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

as for where i get my news, i get it from ILX!

The displaced Lebanese are the bigger story in part because their plight is linked with the tens of thousands of foreign ex-pats that are being evacuated simultaneously, the latter being a story that directly affects a lot of other countries. And given the current situation, I don't think many people have permanently displaced on either side. Doesn't "permanent" displacement imply widespread destruction of entire towns and villages? If that was the case, wouldn't there be a *lot* more than 270-odd deaths in Lebanon, as in at least 50 times that number? I think almost everyone who has left will be able to return if they want to, although who knows when that will be.

-- Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr...), July 21st, 2006.

i don't think this makes sense. if you fire rockets that you can't target with any accuracy into civilian areas, you are intentionally killing civilians.

i'm not sure why we're all hung up on whether hizbollah is terrorist/guerilla/militia/ whatever. changing the wording doesn't make a bit of difference. if you don't think much of what a militia is setting out to achieve, how does it matter that they're a militia and not terrorists?

Hicks and the other Idols are currently touring America on the Idols live tour and Bush felt sure their trip to the White House would provide a welcome break for himself and visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair as they tackle the crisis in the Middle East.

But I assure you my self-loathing has nothing to do with my Jewish roots.

And regardless of how improbable this is, it is terribly disturbing to me that there are people that actually seem to want this.

DO negotiate with kidnappers.
DO NOT under any circumstances GIVE IN to kidnappers or
grant them real concessions. This vindicates their decision
to kidnap and encourages future crimes.

When the German authorities stormed the Islamic terrorists
at the Munich olympics, it was a hard choice, but the RIGHT one.

"But wait, didn't they kill all those Israeli prisoners? Isn't
it more important to save lives then to stand up to terrorists?"

You can do both. It makes better sense, logically and ethically,
to stand up to kidnappers, even if the kidnappers retaliate and
kill innocent prisoners. Because if you capitulate to
terrorists, you only encourage them. Even if you saved 100
lives by making concessions to terrorists, you'd see
10,000 MORE people kidnapped in very short order, with all
the death and suffering that entails. I understand they're
dealing with an epidemic of kidnappings in southeast Asia,
and, if I remember correctly, Brazil.

How can we ask Israel to make major
concessions to a group with such bloody hands?

Another question: what is the difference between a proporationate
response and a disproportionate response to terrorism? Everyone
seems to have a different take on this. Some people say "well,
it's okay to attack Hezbollah, but it's an outrage for them
to attack the Lebanese army." Well, if the Lebanese army has
been allowing an extra-legal terrorist militia to operate mea
culpa, wouldn't that imply that the Lebanese army is an
accessory to murder? Are we sure that the Lebanese army is
100 pecent free of Hezbollah sympathizers or supporters?

The conflict raging
in Lebanon could be said to have lost it's ties to it's
"root causes," having become a Hatfield-McCoy feud, writ large.
Which is all the more reason why we should avoid taking sides
in the Middle East. Why is the U.S hellbent on influencing,
micro-managing and controlling every inch of the globe? It's a
policy that can only lead to death, pain and misery for ALL
parties involved, regardless of who is ultimately declared
"the winner."

on a related note, I was saddened by watching an interview with the father of the two young Arab-Israeli boys that were killed by Hezbollah rockets.

The father laid FULL blame for his sons' deaths on the Israeli government, without a shred of reproach for the directors of
the rocket campaign that cruelly decimated his family. Is
this truly how far gone these people (residents of the region)
are? is there no end to their anger and bitterness? that a
father would philosophically excuse the murder of his sons,
in the name of political solidarity?

But only if it is done by non-state actors. If Hezbollah blew up an Israeli power station, it would be an act of terrorism. When Israel targets and destroys Lebanese and Palestinian power stations, it is not an act of terrorism.

some people say there are lots. others say there are like three and all of them had committed offenses.

what's a reliable source here?

the Hezbollah's 'release prisoners' demand has also sometimes mutated into referring to palestinians rather than lebanese.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP121106

I would also like to know more about the Lebanese "prisoners." These are people taken before the withdrawal? Were they tried?

BTW, not only has Israel traded prisoners for its soldiers before, it's generally made grossly disproportionate trades - dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of Palestinians for a few soldiers.

This article refers to "three remaining Lebanese" held by Israel - the one mentioned by name was convicted of murder (killed two civilians and a police officer), so I don't think Hezbollah really has any legitimate grounds on which to seek his release. Can't speak for the other two.

Aye, I believe it is then called a "war crime"

This is a huge red herring, there's very little doubt that Lebanon, Syria and Iran don't care about the Palestinians at all (Israel treats Palestinians like royalty compared to how Palestinian refugees have been treated in Lebanon, for instance). I can't imagine that Hezbollah and Israel would have good relations right now if a Palestinian state had existed for some time already.

So if Hezbollah captured one of the pilots who killed fleeing refugees, could they hold him indefinitely?

Yeah I got burned out on the topic. I'm hesitant to post again cause I think I end up sounding like some kind of zealot. My wife has started to give me the stinkeye whenever I begin prattling on about it...

I'm not pro-Israel or anti-Israel, but the way this situation has unfolded drives me nuts. I'm not sure why - maybe its Iraq-redux frustration? - I know the situations are very different, but here's another nation overreacting to a threat and possibly making things worse with their misadventures in military power.

Unfortunately the damage in Lebanon is already done. I don't mourn any injury Israel's done to Hezbollah, but what has happened to the Lebanese people is a tragedy. There seems to be an attitude at large of, "They asked for it by having Hezbollah in their country." There's a long history of outsider meddling in Lebanon, but over the past several years Lebanon has strived to cultivate a tourist economy in order to depend less on outside influences. Not even a year ago there was a populist democratic uprising which successfully ousted the Syrian army, disbanded the pro-Syrian government, and improved relations with the US. Yes, 14 out of 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament were won by Hezbollah in the subsequent elections, but that's the conundrum of democracy in the Middle East. I'd hardly say they were running the country. CNN showed some clips of Lebanese celebrating in streets during the "Cedar Revolution" last year - uplifting footage then, heartbreaking to view today.

What do we have now? Economy in ruins, spirits crushed, momentum drained. We can talk about rebuilding Lebanon and sending them boatloads of aid; how about not bombing the shit out of them in the first place? Many countries struggle to emerge from 3rd world conditions and only throwing money at them doesn't help (cf Africa, Iraq); it's much better when such change comes from within. Lebanon seemed to be headed down that road voluntarily. Unfortunately the road is now a smoking crater.

Perhaps a bitter battle on the southern border might have goaded the Lebanese government to take stronger action against Hezbollah, or brought more international pressure to bear on the issue. But instead of taking incremental steps to escalate the conflict, Israel went all out with a full-blown war. Was this the wisest course of action?

Ironically, most of the international community (including several Arab nations) initially supported Israel's response to Hezbollah's aggression. Israel could have used this situation to great political advantage; instead it chose to seal off Lebanon and bomb it back to the stone age. That's when the outcry started.

And don't get me started on the US support of actions that punished a nation we encouraged to pursue non-violent resistance, actions that recklessly endangered our own citizens. Not to mention the mismanagement of our response to the crisis - "Want to get out of this warzone created by one of our closest allies? Here's your bill. Ooops, just kidding, you can ride for free!"

I don't protest Israel's attacks on Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. I understand that military operations cause collateral damage (especially when the enemy purposely centers its operations in civilian areas). But Israel's systematic lightning-strike destruction of the country's infrastructure has the potential to win the battle but lose the war, a pyrrhic victory that leaves both sides scarred.

Blah blah blah, feel free to tell me to shut the fuck up...

Uh, make that a little over a year ago...

Here's James Wolcott, with a head full of steam. Excuse the mixed metaphor in the last sentence:

The problem for Lebanon and the Mideast is that the dry rot in Israel and the dry rot in Washington are married in perfect harmony. Add to that the dry rot at the top of the Arab states, and the absence of decent alternatives to this catastrophe become understandable.

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2006/07/faster_israel_k.php

oh yeah, that's real helpful. fucking Democrats.

Reminds me of pathetic Walter Mondale accusing Reagan of being "soft on Communism" for hinting at arms-control talks with Gorby.

You can barely see the edge of the jacket in this picture; there's a video floating around somewhere of her seated at a table and it really looks like she showed up wearing AND1 gear.

Reading that story about the Democratic outcry doesn't do good things for my blood pressure. I really have to stop checking this thread... but then where will I turn for my Condi roffles?

People we have contacted in Israel keep talking about Israel having some surprises. We already are surprised by the amount of time between the initiation of the air attack and the initiation of a major ground offensive. If the Israelis have more surprises waiting, it will be interesting to see what they are. However, at this point, unless Israel wants to abandon the goal of rendering Hezbollah harmless for an extended period of time, it would seem to us that a massive raid in force, followed by destruction of infrastructure in detail, followed by withdrawal, is the most realistic option remaining.

One other possible explanation for events (and perhaps this is the surprise) is that Israel has been taken aback by Hezbollah's abilities and resilience, and that the Israelis are not certain they can attain their political ends militarily. In other words, the cost of imposing defeat on Hezbollah might be seen as so high, or perhaps unattainable, that the outcome of the war must be something of a stalemate. If that is the case, the balance of power in the region has shifted dramatically and Hezbollah has, in fact, won a victory. Since we do not think Israel will concede that point, we continue to await Israel's move.

We have been told to expect surprises in how Israel does this. We agree fully: We are surprised. We see the Hezbollah plan and it is unfolding -- not as well as it might have hoped, but not that poorly either. We await the Israeli solution to the problem posed by Hezbollah. There will be at least one clear criterion for victory or defeat on both sides. If Hezbollah continues to attack Haifa and other major cities without Israel being able to stop it, or it halts those attacks only after a diplomatic compromise, Hezbollah would have achieved its strategic goal and Israel would have lost. If Israel can end the attacks without making political concessions, Israel would have won. At a certain point, it is as simple as that.