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

JERUSALEM, Thursday, July 13 — Israel struck targets in Beirut and south Lebanon today in retaliation for a cross-border assault by the guerilla group Hezbollah, prompting President Bush to express concern that the Israeli actions might “topple’’ the Lebanese government.

Hezbollah had surprised Israel with a bold daylight assault on Wednesday, leading Israel to respond by sending armored forces into southern Lebanon for the first time in six years.

Early on Thursday morning, Israeli warplanes fired missiles at the runways at Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut, shutting the airport and potentially stranding thousands of visitors at the peak of the tourism season. The Israeli military confirmed the strike, saying that the airport was a target because Hezbollah receives weapons shipments there. Israel also announced that its navy would blockade Lebanon’s ports to cut off such shipments.

An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Daniel Taub, said in a televised interview that actions against Lebanon would continue until its government meets “its responsibility’’ by ending the attacks by Hezbollah.

Israeli warplanes also struck numerous locations in southern Lebanon, adding to the death toll. Hezbollah in return fired several Katyusha rockets into northern Israel, injuring three people.

Israel, which is already waging a military operation in the Gaza Strip to free a soldier captured by Palestinian militants, said that two of its soldiers were captured and at least eight killed in the fighting with Hezbollah.

The toll was the highest for Israeli soldiers in several years. Combined with the deaths on Wednesday of at least 22 Palestinians, including many civilians, in fighting in Gaza, it was the deadliest day in the Arab-Israeli conflict since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip last year. The violence continued into the early morning hours today, when an Israeli air strike heavily damaged the Palestinian Foreign Ministry building in Gaza.

News services reported that Israeli planes dropped leaflets today over the southern suburbs of Beiruit, where Hezbollah is strong, warning residents to evacuate the area. Hezbollah said it would retaliate for any bombing there by firing rockets at the largest city in northern Israel, Haifa.

Even though Israel has overwhelming military superiority in both southern Lebanon and Gaza, the new fighting was a sign that the conflict has blown past the limits of local confrontation and become a regional crisis.

Speaking in Germany today at a news conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Bush said that the United States was “working actively to help calm the situation.’’

Mr. Bush condemned Hezbollah and its capture of the Israeli soldiers, while calling on Israel to show restraint. He said he was worried about the effect on Lebanon’s government, which the United States has strongly supported since Syria was forced to end its occupation of the country last year.

“Our concern is that any activities by Israel to protect herself could weaken that government, could topple the government,’’ he said.

But Mr. Bush also said that “Syria needs to be held to account’’ for its support of Hezbollah and the militant wing of Hamas.

As with the Gaza conflict, Israel ruled out negotiations with the Lebanese captors of the Israeli soldiers. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he held the Lebanese government responsible for the assault by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group that participates in Lebanese politics but also continues to battle Israel.

“I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act, but an act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason,” Mr. Olmert said. “The government of Lebanon, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to shake the stability of the region.”

Israel is demanding that all three of its soldiers be returned, and that militants stop firing rockets at Israelis from Gaza in the south or Lebanon in the north. But both Hamas and Hezbollah are demanding the release of a large number of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners held by Israel in exchange.

“The prisoners will not be returned except through one way — indirect negotiations and a trade,” said the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, speaking to reporters in Beirut on Wednesday.

He suggested the possibility of an overall deal. “The capture of the two soldiers could provide a solution to the Gaza crisis,” he said. The operation had been planned for months, he said, though he added, “The timing, no doubt, provides support for our brothers in Palestine.”

Hezbollah released a statement saying that the two soldiers had been transferred to “a safe place,” but did not give any other details.

Two years ago, Hezbollah managed to push Israel to free more than 400 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in exchange for an Israeli businessman held in Lebanon and for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers killed in a Hezbollah attack in 2000. Israel is currently holding close to 9,000 Palestinian prisoners; the number of Lebanese prisoners is believed to be much smaller.

The White House released a statement condemning the Hezbollah raid, calling it an “unprovoked act of terrorism” and holding Syria and Iran responsible because of their longstanding support for the group. The United Nations representative to southern Lebanon, Gier Pedersen, also criticized the Hezbollah raid, calling it “an act of very dangerous proportions.”

The fighting on the Lebanese border erupted around 9 a.m., when Hezbollah attacked several Israeli towns with rocket fire, wounding several civilians, the Israeli military said. But that attack was a diversion for the main operation, several miles to the east, where Hezbollah militants fired antitank missiles at two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence, the military said. Of the seven soldiers in the two jeeps, three were killed, two wounded and two abducted, the military said.

Israel then responded with artillery fire, airstrikes and a naval bombardment that focused on about 40 sites in southern Lebanon. Most were believed to be Hezbollah strongholds, but roads and bridges were also hit in an attempt to keep Hezbollah from moving the captured soldiers farther north, according to the military. At least 2 Lebanese civilians were killed and more than 10 wounded in southern Lebanon, Lebanese officials said.

Israel also sent ground forces into Lebanon, and a tank hit an explosive planted in the road, killing all four soldiers inside, the Israeli military said. Another soldier was killed while trying to rescue those in the tank.

The Israeli incursion was the first such operation in southern Lebanon since Israel pulled its troops back into Israel in 2000, ending two decades of occupation.

Political and military analysts in Egypt and Israel said the recent events seemed to stem from a growing relationship between Hamas and Hezbollah. While there is no direct evidence of coordinated attacks, several analysts said they believed that the two kidnappings were part of a plan reflecting a trend that began several years ago, with Hezbollah trying to teach Hamas its methods.

“What took place from Hezbollah today, in my opinion, is tied to their relationship with Hamas,’’ said Dr. Wahid Abdel Meguid, Deputy Director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt. “Hezbollah developed a strong relationship with Hamas. The most manifest form of this relationship is Hezbollah’s role in training the Hamas cadres.”

Hezbollah and Hamas are part of a complex four-way relationship with each other and Iran and Syria. Iran helped to create, finance and train Hezbollah. Hamas’s political leader, Khaled Meshal, lives and works in Damascus. The expectation among political and foreign affairs analysts is that Hamas and Hezbollah would never have taken such provocative actions without at least the tacit approval of their sponsors in Tehran or Damascus.

Fouad Siniora, Lebanon’s prime minister, sought to distance the government from the Hezbollah raid after an emergency cabinet meeting. He noted that the Lebanese government was “not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses, what happened on the international border.”

Meanwhile, a strike by Israeli aircraft early today heavily damaged the Palestinian Foreign Ministry building in Gaza. There were reports of injuries, though it was unclear whether they included people inside the ministry, which is controlled by Hamas, or in nearby buildings.

Greg Myre reported from Jerusalem for this article, and Steven Erlanger from Gaza City. Hassan M. Fattah contributed reporting from Beirut, and Michael Slackman from Cairo.

-- 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.

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.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=1fe460c8-896b-4305-9e22-5687da508fff&k=69689

It will take several days to mount a full invasion of Lebanon. We would not expect major operations before the weekend at the earliest. If the rocket attacks are taking place, however, Israel might send several brigades to the Litani River almost immediately in order to move the rockets out of range of Haifa. Therefore, we would expect a rapid operation in the next 24-48 hours followed by a larger force later.

At this point, the only thing that can prevent this would be a major intervention by Syria with real guarantees that it would restrain Hezbollah and indications such operations are under way. Syria is the key to a peaceful resolution. Syria must calculate the relative risks, and we expect them to be unwilling to act decisively.

Therefore:

1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier; if there is one, it wants it farther north.

2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.

3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military

4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.

5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher than the cost of letting it go on.

It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon. The global response will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action against Israel. Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.

there's no justification for the rocket attacks, but again unless there's something i'm missing, why would anyone in their right mind settle in this part of israel knowing the history?

It's more that if anything it will push the Lebanese government back towards the Syrians.

xpost

or the Lebanese people back to the pro-syrian parties.

Another thought is that syria starts bussing over veterans of Iraq if it (or Assad) feels threatened). Israel should be very reticent about invading southern lebanon it's going to be a lot worse than last time. Terrorist/Geurilla tactics have been taken to another level since the IDF last marched through Lebanon.

no, it isn't.

ihttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/is-map.gif

israel is a young country, despite the thousands of years of oppression of the jewish people. i don't see it being quite comparable to the hundreds of years and years of institutional racism and slavery that conjured up the new orleans' milieu. people choose to move to israel. and yeah some people choose to move to new orleans, but a lot of the victims of katrina were people who had never been anywhere else in their lives, and had no way to escape - not to mention a government that would actually evacuate them like the israelis did with gaza.

xpost - i'm not talking about haifa, since afaik that's a new development with the hezbollah's new missle.

Hezbollah having the Katyusha rocket is not a new development at all though. Is there some other *new* missile that I missed in the reports?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_1

The fog of war begins to set in, I guess.

most of which, to be fair, did not take place in the Middle East nor was it instigated by Muslims. Prior to this whole horrible-misapplication-of-a-colonialist/zionist-fuckup Jews had it pretty good in the Middle East, at least compared to how they were treated in Europe.

Not for want of trying.

the epic of human history in one sentence!!!

Hezbollah's rocket attack on the port city of Haifa was its deepest such strike into northern Israel yet. No injuries were reported in Haifa, home to 270,000 residents and a major oil refinery 30 miles south of the border. Still, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon, called the attack "a major, major escalation."

"Those who fire into such a densely populated area will pay a heavy price," said David Baker, an official in the Israeli prime minister's office.

and how is beirut not densely populated again?!??

being Prime Minister of England vs. 6 million dead

What's the endgame for the Israeli government? Because it sure look like they want to create the next generation of suicide bombers, hezbollah recruits and generally a whole lot of people who think they're cunts. Cos they're acting like them.

Hurting - is there anything where you might conceivably concede that the Israeli government have acted in a slightly regrettable way?

x- post - Letting in party with armed wing vs having entire government as political wing of army in a militarised state C/D?

Uh, try reading like half my fucking posts on this thread.

Do you mean to suggest that that's how Israel's government operates? I suggest some basic reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Government

By Lin Noueihed1 hour, 56 minutes ago

Israeli jets struck Hizbollah's southern Beirut stronghold on Friday hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered a more intense retaliation against the Lebanese guerrilla group's capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Israel bombed bridges and roads in the Shi'ite Muslim suburb and a fuel storage facility at the Jiyyeh power plant outside the city, shortly after a series of Israeli raids forced the closure of a highway linking Beirut to Damascus.

Israel's decision to ramp up the attacks came at a meeting of security chiefs after a day in which Israel blockaded Lebanese ports, struck Beirut airport and two military airbases, and attacked bridges and houses in the south as well as a bridge leading to the country's only international airport.

The attacks virtually isolated Lebanon by air, sea and land.

"The decision was made to intensify Israel's operations in Lebanon," Army Radio quoted political sources as saying.

Israeli air strikes and shelling have already killed at least 55 Lebanese civilians since the two soldiers were captured in a cross-border raid on Wednesday. It was not immediately clear if anyone was killed in the latest strikes, which shook Beirut residents from their beds, but television footage showed residents helping others wounded by debris. Fire fighters fought in vain to get a raging blaze at the Jiyyeh plant under control.

Barrages of Hizbollah rocket fire into northern Israel have killed two Israeli civilians and wounded 95.

Two of the missiles hit the port of Haifa on Thursday in an attack Israel blamed on Hizbollah and described as a "major escalation," since Haifa lies over 30 km (18 miles) from the Lebanese border. Hizbollah denied it fired on Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, and no one was injured in the attack.

In total, Israel said Hizbollah fired more than 120 rockets at towns and villages in the north on Thursday, causing panic.

HOARDED SUPPLIES

Food and drink flew off shop shelves in Lebanon as families fearing tougher days ahead hoarded supplies. Beirut restaurants and shops remained mainly closed and tourists fled, while fears of an escalation shook Lebanese and Israeli financial markets.

Planes had dropped leaflets in Beirut suburbs and some southern cities urging residents to stay away from Hizbollah offices, witnesses said, a move that raised the possibility that Hizbollah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, could be targeted.

Flames and smoke could be seen rising from the southern suburb of Beirut, where Hizbollah is headquartered, but it did not appear that the group's major facilities were hit.

The military offensive coincided with a major Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip to retrieve another captured soldier and halt Palestinian rocket fire.

Israeli troops fired a tank shell at a vehicle in Gaza on Friday, killing a Palestinian, Palestinian medics said.

The threat of a similar Israeli ground offensive into Lebanon to prevent the rocket fire gained currency after the Haifa strikes, although the military remained tight-lipped.

The violence is the fiercest since 1996, when Israeli troops still occupied southern Lebanon, and fears are rising it could spread to Syria, which backs Hizbollah along with its ally Iran.

In Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Israel not to attack Syria, saying such action would be considered an assault on the whole Islamic world that would bring a "fierce response," state television reported.

BUSH VOICES CONCERN

President Bush, on a visit to Germany, voiced concern about the fate of Lebanon's anti-Syrian government, but offered no direct criticism of the punishment Israel meted out.

"Israel has the right to defend herself," he said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also speaking in Germany, urged Israel to exercise restraint but demanded that Syria put pressure on Hizbollah to stop the attacks on Israel.

Syria's ambassador to the United States urged Washington to restrain its ally Israel and push for the resumption of peace talks amid escalating Middle East violence.

The European Union and Russia criticized Israel's strikes in Lebanon as a dangerous escalation of the Middle East conflict.

Lebanon urged the U.N. Security Council on Thursday to adopt a resolution demanding a ceasefire and end to Israeli attacks, rejecting Israel's insistence it was acting in self defense.

The Security Council was to meet later on Friday but the United States has already vetoed a council resolution put forward by Qatar on behalf of Arab states that called on Israel to immediately end its military incursion in Gaza.

With stocks down, currency pressure up and trade and tourism virtually still, ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned that it might downgrade Lebanon's debt ratings amid escalating violence.

Israel has rejected Hizbollah demands that it release Arab prisoners in exchange for the captive soldiers but says it fears they could be spirited to Iran. Iran dismissed such fears.

(Additional reporting by Nadim Ladki, Alaa Shahine and Laila Bassam, and Jerusalem bureau)

If we're talking 1000 years ago then Jews in Muslim countries (incl. Moorish Spain) did very well for themselves, reaching the highest levels of civil government. And yes, in Europe things were much, much worse for the Jews at that time, and for centuries afterward.

This has nothing to do with anything happening today. Some Muslim countries still treat their minority cultures according to 14th century standards, whereas Europe has ... well, let's say they've progressed a bit in this regard. The fact that 1000 years ago, the Jews were better off in the Middle East than in Europe isn't a mitigating factor in the least. I have no idea why some people like to bring it up as a point of comparison when discussing contemporary politics.

And it bears mentioning that there were plenty of pogroms in the Middle East as well as in Europe during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

Syria's ambassador to the United States urged Washington to restrain its ally Israel and push for the resumption of peace talks amid escalating Middle East violence.

Typical bullshit ... Syria thinks that everyone in the world is stupid. Everybody knows that they're partly responsible for all this, but instead they shrug their shoulders, blame Israel, and claim to be concerned bystanders who want peace in the region. Seriously, fuck Syria.

(He's a bit fuzzy on who exactly the anti-Christ is, and exactly when jesus appears to save the day, but...)

probably best to hedge his bets at this point

Believe it or not, I actually believe that Bush is slightly concerned -- Haaretz kept running a Reuters headline that said that The US said it was told Israel would only be hitting Hezbollah targets and not any other Lebanese targets.

My dad thinks the reason they hit the airport runways and the highway was to prevent the hostages from getting taken out of the country. I dunno if that'd really explain why they hit a Lebanese airbase though, unless they think the Lebanese military would help Hezbollah (?)

I dunno what kind of "economic competition" Lebanon would provide anyway, since its main industry is tourism, and the tourists visiting Lebanon are probably not the ones who would visit Israel and vice versa.

Sometimes I'm not even sure if Israel is adequately considering the long-term consequences. The country and much of its population are so security-obsessed that I think they're a little blindered sometimes.

Question: if the location of Hezbollah's facilities in southern Beirut is well known (which was implied by the article above), how the hell did the Israelis manage to completely miss them? I don't get Israel's selection of targets at all. Are they really convinced the (anti-Syrian) Lebanese government is helping Hezbollah? Why pick a fight with the Lebanese (because, I'm sorry, at this point it looks like picking a fight) instead of offering to help them shut down at least the militant arm of Hezbollah, since guerrilla armies tend to undermine any government?

It kind of upsets me that Bush is completely defending Israel's actions, not only because it reinforces the belief that the US is totally pro-Israel that helped deteriorate talks in the first place.

Has Egypt said anything about any of this?

http://www.andnetwork.com/index?service=direct/0/Home/recent.fullStory&sp=l44387

Claims that Egypt had a behind-the-scenes negotiated settlement in place between Israel and Hamas for the release of the soldier, but that an "unnamed party" sabotaged it (it's implied in the article that this is someone connected with an Islamic militant group).

Mainly to prevent the influx of weapons and supplies for Hezbollah, most or all of which were received either at the airport or via the main highway to Damascus. Pretty basic military strategy, it seems.

Why pick a fight with the Lebanese (because, I'm sorry, at this point it looks like picking a fight) instead of offering to help them shut down at least the militant arm of Hezbollah, since guerrilla armies tend to undermine any government?

Nice dream. Lebanon is still under Syria's thumb, Syria funds Hezbollah, Hezbollah operates a state within a state in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is there because Syria wants them there, and unfortunately there's very little the Lebanese govt can do about that. This is Syria's mess to clean up. And Israeli-Arab cooperation in shutting down terror groups has worked so well in the Palestinian territories.

-- NoTimeBeforeTime (mbvarkestra197...), July 14th, 2006 10:03 AM. (Barry Bruner) (later) (link)

Yeah I understand the Hezbollah-Syria connection. It still doesn't explain why Israel is bombing LEBANESE military installations, especially if, as you say, the Lebanese can't do anything about Hezbollah. I was assuming that Israel was trying to force Lebanon to take action against Hezbollah, but if what you say is true, obviously that won't work.

-- pleased to mitya (mitya_il...), July 14th, 2006 1:23 AM. (mitya) (later) (link)

Man, I hope this isn't the prevalent theory in the fundamentalist South, otherwise my weekend's going to be a total downer. :p

Just out of curiosity, is your brother one of the "the jews are the problem" Born Agains or is he of the "the jews are God's Chosen People" variety?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738530.html

I was there, at the cabinet table, at the security cabinet table, in "the kitchen," when we were bombed by the bad news: One terrible report followed another horrific report that came after an intolerable report. There was a feeling of suffocation. Even before we met, we had heard the usual declamations, which unfortunately are generally empty phrases. The artillery salvo - of threats and ultimatums - does not really change the situation, and sometimes only aggravates it. The first minutes are the most difficult: The decision-makers, too, have no clear idea of what is going on, who was hit and who was kidnapped and what is happening on the ground. Rumors of all kinds penetrate even their closed and guarded quarters.

The cabinet ministers arrive urgently and they are all worked up - we can no longer accept, there is a limit to everything, this time we will teach the bastards a lesson they will never forget. The senior officers, faces grim, huddle among themselves, spread out maps and bend over them, running a finger across the Green Line, the Purple Line and all the lines in the world, which must now unavoidably be crossed and hit.

I don't remember any introspection, because at these moments the blood boils and goes to the head and blinds the eyes. On several occasions I suggested that consultations not be held and decisions not be made on the day of the disaster itself, because the day of the disaster is always prone to a further disaster of hotheaded and wrongheaded judgment.

I was no different. My blood boiled, too. How much can we take? Wild thoughts rushed through my mind, but at least I knew that I had to be cautious with respect to myself and my thoughts. Most of the people there were experts on force; I was an expert on its limits. It is so easy, in meetings like these, to be tempted into undertaking such promising operations, which will prove counterproductive. Nearly every operation looks promising on the map.

The meeting begins and the army reports and the army proposes. Sometimes someone, a minister or an officer, tries to moderate things here and there, but moderation no longer has a chance between the chastisers with whips and the chastisers with scorpions.

Thus it happens that we invade Gaza again - not really reoccupying, just "raiding," as though there is a difference. And once again we invade Lebanon, not to stay, only to demonstrate a presence, and the paper of the "decision-makers" does not blush. And thus we immediately blast power stations as an initial target, and immediately afterward it is not clear who darkened whose world. And that's the way we expelled 400 Hamas members to Lebanon, so they could be prepared in advance of their return, better trained and more determined.

The cabinet also decided that "there is and will be no negotiating on the release of Palestinian prisoners." If Israel holds direct or indirect contacts in the wake of the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit, and ransoms him in return for the other side's prisoners, our enemies' appetite will grow and the kidnappings will only increase. And yet we did not conduct a dialogue and we did not release anyone, and the kidnappings increased anyway, and this time there were two, not one, such incidents.

The abduction in the north took place just two days after the publication of Giora Eiland's report on the abduction in the south. The report uncovered many flaws and did not uncover others. Another orphaned failure in our orphanage. It was precisely this form of orphanhood I meant when I referred to the "introspection" that I found lacking. If with all the red lights flickering and all the warning bells going off two more soldiers were kidnapped, then something has rotted and decayed here, and that something is irresponsibility as a method. So, before we pummel our enemies, or maybe while doing that, we have to heal ourselves, and such healing is totally self-directed and self-contained, and does not depend in the least on Hezbollah or Hamas.

Once I read a seminal book in criminology, "Crimes Without Victims," about suicides and drugs and prostitution. Now the time has come for a book to be written about blun ders without anyone being responsible and with a great many victims.

One rainy day Yitzhak Rabin explained to me, as a prime minister and as a friend, why he had to look for every possible crack that would allow a settlement with Israel's neighbors. "It is impossible to stretch the muscles and the nerves of a nation for so many years. Sooner or later they become lax," he said, and added: "The Israel Defense Forces is a good army, all in all, but even the best army's strength is limited and its staying power is liable to decline, and it must not be subjected to too many tests, certainly not unnecessary ones."

One can always make excuses and say that it is our enemies who are testing us, but experience shows that we have sacrificed our sons on too many occasions.

The situation has not become better since Rabin spoke and I listened to those words - it has become worse. And not only in our region, but throughout the world. If ever there was "deterrent capability," and especially the power of the lone superpower to exert deterrence, it has lost it completely. Instead of dealing properly with Iran, which is pulling the strings of international aggression, and also the strings of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, George Bush slammed Iraq, of all countries, and now all the villains have learned that the Americans are not all- powerful and that they can gradually be worn down and routed. And instead of dealing with North Korea and its proven missiles and nuclear weapons, America mired itself in Afghanistan, which is in the process of being retaken by the Taliban. And now Somalia, in the Horn of Africa, has also fallen prey to murderous fundamentalism following failed American intervention and taking the wrong side, as Bush and Dick Cheney are wont to do.

Until American enlightenment brings the world its redemption, it is destroying it and "innocent people" continue to be blown up in Mumbai, in London, in Madrid and everywhere else. Never was there a World Cup of blood such as the one that began with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, where 50 people are murdered each day in the capital alone.

From overuse, Israel, too, lost its regional deterrent capability. A pistol that is aimed and in a safe mode is in most cases more threatening and deterring than a pistol that fires all the time and only rarely hits the target. For example, people continue to suggest that we deliver a crushing blow to Beirut. But we were in Beirut not so long ago and conquered it lock, stock and barrel, and very quickly it sent us packing. What will the aerial bombardments do now that the ground occupation did not do before? The noise of the tanks, preparing for a renewed incursion, sends shivers up my spine and makes me break out in a cold sweat.

Deterrent capability consists not only of military might, but also of moral might. After all, Bush himself, and not the defeatist bleeding hearts, often talks in the name of the Moral Majority and world morality and cites it as the culmination of his vision. The trouble is that you cannot set rules of behavior and serve as an example to others when your own soldiers are daily attacking people who have done no wrong, torturing prisoners, sending suspects to "black holes" that are as far as East from West, and holding detainees indefinitely without judicial review. The president himself is violating human and civil rights by ordering mass wiretapping, by the wholesale penetration of private bank accounts and by unrestrained assaults on journalists who are faithfully doing their job. Most of these phenomena are of course not foreign to Israel, which encountered difficulties when, in the biblical metaphor, it did the deed of Zimri and demanded the reward of Pinhas. This is not deterrence; this is joining the evildoers and strengthening them and their arguments.

I am not ideologically opposed to the use of force when needed, and woe to us if our force fails us. I do not represent pacifists, not even individuals who refuse to do army service, and I have never represented them. I am still trying to represent acquired skepticism and to speak in favor of perplexity and in condemnation of whitewash. We have too many whitewashers in the government and in the General Staff.

Amid all the militant machismo, the voice of moderation must also be raised and heard, and it says now that force alone will simply not cut it. It is better for the ministers and officers to remember what Gaza did to us in the past 40 years and what Beirut did to us, and what Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia did and are doing to powerful America - and to calm down. It is best to arrive at the crucial meetings calm and sober-eyed.

Only once in history did America manage not only to win, but also to rehabilitate. The outcome of World War II was dictated not only by Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, but also by Harry Truman and George Marshall. Since then America has only been winning, continually winning and losing. And so it is with us, too - winning and winning, yet we have had no quiet for 40 years or even 40 days.

Iraq is destroyed, Afghanistan is destroyed, the Gaza Strip is destroyed and soon Beirut will be destroyed for the umpteenth time, and hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested solely in the vain war against the side that always loses and therefore has nothing more to lose. And hundreds of billions more go down the tubes of corruption.

Maybe the time has come to put the pistol into safety mode for a moment, back into the holster, and at high noon declare a worldwide Marshall Plan, so that the eternal losers will finally have something to lose. Only then will it be possible to isolate the viruses of violence and terrorism, for which quiet is quagmire and which in our eyes are themselves quagmire. And once isolated, it will be possible to eradicate them one day.

Shalit

What is the intention of the VIPs, in uniform and without, in visiting the Shalit family at its home in Mitzpeh Hila? What do they mean when they say, "the magnificent family which is behaving with unparalleled nobility," or "we came to strengthen and came out strengthened" - and all the other self-righteous and expatiating cliches? What they intend, these important people, is to swaddle Gilad's mother and father in adulation, and to seal them and their voice behind a greasy layer of insulation, lest their outcry escape and fill the land.

And now they will visit another family and another family and will come out strengthened. And then, strengthened, they will pay one-time condolence visits to the families of the soldiers who were killed.

This phrase strikes me the most.

This is looking less like a "send a message" campaign and more like Israel is planning to drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon by force. They've effectively cut the country off from the outside world, so they're free to bomb away at leisure. You can't blame them for reacting to a buildup of antagonistic armed forces along their border, but the response does seem hair-trigger and designed to punish the Lebanese government as much as Hezbollah (or perhaps the military goal is being pursued so zealously that there's little thought or care as to who gets caught in the crossfire).

Keep in mind it's only been a couple months since that the US resumed normalized relations with Lebanon, after Gaddafi's apparent willingness to reform. Is the message now that you can normalize relations with the US all you want, but that still won't protect you from Israel? What is the incentive for an Arab nation to pursue normal relations with the west when your current models are Iraq and Lebanon? The leaders of Egypt and Jordan are certainly soiling their pants, since the general populance is going to decry Israel's (over) reaction and move further towards the extreme.

Thousands of Americans are stranded in Lebanon while Hezbollah and Israel duke it out - there was talk last night of Marines having to airlift them out if fighting continues to escalate. Meanwhile the lame duck US president can only wag his finger from afar while the chickens come home to roost. After the unilateral aggression against Iraq, he can't really condemn any country's overzealous use of force.

I have to say Iran is playing this thing perfectly. And now they can point to Lebanon and say, "Look, we need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from Israel!" Sure, Iran fomented the conflict in the first place, but Israel aren't doing themselves any political favors by effectively declaring war on Lebanon. All tactics, no strategy.

Please ignore my misguided point about Gaddafi & Libya (aka Lebanon).

http://redstateson.blogspot.com

"War is what Israel does best, and we're about to get a full bloody plate of it....

SUPPORT: The brave activists of Gush Shalom, who protested in front of Israel's Ministry of Defense, only hours after the bombing of Lebanon began. Let's hope their numbers grow."

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en

Before Friday's bombing of Beirut airport, the United States helped broker an unusual deal that allowed a runway at the Beirut airport to be repaired long enough to allow a private aircraft carrying former Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Nakati and five planes from Middle East Airlines to take off.

If we know how to do something, it's how to get the rich people out of the country! (sorry, total conjecture on my part, anybody know more about this?)

Americans in Lebanon were urged to consider leaving the country, and U.S. citizens were advised to defer travel to the region.

Leave the country, just don't use the airport, highways, or ports!

anyway, back to the current bloodshed (which I'm sure will be as instructive and productive as ever *sigh*)

Nothing good will come of this.

Just a few things that spring immediately to mind.

Holiday in Hell, indeed:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/holiday-in-hell-australians-stranded-in-lebanon/2006/07/14/1152637871546.html

Here's a question; if Israel presses too hard militarily, what's going to stop Lebanese militants from driving around and gathering up Western hostages as bargaining chips?

A comment from the inside:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/charles_chuman/2006/07/beirut_blues.html

...and this is not what they might want?

I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1213591,00.html

Just out of curiosity, is your brother one of the "the jews are the problem" Born Agains or is he of the "the jews are God's Chosen People" variety?

I have such a visceral reaction in these discusssions, that I don't honestly know. I would assuming not of the "jews are the problem" variety, which would shift him from my "crazy brother-in-law" to "my deeply objectionable brother-in-law with whom i would prefer not to have any contact."

-- San Diva Gyna (and a Masala DOsaNUT on the side) (dot@dot.dot), July 14th, 2006.

Sorry, should've been an x-post - I wasn't responding to you, and I think we're agreeing, that is what they want...(except what took me a paragraph to say you had in one sentence!)

agreed.

Apologies if this was discussed above, but given that Israel was prepared to go this far, why did they actually stop at Lebanon? Wouldn't the best way to stop Hizbollah to jump to the source and strike at Syria (or even Iran, although that seems a step too far). At least there were some moderate/democratic elements in that country, who are now probably totally anti-Israel.

This was the first thing that came to mind when NoTimeBeforeTime said I wasn't being grounded in reality when I brought up WWIII.

(hi ned)

The whole WWI parallel doesn't fly with me, frankly. This is a newer form of idiocy all its own.

Now, if, say, Israel attacked Lebanon and Iran/Syria IMMEDIATELY came to their aid, dragging in the US and Russia and then... that would be a lot closer to WWI.

I would actually just like to see them have a conversation. Putin seems so much more knowledgable on foreign policy lingo, etc. Also I bet Bush would slip up and call him "comrade".

In the 1980s, what Hezbollah did was take Western hostages. The United States is enormously sensitive to hostage situations. It led Ronald Reagan to Iran-Contra. Politically, the United States has trouble handling hostages. This is the one thing Hezbollah learned in the 1980s that the leaders remember. A portfolio of hostages is life insurance. Hezbollah could go back to its old habits. It makes sense to do so.

It will not do this while there is a chance of averting an invasion. But once it is crystal clear it is coming, grabbing hostages makes sense. Assuming the invasion is going to occur early next week -- or a political settlement is going to take place -- Western powers now have no more than 72 hours to get their nationals out of Beirut or into places of safety. That probably cannot be done. There are thousands of Westerners in Beirut. But the next few days will focus on ascertaining Israeli intensions and timelines, and executing plans to withdraw citizens. The Israelis might well shift their timeline to facilitate this. But all things considered, if Hezbollah returns to its roots, it should return to its first operational model: hostages.

Syria has no roof. It's air force would be gone in a day, or a night, if it chose to engage. So Syria is in a poor position if things escalate conventionally. It could stand to be greatly embarrassed if Israel chose to launch a variety of demonstration strikes.

As for attacking Iran, it would be easier for the US to apply a beatdown. Iran has a lot to lose in a conventional military engagement. Like it's entire air force, it's navy, all of it's air defense network, and whatever is above ground worth hitting. Behind the scenes, no one has any idea what is being said to Iranian leaders by diplomats. But in the past, it has been said, that walking diplomats up to the brink and telling them what will occur has been effective, maybe once.

So hostages -- that's an alternative. But it only works if the opposition hasn't passed a certain point of resolve and is determined to have its way with you. And since the crisis is already past the point of proportionate response and escalation, it might be argued logically that hostages -- since hostage-taking started this -- well, taking more of them isn't going to slow it down or give an advantage to the militarily weaker side.

Sure, but what is going to help Hezbollah? How did any of this help Hezbollah in the first place? Doesn't mean they won't get desperate.

And so it was and is logical to compare forces.

And in this case, if there is an engagement, Syria will come out a loser militarily in any force-on-force action with the IDF.

Iranian threats of force, on the other hand, aren't immediately relevant to IDF action in Lebanon. Iran has no way to project power other than through arms shipments and irregulars, the interdiction of which is one of the current action's goals. So while one can take whatever the crazy Iranian leader says seriously about "crushing" Israel, the IDF doesn't have to launch any immediate sally at Iran.

What I did reference above was the outcome of a potential Iranian beatdown administered by US forces, for any number of reasons.

Now their are plenty of people in leadership within the US, probably in government and the military, who think Iran has a beatdown coming. And they have thorough plans ready to go relatively quickly to apply it. But it's across the theatre, in a manner of speaking.

Whether or not this would happen and when, and under what conditions, is still wide open.

Coincidentally, and I really didn't know, like you, that it would escalate so quickly -- from my blog entry re Ultimatum, the game, yesterday, this excerpt:
====
Under "Uncontrollable Crisis Area Events," Ultimatum provides a deck of shuffle cards with various unpleasant and strongly negative outcomes. "At the beginning of each game turn, the American player should role the die. If a six results, the top card on the deck should be turned over and its instructions [applied]." Example: Israel invades Lebanon, bombs Beirut and . . . "
=====

Gallow's humor.

Fact: Iran funds and arms Hezbollah. It doesn't get more direct than that.

I'll go out on a limb and say that we've already seen the worst ... it looks like Hezbollah can't re-arm any time soon, so if they're dumb enough to keep launching 100's of rockets/day then they'll run out of firepower in a couple of weeks. Their Beirut headquarters have been destroyed, so hopefully Israel has no more plans to attack there. I think these "open war" declarations by Hezbollah are a sign of desperation -- they're in no way prepared (or were expecting) an extended conflict and are resorting to scare tactics to mask the fact that they can't keep up the intensity of their attacks for much longer. At that point, cooler heads will prevail, although I can't see Israel leaving south Lebanon any time soon -- as in, not any time in the next year or two.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship_8;_ylt=AnRcUif6o_bCiI3jncsFVcoUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Another explicit Iran link (if proven true...)

Ok, so that implicates the U.S. directly in about half the wars of the last few decades.

Stratfor is in overdrive. Excerpted from their latest:

The Israeli strategy appears to be designed to do two things. First, the Israelis are trying to prevent any supplies from entering Lebanon, including reinforcements. That is why they are attacking all coastal maritime facilities. Second, they are degrading the roads in Lebanon. That will keep reinforcements from reaching Hezbollah fighters engaged in the south. As important, it will prevent the withdrawal and redeployment of heavy equipment deployed by Hezbollah in the south, particularly their rockets, missiles and launchers. The Israelis are preparing the battlefield to prevent a Hezbollah retreat or maneuver.

Hezbollah's strategy has been imposed on it. It seems committed to standing and fighting. The rate of fire they are maintaining into Israel is clearly based on an expectation that Israel will be attacking. The rocketry guarantees the Israelis will attack. Hezbollah has been reported to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons. The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet been seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly. Whatever the truth of this, Hezbollah does not seem to think its situation is hopeless.

The uncertain question is Syria. No matter how effectively Israel seals the Lebanese coast, so long as the Syrian frontier is open, Hezbollah might get supplies from there, and might be able to retreat there.

---

We are in a relatively quiet spell (emphasis on quiet). Both sides have made their strategic decisions. Both know how the war will be fought. Hezbollah thinks it can give as good as it will get for a while, and will ultimately be able to regroup for a guerrilla war against the Israelis. Israel thinks it can immobilize and crush Hezbollah quickly and decisively and will be able to withdraw. Both sides know Syria is the wild card, and neither is quite sure how it will play its hand. One side is wrong in its expectations about the outcome. That's the nature of war.

I don't see how it can result in a WWIII 10-countries vs. 10-other countries kinda thing

That's a pretty specific definition of World War III. I think many of us use that phrase to mean simply a non-localized war, or one with a different level of destructiveness. If Israel strikes Syria, or Iran, both of which seem reasonable possibilities, does the rest of the world stay on the sidelines? Do we see stepped-up attacks on US targets? If so, do we see a "moderate" US reaction? As has been noted above, I think most of us believe that the US has already decided it wants to strike against Iran, the question is just when. "Now" is both the best and the worst time. And what happens then?

https://www.stratfor.com/reports/podcasts.php?

Dude, Iran is fucked. I don't know if they started it, I certainly believe they're up to doing so. However I think you've got Israel's objectives dead wrong.

I normally don't consider myself a leading conspiracy nut, so, I can't be the only one thinking this way. The only way these events make sense, in terms of the expenditure of arms and lives, and the increase of risk, is that someone needs a justification to end Iran's nuclear development programs. Someone. Some mystery party. Who could it be? (NB I'm NOT saying knocking out Iran's nuclear development isn't a worthwhile goal).

But then, I always thought Iraq was primarily about securing energy resources. Boy, was I glad to be proved wrong.

Somewhere, Dick Cheney is trying to link Hezbollah to N. Korea.

Neither the US nor Israel have the resources to invade Iran. It's gotta be airstrikes or back to the bargaining table.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), July 14th, 2006.

Well, their meeting has provided one of the stupidest quips Bush has ever uttered. Another one for the record books:

"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.

Putin's droll response: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."

Mitya OTM re: WWIII similarity is meant broadly as a larger conflict escalatingly out of a (seemingly) localized incident.

anyone who directly instigates a conflict involving both the US and the Israeli military is gonna get there asses handed to them on a silver (probably highly irradiated) platter...

Like Saddam got his ass handed to him? There's a lot of comparison between Israeli/US vs. Iranian/Syrian military power in this thread, and, sure, we can handily crush nearly any country we like in the region, but can we manage the fallout? I don't feel comforted anymore by the "If all else fails we can bomb/invade them" shibboleth. And do we really want to drop a fucking atom bomb on Iran? That will really dissuade N Korea from pursuing nuclear arms (axis of evil, two down, one to go!).

New question: What are the chances that insurgents in Iraq are headed West to join Hezzbolah in fighting? Cause those guys get wet at night dreaming about engaging Israel in armed conflict.

Israel has issued its demands for ceasefire, but it doesn't sound like Hezzbolah's biting.

Cover story on this week's Time: The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.

We should be so lucky. We're still going to have cowboy diplomacy, except instead of John Wayne it's more like Joe Buck.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738739.html

Part of me sees this cross-border fighting continuing on for a few days. Lebanon is thrown back 30 years, Israel decides it's taught someone a lesson and stops the attacks, whatever, and we're just back in a stalemate with more bad blood on both sides. At least let someone come out of this with a different perspective.

... I agree, but this is ruling out some massive war mobilisation on the part of the US. Which I don't see happening without a direct attack on the US, but then stranger things have happened.

The militant group Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the attack on Haifa, saying it was responding to overnight Israeli airstrikes inside Lebanon.

Shortly after Haifa was hit, the head of Israel's northern command, Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, warned civilians in southern Lebanon to head north because "in two or three hours we are going to attack south Lebanon heavily."

CNN's Alessio Vinci described the scene in the southern part of Beirut as "utter destruction," with buildings collapsed and large areas devastated. (Watch devastation in southern Beirut -- 4:30)

The Israeli military said the airstrikes hit buildings where Hezbollah members lived and worked.

The Associated Press reported that the airstrikes reduced entire apartment buildings to rubble and knocked out electricity in parts of Beirut.

Earlier, journalist Anthony Mills said he heard at least six bombings near the Lebanese capital between 11 a.m. and noon (4 a.m. and 5 a.m. ET).

Lebanese officials said Sunday that 104 people have been killed and 286 wounded in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants that began Wednesday.

A total of 12 Israeli civilians and 12 Israeli military personnel have been killed since Wednesday. More than 100 others have been wounded.

The AP reported Sunday that an Israeli airstrike in the southern port city of Tyre killed nine civilians and wounded 42, according to security officials, and that five of those killed in Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon on Sunday held Canadian citizenship.

In the attack on Haifa, one of the Hezbollah rockets hit a railway depot in the city's industrial zone, killing at least eight and wounding 17 others -- six of them seriously -- Israeli medical services said. (Watch train depot shattered by rocket -- 2:29)

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Sunday that his fighters still have plenty of weapons and the will to keep fighting.

"Our fighters are ready, and they love the confrontation and have the determination to defeat," he said in a televised address in Arabic to the Lebanese people.

"And as we surprised [Israel] in the sea, and as we surprised them in Haifa, we will surprise them with what's beyond Haifa," Nasrallah said.

He accused Israel of attacking civilian targets, while insisting that Hezbollah was patient and has aimed its rocket attacks only at the Israeli military.

"The enemy does not know our capabilities," he said. "The Zionist enemy is ignorant of what we have on all levels. We are still in the beginning, and the Zionists will see."

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said the attacks on Lebanon will not end until Israel is sure "the reality will change" so there are no threats on Israel by Hezbollah.

Peretz spoke in Haifa hours after the Hezbollah rocket attack.

"Everyone who has attacked and harmed the city of Haifa and the Israeli home front will pay a very expensive and costly price for this," Peretz said.

Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said the missile contained Syrian ammunition.

"The Iranians supply Hezbollah with weapons and technology," said Mofaz, Israel's former defense minister. "Syria is taking part."

The weapon was a Katyusha rocket with a range of 35 to 40 kilometers (22-25 miles), Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman Miri Regev said.

Iran rejected a similar Israeli assertion that it supplied Hezbollah the missile that struck an Israeli warship off the coast of Lebanon on Friday, killing four Israeli sailors.

The Israeli military found the bodies of three of the sailors Sunday. The body of the fourth sailor had been found the day before.

Rockets also hit the northern towns of Akko and Nahariya on Sunday, and residents of northern Israel were told to take cover in bomb shelters. (Watch fear gripping Israeli towns -- 1:45)

Meanwhile, a U.S. military team has arrived in Beirut to assist in the evacuation of Americans trapped in Lebanon by the fighting, the U.S. Embassy confirmed. (Full story)

Israel on alert as far south as Tel Aviv
The Israeli military warned residents as far south as Tel Aviv to raise their level of awareness, as the country is on alert against conventional weapons, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israeli military said Hezbollah has fired more than 450 rockets into northern Israel since Wednesday.

Speaking before his weekly Cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the attack "will have far-reaching implications" on Israel's relationship with its "northern neighbors."

A spokesman for the Italian government said Lebanon has been given a list of Israeli conditions for a cease-fire that includes the release of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah, the withdrawal of the group from south Lebanon and an end to rocket attacks on Israel.

The conditions were relayed to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in a phone call by Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, according to Italian spokesman Silvio Sircana.

Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. The group holds 23 of the 128 seats in Lebanon's parliament. (What is Hezbollah?)

Other developments:

Israeli forces bombed the Jiyeh power plant south of the Lebanese capital early Sunday, sending plumes of smoke billowing across the sky, Lebanese army sources said. The sources said they had no report on casualties in the strike. Israel also struck northern Lebanon near its border with Syria.

Israeli forces redeployed to Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza early Sunday to halt Qassam rocket launches, the IDF said. The Israeli military moved in after launching three airstrikes overnight Saturday to quell "terror infrastructures" in northern Gaza. (Full story)

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called the Middle East peace process "dead." Speaking at a news conference after a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Egypt, he said the peace process failed "because certain powers have given Israel every capacity to do whatever it wishes."

The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel's military check points and the abduction of soldiers -- which I agree Israel must respond to -- seems to be part establishing "bona fides" by Olmert, but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.

This article speaks of the "chilling" message sent to Palestinians and Lebanese:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11741

Israelis were already sent that "chilling message" many years ago. Palestinians have long considered Israeli civilians legitimage targets and have openly expressed desires to kill as many as possible, women and children included.

This article speaks of the "chilling" message sent to Palestinians and Lebanese:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11741

Israelis were already sent that "chilling message" many years ago. Palestinian militants have long considered Israeli civilians legitimage targets and have openly expressed desires to kill as many as possible, women and children included.

What will come of this, if anything?

also, does anyone think that the captured soldiers will possibly make it out of this alive? it seems to me that the nature of the response has basically signed their death warrants (ie - why on earth would Hezbollah bother to keep them alive at this point?).

More and more, it appears that Israel has determined that its goal is to cripple Hezbollah. If that trick can be managed, it will deliver a blow not only to Hezbollah but also to Syria and Iran and the entire Militant Islamist movement.

It also would produce a huge benefit for the vast majority of Lebanese who do not want their country run by Hezbollah/Syria/Iran and who do know that the Israelis have no wish to remain.

Since disarming Hezbollah is what is called for by the “international community” in UN Security Council Resolution 1559, it is hard to see how even the French could call such an action disproportionate.”

It makes one wonder what the French would regard as a proportionate response. Forming a collaborationist government in Vichy, perhaps?

with handclaps, even!

Oh, yes, this logic has proven so true for Afghanistan and Iran!

omg the lady that's as giddy as a bride waiting for her bride!!! LIKE, ATTACHING THE VEIL AND SHIT.

I don't think anyone disagrees with Israel attacking Hezbollah. The unfavorable response is because of:

1) the destruction of Lebanon's economy (as I noted above, they were enjoying a healthy tourist industry; those days may be over)
2) the large number of civilian casualties, including a number of said tourists
3) crippling non-Hezzbolah Lebanese infrastructure such as airports, highways, ports, bridges, power stations, etc.
4) stranding tens of thousands non-Lebanese without warning in an instant warzone, which has also created the conditions for the possible seizure of Western hostages

LEBANON ?‚ HEZZBOLAH

"The 'disproportionate' response is bullshit. It means you think they should just take it. If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day, how do you think the US should respond? What if they weren't Canadian rockets, so we couldn't blame the whole country, but instead they were "Conservative Party" rockets? What if the "Conservative Party" publicly admitted they want to destroy the twin cities? What does "proportionate" mean?"

Uh, no. Why does it have to be black and white? I can support your goal without supporting the means you have choosen to obtain that goal.

If Canada shot rockets at the Twin Cities every day, how do you think the US should respond? What if they weren't Canadian rockets, so we couldn't blame the whole country, but instead they were "Conservative Party" rockets? What if the "Conservative Party" publicly admitted they want to destroy the twin cities? What does "proportionate" mean?

If the missiles were short-range and all originated from Toronto, and we decided to bomb Ottowa and Montreal, causing civilian deaths unrelated to the immediate cessation of the missiles in Toronto and endangering the lives of non-Canadians who were not given the opportunity to flee the country, then yeah, I'd say our response was disproportionate. Then we'd just be throwing our weight around.

I have some sympathy Israel's position, but I still think they're wrong. I still find it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad would actually pass a nuclear device to a terrorist knowing that he'd be the one wiped off the map afterward.

How do I sh...never mind.

xps

also, re Iran's nuclear dreaming: they'll want to stay out of this, if they ever want to get into the nuclear club. And I think they will.

Thanks for the link, lf. I think you give the Israelis too much credit if you think swaying other Arab opinion against Hezbollah and Iran was key in Israel's strategy, though. I have to think Arab governments are concerned about their anti-American populations being stirred up by the figting and are concerned about their own positions, being seen as generally too friendly with the US.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738745.html

BTW, it's important to keep in mind that the majority of Lebanon is either Christian or Sunni Muslim, and that Hezbollah is associated with the largely detested Syrian hand of influence, which is why it's not guaranteed that all of Lebanon will rally around Hezbollah, (though that sort of unity is exactly what Ahmadinejad is hoping for)

(sorry, a bit over the top)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/fear_shopping_beirut

It's amazing that Hezbollah's getting more direct criticism from Arab countries than most of the rest of the world.

Thanks for that link Hurting. Though anecdotal + random, this struck a chord with me:

The first day, everyone I talked to was furious at Hezbollah. "How can I express my anger?" wrote a Lebanese friend in a mass e-mail blazing with sarcasm. "Maybe by saying bravo to Hizbollah, thank you to Hizbollah. Thank you for ruining the entire season for the poor Lebanese who have been struggling so hard to cover the losses of last year's events... for destroying the tourism industry and infrastructure? for weakening yet again an already weak government and flushing all the hopes of millions of Lebanese down the drain? should I say more?"

But then Israel bombed the airport, and suddenly, surprisingly, I was hearing cautiously approving statements from people who'd always railed against the Shi'ite militia before. These were Christians and secular Muslims, not Hezbollah partisans, but they saved their wrath for Israel and the US. "I am angry, definitely, at the Israelis," said my friend George, who until now had always been adamant that the Party of God should give up its arms, like all the other militias that sprang up during the Lebanese civil war. "They have replied in a very aggressive manner. It shouldn't take this much to get back the two hostages. But what I'm also angry at is the US. They haven't done anything yet. They say that they are the country which helps the underprivileged countries, but they have done nothing to help us."

Israel had a potential ally in Lebanese elements who wanted Hezzbollah out of their country as well, and now they've squandered that, creating just another bunch of people with a beef against Israel. The Syrian army was forced to withdraw from Lebanaon last year after outcry against them from the Lebanese public. Here are a bunch of people doing the hard work to try to turn their country around, and the reward they get is Bush shrugging his shoulders while Israel does the shock and awe number on them.

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), a Hezzbollah withdrawal or disarmament might have been negotiated simultaneously. 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.

Kofi Anan and Tony Blair jointly recommending that an international peacekeeping force be sent to stop the hostilities. Is Blair breaking away from Bush's party line?

The way the BBC report this, it sounds like Annan and Blair are proposing to send a UN force to disarm Hezbollah. Amazingly, the Israelis are cold-shouldering this plan to turn the UN into their mercenaries, and intend to continue exercising restraint.

In Arab countries there is probably a division between the "street" and the regime view of things. I suspect that firing missiles into Israel, blowing up Israeli ships, and capturing Israeli soldiers plays well with the masses, while striking fear into the hearts of stability-loving unelected rulers.

As for Blair's peacekeeping force where are the troups going to come from. The US won't be trusted. Britain hasn't got any more troops and I don't think Russia, France or NATO are going to be that keen on pitching in.

There is massive diplomacy under way, and Israel is doing well. Not only is the United States lining up with Israel, but the sense at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, was much less hostile to Israel than normal. In addition, both the Saudis and Egyptians have made it clear that they hold Hezbollah responsible for what has happened. Given this, it is not inconceivable that some diplomatic process is actually moving forward.

The problem with that scenario is that any diplomatic settlement to the crisis not only would preserve Hezbollah in some way, but would depend on Hezbollah implementing an agreement. The Israelis see the situation that has erupted in recent days as a rare opportunity to deal with Hezbollah, and they have no trust in diplomatic arrangements or their enforcement by mediators. They do want their soldiers back, but not at the risk of leaving Hezbollah in place.

The fighting is hardly tapering off. Israel's aircraft are ranging over Lebanon, a blockade is in place, and Hezbollah is firing at northern Israel quite effectively. Israel will not willingly leave Hezbollah in place while it has such capabilities. The Israelis might leave all this to airpower, but the fact is that the Israeli army has no confidence in the air force's ability to definitively destroy Hezbollah. The view is that, in the end, they will have to go in on the ground.

It is interesting to note, however, that the United States is being surprisingly relaxed about getting American citizens out of Beirut. Obviously, it can't get everyone out, but unlike other countries, the United States has been slow to move, in spite of the obvious risk of hostage-taking. U.S. Embassy officials in Beirut seem to be acting as if they have more time -- and certainly the United States knows if and when Israel is going to invade.

Our view is this: Israel will not accept the bombardment that is under way. Any cease-fire, from the Israeli point of view, would simply be a postponement of the issue. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government does not have the political freedom for action that a cease-fire requires. There is rare consensus in Israel that Hezbollah must be attacked. If Olmert settles for a diplomatic solution, he will have serious problems in the Knesset.

Therefore, it follows that the most likely explanation for the delay in a ground assault is that the Israelis are going to take some more time in deploying their forces at the border, allow the air campaign to continue for another day or two, accept the civilian casualties from Hezbollah's rockets and strike back some time this week. But with those rockets coming in, they don't have that many days to wait. Israel's government is not fractious. There is no sense of unease about the situation. Therefore, we have to stay with the view that a broader ground attack is likely early this week.

Hezbollah has been claiming the Israeli withdrawl from Southern Lebanon in May, 2000 as a victory. Not only have they been claiming this to get respect and credibility but apprarently, they believe it which is worrisome.

If Hezbollah really is using Syrian-made versions of the Iranian Fajr-3 rocket, they're really stepping this up. Anybody who fires rockets into relatively tiny Israel and doesn't expect a 'disproportionate' response isn't recognizing the lines of traditional Israeli defense policy. The fact that a sectarian party in a semi-failed state is the only force brave or foolhardy enough to take this route is telling.

What is the Israeli end-game, however? They didn't seem to enjoy occupying southern Lebanon back in the day yet without doing so again how can they defeat or at least discredit Hezbollah?

I still find it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad would actually pass a nuclear device to a terrorist knowing that he'd be the one wiped off the map afterward.

I am by no means claiming this applies to him alone, but expecting the pure fruit of human reason from Ahmadinejad doesn't seem very rational to me. That's exactly why he scares me and exactly why I can easily imagine him backing this. The $25-50 M that Iran gives Hezbollah annually (according to globalsecurity.org) and the tight links between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and them means that Ahmadinejad could very likely influence their policy even if he doesn't necessarily set it outright.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_5180000/newsid_5187600/bb_wm_5187630.stm

Bush told Blair: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s___ and it's over."

Aside from the questionable use of the world "irony" I am stunned at the (however simplistic) accuracy of this statement.

The answer lies in delivering an unequivocal blow to Syrian ground forces deployed near the Lebanese border. By eliminating 500 Syrian tanks—tanks that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad needs to preserve his regime—Israel could signal its refusal to return to the status quo in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah carries a prohibitive price, the action would say. Of course, Syria could respond with missile attacks against Israeli cities, but given the dilapidated state of Syria's army, the chances are greater that Assad will simply internalize the message. Presented with a choice between saving Hezbollah and staying alive, Syria's dictator will probably choose the latter. And the message of Israel's determination will also be received in Tehran.

Hmmm.

Norman Podhoretz ends that 2004 essay by referring to an earlier exercise in the same genre:

“In this language [i.e. of George W. Bush’s first State of the Union address], and especially in the repeated references to history, we can hear an echo of the concluding paragraphs of George F. Kennan’s ‘X’ essay, written at the outbreak of World War III [i.e. the Cold War]: ‘The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.’

“Kennan then went on to his peroration: ‘In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will experience a certain gratitude for a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.’

“Substitute ‘Islamic terrorism’ for ‘Russian-American relations,’ and every other word of this magnificent statement applies to us as a nation today. In 1947, we accepted the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history ‘plainly intended’ us to bear, and for the next 42 years we acted on them. We may not always have acted on them wisely or well, and we often did so only after much kicking and screaming. But act on them we did. We thereby ensured our own ‘preservation as a great nation,’ while also bringing a better life to millions upon millions of people in a major region of the world.”

This, it seems to me, is overheated stuff. “To avoid destruction”? The U.S.A. is not threatened with destruction by jihadists. Our “entire security as a nation” was indeed threatened by the U.S.S.R, by their vast armies, by (later) their ICBMs, and indeed by the social and economic system they promoted which, though it seems absurd to us now, was taken to be seriously competitive with our own at the time Kennan was writing. Our security as a nation is not threatened by jihadis, unless we are such fools as to let them get hold of a nation with some modern industrial infrastructure, and embark on a program of nuclear weapons development. Even then they would threaten us only to the degree they felt inclined to an act of certain national suicide.

Our “entire security as a nation” was indeed threatened by the U.S.S.R, by their vast armies, by (later) their ICBMs, and indeed by the social and economic system they promoted which, though it seems absurd to us now, was taken to be seriously competitive with our own at the time Kennan was writing.

Kennan acknowledged that the Russian communist system was fundamentally weak and would collapse under its own strain. He talked about preventing the upheaval that could be caused by Soviet ideology, not a literal military conflict.

Political chiefs reading essays and arguments through their own lens? I refuse to believe it! (And no rush, the heat would drain me as well.)

I wonder wheter Israel has decided that the only way to finally stop Hezbollah is too punish Syria, or whether they will be content with trying to eradicate Hezbollah. It could be that the delay is somehow intended to draw Syria in, e.g., until they can be caught doing something they shouldn't within the context of this conflict.

I'm glad Poddy agrees that torture is inconsistent with preserving U.S. values.

Military events in Israel are now likely to force the cancellation of the World Pride homosexual desecration of Jerusalem next month.

Believers in Israel and all over the world have been bombarding Heaven for God to intervene. . ..But sometimes God answers in ways that nobody wants. War is never pleasant, but its security demands take precedence over something as frivolous as a gay parade.

There is increasing discussion of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. French Prime Minister Dominic de Villepin is in Beirut to discuss it. The Israelis say they are talking to the Italians about it, and even the Iranians have said that they favor a cease-fire. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said today, "A reasonable and just solution must be found to end this crisis. A cease-fire and then a swap is achievable." That is quite a distance for the Iranians to have gone.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert listed three demands for a cease-fire: first, the release of captured soldiers; second, an end to rocket attacks on Israel; and third, the deployment of Lebanese Army troops along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Other diplomats have been talking about an international force along the border.

The first two demands can easily be met. It is the third one that will be the sticking point because it goes to the heart of the issue. When Israel talks of the Lebanese Army being deployed there, it is saying two things. The first is that it doesn't trust an international force containing troops from countries like Russia and France. It does not believe they will be neutral. Second, if a Lebanese force is deployed, it must be able to impose its will on Hezbollah, through military action if possible.

The problem is that the Lebanese Army is not in a position, politically or militarily, to control Hezbollah. If it could do so, it would have. Moreover, if the army were able to impose its will, Hezbollah would cease to be an effective group. Hezbollah's power comes from its military capabilities and autonomy. Israel's demand would represent the end of Hezbollah in its current form. Israel does not trust a suspension of Hezbollah attacks; they believe the militants will strike again unless someone can guarantee otherwise. Israel's call for a Lebanese force that can impose its will on Hezbollah is a contradiction in terms. It is an offer of a cease-fire that can't be delivered.

Israel is, however, interested in continuing the diplomatic process. Its reasoning can be seen from reports Stratfor has received from sources close to Hezbollah. They have said that Hezbollah is maintaining its attacks on Israel because the militants want Israel to attack them on the ground sooner rather than later. Over time, they fear, Hezbollah's ability to resist Israeli attack will be undermined by airstrikes. The militants' command and control, communications, weapons stockpiles and morale will be undermined. On the other hand, if Israel were to attack now, Hezbollah's leadership is confident that it could impose losses on Israeli troops that would be unacceptable. That is what the militants want to achieve -- they want to engage Israel as the first Arab force that, even if it can't win in the end, can severely damage the Israel Defense Forces.

If that is actually Hezbollah's thinking -- and that would explain their behavior -- then we can also better understand Israeli thinking. If the airstrikes are hurting Hezbollah's morale and infrastructure, there is no reason to hurry in on the ground. It makes more sense to let the current situation continue even if it means further attacks on Israeli targets. In the meantime, Tel Aviv can engage in diplomatic initiatives that will reposition Israel in the international system. Rather than resisting diplomatic efforts, Israel is participating, setting demands that appear extremely reasonable while being unattainable. While that game goes on, so does the air war and the undermining of Hezbollah's core strength.

The problem is that Hezbollah can see this happening. That means it must try to increase its attacks to create a political crisis in Israel. Olmert is under a microscope. There is suspicion that he will be sucked into a diplomatic solution that will not only not deal with the Hezbollah threat, but also make it impossible to attack the militants later if they resume attacks. In this scenario, an international presence is forced on Israel, Hezbollah resumes attacks without the international force taking decisive action, and Israel is forced to either do nothing or attack through the international force.

In other words, there is a trap for Israel in all of this. If it gets too clever on the diplomatic side, it can wind up in trouble. On the other hand, a diplomatic process gives Israel time to do what Hezbollah wants least: an air war designed to impose attrition on them.

We have not expected the Israelis to accept bombardment for as long as they have. However, if Hezbollah's view is correct, it is good military strategy and the Israeli public will accept that. It may force Hezbollah to make serious concessions under pressure to preserve the cohesiveness of its force. But if the diplomatic game results in extended attacks on Israel without action, or results in a cease-fire that does not preclude a resumption of attacks, then Olmert will come under dramatic pressure and will lose his room for maneuver.

Olmert knows this, of course. He has managed the internal politics skillfully to this point. He can probably play diplomatic games for another 48 hours by implying military necessity to his Cabinet. But then it starts to become very dicey politically. And by then, Hezbollah's attacks will have become intolerable, and attacking -- whatever the condition of Hezbollah -- will become essential.

Neither an international force nor the Lebanese Army (with its current capabilities) protecting Israel from Hezbollah attacks will fly in Israel.

Yeah, it's up there.

Our security as a nation is not threatened by jihadis, unless we are such fools as to let them get hold of a nation with some modern industrial infrastructure, and embark on a program of nuclear weapons development. Even then they would threaten us only to the degree they felt inclined to an act of certain national suicide.

Generally, I agree that we are obviously not currently in an existential war (to either the great confusion, or even greater frustration, of the NRO Gang). However, it's like he's never heard of Pakistan and the fragility of the regime of General Musharaf. Or AQ Khan.

'Israel will not stop till Hezbollah is disarmed and Lebabnon is in control of it's southern border'

How this fits in with the bombing of Lebanese army positions in Tripoli, I don't know.

I gather that many people in the world believe that the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon was an attritional victory for Hizbollah.

I believe that here in the U.S, we are equally committed to
what we consider to be a holy war. We're more PR-conscious,
so we talk about fighting terror and promoting democracy.
But these are merely codewords for ancient slogans
like "defending the birth place of Christ" and "fight back
the infidels." In the future, the creation of Israel, both
Iraqi wars and our other acts of aggression may be seen as
nothing less than a new crusade.

Let's consider what might happen if things escalate. Things
could escalate a variety of ways at different times, but
here's my opinion.

Firstly, consider this statistic: 60% of all Americans
believe that the events described in the book of Revelations
will literally be fulfilled. I don't have the source with
me right now, but I can post it later if anyone insists.

Secondly:
I don't think the Arab militants realize what they're up
against here. I think they're under the illusion that if
push comes to shove, America is too soft/cautious to
intervene in Palestine, and we will never resort to
deploying our troops there. This assumption is incorrect.

Take me, for example. I rabidly abhor the current war in
Iraq and American military adventurism in general. However,
if Israel is ever in danger of being overran, I will be
first in line to fight in it's defense. The American
military will fight the entire Arab world to defend Israel,
if neccesary, with the same lack of mercy or humanity that
we showed when engaged against Japan.

Defending Israel is maybe the only cause that could bring
together the entire spectrum of the American right, as well
as those on the left (like me) who love the Jewish people.

So if you think that "this could be the start of WW3" is
is a kooky statement, rethink your position. It may not
be in the MATERIAL interest of America to defend Israel
to the death. However, it is in the EMOTIONAL interest of
this nation to do so.

Have you guys forgotten that orthodox American pastors
have been preaching for over 50 years that the creation
of Israel was a fulfillment of prophecy? A very large
percentage of Americans believes that Israel is a nation
created by God.

Remember that Austria was taking a HUGE risk when they
invaded Serbia in 1914, with very little payoff. But when
Serbian terrorists killed their archduke, it hurt their pride.
Hell hath no fury like a polity scorned.

I hope and pray the the U.S is not drawn down the slippery
slope towards the chaos and horror of a protracted war against
the Arab world.

Israel is, in many ways, a colony or client state of
America. We will defend it.

I could be wrong, I don't think your average American actually holds that much love for the Israeli people, and I'm sure there is a core on the religious right who hold no love for Jews. But 9/11 showed that Arab animus towards the US was actually flat-out hatred. The enemy of my friend is also my enemy, so to speak.

On the other hand, having the Holy Land in the hands of Muslims would probably be unacceptable, so maybe you are right.

Still, I believe that if push comes to shove, America is
committed to Israel. Why? Because of the Holocaust. The Holocaust
is inscribed into the American psyche. Your average American
may not love Israel, but he DEFINITELY hates the Holocaust
with a deep-seated
fervor that taps into all of his cultural/political/religious
biases. Remember
that _The Diary Of Anne Frank_ is very widely read here, especially
by schoolchildren.

The same audience that ate up _Schindler's List_, _Saving Private
Ryan_ and _The Passion Of The Christ_ will eat up anti-Arab,
pro-Israel rhetoric.

They can always phone Osama and ask, I suppose. He's the only one not implicated as far as I can see.

dude, the last thing the middle east needs is another posturing clown.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/07/18/001.html

they wouldn't, but neither do they need to, surely? material back-up and diplomatic cover is all israel needs from the US (a lot, to be sure).

(as a Jew and an American I would not shed a single drop of blood for the sake of Israel, which has basically turned into an intenstely militarized, racist police state whose actions cannot be ethically defended)

yeah but the sad/frustrating part is that more often than not it's the jewish community doing the conflating... but that's another thread.

XP several times over.

At the same time, most of my Jewish friends are not particularly Israel-loving.

There definitely ARE evangelical/fundie Christians who take the Biblical labeling of the Jewish people as "God's Chosen People" and Israel as "the Holy Land" VERY seriously, although I'd be rather surprised if this was the majority of Americans.

I'm almost glad to see it so at least I have something to reply with whenever someone forwards me that picture of the Palestinian kid marching with fake bombs strapped to him.

The same audience that ate up _Schindler's List_, _Saving Private
Ryan_ and _The Passion Of The Christ_ will eat up anti-Arab,
pro-Israel rhetoric.

I'm no rabid pro-Isreali zealot, but I don't think the reason that Americans have an aversion to the holocaust is out of some aesthetic love for Spielberg movies! How fucking relativistic do you have to get to claim that dismay over the murder of 6 million people (or whatEVER fucking number you want to put on it) is due to pop culture! Get your head out of Lit-Crit 101 class. Anyone who sneers at people for being horrified at the holocaust needs to take a step back.

http://beirut.usembassy.gov/lebanon/Lebanon_Situation_Update.html

This may suggest that the U.S. doesn't think the fighting will get much worse. I just hope it doesn't mean the U.S. wants to leave Hezbollah the opportunity to trigger a larger crisis.

Maybe it's a political thing - if US citizens are being evacuated from a country being blown apart by a US ally, then people might start asking questions. Obviously, they might ask even more if a US ally drops a bomb on some US citizens while they are crossing a terrorist bridge, but it's a risk worth taking.

We have been following developments in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict closely for several days. At this writing, the air-rocket war continues to rage, but the Israeli ground offensive that we would have expected by now has not yet been launched. There is some speculation that it will not be launched -- that a combination of air operations and a diplomatic process will be sufficient, from Israel's point of view, to negate the need for a ground attack.

While the various processes grind their way along, it is time to review the situation.

The first point to bear in mind is that the crisis did not truly begin with the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The kidnappings presented a serious problem for Israel, but could not, by themselves, define the geopolitical issue. That definition came when Hezbollah rockets struck Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, on July 13. There were also claims coming from Hezbollah, and confirmed by Israeli officials, that Hezbollah had missiles available that could reach Tel Aviv. Israel's population is concentrated in the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor and in the Tel Aviv-Haifa corridor. In effect, Hezbollah had attained the ability to strike at the Israeli heartland. Hezbollah has been hitting the northern part of this heartland, as well as pounding Israel's northern frontier.

The capture of two soldiers posed a symbolic challenge to Israel, but the rocket attacks posed a direct geopolitical threat. Israel had substantial room for maneuver regarding the captured troops. The threat to the heartland, however, could not be evaded. To the extent possible, Israel had to stop the missile attacks. As important, it also had to eliminate Hezbollah's ability to resume such attacks. The Israelis can tolerate these strikes for a certain period of time, so long as the outcome is a final cessation. What was not an option for Israel was to engage in temporary solutions that would allow Hezbollah to attack the heartland regularly, at its discretion. Hezbollah has posed a problem that Israel cannot choose to ignore.

Hezbollah's reasons for doing so at this time are not altogether clear. It certainly has to do with the crisis in Palestinian politics: Hezbollah wants to stake a place for itself as Palestine redefines itself. It also has to do with the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon and freedom of action for Hezbollah that previously has been denied it by the Syrians. Finally, it is clear that Iranian and Shiite politics within the wider Islamic world have made Hezbollah action at this time attractive for the group's Iranian patrons.

However complex Hezbollah's motives might be, the consequences of its actions are crystal-clear: From the Israeli perspective, it is imperative that the rocket attacks must be shut down.

Israel has three tools at its disposal.

One is diplomacy. There is a general consensus, even among many in Lebanon and Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, that Hezbollah's actions have been unreasonable and undesirable. It would not be too difficult, we would think, to create a circumstance in which the two Israeli soldiers are released, a cease-fire is declared and an international monitoring team inserted into the region. That is what the French, for example, have proposed, and what is being discussed now.

The problem with this option, from the Israeli point of view, is that it puts off a solution to the deeper problem posed by Hezbollah to a later day -- one that might not be so advantageous for Israel. Israel has a built-in distrust of international peacekeeping operations -- dating back to May 1967, when the United Nations, without consulting Israel, withdrew peacekeepers from Sinai at the behest of the Egyptians. This cultural bias against peacekeepers is reinforced by the fact that Hezbollah could rearm itself behind the peacekeeping shield. Whether the peacekeepers would conduct operations to prevent this -- in effect, carrying out counterinsurgency operations in Lebanon in support of Israel's goals -- is doubtful in the extreme. Instead, the presence of a peacekeeping force might facilitate a more substantial Hezbollah capability down the road. This is, at least, how the Israelis think of it, and their position therefore has been consistent: The outcome of this conflict must be the destruction of Hezbollah, or at least its offensive capability, for an extended period of time.

That leads to Israel's other two options, both of which would be carried out with military force.

The first step has been the Israeli air campaign. All modern military operations by advanced powers begin with air campaigns. Their purpose is to prepare the battlefield for land attack and, in some cases, to force a political settlement. In Kosovo, for example, air attacks alone were sufficient to convince the Yugoslav government to concede its control over Kosovo. In the case of Desert Storm, the air campaign came in preparation for a ground attack.

Air forces around the world like to make extravagant claims as to what air power can do; the Israeli air force is no exception. However, while an air campaign can severely hamper Hezbollah -- particularly by attacking launch sites and storage facilities, and generally making launches difficult -- the likelihood that air power can, by itself, eliminate the threat is unlikely.

To reiterate a key point, the nature of the threat is continual attacks on Israel's geopolitical heartland. Now, it is possible that Israeli air operations could force some sort of political settlement, but again, as with the diplomatic option, it is difficult to conceive of a political settlement that guarantees what Israel wants. Even a Hezbollah withdrawal from southern Lebanon, coupled with occupation of the area by the Lebanese army, does not solve the problem. This solution assumes that the Lebanese army has the will and ability to prevent Hezbollah's return. For this to work, the Lebanese army would have to agree to dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure, and Hezbollah would have to agree to let them do so -- and Israel would have to place its faith in both Hezbollah and the Lebanese army and government. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the Israelis can reach a satisfactory political settlement. The air campaign as a political tool suffers from the same defect as the diplomatic track: It is of value only if Israel is prepared to accept a solution that does not guarantee a complete end to the threat posed by Hezbollah -- and potentially might leave the Israelis in a worse position, militarily, down the road.

There is an additional political fact and problem. Obviously, any threat to a heartland generates a unique political response. In Israel, the Olmert government is heir to Ariel Sharon's quest for an imposed political settlement on the Palestinians. This is a strategy opposed from the right, by Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud, who argues that any settlement that leaves military options in the hands of the Palestinians is unsustainable. The Hezbollah issue is the Palestinian issue on steroids. If Olmert were to agree to any settlement that does not include dismantling Hezbollah's capabilities or that relies on a third party to police that dismantling, Netanyahu would attack hard -- and we suspect that enough of Olmert's coalition would defect to force a political crisis in Israel.

There has been no attack from Netanyahu, however. This can be partly explained by the Israeli tradition that politics stops when war begins. But we suspect this goes deeper than that. Olmert is keeping Netanyahu informed as to his intentions and Netanyahu is content with the course being pursued, making it clear in public that his support depends on the government faithfully pursuing that course -- meaning the destruction of Hezbollah as an organized entity. Olmert does not have much room for maneuver on this, nor is it apparent that he wants any. The goal is the destruction of Hezbollah; anything less would not work, on any level, for Israel.

From this, we must conclude that the air campaign comes in preparation for what is Israel's third option: a ground offensive. If Israel's goal is the destruction of Hezbollah's ability to strike the Israeli heartland for an extended period of time, the only way to hope to achieve this is from the ground. Those conducting air operations can see only what can be seen from the air. And even if they can hit whatever they see, eliminating the threat requires a ground presence. Therefore, we continue to believe that logic and evidence argue for an Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon -- and that any possible diplomatic or political resolution, however tempting, ultimately could not satisfy Israel's security requirements.

When we say invasion, we do not mean occupation. Israel has had its fill of counterinsurgency operations in Lebanon. This would be a raid in force. A large force would push into Lebanon, with two missions: the destruction of Hezbollah as an army and the location and destruction of all heavy weaponry. This solution would not be permanent, but it would achieve two ends. First, it would mean that for Hezbollah or a successor organization to regroup would take years. Second, it would leave no third party shielding Hezbollah while it regrouped. This strategy gives Israel what it wants now and options in the future.

Three more Israeli battalions were mobilized today. The United States, which certainly knows Israel's intentions, is now extracting U.S. citizens from Beirut. Israeli aircraft are working over Hezbollah positions in the Bekaa Valley. The United States, Israel's patron, is clearly in favor of the destruction of Hezbollah and there is no broad-based opposition to an Israeli offensive internationally. It is a window of opportunity that Israel will not pass up. The very thing that makes diplomatic solutions possible also makes invasion, for the Israelis, attractive.

Our analysis therefore runs as follows:

1. Only an invasion on the ground can provide Israel with the solution it wants to the threat Hezbollah has posed.

2. A diplomatic or political settlement not only cannot guarantee this outcome, but it would make later Israeli responses to Hezbollah even more difficult. Israel has more room for maneuver internationally now than it will have later.

3. The internal politics of Israel will make it very difficult for Olmert to come out of this with a less-than-definitive outcome.

4. Israel will seek to deal with Hezbollah without undertaking counterinsurgency operations in the long term. This means attack, sterilization of the threat, and withdrawal.

There has been much speculation about diplomatic solutions, the possibility that there will not be an invasion, and so on. But when we ignore the rhetoric and look at the chessboard, it is difficult to see how this conflict ends without some action on the ground. When we examine the behavior of the Israelis, they are taking the steps that would be needed for an invasion. Obviously we could be wrong, and clearly the invasion has not come at the earliest possible moment, as we had predicted. Nevertheless, when we step through the logic, we keep coming out with the same answer: invasion.

-- Tracey Hand (tracerhan...), July 18th, 2006.

Seriously though, that thing about the U.S. billing people for evacuation was on my mind today, and the more I thought about it, the more fucking absurd it struck me. Does any other country in the world bill its citizens for evacuation from a warzone?

"IDF engaged on 3 fronts: Gaza, Nablus, Lebanon"

(Nablus is in the West Bank, btw)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739372.html

I would love to see a timeline on this stuff again. Stratfor says that the real "event" here were the missile attacks on Haifa, not the seizing of the soldiers. So what "provoked" the Hezbollah rockets? Wasn't it Israeli attacks into Lebanon. And if so, doesn't that mean - according to Starfor's logic - that Israel itself provoked the crisis? (I'm using Stratfor's semantics - the kidnappings were a "serious problem" but not a true "crisis.") This begs the question: did Israel intend to cause a crisis, or did they overreact?

fuckin ell.

http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2006/07/how_to_demonize.html

The live broadcast is ending in a few minutes but you can stream it in a couple of hours at http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

Nothing incredibly illuminating, but interesting nonetheless.

(Nablus is in the West Bank, btw)

I think the Israeli army invades Nablus every ten minutes.

I mean the Hamas attack was obviously planned for a while (involved digging tunnels and such), and the Hezbollah attack came shortly after, but I haven't heard as much about whether the Hezbollah attack was also planned for a long time. If the two were planned for the same time, that makes it seem much more likely that someone else was giving the orders. But if the Hezbollah attack was just a thrown-together operation after the Gaza strikes, it's harder to say.

(inappropriate)

http://www.muniak.com/mazenkerbaj.html
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/mazen_kerbaj-starry_night.mp3

An Israeli could've just as easily recorded this; it just really hammers home the fact that there are human beings on the other ends of these bombs and missle strikes...

people don't declare war, these days.

he kind of implies that it is the Lebanese government which is blowing up Lebanon, in order to crush Hezbollah. Maybe he actually believes this. What a guy!

(my favorite bit is this line:)
Snow described previous diplomatic sessions with Syria as meetings where U.S. officials drank tea and sat for "five, six, 10 hours listening to polite, but long discourses on greater Syria and at the end of that having gotten nothing."

(Western power unable to grasp or exploit the subtleties of Arab methods of discourse shockah)

Well, NRO World likes swagger. Maybe that's why Newt is an "ideas man."

I have much sympathy for this, to tell you the truth

http://digitalwarfighter.com/wp-content/photos/alhaig.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggaring_the_question

Russian wire services are now reporting that Lebanese hospitals are receiving strange corpses with no signs of physical trauma other than strangely blackened (but not burned) skin. No cuts, no bruises, just dead. And doctors are speculating that some kind of chemical weapons are being used.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/korea.north.usa.reut/index.html

http://harpers.org/rapture-ready-20060718001.html

hey I need the word of the Lord too! Who do they think they are, the fuckin Pharisees?

and according to their own index, we've been in "fasten your seat belts" territory for a while.

02 Occult
The lack of activity has downgraded this category.

04 Unemployment:
The US job market shows signs of improvement.

06 Interest Rates:
Federal Reserve raises the core interest rate to 4.75%

oh noes, we're all going to die! praise the lord and pass the smug grin.

this is the best webpage ever.

32 Mark of the Beast:
The U.S. Patriot Act has failed to get enough votes for extension.
33 Beast Government:
The possibility of the EU reforming into a smaller group of
core nations has updated this category.
35 Date Settings
The occurrence of the 06/06/06 date has increased interest in
numerical date speculation.

Yes, I wonder which date will come next? And what about after that???? Who can say? Only the Lord knows for sure!

SATAN'S MINION!!

http://www.sea.fi/foto/total_recall.jpg

-- i'll mitya halfway (mitya_il...), July 20th, 2006.

I wouldn't completely rule it out, but I'll believe it when I see more evidence.

Even Israel's pretty ghastly disregard for civilian life in bombing things like apartment buildings has the rationale that "that's where the Hezbollah offices are, so we drop leaflets and tell people to leave and then bomb, etc." I think Israel is wrong, but I still think it believes its own reasoning. I mean I don't think Israel is deliberately trying to kill as many civilians as possible (if it were there'd be a lot MORE deaths) so much as just showing an abhorrent disregard for civilian life in attempting to achieve their military objectives. Which is why I find it hard to believe they'd use chemical weapons, which seem like their only purpose would be mass death. But again, I'm not ruling it out.

With Hezbollah under attack in Lebanon and Iran unable to send significant reinforcements, there is some possibility that Hezbollah might resort to staging an attack abroad as a way of countering the Israeli assault. If so, it is highly likely that operatives already are on the move; the organization has been known to use "off the shelf" operational plans in the past, and its targeting information and surveillance would need to be updated -- regardless of whether an order to strike is actually issued. It is reasonable to believe that Hezbollah would find it advantageous to coordinate with [Iranian intelligence] again, as in past operations. Whether the Iranians would see events through the same lens, however, is much less clear. Tehran might cooperate in an attack only if it is willing to seriously escalate the current conflict in the Middle East -- which, given its many interests in the region, does not appear so far to be the case.

My Israeli father actually fought in Lebanon and has been very, very hopeful that Israel avoids doing too much on the ground. From experience he said it's terrible territory to fight on and will just get way too ugly for the Israeli side. Hopefully that quoted Israeli official is telling the truth.

-- starke (starke776...), July 20th, 2006.

I think this is the key issue for the way things will play out in the conflict. As the US learned in Iraq (and you think Israel would've learned by now), bombing campaigns are great for taking out state governments but are less effective against terrorists / insurgents. From what I understand, in order for Israel to "move Hezbollah" off the border, they will need to occupy that area. Clearing out their missiles and weapons caches will require door-to-door and cave-to-cave searches, and perhaps quite a bit of dirty fighting.

If they're imagining success through surgical hit-and-runs on selected Hezbollah locations, I suspect that success will be limited. Sounds like they're prepared to fight the war in a way that's preferable rather than the one that's required. Of course, the unpleasant alternative is another "occupied zone" that opens up the Israeli military to the same old IED/suicide bomber/raid attacks. Not to mention all the Lebanese civilians who now want a crack at Israel for killing/maiming their family members.

There's also the possibility that Israel is "softening up" Hezbollah for a UN peacekeeping force that will occupy the region. Who in their right mind would send troops into that snakepit, though?

This comment probably belongs on the "USA, Israel, and national interest" thread; it was scary how quickly the US House and Senate passed support resolutions for Israel's actions in Lebanon. No wonder conspiracy theorists have a field day with Israel; Congress can't agree that the sun is shining but the House vote was a swift 410-8.

-- Tracey Hand (tracerhan...), July 21st, 2006.

I think they're kind of unusual/deserving of their own category now that they're a "sectarian militia" that effectively controls a region of the country and remains fully armed and hostile to a neighboring country but also holds seats in parliament.

So, kind of like Texas ca. 1880?

Um, that's kinda what they ARE doing with the rocket attacks.

But yeah, until they are intentionally striking civilian targets instead of military ones, they aren't technically terrorists.

Nonsense. A force could conduct a terrorist campaign against a government entity, police force, gendarmerie, or military in an effort to sap their morale, as in, say, Iraq, for instance.

That's the problem with the last 30 years of media coverage and its appropriation of state-issued jargon. Terrorists target civilians, which raises the prickly question of whether one can prosecute a group of non-uniformed murderers for war crimes.

I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but I think it's important to avoid characterizing Israel as some kind of genocidal maniac country bent on the destruction of Arabs, because I don't think it's true, and I think it's highly counterproductive in the long run.

Who is a Civilian?

By Alan Dershowitz

The news is filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts, and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and collective punishmentto civilians. But who is a civilianin the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the new realities of modern warfare. Accordingly, a new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the middle-east: the continuum of civilianality.Though verbally cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of describing those who are killed, wounded and punished by today's military and para-military actions.

There is a vast difference -- both moral and legal -- between a two-year-old baby who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilianwho has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians,but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism. Finally there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harms way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.

These differences and others are conflated within the increasingly meaningless word civilian -- a word that carried great significance in the days when uniformed armies fought other uniformed armies on battlefields far away from civilian population centers. Today this same word equates the truly innocent with guilty accessories to terrorism.

The domestic law of crime, in virtually every nation, reflects this continuum of culpability. For example, in the infamous Fall River rape case (fictionalized in the film The Accused), there were several categories of morally and legally complicit individuals: those who actually raped the woman; those who held her down; those who blocked her escape route; those who cheered and encouraged the rapists; and those who could have called the police but did not. No rational person would suggest that any of these people were entirely free of moral guilt, although reasonable people might disagree about the legal guilt of those in the last two categories. Their accountability for rape is surely a matter of degree, as is the accountability for terrorism of those who cheer the terrorists, make martyrs of them, encourage their own children to become terrorists, or expect to benefit from terrorism.

It will, of course, be difficult for international lawand for the mediato draw the lines of subtle distinction routinely drawn by domestic criminal law. This is because domestic law operates on a retail basisone person and one case at a time. Evidence is required of each defendants specific culpability. International law and media reporting about terrorism tend to operate on more of a wholesale basiswith body counts, civilian neighborhoods and claims of collective punishment. But the recognition that civilianalityis often a matter of degree, rather than a bright line, should still inform the assessment of casualty figures in wars involving terrorists, para-military groups and others who fight without uniformsor help those who fight without uniforms.

Bright lines can be useful when they reflect or even approximate reality. But artificially bright lines that distort realityas the one between civilianand combatantcurrently doesconfuse moral, legal, diplomatic and political accountability.

Turning specifically to the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas, the line between Israeli soldiers and civilians is relatively clear. Hezbollah missiles and Hamas rockets target and hit Israeli restaurants, apartment buildings and schools. They are loaded with anti-personnel ball-bearings designed specifically to maximize civilian casualties. Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those civilianswho recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can womenand childrenalways be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teen-agers to play important roles in their attacks.

The Israeli Army has given well publicized notice to innocent civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones by Hezbollah rocket and missile launchings. Those who voluntarily remain behind to serve as human shields have become complicit with the terrorists. Some -- those who cannot leave on their own -- can be counted among the innocent victims of the Hezbollah attacks and the predictable counter-attacks.

The media, human rights organizations and the international community should conduct new counts, based on this continuum of civilianality. It would be informative to learn how many of the civilian casualtiesfall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.

Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.

But they don't conduct their activities to attacking "against a government entity, police force, gendarmerie, or military in an effort to sap their morale" so it is both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing

In July 2006, right-wing Israelis including Binyamin Netanyahu attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem complained, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.".[1]

There is a vast difference -- both moral and legal -- between a two-year-old baby who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets.

clearly written to vilify lebanese and sanctify israelis. so fucking gross.

revolutionary war aside, heh.

the leaking of the internal police report on the bombing during the 1970s proved that a warning had indeed been received. However, the report claimed that the warning was only just being delivered to the officer in charge as the bomb went off.

I came across it here fwiw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare#Guerrillas_in_Israel_and_the_Palestinian_Territories

Anyway, the interesting point is the modern Israeli perception of the hotel bombing.

I also don't really think the hotel bombing ought to be cause for party time.

Some -- those who cannot leave on their own -- can be counted among the innocent victims of the Hezbollah attacks and the predictable counter-attacks.

Ham-fisted buck-passing. Israel's response was so predictable, so expected, it's as if Hez blew up those Lebanese people themselves!

see, that is the main problem: israel will never do this as it will be an admission of guilt for past crimes. there is never going to be a mandela-type moment for this to happen, or perhaps it passed with rabin's assassination (thanks right wing settlers!).

So, Hezbollah; have been called a terrorist organization, mostly in the US because of their history of kidnappings and the Marine Beirut attack - have their methods changed, and they are no longer terrorists, but just a rogue militia?

As Hurting pointed out, targeting civilians is a major factor in determining terrorism (rather than killing/injuring civilians via collateral damage). Though would demoralizing yet ineffectual strikes against a military force also be characterized as such? How about the Weathermen, who targeted government buildings but only bombed them at night to avoid civilian casualties? I guess the goal is to spread "terror," but how does that differ from a "shock and awe"-type demoralization of an enemy?

I've been reflecting on the "imagine a political party in Canda started bombing the US" used to defend Israel's actions, and I think it's problematic. How about this one: a housing project has a large number of gang members that are controlling 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 think.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia — not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

Goldberg is on vacation, apparently, so that's not totally surprising.

he's also 100% convinced that every single one of Israel's neighbors would like to see them pushed into the ocean.

this seems to conveniently miss a major theme of Sherman's speech - that the most bloodthirsty are those who never fight.