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

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.

The IDF hopes to create a "security zone" in southern Lebanon until an international force arrives.

Yes, this sort of thing has worked terrifically for Israel in the past.

I'm sure the UN thing was an "accident".

Well, there's the rub.

I like how Palestine is now keen to give the Israeli prisoner back. They said they had to consult the higher ups in Hamas before they could, though they've apparently wanted to for a while. Bizarre.

-- Tracey Hand (tracerhan...), July 25th, 2006.

This is one of the more perplexing memes that's started circulating since the current crisis began. Can the Israeli-Lebanese war really be said to have been "going on" in any real sense for the last 6 years?

it's called mossad, look into it.

Can the Israeli-Lebanese war really be said to have been "going on" in any real sense for the last 6 years?

it's called korea, look into it.

to be honest, i'm not sure i want to hear people complaining about having had to "sleep on concrete," given that the poor Lebanese are having their country thrown back decades. somehow i don't think that's what the commentators have in mind, though. amazing how hateful people are, really.

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), July 25th, 2006.

yes, israel totally deliberately targetted the UN. duh.

abbadavid it's not a "meme" that hezbollah and israel have not had peace for at least 35 years .. there have been countless little firefights and border incursions over the years, by BOTH sides, and none of them have led to wholesale bombing campaigns before

my dad says it's all about sharon - olmert has to prove he's sharon now; if sharon were still PM none of this would have been "necessary;" it sounds just stupid and macho enough to be right