Appeasement, betrayal revisited
Appeasement, betrayal revisited
Among the less palatable stories from Israel's history is the one about the relations with the South Lebanese Army and the retreat from Lebanon in mid-2000.
The story is examined in a Washington Times article entitled, "Appeasement, betrayal revisited". As Israel contemplates ceding more territory to the Arabs, it is
more than advisable to contemplate this story. This applies in particular to the author's conclusion:
With a perspective of more than three years, what does Israel have to show for its unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the betrayal of its SLA allies? Virtually nothing. Israel's position is now, if anything, more precarious than in the year 2000. Hezbollah remains an implacable and dangerous enemy. The Israelis living near the Lebanon border are at greater risk than before the withdrawal. The international press remains hostile. The terrorists became energized by the display of IDF weakness and started a second intifada in the year 2000. Israel is now called upon again to make unilateral concessions to implement a Road Map for peace.
Ironically, Ehud Barak, the most decorated soldier in the history of the IDF, his reputation in tatters, is on the political sidelines.
There are lessons to be learned. Loss without gain is the predictable, not the unexpected, consequence of appeasing mortal enemies and betraying trusted allies. There are also questions still unanswered. What will Israel ultimately do for the remnants of the SLA? What has Israel, and the world, learned from this tragic lesson?
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at February 1, 2004 09:41 PM
1
.
M. Margolis
said:
I always thought this act by Barak was the most shameful betrayal of an ally. Simply unforgiveable.
I have a question or three. Is Israel perhaps restrained against Hizbollah because they are mixed in among the Shia or are there enough "target rich enviroments" as they are called? Is it possible that Hizbollah is bunched so tightly together that in a war with say Egypt and or Syria that the IDF feels it could take them out in relative short order and are therefore not too disturbed by them? Or is this just some tactical mistake I have miscalculated? Take care,
M. Margolis
Emski32@aol.com
Posted by: M. Margolis on February 2, 2004 01:12 AM
Appeasement, betrayal revisited
Among the less palatable stories from Israel's history is the one about the relations with the South Lebanese Army and the retreat from Lebanon in mid-2000.
The story is examined in a Washington Times article entitled, "Appeasement, betrayal revisited". As Israel contemplates ceding more territory to the Arabs, it is
more than advisable to contemplate this story. This applies in particular to the author's conclusion:
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at February 1, 2004 09:41 PM