[luke warm]

that hezbollah might not disarm/withdraw?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14366654/

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Aug 16 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

that hezbollah might not disarm/withdraw?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14366654/

I'll bet Israel isn't.

If there ends up being a war in southern Lebanon with Hezbollah on one side, the UN and the Lebanese army on the other, with Israel sitting on the sidelines, you think anybody's going to claim Israel's is the loser? How about if the was goes on for a bit, the UN pulls out (again), and Israel goes back in and cleans house? Think the French will whine about all the damage to Lebanon happening after they've lost soldiers trying to protect them?

The first time I ever heard of Hezbollah was when one of their operatives drove a truckload of explosives into our barracks in Beirut.

Sequels are never as good as the original.

[luke warm]

what about the kidnapped soldiers that started all this? were they a part of the cease fire iniative? why haven't they been released?

[hrothgar]

Its become increasingly clear that this war had nothing to do with the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers. This incident was simply a pretext that the Israeli's used to lauch a military operation that they had been planning quite some time. (Please note, I'm not claiming that the Israelis "manufactured" this incident in any way shape of form. However, I suspect that Israelis would have been willing to use any one of a number of perceived slights as an excuse for the attack).

From the looks of things the US government was quite complicit in the Israeli plans. Indeed, a lot of analysis suggests that the US viewed this conflict as a modern version of the Spanish Civil War with "us" playing the role of the Germans. The US government wanted a chance to test some of its new political / military theories regarding Iran and used Israel/Lebanon as a dry run. More specifically, some of the Neocons are arguing that the US should launch a series of heavy air attacks against the Iranian economic infrastructure in the hopes that this would mobilize the Iranian population against the government. The Israeli's launched precisely the same types of attacks again Lebanon, hoping that it would unify the population to move against Hezbollah.

Predictably, the attacks seems to have had the opposite effect, significantly strengthening popular support for Hezbollah across the Arab world. In a notable development, Hezbollah has just announced a series of major reconstruction projects across Lebanon. The Iranians are provided Hezbollah with billions of dollars which is being used to rebuild the homes/hospitals/bridges that the Israelis destroyed. If the West doesn't "counter" with their own reconstruction efforts, the main effect of the military assaults will be creating a system in which the Lebanese populatio views Hezbollah as their economic saviours.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Its become increasingly clear that this war had nothing to do with the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers.  This incident was simply a pretext that the Israeli's used to lauch a military operation that they had been planning quite some time.  (Please note, I'm not claiming that the Iraelis "manufactured" this incident in any way shape of form.  However, I suspect that Israelis would have been willing to use any one of a number of perceived slights as an excuse for the attack).

i find that to be an amazing statement, given the length of time israel had been out of lebanon... upon what do you base it? is it a gut feeling, or do you have some sort of proof? are you saying israel would have invaded lebanon anyway, whether provoked or not? or are you saying they knew it was just a matter of time before hezbollah did something stupid?

Quote

From the looks of things the US government was quite complicit in the Israeli plans.

from the looks of *what* "things"? and what plans are you speaking of?

Quote

Indeed, a lot of analysis suggests that the US viewed this conflict as a modern version of the Spanish Civil War with "us" playing the role of the Germans. 

a lot of analysis by whom? and why do you believe it? more importantly, to me, why do you seem so intent upon blaming israel (and the usa) instead of the terrorists?

Quote

The US government wanted a chance to test some of its new political / military theories regarding Iran and used Israel/Lebanon as a dry run.

you state this as if it is a fact, or as if you *want* it to be a fact... do you? if so, why?

Quote

The Israeli's launched precisely the same types of attacks again Lebanon, hoping that it would unify the population to move against Hezbollah.

ahhh i see... so they weren't really attacking places from which rockets were launched, or where hezbollah militants were known to hide... they were trying to destroy lebanon and kill its citizens so those same citizens would turn on hezbollah... now i see

Quote

In a notable development, Hezbollah has just announced a series of major reconstruction projects across Lebanon.  The Iranians are provided Hezbollah with billions of dollars which is being used to rebuild the homes/hospitals/bridges that the Israelis destroyed.  If the West doesn't "counter" with their own reconstruction efforts, the main effect of the military assaults will be creating a system in which the Lebanese population views Hezbollah as their economic saviours.

what a great strategy... start a war where your country is bombed into rubble, hide behind women and children so israel can be shown to be murderous bastards, then rebuild so the people will view you as saviours rather than insane terrorists... could work

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 17 2006, 04:02 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Its become increasingly clear that this war had nothing to do with the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers.  This incident was simply a pretext that the Israeli's used to lauch a military operation that they had been planning quite some time.  (Please note, I'm not claiming that the Iraelis "manufactured" this incident in any way shape of form.  However, I suspect that Israelis would have been willing to use any one of a number of perceived slights as an excuse for the attack).

i find that to be an amazing statement, given the length of time israel had been out of lebanon... upon what do you base it? is it a gut feeling, or do you have some sort of proof? are you saying israel would have invaded lebanon anyway, whether provoked or not? or are you saying they knew it was just a matter of time before hezbollah did something stupid?

For the record, I'm not pulling these accusations out of thin air.

Take a look at the following article from last week's new Yorker
http://www.newyorker...t/060821fa_fact

For the record, the Israeli's were deliberately taregting civilian infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals, etc)

I'm not sure whether Hezbollah is following a brilliant strategy...
Its probably just the comparison to Israel and the US that makes them look so smart.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2006, 08:22 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 17 2006, 04:02 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Its become increasingly clear that this war had nothing to do with the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers.  This incident was simply a pretext that the Israeli's used to lauch a military operation that they had been planning quite some time.  (Please note, I'm not claiming that the Iraelis "manufactured" this incident in any way shape of form.  However, I suspect that Israelis would have been willing to use any one of a number of perceived slights as an excuse for the attack).

i find that to be an amazing statement, given the length of time israel had been out of lebanon... upon what do you base it? is it a gut feeling, or do you have some sort of proof? are you saying israel would have invaded lebanon anyway, whether provoked or not? or are you saying they knew it was just a matter of time before hezbollah did something stupid?

For the record, I'm not pulling these accusations out of thin air.

Take a look at the following article from last week's new Yorker
http://www.newyorker...t/060821fa_fact

i've read the article... your post summed it up very nicely, although it did state his (and your) opinions as fact... the fact remains that you seem to prefer blaming israel (and the usa) rather than terrorists... that's the part i find amazing, and i'd like to know why

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 17 2006, 04:29 AM, said:

i've read the article... your post summed it up very nicely, although it did state his (and your) opinions as fact... the fact remains that you seem to prefer blaming israel (and the usa) rather than terrorists... that's the part i find amazing, and i'd like to know why

From my perspective, the question is not one of "blame", but rather one of following a well conceived strategy. I don't believe that the Israelis (or for that matter, the US) are doing so

For what its worth, I also believe that the Israeli policies are moral equivalent to those of Hezbollah and Hamas. However, thats another debate...

[mike777]

I always respect Hersh's reporting but he comes across on TV with such antiBush venom that it colors his reporting.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2006, 08:22 PM, said:

For the record, I'm not pulling these accusations out of thin air.

Take a look at the following article from last week's new Yorker
http://www.newyorker...t/060821fa_fact

For the record, the Israeli's were deliberately taregting civilian infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals, etc)

I'm not sure whether Hezbollah is following a brilliant strategy...
Its probably just the comparison to Israel and the US that makes them look so smart.

It's Hersh. I don't think he's a terribly good source.

Anyhow, having said that, it's pretty clear that Israel wished to send the message that Lebanon would be punished for Hezbollah's actions. There was one town where they were quoting people saying how there were no Hezbollah fighters there, why did Israel attack it? Well, let's see, it was one of the richest pure-Shiite towns, voted Hezbollah close to unanimously, and and was a major fundraiser for them. They figured that since they didn't acutally pick up a gun, they could help Hezbollah as much as they want and get away with it. They may be pissed about it, but let's see if it happens again. The Lebanese can complain all they want about how horrible Israel is, the main thing is that it's no longer cheap and safe for the Lebanese to support terrorists, and I doubt they will continue to do so.

So, after a month, a thousand lives, and seven billion dollars or so in damage, we may actually have peace between Lebanon and Israel, at least for a few years. Frankly, they got off easy (and I mean both sides, not just Lebanon). Iraq's been going on for three years, cost the U.S. alone 250 billion dollars, and the low estimate is 50,000 people have died. If this fight prevents Lebanon from becoming another Iraq, it was well worth it.

[pbleighton]

"It's Hersh. I don't think he's a terribly good source."

Why not? He is a distinguished, respected journalist, very well connected in military and intelligence circles.

Peter

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 17 2006, 04:29 AM, said:

i've read the article... your post summed it up very nicely, although it did state his (and your) opinions as fact... the fact remains that you seem to prefer blaming israel (and the usa) rather than terrorists... that's the part i find amazing, and i'd like to know why

From my perspective, the question is not one of "blame", but rather one of following a well conceived strategy. I don't believe that the Israelis (or for that matter, the US) are doing so

what i meant was, why can't you simply admit that *this* time the violence is the fault of the terrorsit groups hamas and hezbollah?

[hrothgar]

[quote name='luke warm' date='Aug 17 2006, 08:48 PM'] From my perspective, the question is not one of "blame", but rather one of following a well conceived strategy. I don't believe that the Israelis (or for that matter, the US) are doing so [/QUOTE]

what i meant was, why can't you simply admit that *this* time the violence is the fault of the terrorsit groups hamas and hezbollah? [/quote]
The Israeli bombing campaign in Lebanon was complete disproportionate to the alledged "trigger" event. Hezbollah kidnapped two solidiers and this somehow justifies the destruction of the Lebanese economy?

The Israeli's made a concious and deliberate decision to attack Lebanon in the hopes of removing Hezbollah, or at least limit its offensive capabilities in Northern Israel. The kidnapping was nothing more than political cover.

[luke warm]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Aug 17 2006, 01:00 PM'] [quote name='luke warm' date='Aug 17 2006, 08:48 PM'] From my perspective, the question is not one of "blame", but rather one of following a well conceived strategy. I don't believe that the Israelis (or for that matter, the US) are doing so [/QUOTE]

what i meant was, why can't you simply admit that *this* time the violence is the fault of the terrorsit groups hamas and hezbollah? [/QUOTE]
The Israeli bombing campaign in Lebanon was complete disproportionate to the alledged "trigger" event. Hezbollah kidnapped two solidiers and this somehow justifies the destruction of the Lebanese economy?

The Israeli's made a concious and deliberate decision to attack Lebanon in the hopes of removing Hezbollah, or at least limit its offensive capabilities in Northern Israel. The kidnapping was nothing more than political cover. [/quote]
whether or not israel's response was disproportionate, the fact remains that no response would have been forthcoming without hezbollah's act of war... to float the theory that israel would have attacked without that provocation is just asserting something to be true with nothing but opinion to back it up... they have not attacked in the 5(?) years since their withdrawal... some would say they were provoked during that period simply because hezbollah wasn't disarmed, as a un resolution mandated

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 17 2006, 09:10 PM, said:

whether or not israel's response was disproportionate, the fact remains that no response would have been forthcoming without hezbollah's act of war... to float the theory that israel would have attacked without that provocation is just asserting something to be true with nothing but opinion to back it up... they have not attacked in the 5(?) years since their withdrawal... some would say they were provoked during that period simply because hezbollah wasn't disarmed, as a un resolution mandated

Like it or not, Israel and Lebanon don't have a secure border... "***** happens" on that border every single month (and the acts of aggression certainly aren't limited to Arabs). For better or worse, none of Israel's other borders are particularly secure either. For example, Hamas is constantly trying to smuggle weapons through Egypt into the Gaza strip.

I claim that the Israeli's need to consider this type of border as a cost of doing business. It isn't easy running your own little empire in the middle of a bunch of hostile natives. You need to accept that no one is going to like you very much...

You claim that the Israelis have a moral right to seize on any one of a number of perceived infractions and use this to justify a massive attack against the Lebanese civilian infrastructure. Using this logic, the Israelis (essentially) have the right to launch these types of attacks whenever they see fit.

I argue that these types of attacks

1. Have forfeited any Israeli claims to a moral high ground. At this point in time, I view the Israeli government as no different than the Hamas/Hezbollah terrorists that they are fighting

2. Are a very poor choice of strategies. Not only have the Israeli's inflamed the Arab world, Israel is also pissing away any residual sympathy that Western Europe might have for their cause. (There is a good article in the London Times today about the impact of the latest middle eastern conflict on politics in Turkey)
http://www.timesonli...2316553,00.html

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 17 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

Like it or not, Israel and Lebanon don't have a secure border...  "***** happens" on that border every single month (and the acts of aggression certainly aren't limited to Arabs).

while that may be true, the fact remains that israel has *not* invaded lebanon since their withdrawal... it took an act of war for them to do so this time, from an enemy who was mandated to give up their arms by the u.n. ... why doesn't anyone condemn hezbollah for that?

Quote

I claim that the Israeli's need to consider this type of border as a cost of doing business.  It isn't easy running your own little empire in the middle of a bunch of hostile natives.  You need to accept that no one is going to like you very much...

you mean the insecure type border? palastine has their own country, they have their own elected government, and troops from the ruling party (hamas) invaded israel.. israel responded... lebanon has their own country, their own elected gov't, and troops from one of the ruling classes (hezbollah) of that gov't invaded israel... israel responded... perhaps hamas and hezbollah want *their* own little empires?

Quote

You claim that the Israelis have a moral right to seize on any one of a number of perceived infractions and use this to justify a massive attack against the Lebanese civilian infrastructure.

no i don't.. that's a straw man, therefore any perceived logic that flows from it, which you claim i use, isn't mine and can be discounted

Quote

At this point in time, I view the Israeli government as no different than the Hamas/Hezbollah terrorists that they are fighting

why? because they responded to acts of war?

Quote

Not only have the Israeli's inflamed the Arab world, Israel also pissing away any residual sympathy that Western Europe might have for their cause.

yes, the arab world was most definitely *not* inflamed towards israel before this... i think we all know that had israel laid down her arms at any time after 1948, she would be a bloody spot in the sand... as far as sympathy from western europe, i don't know that there's ever been very much...

Quote

There is a good article in the London Times today about the impact of the latest middle eastern conflict on politics in Turkey

yes, politics and ethics are usually in conflict... note that the AKP is worried about upcoming elections should they be forced to violently interact with hezbollah... it's good to note that some more centrist journalists in turkey rightly understand the ramifications of anti-semitism

for the present, they're in nato and seem to want to remain so... they want to join the eu... but popular conservative sentiment might swing them away from what their leaders know is in their present and future nat'l interests

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 18 2006, 02:10 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 17 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

Like it or not, Israel and Lebanon don't have a secure border...  "***** happens" on that border every single month (and the acts of aggression certainly aren't limited to Arabs).

while that may be true, the fact remains that israel has *not* invaded lebanon since their withdrawal... it took an act of war for them to do so this time, from an enemy who was mandated to give up their arms by the u.n. ... why doesn't anyone condemn hezbollah for that?

Given that you read the Hersch article, I'm sure that you noticed the following quote:

The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. “They’ve been sniping at each other,” he said. “Either side could have pointed to some incident and said ‘We have to go to war with these guys’—because they were already at war.”

The Israelis are guilty of precisely the same sort of cross border attacks that they used as an excuse for launching a military assualt on Lebanon

For what its worth, I think that the actions of the military wing of Hezbollah are equally deplorable. I think that the Lebanese Shia were justified in creating a militia for the purpose of self defense, however, I think that their constant attacks on Israel are morally reprehensible and counter productive.

[Impact]

A bit like US foreign adventures - tehy are more driven by domestic politics than any overall plan - which I realise is a severe blow to many of the conspiracy theories.

Kadina (Olmert's party) leads a fragile coalition in the Knesset.

Kadina was elected on a platform of peaceful withdrawal.

They tried - and the strategy has been at best a limited success....

And then things escalate: in a country where almost every child of eligible age is in the Reserve, not merely the symbolism but the reality of every Jewish mother's nightmare where her child is kidnapped.....

The old rule pertains: to get peace - install a hawk (Rabin) but if you wish to see war, push the dove - because after the dove has exhausted his offerings he has no choice but to respond (and arguably far harder than the hawk) both for pragmatic reasons and for domestic political reasons.

Incidentally, the swing against Barak following the rejection of the Camp David offer tangetally illustrates the same point: you can only go so far with one method and when it doesn't work you have to swing right round (or at least the democratic electorate forces that upon you when it doesn't work - hence there is an argument - to come full circle - in favour of not necessarily benevolent tyranny : if all you are interested in is consistency and maintaining the status quo - a position which eloquently defined large slabs of US foreign policy which is where we came in!!)

regards - and not so tongue in cheek at all