Unqualified U.S support of Israel is a dangerous tactic

Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but when most of the world is accusing Israel of a disproportionate response to Palestinian and Hezbollah strikes against Israeli military units, the United States should have thought longer and harder before giving Israel unqualified support.
Instead, while in Germany Thursday morning, President Bush spoke of Israel's air raids on Lebanon as an understandable tactic in the war against terror. He laid the blame for the escalation of violence on Hezbollah and said Syria "needs to be held to account" for supporting and harboring Hezbollah. To some, that might sound like a presidential invitation for Israel to expand its attacks from Lebanon to Syria. That is scary rhetoric at a time when cooler heads must prevail.
"The soldiers need to be returned," Bush said of hostages being held by Israel's enemies. "It's really sad where people are willing to take innocent life in order to stop that progress (for peace). As a matter of fact, it's pathetic." That's true enough, and it is a sentiment expressed by many other world leaders, but most of them also condemned, or at least cautioned against, Israel's bombing of civilian targets.
President Bush expressed concern that Israel's offensive could undermine Lebanon's fragile government, but was unwilling to suggest that Israel had in any way overreacted.
History of support
The United States is bound by historical alliance, by a shared tradition of democracy and by moral necessity to support Israel against those who would destroy it. But the United States is also a nation with 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and a need to maintain alliances with the emerging government in Iraq and with those Arab states that are allies -- even lukewarm allies -- in the region.
It is not that the Israeli reaction against the killing of 10 soldiers and the hostage-taking of three others is beyond understanding. The problem is that the almost knee-jerk response of the administration in voicing its support for Israel makes it impossible for the United States to function as an honest broker in attempting to avoid the escalation of hostilities and the growing possibility of a 2006 Middle East war.
As if the president's remarks in the morning did not send a strong enough message to the Middle East, the United States cast the first U.N. Security Council veto in nearly two years that afternoon, blocking an Arab-backed resolution that would have demanded Israel halt its military offensive in Gaza.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton noted that the resolution had been overtaken by events in the region, which may have justified expanding the scope of the resolution, but not vetoing it. Bolton complained that the resolution was "unbalanced," even though it had been amended to call for the release of the soldier abducted on the Gaza border and for an end to Palestinian rocket fire into Israel.
The United States had lobbied other Security Council members for days, seeking an allied vote against the measure. The best it could do was four abstentions. Ten nations voted for it.
Again, it does not serve U.S. interests in the Middle East to be alone in defending Israel in such a manner. Arguably it does not even serve Israel's interests because it puts the United States in a weaker position to function as an advocate for Israel's interests.
Bolton complained that the resolution "placed demands on one side in the Middle East conflict but not the other," without recognizing that virtually the rest of the world was saying the same thing about the United States in its support of Israel. Or -- and, again, this is a scary thought -- if he recognized it, the ambassador did not care.
Danger of escalation
Israel and its enemies are now exchanging bombs and rocket fire on Israel's northern and southern borders. This is dangerous enough. But with the president of the United States suggesting that Syria should be held to account for its support of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and with Israel expressing concern that Hezbollah is attempting to transport two of the hostage soldiers to Iran, the danger of this confrontation escalating out of control is real.
It is incumbent on President Bush to reassess the impact of his words on the situation on the ground in the Middle East and to reconsider the wisdom of his U.N. ambassador standing alone against a call for Israel to stop bombing civilian targets in its war against militants in Lebanon and Gaza.