Posts
Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has weighed in, heavily, on the war between Israel and Hezbollah now being waged in south Lebanon. The Globe and Mail was so tickled to print his op-ed column that they puffed it in a front-page article that breathlessly ran through the whole thing and, for good measure, quoted other Liberal leadership candidates agreeing with him.
If I didn't know that Michael Ignatieff is a world-renowned political philosopher recently on faculty at Harvard University, I'd never have guessed it from his editorial. After mourning "innocent civilians killed on all sides", Mr Ignatieff serves up this platitude: "The conflict is sowing discord among us [Canadians] at a time when we should be standing together." Not a very promising opening.
The trite beginning is followed by speculation as to the strategy Hezbollah is pursuing.
Hezbollah's strategy is to lure Israel into an escalation of violence that will radicalize the Arab world and cause Israel to lose its remaining international support. . . . Hezbollah then hopes to draw Israel into a wider conflict that would result in its ultimate destruction. In this terrible struggle, Israel cannot win, Hezbollah cannot lose and Lebanon perishes.
Sounds like Hezbollah is leading Israel around by the nose. You'd think Israel has never before fought militant and well-armed enemies bent on its destruction.
Now Mr Ignatieff moves from speculation into fantasy. He points to Bill Clinton as an example of a successful Middle East peacemaker.
In the 1990s, the Clinton administration managed to keep all parties focused on a peace process leading to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I must have missed the triumphant negotiation of a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under Mr Clinton's diplomacy. But now the real howler:
Such a solution remains the only long-term hope for peace.
Michael, perhaps you missed it, but the party recently elected to govern Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas, refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist and has dedicated itself to Israel's destruction. Hezbollah is similarly dedicated. Kinda hard to negotiate a "two-state solution" with parties that steadfastly and violently oppose having two states.
The fantasy continues with a call for Canada to join the world in summoning up a peaceful resolution to Middle East hostilities.
It's time for Canada to do its part in stopping this march to the abyss.
It should call for an immediate ceasefire, authorized by the United Nations Security Council. It should line up with the Europeans and moderate Arab states issuing the same call. Under such a ceasefire deal, Israeli forces would withdraw, aerial bombardment would cease, and Hezbollah would stop rocket attacks and incursions into Israeli territory.
Did you catch how Mr Ignatieff jumped from "call[ing] for an immediate ceasefire" to what would happen once the "ceasefire deal" mysteriously materializes—out of thin air?
Once a ceasefire has taken hold, Canada should propose the deployment of an international naval, air and land force to prevent the movement of missiles and other military technology into Lebanon. These weapons come by land through Syria and by sea through the Mediterranean. Such a force should be deployed at all Lebanese ports and land borders. An additional naval force should patrol Lebanese waters. The force should be authorized by the Security Council to seize any weapons destined for Hezbollah or any non-state actor in the region.
Now the ceasefire has magically "taken hold" and a multinational military force moves in to interdict Hezbollah and prevent it from bombing Israel, kidnapping soldiers, and terrorising civilians. Wait a minute: Isn't that what Israel is trying to do right now? Why does Mr Ignatieff think a hypothetical international force would have any greater success?
What if Hezbollah doesn't take kindly to being restrained from attacking Israel and killing Israelis? Well, he's already thought of a solution for that. Wait for it:
Such a force would not engage in direct confrontation with Hezbollah or with the Israelis, but patrol a buffer zone between them.
Of course! [smacks forehead] That's it. The "international naval, air and land force" will simply refuse to fight! Surely Hezbollah will be cowed into submission, lay down its arms, back away peacefully, and allow the international force to patrol a buffer zone. That's brilliant. Talk about political will! Why has no one thought of that before?
The goal here is limited but vital: to create demilitarized zones between combatants and to bar the entry of the advanced weaponry that risks widening the local conflict into a regional conflagration.
"Limited"? Yeah, right. Nothin' to it.
We have a voice that other countries listen to. Let us use it.
Other countries may listen to Canada out of politeness—that's what diplomats do—but will they take us seriously? If Michael Ignatieff ever becomes prime minister and spouts this pie-in-the-sky Liberal fantasy, I think not.
For access to the complete column, click here.
Previous related posts:
