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

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.

Let's keep ourselves grounded in reality here. Also, I don't really understand your reaction, which seems to stem entirely from the Israeli response.

Last month, we had Iran + Syria sending funds and weapons to terrorist groups who rely on those countries for their continued existance and are essentially obligated to do whatever those parent nations want them to do. Most of the world ignores this situation unless those groups decide to attack Israel. All of this is business as usual, but as soon as Israel decides that they don't feel like waiting around to see if they get attacked that day, it's "WW III"?

I roundly condemn Hizbullah's criminal and stupid attack on Israel and escalation of a crisis that is already harming ordinary Palestinians on a massive scale.

Likewise, the Beirut airport is not in south Lebanon and for the Israelis to bomb it and neighborhoods in south Beirut is a disproportionate use of force. The Israelis are actually talking about causing "pain to the Lebanese." That is despicable.

I mean, attacking soldiers is different than attacking civilians.

once again, i feel a strong wave of "a pox on both your houses" regarding this whole unfolding drama. not helpful, but there you are.

Israel isn't always the victim, that's not my stance (this comment appears to be addressed to me). Saying that Israel is unfairly criticized more than any other country in the world is closer to my stance.

Israel's punishment for having a strong military is to have open season for anyone to attack them whenever they feel like it? Are you allowed to punch me in the face because I have a knife and it would therefore be unfair for me to use it against you?

Where do you think that Middle Eastern nations get their military equipment? Do you think they build everything themselves? The west (and at the time, the Soviets) have a long history of funding every military in the region, including Israel's. Even now, Egypt receives about $1.5 Billion from the US every year, most of which is spent on the military.

To me, the long-range goal of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda is to embroil western nations in a major war in the Middle East with a unified group of Arab nations. That was the point of 9/11 - to provoke a response, not just to kill a bunch of Americans, and we're getting played like a fiddle. Israel might be as well.

I'm NOT saying don't retaliate when someone attacks you, but take the time to consider that someone might be playing rope-a-dope with you, using your strength to further their aims, e.g. if your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.

I don't doubt that part of the Bush administration's long term gameplan was to have troops in Iraq so that Iran was, uh, easy to visit, just in case. But things haven't gone as well as planned in Iraq and invading Iran would be a tough sell for a president with approval ratings in the 30s. Axis of evil, here we come!

genius.

xpost

The problem is that the rope-a-dope has been going on for decades, and I'm getting the feeling from the Israeli media that people from across the political spectrum are getting tired of hearing "we're missing an oppurtunity for negotiation" every time Hamas or Hezbollah threatens to destroy the Zionist enemy.

Are you serious? How about just last week, when the UN condemned Israeli actions in Gaza and then decided to form a committee to investigate what was going on there? Um, aren't you supposed to investigate before jumping to conclusions?

I'm not defending innappropriate military actions against the civilians in Beirut or anywhere else, but believe me, Juan Cole will blather on and on about collective punishment on the part of the IDF but won't use the term to describe anything Hamas or Hezbollah does.

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.