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

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.

I'll add that Lebanon never attacked Israel, nor was it threatening to do so.

God bless them. What I actually read was that they weren't showing that much in the way of TV footage of bomb strikes in Lebanon (this pre-Qana), though I read somewhere else on a pro-Israel place that they do not like showing images of injured and dead people generally, whether foreign or Israeli.

Your logic works, but the examples don't really correlate to real life. It's impossible to attack a militant group who are heavily integrated in Lebanese urban areas without, at least to a certain extent, attacking the Lebanese urban areas.

I'll add that Lebanon never attacked Israel, nor was it threatening to do so.

When a de facto Lebanese government attacks Israel, it's still a form of Lebanon attacking Israel.

Also, interesting NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/magazine/04lebanon.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

It controls territory, provides its own governmental services and has an army...

• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html

Errr....

Another would be the false analogy to "Negroes who refuse to sit at the back of the bus." That would work better if the *Negroes* also felt it was ok to have their brethern attack the bus, and that it was ok to kill the white children sitting at the front of the bus in order to make their point.

Without getting sucked into every detail of the CS Monitor, let's say that the central point it seems to be making is that the idea of maintaining a "Jewish state" is religiously/culturally discriminatory (not really "racist" as Jews are not a single race or ethnic group), and that right of return would be the only real way to right the wrongs of the past, which I admit are very real.

To some extent, I agree with the first part of that formulation. Maintaining a majority Jewish state must by definition be discriminatory, and the best one can hope for is that the balance will be maintained by relatively benign methods.

However, even most modern nations practice some form of discrimination in this sense by limiting immigration. I don't often hear criticism of France, for example, which has an ultra-rigorous standard of cultural assimilation required for citizenship. And forget about most of the nations surrounding Israel, where any Jews remaining live as dhimmi and where any person with even an Israeli stamp on his passport may not enter.

Right of return de facto would mean creating an ethnically Arab state, not a tolerant Western-style democracy. You'd just reverse the situation only I imagine it'd be worse for Jews than Israel for its 1.2 million Arab citizens. You'd have to overturn an entire nation and society. Many Israelis are now third or fourth generation.

Yes, recognize what's been done wrong, but do what's realistic.

My ass can talk, but you are right in that in this case I have slipped into referring to a supposition (ultimately incorrect) as a statement of fact.

This is a surprising and insightful take on the conflict from a Palestinian politician.

The basic gist is that if Israel can survive military defeat that only proves it's here to stay - wars it fights are no longer matters of survival or life and death and should not be treated as such.

That being said, I wouldn't conclude that the IDF have lost the war just yet...it sure doesn't look like it's over.

I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with the bent of post-Rabin/post-Oslo Israeli policy, even when it was in the context of the dubiousness of Arafat's sincerity and his corruption. I've always wrestled with Israel's rash military actions in the territories, even in the context of suicide bombings targeting women and children.

But I can't abide this madness anymore. Israel seems to be increasingly dominated by people who don't believe in peace and who possess a paranoid and exaggerated sense of the threats to Israel's "survival." None of this is helped by a growing fringe religious right movement who believe in "one Israel" and just couldn't care less about anyone else.

I make no excuses for suicide bombers and the organizations that sponsor them. But none of that excuses Israel's conduct, either.

It's not as though I was ever an Israeli flag-waving, rally-going, AIPAC-donating cheerleader, but this conflict has pushed me over the line. I'm not even entirely sure what that means yet - but I did donate money to the Palestinian Red Crescent, and also to Tikkun (a great progressive Jewish organization) to help them run an ad calling for a ceasefire.

If anyone wants to sign their ad/petition and or donate, btw:

http:/www.tikkun.org