Holding Syria Responsible For Hezbollah Actions Sounds Worthwhile

Submitted by Mark Anderson (Canada), Aug 1, 2006 at 20:26

Your suggestion of holding Syria responsible for Hezbollah attacks on Israel sounds interesting. Since Syria is supporting Hezbollah financially and militarily in its actions against Israel, why shouldn't Israel attack Syrian targets in return. Unless there's some (dis)incentive for Syria to rein in Hezbollah, Syria can simply keep supporting Hezbollah with impunity. The absence of any adverse consequences for bad behaviour simply encourages more bad behaviour.

Attacking a neighbouring state through a proxy (like Hezbollah) still constitutes an attack on one's neighbour and, as such, invites a direct retaliatory response. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are not about to mend their ways unless there's some (dis)incentive for them to do so. Retaliatory attacks on Syria might provide some of that (dis)incentive.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".