A New Thread fot the Current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon mess

also, does anyone think that the captured soldiers will possibly make it out of this alive? it seems to me that the nature of the response has basically signed their death warrants (ie - why on earth would Hezbollah bother to keep them alive at this point?).

More and more, it appears that Israel has determined that its goal is to cripple Hezbollah. If that trick can be managed, it will deliver a blow not only to Hezbollah but also to Syria and Iran and the entire Militant Islamist movement.

It also would produce a huge benefit for the vast majority of Lebanese who do not want their country run by Hezbollah/Syria/Iran and who do know that the Israelis have no wish to remain.

Since disarming Hezbollah is what is called for by the “international community” in UN Security Council Resolution 1559, it is hard to see how even the French could call such an action disproportionate.”

It makes one wonder what the French would regard as a proportionate response. Forming a collaborationist government in Vichy, perhaps?

with handclaps, even!

Oh, yes, this logic has proven so true for Afghanistan and Iran!

omg the lady that's as giddy as a bride waiting for her bride!!! LIKE, ATTACHING THE VEIL AND SHIT.

I don't think anyone disagrees with Israel attacking Hezbollah. The unfavorable response is because of:

1) the destruction of Lebanon's economy (as I noted above, they were enjoying a healthy tourist industry; those days may be over)
2) the large number of civilian casualties, including a number of said tourists
3) crippling non-Hezzbolah Lebanese infrastructure such as airports, highways, ports, bridges, power stations, etc.
4) stranding tens of thousands non-Lebanese without warning in an instant warzone, which has also created the conditions for the possible seizure of Western hostages

LEBANON ?‚ HEZZBOLAH

"The 'disproportionate' response is bullshit. It means you think they should just take it. If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day, how do you think the US should respond? What if they weren't Canadian rockets, so we couldn't blame the whole country, but instead they were "Conservative Party" rockets? What if the "Conservative Party" publicly admitted they want to destroy the twin cities? What does "proportionate" mean?"

Uh, no. Why does it have to be black and white? I can support your goal without supporting the means you have choosen to obtain that goal.

If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day, how do you think the US should respond? What if they weren't Canadian rockets, so we couldn't blame the whole country, but instead they were "Conservative Party" rockets? What if the "Conservative Party" publicly admitted they want to destroy the twin cities? What does "proportionate" mean?

If the missiles were short-range and all originated from Toronto, and we decided to bomb Ottowa and Montreal, causing civilian deaths unrelated to the immediate cessation of the missiles in Toronto and endangering the lives of non-Canadians who were not given the opportunity to flee the country, then yeah, I'd say our response was disproportionate. Then we'd just be throwing our weight around.

I have some sympathy Israel's position, but I still think they're wrong. I still find it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad would actually pass a nuclear device to a terrorist knowing that he'd be the one wiped off the map afterward.

How do I sh...never mind.

xps

also, re Iran's nuclear dreaming: they'll want to stay out of this, if they ever want to get into the nuclear club. And I think they will.

Thanks for the link, lf. I think you give the Israelis too much credit if you think swaying other Arab opinion against Hezbollah and Iran was key in Israel's strategy, though. I have to think Arab governments are concerned about their anti-American populations being stirred up by the figting and are concerned about their own positions, being seen as generally too friendly with the US.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738745.html

BTW, it's important to keep in mind that the majority of Lebanon is either Christian or Sunni Muslim, and that Hezbollah is associated with the largely detested Syrian hand of influence, which is why it's not guaranteed that all of Lebanon will rally around Hezbollah, (though that sort of unity is exactly what Ahmadinejad is hoping for)

(sorry, a bit over the top)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/fear_shopping_beirut

It's amazing that Hezbollah's getting more direct criticism from Arab countries than most of the rest of the world.

Thanks for that link Hurting. Though anecdotal + random, this struck a chord with me:

The first day, everyone I talked to was furious at Hezbollah. "How can I express my anger?" wrote a Lebanese friend in a mass e-mail blazing with sarcasm. "Maybe by saying bravo to Hizbollah, thank you to Hizbollah. Thank you for ruining the entire season for the poor Lebanese who have been struggling so hard to cover the losses of last year's events... for destroying the tourism industry and infrastructure? for weakening yet again an already weak government and flushing all the hopes of millions of Lebanese down the drain? should I say more?"

But then Israel bombed the airport, and suddenly, surprisingly, I was hearing cautiously approving statements from people who'd always railed against the Shi'ite militia before. These were Christians and secular Muslims, not Hezbollah partisans, but they saved their wrath for Israel and the US. "I am angry, definitely, at the Israelis," said my friend George, who until now had always been adamant that the Party of God should give up its arms, like all the other militias that sprang up during the Lebanese civil war. "They have replied in a very aggressive manner. It shouldn't take this much to get back the two hostages. But what I'm also angry at is the US. They haven't done anything yet. They say that they are the country which helps the underprivileged countries, but they have done nothing to help us."

Israel had a potential ally in Lebanese elements who wanted Hezzbollah out of their country as well, and now they've squandered that, creating just another bunch of people with a beef against Israel. The Syrian army was forced to withdraw from Lebanaon last year after outcry against them from the Lebanese public. Here are a bunch of people doing the hard work to try to turn their country around, and the reward they get is Bush shrugging his shoulders while Israel does the shock and awe number on them.

I read a thinkpiece the other day (can't remember where) saying that if the US had taken a more active role in the Syrian troop withdrawal (instead of standing from afar issuing threats), a Hezzbollah withdrawal or disarmament might have been negotiated simultaneously. Not sure how valid that is, but Bush's "hands off" foreign policy is definitely a factor in how this thing is playing out, and will have ramifications for years.

Kofi Anan and Tony Blair jointly recommending that an international peacekeeping force be sent to stop the hostilities. Is Blair breaking away from Bush's party line?

The way the BBC report this, it sounds like Annan and Blair are proposing to send a UN force to disarm Hezbollah. Amazingly, the Israelis are cold-shouldering this plan to turn the UN into their mercenaries, and intend to continue exercising restraint.

In Arab countries there is probably a division between the "street" and the regime view of things. I suspect that firing missiles into Israel, blowing up Israeli ships, and capturing Israeli soldiers plays well with the masses, while striking fear into the hearts of stability-loving unelected rulers.