Four perspectives on Israel v. Syria

The Washington Post is full of stories and columns this morning about Israel's attack on claimed terrorist training facilities Syria in retaliation for a deadly suicide attack on the weekend, and it is interesting to consider a few in one place.

First, there are Bush's powerful statements that the attack was more or less justified: "Israel's got a right to defend herself; [and] Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland."

Then, there is the Post's view; it argues that while retaliation was justified, retaliating against Syria is a provocation with lots of risks and fewer benefits (it also features this horrifying sentence, which tells you a lot about the relative power of terrorists: "Though Syria is not strong enough to retaliate directly against Israel, it can work through Hezbollah").

So, where to come down? Was Israel justified, or has it made a colossal mistake? First, I offer a third perspective, that of Richard Cohen, a Post columnist whose columns I variably love and hate. His column, entitled "Israel is Losing," is a passionate call for Israel to rethink its long term strategy, but it pointedly does not condemn the retaliation. It is centered around an unnamed man who recently left Israel because he could not handle the violence any longer:

Israel lashes out. It has now bombed Syria. What next? Iran? This is not strategy. It is fury. I can understand. But I can understand, too, why, after more than 20 years, that man I met left Israel. You could say he lost his nerve. He would say he lost hope.

Now, I am entirely supportive of Israel's right to defend itself and to exist in peace, and as the post a few down shows, I have no sympathy for the terrorists. But I think Cohen has identified the real problem facing Israel: Finding a way to win this war that leaves something worthwhile for both sides when it's over. If this attack on Syria helps that, then it was a good thing. Time will tell, I suppose.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:28 AM