In the midst of a war where the forces of civilization have just suffered their first major defeat, it is quite natural to start pointing fingers and assigning blame. In Israel, they are already sharpening the long knives as MKs are making room on their lodge poles for the scalps of several politicians and generals who, according to most observers, allowed Hizbullah this rather impressive strategic victory.
While the United States was not engaged militarily in this debacle, we nevertheless failed utterly in the only place where we really could have done some good for Israel — at the United Nations. The passage of Resolution 1701, mandating a cease fire in Lebanon, is already turning into our very own diplomatic nightmare. And the blame for this must rest squarely on the shoulders of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
Perhaps anticipating the heavy criticism that will be coming her way once it is apparent that Hizbullah will not cooperate in implementing the cease fire accord and that Israel will be constrained from taking any action to make them, Rice penned a dishonest op-ed in today's Washington Post where she not only tries to spin her way out of trouble but also misstates several key parts of the cease fire agreement and downplays or glosses over others that she knows will never be implemented. And if she actually believes some of the tripe she has written, perhaps that is reason enough, along with the fact that she may have lost the confidence of the President, for her to resign.
Rice lists three components of the cease fire that she claims will be decisive in altering the "status quo" on the Lebanese-Israeli Border:
First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah must immediately cease its attacks on Israel, and Israel must halt its offensive military operations in Lebanon, while reserving the right of any sovereign state to defend itself. This agreement went into effect on Monday, after the Israeli and Lebanese cabinets agreed to its conditions.The United States may have "insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers" but we didn't get it. That is an issue to be determined later and will almost certainly involve a prisoner exchange, not "unconditional release" of the IDF men. In fact, we insisted on many things in this resolution including an international force not part of UNIFIL operating under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which would have allowed this independent force to shoot if Hizbullah would not comply with the terms of the cease fire. What we got was a tepid augmentation of the UNIFIL force operating under Chapter 6 strictures which are much more defensive and will prevent the UN from enforcing the will of the Security Council with regards to Hizbullah's weapons.
Article comments
1 - Les Slater
As if the secretary of state did anything without her boss knowing and approving.
2 - IgnatiusReilly
Sounds like she should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Ever since she lied to the 9/11 Commission about no one imagining the use of passenger planes as weapons, I lost all respect for her.
3 - section9
This column is one of those sad commentaries on the inability of some conservatives to hold the Israeli Government accountable for its own incompetence. Rice did what she could for Israel for three weeks, and blew the whistle when she realized that the Olmert Government wasn't doing anything with the time given to it.
Never has so much bandwidth been wasted in an attempt to make so threadbare an argument.
4 - Rick Moran
Sec 9: Am I too easy on Olmert and Halutz here?
And this is before it came out that Halutz sold his stock portfolio just prior to the Security cabinet's decision to go to war.
Criticizing the American performance in this conflict is not the same as giving Israel a free pass.
5 - Rick Moran
I'm even harsher on Olmert and the IDF here: