I'd like everyone to imagine something for a moment.
Let's imagine that there are a bunch of people from Mexico sneaking into our country. Okay, so that's not much of a stretch. But let's imagine our government decides to send some troops down to patrol the Rio Grande in an effort to plug the leak. A little extreme? Maybe. Others might say necessary. Regardless, let's just imagine that's the scenario. Troops on the border.
Now imagine one night a handful of Mexicans sneak across the border and kidnap a couple of American soldiers. They announce they are holding them for ransom and make a number of ludicrous demands that could never be met - like releasing all people of Mexican descent from jail, or making the burro our national equine.
To solve the crisis, our government declares the abduction an act of war and starts launching airstrikes against unrelated targets in Mexican cities, demanding the Mexican government be held responsible for returning our soldiers. We roll tanks across the border and start shelling everything in sight. I know - this seems a little far-fetched, because even the most war-hungry nation on the planet wouldn't react in such an irresponsibly volatile way. It's completely insane, right? We'd probably go through the United Nations first and accuse Mexico of engineering weapons of mass emigration, then gather a coalition of reluctant, well-funded allies to support a few calculated military strikes and a coup d'etaco.
The point to this geopolitical finger painting is that it isn't far removed from what's going on in the Middle East right now. TODAY.
Israel has, for all intents and purposes, invaded Lebanon - bombing airports and other targets of interest - following the abduction of military personnel on the border. Granted, they have every right to be mad as hell, but a full scale military invasion? That's like pouring rocket fuel on a hibachi. This wasn't the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand here. It was a random act of terrorism. How is this response justified? And why is the U.S. supporting Israel's incursion into Lebanon as an act of self-defense?
It is becoming all too clear that the precedent we set in pre-emptively invading Iraq may have unintended consequences we never could have imagined.
Put me in charge. New policy decision: Israel can do whatever it wants, but we're staying out of it.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sympathizing with their frustration is one thing - justifying their response another.
I certainly agree that the analogy is fundamentally unsound given the vast differences in geography and history - as you noted, it was offered more for amusement. But the point is the same: how are they helping their case in the world community when they behave like the U.S.? We see where that go us - hated by everyone.
I guess they figure that if everyone hates them anyway, they may as well blow up a bunch of buildings in Beirut to prove they are pissed off.
I suppose closer to the heart of this issue is the fact that, as you noted, Israel isn't going anywhere voluntarily, and everyone around her wants her out.
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?
This is an International problem that was created by the International community in 1948 and it requires international invtervention now. Serious intervention - with enforcable and enforced resolutions. The problem is that the people in the U.N. can't agree on what to do about it!
Letting the forces in the region duke it out amongst themselves has proven fruitless, and will until someone unleashes the power of a nuclear bomb. And that day is coming.
I would resubmit giving the Israeli people Madascar, but alas they would not have it. This whole "promised" land thing has me blaming God for the crisis in the Middle East. Why would he go and make a promise he can't keep?
Post a Comment