| Author | Message | ||
     Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5647 Registered: 10-1999  |
Has anyone suggested that you need to get out more?  | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 589 Registered: 3-2005 |
Mtam, I don't know how often you read MOL, but yes I've been all over the region, including Lebanon actually, which I doubt many people here can say. But I think its totally irrelevant, and not merely because simply "going" anywhere is no guarantee of learning anything. Many people -- perhaps the majority -- who go there don't see anything other than what they've been taught to see, or get such a fragmented view, they kid themselves into thinking they're "experts." But why it is particularly irrelevant to what I wrote is that I was talking about America and American foreign policy, and American values. I also highly value the protection of innocent life in the region, Israeli life and Arab life, and there is innocent life at grave risk on both sides. But the discussion I find so infantile and uninformed is the inability to pluck out the American interest in this debacle. We can all be Middle East armchair analysts and talk about our friends in the Middle East or the last time we were there and blue sky resolutions for far away places. But the government we are responsible for is the American government. I have no idea what you mean in interpreting my remarks as saying that different voices have been "unidirectional." If anything, I was pointing out just the opposite, and would cite Sharon's victory and his unilateralism as proof of just what a wrong direction the project took. The wall was a truly stupid idea that has now been shown to have no security value whatsoever. The "disengagement" was a disengagement from the peace process, and the idea that somehow Israeli's are being "dragged back" to something misinterprets reality. The Israelis just put their heads in the sand. The fundamental problem -- the occupation and the unjust land seizures -- never went away. I am sure you and I are miles apart in our views of the Middle East, but surely nobody can solve your problem of stumbling every time somebody wants to point out where Israeli and Israelis become misguided and even immoral in their pursuit of their security, and why Americans shouldn't support everything the Israeli government has done. I think your comments about the American left are wholly misgudied. Not only is there not an American left that anybody can find (I've been looking), so many people have been saying for so many years that without a viable Palestinian state, there is no security for Israelis living in Israel. This has nothing to do with emotion or lefitsm. It's just a cold fact. Are you imagining Henry Siegman has no love for Israel? Perhaps I'm misredling you. (I've never read Ameera Hess.) But as much as I would like to see a voting majority of Israelis listen to the pragmatic wisdom so often offered by its LOVING SUPPORTERS that until they make the terriorial compromises necessary they cannot expect to live in peace, I'll be delighted to support any peaceful solution that the people of that region come up so long as it saves lives and doesn't diminish the US. They can all agree to believe in fairies for all I care. My real focus and responsibility is on the preservation of American values and our power to do good in the world. The guardians of that are individual American voters, and that's who I'm talking to. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1347 Registered: 2-2004 |
What a load of BS, but it gave me my morning chuckle. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4552 Registered: 12-2001  |
Kathleen, In fairness to the Israelis, did not Ehud Barak gave Arafat everything he could have wanted including an agreement to discuss the status of Jerusalem? To this, Arafat said no. Why did Arafat decline this offer? Obviously, the full implementation of the Oslo Agreement was going to take time and negotiation, but it seems to me that Barak agreed to the most that the State of Israel could agree to without putting up "Going Out of Business" signs. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12234 Registered: 5-2001 |
There is a fair amount of speculation that the price to pry Syria from the axis of evil is the Golan Heights. I believe a few years this was on the table and Israel was willing, minus a few hundred yards. Any chance this will come about. A NATO/EU force is becoming less likely. NATO is claiming increased committments in Afghanistan make it impossible and nobody is stepping up with troops, other than Germany who has said they might, maybe, are thinking about it. However, many in Israel wouldn't feel comfortable with a German force on their border. Looks like Israel is taking the slow and steady approach with their ground forces in Lebanon. Does this mean that we are not going to endorse a cease fire anytime soon? The speculation over the weekend was that we would call for a cease fire next week. Israel claims that 95% of the bridges in Lebanon have been destroyed and that 80% of the highways have been seriously damaged. I understand that Israel is taking their war plan right out of the US manual and are worried about more missles being brought in from Syria. HOwever, the damage estimates are now over $5,000,000,000. Who is going to pay for this? Probably the USA. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4553 Registered: 12-2001 |
Why on Earth would a country offer to put its troops in between Hezbollah and Israel. They would immediately be subject to all manner of attacks from Hezbollah. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12235 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree, but that seems to be the central plank of any cease fire plan. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 590 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tjohn, The real question is: Why, if what Israel is presently doing is in the national security interests of America, are we not sending troops? To your question: Why did Arafat decline Barak's offer? It's an important question, This analysis from the Washington Post is one of the most even-handed, although it is several years old. http://www.obermayer.us/aer/articles/peace/Wash072802CampDavid.htm | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 591 Registered: 3-2005 |
This was in Ha'aretz this morning, written by Ze'ev Maoz who is a political scientist and the head of the Tel Aviv University Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies: Morality is not on our side By Ze'ev Maoz There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards. This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side. Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war. In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral. On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah. Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side. So much for the history of morality. Now, let's consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300. Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal - namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 - is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange. There is a propaganda aspect to this war, and it involves a competition as to who is more miserable. Each side tries to persuade the world that it is more miserable. As in every propaganda campaign, the use of information is selective, distorted and self-righteous. If we want to base our information (or shall we call it propaganda?) policy on the assumption that the international environment is going to buy the dubious merchandise that we are selling, be it out of ignorance or hypocrisy, then fine. But in terms of our own national soul searching, we owe ourselves to confront the bitter truth - maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status. The writer is a professor of political science at Tel Aviv university. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1723 Registered: 10-2004  |
kathleen, once again thank you for being the voice of reason on this board. Israel must be carrying out a planned operation. The goal of the operation is unknown but the consequences are being seen daily. It troubles me that the USA did not communicate with Israel at the outset of this operation to deter them from what has become a monstrous and horrific campaign. If the USA had capable diplomats and leaders in place the whole confrontation could have been alleviated. What will come of this latest debacle no one can predict. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 592 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hoops, I'm going to say thanks but take a pass on "the voice of reason" position, not only in interests of pure self-defense but also because I have been feeling more than a bit exasperated and alarmed about the failures of US Middle East policy in recent days, well beyond the lastest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I'm sure it shows in what I've posted. What's really worth reading is an article in today's Guardian by Simon Jenkins, which persuasively argues against Western intervention in Lebanon. This minor confession particularly resonated with me: "I once made a vow never to write about the Middle East... I realised that there was no way of calibrating comment on this subject that might inform debate rather than merely stir prejudice. Each side wanted not intelligence but support or condemnation." And the rest of his article is equally honest and clear-eyed and begins: "Don't do it. Do not pretend, yet again. Western intervention cannot achieve what for half a century it has failed to achieve in the Middle East: a political settlement between Israelis and Palestinians." http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_jenkins/index.html | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 219 Registered: 1-2005 |
Perspective: When the U.S. laid seige to Fallujah, a single small city, up to 700 civilians were killed, nearly twice the Lebanon-wide fatalities to date. In the 2 weeks of this war, 1400 Iraqi civilians were killed (by other Iraqis). In the evil calculus of war, the civilian death toll is not that great, especially considering the guerilla tactics and location of Hezbollah and its rockets. To me, the extent of infrastructrure, not human, damage is the controversy. How many targets have a military purpose and how many are meant to serve as a warning abd deterrent againsr future attacks. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12241 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eric, I tend to agree. Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties althoug mistakes happen. The issue with me is that the infrastructure including, roads, bridges, ports, airports, radio, television and many power plants have been eliminated. I understand Israel's desire to eliminate the possiblity of Iran supplying even more rockets through Syria, but the attempt of Lebanon to reestablish itself as an independent nation have been horribly compromised. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 614 Registered: 8-2003 |
The IDF Will Become Even More Violent Why Israel is Losing By ASHRAF ISMA'IL www.counterpunch.org The world is witnessing what could be a critical turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel is now engaged in a war that could permanently undermine the efficacy of its much-vaunted military apparatus. Ironically, there are several reasons for believing that Israel's destruction of southern Lebanon and southern Beirut will weaken its bargaining position relative to its adversaries, and will strengthen its adversaries' hands. First, Israel has no clearly defined tactical or strategic objective, and so the Israeli offensive fails the first test of military logic: there is no way that Israel's actions can improve its position relative to Hamas or Hizballah, much less Syria or Iran. The logic of power politics also implies that a no-win situation for Israel is a definite loss, because Israel is the stronger party and thus has the most to lose. In an asymmetric war, the stronger party always has the most to lose, in terms of reputation and in terms of its ability to project its will through the instruments of force. The lack of any clearly defined objective is a major miscalculation by Israel and its American patron. Second, Israel cannot eliminate Hizballah, since Hizballah is a grassroots organization that represents a plurality of Lebanese society. Neither can Hamas be eliminated for the same reason. By targeting Hizballah however, Israel is strengthening Hizballah's hand against its domestic rivals, such as the Maronite Christians, because any open Christian opposition makes them look like traitors and Israeli collaborators. Consequently, while Hizballah will obviously pay a short-term tactical cost that is very high, in the long run, this conflict demonstrates that it is Hizballah, and not the Lebanese government, that has the most power in Lebanon. The Shia represent an estimated 35-40 per cent of Lebanese society, while Lebanese Christians are thought to constitute no more than 25-30per cent of the entire population. Furthermore, the Shia community's fertility rate is thought to be far higher than that of the other religious components within Lebanon. Thus, the current confessional division of power in Lebanon, which grants Christians a political position that goes far beyond their minority status, is ultimately unsustainable, which means that the Maronite Christians will lose even more power, and the Shia and Hizballah will inevitably gain more power. Third, Israel's failure to achieve anything at all greatly enhances Syria's influence over Lebanon and its bargaining position relative to the U.S. and Israel itself. No solution in Lebanon can exclude Syria, and so now the U.S. and Israelis need Syria's approval, which certainly weakens both the U.S. and Israel. And even Israel's accusations against Iran, although largely baseless, greatly enhance Iran's prestige in the region, and may bring about exactly what the Israelis are trying to prevent. While the Arab states look like traitors, Iran looks like a champion of the most celebrated of all Muslim causes. Fourth, Bush's impotence is a clear demonstration that America has lost a great deal of global power over the last three years. If Bush cannot control Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, or Israel, then what real power does the world's "hyper-power" possess? America's inability to influence any of the actors that are relevant to the current crisis is yet more evidence that America's foreign policy is a form of global suicide. Fifth, the age of great power warfare has been replaced by a world in which great powers must live and compete with non-state actors who possess considerable military capabilities. William Lind calls this transformation "4th generation warfare." Consequently, the age of Bismarckian warfare, or what William Lind refers to as "3rd generation warfare," is effectively over. "Bismarckian warfare" is a term that describes large-scale wars fought by large-scale armies, which require national systems of military conscription, a significant population base, and enormous military budgets. Bismarckian warfare seems to have become ineffective in the Arab-Israeli context, because Israel no longer poses the threat that it once did to the Arab regimes, and the Arab regimes much prefer Israel to the rising non-state actors growing within their own borders. William Lind has also argued that non-state actors such as Hamas and Hizballah can checkmate the Israelis as long as these Muslim parties never formally assume power. If Muslim parties were to assume the power of states, then they would immediately become targets for traditional Bismarckian warfare. However, as long as Muslim movements retain theirnon-state identity, they are strategically unconquerable. Sixth, we must more carefully study the reasons why Bismarckian warfare is no longer effective. The global diffusion of the news outlets is obviously important for understanding why Bismarckian warfare has become so ineffective. For instance, Hizballah has its own media network, and can draw upon the global satellite network to get its message out, and can also use the global media to take advantage of Israel's targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Further, the competition between Arab and Muslim satellite channels is also important, because each station wants to demonstrate its sincerity by spreading news that is not only critical of Israel and the U.S., but ultimately undermines people's trust in the Arab regimes and thereby lends legitimacy to non-state actors. And although the American media largely supports Israel, the information about the Americans stranded in Lebanon limits Israel's freedom of action, and makes Israel look like it cares nothing for the lives of American citizens. At an even deeper level, the rate and density of global information transfer, and lack of any centralized control over the global distribution of information, is causing the fabric of space and time to contract, and so Israel's crimes can much more quickly create a global backlash. Time and space, as we experience them, are contracting because the global diffusion of technical and scientific knowledge is permitting events in one part of the world to increasingly influence events in other parts of the world, and events that once took years or even decades to unfold can now occur within mere months or weeks. As a consequence, the disenfranchised peoples of the world are developing the ability to affect the lives of the more privileged members of humanity, which means that anything that Israel does to the Palestinians or Lebanese will have effects upon Israel that are more direct and more negative than ever before, and that further, these effects will occur in an accelerated time scale. Thus, as it becomes self evident that Israeli military power is no longer as effective as it once was, this will surely accelerate the flow of Jewish settlers out of Israel. Information regarding emigration of Jews out of Israel is a closely guarded secret, but using Israeli government statistics, we can infer that immigration to Israel has rapidly declined over the last several years, and that Israel may even be experiencing a net outflow of Jewish migrants. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of Jewish immigrants to Israel declined to 21,000 in 2004, which is a 15-year low. In 2005, the number of immigrants rose slightly to 23,000, which is still dramatically lower than the 60,000 that immigrated in 2000. Furthermore, Israel became a net exporter of its citizens in 2003, when9,000 more Israelis left the country than entered, and in the first two months of 2004, this figure rose to 13,000. The global micro-diffusion of military technology is also critical, and so military innovation and its global diffusion will only strengthen grassroots rebellions and allow them to more effectively resist the instruments of Bismarckian control, as well as the depredations of the military hippopotami that are the ultimate guarantors of statism and statist regimes. For all of these reasons, Israeli attempts to impose terms on Lebanon, or to redraw the political map of Lebanon, or even to impose a NATO force upon Southern Lebanon, are not militarily feasible nor politically achievable, and if attempted, will prove ultimately unsustainable. As will soon be demonstrated by events on the ground, Israel will not be able to destroy or even disarm Hizballah. Neither will Hamas, Hizballah, Lebanon, or Syria permit Israel or America to dictate terms to them. Consequently, if Israel lingers too long in Southern Lebanon, its presence will be paid for at such a high cost, that it will be forced to withdraw in ignominy, as it has so many times in the past. In the end however, Israel's loss of power will make it even more dangerous, because the more threatened the Israelis feel, the more likely they will launch destructive wars against the Palestinians and Israel's other adversaries. Finally, the same can be said of the U.S., with respect to its loss of global power. Instead of becoming more careful with its use of force, the erosion of America's global dominance will likely make the U.S. government more aggressive, as it attempts to re-assert its former position relative to its adversaries and competitors. And it is precisely because America and Israel are losing influence over global events, that an American attack upon Iran in 2007 becomes more likely. God help us all. Ashraf Isma'il is an academic whose interests range from international relations, international economics and international finance, to global history and mathematical models of geo-strategy. | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 220 Registered: 1-2005 |
Mustt: Did you haved to post the most unreadable, sloppy, propagandistic essay on the internet? There's actually a lot of good stuff out there from many different perspectives. | ||
| Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 39 Registered: 6-2006 |
Eric: I disagree, it was readable, and he does present a few valid points. I do see Hizbollah growing even more popular with the Lebanese people as a result, to post an example. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4556 Registered: 12-2001 |
We could debate the efficacy of Bismarckian warfare. I think the constraint on Bismarckian warfare is its cost, not its efficacy. After all, when we were engaged in total war with Germany and Japan, we were absolutely going to kill every last German and Japanese if that is what was necessary to secure unconditional surrender. But I digress. I agree with the alarming conclusion of the author that there is nothing more dangerous in the world than a changing of the guard when one set of powers starts to go into decline relative to other powers. The rising powers may feel inclined to challenge the declining powers and the declined powers are more likely to lash out without reason. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1196 Registered: 4-2006 |
kathleen and mustt_mustt at it again.  . Perhaps you can register formally as foreign agents and get some money from the Palestinian Authority for your p.r. efforts ? They certainly don't spend it on improving their people's quality of life. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2600 Registered: 3-2003 |
MEMRI Special Dispatch - Lebanon July 26, 2006 No. 1213 Lebanese Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt on Al-Arabiya TV: Do Lebanese Really Agree That the Battle of the [Islamic] Nation Should Be Launched From Lebanon?; I Was First to Warn of the Iranian-Syrian Alliance; I Have the Right to Challenge Nasrallah's Heroism To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD121306 . The following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on July 20, 2006.(1) TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1201 . Walid Jumblatt: "Hassan Nasrallah made the decision to go to war without consulting anyone." [...] "Today, the Lebanese state has become a kind of Red Cross. If tomorrow a cease-fire is reached - even if the state is represented formally on the issue of the prisoners - the Lebanese state would still be incapable of [fulfilling] all its plans - to spread its sovereignty to South Lebanon and to the refugee camps, and especially with regard to the weapons outside the refugee camps." [...] "A cease-fire between who? [Israel] and the Lebanese state? Will Hizbullah recognize the Lebanese state?" [...] "Will the weapons of Hizbullah be incorporated into the defensive system of the Lebanese army, and I emphasize the word 'defensive?' Or will there be a cease-fire, and then the first article on the agenda will be that we should liberate the prisoners. Then he will say to you: 'We want to liberate the Shab'a Farms, and I need to keep my weapons in order to liberate Shab'a.' Then he will tell you that we should implement Resolution 194 - the return of the refugees to Palestine. In such a case, Lebanon will become an open battlefield for the Syrian and Iranian regimes." [...] Interviewer: "Nasrallah also said he was fighting for the sake of the nation." [...] Walid Jumblatt: "No one empowered him to fight from Lebanon for the sake of the nation." [...] "If Syrian patronage over Lebanon is restored, we will have a dictatorship, like the Syrian and Iranian regimes." [...] "The question should be directed at Hassan [Nasrallah], and at the Syrians and Iranians with their agenda: Do they really want a Lebanese state, or do they want an open battlefield, which would serve Iran's nuclear interests and expansionist goals in the Gulf? As for Syria, it benefits when Lebanon turns into rubble. The poorer the Lebanese people gets, the more it is destroyed, the more the elite emigrate. How does [Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad] manage to rule Syria? Through poverty. He rules it through power and intelligence agencies. He rules a people that is wretched, imprisoned. He wants to do the same to Lebanon, because he envies us. He envies our pluralism, our vitality, our culture, and our free press. What did he do to the Syrian intellectuals? He imprisoned them. Why? Because they had the courage to say: 'Let's make some changes.'" [...] "Is there really a Lebanese consensus that the battle of the [Islamic] nation should be launched from Lebanon? Do all we Lebanese really agree with the words of that 'hero' from afar, the head of the Iranian Shura Council, who said that from Lebanon, from Meis Al-Jabal and 'Ayta Al-Sha'b, we will set out to liberate Palestine in its entirety, inch by inch? I have no objection, but why Lebanon alone? Why is there a disengagement agreement in the occupied Syrian land of the Golan? How come 4-5 million Israeli and foreign tourists come to the Golan? How come no bullet has been fired in the Golan since 1974?" [...] "I believe that the first person to warn against the Iranian-Syrian alliance was me, Walid Jumblatt. I tried to warn Saudi Arabia and Egypt about the dangers. I traveled to America as well. I did not ask the Americans to topple the Syrian regime. Not at all. I asked for a change of behavior - but one cannot change the behavior of a terrorist regime." [...] Interviewer: "Hassan Nasrallah is considered a hero by the Arab peoples." Walid Jumblatt: "Great, so he's a hero. But I'd like to challenge this heroism of his. I have the right to challenge it, because my country is in flames. Besides, we did not agree... We agreed on an agenda with regard to Palestine. If the agenda changes, that will be another matter. The agenda with regard to Palestine, on which we agreed, includes the establishment of a [Palestinian] state alongside Israel, the right of return, Jerusalem as the capital, the demolition of the wall of humiliation, and the dismantling of the settlements. This is our agenda at this point in time. In his political speeches, [Nasrallah] says: 'I do not recognize the state of Israel, and I want to set out from South Lebanon to liberate Palestine in its entirety.' This is what he is doing. If this is his agenda, I have the right to oppose it." Endnote: (1) For other MEMRI dispatches on the current Middle East crisis please see: Special Dispatch No. 1212, "Iranian President Ahmadinejad on IRINN TV: 'Lebanon is the Scene of an Historic Test, Which Will Determine the Future of Humanity,'" July 26, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP121206 . Special Dispatch No. 1211, "Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: I Told Lebanese Political Leaders We Would Abduct Israeli Soldiers," July 25, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP121106 . Inquiry & Analysis No. 289, "The Middle East Crisis - Local, Regional, and Global; Conventional and Nuclear (2): The War in the Perception of Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah," July 24, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA28906 ; Inquiry & Analysis No. 288, "The Middle East Crisis - Local, Regional, and Global; Conventional and Nuclear: The War in the Perception of Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah," July 21, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA28806 ; Special Dispatch No. 1208, "Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel's Borders (5): Reactions in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria," July 18, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120806 ; Special Dispatch No. 1207, "Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel's Borders (4): Reactions in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria," July 17, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120706 ; Special Dispatch No. 1206, "Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel's Borders (3): Reactions in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria," July 14, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120606 ; Special Dispatch No. 1205, "Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel's Borders (2): Reactions in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria," July 14, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120506 ; Special Dispatch No. 1204, "Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel's Borders: Reactions in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria," July 13, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120406 . | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 615 Registered: 8-2003 |
FvsFiction, You are doing a darn good job in aiding the Hasbara project, so why not read another perspective in order to expand your horizon of knowledge? Are the smileys supposed to be signs of mirth or condescension? | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 127 Registered: 4-2006  |
>>Israel cannot eliminate Hizballah, since Hizballah is a grassroots organization that represents a plurality of Lebanese society. This stuff gets overstated. Hezballah has 14 seats out of 128 in the Parliament. A party that big has no business unilaterally declaring war for a country, which is what they did. | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 128 Registered: 4-2006 |
And while Jumblatt may feel free to speak his mind the Lebanese PM has generally stuck up for Hezballah in his interviews with the west. I saw an interview with the head of the army recently, though I think it dated from before the recent incidents, where he praised Hezballah and said that they relied on them to run the south of the country. That sort of thing loses any sympathy I have for the government of Lebanon. They're accomplices to Hezballah's actions, pure and simple, and their citizens will pay the price for it. | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 221 Registered: 1-2005 |
Mustt: I've been devouring Lebanese blogs in recent days. While some show a lot of anger at the Israelis for the extent of destruction (some don't and are surprisingly pro-western and even pro-Israeli), I can't find many good words about Hezbollah. I'm not sure what the professor's good points are. Israel has no objective? How about pushing Hezbollah and its 10,000 missiles far from the border, and sending a message that retaliation in the future will be strong. I'm also unsure about Israel's "baseless" accusations against Iran. Does anyone doubt that Hezbollah was created, financed and armed by Iran? | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2601 Registered: 3-2003 |
"And while Jumblatt may feel free to speak his mind the Lebanese PM has generally stuck up for Hezballah in his interviews with the west." Siniora does not necessarily matter more than Jumblatt. However, I posted this because Jumblatt is obviously contradicting Nasrallah's televised rhetoric about having consulted the Leb gov't re its kidnap operation (which I posted here yesterday, I think). Jumblatt's a bit of an opportunist, so it's significant that he's upbraiding Nasrallah publicly. I don't think he'd have aired these views if he did not perceive significant political support for them. A BBC summary from 2005: Walid Jumblatt is the leader of Lebanon's most powerful Druze clan and heir to a leftist political dynasty based around the Progressive Socialist Party. And a more insightful overview from TNR's Annia Ciezadlo, March, 2005: Walid Jumblatt. Head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party, founded by his father, the soulful-looking Jumblatt is also the hereditary leader of the Druze, a monotheistic sect whose tenets the faithful keep secret (some consider it a Muslim sect, while others call it an offshoot of Islam). In 1984, Jumblatt made himself a symbol of Lebanon's lethal sectarianism when he kicked off a peace conference by unfurling a Druze banner instead of a Lebanese flag. Last week, Jumblatt told the young protesters in downtown Beirut's Martyrs' Square to do just the opposite: "Only the Lebanese flag expresses feelings far from sensitivities," he said, urging them to stop flying the flags of sectarian Lebanese parties. Once again, it was a symbolic moment: During the Lebanese civil war, the Syrian-supported Druze fought a bloody war against Israel-supported Maronite Christian militias. Today, some of Jumblatt's closest allies are anti-Syrian Maronite political leaders. More from Ciezadlo on Lebanese politicians here: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050228&s=ciezadlo030305 | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 129 Registered: 4-2006 |
According to the NYT: The Lebanese government has now adopted four Hezbollah conditions for a settlement as its own: giving the small disputed slice of border territory known as Shebaa Farms to Lebanon; the return of three Lebanese prisoners held by Israel; an end to Israeli flyovers into Lebanese air space; and a map showing the location of Israeli land mines in southern Lebanon.I don't know who these three Lebanese are; their release may or may not make sense. The map to land mines makes sense; I suspect there's more to that story. The Israelis would be stupid to end flyovers of Lebanese territory, given the circumstances. The Shebaa Farms thing is naked pretext. This is an area that Israel captured from Syria in 1967. Lebanese army maps from that time show it as part of Syria. It didn't become an issue until Hezballah claimed it to be part of Lebanon after the UN certified that Israel had completely evacuated from Lebanon. Now Lebanon has taken the Hezballah position, although I've heard the PM talk the same Shebaa Farms thing in an interview with the BBC. I guess he doesn't care if his own people take the beating for it. Also I don't see anything in there about the Lebanese government being interested in removing Hezballah from southern Lebanon or deploying its army there, but perhaps it's just not in the article | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 222 Registered: 1-2005 |
one of the three prisoners is a guy who snuck into Israel in 1979, killed a man, his 4 year old daughter, and a policeman. He's not getting out any time soon. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 653 Registered: 2-2003 |
The Israeli Government is following a strategy that assumes that the destruction of Lebanese society will turn the Lebanese against Hezbollah because the Lebanese people will blame Hezbollah for their destruction. The opposite is true. The Lebanese population is directing its anger at Israel and Hezbollah's influence is growing. Lebanese PM Siniora has implied that the Lebanese army will fight the IDF alongside Hezbollah, and Walid Jumblatt -- despite his political differences with Hezbollah -- yesterday cited proclaiming
| ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10230 Registered: 4-1997  |
If Israel is bombing UN personnel, I'm changing sides http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.main/index.html
| ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1572 Registered: 7-2005  |
Yep. That's why they don't want Amnesty around there either. No witnesses. Additionally...now Israel wants to hold its border until and international force comes. So now the rest of the world is expected to clean up the mess they created. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4560 Registered: 12-2001 |
I can't believe that Israel would deliberately bomb this U.N. observation post. Their operations in Lebanon are in full view of the world and bombing one U.N. post isn't going to change that. Besides, this is a public relations catastrophe for Israel no matter why or how it happened. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10231 Registered: 4-1997 |
It looks very deliberate. This isn't helping either:  | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12245 Registered: 5-2001 |
If the IDF thought the observers were passing information to Hezbollah they would take them out in a New York minute. However, I doubt this is the case and the most likely possibility is that it was a mistake or a pilot being over enthusiastic. The observers were Canadian, Finnish and Austrian and those countries would seem to be good candidates for the peace keeping force. I suspect this put an end to that. | ||
| Mtam Citizen Username: Mtam Post Number: 132 Registered: 11-2005 |
I'm afraid work shall impede me from adding to this any longer. However, I did want to respond to Kathleen's post regarding the Barak-Arafat failure to come to an agreement. I've read numerous, numerous accounts of what occured, along with very detailed descriptions of what was offered, and I must say, the problem I have with the Post article, is it's all a kind of "in hindsight couldn't we have done better" discussion, when instead, it's more useful to think about it within the constraints and pressures that were occuring at the time. Yes, Barak moved fast and wanted to make a bold statement and not quibble on every front--this was after complaints about the way the Israelis were delaying on the Oslo accord and moving too slowly, which were definitely true. He had a tiny political window and he was trying to run with it. Everyone was also under pressure because this was towards the end of Clinton's term and he was in a rush to make this happen and he put a lot of pressure on. In retrospect, there wasn't enough trust to do so. But you can't fault them for trying a different tactic of bolder moves--isn't that exactly what you're asking for? And remember--they went back again, after the failed Camp David, and tried again in Egypt. Sure, in retrospect, each side needed to build up a constituency, Barak stating the broad outlines of a deal could not speak to a fundamental lack of mistrust on the other side. But again, that's the kind of "on the sidelines" council of perfection that is deeply unrealistic in a pressured political situation. I also should remark that I read one account that there were written aspects of the accord, and quite frankly, Arafat essentially flipped through it, saw what was written about right of return and just said no. As to the security wall, I beg to differ. I went there, quite queasy about the whole thing, as are many Israelis. Indeed I spent my last night speaking to an activist who is one of the most vocal opponents of the wall--not for security reasons, but for the psychic toll this is having on the country. But the security wall has brought security in terms of suicide attacks. You are deeply wrong about that. The issue of their safety in terms of Hezbollah is something else entirely, and the wall was never meant to address that. Again, it seems that having perhaps never been inside Israel, you don't realize how naive some of your remarks are--telling the Israelis to make peace, when this is something that they grapple with all the time. Do you really feel you are telling them something new? That you do know better? For me, in the US and internationally, I move in circles that are mostly critical of Israel, and so it's been eye-opening to visit in the past 9 years and have a chance to see some of the realities and textures of that on-the-ground experience. And perhaps because I'm skeptical of that in hindsight, or on the sidelines point of view, you've misread where I stand politically. That's the kind of unidrectional thinking I was speaking of. In general, I do think that Israel was once the David and can't accept that it that it now is a Goliath; that it need not behave like a trembling small country fighting back when indeed it is a superpower. I think the policy with respect to the settlements was repugnant, cynical, and I despise our government for saying nothing, downgrading their status from "illegal" to something benign. And as I think the Palestinians were foolish to get tripped up in the deal that was offered, I think the the Israelis can wait forever for the perfect, democratic leader, and it won't happen. However, I'd say most of these views mirror just about anyone I spoke to in Israel, incidentally, including army age young people who said they'd gladly be the first to take the settlers out of Hebron. I do not think that the current conflict has any tones of moral or rightness, I question the severity of the provocation, since Hezbollah has only targeted military, not civilians; I think Olmert is completely overplaying the hand, but I do not think, either, that the mounting situation of rockets so close to the border could go on forever, nor do I see a country in sight who is willing to deal with this. And finally, I can have my critical views, many of which are shared by those I spoke to, but they are living in a country with a number of real pressures and points of view--this is the real world, after all, with many, many who fear that the withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon have made them more vulnerable. Just as I have to grapple, as a liberal in the Northeast, with a religious conservative elsewhere in the country, they too are part of a spectrum. One can stay in one's ivory tower, or grapple with the realities of these different constituencies. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10232 Registered: 4-1997 |
[skipped Mtam's post] One observer was Chinese. China is on the Security Council. SNAFU | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1577 Registered: 7-2005 |
Bob K, you don't kill 4 international UN troops because you BELIEVE that they MAY be passing information to terrorists. You relay that THOUGHT to the UN. Additionally, they called 6 times in 10 hours, and were assured each time that they wouldn't be hit. Yeah, so much for that. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1726 Registered: 10-2004 |
Israel is clearly not being just defensive. They are very strategically destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon. Very strategically terrorizing the civilian population of Lebanon and very strategically making sure that Lebanon has no resources with which to retaliate. That Hezbollah has amassed thousands and thousands of rockets and is firing daily many assaults into Israel is horrible and indefensible. Israel should be concentrating on killing these people who are shooting at them. The thing I wonder about is why if Hezbollah has all this super duper fire power are the casualties so low. It seems to me that one suicide bomber does more damage then all the Hezbollah rockets have done to date. Just an observation. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4562 Registered: 12-2001 |
Mtam - excellent post. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1805 Registered: 9-2004  |
It looks very deliberate. Annan may be right on this. They had called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that the aerial attacks were getting close to their position, according to a U.N. officer. What's interesting is this comment from Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States: "We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah." Two days ago they blew-up a Red Cross truck which CLEARLY had its red emblem on the roof. Last week they hit an area where Christians lived in Lebanon hitting one of their supply trucks. Clearly a disregard for the innocent lives. This may be Israel downfall in gaining support for towards their destruction of Hezbollah. Read somewhere that the Lebonese army may join forces in fighting against Israel.  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10233 Registered: 4-1997 |
The notion that Austria, Canada, Finland and China are passing information to terrorists is insane. | ||
| Abner Aliger Citizen Username: Vichy Post Number: 19 Registered: 10-2003 |
RE MUSTT POST 614: Found your post both readable and sensible! Served 3+years in Algerie from '59-62 with FFL and among other things learned that it is practically impossible to totally destroy a determined populace. The "occupier" eventually becomes the proverbial cornered rat at which time desperation kicks in. |
