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

MALKIN: Because they are intoxicated.

I hope this came right after a story about how fundamentalist Christians are creaming their pants over the SIGNS OF THE COMING APOCALYPSE.

I'm tempted to say that's a good idea, but it might just be wishful thinking.

You're talking about strengthening an already-in-place sovereign government and empowering them to take control of a single area/province, rather than deposing and replacing an entire regime and trying to get them to control an entire nation.

Still, like I said, might be wishful thinking.

What do you guys see as a solution though? I mean cease fire sounds good for a start, but then you're stuck with two deeply wounded nations, each still convinced the other is a threat to its security. If you lack faith in a U.S.-trained Lebanese force, why would a U.N. force have a better chance of success? Isn't that wishful thinking too?

if israel does end up destroying the entire country of lebanon, can we maybe call a temporary moratorium on israel's regional "victimhood"?

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746186.html#resp

Totally want it to happen - I just don't see it happening.

I mean I'm all for a cease fire, but I honestly don't know what happens next and I know that after a cease fire you're still stuck with huge problems.

Being stuck with huge problems seems like the usual conclusion to these things, no?

1. An armed Hezbollah represents a threat to Israel and the
proper government of Lebanon.

2. So, everyone (it seems) agrees that Hezbollah must be disarmed.
They never really showed an interest in disarming themselves,
and now it's not even a pipe dream.

3. if Hezbollah will not disarm itself, it must be disarmed
forcibly. This seems to be a logical conclusion based on what
we've already decided. Am I right or wrong?

How does a cease fire fit into this? It might last a day or a
year, but how will a cease fire help solve the fundamental
problem of disarming Hezbollah?

How does sending an international force to Lebanon solve the
problem? Will Hezbollah see the international force as legitimate
and turn over their weapons? Or will Hezbollah see this force
as a tool of Israel and imperial zionist america?

OTM

Hezb' is not going to disarm in the short-run, given that you don't give up after what will be perceived as a victory against mighty Israël. Plus, all the talk about how Hezb' should have been disarmed ages ago doesn't really consider the fact that Lebanon was an occupied country up until last year. The sovereignty of Lebanon was just starting to emerge and expecting Hezb to rely, for the country's defence, on a Government and army just getting used to the absence of Syria, is completely unrealistic.

Because every Lebanese person that
I've heard interviewed is basically sympathetic to Hezbollah.
They seem to believe the bizarre fantasy that Hezbollah are
simply freedom fighters defending against a totally unprovoked
Israeli invasion.

The only Lebanese that I have heard criticized Hezbollah are
politicians, who presumably have to maintain some semblance of
sanity when they're talking to the international press. Even so,
they seem to place 90% of the blame for this whole crisis on
Israel.

The Israeli air strikes, whatever material damage
they may have done, are totally strengthening Hezbollah where
it counts: in the court of public opinion.

So whomever ends up taking on Hezbollah (whether Israel continues it alone or an international force is sent in) may have to fight the Lebanese people. All of Lebanon may end up in ruins. This would polarize the entire Muslim world, and the extremists would have all the aces.

I can't believe there's people who don't believe this could
LIKELY escalate into a major
regional war (
or worse).

NOW they are! They certainly weren't before! Why would a Lebanese Christian have been sympathetic to Hezbollah?

1. Israel's response was totally wrong,
2. they should have responded like THIS instead

Because all i hear is 1.

>The best we can hope for now is that things can go back to they
>were before the invasion without the current Lebanese government >being *too* undermined or usurped by a more hardline one.

I respond to this theory with disbelief.
If Beirut can't or won't rein in Hezbollah, right now, than
Lebanon is a failed state.

Should the Israeli gvt give Lebanon a "grace period" to get
it's act together? in which terrorist
attacks are not responded to? Should they just suck it up for
a few years and hope a moderate government reins in Hezbollah?
I can't believe that anyone would endorse a solution that
includes Israel accepting rocket attacks and not searching out
the source of those rocket attacks and disabling them. If
that's not self-defence I don't know what is.

x

Bombing worked in Japan (we didn't care about alienating the
Japanese public - we just wanted to kill them all)
But historians can't prove that the only-slightly-less brutal
bombing of Germany significantly shortened the war.

Bombing campaigns suck, ethically AND militarily. Too bad
they're politically expedient.

S_P, the Lebanese government is slightly over one year old. They have come to power after YEARS of Syrian puppet states and Syrian/Israeli occupation. Yes, they do need some time to establish popular support before they can take on a well-established guerrilla movement that, to many in southern Lebanon, is viewed as having courageously fought the earlier Israeli occupation. And frankly, a force of any or multiple non-Lebanese nationalities coming into disarm Hezbollah without asking or being asked by the Lebanese government is a violation of Lebanon's sovereignty.

This whole "if you can't provide an alternative, your criticism is meaningless" argument is absolutely absurd. But in spite of that, I DID suggest an alternative--undermine Hezbollah by proving the Lebanese government will do more for the people of Lebanon. Forcibly disarming Hezbollah would not be possible until Hezbollah's support is decidedly on the decline (which is DEFINITELY not happening now)--and even then, it would probably still be better to negotiate a disarmament with the condition of remaining as a political party (which would also become possible). Attempts at any other point would be about as effective as fighting the Iraqi insurgency.

Finally, this talk of "oh what is Israel supposed to take it?" is only looking at things in terms of the situation NOW, after Israel escalated the conflict (which they DID). Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers in the hopes of obtaining a prisoner exchange, which they have done in the past. I highly doubt their goal was to ignite an all-out war with Israel--but that's what they got, and they aren't going to lay down and quit. If this had never happened--if the prisoner exchange had occurred (or hell, even a covert rescue operation/successful ground operation) the atmosphere would be much more conducive to the international community providing support to the Lebanese government in decreasing Hezbollah's support and ultimately disarming it. Yes, border skirmishes between the Israeli military and Hezbollah would still occur for some time. Yes, if the prisoner exchange occurred, there would be a serious threat of Hezbollah adopting it as routine technique. But I doubt they would start randomly firing rockets at towns.

A writer on slate.com (not that favorable towards Israel,
generally) stated that for any nation, militias like
Hezbollah are incompatible with sovereignty, or true
democracy for that matter. I tend to agree.

>Yes, if the prisoner exchange occurred, there would be a serious >threat of Hezbollah adopting it as routine technique.

OK, so that seems to rule out the wisdom of Israel conducting
a prisoner exchange, right?

>But I doubt they would start randomly firing rockets at towns.

Wait, weren't they firing rockets before?

>I highly doubt their goal was to ignite an all-out war with Israel-->but that's what they got, and they aren't going to lay down and >quit.

I believe that Hezbollah has always been interested in all-out
war with Israel. Maybe I'm wrong.

Let's not forget Syria and Iran's continuing influence in
Lebanon, or their stated intentions towards Israel. Maybe it's
a mistake to isolate this issue from the larger context.

Maybe if more Americans had agreed, people in Northern Ireland wouldn't have had to live with the Provisional IRA for 30 years

Jessie once more on the money. I was on holidays in lebanon two months ago and I can definitely assure you that apart from people in the Bekaa Valley (ie. Eastern Hezb strongold) and in the southern border area, most people were strongly against Hezbollah and would spontaneously talk about it with a bunch of tourists like us. All the demonstrations I've been to these past few weeks have always been quick to boo any pro-Hezbollah slogans. But, I guess the longer this goes on, and at a period where Lebanon is not ready to assure its sovereign rights/obligations, the Hezbollah will increasingly look like the vietcong of all Lebanese people.

i remain unsure that this was their objective.