I commented three weeks ago that Israel had made the right decision by resisting calls for a cease fire until Hezbollah asked for terms, something it never did, and that the Bush administration position in support of Israel was the right one. The Bush administration got in bed with the strangest of bedfellows – the French, German, Russians and Chinese – and came away with, as predicted, Hezbollah claiming not just victory, but “strategic, historic victory.” The Lebanese sympathizers of Hamas celebrated the cease fire with…gunfire.
Hezbollah reportedly has already violated the ceasefire with rocket attacks, though they did not cause any damage and Israel did not return fire. It’s possible the rocket attacks happened because some of the Hezbollah fighters simply haven’t been told about the ceasefire:
An injured Hezbollah gunman being treated at an Israeli hospital says the terror group’s men on the ground have been told nothing of a ceasefire.
Identifying himself as Abdullah Nasser to hospital staff quoted by Ynet, the man said, “We didn’t hear of a ceasefire, our fighters in the field were told nothing of such a thing.”
But whether the rocket attack was sanctioned by the leadership, Israel will be attacked again by Hezbollah and it will probably be sooner rather than later. When the attack comes the usual liberal apologists will make their usual excuses. Mike Wallace may even interview Hassan Nasrallah. Because Israel has, in fact, achieved so much strategically, including getting its ground forces as far into Lebanon as the Litani River and the Bekaa Valley, the next attack is less likely to be a classic act of war like the July 12 Hezbollah attack on Israeli Defense Forces and more likely to be a return to Hezbollah’s terrorist playbook. But whatever form it takes, we can bank on another attack by the victorious party of Allah.
In World War II, the United States demanded unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. We need nothing so serious from the leaders of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah or governments like Syria and Iran. They can have land, the governments can maintain their sovereignty. At the danger of repeating myself, our main demand must merely be that they ask for terms, that they publicly and openly admit defeat and call the war over, in English and in Arabic or Farsi. They must tell their followers that the war is over and they have lost. If we pursue a cease-fire or truce for strategic reasons, so be it, but a lasting peace of the kind liberals claim to want requires that the other side own up to their defeat. When that happens we can safely follow liberal policies of aid and rebuilding and when that happens we would be wise to do so. In the meantime, if the people of those countries need medicine, food or safety, let them look to the tyrants they meekly follow and often enthusiastically support.