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

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.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/07/18/001.html

they wouldn't, but neither do they need to, surely? material back-up and diplomatic cover is all israel needs from the US (a lot, to be sure).

(as a Jew and an American I would not shed a single drop of blood for the sake of Israel, which has basically turned into an intenstely militarized, racist police state whose actions cannot be ethically defended)

yeah but the sad/frustrating part is that more often than not it's the jewish community doing the conflating... but that's another thread.

XP several times over.

At the same time, most of my Jewish friends are not particularly Israel-loving.

There definitely ARE evangelical/fundie Christians who take the Biblical labeling of the Jewish people as "God's Chosen People" and Israel as "the Holy Land" VERY seriously, although I'd be rather surprised if this was the majority of Americans.

I'm almost glad to see it so at least I have something to reply with whenever someone forwards me that picture of the Palestinian kid marching with fake bombs strapped to him.

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.

I'm no rabid pro-Isreali zealot, but I don't think the reason that Americans have an aversion to the holocaust is out of some aesthetic love for Spielberg movies! How fucking relativistic do you have to get to claim that dismay over the murder of 6 million people (or whatEVER fucking number you want to put on it) is due to pop culture! Get your head out of Lit-Crit 101 class. Anyone who sneers at people for being horrified at the holocaust needs to take a step back.

http://beirut.usembassy.gov/lebanon/Lebanon_Situation_Update.html

This may suggest that the U.S. doesn't think the fighting will get much worse. I just hope it doesn't mean the U.S. wants to leave Hezbollah the opportunity to trigger a larger crisis.