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

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.

As for Blair's peacekeeping force where are the troups going to come from. The US won't be trusted. Britain hasn't got any more troops and I don't think Russia, France or NATO are going to be that keen on pitching in.

There is massive diplomacy under way, and Israel is doing well. Not only is the United States lining up with Israel, but the sense at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, was much less hostile to Israel than normal. In addition, both the Saudis and Egyptians have made it clear that they hold Hezbollah responsible for what has happened. Given this, it is not inconceivable that some diplomatic process is actually moving forward.

The problem with that scenario is that any diplomatic settlement to the crisis not only would preserve Hezbollah in some way, but would depend on Hezbollah implementing an agreement. The Israelis see the situation that has erupted in recent days as a rare opportunity to deal with Hezbollah, and they have no trust in diplomatic arrangements or their enforcement by mediators. They do want their soldiers back, but not at the risk of leaving Hezbollah in place.

The fighting is hardly tapering off. Israel's aircraft are ranging over Lebanon, a blockade is in place, and Hezbollah is firing at northern Israel quite effectively. Israel will not willingly leave Hezbollah in place while it has such capabilities. The Israelis might leave all this to airpower, but the fact is that the Israeli army has no confidence in the air force's ability to definitively destroy Hezbollah. The view is that, in the end, they will have to go in on the ground.

It is interesting to note, however, that the United States is being surprisingly relaxed about getting American citizens out of Beirut. Obviously, it can't get everyone out, but unlike other countries, the United States has been slow to move, in spite of the obvious risk of hostage-taking. U.S. Embassy officials in Beirut seem to be acting as if they have more time -- and certainly the United States knows if and when Israel is going to invade.

Our view is this: Israel will not accept the bombardment that is under way. Any cease-fire, from the Israeli point of view, would simply be a postponement of the issue. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government does not have the political freedom for action that a cease-fire requires. There is rare consensus in Israel that Hezbollah must be attacked. If Olmert settles for a diplomatic solution, he will have serious problems in the Knesset.

Therefore, it follows that the most likely explanation for the delay in a ground assault is that the Israelis are going to take some more time in deploying their forces at the border, allow the air campaign to continue for another day or two, accept the civilian casualties from Hezbollah's rockets and strike back some time this week. But with those rockets coming in, they don't have that many days to wait. Israel's government is not fractious. There is no sense of unease about the situation. Therefore, we have to stay with the view that a broader ground attack is likely early this week.

Hezbollah has been claiming the Israeli withdrawl from Southern Lebanon in May, 2000 as a victory. Not only have they been claiming this to get respect and credibility but apprarently, they believe it which is worrisome.

If Hezbollah really is using Syrian-made versions of the Iranian Fajr-3 rocket, they're really stepping this up. Anybody who fires rockets into relatively tiny Israel and doesn't expect a 'disproportionate' response isn't recognizing the lines of traditional Israeli defense policy. The fact that a sectarian party in a semi-failed state is the only force brave or foolhardy enough to take this route is telling.

What is the Israeli end-game, however? They didn't seem to enjoy occupying southern Lebanon back in the day yet without doing so again how can they defeat or at least discredit Hezbollah?

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.

I am by no means claiming this applies to him alone, but expecting the pure fruit of human reason from Ahmadinejad doesn't seem very rational to me. That's exactly why he scares me and exactly why I can easily imagine him backing this. The $25-50 M that Iran gives Hezbollah annually (according to globalsecurity.org) and the tight links between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and them means that Ahmadinejad could very likely influence their policy even if he doesn't necessarily set it outright.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_5180000/newsid_5187600/bb_wm_5187630.stm

Bush told Blair: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s___ and it's over."

Aside from the questionable use of the world "irony" I am stunned at the (however simplistic) accuracy of this statement.

The answer lies in delivering an unequivocal blow to Syrian ground forces deployed near the Lebanese border. By eliminating 500 Syrian tanks—tanks that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad needs to preserve his regime—Israel could signal its refusal to return to the status quo in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah carries a prohibitive price, the action would say. Of course, Syria could respond with missile attacks against Israeli cities, but given the dilapidated state of Syria's army, the chances are greater that Assad will simply internalize the message. Presented with a choice between saving Hezbollah and staying alive, Syria's dictator will probably choose the latter. And the message of Israel's determination will also be received in Tehran.

Hmmm.

Norman Podhoretz ends that 2004 essay by referring to an earlier exercise in the same genre:

“In this language [i.e. of George W. Bush’s first State of the Union address], and especially in the repeated references to history, we can hear an echo of the concluding paragraphs of George F. Kennan’s ‘X’ essay, written at the outbreak of World War III [i.e. the Cold War]: ‘The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.’

“Kennan then went on to his peroration: ‘In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will experience a certain gratitude for a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.’

“Substitute ‘Islamic terrorism’ for ‘Russian-American relations,’ and every other word of this magnificent statement applies to us as a nation today. In 1947, we accepted the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history ‘plainly intended’ us to bear, and for the next 42 years we acted on them. We may not always have acted on them wisely or well, and we often did so only after much kicking and screaming. But act on them we did. We thereby ensured our own ‘preservation as a great nation,’ while also bringing a better life to millions upon millions of people in a major region of the world.”

This, it seems to me, is overheated stuff. “To avoid destruction”? The U.S.A. is not threatened with destruction by jihadists. Our “entire security as a nation” was indeed threatened by the U.S.S.R, by their vast armies, by (later) their ICBMs, and indeed by the social and economic system they promoted which, though it seems absurd to us now, was taken to be seriously competitive with our own at the time Kennan was writing. Our security as a nation is not threatened by jihadis, unless we are such fools as to let them get hold of a nation with some modern industrial infrastructure, and embark on a program of nuclear weapons development. Even then they would threaten us only to the degree they felt inclined to an act of certain national suicide.

Our “entire security as a nation” was indeed threatened by the U.S.S.R, by their vast armies, by (later) their ICBMs, and indeed by the social and economic system they promoted which, though it seems absurd to us now, was taken to be seriously competitive with our own at the time Kennan was writing.

Kennan acknowledged that the Russian communist system was fundamentally weak and would collapse under its own strain. He talked about preventing the upheaval that could be caused by Soviet ideology, not a literal military conflict.

Political chiefs reading essays and arguments through their own lens? I refuse to believe it! (And no rush, the heat would drain me as well.)

I wonder wheter Israel has decided that the only way to finally stop Hezbollah is too punish Syria, or whether they will be content with trying to eradicate Hezbollah. It could be that the delay is somehow intended to draw Syria in, e.g., until they can be caught doing something they shouldn't within the context of this conflict.

I'm glad Poddy agrees that torture is inconsistent with preserving U.S. values.

Military events in Israel are now likely to force the cancellation of the World Pride homosexual desecration of Jerusalem next month.

Believers in Israel and all over the world have been bombarding Heaven for God to intervene. . ..But sometimes God answers in ways that nobody wants. War is never pleasant, but its security demands take precedence over something as frivolous as a gay parade.

There is increasing discussion of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. French Prime Minister Dominic de Villepin is in Beirut to discuss it. The Israelis say they are talking to the Italians about it, and even the Iranians have said that they favor a cease-fire. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said today, "A reasonable and just solution must be found to end this crisis. A cease-fire and then a swap is achievable." That is quite a distance for the Iranians to have gone.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert listed three demands for a cease-fire: first, the release of captured soldiers; second, an end to rocket attacks on Israel; and third, the deployment of Lebanese Army troops along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Other diplomats have been talking about an international force along the border.

The first two demands can easily be met. It is the third one that will be the sticking point because it goes to the heart of the issue. When Israel talks of the Lebanese Army being deployed there, it is saying two things. The first is that it doesn't trust an international force containing troops from countries like Russia and France. It does not believe they will be neutral. Second, if a Lebanese force is deployed, it must be able to impose its will on Hezbollah, through military action if possible.

The problem is that the Lebanese Army is not in a position, politically or militarily, to control Hezbollah. If it could do so, it would have. Moreover, if the army were able to impose its will, Hezbollah would cease to be an effective group. Hezbollah's power comes from its military capabilities and autonomy. Israel's demand would represent the end of Hezbollah in its current form. Israel does not trust a suspension of Hezbollah attacks; they believe the militants will strike again unless someone can guarantee otherwise. Israel's call for a Lebanese force that can impose its will on Hezbollah is a contradiction in terms. It is an offer of a cease-fire that can't be delivered.

Israel is, however, interested in continuing the diplomatic process. Its reasoning can be seen from reports Stratfor has received from sources close to Hezbollah. They have said that Hezbollah is maintaining its attacks on Israel because the militants want Israel to attack them on the ground sooner rather than later. Over time, they fear, Hezbollah's ability to resist Israeli attack will be undermined by airstrikes. The militants' command and control, communications, weapons stockpiles and morale will be undermined. On the other hand, if Israel were to attack now, Hezbollah's leadership is confident that it could impose losses on Israeli troops that would be unacceptable. That is what the militants want to achieve -- they want to engage Israel as the first Arab force that, even if it can't win in the end, can severely damage the Israel Defense Forces.

If that is actually Hezbollah's thinking -- and that would explain their behavior -- then we can also better understand Israeli thinking. If the airstrikes are hurting Hezbollah's morale and infrastructure, there is no reason to hurry in on the ground. It makes more sense to let the current situation continue even if it means further attacks on Israeli targets. In the meantime, Tel Aviv can engage in diplomatic initiatives that will reposition Israel in the international system. Rather than resisting diplomatic efforts, Israel is participating, setting demands that appear extremely reasonable while being unattainable. While that game goes on, so does the air war and the undermining of Hezbollah's core strength.

The problem is that Hezbollah can see this happening. That means it must try to increase its attacks to create a political crisis in Israel. Olmert is under a microscope. There is suspicion that he will be sucked into a diplomatic solution that will not only not deal with the Hezbollah threat, but also make it impossible to attack the militants later if they resume attacks. In this scenario, an international presence is forced on Israel, Hezbollah resumes attacks without the international force taking decisive action, and Israel is forced to either do nothing or attack through the international force.

In other words, there is a trap for Israel in all of this. If it gets too clever on the diplomatic side, it can wind up in trouble. On the other hand, a diplomatic process gives Israel time to do what Hezbollah wants least: an air war designed to impose attrition on them.

We have not expected the Israelis to accept bombardment for as long as they have. However, if Hezbollah's view is correct, it is good military strategy and the Israeli public will accept that. It may force Hezbollah to make serious concessions under pressure to preserve the cohesiveness of its force. But if the diplomatic game results in extended attacks on Israel without action, or results in a cease-fire that does not preclude a resumption of attacks, then Olmert will come under dramatic pressure and will lose his room for maneuver.

Olmert knows this, of course. He has managed the internal politics skillfully to this point. He can probably play diplomatic games for another 48 hours by implying military necessity to his Cabinet. But then it starts to become very dicey politically. And by then, Hezbollah's attacks will have become intolerable, and attacking -- whatever the condition of Hezbollah -- will become essential.

Neither an international force nor the Lebanese Army (with its current capabilities) protecting Israel from Hezbollah attacks will fly in Israel.

Yeah, it's up there.

Our security as a nation is not threatened by jihadis, unless we are such fools as to let them get hold of a nation with some modern industrial infrastructure, and embark on a program of nuclear weapons development. Even then they would threaten us only to the degree they felt inclined to an act of certain national suicide.

Generally, I agree that we are obviously not currently in an existential war (to either the great confusion, or even greater frustration, of the NRO Gang). However, it's like he's never heard of Pakistan and the fragility of the regime of General Musharaf. Or AQ Khan.

'Israel will not stop till Hezbollah is disarmed and Lebabnon is in control of it's southern border'

How this fits in with the bombing of Lebanese army positions in Tripoli, I don't know.

I gather that many people in the world believe that the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon was an attritional victory for Hizbollah.

I believe that here in the U.S, we are equally committed to
what we consider to be a holy war. We're more PR-conscious,
so we talk about fighting terror and promoting democracy.
But these are merely codewords for ancient slogans
like "defending the birth place of Christ" and "fight back
the infidels." In the future, the creation of Israel, both
Iraqi wars and our other acts of aggression may be seen as
nothing less than a new crusade.

Let's consider what might happen if things escalate. Things
could escalate a variety of ways at different times, but
here's my opinion.

Firstly, consider this statistic: 60% of all Americans
believe that the events described in the book of Revelations
will literally be fulfilled. I don't have the source with
me right now, but I can post it later if anyone insists.

Secondly:
I don't think the Arab militants realize what they're up
against here. I think they're under the illusion that if
push comes to shove, America is too soft/cautious to
intervene in Palestine, and we will never resort to
deploying our troops there. This assumption is incorrect.

Take me, for example. I rabidly abhor the current war in
Iraq and American military adventurism in general. However,
if Israel is ever in danger of being overran, I will be
first in line to fight in it's defense. The American
military will fight the entire Arab world to defend Israel,
if neccesary, with the same lack of mercy or humanity that
we showed when engaged against Japan.

Defending Israel is maybe the only cause that could bring
together the entire spectrum of the American right, as well
as those on the left (like me) who love the Jewish people.

So if you think that "this could be the start of WW3" is
is a kooky statement, rethink your position. It may not
be in the MATERIAL interest of America to defend Israel
to the death. However, it is in the EMOTIONAL interest of
this nation to do so.

Have you guys forgotten that orthodox American pastors
have been preaching for over 50 years that the creation
of Israel was a fulfillment of prophecy? A very large
percentage of Americans believes that Israel is a nation
created by God.

Remember that Austria was taking a HUGE risk when they
invaded Serbia in 1914, with very little payoff. But when
Serbian terrorists killed their archduke, it hurt their pride.
Hell hath no fury like a polity scorned.

I hope and pray the the U.S is not drawn down the slippery
slope towards the chaos and horror of a protracted war against
the Arab world.

Israel is, in many ways, a colony or client state of
America. We will defend it.

I could be wrong, I don't think your average American actually holds that much love for the Israeli people, and I'm sure there is a core on the religious right who hold no love for Jews. But 9/11 showed that Arab animus towards the US was actually flat-out hatred. The enemy of my friend is also my enemy, so to speak.

On the other hand, having the Holy Land in the hands of Muslims would probably be unacceptable, so maybe you are right.

Still, I believe that if push comes to shove, America is
committed to Israel. Why? Because of the Holocaust. The Holocaust
is inscribed into the American psyche. Your average American
may not love Israel, but he DEFINITELY hates the Holocaust
with a deep-seated
fervor that taps into all of his cultural/political/religious
biases. Remember
that _The Diary Of Anne Frank_ is very widely read here, especially
by schoolchildren.

The same audience that ate up _Schindler's List_, _Saving Private
Ryan_ and _The Passion Of The Christ_ will eat up anti-Arab,
pro-Israel rhetoric.

They can always phone Osama and ask, I suppose. He's the only one not implicated as far as I can see.

dude, the last thing the middle east needs is another posturing clown.