For once I agree with Bush that it's not a good solution to return to the state as it was prior to these two acts. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, but Lebanon is still a source of terrorist acts against Israel. What would the world recommend any country do when terrorists attack it from across its border and the neighboring country is unable to stop them? What should we do if terrorists fired rockets into San Diego from Mexico and the Mexican government could do nothing to stop them? What should Mexico do if terrorists fired rockets into Mexico from San Diego and we did nothing to stop them?
It seems like the only reasonable solution, and one that all countries that wish to eliminate terrorism should support, is for an international peacekeeping force to occupy Lebanon and suppress the terrorism until Lebanon is strong enough to do it for itself. Of course if that guarantee is made, Israel must stop its campaign against Lebanon. The whole thing sounds nasty, but I don't know what else to suggest.
One of the basic premises of political theory is that the state has a monopoly on force. When that premise breaks down, it seems legitimate for an international agency to take over where the state failed. If that doesn't happen, then what? Everyone should stop fighting and live in peace with each other anyway. A cease fire. Is that going to happen? I doubt it.
- If I were in charge of the Israeli government, I would stop the bombing. It's terrible. Besides, the only real solution without an imposed force is economic prosperity. This isn't getting there.
- If I were in charge of Hezbollah, I would stop attacking Israel and devote my considerable efforts to helping Lebanon build a successful state and society. Isn't that what my constituents really want? This isn't getting there.