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

Whatever the political crisis was yesterday, Israel has clearly decided to invade southern Lebanon, at the very least. The apparent battle between those who oppose a full invasion and those who support one appears to have been settled in favor of the latter.

...

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Halutz and other senior IDF officers visited Northern Command headquarters in Safed late Aug. 11. This meeting appears to have been to approve last-minute changes to the expanded offensive, and to coordinate the initial phase of the attack.

...

Bottom line: Whatever the U.N. Security Council might have intended, the outcome in Israel was an IDF order to disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. At present, there is only air action in the Bekaa Valley.

...

The advance seen thus far is methodical and, in spite of reports, fairly conservative. The Israelis do not seem to be carrying out slashing armored attacks, but are concentrating on combined arms operations to isolate and destroy strong points. It is now clear that, unless another shift takes place among Israeli leadership, the destruction we expected in the south is taking place. This has already diminished rocket fire into Israel, but we remain doubtful that all rocket attacks can be shut down by attacking the south. Further operations remain an option, although that option is uncertain in this political environment.

The issue now is Hezbollah's response. The group clearly knows it will be defeated by IDF in the south. One of its goals is obviously to inflict maximum casualties. Another must be to impose as many delays as possible. Hezbollah has been under sustained air attack for more than a month, so the resilience of its forces is a question mark.

However, broader than this issue is the strategic response of Hezbollah. A defeat in the south would obviously hurt Hezbollah greatly. It would not, however, eliminate Hezbollah's warfighting ability, since we assume it holds reserves in the Beirut area and the Bekaa Valley. The group also claims to have longer-range rockets in its arsenal -- we assume with only conventional warheads, but we don't know that for certain. With Israel committed, two questions arise: First, how far does Israel go? And, second, what is Hezbollah's response?

Granted, the rumours of Israel's potential demise are greatly exagerrated ... but let's be realistic, we know that a majority of Israelis don't think that Israel is fighting for survival, and yet the war has a 90% approval rating. Instead, I think people are united by the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" principle, e.g. rushing to make peace after being attacked makes the country look weak, and attacking back "strengthens Hezbollah" in the eyes of many, so what can you do? France's behaviour epitomizes the problems here -- they dole out condemnations of Israel like candy, but don't want to get involved. How does that help anybody involved? It's about time that the French CONTRIBUTE to peace by committing soldiers and resources to the region rather than sitting back and trying to appear neutral. I can't blame Israelis for being tired of that standoffish approach (while Syria and Iran, the countries responsible for funding Hezb, sink into the shadows without being called out) (in fact, France said that Iran were a stabilizing factor in the region) and thinking "to hell with it, let's take matters into our own hands."

if Hezbollah was not defeatable when Israeli forces occupied south Lebanon and had a quisling force to fight alongside them, why would it be defeatable now?

Hezb can't be engaged like you would a conventional army, they're highly decentralized and spread thin amongst dozens of civilian areas. It's like trying to root out gangs, except these gangs have rockets, machine guns, and anti-tank missiles.

If the UN peace deal comes through, I almost guarantee that we'll see Hezbollah rockets launched from Lebanon within a month or two of the international force hitting the ground (regardless of the exact time frame, this is inevitable, no?). Has anyone planned ahead to consider what the "acceptable" response should be from all parties?

General idea though seemed to be that there's a fair amount of evidence that 1) Cheney and Bush either pushed for this or enthusiastically supported it because they saw it as an important step toward invading Iran, and 2) There may have been less enthusiasm elsewhere in the administration, with Rumsfeld possibly concerned about the implications for Iraq and Rice possibly growing increasingly concerned that the costs were too great as the conflict wore on.

Also, 3) Relying so heavily on air power was a really bad idea (as if we haven't heard that enough by now), and 4) Kosovo was not really an appropriate model for Israel's actions, despite the Olmert govt's claims.

4) Kosovo was not really an appropriate model for Israel's actions, despite the Olmert govt's claims.

The Kosovo example is still instructive, as it was another war where overwhelming air power proved surprisingly ineffective.

The Hersh thing - fascinating that something can, apparently, be planned carefully in advance, and still fuck up.

If you are interested in nerdy military stuff (and who isn't?), this article is interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm . In a technological sense, the race between anti-tank weapons and armour seems to have brought us back to 1973.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky08162006.html

"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