Yep.. I think the attack was deliberate as well (and I know Nadine is going to rip me on this one.. ;0)
But that was 1967, and we were a potential element that might have prevented Israel from dealing with the Syrian forces massing on the northern border preparing for their own invasion of Israel.
Different time, different leadership... (and who knows.. maybe it was just some kind of major foul up).
But it suffices to say that the Israeli government is going to do what believe is in their national security interest, no matter who gets hurt.
After all, if every nation in the world seems ready to sell the Israelis down the river with regard to tolerating an EXTREMELY WELL-ARMED fanatical militia invading their territory and killing/kidnapping their soldiers, let alone shooting rockets DELIBERATELY at civilian targets, they obviously can't trust us to have THEIR national security in mind. So why should they have ours?
The participate in a lot of brinksmanship out of necessity (from their perspective). Were I Israeli, my view would be.. "If we're going to be abandoned by public opinion, then by god, we'll do something that forces the world to recognize we won't go down alone".
Lebanon and the UN should have done FAR MORE to dismantle Hizbullah over the past 6 years. But they had to deal with those Syrian occupation forces who just didn't want to leave.
But the Syrians, in combination with the Iranians, made sure that they maintained a proxy force there, which could represent a "toe-hold" of influence and represent a continuing war against Israel.
In effect, Syria and Iran have opted to pursue war against Israel via Hizbullah. They certainly armed them to the frickin' teeth with enough rocketry (which could also be used against OTHER Lebanese, should the civil war break out again).
So cite all the "history" you want about past Israeli decisions, but Hizbullah represents a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to regional peace, and Lebanese sovereignty.
Hawk |
