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

-- Ed (dal...), July 13th, 2006.

Could that be what Israel wants? I mean I'm not being rhetorical, I have no fucking idea.

BTW, two immensely useful wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Battle Plans
By Yossi Klein Halevi
Israel's next war has begun

JERUSALEM The next Middle East war Israel against genocidal Islamism has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

The goals of the war should be the destruction of the Hamas regime and the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon. Israel cannot coexist with Iranian proxies pressing in on its borders. In particular, allowing Hamas to remain in power and to run the Palestinian educational system will mean the end of hopes for Arab-Israeli reconciliation not only in this generation but in the next one too.

For the Israeli right, this is the moment of "We told you so." The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn't expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn't an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn't whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression.

So it wasn't the rocket attacks that were a blow to the unilateralist camp, but rather Israel's tepid responses to those attacks. If unilateralists made a mistake, it was in believing our political leaders including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert when they promised a policy of zero tolerance against any attacks emanating from Gaza after Israel's withdrawal. That policy was not implemented until two weeks ago. Now, belatedly, the Olmert government is trying to regain something of its lost credibility, and that is the real meaning of this initial phase of the war, both in Gaza and in Lebanon.

Still, many in Israel believe that, even now, the government is acting with excessive restraint. One centrist friend of mine, an Olmert voter, said to me, "If we had assassinated [Hamas leader] Haniyeh after the first kidnapping, [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah would have thought twice about ordering another kidnapping." Israel, then, isn't paying for the failure of unilateral withdrawal, but for the failure to fulfill its promise to seriously respond to provocations after withdrawal.

Absurdly, despite Israel's withdrawal to the international borders with Lebanon and Gaza, much of the international community still sees the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a legitimate act of war: Just as Israel holds Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, so Hamas and Hezbollah now hold Israeli prisoners. One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers.

Another reason is the nature of the crimes committed by the prisoners whose release is being demanded by Hezbollah and Hamas. One of them is Samir Kuntar, a PLO terrorist who in 1979 broke into an apartment in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya, took a father and child hostage, and smashed the child's head against a rock. In the Palestinian Authority, Kuntar is considered a hero, a role model for Palestinian children.

The ultimate threat, though, isn't Hezbollah or Hamas but Iran. And as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability which the Israeli intelligence community believes could happen this year an Israeli-Iranian showdown becomes increasingly likely. According to a very senior military source with whom I've spoken, Israel is still hoping that an international effort will stop a nuclear Iran; if that fails, then Israel is hoping for an American attack. But if the Bush administration is too weakened to take on Iran, then, as a last resort, Israel will have to act unilaterally. And, added the source, Israel has the operational capability to do so.

For Israelis, that is the worst scenario of all. Except, of course, the scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of the patron state of Hezbollah and Hamas

http://www.haaretz.com/

The sad thing is that he's mostly telling the truth ... it's generally acknowledged that the Lebanese govt has absolutely no administative or military control over Southern Lebanon -- Hezbollah have completely run it over ("state within a state": Lebanon Version II). The sadder thing is that even if they wanted to regain control of that region of their own country, Syria wouldn't let them because they've invested a shitload of money in Hezbollah.

Hezbollah aren't stone-throwing kids -- they're well-trained, well-financed, and well-armed fighters. They've already fired 85 rockets into Northern Israel and they have thousands more stockpiled. These weapons don't materialize out of nowhere. If their supplies are being flown in via Lebanese airports then those airports are legitimate military targets. If so, then Siniora's credibility is low -- how could nobody in the Lebanese govt not know anything about massive amounts of weapons arriving at their only International airport?

Primary blame for civilian casualties will rest on Hezbollah for using civilian airports and villages to conduct military activities. International law is very clear about the immorality and illegality of what they are doing.

Good question, but I imagine it would only take a few pocketed officials to get the weapons through. Doesn't automatically implicate the entire Lebanese govt (a good part of which obviously doesn't like Hezbollah).

More questions without answers:

1) Will the Lebanese civil war restart?
2) Will Israel invade the Lebanon or syria?
3) Will Israel start bombing nuclear plants in Iran? If they do will the US be implicated by allowing the safe passage to fly over Iraq? (a sneaky mid air refuel even?)

Primary blame for civilian casualties will rest on Hezbollah for using civilian airports and villages to conduct military activities.

no, primary blame for civilian casualties will rest on israel for bombing a village nowhere near the action, killing a little girl and her family. whether it's right or not, that is what is running all over the middle east right now. nobody will give a shit about the airport.

Agreed, I'm sure that most of the Lebanese govt (not to mention the Lebanese people) wish that Hezbollah never existed. But you don't have to implicate the entire govt to hold them collectively responsible. The latter is very much the norm -- e.g. in Canada we had a few crooked officials involved in a sponsorship scandal involving federal money: the next thing you know, the entire Liberal party's credibility is shot, elections happen, and we elect an idiot as our PM. Political parties and govts take the fall for the misdeeds of a few members all the time and I think many people wouldn't want it any other way. Receiving huge stockpiles of weapons at civilian airports and overseeing their safe delivery to a semi-sovereign puppet regime in the south of the country is a pretty big misdeed.

The militarization of Hezbollah has been happening on Lebanese soil so ultimately it's Lebanon's (or more precisely, Syria's) responsibility. It's certainly not Israel's fault. That's why I made those comments on the other thread -- all the usual douchey excuses for the lack of peace in the region ("end the occupation!") clearly don't apply to the current situation in Lebanon.

no, primary blame for civilian casualties will rest on israel for bombing a village nowhere near the action, killing a little girl and her family. whether it's right or not, that is what is running all over the middle east right now. nobody will give a shit about the airport.

You think they bomb villages just for fun? You don't think Hezbollah embed themselves in civilian areas?

what does that even mean? it's a fucking country, one that was a few days ago at peace. you don't think the idf has installations in jerusalem or tel-aviv or other so-called "civilian areas?"

It's not entirely unlike the U.S. post-9/11, except even the U.S. seems to be a bit humbled by now.

It's not entirely unlike the U.S. post-9/11, except even the U.S. seems to be a bit humbled by now.

good point. i'm not entirely sure we (as in our current crappy gov't) hasn't encouraged this, even with israel's history of aggression (which HAS BEEN sometimes justified).

the closest thing i can think as an analogy to how terrible israel's response has been to this obviously-already-bad situation would've been had dubya nuked beijing when the chinese brought down that listening plane at the beginning of his presidency.

You're right, if the US is really worried about terrorism then they should move all of their troops and weapons to NYC. Sure, it will make NYC a legit military target for attacks, but at least there will be massive civilian casualties so they'll be able to take the high ground.

Israel is a small country and it's on constant high alert -- of course they have some active installations in cities. But what are you comparing here? Hezbollah's entire military strategy is based upon civilian military installations. Do you really think that Hezbollah gives a fuck about Lebanese civilians? I guarantee that Israel is more concerned about civilian casualties. It would be great if they could target only the armed Hezbollah fighters while leaving everybody else out of it, can anyone suggest a way for them to do that?

And with regard to the administration's willingness to manufacture excuses for military action out of thin air, note the expert quoted later in the piece "who stressed that Syria's and Iran's role, if any, in encouraging Hezbollah to attack was 'entirely speculative.'"

Syria and Iran's role in supporting Hezbollah is hardly "speculative" and this is hardly the first time Hezbollah has staged an attack on Israel, so it's kind of splitting hairs to suggest that there's no evidence Syria and Iran had anything to do with this particular attack.

there are lots of military installations in/around new york city and upstate. i don't know if you know this, but national guard troops have patrolled nyc subways since 9/11.

Israel is a small country and it's on constant high alert -- of course they have some active installations in cities. But what are you comparing here? Hezbollah's entire military strategy is based upon civilian military installations. Do you really think that Hezbollah gives a fuck about Lebanese civilians? I guarantee that Israel is more concerned about civilian casualties.

i don't think hezbollah gives a fuck about lebanese civilians, but i don't think the idf does either. considering the history of israel in lebanon (occupation, paying christian militias to kill muslim teens, etc., etc.), they certainly don't have a track record of giving a fuck.

It would be great if they could target only the armed Hezbollah fighters while leaving everybody else out of it, can anyone suggest a way for them to do that?

yeah how about negotiate? this is over two fucking dudes.

and call me crazy but hasn't everyone been pissed at syria for a while, even before hariri got killed? the idea that the international community is "picking on israel" is fucking ludicrous.

I didn't know that (I haven't been to NYC in several years)(not because of 9/11 of course) but again, it's a matter of degree. Having troops in NYC isn't the same thing as launching rockets from neighbourhood parks and digging weapons smuggling tunnels under houses.

yeah how about negotiate? this is over two fucking dudes.

I think Hezbollah are too busy launching rockets at Haifa to negotiate. These particular attacks were planned months in advance, they've been attacking Israel without provocation for years. They'd essentially be doing the same stuff right now regardless of Israel's response. Israeli attacks just give people the excuse to use the same tired "cycle of violence" rhetoric instead of telling Hezbollah and Syria to go fuck themselves.

Sorry for the language, I'm not pissed at you guys, just at the whole messy situation.

UN resolutions get passed every time an IDF soldier kicks a trashcan in Gaza. How hard was it to pass resolutions against Syria for their actions in Lebanon, for instance? They had to kill a former PM to get anyone to care, because apparently killing tens of thousands of Lebanese and occupying the country for 30 years wasn't important enough.

during the korean war, g. gordon liddy was stationed at an artillery outpost in bay ridge, brooklyn. just sayin'.

These particular attacks were planned months in advance, they've been attacking Israel without provocation for years.

clearly! and they're totally unjustified! but what justifies israel's apeshit response? both hezbollah in lebanon and syria have been shooting shit over the border for years, i don't understand why all of a sudden this is news. i also don't understand why the fuck any israeli lives anywhere near the border! it's almost as dumb as, say, continuing to build settlements in the west bank!

xpost

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5176582.stm

And nobody did jack shit about it for the most part, including the IDF and the international community. How would, say, France react to Spain launching unprovoked attacks for years while the rest of the world said, "this happens all the time and isn't news, just grin and bear it because we don't want to get involved in this".

(see, I can be biased too! but choosing a side and blindly shooting at everything else isn't going to get us anywhere, NoTimeBeforeTime.)

i saw some IDF general on CNN at a press conference say that nothing in lebanon was safe.

And nobody did jack shit about it for the most part, including the IDF and the international community. How would, say, France react to Spain launching unprovoked attacks for years while the rest of the world said, "this happens all the time and isn't news, just grin and bear it because we don't want to get involved in this".

-- NoTimeBeforeTime (mbvarkestra197...), July 13th, 2006.

But Barry, I think a much better analogy would be if the ETA launched an attack from the Basque region, which they basically have done a bunch of times.

I'm more beginning to think that Hamas and Hezbollah planned these attacks with the genuine expectation that they could negotiate a prisoner exchange. Otherwise, a "good opportunity" to what?

Also, I do think Olmert wanting to prove his manhood early in his term could be factor (he was seen as kind of a dull moderate and career politician before, no?)

Address security threats with asymmetrical force.

Israel is concerned about the "kidnap a soldier" ploy becoming a common tactic. Also, Israel has probably been waiting for a chance to undermine the Hamas government.

I guess once the ball got rolling, and Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel, the IDF went after Lebannon as well.

Good thing we've got a strong US president to steer us through this (sorry I absolutely could not resist).

Uh, *I* would be. If you're talking about ground troops, at least.

"Iran spreading viruses through Ahmadinejad’s blog?" asks that Malkin chick.

"Starting in those days [after 9/11], I felt not merely part of an administration, but part of a story; a noble story."

And so of course we need to invade Iran now now now goddammit, etc, and it doesn't matter that nobody wants another war b/c

"presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments"

When the Israeli-Lebanese situation began to deteriorate, I wrote in this space that the conflict amounted to a “futile, little war”. I subsequently regretted this verbiage, only because it could be construed in a manner that appeared to diminish the tragic loss of life on both sides. This was never my intent. I merely sought to explain that I felt Israel’s effort was doomed from the get-go to be rather futile, not least given the manner by which she was pursuing the campaign. I believe events have, more or less, fully borne my analysis out.

About right, I figure. Worth reading through the whole thing.

Israeli military chief of staff Lt Gen Dan Halutz has for the first time publicly admitted to failings in the conflict with Hezbollah.

In a letter to troops, he said it had exposed shortcomings in the military's logistics, operations and command.

There would be a thorough and honest investigation, he said.

Can't find a full text version of the letter offhand -- anyone else?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-08-israel-palestinians_x.htm?csp=34

All I expect to hear is Chuckie Schumer mewling about Israel's right to "defend HERself."

So it's all gone fairly awry in Lebanon these days (again). My girl's dad's going on a 3 month holiday there starting Thursday.

Saudi Arabia has advised its citizens in Lebanon, especially families living there, to leave the country immediately due to the security situation, several Saudi nationals said on Saturday.

The United States had said on Thursday it deployed the USS Cole off the Lebanese coast because it was concerned about the political deadlock in Lebanon, provoking criticism from Hezbollah and Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030101289.html

i assumed the revive was going to be about the stepped-up gaza attacks

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

The Gaza Bombshell
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
by David Rose April 2008

"self-defeating" is debatable -- if your intention is to make sure that only the most extreme elements of your opposition survive, thus making your unapologetic eradication of them defensible, the strategy of strengthening hamas has been brilliant

i.e. that was the american strategy in vietnam and nicaragua, to name just two examples

So you're OK with this?

xpost

hold on, how has David Rose written that in the future? :-)

OTM! Maybe it hasn't happened yet!

i don't pretend that i'm saying anything controversial or original here!

I think it is fairly public knowledge that following the Hamas election victory the USA and its allies decided that Dahlan could be Abbas' hatchet man, and that the best thing to do with Hamas was to exclude them from power and then shut them down by force. The only problem with this strategy is that Dahlan is rubbish and the forces at his disposal were an undisciplined rabble who would have been hard pressed to shut down a pub on saturday night.

"self-defeating" is debatable -- if your intention is to make sure that only the most extreme elements of your opposition survive, thus making your unapologetic eradication of them defensible, the strategy of strengthening hamas has been brilliant

-- Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 12:17 (1 hour ago) Link

I'm not sure I follow your argument - you think Israel/The US backed Fatah in order to strengthen Hamas?

Because I would assume it would be much better politically for Israel to have a more *moderate* regime in place that felt dependent on US/Israel backing, and not having the internal political pressure of Israeli civilians feeling their government can't protect them from rocket attacks.

I don't think Israel's goal is the "eradication" of the Palestinians (if that's what you meant). I think Israel wants to keep the Palestinians relatively powerless and maintain its ability to unilaterally dictate the terms of any agreement or lack thereof.

a Fateh commander is quoted in the linked vanity fair article saying, "Since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise."

this grants a certain cunning to bush and condi that they may not deserve, but as i mentioned above, it fits with past u.s. tactics in places like nicaragua and vietnam. the goal in those places was NOT to preserve "moderate" or reasonable political structures and movements, but to sabotage them, leaving only extremists, who could then be bribed or eliminated with a minimum of outcry.

i don't know what israel's actual goals re: palestine are, but the facts on the ground are that palestine is being slowly ground into dust by the israeli military with every passing day. there are few viable civic organizations left in palestine and it the very idea of "palestine" itself is losing its coherence.

The Fatah guy quoted sounds a bit like he is falling into the usual kind of conspiracy theory thinking that people in the Middle East are apaprently mad for. He is also doing that thing of assuming that everything happens because the USA wants it to happen.

I reckon that the USA-Israel alliance in fact hoped that Fatah would crush the Hamas government militarily and then happily sign a spectacularly one-sided treaty with Israel. That this has proved an unrealistic goal should not be a surprise, given the surrealism of so much US policy in the Middle East.

but as i mentioned above, it fits with past u.s. tactics in places like nicaragua and vietnam

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what particular U.S. tactics in Nicaragua and Vietnam are analogous to supporting the faction you actually want to lose?

Unlikeliest headline ever:

Cheney hears Palestinian complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney

fuk:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon

Pretty crazy. One thing I have heard is that Hezbollah are deliberately only fighting the Sunni militias, as the Druze are too hard core and they want to leave the Christians alone.

Way to help the peace process, retard monkey boy.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010958242

I hope one day to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the forces of Evil.

So this is why Bush is saying all the wrong things: please attack us again, terrorists, so we can keep the white house & attack Iran!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/051608_rumsfeld_tape.htm

Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo-Con Agenda

(ok, it's on prisonplanet, but I did think about the same thing when I heard there was a Bin Laden reaction to his speech - that that is exactly why the GWB speech happened)

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/fun-and-games-w.html Same thing from Wired blogs

Is there a reason this is on the Israel thread?

Who knowss. But apparently in Lebanon the Hezzers did try it on with the Druze, and the Druze did turn out to be too hardcore. Or so I read on some guy's blog.

Since when have the Druze been hardcore?

Jumblatt has been a turncoat for a while, no?

xxxpost: it's all connected & stuff, but yeah, sorry

In any case, you could read that Rumsfeld quote a few different ways. He could have meant "What we need is another attack," but he could have also meant "When the inevitable next attack comes it's going to change people's attitudes." Still makes me a bit queasy though.

oh god, i'm dreading the inevitable emails i'm gonna get from my 9/11 conspiration theory friends...

Since when have the Druze been hardcore?

you mess with them, you dead.