On January 7, 2006, I published "Israel's Future Survival After Sharon," a blog concerning the aftermath of Prime Minister Sharon's debilitating stroke. One of the headings in that blog read, AFTER SHARON? ISRAEL NEEDS BENJAMIN NETANYAHU! I was concerned about Israel's survival in a sea of Arab hostility.
At the time, I wrote that neither former Prime Minister Shimon Peres nor Amir Peretz of the dovish left-wing Labor Party would be resolute enough to maintain Israel's long-term security. And, I wrote that Ehud Olmert, leader of the new Kadima Party formed by Sharon, would not ensure Israel's survival either. I believed that the outcome of the election between Kadima and the Likud party "is now in doubt." I wrote that "Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud is the best man for the job. He is a strong leader who will not allow Israel's security to be compromised."
Well, the people of Israel did not agree with me and Kadima won by a landslide. Olmert became the new Prime Minister. But, was I wrong about Olmert? I don't thinks so, On August 4, 2006, an op-ed column by Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, supports my contention that Olmert was not the man for the job.
Krauthammer, commenting on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, wrote that, "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war Cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive Cabinet debates are broadcast to the world as was Olmert's own complaint that 'I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night.' (Haaretz, July 28.) Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence."
Krauthammer continued. "His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation, but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence - and the relationship it reinforces - is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue."
If, at the beginning of its conflict with Hezbollah, Israel had launched a full-scale invasion of Southern Lebanon, its army would by now have reached the Litani River, some 18 miles north of the border. Such an invasion would have led to significant Israeli casualties, but it would have established a buffer zone to protect Israelis from Hezbollah's rocket attacks. It is clear that Israel's air strikes have not destroyed Hezbollah's military capabilities, but they have done serious damage to Lebanon's infrastructure and have led to world-wide condemnations of the Jewish State, and of America.
Hezbollah is now more popular than ever, while Israel's military prestige has been greatly damaged. I feel vindicated by Krauthammer's column. As I predicted, Olmert has not been up to the job. Benjamin Netanyahu would have launched a quick full-scale ground offensive across the Lebanese border in concert with the air strikes Israel has been conducting since the inception of this conflict. Olmert's limited incursion into Southern Lebanon was too little and too late. It is likely that, under Netanyahu's strong leadership, Hezbollah would have been significantly weakened, if not destroyed.
When all is said and done, Olmert will wilt under international pressure, fold his tent, and disengage prematurely, leaving a much hated Israel weakened, more isolated than ever, and back on square one. Does anyone really believe that an international force or the Lebanese army will take on Hezbollah and fight to disarm it? You can bet that, thanks to Olmert's ineptitude, Hezbollah's militia will survive to fight Israel another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment