops with possible help from international forces to take back control of Southern Lebanon and encircle remaining Hezbollah terrorists. Did the Secretary not just say military action is also the long term answer? Let us review; Militarily (Israel) weed out terrorists (Hezbollah), then regain control of South Lebanon with a military (Lebanese)?
And how are international (United Nations) troops any better than Israel for taking care of Hezbollah? Would UN troops be ineffective?
I never much liked Secretary Albright.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment