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

Yes, 1559 was entirely about helping Israel (who left Lebanon five years earlier) and had nothing to do with improving life in Lebanon.

know as an american i have little to stand on when it comes to this, but i personally get a little squeamish when it comes to one country trying to dictate another country's politics to its citizens.

No need for UN resolutions then? Such as, I dunno ... resolution 1559 demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah? Voted on by every country in the entire world?

the un, last i checked, wasn't a country. if it wasn't obvious my post that you responded to was in reference to the us invasion and occupation of iraq. i have a hard time believing you were terribly in favor it, tho i'd bet that you're no fan of saddam either. tho i guess in this situation it's not really parallel since un headquarters in baghdad didn't have a direct line to the people who blew it up.

Yes, 1559 was entirely about helping Israel (who left Lebanon five years earlier) and had nothing to do with improving life in Lebanon.

this seems a little bit silly since there's not really any other force or faction in lebanon that threatens israel as far as i know aside from hezbollah. so it goes to figure that improving life in lebanon = improving life in israel. i'm not really sure why, having argued just a minute before as to the virtue of 1559, you turn back around and knock it as something that was done cynically to benefit only the lebanese, having no particular effect on israel when clearly that couldn't be the case.

Also, for every UN resolution that is beneficial to Israel you have about 100 that criticise it. I'd call that biased.

i agree but you have to distinguish between resolutions by the security council and the general assembly. let's face it: most countries don't exactly like israel, but the u.n. is ostensibly - at least on paper - a democratic organization that also happens to be headquartered in the "most powerful nation on earth"TM. if anybody pulls the strings or dictates terms, it's the united states. which means the g.a. can make all the symbolic votes it wants in regards to how "bad" israel is. and the actions by israel in the past two weeks sure ain't gonna erase that bias. they have only intensified the bias.

which was actually the thrust of the propaganda flier, no? ie syria GTFO.

its the UN's job to try to maintain a peaceful, non-partisan presence in warzone situations where there are likely to be abuses, humanitarian crises, etc.

hard to resist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4156819.stm

Has anybody seen the news articles about Israelis hitting Red Cross ambulances transporting civilians?

as with the red cross vehicles it's possible they are so paranoid and aggressive that they think that these things are being used as cover. it's unbelievable, like the whole thing is.

And yes, it is actually true that militants (more in Gaza I think but obviously it's completely possible for Hezbollah to do this) use ambulances to transport fighters/equipment (which is against the rules of armed conflict) but to me if maybe 1 in 10 ambulances are actually Hezbollah transports, bombing all the ambulances you see still isn't right. To me the whole situation is analogous to "there is a terrorist cell in Brooklyn, so let's just blow up Brooklyn."

by capping them.

OK, I didn't realize that when you wrote "one country", you literally meant one (1) country. Many countries (=UN) attempting to steer a member country's politics is a different matter.

this seems a little bit silly since there's not really any other force or faction in lebanon that threatens israel as far as i know aside from hezbollah. so it goes to figure that improving life in lebanon = improving life in israel. i'm not really sure why, having argued just a minute before as to the virtue of 1559, you turn back around and knock it as something that was done cynically to benefit only the lebanese, having no particular effect on israel when clearly that couldn't be the case.

I wasn't being cynical! The way I recall it, there was a sudden unification of world opinion about the criminally underreported 30+ year Syrian domination of Lebanon. There was mass agreement along the lines of "why have we not been paying attention to this situation for so long?", and before you knew it, 1559 was passed and the Syrians left (sort of). The future of Lebanon was always the central issue and I don't remember Israel being much of a factor in any of the decision making, although obviously the end result was beneficial to them as well.

The disarming of Hezbollah was a forgotten subplot even at the time, which is one reason why nobody did anything about it between then and now.

yeah that's what i meant. and it's right, up a few posts, to point out that the flier points that out as well. as i said, i'm no fan of syria or iran, either. but even secular, moderate lebanese are probably now saying "better syria mess with us than israel." personally i don't see much difference, except israel ain't being subtle right now.

I wasn't being cynical! The way I recall it, there was a sudden unification of world opinion about the criminally underreported 30+ year Syrian domination of Lebanon. There was mass agreement along the lines of "why have we not been paying attention to this situation for so long?", and before you knew it, 1559 was passed and the Syrians left (sort of). The future of Lebanon was always the central issue and I don't remember Israel being much of a factor in any of the decision making, although obviously the end result was beneficial to them as well.

that's what blowing the shit out of a prime minister on a slow news week will do. man that sounds cynical of me! but it's true, in a sense. nobody, "laypeople" in the west esp., even could keep track of all the factions during the civil war, but blow up a dude in a period of relative peace/calm, and people are gonna be mad.

The disarming of Hezbollah was a forgotten subplot even at the time, which is one reason why nobody did anything about it between then and now.

absolutely, and it was a huge mistake. but i also don't think it was something that's done simply. clearly the idf is having a hell of a time right now, hezbollah is way more dug in than ever-before, and i get the impression that israeli intelligence on the ground has suffered greatly since the pullout in 2000.

However, I do understand why people think Israel would either deliberately target a UN position or turn a blind eye to its bombing.

1) Israel's attacks on Lebanon have been particularly savage. Their military aims are obviously of higher import to them than avoiding civilian casualties or a humanitarian crisis. If you look at the pattern of behavior in Lebanon, this is not suddenly out of character.

2) If Israel can drive UN observers out of Southern Lebanon they can operate with a great degree of latitude (e.g. deploying banned weapons, bombing with even greater impunity).

Am I the only one who heard the NPR reports over the weekend of the Israelis bombing fleeing civilians right after they dropped leaflets telling people to evacuate? I'm still unsure whether such acts are part of Israel's strategy or just plain bumbling. Either way, it doesn't make them look good.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5577538

I'm hearing reports now that Israel is not going to expand its ground offensive, given the hard time Hezbollah has given them so far. I said above, Sounds like they're prepared to fight the war in a way that's preferable rather than the one that's required. If they can't stomach securing Southern Lebanon with ground troops, I don't know how they're going to succeed militarily. Backing off at this point doesn't send a very good signal, yet continuing their massive bombing campaign isn't going to further their goals. It hasn't seemed to weaken Hezbollah's morale or military capability; it just continues to create more image problems for Israel.

is this, like, the only line he can remember?

Stratfor's latest tea-leaf reading:

Special Report: Behind the Israeli Cabinet's Decisions
After a long night of debate, the Israeli security Cabinet led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided the military campaign in south Lebanon would not be expanded, and that any modifications to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation, such as deploying more troops, would require Cabinet approval.

Israel is essentially broadcasting to the world that its political and military circles are severely divided over the current operation, and that it might have no choice but to cave in to diplomatic pressure to put an end to the fighting and draw up a cease-fire. This might not be true to Israeli thinking, but it is certainly a message they are trying to send to Hezbollah's chain of command. Which then raises the question: Why?

Israel is likely exaggerating the extent to which the military and Cabinet are divided over how to continue in this military campaign, but a real disagreement exists between those promoting a sustained air campaign and those pushing for a ground offensive because IDF forces are getting restive. A compromise might have been reached in the July 27 Cabinet meeting to bolster the air campaign but prepare ground forces for an invasion if it becomes apparent that the Israeli air force will be unable to deliver on its own.

There could be some faith within Israel's defense circles that an air campaign will eventually pan out and succeed in undermining Hezbollah's capabilities, but such an operation takes time and costs an exorbitant amount of money, since ground troops are standing by. As support for a continued air campaign is weakening by the day, something else must be factoring into Israel's war strategy.

The thought of Israel even considering scaling down its military operation at this point -- though golden news for Hezbollah -- carries devastating consequences for Israel. If the fighting were to come to a halt over the next few days, Hezbollah would claim victory and present itself as the only Arab force capable of standing up to Israeli aggression. Merely resisting and surviving a fight against Israel represents a major win for the Islamist militant movement and its sponsors in Iran and Syria -- something Israel, the United States and even the surrounding Arab regimes are unable to cope with. Moreover, an imminent cease-fire would allow Hezbollah to retain the capability to carry out attacks against Israel whenever the need arises.

Israel, therefore, cannot agree to a cease-fire. At the same time, the current operational tempo has not yet yielded a satisfactory outcome for Israel. Katyusha rockets continue to rain down over the northern part of the country as Israel continues its attempts to take out Hezbollah's rocket launch sites. Though Israel's massive air campaign could gradually wear down Hezbollah's offensive capabilities, it will take several weeks before any definitive results will come to light. Hezbollah, meanwhile, is locked in its own military strategy. Hezbollah commanders have long been preparing for this battle and are ready to stand their ground for an extended period of time and draw the Israelis into bloody insurgent combat.

And time does not appear to be on Israel's side. Israel has already incurred a steady barrage of rocket attacks over the past two weeks, and the IDF experienced one of its deadliest days in ground fighting July 26, when nine soldiers were killed in a battle against Hezbollah fighters in the village of Bent Jbail. The numbers of Lebanese civilian deaths are also escalating by the day, fueling worldwide criticism of the extensive Israeli air campaign. The United States is carefully buying Israel time to carry out its military objectives by postponing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but political pressure on the U.S. government will mount over the next few days, following the argument that Israel cannot be given a blank check for a permanent air campaign against Lebanon. An end to the war in the next few weeks, without a dramatic improvement in effectiveness from the Israeli perspective, would leave Hezbollah in a prime position.

With this in mind, it strikes us as exceedingly peculiar that Israel, a country with a heavy track record of fighting experience despite its youth, is so intent on promoting the idea that its defense and political figures are running in circles trying to revise their military strategy while Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is brimming with confidence in his regular video appearances. It is simply not intelligent war strategy to expose your weaknesses in the midst of a major war campaign -- unless your objective is to spread disinformation to prepare for a larger surprise.

In making the decision to restrict the ground operation in southern Lebanon, the Israeli Cabinet carefully inserted a statement that said any future decisions regarding the IDF strategy would take into account "the need to prepare forces for possible developments." This nuance becomes especially critical in light of Israel's decision to call up three additional divisions of reservists July 27. The reservists are ostensibly being called up to "refresh" troops in Lebanon who have been on the battlefield for a short time, but will not be deployed until further notice. It is difficult to see how IDF troops on the front can be relieved if the additional forces have not even been deployed, unless Israel is quietly building up its ground forces for a major assault to clear Hezbollah positions south of the Litani River.

The Israeli Cabinet also agreed to send forces up to the Aouali River -- just north of Sidon in Lebanon -- as a necessary move to destroy Hezbollah's rocket-launching platforms, according to Israeli radio. This is an extensive reach into Lebanon that would place the IDF within striking distance of the Bekaa Valley -- Hezbollah's main base of operations. We also have received indications that reserves belonging to Israel's elite fighting force, the Golani Brigade, have already moved north up to the Bekaa Valley. Fighting on Hezbollah's turf in the Bekaa Valley will undoubtedly be the most difficult stage of Israel's military campaign. At the same time, moving ground forces into the Bekaa is also necessary for Israel to meet its objective of sterilizing Hezbollah's military capabilities.

Moving into the Bekaa Valley also complicates matters with Syria, which could very well view an Israeli push into the Bekaa as a trigger for a Syrian military response. Major smuggling routes for heroin and opium run through the Bekaa and provide a major source of income for Hezbollah forces and Alawite businessmen. Though Israel is not too worried about its ability to defeat Syrian forces, it is not interested in expanding its military campaign across Lebanon's western border into Syria for fear of the aftermath of such an attack. The crumbling of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime would create a new set of problems that Israel is not prepared to deal with, especially while a major upset is occurring in Lebanon. At the same time, al Assad wants to get out of this conflict unscathed and in a prime negotiating position so he can demonstrate his worth in brokering a cease-fire with Hezbollah while putting the issue of the Golan Heights back on the table. With these considerations in mind, the issue of keeping Syria in check will heavily factor into the timing of Israel's push into the Bekaa.

The Bekaa is crucial to Israel's ground campaign, but will have to be dealt with carefully and will likely require more time for major ground combat. In the meantime, Israel is carefully regaining the element of tactical surprise by reducing the war to routine and strongly suggesting that its forces are getting bogged down. Each day Israel and Hezbollah exchange fire, but no developments have dramatically changed the course of the war. While Israel may be developing an atmosphere of complacency around Hezbollah, it will launch its ground offensive when everyone least expects it.

The fact that a major ground offensive is the last thing on anyone's mind does not necessarily decrease the possibility -- it increases it. The movement of troops, rather than the public statements, will only tell if we are right.

It reminds me a bit of Operation Grapes of Wrath, when Peres decided to start blowing the fuck out of Lebanon when the Israel-Hezbollah agreement to only target each other's combatants had started to break down. Again, like Olmert, Peres is not a military man, so maybe the civilian types feel under more pressure to establish themselves as hard nuts. For all that Sharon was the man who sent Israel up to Beirut in 1982, as Prime Minister he was always very reticent about engaging with Hezbollah, suggesting a military man's inclination to only fight one war at a time.

This of course all breaks down if it is the military types who are pushing for extreme action.

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701725.html

James Wolcott and Hitchens have decried the neoconservative tendency to unload WWII analogies for any occasion; Krauthammer's latest may be the most ludicrous. Hezbollah is not Japan! (and, for that matter, neither is Beirut).

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20060728/2006_07_28t035019_450x344_us_asean.jpg?x=380&y=290&sig=if_GZPWCGVpNwi6aJ1MXVQ--

In keeping with her “serious� mood the Secretary of State performed two pieces from the brooding repertoire of Johannes Brahms – a solo Intermezzo number two, and Brahms Sonata for violin and piano, opus 108, with a Malaysian guest soloist.

(Filed: 28/07/2006)

Everyone remaining in southern Lebanon will be regarded as a terrorist, Israel's justice minister said yesterday as the military prepared to employ "huge firepower" from the air in its campaign to crush Hizbollah.

Haim Ramon issued the warning as the Israeli government decided against expanding ground operations after the death of nine soldiers in fighting on Wednesday.

Ehud Olmert surrounded by bodyguards in northern Israel

"What we should do in southern Lebanon is employ huge firepower before a ground force goes in," Mr Ramon said at a security cabinet meeting headed by Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah. Our great advantage vis-a-vis Hizbollah is our firepower, not in face-to-face combat."

Mr Olmert promised that the army would "continue toward the established goals".

Mr Ramon's comments suggested that civilian casualties in Lebanon, which stand at about 600 after 16 days of bombardment, could rise yet higher.

The government's unrelenting line has the backing of the Israeli media, which are demanding a harsh response to an ambush in the Hizbollah stronghold of Bint Jbeil, in which eight soldiers died.

The country's biggest-selling paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, said the army had raised the threshold of response to Katyusha rockets.

"In other words: a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire," it said.

"This decision should have been made and executed after the first Katyusha. But better late than never."

Three divisions of reserve soldiers, up to 15,000 men, are to be called up.

Almost 50 Hizbollah missiles landed in northern Israel yesterday, wounding four people and bringing the total number of rockets fired into the country to about 1,400.

No "Bombs Over Baghdad"?!? what a ripoff.

CNN's day with Hezbollah:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/07/our-very-strange-day-with-hezbollah.html

My favourite bit is the part where they were taken to talk to the ambulance drivers and rescue workers but QUELLE COINCIDENCE they had to quickly drive away to attend to "injured civilians". The whole thing was later revealed to be staged, of course.

Iran is now claiming that we've all got it wrong and that they do not, in fact, send arms to Hezbollah.

this goes back to that op-ed I posted, wherein all civilians "in the way" may be deemed terrorists for not leaving.

'm no fan of syria or iran, either. but even secular, moderate lebanese are probably now saying "better syria mess with us than israel."

I don't doubt this, but perception and reality might be very different here ... Israel's invasion of Lebanon was a big disaster but they still killed "only" a fraction of the number that the Syrians did during the Lebanese civil war. And it's safe to assume that under post-1990 Syrian domination, there were plenty of Lebanese arrested, tortured, and killed each year by the Syrian military.

i'd pay to see that.

reading it again, actually, it's pretty clear to me that they thought they had an exclusive, and suddenly they see all these OTHER reporters behind them.. dicks!!!!

If you google this phrase, "these ambulances aren’t responding to any new bombings", you'll find that a bunch of rightwing fuckos have written about this at length. Cooper reflected on his day with Hezbollah in a follow-up segment on air. I didn't see the segment and I normally don't pay much attention to media watchdog blogs, but the quotes are extensive (and the airing of the segment should be easily verifiable) so I'm inclined to believe this.

Or, in brief: come on, do you *really* think that a group like Hezbollah doesn't stage shit for American media outlets? Does anything you know about Hezbollah suggest that they drive around like Batman, always on call, ready to protect the injured and heal the sick?

Sure, they were probably pissed about the non-exclusive, but it's not hard to tell you're being manipulated when pictures, names, and places you're allowed to visit are all being tightly controlled by the people who are supposed to be, you know, telling you stuff and answering your questions (which is not to say that conventional governments don't do this stuff sometimes).

because of course no other governments, certainly not the us or canada or israel, ever stage anything.

hahaha

According to the stuff I read, Cooper did do a story on exactly that*. If you're asking "why don't they do stories about this stuff more often", then it's probably because journalists don't like to advertise the fact that they were manipulated and may have reported bullshit disguised as facts.

*from this, I'm figuring that they did some fact-checking before airing the follow-up, because it makes you look 10X stupider if you air false news, and then follow it up by "exposing" that false news with unverifiable speculation. Although who's gonna take the time to investigate *that* in detail and call CNN on their bullshit *twice*? (as you noted, that's what the internet is for)

1) they left some mortars in them and realized at the last second. woops!
2) they were driving AWAY from injured people, because they are MEAN and HATE FREEDOM.
3) quittin' time

xpost oh alright. so what did the story say? if hezbollah has ambulances and even semi-skilled people inside them, why are they stopping their runs?