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

While I have sympathy for Lebanese civilians, I have little truck with Lebanese ministers who call for an immediate ceasefire period, end of story, without acknowledging the truth. Which is that Israel had left Lebanon alone for years and there is a very clear reason why this conflict broke out.

I would love to see a politician anywhere brave enough to take a "turn the other cheek" strategy: evaculate civilians, impose sanctions and blockades, bankrupt the opposing government through lawsuits, etc., (Yes, I know totally unrealistic.) Somehow you have to make it perfectly clear who the "guilty" party is.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/30/world/30qana4_600.jpg

i'm not sure what you find intellectually "dishonest" about that, but i agree there probably isn't any point in discussing it.

They are (and have been) in a position where the only course of action "acceptable" to the world is to let Hezbollah or whoever attack them at will.

this is no one's position. no one finds that acceptable.

Israel had left Lebanon alone for years

this, too, is flatly untrue.

they will always come out of a conflict looking worse.

worse than hamas? worse than hezbollah? please. i think this is the worst, though:

Somehow you have to make it perfectly clear who the "guilty" party is.

by bombing them? assassinating their political leaders? israel has specialized in exactly this kind of "we are the judge, jury and hangman" role, more and more in the last few years - sheik yassin is just one of the more inflammatory examples. i don't think israel has benefited from this mentality.

intellectual honesty is couching your opponents' arguments in the STRONGEST possible way and then arguing against that. then you'll really know you've got a case and your opponents have a tough time arguing back because their big ammo has already been used.

At this moment there appears to be a major shift taking place in the war. Though the scope of the operation is unclear, it appears the Israelis have shifted to a new phase of the war, focusing on broader and more intense ground operations. It could be that this is the opening phase of a broader raid-in-force against Hezbollah that might go beyond southern Lebanon. We do not know this for certain, but it does warrant alerting our readers to the possibility. Various bits of evidence point in this direction.

For example, early Sunday Israeli time, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman was quoted as saying, "We have drawn our conclusions from battles in other areas, we have learned our lesson and are about to embark on another mission. There is no intention whatsoever to occupy this region or any other -- only to arrive, to act, and when we're done, to get out."

Link to map of Israel/Lebanon border for reference

There are reports of new areas involved in fighting and new Israeli units being engaged. For example, Israeli forces are now fighting in the area of Qana. This is a few miles southeast of Tyre and deep into southern Lebanon. We have heard that the Qana action consists of engineers, armor and infantry, indicating a more traditional combined arms effort. The engineers would be clearing mines, bulldozing fortifications and clearing roads damaged by Israeli airstrikes. Infantry would be clearing the area of anti-tank teams and opening the way for broader armored thrusts to destroy rear infrastructure and isolate forward Hezbollah positions. There are additional reports of engagements near and to the west of the Israeli panhandle in the Dan-Dafna-Metulla region, along with heavy artillery fire in this region. This would be the jump-off point for an attack both westward along the Litani and northward into the Bekaa Valley. There were extensive reports of a major armored buildup in this area over the past 48 hours. This would also explain the decision to disengage temporarily at Bent Jbail in preparation for the new phase of operations.

Interestingly, the report about Qana that we have says the attacking force is from the Nahal Division. According to Israeli media, the Galilee Division, which normally has full responsibility for the entire Lebanese border, has been given responsibility for the western half of the border, while Nahal Division has been made responsible for the eastern half. If all of this is true and the Qana fighting is being carried out by Nahal, then the action at Qana represents a drive westward from the northern panhandle rather than a northern drive from Galilee division. This is of great importance because it indicates that the armor massed in the panhandle is moving in a broad encirclement as per traditional IDF doctrine. Nahal has been moving rapidly during daylight hours. Ground operations involving the Golani Brigade were also reported in Taibe last night. If Nahal moved west, it would have passed through Taibe. If the division were planning on a move north to the Bekaa Valley, it will need Taibe. The town is in a critical location.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has canceled her visit to Lebanon. She is, however, going to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday night and return to the United States on Monday. If nothing important were happening, Rice would stick to her schedule. If the United States objected to what is happening, Israel would postpone until she left or she would be on the plane right now. Therefore, a logical conclusion is that whatever is happening makes her trip to Lebanon pointless or harmful but that she wants to signal that there is no strain in relations with Israel. If there is a major attack coming, Washington has signed off on it.

We are approaching nightfall in Israel. If this is indeed a major shift operationally -- and we simply cannot be certain at this point, in spite of pieces seeming to fall into place -- then we would expend rapid movements of Israeli forces through the night, and we should get a sense by morning, Israel time, of just how deep they expect to go. At this point, having made the decision to shift to larger-scale, more traditional operations, Israel will want to proceed as rapidly as possible for operational and diplomatic reasons. If the Israelis are going, they will be going rapidly.

It should also be noted that Israel attacked key roads and bridges along the Syrian-Lebanese border. This indicates that Israel is not intending to use those roads to attack Syria (otherwise they would have wanted them intact) but does want to protect its flank from any Syrian countermove. It is the least intrusive action Israel can take. They neither want to attack nor be attacked by Syria.

At this point, if this should take place, we will get a better sense of Hezbollah's broader capabilities. Its forward troops seemed to be extremely competent. Whether troops in other areas are equally capable remains to be seen. Also remaining to be seen is the effect of the Israeli air campaign on the militants' numbers, morale and coordination. If they are an effective fighting force, we would expect effective attacks against armored columns using anti-tank weapons and mines, and a slow evolution. If they are severely weakened, as some reports we are receiving from Lebanon say they are, the attack will be broader.

Remember that in our view Hezbollah does not expect to defeat Israel's main force, but wants to draw it into Lebanon to impose an Iraqi/Afghan style insurgency. Therefore, an apparent collapse of Hezbollah (as with the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's forces) does not necessarily mean defeat but rather can mean a shift to insurgency rather than conventional resistance. As the IDF statement makes clear, Israel does not intend to occupy and expose itself to such actions. It should also be remembered that both within and outside of Lebanon, Hezbollah has historically used terror techniques to impose penalties on enemies and shape the political environment. Hezbollah pioneered suicide bombing in Lebanon during the 1980s.

In conclusion, we do not have definitive intelligence that Israel has shifted to a radical new course. This could simply be another phase in a piecemeal operation. However, given Israeli practice in the past and political disputes within the Israeli government, we regard it as reasonable to alert our readers to the possibility of the beginning phases of a major, more traditional Israeli ground offensive designed to destroy Hezbollah in detail. We will know more clearly over the next 12 hours.

by bombing them? assassinating their political leaders? israel has specialized in exactly this kind of "we are the judge, jury and hangman" role, more and more in the last few years - sheik yassin is just one of the more inflammatory examples. i don't think israel has benefited from this mentality.

you took this EXACTLY the opposite of how I intended it (note phrase "turn the other cheek"). my point was that Israel has inflicted so much damage on Lebanon that it is now very difficult to defend them. Lebanon now looks (and is) the victim, and Hezbollah like the only group able to "defend" the country.

Ned, why do you keep posting stuff from those Stratfor twatmunks? They have been continuously saying that Israel is about to launch a major ground offensive any minute now since this conflict started.

My own view is that now that Israel has butchered more civilians in one go than it itself has lost in the whole conflict, I reckon they can declare victory and stop. Alternatively, I reckon that as with Qana Massacre I they will face increasingly insurmountable pressure to stop the slaughter. Either way, the result is the whole thing winding down to the status quo ante, except with Hezbollah now holding two Israeli soldiers.

Because they're about the only people talking about this thing that realize that morality has no place at the table with the functioning of realpolitik.

That said, they are obviously tea leaf readers first and foremost, and their predictions can fail.

The U.S. State Department said July 30 that Israel agreed to a 48-hour cessation of airstrikes in southern Lebanon beginning immediately. The reason given was to allow for an investigation of the Israeli airstrike in the Lebanese village of Qana. We assume this is also intended to permit humanitarian assistance and the extraction of civilians to proceed. No mention was made of a halt to ground operations, but it was said Israel reserves the right to strike to suppress rocket fire into Israel. That means that unless Hezbollah also suspends rocket operations, Israel will continue its strikes.

It also leaves open the possibility that Israeli aircraft will be permitted to come to support Israeli ground forces that come under attack. If the cease-fire does not halt ground operations and does permit airstrikes against forces attacking Israel, and if Hezbollah does not halt rocket attacks, the announcement means relatively little. If Hezbollah does halt rocket attacks and ground attacks, it will have created a 48-hour cease-fire in the air that Israel will have to deliberately break to resume the war.

The Israeli air force has been operating intensely for almost three weeks and clearly can use a 48-hour stand down. This decision, if confirmed opens the door to a cease-fire in place that would leave Hezbollah with a draw -- a victory from Hezbollah's point of view. At this point, Hezbollah has a critical decision to make that will not be known until dawn local time, as that is when Hezbollah has launched its first salvoes at Israel in the past.

This does not halt ground operations. The end of air attacks is subject to Israel's interpretation of Hezbollah's actions. It is not clear at this moment that this is as significant as it might appear. It depends partly on Hezbollah's actions and partly on Israel's intentions. Forces that we think are moving forward are exempt from this cease-fire, and may or may not have to move without air support.

We will continue to monitor and analyze the meaning of this surprising move.

OTM.

Stratfor (seemed to) make much more sense at the beginning of the fighting. That last bulletin is one big wank to avoid them saying, "Everything we've been predicating for the last week has been wrong."

Your assumption about morality in international relations is very debatable. If nothing else, the likes of AIPAC and its enemies would not shite on about whether or not Israel is wuvvly country or a bad country if the concept of good and evil in international affairs was not one which resonated with the public. You (and those Stratfor fellows) are also operating under the assumption that states know their interests and that they act in a manner calculated to maximise their realisation.

I think, though, that this kind of thing would be better discussed on a thread entitled The Timeless Wisdom Of Political Realism - classic or dud

scrolling headline in guardian.

Actually, I sorta think that proves my point even more! And I wouldn't go so far as to say that states know their interests -- rather, they assume they know, and therein the problem when, in fact, they often don't. The price being paid by the dead and injured is the ever so charming result.

Mitya, like I said, Stratfor are tea leaf readers that are not guaranteed of accuracy with every claim, so you're not getting me to disagree with you or anything. If, however, the choice is between Stratfor or something like it going "This is the likely read on the current state of affairs" and most other pieces elsewhere implicitly or explicitly saying "Let me tell you for the 415433154234513rd time why one side or the other in this situation is evil, wrong and bad," I'll opt for the former.

Now, here is Exhibit A in the July 31st edition of "Losing Touch With Reality":

France says Iran is respected, stabilizing force in Middle East

If 33 dead children doesn't stop them, then they could be exercising restraint for some time.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, Ned -- just expressing an opinion. I welcome the Stratfor pieces for the same reason you're posting them. If I haven't said "thank you" already, I should've.

Was just talking to an Israeli official. I asked him whether the temporary bombing pause would really be just temporary. He responded, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." He went on to explain that the purpose of the pause was to get by the moment when the Qana tragedy risked creating irresistable pressure toward an immediate, conditionless ceasefire that would be a victory for Hezbollah. The Israelis believe that the tactic is working and the conversation will soon return to hammering out the conditions that will make a ceasefire sustainable. On the Lebanese political situation, he said the Israelis believe there is a natural rally-around-Hezbollah effect that will fade over time. Finally, on the military campaign he says perhaps those disappointed in how it has been going had "unrealistic expectations." Hezbollah is "extremely well dug in and there is no quick fix." It's "a guerilla war, a war of attrition, and there's going to be no knock-out blow." He says the fighting is all about creating the best possible military conditions on the ground in advance of ceasefire with the right conditions. For what it's worth...

His follow-up is interesting as a bit of mindset guesswork.

I understand why the Israelis agreed to the bombing pause, but it seems to undermine their case: either the bombing is militarily necessary, in which case it should continue even if there are tragic mistakes, or it's not, in which case they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. I'm guessing it's going to hard for them to start up again—will they stop again as soon as another bomb goes astray?

Also, if the hawkish critics who believe that Israeli should have invaded southern Lebanon in force on the ground are correct that nothing short of that would deliver a debilitating blow to Hezbollah, it is now presumably too late for that to happen. So the least effective part of the Israeli campaign—the bombing—will have foreclosed the option of a more effective campaign on the ground.

Perhaps the situation can still be saved, but it's hard to get around this calculation: Hezbollah is going to survive, and there's no way it is going to disarm voluntarily. A meaningful international force will enter southern Lebanon only if Hezbollah is disarmed, and since it won't be, there won't be a meaningful international force. That means one of the linchpins of the Israeli post-war strategy is not going to come about. So Hezbollah wins.

At this point, around the Middle East, the Bush administration seems to have two options: admit defeat, or continue to raise the stakes.

Elsewhere the likes of Podhoretz and Charen are amusing me with their attempts to square, as noted, morality with realpolitik. In this case, their conclusion appears to be that too many people on 'our' side don't want to kill others. How sad.

but logic has no place at the table with the functioning of realpolitik

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Urging President Bush to turn all U.S. efforts toward "ending this madness," a leading Republican senator Monday broke with the Bush administration and called for an immediate cease-fire in the Mideast.

"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now," Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said. "President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop."

The Bush administration has refused to call for Israel to halt its attacks on southern Lebanon, joining Israel in insisting that Hezbollah fighters must be pushed back from the Israeli-Lebanese border.

President Bush Monday in a speech in Miami Beach, Florida, reiterated his call for a cease-fire in the Mideast only if it brought a "long-lasting peace" that addressed Iran and Syria's support for Hezbollah, the Islamic militia that Israel is targeting. (Full story)

Hagel said that refusal threatens to isolate the United States and Israel and harm chances of achieving a long-term peace in the region.

"How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend -- the country and people of Lebanon -- is going to enhance America's image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?" asked Hagel, the No. 2 Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Calls for 'a statesman'

He called on Bush to name "a statesman of global stature" as his personal envoy to the region. And he urged the administration to open direct talks with Hezbollah's backers, Iran and Syria, both of which Washington also accuses of meddling in Iraq.

"Our relationship with Israel is special and historic," he said. "But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice."

Bush was headed back to Washington after a fund-raising trip to Florida, and the White House had no immediate reaction to Hagel's comments.

Like his frequent ally, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Hagel is a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2008 and has been critical of the administration's handling of Iraq. But few members of Congress have broken ranks with the president over his handling of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict.

Calls for an end to the 20-day conflict have increased since Israel's bombing Sunday of the Lebanese town of Qana, which left at least 54 civilians dead. Hagel said the Israeli campaign was "tearing Lebanon apart," and the resulting civilian casualties and economic damage were weakening the country and bolstering support for Hezbollah, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization.

Hagel urged the administration to revive the Beirut Declaration of 2002, authored by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, under which Arab countries would have recognized Israel's right to exist. Hagel said that declaration was "a starting point" toward a regional settlement, but the United States "squandered" it.

'Bogged down' in Iraq?

Meanwhile, the decorated Vietnam veteran said the United States "is bogged down in Iraq," limiting U.S. diplomatic and military options. Last week's announcement that more than 3,000 more American troops were needed to reinforce Baghdad amid rising sectarian violence was "a dramatic setback," he said.

He said the 3-year-old war is wearing badly on the U.S. military, and that Iraq's fledgling democracy needs to take over more of its security responsibilities from American troops.

"This is not about setting a timeline," Hagel said. "This is about understanding the implications of the forces of reality."

This is a surprisingly nuanced and well-spoken point.

I am also interested by the suggestion that the tendency to fling bombs around is being triggered by the relatively poor performance of the Israeli army. It's like they are saying "You made us look bad - and that's not good".

Fuck off, you clown.

I predict rapid success followed by the cheering of Israeli troops as liberators and the traditional showering of flowers.

the idea that pointing out that qana is where jesus fed the 5,000 makes me "extreme" is so hilarious to me.

Okay, I have seen everything: pizzaIDF.org

Intelligence received by Stratfor in the past 24 hours indicates that Israel
believes military operations against Hezbollah will soon be reaching a climax in
Lebanon, and activity by both sides in the conflict since then has been
intensifying. It has been our assessment that as Hezbollah fighters come under
greater duress, there is a strong possibility that the organization will revert to
employing terrorist tactics against Westerners that it used in the past - such as
kidnappings, bombings or other acts of violence.

We have also taken note of a warden message issued yesterday, August 1st, that
imposes a curfew on U.S. Embassy staff in Damascus - a precaution for their safety
as emotions run high in Syria. We view this as further affirmation that, with
military operations entering a crucial phase, the danger of terrorist activity is
now ticking upward. We have no direct intelligence on this but we are clearly
entering a period of heightened threat.

For the safety of our readers, we invite you to read a recent special report
produced by our security team. This report outlines where Stratfor believes
terrorist attacks might be possible, the kinds of targets Hezbollah might choose,
its rationale for doing so and the rapidity with which the organization might move.

They are further offering a free download of a piece called "Hezbollah and Iran: Security Risks Beyond the Middle East, August 2006", should you so choose to read it.