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

I think you're missing the point of the whole conflict, namely that the existance of "larger unresolved political issues" = future wars = the killing never stops. I'm all in favour of a cease-fire, multinational force, or whatever -- all of which is better than the status quo (= the whole world hopes that Hezbollah doesn't kill too many Israelis, that the Israelis don't snap and start destroying cities, all while Europe prays that they don't have to get involved and Syria + Iran pretend they're not already involved)

The hope within the administration is that the wave of popularity for Hezbollah will wilt away when it's clear that it has been dealt a severe blow

Are they nuts? Of course, that's who popular opinion always coalesces around in the Arab world, the military victor!

(this also highlights the messed-up perception of "victory" in this war ... real wars aren't won once the loser has spent its last bullet. Israel could destroy 99.9% of Hezbollah's weapons, a cease-fire could be declared, and Hezbollah could use its remaining 0.1% and say "hi dere, we still have weapons, we're still strong". Treaties are supposed to prevent this sort of thing at the end of real wars, but there won't be a "peace treaty" to come out of this, that's for sure)

That's because this isn't a "real war" - there's no nation or government to claim victory over. In the 50s the French dismantled the FLN with much more vicious tactics than the IDF are using on Hezbollah. They ended up winning militarily and losing politically and were forced out of Algeria anyway.

Israel supposedly destroyed half of Hezbollah's arsenal in the first few days of the war, I think I read that they're up to around 70% now.

Not sure if you see this as evidence of "progress". If they've destroyed Hezbollah so badly, why aren't one of the world's top military organizations fishing on the banks of the Litani river after 3 weeks of non-stop no-holds-barred operations? Wasn't the stated military objective "push Hezbollah off of our border?"

The Israelis say they control the southern 6-7 km of Lebanon right now, that's the same buffer zone they had up until 2000. That's "progress", whether you agree with the events in this war or not.

Not to argue against the word "excessive", but again (as was implied a bit upthread), when the world voted on Resolution 1559, how were they expecting Hezbollah to disarm? Did they think it would be bloodless? There's not much incentive for a militia funded by rich Muslim nations that run a semi-autonomous state-within-a-state (that could kick the ass of that state's army and police forces) to lay down its weapons voluntarily.

I would seriously challenge any nation on earth to accomplish this with fewer casualties than we're seeing right now.

I still don't subscribe to the "Israel had no choice" or even "Israel has handled this in the best possible fashion" viewpoints. No, I don't think disarming Hezbollah would be a necessarily bloodless ordeal - however, keep in mind that plenty of people were surprised when the Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon without a shot being fired last year. Many expected a turbulent uphill battle.

And I'll keep repeating this point: Israel missed a huge political opportunity by not taking advantage of the world/Arab/Lebanese support of their initial military actions against Hezbollah. If they had said to the UN and the US, "Look what happened when you didn't enforce the resolution, you've got to help us fix this," while restricting their military campaign to Southern Lebanon, we might've ended up with a much stabler and manageable situation than the current one. Look at the difference between the outcomes of the first Gulf War (consensus building, coalition action, stabilization) and the second (unilateralism, cowboy action, destabilization). If you can't have victory, stability's a pretty good goal.

I don't know about that, starke - obviously there would be outrage, but I think part of what makes the IDF's extant war so unacceptable to many people is the idea that they've gone out of their way to wreck Lebanon as a nation - all the destroyed infrastructure, in particular! It produces even more pictures and accounts of suffering and death and so forth, of course, but it also conveys this general ambience of over-the-top-ness. Even people not already inclined to view the Israeli military with suspicion are getting the idea of "Was all this really necessary?"

Charles Krauthammer says they're not doing it right, and if even he says so, I believe it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html

Meanwhile, a broader Haaretz piece by Daniel Levy on the neoconservative agenda and Israel, which is sort of what I was ranting about this morning:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html

>Jessie's OTM about trying to influence Lebanon and marginalize >Hezbollah - instead of focusing on encouraging the behavior we
>want, we only punish the behavior we don't.

I just don't understand how any party can marginalize Hezbollah
short of military action. We can talk at them for a decade, but
will that make them return Iran's money and give up their
jihad?

I guess in light of the UN resolution
to disarm Hezbollah and their homicidal activities, I just don't
see the question "should Hezbollah be attacked?" I only see
the question "who's should do the fighting and how should it
be conducted?"

I think our differences of opinion boil down to this: many people
seem to think that, in our efforts to end this crisis, we should
give the opinions of both sides (Israel and Lebanon) equal
credence, and that we should address the grievances of both
sides equally. That would be fair, right?

But I'm not so sure. Maybe we should give Israel a lot more leeway
and be more willing to forgive their sins and mistakes. At the
same time, I think that in fairness we should be much stricter
with Hezbollah (and the Lebanese gvt), and much less willing to
offer them concessions. Why? Because, as you said, we
should reward only good behavior,

And Hezbollah has shown itself to be Bad, with a capital B.
This is not just a political party, people. This is an cruel
organization with a long record of brutality. In that light,
shouldn't any individual who aids or abets Hezbollah be
viewed as a supporter of terrorism or accessory to murder?
Why should we give such people equal weight at a negotiating
table?

What's the problem here? How can we see Hezbollah's
kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as anything else but a
declaration of war? What more must Hezbollah do to convince
us that they don't want peace with Israel, ever?

I asked, "what would you consider proportional response to the
kidnappings?" It's a sincere question and I wish I could find a firm, non-vague answer.

Instead I get "maybe they should have started small and worked
their way up." If Israel had started small, there still would
have been civilian deaths. Do you really think that Hezbollah
wouldn't have been able to exploit the situation EXACTLY the
same way it's exploiting the current situation? How does
starting smaller change anything?

>I read a thinkpiece the other day (can't remember where) saying that >if the US had taken a more active role in the Syrian troop >withdrawal (instead of standing from afar issuing threats),

What do you mean by "a more active role." Do you mean send
American GI's into Lebanon? Because short of that, I don't
see what else we can do short of issuing threats.

>Not sure how valid that is, but Bush's "hands off" foreign
>policy is definitely a factor in how this thing is playing out,
>and will have ramifications for years.

It's all too easy to demand that the US "step in and stop the
violence." Some seem to be under the impression that if Washington
pulled enough strings they could just make this crisis go away.
It's an understandable wish - but as strong as the US is, it's
not God.

The US did take an active role in Lebanon, long ago. I don't
think anyone wants a repeat of what happened then.

Shakey said:

>(larger unresolved political issues notwithstanding I think
>halting the pointless murder of innocents, even temporarily,
>is an end in itself)

Why didn't we capitulate and negotiate a ceasefire with Japan
after Pearl Harbor? Sure, we'd lose face, but wouldn't we
also have saved millions of lives?

I wish deep in my heart for all murder to be halted, everywhere.
But I believe just as strongly in the right of self-defence.

Hurting, isn't Krauthammer saying that they should have hit Lebanon harder? He wanted the ground invasion to start almost right away, and with Hezbollah operating out of towns in southern Lebanon, surely even more civilians would have died?

As for Levy's piece, that could have been written at any point in the last four years ... still, as much as I don't enjoy the neocon/Israel links, the so-called left is far more misguided on this particular issue.

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.

I don't line up with Krauthammer on Mid-East policy, but I agree that the war, as bad as it is in itself, has also been prosecuted badly making things worse for everyone. A ground offensive earlier on might have saved both Lebanese and Israeli civilian lives as well as some of Israel's image. And the "victory on the cheap" barb really echoes one of the most common criticisms of our Iraq strategy.

Interestingly, the same photographer took pictures for Reuters a few days earlier at Qana, which leads me to think that there might be something to those "Qana photos = posed, doctored bullshit" theories ...

CNN tacked on an interesting factoid to this story, apparently just for kicks:

Hezbollah mortars struck the U.N. headquarters at Henniye, Lebanon, wounding three Chinese U.N. peacekeepers, said UNIFIL spokesman Milos Strugar.

I'm sure Kofi Annan will denounce Hezbollah's "deliberate" attack on a UN building. I mean, that's gotta be coming any minute now.

It was really nice of the Israelis to not kill so many Lebanese today, thereby forcing the media to show pictures of Israeli buildings getting destroyed for once.

What was the incentive for Syria's military to leave the country without the use of force last year? They were talked out of the country in a matter of months, not years. I appreciate Hezbollah is a different animal, but being able to say "We exhausted every diplomatic effort and failed" is better than saying "We did nothing and succeeded." Marginalizing can mean, as Jessie indicated, minimizing local support for Hezbollah. Instead of possibly squeezing Hezbollah from two sides (Israeli/UN force from the south, political pressure and popular opinion from the north), Israel choose to alienate any potential alliances by destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, creating a massive refugee crisis, endangering thousands of their allies' civilians and killing a few as well (don't forget several Canadian nationals died in the early days of bombing).

Many in Lebanon would've supported a military outster of Hezbollah prior to the Israeli action - how do you think they feel now? If your answer is "Who cares?" then all I can say is, enjoy your never-ending cycle of escalating violence. If anything, Israel has strengthened Hezbollah's political power.

Instead I get "maybe they should have started small and worked
their way up." If Israel had started small, there still would
have been civilian deaths. Do you really think that Hezbollah
wouldn't have been able to exploit the situation EXACTLY the
same way it's exploiting the current situation? How does
starting smaller change anything?

If you have a patient with cancer in an organ, do you remove the organ, or do you start by smashing the patient in the head with a mallet, saying "This will cut off the flow of blood to the tumor"?

I've said several times that *any* conflict will generate civilian deaths - they can't be avoided, that's a given. What we're talking about are matters of scale. If you think the international outrage over Israel's actions in Lebanon is merely the result of "Hezbollah exploiting the situation" then you obviously don't think what's gone on is abhorrent. Even the pro-Israel voices on this thread have called for more restraint on Israel's part. You seem to make the same mistake Israel is making; completely ignoring the political context and evaluating everything from a military win/lose vantage point. If after 9/11 the US had rained atom bombs on Afghanistan, we could've taken out bin Laden and the Taliban at once. I mean, why not? That would've ensured a decisive victory! (speaking of proportionality, I discovered the entire transcript of The Fog of War is online: http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html )

In general, you seem to believe negotiation is pointless in this situation, or that international diplomancy doesn't require sitting down and dealing with unsavory characters (when done correctly, it often does). I don't think the US is God, but it is the most powerful country in the world and its diplomatic efforts should be stronger than the "Call me when you're ready to tell me what I want to hear" variety. The Bush administration has severed most of its contacts in the Arab world. Now when something like this happens, channels have to be reopened from scratch instead of contacting people we already have relationships with. War is the failure of diplomacy, and we've rigged this game to ensure the maximum chance of armed conflict.

It was really nice of the Israelis to not kill so many Lebanese today, thereby forcing the media to show pictures of Israeli buildings getting destroyed for once.

Again, issues of scale. A massive bombing campaign targeting civilian centers and infrastructure is going to provide more news fodder (even badly doctored photos - ye gods!) than poorly aimed missles that manage to hit targets every couple of days. The front page of my local paper was dominated by a photo of a blood-soaked wall where 12 Israeli soldiers died yesterday, so there's no lack of grue there. But if you're upset that Israel is being held to a higher standard of military conduct than a quasi-renegade armed milita, I'm not sure what to say.

I hope the subject doesn't come up at dinner with my gf's parents tonight.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), August 5th, 2006.

How did the tongue-biting go? I was at a friend's house a couple weeks ago, and his father was claiming George W Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. I nearly had to sever my tongue that night...

I think what constitutes appropriate "self-defence" is the issue here. But it seems well established that there's no point in arguing with you.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), August 5th, 2006.

How did the tongue-biting go? I was at a friend's house a couple weeks ago, and his father was claiming George W Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. I nearly had to sever my tongue that night...

-- Edward III (ehonaue...), August 7th, 2006.

It wasn't so bad - didn't really come up in conversation much. I guess our upcoming wedding is more on everyone's minds. My gf's parents are also not right-wing nutsos like some of their friends, but they've kind of given up on the peacenik side.

Do you remove the organ, or do you put the patient under,
make an incision and step outside for a coffee break?
"Shouldn't escalate too soon, could get messy."

>War is the failure of diplomacy, and we've rigged this game to >ensure the maximum chance of armed conflict.

Let me ask you a question. At what point, in your mind, is
it appropriate to give up on diplomacy? What will Hezbollah
and the other Islamic radicals have to do? At what point
do we have to say that "they" are using western-style
diplomacy as just one more tool in their radical campaign?

Because it seems to me, some people are under the impression
that it's NEVER too late for diplomacy. I disagree. On a
smaller scale, sometimes you just HAVE to take strong and
unrelenting action against abusive persons; hence our need for
jails and police. When does a nation or group become so
out-of-control that responsible parties have no choice but
to forcibly alter their behavior?

Shakey says:
>But it seems well established that there's no point in
>arguing with you.

Well, there's no point in arguing at all, really. The fact is,
all of my opinions are tentative pending further data.
I've already stated that the creation of Israel was an
aggressive, invasive act, and truly irresponsible. But that's
50 years moot and they have a right to defend themselves.

http://static.flickr.com/82/207283646_f19a907e42.jpg?v=0

Do you remove the organ, or do you put the patient under,
make an incision and step outside for a coffee break?
"Shouldn't escalate too soon, could get messy."

Or do you anesthetize the patient through hypnosis, make your incision, remove the organ and accidentally drop your watch in?

What is the geopolitical equivalent of getting really pissed off every time your care provider fuck's up billing your insurance company? There have been days when I would have loved to go Fallujah on their asses.

To suffer all the consequences of being imperialistic, while acting with all the resolution and consistency and authority of, say, Belgium, is to have failed rather badly. Fortunately, the U.S. has a secret weapon in all this. Iran's Arab neighbors do not relish its bid for regional and nuclear hegemony. Iran's population, to judge from many samplings of its opinion, wants improved relations with the U.S. and not the projection of a dead-handed theocracy through fanatical foreign militias and wasteful nuclear expenditure. Many Lebanese, including many Shiites, are openly resentful of Hezbollah for the impasse into which it has brought them. Democratic and secular forces exist in Syria and are fighting extremism in Iraq. Had the Palestinians been asked (as President Abbas was planning to ask them in a referendum before the Hamas/Hezbollah sabotage) they would very probably have voted to recognize Israel as a negotiating partner.

But what use is being made of this civil and democratic element in the equation? Opinion is curdling, in many instances, into a simple revulsion against the incompetence and cruelty of Israel's highly visible actions. Has Karen Hughes been heard from lately, or at all? Who decided that the president should ignore the eccentric recent letter from Ahmadinejad, and thus miss the chance of addressing the Iranian people over the heads of their self-selected leaders? Whose job is it to consider the whole intricate web of which Tehran constitutes the center? John Wayne, a hero to many "stand tall" conservatives, used to say modestly that he didn't really "act," he just "reacted." That seems a regrettably apt description of the administration over the past three weeks, as it appears to find absolutely everything coming to it as a surprise.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115456787667625298-lMyQjAxMDE2NTA0MzUwNjM3Wj.html

-- Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr...), August 7th, 2006.

King? I'm more of a royal pain the ass, but thanks just the same...

Do you remove the organ, or do you put the patient under,
make an incision and step outside for a coffee break?
"Shouldn't escalate too soon, could get messy."

Unfortunately this is an appropriate description of Israel's approach to the ground offensive in southern Lebanon. If you think I don't support military action against Hezbollah, you're wrong. I agree with Israel's ends, but not their means.

Let me ask you a question. At what point, in your mind, is
it appropriate to give up on diplomacy?

When the militia camped out on your northern border starts lobbing missiles at you and making incursions into your country to kidnap soldiers. However, how this is playing out has a lot to do with prior failures in diplomacy and Israel's lack of thinking through the consequences of their overly aggressive military action (which I would not be surprised to learn was strategically orchestrated in tandem with the US government).

What will Hezbollah and the other Islamic radicals have to do? At what point do we have to say that "they" are using western-style
diplomacy as just one more tool in their radical campaign?

Arab opposition groups have been using political means to further their radical ends (which, let's face it, is the complete destruction of Israel) for at least 100 years. This is nothing new. But rather than fighting for stability in the region (the best you can hope for), the US and Israel seem to be aiding the forces destablilizing the region.

Because it seems to me, some people are under the impression
that it's NEVER too late for diplomacy. I disagree. On a
smaller scale, sometimes you just HAVE to take strong and
unrelenting action against abusive persons; hence our need for
jails and police. When does a nation or group become so
out-of-control that responsible parties have no choice but
to forcibly alter their behavior?

I find the "law and order" defense of Israel's actions specious. Here was a comparison I used above: A housing project has a large number of gang members who control a neighborhood via violent means. Is it morally justified to drop a bomb on the housing complex in order to weaken them? That's the root of the "proportionality" argument.

I wouldn't say "Get rid of all policemen" or "Policemen need to negotiate with drug dealers" - however the reason there are drug dealers in the first place is a political problem. Dealing with it only via force is not going to solve any of the underlying issues. Similarly, the current US and Israeli governments seem to be great at blowing shit up, and sucking on all other fronts.

TALKING TO SYRIA....There are still plenty of nay-sayers, but the chorus calling for Syrian involvement in crafting a Lebanon ceasefire solution now includes Richard Armitage, Warren Christopher, and Mr. Flat World himself, Tom Friedman.

The idea isn't limited to diplomacy's backseat drivers. With the notable exception of France (which is trying to seduce Syria's closest ally, Iran), most EU governments believe the path to peace runs through Damascus. In the same way that the U.S. is the only party that can influence Israel to stop the bombing, they say, then like it or not, Syria is the only actor with the clout — and the willingness — to do the same on the other side. European and Arab ministers have been shuttling in and out of Damascus for days now. The Spanish foreign minister met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad yesterday, and his German counterpart — who spent several days chatting up officials here — has already laid out the outlines of a deal that could simultaneously end the current conflict, get Syria out of the diplomatic doghouse, and pry it loose from the Iranian death grip.

For their part, the Syrians say they're ready to play ball. Officials I've spoken with here in Damascus say the regime is ready to help convince Hezbollah to sign on to an immediate ceasefire and enter sincere prisoner exchange negotiations that could return the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers. They'd also like to return to talks with Israel over a permanent land-for-peace deal. It's far from a perfect plan — there's plenty here that won't play particularly well in Washington or Jerusalem — but it's a decent starting point. Even a growing cadre of Israeli analysts seem to think that now is the moment to draw Syria out of the international isolation it's endured since the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri last year.

But Washington doesn't want any help from Damascus — not until the regime fulfills an array of demands (ranging from an Iraq-related wish list to an immediate and public sea change in its chummy relationship with Hezbollah). But not even the regime's most die-hard opponents think their actions one way or the other will make much difference in Iraq. And even if they wanted to rein in Hezbollah, says Syrian journalist Sami Moubayed, there's no way any Arab leader could make the sort of statements or take the sort of action Washington is looking for. Take a quick stroll around Damascus these days — with its swarm of Nasrallah posters and yellow-and-green Hezbollah banners — and you start to see a bit of what he's talking about. "The Americans are unable to accept the fact that some things are not under anyone's control, cannot be under their control," he says. "The Arab street is behind Hezbollah right now. When Hassan Nasrallah is talking, people are listening."

Syrian officials say they've made too many compromises — including unacknowledged Iraq assistance — already. "We have a saying here in Syria — we have 'nose.' Do you know what that means?" Information Minister Mohsen Bilal asked me the other day. "It means we have pride, so that we walk with our faces up, like this" — he jutted out his chin. "We have tried to work with the Americans. We have tried to talk to them. Our help isn't good enough for them." He leaned back in his chair. "If they want to speak now, they will have to come to us."

It looks like Bilal may be waiting a while. The U.S. embassy here in Damascus remains open, but hasn't been staffed with a permanent ambassador or senior-level diplomats for months. And the Syrian capital — long a major stop on the Mideast peacemaking circuit — was never under consideration for Condoleezza Rice's recent itinerary. Meanwhile, Syria's ambassador to the U.S., Imad Moustapha (you can see his blog here) is still communicating with the White House the only way he can: via forlorn op-eds, like the one that appears in today's LA Times. (Moustapha has been called the "loneliest ambassador in Washington": he's there in case the administration ever decides to talk; so far, U.S. officials remain under strict orders not to speak with him.) "Whether President Bush likes it or not, Syria is a regional power. And Syria will remain a regional power," Moubayed told me a few days ago. "This conflict can't be resolved without its help." The rest of the world seems to be coming around to his point of view. But for the U.S. — as the crisis enters its fourth week — the "Syrian option" is still off the table.

- Rebecca Sinderbrand

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009286.php

We have not written publicly available alerts on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict for several days, simply because there has been nothing to report. This is not to say that nothing was happening; brutal fighting was going on, rockets were being fired and airstrikes were being carried out. However, the basic pattern of the war appeared to be fixed, with Israeli troops fighting well-entrenched Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, and with the results of those battles uncertain. The diplomatic process was lurching along without any clear direction.

We are now beginning to detect some changes on the Israeli side. At its meeting Aug. 7, the Israeli Cabinet appeared to have given up on a diplomatic solution -- if it ever actually believed diplomacy would work -- and made it clear that Israeli forces were going to be given a much freer hand in Lebanon. Today, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz announced that Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky was to become Halutz's representative at Northern Command -- which owns the Lebanese operation -- for the duration of the war.

There are political ramifications for this in Israel Defense Forces, but what is essentially being done is that Kaplinsky, an army officer who commanded the elite Golani Brigade, has been put in charge of the Lebanese operation. Halutz, an air force officer who had been criticized for waging an extended air campaign that did not shut down rocket attacks, is ceding authority over the war. Obviously, this is also a criticism of Northern Command's performance over the past weeks -- but the important message, following recent Israeli Cabinet decisions, is that the Israelis are going to unleash their ground forces.

What this means is unclear. It might mean that one or more additional divisions will be thrown into the southern Lebanese campaign, trying to force a decision. It might mean that the attack into the Bekaa Valley that we have discussed is in the works. It could also mean that Israel might move toward Beirut. What seems to be happening, however, is that the Israelis are moving beyond the current phase of the war.

As we have said, Hezbollah has relatively few options. In the south, the militants are committed to a static defense that they seem to be executing well. In the Bekaa Valley, they might opt to resist or to draw the Israelis in and then try to impose an insurgency on them. The same in the southern Beirut area. They might also decide to try and launch some of the longer-range rockets they claim to have, assuming the Israeli air force hasn't taken them out.

Much is unclear. However, this is intended to alert you that the Israelis are vigorously signaling a shift in their war fighting strategy. This may be intended to induce a new round of diplomacy, but we rather doubt it. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has run out of room on the strategy he was following. A new one is likely.

It is odd, because earlier Krauthammer posts have been all about our shared values with Israel and so on, but now suddenly it's all "hey, if those guys aren't helping us out, fuck them".

NY Times today has a front page article on the disappearence of the peace camp in Israel. Supposedly there is near-zero opposition to the war, though there is plenty of criticism of Olmert's leadership. As in, Ehud, you're not a wartime consigliere...

Also a front-pager about how pro-democracy groups in the Arab world are finding their positions increasingly difficult given the US & Israeli actions during the conflict. Much frustration that the current hostilities are merely reinforcing the existing power structures rather than bringing about real change.

Like a lot of polls in Israel, they may not bother polling the 20% of the population who are not Jewish. Arab members of the Knesset have been quite vocal in their opposition to the bombardment of Lebanon... one has to assume that that to some extent represents the opinions of their electorate (or maybe not, as some of them have been killed by Hezbollah missiles).

But yeah, I have read how the peace camp in Israel is more interested in peace with the Palestinians rather than with the Lebanese. I have also read that the media in Israel has not done much in the way of reporting what their armed forces are doing in Lebanon.

I see you've chosen to talk out of your ass (as usual) rather than do a bit of reading. ("The telephone interviews were carried out by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University on July 31-August 1, 2006, and included 617 interviewees who represent the adult Jewish and Arab population of Israel (including the territories and the kibbutzim.")

I have also read that the media in Israel has not done much in the way of reporting what their armed forces are doing in Lebanon.

More stupidity.

Pre-conflict:
Israelis sympathetic to anti-Hezbollah Lebanese = 50%
Anti-Hezbollah Lebanese sypathetic to Israelis = 50%

Hezbollah attacks Israel:
Israelis sympathetic to anti-Hezbollah Lebanese = 0%
Anti-Hezbollah Lebanese sympathetic to Israelis = 50%

Israel attacks Hezbollah:
Israelis sympathetic to anti-Hezbollah Lebanese = 0%
Anti-Hezbollah Lebanese sympathetic to Israelis = 50%

Israel attacks Lebanon:
Israelis sympathetic to anti-Hezbollah Lebanese = 0%
Anti-Hezbollah Lebanese sypathetic to Israelis = 0%

So who's responsible for Lebanese radicalization?

The root issue is whether you think Israel's campaign is excessive or not. Some people are not willing to agree with, "If Israel is attacked it can do anything it wants," just like some people are not willing to agree with, "If the US is attacked it can do anything it wants."

Not sure how useful this is, but here's how I'd apply your equation to different situations:

Hezbollah attacks Israel -> Israel attacks Hezbollah = Hezbollah's fault
Hezbollah attacks Israel -> Israel attacks Lebanon = Israel's fault

Al Qaeda attacks US -> US attacks Iraq = US's fault
Al Qaeda attacks US -> US scales back civil liberties = US's fault

A country that doesn't take responsibility for how it responds to an attack is, well, irresponsible.

Also, why is Siniora trying to push for a better deal with the UN as if he's in any position of power at this point?

9/11 gave the Bush administration the "reason" to attack Iraq - they never would've been able to build support for it without 9/11 as a motivating factor. Hence all the pathetic attempts to link Saddam to
Al Qaeda.

Why isn't "the root issue" the Hezbollah rocket attacks? Are the 3500 rockets launched at Israel not "excessive", plus the constant repeated threats to launch more (particularly on Tel Aviv)? I'll remind you again that about 1Mil people have been displaced in Israel, or roughly the same number as in Lebanon. There are fewer deaths, but plenty of property damage (those rockets still have to hit *something*) and when the war is over I think the direct cost of Hezbollah attacks on Israel will surprise a lot of people.

I agree with you completely. There's going to be a huge economic fallout from the evacuation/bombing of northern Israel. There is no Hezbollah sympathy in my outlook. I'm not sure why you're unable to view the actions of Hezbollah as separate from Lebanon, though.

why is Siniora trying to push for a better deal with the UN as if he's in any position of power at this point?

I don't blame him for rejecting the terms of a ceasefire that is guaranteed not to cease the fire. His position is as unenviable as Israel's in this. Can't back down, can't move forward.

Now he essentially wants to move his army into place to quell a weakened Hezbollah (no thanks to Israel for doing the work that he wouldn't, or couldn't do) (and probably with fewer deaths and economic damage too, the current war sucks but it's nothing compared to the 2nd civil war he would have faced)

To quote Chris Rock, this is like being grateful to the uncle who paid your way through college... but molested you.