Before Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in 2006, Thomas Friedman wrote a column, The Morning After the Morning After, in which he argued that the population of Lebanon would eventually turn on Hezbollah when it realized the costs that the war imposed on the country and how little Hezbollah gained. I dismissed it at the time.
To some degree, now, nearly two years later we’re seeing small stirrings of this sentiment. But it’s hardly leading to a weakening of Hezbollah’s position as Friedman suggested. In fact Friedman’s belief overall seems like a lot of wishful thinking:
Israel needs to keep its eyes on the prize. It’s already inflicted enormous damage on Hezbollah and its community, but Nasrallah will only have to pay the full price for inviting all that destruction once the guns fall silent on the morning after the morning after. So let’s get there as soon as possible. That will deter him. What would deter him even more, though, would be if the U.N. would go ahead and impose sanctions on Iran for its illicit nuclear bomb program. After all, it was Iran, Nasrallah’s master, that ordered up this war to distract the U.N. from doing just that. It would be nice to say to Iran: You ravaged Hezbollah for nothing.
“That will deter him.” What a sick joke.
Still some are starting to complain about the war. The Jerusalem Post reports. Arab media mock Hizbullah victory:
While Hizbullah on Wednesday went to great lengths in its attempts to paint the prisoner swap with Israel as a victory, emphasizing the fact that Nasrallah had kept to his word and managed to release murderer Samir Kuntar, a leading Arab paper ridiculed the perceived “victory.”
“The Radwan deal,” the headline of the London-based pan-Arabic daily Asharq Al Awsat cynically ran on Thursday, “cost Hizbullah over $7 billion, more than 1,200 dead and 4,500 wounded Lebanese citizens.” The paper referred to the exchange by the name given it by Hizbullah.
Radwan was the nom de guerre of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hizbullah terror mastermind killed several months ago in a car bombing in Syria.
(via memeorandum)
Noah Pollak points to another such argument made graphically.
Still these seem like few voices in the wilderness, not the start of rebellion against Hezbollah. James Taranto in fact notes that one newspaper was perfectly willing to present Hezbollah’s line:
The [Lebanese] government declared a national day of celebration, closing all government offices and banks, and many private businesses closed as well. The president, the prime minister and others tried to present the swap as a triumph for Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, which is considered a terrorist group by the United States. But there was no disguising the fact that, in the eyes of its followers and many others, Hezbollah had scored a historic victory.
Guess which one.
In fact what’s really striking is not the resistance to but the number of “moderates” who showed their solidarity with Hezbollah.
Noah Pollak again:
All of this is not just disgraceful, but should trigger nothing less than a crisis in U.S.-Lebanon relations. If being a safe haven for child-murderers is something the Lebanese prime minister considers a “national goal,†the United States should reevaluate its support for Lebanon’s government, which both rhetorically and symbolically has made itself an ally of Hezbollah in defining Lebanon as a state which exults in terrorism against Israel. Such a crisis in relations will not happen, of course, and it is perversely ironic that on the same day the Lebanese government was popping corks with Hezbollah, the Bush administration announced an increase of over $32 million in aid to the Lebanese army.
The President Bush of 2002 might have, but not the President Bush of 2008.
Israelly Cool! presented a trivia question, that Meryl Yourish answers. Again, there will be no consequences for this perfidy.
The only people who are concerned about this solidarity for terror is the pro-Israel crowd. The folks who are constantly hectoring Israel to make sacrifices for goodwill don’t seem to notice or care that more and more Israeli concessions don’t bring goodwill. The Washington Post had a good editorial An unwelcome hero, unfortunately the editorial pretended that the only support Kuntar got was from the fringes:
This turn of events does, however, tell us a lot about Hezbollah and about those within Lebanon’s political culture who either support it or can’t quite bring themselves to oppose it.
And in the end the editors were right there demanding more Israeli concessions:
Israel must make territorial compromises and foster a dignified future for the Palestinians.
The idea that those Palestinians to whom Israel must make more territorial compromises are those who lionize the likes of Kuntar. That there is something wrong with that picture, is something that the Post’s editors just can’t bring themselves to acknowledge.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
