The latest argument by Palestinian flacks like Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar is that with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas having agreed to host an international force such as “UNIFIL or NATO” in the West Bank following an Israeli withdrawal, Israel has no more security worries and therefore no excuse for any delays in reaching an agreement on such a withdrawal.
But anyone who actually believes that Israel can or should rely on “an international force to defend Israel’s well-being” should consider the latest news on UNIFIL’s mission in south Lebanon.
As defined by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, this mission is, inter alia, to “assist the Lebanese armed forces” in making the south of the Litani River “an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL.”
But a few weeks ago, something dreadful happened: a French contingent of UNIFIL actually tried to carry out this mission. It began using sniffer dogs to detect illegal weapons and explosives and insisted on searching homes and yards where it had reason to believe Hezbollah was stockpiling such arms.
The immediate result was a series of clashes apparently either staged or encouraged by Hezbollah between Lebanese villagers and UNIFIL troops. In the most serious incident, villagers hurled stones at the peacekeepers, seized their weapons, and vandalized their vehicle.
The second result was that, at the end of last week, UNIFIL agreed to stop using sniffer dogs and refrain from entering homes and yards – or, in other words, to stop carrying out its mission of detecting illegal Hezbollah weapons. Its commander, Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta Cuevas, followed that up with a fawning apology for the “mistakes,” published in the Lebanese press as an open letter to the Lebanese people.
In fairness, you can’t really blame UNIFIL. Soldiers are expected to risk their lives to defend their own countries and their own people, but it’s quite understandable that they are less enthusiastic about risking their lives to defend someone else’s country and someone else’s people unless their own country sees a vital national interest in so doing (as the U.S. does in Afghanistan). And the risks are real: in 2007, for instance, six Spanish UNIFIL members whom Israel considered particularly effective were killed by a roadside bomb in what appeared to be a clear message from Hezbollah.
But that understandable reluctance to die for someone else’s country has made peacekeepers consistently ineffective at stopping active fighting. Examples abound, from Dutch peacekeepers’ failure to prevent the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 to the UN peacekeepers’ obedient withdrawal from Sinai in 1967 when Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser wanted a path cleared for his troops to invade Israel.
In other words, an international force would be useless at preventing anti-Israel terror if Palestinians wanted to perpetrate such attacks — and completely unnecessary if they did not.
Unfortunately, experience has taught most Israelis to consider the former possibility more likely. And until that changes, they will view any substitute for their own army in the West Bank as a nonstarter.
The American people have figured something out this election cycle.The national media is a corruptive force in our politics and this helpd McCain. When the average American hears the pundits complain about tv interviews they hear really hear the need to take Sarah Palin down.
Excellent comparison between Senator Allen and Obama’s comments. I am uncomfortable taking political advantage of what BO said. But in perspective, it is payback for all that the MSM did to denigrate our side’s innocuous comments over the years. Still, it ain’t right!
They’re looking into a mirror, but it’s a funhouse mirror!
A question for you: What did CNN say? — and when did they say it? — to debunk the Palin myth re creationism (How did I miss that?). Willful misrepresentations of her views on creationism have been a particular sticking point with me. Your mention of CNNs report is the first I’d heard of a mainstream media source’s getting it right.
Excuse me? The Palin sequestration is justified because the MSM is just too darn mean? Do you find this argument remotely credible? If she can’t directly face the nattering nabobs of the American media, how in the world can you also argue that she’s fit for high office?
Scott Galupo – post 4
Finally!
OJ Simpson will “find the real killers” before Gergen or Halperin reach any self awareness.
Is Palin sequestered? She’s been out every day making public statements to big crowds. Surely the reporters are able to attend, aren’t they?
The candidates get to choose how they will campaign. There’s nothing obligatory about any of the ways of getting the word out. If your side can make the “sequestration” charge stick, Palin will have to change tactics. But I’m not sure you can because of the facts the post points out–the media have been shown to be so biassed that lots of voters have tuned them out.
The comment that got to me was Mark Halperin’s mention that the lipstick controversy distracted from discussion of the real issues. For too much of the MSM, the latter means asking a question that allows their favorite candidate to repeat a canned policy statement. Follow-up questions of any depth are rare. Instead you get the spin doctor analysts telling you how the policy will play in Peoria. Most of the “analysts” are too ignorant to discuss the policy itself.
Scott,
I believe Palin will be giving a good chunk of time this week to ABC. These other jerks are just jealous. Also, it wasn’t too long ago that the travelling press corps was contrasting the open discussions that McCain allowed with the limited access they had to Obama.
“The Palin sequestration”???
You make it sound like they’ve got her confined to the grounds of a 17th Century Uruguayan convent.
She’s on the campaign trail, people. McCain knows very well that she’s a lot more valuable there than talking to some talking head. She’s raising tons of cash and winning converts. There’s plenty to write about for an enterprising reporter.
And she is sitting down with Charles Gibson, so what’s the problem? Why do you think Obama has been on Fox exactly two times, and continually whines that the network is trying to derail his candidacy? Why do you think he has never had a press conference on any of the controversies that have arisen in his campaign, like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Fr. Pfleger? Sarah Palin should hold her first open press conference with questions about her background on the day after Barack Obama holds his first open press conference with questions about his background — his Chicago days, his attempts to reform education, his obtaining grants for developers, his ties to questionable friends, and his earmarking practices in both the Illinois and US Senates.
The mewling of the left about Palin’s “sequestration” is as unfounded as it is insincere. Not to mention hypocritical.
h/t Volokh
Oh, I thought it was just me. I tune into the first five minutes of Anderson just for the Gergen portentious sound bite of the night. He originally called the Palin selection ‘reckless,’ but now finds himself daily defending the Obama campaign’s gaffes and stumbles and they attack and flail at her.
Poor Gergen, I kind of like him, he was a moderate Republican in a former life, now he is reduced to this.
Yes, she’s on the campaign trail — but her remarks are, for the most part, just a truncated retread of her convention speech. Aside from a few appluase lines, we’ve gotten no sense of what she knows or thinks of just about every major issue of this campaign. I’m sorry; she’s fewer than two months away from possibly becoming the second-most powerful person in the world.
So far, she appears to me to be little more than a cipher, a shiny object — the culmination of Steve Schmidt’s outrageously cynical strategy to win on image alone. (Sound familar? Like, say, the Obama campaign? It should!)
I expect to learn next to nothing from the ABC appearance with Gibson. It will be on her home turf — literally, her home — and have a 9/11 theme pegged to the deployment of her son to Iraq (a great, admirable story, btw). Even a Larry King sitdown would be more enlightening than that.
And Margo: I’m on *your* side. I was a McCain guy when it was considered heretical to be so. My, how things have changed. …
I’m trying my best not to get hung up on Palin. I’m voting for the top of the ticket. … So please indulge me while I let off some steam.
BO explains Wright by saying he didn’t know, Ayres as someone who did something wrong a long time ago and his recent reaffirmation of those murderous acts can be safely ignored and anyhow the former bomb thrower is an educational “reformer” now — I tremble to think which of his off-the-pigs ideas is being imparted to the young — and Pfleger as “a good man.” Isn’t that good enough? As Bill Clinton always said when he got in hot water, it’s time to move on. Nothing more to see here.
While I would like to hear more about Palin’s views from her own mouth it seems clear that keeping her from interviews and news shows has been a political plus for McCain- Palin. It reinforces the negative MSM angle while building excitement and interest for her interview this week with Charlie Gibson.
But as a big McCain supporter since 2000 I think the lipstick issue is a little silly (although if it works who cares) and his recent sex ed ad leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There are so many more issues with which to hammer away at Obama. How about his turnaround on taxes? Combined with his turnaround on drilling he seems to be adopting more and more of the McCain domestic policy.
From a public relations perspective — if Palin were to do interviews now it would distract from the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and also from the bounce of the convention. Let the press muckrakers exhaust the “scandals”. Last I saw — when Palin stated that Fannie and Freddie were costing the taxpayers too much money — the media pounced saying she didn’t know what she was talking about because F and F are non-government entities. If the press attitude towards her is going to be to trap the 6 college girl in misstatements etc then they deserve a slow roll out. Obama had nine months to practice answers to questions he didn’t know the answers to. At least give Palin a bit of time to prepare for the onslaught. I think the wild speculation of last week has at least bought her that.
The MSM now describes a candidate as “sequestered” when she goes out into the country and meets face-to-face with the American people. What could she be thinking?! How dare she…their unwarranted sense of self-importance is an unclean thing.
“It is shocking how lacking in self-awareness these pundits and many of their colleagues are. They constantly misread the electorate because they have a skewed view of reality in which they stand at the center of events. No wonder they invariably get things wrong, especially with regard to conservative opinion and reaction”
The DNC talking points that they reliably peddle are not working with Palin and this is leading to confusion and incoherence. We are very close to a “Houston we have a problem’ moment but who do they turn to? Their candidate is flailing about and there is nothing they can do to help. I feel for them – really I do. LOL
Yeah, that’s right, the Reps are hiding their VP candidate from public scrutiny, meanwhile the Dems presidential candidate, Obama, has a media availability, what, every 10 days or so. And he’s publicly answered how many questions about Tony Rezko and Billy Ayers?
In the meantime the MSM invents stories about Palin. I’m bowled over by the persuasiveness of your argument. Not.
Nokarmahere has it right–Don’t interrupt your opponent while he’s making a mistake. In this case the opponent includes the media with Obama/Biden–it’s hard to tell who is stepping in the s**t first. The MSM writes up fiction, Obama/Biden attack the bottom of the Rep ticket, and the public sits back and watches the spectacle. It’s a great show–McCain/Palin should let it play out until it exhausts itself. I’m enjoying it.
As the economy collapses and as the audience departs to deal with grim reality, the republicans repeat their well-worn formulas and shibboleths to each other, confident that the majority will affirm them and that their comfortable and profitable domination will endure forever.