Good comparison. And yes, Israel is going to be there for quite a while this time as well, with the same results as last time (leaving with its tail between its legs). Because there are no military solutions to the problems that confront the Middle East right now. Been there, done that.

Time to talk.

If the IDF's intention is to degrade Hizbullah's capabilities in southern Lebanon, it might be useful to discuss why they are targeting and destroying economic infrastructure elsewhere in the country, e.g., Beirut.

This means they'll keep fighting, which in turn means that Israel will find themselves unable to leave Lebanon since (a) they won't be willing to leave under fire and (b) no international peacekeeping force will take over unless there's a peace to keep.

There's a third option: c) militarily attack and declare war on Syria and Iran. Since Syria and Iran are the ones financing, arming, and backing Hezbollah, once those countries are liberated by Israel and America, no one will be to support Hezbollah anymore. Without any support from those countries, Hezbollah will be powerless.
The people of Lebanon will then be able to overthrow Hezbollah just as Eastern Europeons were able to overthrow their Communist dictators when the Soviet Empire was losing power and could no longer support the Eastern Europe Communist parties. The liberation of Lebanon will produce a domino effect so that freedom and democracy will spread out throughout the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.

Echoing Wonderin, if the Gaza is any indication, Isreal will degrade the civilian infrasturcture in Lebanon. Surely this will win friends for them and discourage support for Hezbellah or whatever may take its place. This has always worked so well for Israel.

As for the US "original plan" for Iraq. Well, maybe the admin said that publicly at one time or another, but there are no real indications the it was really the plan. The permanent bases suggest otherwise, and I'm pretty sure no military plans exist saying it would work that way. Neocon fantasies are not the same as plans. And as we well know, what this administration says is no actual indication of what it is planning.

This has to be parody Al. Seriously, dude, you and what army? Ours is a little busy at the moment with your previous adventure.

Kevin, do you have a book coming out or something? You took a week off not too long ago, and your posting has been light for awhile.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, different plans to attack Lebanon were drawn up a year ago. Plan A isn't working, so Israel is switching to plan B:
sfgate: Israel set war plan more than a year ago.

If the IDF's intention is to degrade Hizbullah's capabilities in southern Lebanon, it might be useful to discuss why they are targeting and destroying economic infrastructure elsewhere in the country, e.g., Beirut.

Because freedom is on the march. As they march backwards we will march in.

Israel has other objectives than Hizbullah. Either that, or they just can't tell the difference between Hizbullah and Lebanon - which sounds farcical, but is simular to the sorts of blindness we exhibit in Iraq.

Did you have to go to a thesaurus to get "assonance"?

I heard an interesting point on Hardball - by taking out Saddam, we essentially did Iran's bidding - we did in 2 months what Iran tried to do in 8 years - topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ironically, during the 8 year war, we supported Iraq. By taking out the Sunni Saddam, upseting the Shia-Sunni balance that Saddam provided, the Shia in Iran are now a power broker in the Middle East, influencing Iraqi Shia and the Hezbollah, controlling events from Bagdad to South Lebanon. By eliminating a smaller threat, Bush has created a larger threat.

Wonderin,

Lebanon is smaller than Connecticut.

So, Andy, if Israel's "planning for war" is bad, and Bush "not planning for war" is bad, that's quite a catch-22 you've created, don't you think?

the difference with the US/Irak situation is that the Israeli army doesn't baklks at killing civilian. A sort of collective punishment.

As WaPo points out today, the President wants to wipe out the 'root cause' of terrorism.

Next up. War to wipe out the root cause of people's desire to fuck.

Al, I hope that was parody, because if it's not, when are you going to sign up for the Middle East Liberation Tour (MELT)?

Don't be so hard on Kevin - his career is at risk with each post. Should he or his bloggers stray too far from the Israeli line- POOF! career over!!

No conspiracy, no cabal, just POOF! game over...

amazing no?

I beg the US military to enforce a no fly zone over northern Israel. I am on my knees praying to no god that the US suspend all aid to Israel. I am trying very hard not to listen to the natural response to return in kind what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and the people of Lebanon. I am trying very hard not to become one of them and act out my inner Kapo.

And then Al maybe we can buy all of the children in the World a new puppy.

I think you're wrong Kevin. The longer this stuff goes on, the more Hezbollah looks like the PLO, a group that made the Lebanese pay for attacks that were not in the public interest.

The Lebanese practially cheered Israel when they forced the PLO to withdraw to Tunisia. If Israel withdraws to a more defensive posture only to be drawn in again by Hezbollah attacks, the Lebanese will blame the militia as long as Israel limits thier attacks to the border areas.

"Israel may well be able to destroy Hezbollah's watchtowers and some of its rocket launching capacity, but Hezbollah's ability to wage guerrilla war is unlikely to be seriously damaged. This means they'll keep fighting"

Since that's always been the case anyway, why wouldn't Israel destroy watchtowers, rocket launching capabilities, weapons depots, communications centers, etc.. of Hezblahhh??

al said:There's a third option: c) militarily attack and declare war on Syria and Iran. Since Syria and Iran are the ones financing, arming, and backing Hezbollah, once those countries are liberated by Israel and America, no one will be [sic] to support Hezbollah anymore. Without any support from those countries, Hezbollah will be powerless.
The people of Lebanon will then be able to overthrow Hezbollah just as Eastern Europeons [sic] were able to overthrow their Communist dictators . . . .

I too think this must be parody al. There seems to be a great deal of confusion in this post about the governments of Syria and Iran and the populations of these countries. "Liberating" Syria and Iran means that the people are currently being coerced by their governments--that they do not support them. Do the majority of Syrians and Iranians want to be "liberated" from their governments? Are they against their governments' policy of supporting Hezbollah? Because if they're not, any government they select will STILL support Hezbollah. Unless Western countries install a puppet government to advance Western interests. Like we propped up Saddam to fight Iran after Iran chased out our man the Shah. Can we stop making the same mistakes over and over?

"Lebanon is smaller than Connecticut."

If your point is that the place is so small that they simply can't help taking out civilian targets, that doesn't say much for the IDF air forces. Perhaps we should take back the F-16s and laser-guided bombs until we can determine that they're better shots?

we did in 2 months what Iran tried to do in 8 years - topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Gee, and I thought the Iranians were fighting in that war because Saddam invaded them.

Maybe not everyone has visions of toppling regimes just because we do.

I heard an interesting point on Hardball - by taking out Saddam, we essentially did Iran's bidding - we did in 2 months what Iran tried to do in 8 years - topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Not exactly news -- though it's no surprise that the TeeVee gasbags would take three years to notice the obvious. Before our glorious adventure in Iraq, a variety of sceptics suggested that Iran would eventually turn out the be the only beneficiary of the whole bastard idea. Chalabi's interesting relations with Tehran made it difficult to ignore Iran's angle in the forlorn scheme. Well, difficult for anyone who wasn't a paid shill or media gasbag.

"(b) no international peacekeeping force will take over unless there's a peace to keep."

So this "international peacekeeping" force is only useful where peace has already been established, but useless where fighting exists?

Thom: A "plan" is not the same thing as a good plan.

Whoever's posting in Al's name: Great parody today, but you left out the part where the Lebanese people greet their Israeli liberators with flowers.

This means they'll keep fighting, which in turn means that Israel will find themselves unable to leave Lebanon since (a) they won't be willing to leave under fire and (b) no international peacekeeping force will take over unless there's a peace to keep.

While clearly an international "peacekeeping" force by definition can't take over until there is a peace to keep, international forces under UN mandates intervening before a peace exists are not, at all, unknown (UNPROFOR in the Balkans, MONUC—right now—in the DR Congo, among others).

The people of Lebanon will then be able to overthrow Hezbollah

Hezbollah doesn't rule Lebanon now.

"So this "international peacekeeping" force is only useful where peace has already been established, but useless where fighting exists?"

I urge all readers to review what the UN "peacekeepers" have been doing for the last several years in the Congo. They are actively engaging hostile forces there, and I by "actively engaging," I mean they are attacking and taking out armed militias.

UN forces - anywhere - are limited only by the limits that "we" place on them.

You want a beefy UN presence in southern Lebanon. We can make it so, if we want to.

Our occupation in Iraq is going so well that Israel felt the need to undertake its own occupation in Lebanon. Of all countries that should know better... This will be the biggest bungle in a long time for Israel, and unfortunately, Lebanon is headed for the same brand of anarchy that is taking place in Iraq right now.

BTW, Parody Al, democracy has already spread throughout Lebanon. They elected Hezbollah.

The longer this stuff goes on, the more Hezbollah looks like the PLO, a group that made the Lebanese pay for attacks that were not in the public interest.

And what was the result of Israel invading Lebanon to deal with the PLO? A new armed resistance movement formed within Lebanon, not to support the PLO, but to repulse Israel. And thus was born Hezbollah.

You think Israel gets a better result invading Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah?

By taking out the Sunni Saddam, upseting the Shia-Sunni balance that Saddam provided, the Shia in Iran are now a power broker in the Middle East, influencing Iraqi Shia and the Hezbollah, controlling events from Bagdad to South Lebanon. By eliminating a smaller threat, Bush has created a larger threat.
Posted by: Andy on July 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Precisely. The problem is that 3-4 years ago nobody in the administration had any idea of the political ambitions of the Shia in Iran. To the extent it occured to any of them we have to remember that they were under the spell of Chalibi. More accurately, all Muslims looked alike to Bush, Cheney and Friends.

It would have been really nice if anybody in authority in the Administration had any real foreign policy experience, or at least the intelligence to listen to grownups. We might have avoided the mess created by the invasion of Iraq.

The people of Lebanon will then be able to overthrow Hezbollah

Hezbollah represents the largest ethnic/policital group and poorest people in Lebanon. Hezbollah is Lebanon.

Do the majority of Syrians and Iranians want to be "liberated" from their governments? Are they against their governments' policy of supporting Hezbollah? Because if they're not, any government they select will STILL support Hezbollah. Unless Western countries install a puppet government to advance Western interests. Like we propped up Saddam to fight Iran after Iran chased out our man the Shah. Can we stop making the same mistakes over and over?

Posted by: cowalker on July 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Very simplistic thinking. Religion-wise Syria is a mirror image of Iraq. The Syrian government is Alawite (off shoot of Shia) representing 12% of the population, while Sunni Muslims represent 75% of the population. Any shakeup in Syria is most likely to yield a Sunni dominated government. Why would a Sunni Arab Syrian government want to support Hezbollah, the tool of Shiite Persian Iran?

Watch the news - the Sunni Arab states in the region - Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - are all condemning Hezbollah's behavior. They resent Iran and resist its ambition to dominate the region

I went back and read Al's post. I want to know what he is smoking, because that has to be some good shit.

Did you have to go to a thesaurus to get "assonance"?

I dunno...you don't have to know what the word precisely means for the phrase "they do have a certain disquieting assonance" to seem apt. ;)

My guess is that Kevin had to learn the word when prepping for his SATs and has been aching for an opportunity to use it ever since. With me, it was "brachiating."

cmdicely
Hezbollah doesn't rule Lebanon now.

They may not rule Lebanon, but they certainly have them by the short hairs.

By taking out the Sunni Saddam, upseting the Shia-Sunni balance that Saddam provided, the Shia in Iran are now a power broker in the Middle East, influencing Iraqi Shia and the Hezbollah, controlling events from Bagdad to South Lebanon. By eliminating a smaller threat, Bush has created a larger threat.
Posted by: Andy on July 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Precisely. The problem is that 3-4 years ago nobody in the administration had any idea of the political ambitions of the Shia in Iran. To the extent it occured to any of them we have to remember that they were under the spell of Chalibi. More accurately, all Muslims looked alike to Bush, Cheney and Friends.

It would have been really nice if anybody in authority in the Administration had any real foreign policy experience, or at least the intelligence to listen to grownups. We might have avoided the mess created by the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Ron Byers on July 21, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Iranian influence in Iraq will be a short-term thing. Iraqi Shia want help in getting control of the Sunni there. Once that happens, there will be inevitable clashes between Iraq and Iran again. Iraq is Arab and Iran is Persian and the cultural divide will continue. The LA Times had a great article a few months ago telling how the Iraqi Imams are all ready to retake their "rightfull" place at the head of Shiism. Remember, all the holy places of Shia are in Iraq. Iran won't take that lying down. Conflict is inevitable.

They may not rule Lebanon, but they certainly have them by the short hairs.

I think you're thining of Israel, Mike.

By the way, any more thoughts on whether Israel's attacks on civilians are "intended to produce terror and fear"?

How about "Shock and awe"?

Hezbollah represents the largest ethnic/policital group and poorest people in Lebanon. Hezbollah is Lebanon.

Posted by: Hostile on July 21, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Not really. Hezbollah is Shiite. Latest estimates on Lebanese demographics:
Christian 40%
Sunni 26%
Shia 26%
Druze 5%

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51604.htm

Ron B -- I agree with your observations and would add that the number one priority for Americans should be to get rid of the Republican rule that has squandered lives, credibility, wealth, and much of our military capability. Other concerns must be secondary at this point.

Campesino -- Do you think that we can liberate Syria, or would it turn into a failed state like Iraq?

Gregory
They may not rule Lebanon, but they certainly have them by the short hairs.

I think you're thinking of Israel, Mike.

Are you saying that Lebanon approved of firing missiles into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers? Before Israel responded?

If they didn't, it would sure seem to me like Hezbollah was committing criminal acts, by Lebanonese law. Wonder why they weren't stopped by the Lebanonese?

By the way, any more thoughts on whether Israel's attacks on civilians are "intended to produce terror and fear"?

No, but I am sure that that is what Hezbollah's goal is. And Hamas too. Which makes sense, since they are terrorists.

enozinho:

> The Lebanese practially cheered Israel when they forced the PLO
> to withdraw to Tunisia. If Israel withdraws to a more defensive
> posture only to be drawn in again by Hezbollah attacks, the
> Lebanese will blame the militia as long as Israel limits
> thier attacks to the border areas.

I dunno, eno. I have a great deal of respect for your views
on the ME, but I think, as others noted, that the context is
different. The PLO were interlopers in Lebanon; Hezbollah
is a homegrown resistance movement formed by Lebanese Shia
precisely in response to the first Israeli invasion.

The secularized, West-leaning Lebanese in the north of the country
certainly won't cotton to Hezbollah fighting Israel and getting
their infrastructure blown up in the process; they have other
priorities. But that's going to be trumped, I think, by the rural
Shi'ite support in the south -- and that's where they get their
recruits from, and who they've helped with their social services.

This is not well-fed and decadent Arafat
urging conflict on from a bunker here ...

Bob

"Because there are no military solutions to the problems that confront the Middle East right now. Been there, done that.

Time to talk."

What is there to talk about? Wasn't pulling out of the disputed territories supposed to bring about peace? Wasn't that the only thing standing in the way of peace in the region? Seems to me the time to talk has come and gone.

Wonderin,

I was saying no one has any room to move. There's a lot of people in a very small space.

If you combined the whole area of Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, it still wouldn't be half the size of Maine.

If you've got a lot of thugs standing on the sidewalk throwing rocks through your windows, do you call the cops, or do you move away? If you can only move a few blocks and the thugs follow you and are still throwing rocks through your windows, what do you do? If you call the cops, they start fighting with the cops. The cops arrest some of them. Then all their pals show up and fight with cops. Then characters in other countries, for their own purposes, start sending help to the thugs to fight with the cops, who are by now the army.

When people complain about 'all the land', there's hardly any land at all. Israel, by itself, is smaller than Vermont.

cld:

Ahhh ... the broken windows theory of sectarian conflict :)

Bob

"I urge all readers to review what the UN "peacekeepers" have been doing for the last several years in the Congo. They are actively engaging hostile forces there, and I by "actively engaging," I mean they are attacking and taking out armed militias."

But are they doing it in a disproportionate manner?

Hezbollah were organized by Iran and work as the Iranian influence in Lebanese politics.

"If you call the cops, they start fighting with the cops. The cops arrest some of them. Then all their pals show up and fight with cops. Then characters in other countries, for their own purposes, start sending help to the thugs to fight with the cops, who are by now the army."

According to Kevin Drum, the international version of cops will only ride to the rescue when everything thing's been settled and resolved.

Campesino, those figures are almost certainly bogus. You can read the hedges wide and clear - State's website simply says it's putting up figures from Al-Nahar. Most credible indepedent experts describe Shiite Muslims as the largest demographic group in Lebanon.

bob,

Yes, broken windows are exactly where sectarian conflict starts.

This is pretty much what happened to the United States in Iraq.

You mean to say that Hizbollah doesn't actually have rockets? And that after learning Hizbollah doesn't have rockets the Israelis will stay around and rebuild Lebanon? I don't think so.

After a few weeks there will be most likely one of the 2 following ouctomes: (1) Hizbollah will be disarmed; (2) Hiabollah will not be disarmed.

Which outcome do you prefer? Which outcome will be most disappointing to you?

Hizbollah, Hamas, and Fatah all keep their military (men and materiel) mixed in with their unarmed populace. This practice contravenes the post-WWII Geneva agreements, but those organizations have denounced the Geneva agreements and agreed only to be bound by their interpretations of the Mohammed's teachings. Thus, Hizbollah, Hamas, and Fatah can not be combated, much less disarmed, without killing their civilians. It's a dilemma: when the Lebanese civilians die, do you put the blame more on Israel (ignoring the culpability implied by the Geneva greements), or do you put the blame more on Hizbullah? You can't be neutral, in my opinion, because Hizbullah is amassing weaponry to attack Isreal: hoped-for neutrality implies a judgment against Israel.

In this case, you really have to decide whom you want to lose.

So the people who want to spread democracy in the area want to destroy Hezbullah and Hamas primarily because they won elections and now hold the powers of the state.

An overlooked item in the news today is Lebanon's promise to fight "side by side" with Hezbollah if the IDF invades with ground troops. What I interpret this to mean is that there is an understanding between Israel and the Lebanese govt to engage in some shadow boxing friction after the IDF has swept the Shia neighborhoods, allowing the Lebanese Army to back the IDF out and take over the turf, with the cachet that comes from "driving off" the invaders. Then if the Lebanese Army needs support or assistance from the EU or other peacekeepers they have a fig leaf to justify calling them in for help.

The land area of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip combined is 10,420.9 sq mi.

Consolidated metropolitan area of New York City, 10,457 sq mi.

Are you saying that Lebanon approved of firing missiles into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers? Before Israel responded?

There's no evidence the Lebanese government was aware of Hezbollah's plan to capture -- not kidnap, thank you very much -- Israeli soldiers, nor had the ability to prevent it.

If they didn't, it would sure seem to me like Hezbollah was committing criminal acts, by Lebanonese law. Wonder why they weren't stopped by the Lebanonese?

Again, you imply the Lebanese had the awareness and capability to stop Hezbollah, an assertion not at all in evidence. Frankly, I am not familiar enough with Lebanese law to know if Hezbollah's operation against Israeli soldiers was illegal, although I do dispute your use of the term "kidnapping" -- the term is "capturing."

By the way, any more thoughts ...?

No

Imagine my surprise.

but I am sure that that is what Hezbollah's goal is. And Hamas too. Which makes sense, since they are terrorists.

But, again, Mike: why do you keep pointing to Hezbollah and Hamas, who we agree are terrorists, when you're asked about the actions of the US and Israel?

The effect of Israel's actions has been to inflict terror and fear -- not to mention hundreds of civilian casualties -- and, frankly, it's difficult to credit anything but the notion that they are, in fact, intended to do so. And again, the stated intention of the US' intial aerial blitz was "shock and awe" -- that's different from "terror and fear" exactly how?

Frankly, Mike, pointing to Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations is pretty thin beer when justifying the actions of the US and Israel.

"So the people who want to spread democracy in the area want to destroy Hezbullah and Hamas primarily because they won elections and now hold the powers of the state."

Of course kidnapping and killing of a soverign nation's members of the armed forces, or launching rockets into civilian centers had nothing to do with it.

If you've got a lot of thugs standing on the sidewalk throwing rocks through your windows, do you call the cops, or do you move away?

Call the cops? Pussy. That's what a shotgun is for.

After a few weeks there will be most likely one of the 2 following ouctomes: (1) Hizbollah will be disarmed; (2) Hiabollah will not be disarmed.

It's this kind of astute, counter-intuitive, far-seeing political analysis that keeps me coming back here.

Gregory,

Hamas is a racist organization whose charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Other than the Koran, it's the only external document mentioned.

After a few weeks there will be most likely one of the 2 following ouctomes: (1) Hizbollah will be disarmed; (2) Hiabollah will not be disarmed.

Which outcome do you prefer? Which outcome will be most disappointing to you?

republicrat, your question presumes that Israel's tactics are likely to achieve the outcome of disarming Hezbollah, an assertion that is not at all in evidence. Given that, how dare you imply that critics of Israel's policy somehow desire to see Hezbollah not disarmed.

You're using the same dishonest -- and, frankly, loathsome and insulting -- rhetoric as defenders of Bush's disastrous Iraqi adventure, wherein critics were accused of being "objectively pro-Saddam" or "wanting the terrorists to win."

It is not at all established that the policy under issue is certain to win, effective, or even wise. Indeed, I contend that Israel's willy-nilly inflicting civilian casualties in Lebanon -- to say nothing of destroying painfully rebuilt infrastructure and political cohesion -- is counterproductive to Israel's interest -- to say nothing of the united States'.

By the by -- even if Hezbollah is disarmed, so what? They can always rearm -- and this time, I'd imagine, they'd want to concentrate in surface to air missiles, rather than ground to ground.

The 1982 invasion of Lebanon had much grander goals than a quick expulsion of the PLO (although Ariel Sharon didn't bother to explain them to the Cabinet, much less the Israeli people). They intended to create a winner in the Lebanese civil strife, establishing a government under the psychotic killer, Maronite Bashir Gemayel. And when Bashir was assassinated, then his brother Amir. And when it became obvious that the Christians weren't able to retain their primacy in the Lebanese government, then they set up their own independent fiefdom south of the Litani (i.e., what is now Hezbollahland) under command of the South Lebanon army, a militia so fake they wore IDF uniforms.

I don't think the present war has any of these lofty (yet stupid) ambitions.

Campesino, those figures are almost certainly bogus. You can read the hedges wide and clear - State's website simply says it's putting up figures from Al-Nahar. Most credible indepedent experts describe Shiite Muslims as the largest demographic group in Lebanon.

No, I believe Campesino is largely correct. Muslims are the largest single demographic group in Lebanon, but that includes both Sunni and Shia. Shia are the largest group of Muslims in Lebanon, which are themselves the largest group, but not by themselves the largest.

In this case, you really have to decide whom you want to lose.

I want Hezbollah to lose in terms of the declared aims of both sides, but I also want Israel to lose in terms of their apparent aims which go well beyond their declared aims.

This isn't really unusual; its very easy to want what someone says they want to achieve, and to see it as perfectly legitimate, but to believe that their means chosen to get it are both unlikely to achieve it, indeed counterproductive to that end, and quite bad for reasons beyond that, and most likely aimed at serving a non-overt agenda.

Hamas is a racist organization whose charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Other than the Koran, it's the only external document mentioned.

So what? Of course Hamas is deplorable. How does that justify Israel's attacks on civilians?

Does it ever occur to your people that you're currently using exactly the same justification -- such-and-such a group is evil and a threat -- that the terrorists use?

Color me unimpressed.

An overlooked item in the news today is Lebanon's promise to fight "side by side" with Hezbollah if the IDF invades with ground troops. What I interpret this to mean is that there is an understanding between Israel and the Lebanese govt to engage in some shadow boxing friction after the IDF has swept the Shia neighborhoods, allowing the Lebanese Army to back the IDF out and take over the turf, with the cachet that comes from "driving off" the invaders.

That's interesting. The more obvious interpretation would seem to be that the Lebanese Army would resist, as best it can, the invasion of its soveriegn territory -- its right, of course, under the UN charter.

Hmmmmm....maybe Israel's bombing of Lebanese Army barracks makes sense after all...

There was an article the other day that mentioned that there hasn't been a proper census in Lebanon since the 30s and the proportional representation in the Lebanese government is based on the figure from that era.

Campesino, those figures are almost certainly bogus. You can read the hedges wide and clear - State's website simply says it's putting up figures from Al-Nahar. Most credible indepedent experts describe Shiite Muslims as the largest demographic group in Lebanon.

Posted by: glasnost on July 21, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Cite some

CIA says 39% Christian

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html#People

In any event, I don't think anyone says Shiia are the majority

Andrew J. Lazarus: I generally agree with your desrciption of 1982 invasion but we don not know what their plans this time around are.

You can't simply say that the present war has none of those lofty ambitions.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself, especially in the middle east.

The 1982 invasion of Lebanon had much grander goals than a quick expulsion of the PLO (although Ariel Sharon didn't bother to explain them to the Cabinet, much less the Israeli people).

If this effort doesn't have other hidden goals, why the attacks on non-Hezbollah (particularly civilian) targets well outside of the area Hezbollah's military wing occupies?

Of course kidnapping and killing of a soverign nation's members of the armed forces, or launching rockets into civilian centers had nothing to do with it.

so killing members of a sovereign nation's armed forces, and launching explosives into civilian centers, is justification for attacking civilian targets in retaliation?

You do realize, Freedom Fighter, that you've just justified a retaliatory strike by Lebanon, as Israel has done exactly that? It's just that Lebanon doesn't have the capability.

Which, come to think of it, does little credit to Israel's military -- their ability to devatate a relatively unarmed and defenseless neighbor is only impressive to the chickenhawks' lust for war porn.

They may not rule Lebanon, but they certainly have them by the short hairs.

And yet last week Mike was arguing with me that the US military, with 40,000 troops in Baghdad, could not be said to be in occupation of that city, while now he's arguing that Hezbollah, with only a few thousand armed men (see globalsecurity.org), is powerful enough to hold Lebanon "by the short hairs."

Ok, so the RSM rule is 40,000 soldiers from the world's most powerful military -- not large enough to control one city. But 3,000 or so lightly armed fighters -- enough to control a country.

Shi'a Muslims of the Twelver Sect are the single largest religious group in Lebanon today. They are generally believed to be between 30 and 40 percent of the total population, although estimates vary wildly. They have traditionally been the poorest community in Lebanon

From Wikipedia.

Of course kidnapping and killing of a soverign nation's members of the armed forces, or launching rockets into civilian centers had nothing to do with it.

Hey, we do that to Iraq all the time -- does Iraq have justification then to attack us?

Will all you people get a clue? The only reason this war started is because Israel tried to talk to hizbullah. Israel gave them what they wanted in its pullout of southern Lebanon six years ago. The fact that hizbullah continues to attack is a sign that they have not given up their dream to erase Israel entirely. These are not people you talk to. First get hezbulah out of lebanon , then talk and get a u.n. force.

The fact that hizbullah continues to attack is a sign that they have not given up their dream to erase Israel entirely.

If Hezbullah's dream is to "erase Israel entirely," lobbing a few SCUDs and capturing a couple of soldiers seems like a piss-poor way of bringing it about.

"Erasing Israel entirely" would require attacks that more closely resemble what Israel is doing to the sovereign nation of Lebanon.

Gregory,

'Attacking civilians'? How would you know?

Does it ever occur to your people that you're currently using exactly the same justification -- such-and-such a group is evil and a threat -- that the terrorists use?

Terrorists wouldn't tell you they're doing it because they're wrong, would they? Ann Coulter says things about liberals that are actually true of conservatives.

OK, I don't have a direct line to Ehud Olmert. Maybe he does have Sharon-like fantasies of what to do in Lebanon. But color me skeptical of the destruction of the airport and highways as evidence. Hezbollah doesn't get its rockets by helicopter drop, at least I don't think so. It seems much more likely that they get supplies by air and road.

I think there was some expectation that the 'permissible' Israeli retaliation would be a few airstrikes confined to the border area. Why? What is the use of 'proportionate' response that doesn't prevent recurrence of hostile acts of war?

last week Mike was arguing with me that the US military, with 40,000 troops in Baghdad, could not be said to be in occupation of that city

What are they -- there for a convention?

Not in control of the city, obviously. Not occupying it? Pull the other one.

RSM's grasp of geopolitics seems to boil down to "us good, them bad."

One of the biggest problems with the current Israeli response is this: it's ludicrous. They're angry at Iran and Syria so they bomb Lebanon. And bombing Lebanon is supposed to so hurt Iran and Syria that they'll stop whatever it is that is making Israel angry.

How does that work? It's as if we were so mad at Cuba that we bombed Belize. Is the world just completely nuts or is it only the people who are in the papers?

How can anyone outside the intelligence service know whether those are exclusively 'civilian' targets or not? Hezbollah has organized the whole Shia society of southern Lebanon around themselves.

Again, you're simply not thinking about the extremely small, cramped size of the place, 70% the size of Connecticut, and the Shia region of it is smaller still.

'Attacking civilians'? How would you know?

There are reportedly several hundred dead civilians -- including not a few children -- who I'm sure would love to be able to debate your skepticism.

In addition, the radio reported this morning that a number of the trucks bombed by the Israelis on a particular road were loaded with produce bound for market. Terrorist fruits and vegetables, no doubt.

Terrorists wouldn't tell you they're doing it because they're wrong, would they?

So then are we wrong to denounce their justifications? Or are we wrong to adopt them? Or is it just that Bush's apologists will adopt any handy excuse to carry water for him?

"Erasing Israel entirely" would require attacks that more closely resemble what Israel is doing to the sovereign nation of Lebanon.

Let me also explain the problem with Hezbollah's professed dedication to the erasure of Israel. It means, assuming they are serious, simply, that there is very little use opening any sort of long-term peace negotiations with them. They weren't satisfied with the long-overdue Israeli departure from Southern Lebanon. Is there any particular reason to believe that they would stop shelling Israel even in the event of a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders? Or is the idea that Hezbollah gets both the 1967 borders and carte blanche to continue offensive operations against Israel? That's a pretty simple question. Hezbollah appears to believe that the answer is 'Yes'. I think I'll take them at their word.

How can anyone outside the intelligence service know whether those are exclusively 'civilian' targets or not?

Ah....exclusively civilian, is it, now? Let me guess: Those dead civilians in the collapsed apartment buildings are...collateral damage!

Two words, my friend: Beirut Airport. Israel enjoys total air superiority over Lebanon. There is no reason at all to destroy the civilian airport -- particularly in such a spectacular -- indeed, "shock and awe"! -- fashion as blowing up the fuel depot. Regardless of what threadbare justification tossed out, and I've yet to see one that passed the laugh test, it was clearly a collective punishment attack against a civilian target.

Funny, we used to hang people for that sort of thing.

It's as if we were so mad at Cuba that we bombed Belize.

I think the analogy is more clear if you replace "Cuba" with "al-Qaeda" and "Belize" with "Iraq".

Gregory,

'trucks loaded with produce', oh, honestly.

You missed the point, the terrorists ape the justifications of the opposite side to confuse people. There is a truth in the conflict, and they want the truth.

This is grotesque. It makes me sick to my stomach.

This is Israel sending a message to the Arab world: "Don't try to get above your station. We're 'the only democracy in the Middle East' and we're going to keep it that way. Don't try to build a modern society, because we'll just destroy it."

Lebanese society was quickly growing and, if it had continued, it would eventually have become as prosperous as Israel, or more so. Israel didn't want that to happen. It would ruin its narrative. So it engaged in genocidal terrorist attacks on Lebanese infrastructure and civilians.

The idiotic U.S. support of these war crimes will spark more terrorism. This doesn't benefit us in any way at all. We should be in the forefront condemning the shitty little country and supporting Lebanon's right to self-defense. We should be arming Lebanon, not Israel.

Words cannot express the contempt I hold for Israel. I really, really hope that Israel's opponents are strong enough this time to wipe out the shitty little country once and for all. As far as I'm concerned, Israel lost its right to exist when its voters rewarded the murder of Yitzhak Rabin by voting in Netanyahu.

It's as if we were so mad at Cuba that we bombed Belize.

I think the analogy is more clear if you replace "Cuba" with "al-Qaeda" and "Belize" with "Iraq".

Clarifying the disjunction and insanity works better with fresher material.

Gregory,

The airport is where planes land.

It's as if we were so mad at Cuba that we bombed Belize.

If memory serves me right, one of Bush's geniuses in the DoD suggested attacking al Qaeda somewhere in South America, becuase they'd never expect it. (Indeed not!)

If Lebanon is a sovereign nation, then why doesn't it control its own southern border? ... I realize that the Lebanese government, with its weak army and with Hezbollah in the government, is hardly capable of stopping Hezbollah even if it wanted to

I was going to answer your question, but it seems to did it for me.

but why this precludes the Israelis from defending their borders is not one bit clear to me.

Spare me the straw man. "Defending their borders" != "attacking civilian targets," "decimating the Lebanese Army" (which did not attack Israel), "inflicting collective punishment on Lebanon's citizenry" or "destroying Lebanon's civil and political infrasturcture."

Rip that one up, Andrew. No one is arguing Israel's right to defend its borders, but rather their obviously excessive tactics against Lebanon's civilians, which are not only disgusting but also likely counterproductive.

The fact that hizbullah continues to attack is a sign that they have not given up their dream to erase Israel entirely.

If Hezbullah's dream is to "erase Israel entirely," lobbing a few SCUDs and capturing a couple of soldiers seems like a piss-poor way of bringing it about.

"Erasing Israel entirely" would require attacks that more closely resemble what Israel is doing to the sovereign nation of Lebanon.

Posted by: Gregory on July 21, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK First off the attacks by Israel are justified as they are trying their best to avoid civillian casualties while eliminating the threat to them; whereas Hizbullah specifically targets civillians. Secondly, I dont see how firing missiles at large metropolitan cities such as Haifa would be a piss-poor way to wipe out Israel.

Suppose a civil airliner tried to take off or land from Beirut airport during this and the Israelis shot it down, that would look great, wouldn't?

It's more practical, and more humane, to simply bomb the runways. But, I think Gregory would prefer the spectacle of still more civilian casualties to decorate his error.

"You do realize, Freedom Fighter, that you've just justified a retaliatory strike by Lebanon, as Israel has done exactly that?"

Who cares about justification when the fighting has already started? And why would anyone care about retaliatory strike, if elements out of Lebanon already initiated the first strike?

The airport is where planes land.

Duh. And given Israel's total air superiority over Lebanon, nothing lands -- or takes off -- save with Israel's blessing. Therefore, attacking the civilian airport was unnecessary, except as an act of collective punsihment or to inflict terror and fear on the populace. Now, do you have a rebuttal, or not? So far you don't.

'trucks loaded with produce', oh, honestly.

Yes? You have a point to make? The reporter didn't see civilian trucks, perhaps, and made them up? That it really was terrorist fruits and vegetables?

You missed the point, the terrorists ape the justifications of the opposite side to confuse people.

It seems now that the side you're defending is now the one aping the justifications of the other side. So again you beg the question, are we wrong to denounce their justifications? Or are we wrong to adopt them? Or is it just that Bush's apologists will adopt any handy excuse to carry water for him?

There is a truth in the conflict, and they want the truth.

Frankly, you're doing a pretty poor job of establishing that your perception of the truth is at all credible.

"Hey, we do that to Iraq all the time -- does Iraq have justification then to attack us?"

Do they? Do Iraqis want to attack us?

Firebug has gotten in touch with his inner Kapo. I understand, but it just leads to more violence. It is US military aid to Israel that allows for the killing of so many civilians, so perhaps Firebug should turn attention to the US government and wish for its demise instead.

"Words cannot express the contempt I hold for Israel. I really, really hope that Israel's opponents are strong enough this time to wipe out the shitty little country once and for all. As far as I'm concerned, Israel lost its right to exist when its voters rewarded the murder of Yitzhak Rabin by voting in Netanyahu."

I think the freedom loving Palestinians are totally supportive of not allowing anyone who disagree with them to have the right to exist.

Gregory,

You have a naive imagination, except where you imagine Israeli villainy, then the detail seems endless. Trucks loaded with innocent produce. Who could think anything might be underneath?

Who are we to denounce their justifications? Hezbollah hasn't ceased to lob missiles over the border since Israel withdrew, but you seem never to notice.

Ann Coulter says things about liberals that actually are, literally, true of conservatives. Palestinians ambitions are literally the same ambitions they ascribe to Israelis. Social conservatives understand only themselves and bullying, Republicans and muslims are almost exactly the same kind of people, that's why Republican views on these circumstances are often more true than not.

First off the attacks by Israel are justified

Well, simply asserting it doesn't make it so, but you're partly right -- Engaging Hezbollah in self defense is justified. Engaging in collective punishment of a civilian populace that had nothing to do with the attacks is not at all justified. Nor, I might add, is giving Israel a free pass.

as they are trying their best to avoid civillian casualties

Well, objective evidence indicates they're doing a pretty lousy job. But still -- How do you know? Israel says they are, and you believe it, right? As cld said, "There is a truth in the conflict, and they want the truth. "

while eliminating the threat to them

Destroying Lebanon's political and civilian infrastructure "eliminates the threat" how, exactly?

whereas Hizbullah specifically targets civillians

True. So what? Israel is pissing away its moral high ground, and you're cheering them on. Hardly the action of a supporter, I'd say.

Secondly, I dont see how firing missiles at large metropolitan cities such as Haifa would be a piss-poor way to wipe out Israel.

Given the relative inaccuracy, limited range and general ineffectiveness of the missiles in question, the fact that you don't see how sporadic rocket attacks on a single city are a piss-poor way to wipe out Israel says, I'm afraid, more about your own deficient logic than anything else.

Suppose a civil airliner tried to take off or land from Beirut airport during this and the Israelis shot it down, that would look great, wouldn't?

Lackign any basis in reality, cld now turns to hypotheticals. Nothing was flying, cld. Taking off a civilian airline would have been suicidal.

Moreover, again, having total air superiority, the Israelis could have easily communicated with, intercepted and attempted to escort any civilian aircraft using the airport.

It's more practical, and more humane, to simply bomb the runways.

Than shooting down a civilian airliner? Undoubtedly. But, of course, since shooting down a civilian airliner was not at all a realistic possibiliy, the fact remains that Israel engaged in collective punishment against a civilian target. There's also the fact that Israel bombed the fuel depot as well -- a rather more spectacular target than "humanely" bombing the runways. Oddly enough, cld fails to mention this element of the attack, not its undoubted effect in producing -- yes! -- terror and fear.

But, I think Gregory would prefer the spectacle of still more civilian casualties to decorate his error.

Well, since you have so far failed to demonstrate any "error," the rest of your analysis is rather worthless, I'm afriad. I can see why your deficient rhetoric would cause you to reach for an ad hominem, but it seems that it's you, cld, who is arguing in favor of attacks on civilians, while I am arguing against. Shame on you.

You have a naive imagination, except where you imagine Israeli villainy

Sadly, cld, I don't have to imagine Israel's attacks on civilian targets; the evidence is all over the news.

Trucks loaded with innocent produce. Who could think anything might be underneath

Actually, cld, it seems to be you with the active imagination. If you have any evidence that anything was underneath, present it; otherwise, the fact that has been established is that the trucks were civilian, and you have presented nothing but imagination to say otherwise.

And that's only one example of the civilian targets and civilian dead that have been documented. Now, if cld were honest, he/she/it might speculate that Israel attacked any truck on the road, civilian or otherwise. Indeed, I expect this is probably the case. That simply means that Israel is demonstrably acting with reckless disregard for civilian lives, as seems to be the case. Yet it's cld who imagines some nefarious means to justify Israel's actions.

Hezbollah hasn't ceased to lob missiles over the border since Israel withdrew, but you seem never to notice.

Au contraire, cld; I've cited Hezbollah's rocket attacks specifically, and affirmed israel's right to defend against them. How that right justifies attacking civilians is something you have yet to establish.

it's also becoming increasingly clear that many on these forums -- I'll name names: cld, Freedom Fighter and a few others -- don't really give a damn about the justifications. Israel is kicking ass, and they support it -- regardless of who is really doing the suffering. That attitude is far more disgusting than the evident disregard for civilian life Israel is showing.

Palestinians ambitions are literally the same ambitions they ascribe to Israelis.

Not exactly. Palistinians' ambition is to have a state, something Israel already does.

Gregory,

How can you type so well while blind?

If shooting down a civil airliner wasn't at all a realistic possibility, that hardly says much for the Israeli airforce, does it?

If you are, personally, so remarkably capable of identifying a military target, targets carefully involved with the civilian population, yet that do not have any civilian population anywhere near them, then I really think you had best volunteer for the army since that is an extraordinary talent.

Where is the origin of your belief that every Israeli action is meant, it's 'undoubted effect', to produce terror and fear?

And bombing a fuel depot doesn't have a military significance?

How do you type while blind, this is the mystery.

Anyone catch the Condi press conference? Absolutely Orwellian.

Gregory, I think you could save us all some time by specifying positively what tactics are permissible for the Israelis to use in attempting to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks (leaving aside the captured soldiers for the moment).

I would also appreciate it if you would estimate your program's probability of success.

then withdraw all but a token force within six months

Funniest line ever. Unless you're serious and consider 30,000 troops, the number called for after six months a token force.

Has anyone heard whether Israel has Arrow anti-missile systems deployed near Haifa?
I'd have expected them to at least *try* to knock down some of the incoming rockets. And it would make sense that those systems would be deployed where there is a threat - Hezbollah territory would seem to qualify.

So, not having heard anything, I am guessing that one of the following is the case:
- Katyushas are too small for Arrow to be effective (or cost-effective)
- they weren't deployed there
- they were deployed and are failing

Given the system is supposed to have been based on the Patriot and improved on it - if the last option is the reality ... what the fcuk did we spend all that $$ on the Patriot for?

As long as Hezbollah can use their own population as human shields they should be allowed to remain inviolate, no matter what they've done?

Looking at a truck full of produce from the air, how do you see what's underneath? Gregory, use your magic crystal and astral project the answer to me.

I've cited Hezbollah's rocket attacks specifically, and affirmed israel's right to defend against them. How that right justifies attacking civilians is something you have yet to establish.

I think the whole content of my previous few posts has done exactly that.

The Palestinian ambition to have a state could have been realized at almost any point of the past sixty years, but their only ambition, their only purpose is the destruction of Israel, and every time they might have had a state they've managed to, just conveniently, thwart it.Their only concept of nationality is contra-Israel.

'Palestinians' have never had a state in this region, never had their own economy, 80% of the Ottoman region of Palestine is outside the area in dispute, which is smaller than New Hampshire.

Hey, we do that to Iraq all the time -- does Iraq have justification then to attack us?

Actually isreal does it all the time, well did it all the time. Why do you think Hezbollah continues to demand a prisoner exchange? isreal holds dozens if not hundres of Lebanese rounded up during the occupation and held for years without charge or trial.

Freedom Fries: Do they? Do Iraqis want to attack us?

Seems they not only want to do actually do so about 50 to 60 times a day, yes. But since Israel is justified in invading Lebanon because Hezbollah bombed Israeli civilian sites, and since we bomb Iraqi civilian sites, then it seems the Iraqis are certainly justified.

I've cited Hezbollah's rocket attacks specifically, and affirmed israel's right to defend against them. How that right justifies attacking civilians is something you have yet to establish.

I think the whole content of my previous few posts has done exactly that. The Palestinian ambition to have a state could have been realized at almost any point of the past sixty years, but their only ambition, their only purpose is the destruction of Israel, and every time they might have had a state they've managed to, just conveniently, thwart it.Their only concept of nationality is contra-Israel.

Look, you moron, he was talking about Israel's strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and you pretend to answer him with some blather about Palestinians. Just so you know, Hezbollah is not Palestinian -- Hezbollah is composed of Shiite Lebanese whose aim is the creation of a Shiite theocracy in Lebanon, while the Palestinians are not (mainly) Shiite and not Lebanese.

While everything in that region is intertwined, your answer had literally nothing to do with what he was asking you about. It's as if we invaded Canada and you justified it because of the threat we faced from Mexico. If you can't think, at least look at a map once in a while.

cld wrote: Trucks loaded with innocent produce. Who could think anything might be underneath

You might very well have a bomb strapped to your body underneath your clothing. How could anyone be sure that you don't? Therefore, the police should shoot you on sight.

Stefan,

He was talking about Palestine in the sentence, Not exactly. Palistinians' ambition is to have a state, something Israel already does.

That was the basis for my answer to that statement.His other madness was aptly answered previously in that post.

I am sad to see Stefan reads none of my posts, I always read his.

Hezbollah made the assault against every town in northern Israel and kidnapped the two soldiers in support of the Palestinians in the present circumstances, as they have said.

SecularAnimist, You might very well have a bomb strapped to your body underneath your clothing. How could anyone be sure that you don't?

Isn't that the whole story of the last ten years?

If shooting down a civil airliner wasn't at all a realistic possibility, that hardly says much for the Israeli airforce, does it?

Au contraire, cld -- it says enough for the Israeli air force's total air superiority that nothing was flying.

Moreover, if a genuinely civilian airliner -- full of, say, American and Europeans fleeing the flighting, which Israel prevented from evacuating by air -- did take off, the Israelis would have hardly been obligated or forced to shoot it down.

Israel had total air superiority. Therefore, there was no need to destroy Beirut's civilian airport. All you offer in defense is hypotheticals.

If you are, personally, so remarkably capable of identifying a military target, targets carefully involved with the civilian population, yet that do not have any civilian population anywhere near them, then I really think you had best volunteer for the army since that is an extraordinary talent.

and from another post

Looking at a truck full of produce from the air, how do you see what's underneath?

So, it's okay if Israel bombs a civilian target, if it can be plausibly argued that it might have been a military target? By these posts, cld is asserting Israel's right -- nay, its obligation -- to attack apparently civilian targets on the off chance that they might be, or be near, military targets.

As for the hundreds of dead civilians, I guess, oops, oh well.

I can only repeat that striking at Hamas and its rockets are one thing; attacking Lebanons political and civilian infrastr