Poor Timing for Expanded Peace Push

Iran's nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terror should be curtailed before Israel is expected to concede territory to Syria in accordance with any future peace agreement. Otherwise, supposed peace agreements play into the Arab strategy of shrinking Israel in size while retaining the will and capability to attack.

After accompanying Secretary Clinton to the Middle East last week, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East and former Senator George Mitchell dropped in on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in Damascus to reassure him that renewed focus on an Israel-Palestinian deal would not be to Syria's detriment.

Mitchell reportedly said, "Our effort to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict in no way contradicts or conflicts with our goal of comprehensive peace between Israel and Syria."

Seizing on Mitchell's remarks, Israel's left-leaning, liberal daily Ha'aretz is calling for a renewed push on Israel-Syria talks. The paper says the Israeli government should "seize the opportunity for peace currently materializing" and "achieve a peace agreement that will provide great advantages to this country."

Ha'aretz probably calculates that such an agreement, likely requiring Israel to forfeit the Golan Heights to Syria, will involve Syria 1) expelling Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups from Damascus and 2) ending material and logistical support to Hizballah in Lebanon. It's doubtful Asad would actually ever do so, regardless of what he may agree to on paper, making a peace deal with Israel extremely risky and, essentially, useless. The "great advantages" Ha'aretz envisions from a comprehensive peace between Israel and all her neighbors, then, would not materialize.

Given the extent of the Iranian threat, it is unwise to advocate further land concessions beyond what Israel might make in the context of the current peace talks with the Palestinians. Ha'aretz's big rush to shrink Israel geographically before the situation with Iran is resolved involves too much risk.

It's Business As Usual in South Lebanon

In the summer of 2006, Israel and the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah fought a war. Hizballah shot rockets into northern Israel, and Israel re-occupied parts of South Lebanon and bombed areas of Beirut to try to get the Lebanese goverment to reign in Hizballah.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 stopped the fighting. Among its requirements was that Hizballah retain no military presence in South Lebanon. Predictably, UNSCR 1701 has proven worthless.

Last week, a weapons cache exploded in a building within a civilian area of a Southern Lebanon town. Hizballah operatives immediately sealed the area, preventing UN monitors and Lebanese military forces from entering and investigating what had happened. Hizballah then emptied the site of stored weapons and transferred them elsewhere for safe-keeping. The Israelis got it all on videotape, which is accessible within this report the Israelis issued.

The whole episode, similar to one earlier this year, demonstrates the following:

1. Hizballah is in flagrant violation of UNSCR 1701 and is operating in South Lebanon as it pleases;
2. Hizballah conducts military activity, including storing weapons, in civilian areas with no regard for potential harm to civilians;
3. Hizballah is rebuilding its weapons inventory in South Lebanon, including according to Israeli estimates some 20,000 rockets that can travel 25 miles and other rockets capable of reaching 125 miles; and
4. UNIFIL, the UN force charged with monitoring Hizballah activities in South Lebanon and preventing the group from rearming, is a scared bunch of intimidated cowards who won't lift a finger to Hizballah, and the Lebanese army -- which provided Hizballah political cover for the cache explosion -- is no better.

What's to be learned from it all? More people should second-guess the efficacy of a UN-broked solution to any future conflict and allow Israel to finish the job. Of course, that also requires an Israeli government to make the necessary decisions to do so.

Israel-Hizballah "Prisoner Swap"

The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported on its front page that Hizballah and Israel "will swap prisoners" on Wednesday under a deal mediated by the United Nations.

At first read, most would agree this sounds like terrific news --and how good of the UN to help, right? -- but it is not. Perhaps for brevity, the Journal omitted the crucial fact that the two soldiers Israel is to receive from the deal are dead. Hizballah, on the other hand, will get five live "fighters," plus 199 bodies of Lebanese and Palestinian others, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

For some Israelis, this is a victory, as Israel, once again, shows how much it values and respects human life by "bringing home" its dead soldiers, Goldwasser and Regev. Their families reportedly are thrilled at the deal and lobbied hard for it. I sympathize with what they are going through and probably would act similarly were I in their shoes, but their position nevertheless is selfish, for it puts at risk the security of Israel and lives of other IDF soldiers.

After celebrations in Lebanon wind down, Hizballah will get busy planning, if it is not already, its next cross-border ambush to seize a fresh batch of Israeli soldiers. If such "swaps" were unachieveable, Hizballah would not try to achieve them. Sure, Israel will welcome its dead soldiers home but, soon, more will be taken, dead or alive, never to be seen alive again. This is too high a cost that Israeli should no longer be expected to pay. It's hard to say "no" to such deals, but ultimately it is the right thing to do, because eventually the terrorists would learn that kidnapping attempts do not pay off. If Israeli soldiers fall captive to Hizballah, only proportional trades, in both size and mortality, should be considered.