Many readers no doubt took issue with the relatively optimistic tone of my recent op-ed column (“Things Worth Remembering,” Aug. 18) on the war between Israel and Hizbullah. Make no mistake: The outcome of the fighting upset me as it did all of us who love our State of Israel and our Jewish People.
The reason I’m upset is that I would have liked this to have been a war to end all our wars vis-à-vis our neighbors, so that I should no longer have to worry about my children and grandchildren in that particular arena of violence. This goal we did not achieve.
I am, however, upset even more by the manner in which we have reacted to the outcome of the war. And the more I read and see, the more upset I become. Too many of us seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of blaming anybody to whom blame can be attached for having perpetrated the evils that culminated in the alleged fiasco.
National frustration brings about a deluge of blame from all aspirants in politics, as well as from everyone who likes to sound off against easily available targets. We, the people, often fall into the trap (thereby adding to the snowball effect of frustration) without examining whether anybody else would have, or could have, acted differently under the circumstances, and whether the blame is justified in long-term perspective.
The latest comparison I’ve read of the Lebanese conflict is to the three Punic Wars (264-146 BCE) which, according to the writer – a respected analyst – Carthage lost to the Roman Empire because its leadership was self-serving, seeking wealth rather than serving the needs of its army.
Though the allegation may seem plausible, I have to say that it simply is not true. Carthage expanded beyond its means, facing with its population of less than one million the Roman Empire of several millions which at that point possessed territory way past the boundaries of Italy.
I would like to suggest that we should read criticism in this sensitive area with a hefty grain of discernment. Ariel Sharon was a military man. Do you really think he would have done much better? It was during Sharon’s premiership that three crucial things happened: 1) The budget for the military was cut; 2) the refresher training of reservists was virtually eliminated; 3) intelligence in Lebanon was reduced.
And, it must be added, during most of that time Bibi Netanyahu served in Sharon’s Cabinet.
Perhaps it is not so much a question of Left-Middle-Right in political leanings but rather a question of perception of national strategy and strength. The enemy managed to increase its capability and military arsenal beyond reasonable expectations. This caught Israel by surprise, and for that surprise heads apparently may roll. This is the nature of a democracy.
But precisely because of this surprise – and in spite of it – Israel emerged with impressive gains that are too early to evaluate but that, I am certain, will grow all the more evident in time. My evaluation continues to be that Israel actually earned a victory in Lebanon.
Let me ask readers one simple question: What caused the downfall of the great Napoleon? Most everyone will tell you it was his invasion of Russia. But while he was in captivity Napoleon ruminated about his successes and failures and came to the conclusion that what ruined him was, in his words, “the Spanish ulcer.”
Napoleon lost half a million men fighting the guerillas in Spain two years before his Russian campaign. Our war against the Hizbullah guerillas was unprecedented for us, especially since Hizbullah is really Iran, equipped with the latest arms acquired from North Korea and Russia.
I am pleading for more reason and less anger, more warmth and less heat. Believe me, I am not defending Olmert, or Peretz, or anybody else. I just want all of us to be proud of our little country, of our unique army, and of our very special People.
We shall overcome. When Iran is long in the dust, we will still be thriving. We have a promise – from a not insubstantial source – that we are destined to survive all our enemies.
