osama who?

I've considered this explanation, too, and am skeptical of it for basically the same reason you are...but it's in no way completely implausible--especially when we focus on the fact that we're trying to figure out what Hezbollah was TRYING to do, not what they would be likely to accomplish. It may be a crackpot strategy, but that doesn't mean it wasn't their strategy. These guys are, remember, a few beers short of a sixpack.

While on the topic of multi-cushion bank-shot strategies...anybody remember Steven den Beste's 20-cushion bank-shot justification for invading Iraq that the right was so enamored of a couple of years ago? Den Beste's actually a nice guy, and it's a real achievement to lay out the strategy in textbook form...but once that's done, it's obvious how nutty it is.

I don't find the "provoke a war" explanation implausible at all, and I don't think it's nearly as complex or subtle as you're suggesting. Starting conflict is a dominating strategy - no matter the response, it's all good for them. If Israel doesn't respond, they've successfully pushed their weight around, and if they do respond, they become more important.

Passivity, for them, is the only weak strategy.

What do you mean when you say a prisoner swap would have strengthened Hezbollah?

Israel could have opened up negotiations with the government of Lebanon.

You seem to think Israels only negotiating option was to deal exclusively Hezbollah. But since the elections of legitimate Lebanese government Israel had other options.

If the Lebanese government could have forced a comprose on the militia wing of Hezbollah this could have strengthened the political wing of Hezbollah, which is what the good guys wanted to happen anyway. Right?

It may not have finished off Hezbollah in Lebanon but it could have weakened them vis a vis the other parties in that country.

What you're leaving out here is that it was first reported and is still believed by many that Israel had gone into Lebanon when this incident happened.The Fog of War now has it that Hezbullah was the invader! Which is true? Too late now!

Somewhere I read that the Hezzies hope & pray for such an opportunity: Two or three vulnerable, un-backed up Israeli soldiers. They did it because they could.

Of course, the explanation that terrorists are simply evil is quickly discounted by the left.

The Lebanese Social Affairs Minister has blamed Syria and Iran for using Hezbollah to drag them into war, so Nasrallah isn't necessarily the key decision maker here.

He may have been talked into it and assured Israel was too busy to strike back in force.

Needless to say, this is idle conjecture. Anybody have a link to a piece that provides some more informed speculation?

Sure. David Horowitz of Frontpage gives a very good analysis of the goals of Hezbollah: Hezbollah wants to push the Jews into the sea.

Link

"Americans need to take a hard look at what is going on in the Middle East, because it provides the clearest picture possible of the war we are in. On one side are al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran and their allies: Russia, France, Greece, and the UN majority. On the other is the only democracy in the land of Muslim and Arab terror. The origins of this front in the war on terror are crystal clear: the desire of the Muslim terrorists -- the elected majority among Palestinian Arabs and the occupying Shi'ite army in Lebanon, backed by Syria and Iran -- to destroy Israel and push the Jews into the sea."

How about considering Hezbollah's stated reason for the raid, that Israel was refusing to release all the Hezbollah prisoners taken in the last invasion of Lebanon and so Hezbollah was taking prisoners to trade as the only way to get their men back.

Now, one might argue that there are additional motives in play but it seems strange that almost no-one mentions this given that
a) it makes sense and
b) it is Hezbollah's official position on why they conducted the raid.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=73914

"During a prisoner exchange between Hizbullah and Israel in 2004, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed that if all Lebanese detainees were not freed from Israeli jails, Hizbullah would eventually abduct more Israeli soldiers." ... Hezbollah called the raid "Operation Truthful Promise"

Because, Andrew, they would then have to admit the terrorists are evil. Anything but that!

Schatz presumes that Nasrallah knew that Israel's response would be massive. There is no basis for that presumption. Hizbullah has provoked Israel before (as recently as November '05), including cross-border operations, without massive retaliation. It seems more plausible that Nasrallah anticipated a much more limited response, one that would have strengthened his hand against domestic opponents seeking Hizbullah's demilitarization. So Nasrallah was acting in an instrumental and calculating manner; but given his miscalculations, he is now improvising and, unfortunately, helping to escalate the crisis. But remember, we have been here before--remember Operation Grapes of Wrath in 1996? We are probably not on the brink of regional war.

But, we have "understand" the terrorists and their feelings . . .

>"...the fact is that even the smartest political
>leaders rarely have either the subtlety or the
>guts to hang their future on the chance of a
>series of counterintuitive, low-probability
>events turning out just right."

It's almost unfairly easy to point this out, but in fact, it's not the smartest leaders who do this; it's the dumbest ones. You've just described the Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld Iraq policy.

bn

Yet, somehow nothstine, that "dumb" team has kicked your butt in the last 3 elections (4 coming up).

"Needless to say, this is idle conjecture."

No, no, no, that's not the way do to it. If you want to make it in the blogging world, you have to be absolutely certain about everything, even things you know nothing whatsoever about.

When you say you're not really sure, it invites intelligent discussion, and we all all know how dangerous that is.

Sometimes it helps if we don't project our own institutional structures onto the situation. Hezbollah is a bunch of kids - 15 to 25 - that are given a practically unlimited budget for weapons and toys by Iran. A better reference would be the Bloods or the Crips or some other low-dominance male gang of thugs. For Nasrallah to stay top gun he has to let the kids blow off steam now and then, especially when the other gangs in the area are having their own rumble. I'm sure he thought Israel would be "measured and proportionate" in their response, especially since they've made bone-headed exchanges in the past, and now regrets risking his position.

bobo the chimp:

Thing is, of course, spinning for terrorists is NOT "idle conjecture" for liberals.

minion of rove:

Bloods and Crips are evil too.

The Evil Genius said it perfectly: Oh GOP, dear GOP,
you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.

If Hezbollah is the political organ of the Shiites of Lebanon, how does this help them?

Kevin Drum,

So let me get this straight. You need convincing evidence that a criminal and thug had some great plan when he committed a thuggish and criminal act?

M'Kay.

Kinda makes me wonder why that genuinely good-all-around guy Willie Horton (and the other furloughed criminals) acted so badly in spite of being treated well by former Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.

Tough. Strong.

"Time Bandits"?

I think Hezbollah reacted to the massive invasion of Gaza after the Hamas capture of the one soldier. We all saw the American gifted tanks lined up on the border. Kind of like 1939 Poland. Perhaps we need to provide Hamas with some horses. Probably Nasrallah did consider all of the political implications and conclude what Mr. Shatz has written.

I would argue the Israeli leadership made the same calculations about their escalation of the border skirmishes to bliztkrieg. The escalation of capture and imprisonment was not much different than what has been going on for years and years between Hezbollah and Israel. Why did Israel decide at this time to turn up the simmering war? That is the more important question. So far Israel has suffered very little political costs for its overwhelming use of force and destruction against Lebanon. The House of Representatives Thursday, "displaying a foreign affairs solidarity..., voted overwhelmingly Thursday to support Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah guerrillas.

The resolution, which was passed on a 410-8 vote, also condemns enemies of the Jewish state."

Israel has been allowed to wage war on its terms with US supplied state of the art weapons without any chance of having that supply of materiel interrupted.

OFF TOPIC:

Saw Amy Sullivan on Bloggingheads, and she's kinda hot - you should let her post some more here.

In this way, Hezbollah may be reduced to a guerrilla army again. And then, presumably, the regular Lebanese army or (more likely, in my opinion) an EU-led force can replace Hezbollah on the border.

While at the moment the Lebanese Defence Minister has rejected the possibility of the regular army fighting alongside Hezbollah, if the Israeli's launch an invasion further into the country he has said the army will fight to defend their homeland.

If this were to happen, it would only make sense for them to coordinate their intelligence and attacks with Hezbollah, regardless of their differences. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where the government woud want Hezbollah "reduced to a guerilla army again" by a hostile invasion force when they desperately need Hezbollah's military might, such as it is, to defend against that force.

Fully admitting that the two groups have a complex relationship, ascribing motives to the Lebanese government about wanting to delegitimize or disarm Hezbollah at this juncture seems to be wishful thinking at best and hopeful propaganda at worst.

Yet, somehow nothstine, that "dumb" team has kicked your butt in the last 3 elections (4 coming up).

You know Charlie/Cheney/Thomas/Doug M./the other chickenshit names you hide behind, using the "GOP" handle to spam and troll and post off topic doesn't fool anybody either.

You understand how transparent your particular neuroses are, right? You may as well be giving off a terrible odor and displaying warning colors.

Perhaps you should get a life and let the grownups talk. There's some good analysis on this thread, your immature tittering notwithstanding.

I thought "GOP" was "Don P."? You guys need to get your stories straight.

I find the following more plausible (from here):

We’ve been hearing the theory that the timing of Hezbollah’s Tuesday kidnapping of the two Israeli Defense Force soldiers was planned well in advance and with coordination from Tehran or Damascus. Can you speak to that?

Oy vey. There are a lot of people in Washington trying to walk that story back right now, because it’s not true.

Hezbollah and Israel stand along this border every day observing each other through binoculars and waiting for an opportunity to kill each other. They are at war. They have been for 25 years, no one ever declared a cease-fire between them. … They stand on the border every day and just wait for an opportunity. And on Tuesday morning there were two Humvees full of Israeli soldiers, not under observation from the Israeli side, not under covering fire, sitting out there all alone. The Hezbollah militia commander just couldn’t believe it -- so he went and got them.

The Israeli captain in charge of that unit knew he had really screwed up, so he sent an armored personnel carrier to go get them in hot pursuit, and Hezbollah led them right through a minefield.

Now if you’re sitting in Tehran or Damascus or Beirut, and you are part of the terrorist Politburo so to speak, you have a choice. With your head sunk in your hands, thinking "Oh my God," you can either give [the kidnapped soldiers] back and say "Oops, sorry, wrong time" or you can say, "Hey, this is war."

It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the Hezbollah commander on the ground said Tuesday morning, "Go get two Israeli soldiers, would you please?”

What started as an "accident" (in terms of timing, as obviously a conscious decision was made to kidnap the soldiers when the opportunity arose), quickly escalated to what we have today.

So, does anyone have a correct answer to the question of which side of the border the Isreali soldiers were cptured on?

Needless to say, this is idle conjecture.

I think that everyone is formulating conjectures, and yours isn't particularly "idle", though we'd all be wise to be at least as modest. We don't know how other people think, except for what they say and how they act. Add to that, speeches and actions are frequently contradictory and often totally uninformative.

Hiabollah is a party within Lebanon, and its elected officials are about 25% of the Lebanese parliament. Yet they have more military power than the rest of Lebanon combined, so they needn't be obedient to the government. Indeed, they seem to have been carrying out policies requested of them by Syria and Iran. If I were the Christians and Druze, I think I might look at this as a good opportunity to declare an independent nation, and let the South pay its own consequences. Now that really is an "idle" speculation.

Amy Sullivan on Bloggingheads, and she's kinda hot - you should let her post some more here.

I agree, minon of rove. She's even better for the Republicans than Kevin Drum (and doesn't cost us a red cent)!

GOP wrote: "Of course, the explanation that terrorists are simply evil is quickly discounted by the left."

Yup, because not only is it a really stupid "explanation," it doesn't explain a damned thing and, hence, is entirely useless. That's just one of the reasons we're in so much trouble in Iraq.

Winston Smith: Den Beste's actually a nice guy, and it's a real achievement to lay out the strategy in textbook form...but once that's done, it's obvious how nutty it is.

That's a good analogy. Practically everything in den Beste's argument had been in public debate, so I give him more credit than you do, but the Congress and the President really made a different case. Congress ran for re-election after the vote, and no one cited den Beste's case in justification of the vote.

And, that's just one of the reasons Democrats keep losing elections. At least SOME like Amy Sullivan can see the light. I'd bet you that she doesn't think EVIL as a motivator is a "really stupid explanation".

Kevin, There are tons of good analyses online. You'll find very few in the print media. Here's a paragraph by Pepe Escobar in the Asia Times that supports Andrew's statement:

Five months ago, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, warned in a public speech that if Israel did not release the Lebanese prisoners it was holding, "we will try to get an Israeli soldier". That's exactly what happened. Israel knew it and had five months to prepare for an invasion and/or the current "pinpoint" bombing of Lebanon's infrastructure - something that any military strategist knows cannot be prepared in a day or two."

To read more:

Lebanon Left For Dead, Escobar, Asia Times

Hezbollah, US neocons, and the current power elite of Israel all share the same condition: violence is their hammer and everything they see is a nail. It reminds me of the Alternative Factor, an episode in the first season of original Star Trek

Kirk discovers that Lazarus is two people — one sane and one a madman, with one from an anti-matter universe. The sane Lazarus informs Kirk that the beings can only appear in either universe one at a time. Should both men be in the same place at the same time, both universes would be destroyed. Kirk helps the sane Lazarus trap his counterpart in an intermediate time corridor where they can hurt neither the matter nor anti-matter universe, but where the two will be trapped in fight each other for all eternity.

There is so much historic and current animosity, combined with a cancerous stupidity on the part of the US, I am not sure that one can identify a rational actor among the lot.

Maybe Kirk had the right idea.

It reminds me more of the Trouble with Tribbles episode.

I think Keith G's comment confirms something I thought about for awhile now -- against all historical proof, you libs have more faith in the UN and "international law" than a Star Trek geek has in the United Federation of Planets. Now I see you're mostly the same guys!!!!

This Escobar piece, "Leviathan Run Amok," is even better that my previously link. Escobar was one of the leading journalists informing the public about Iraq's absence of WMD and about US motivations to go there regardless. I trust him quite a lot for excellent, and so far, accurate analysis.

Leviathon Run Amok, Escobar, Asia Times

A taste:

"Hezbollah is convinced it got its overall strategy right - factoring all the angles of the Leviathan-run-amok response; so there's no way the Lebanese people as a whole may blame Hezbollah for the escalation. Moreover, Hezbollah is a key force in fractured Lebanon. The majority of Lebanon's population is Shi'ite: at least 45% (in south Beirut, this correspondent was repeatedly told they may be from 55% to 60%). Christians are no more than 30%. The majority of Shi'ites - mostly poor, with very extended families, and a great deal of them basically peasants - support Hezbollah. Symbolically, fiercely independent Hezbollah represents the revenge of the oppressed - not only against the well off Sunni and Christians but against the Israeli invaders.

Hezbollah is a genuine resistance movement, such as Hamas in Palestine. Israel's military logic rules that it must crush any Arab resistance movement. Now Israel seems to have found two pretexts to try to crush simultaneously both Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel's modus operandi is to take entire populations hostage."

I agree with Hostile. The Israelis & whatever group of Lebanese have been in control at the time have been going tit for tat since 1948. That's nothing new.

For the most part, for the last 50 years the Israelis have had the media on their side, so their stories generally got into western media, while the Lebanese side did not. Robert Fisk is an old hand at that story.

If the Lebanese government collapses, the most likely outcome, so far as I can tell, is a government of national unity headed by Hizbollah.

If the Israelis invade & the Lebanese army fights alongside Hezbollah, I would not be surprised if the two were under a unified command, headed by Hizbollah.

Hey, when you're under attack, you go for the strong man who can lead you to safety. Better the leader you know than some motley assortment of foreigners who may duck out the next time things get tough.

The fact that the Israelis have not already invaded (aside from minor border incursions, etc.) and the fact that they've been busy with a PR campaign designed to persuade civilians to flee, hints that they may be bluffing and have no stomach for a ground fight. Southern Lebanon cannot be a place of happy memories for them.

There really ought to be better stories coming out of northern Israel, but I hear Israeli censors have shut the media down. In this regard, I am wondering about all the innacurate Hizbollah missiles & Israel's sudden urgent need for resupply.

Israel has instituted or provoked all the major confrontations. A large number of you Aryan Master Race folk seem not to understand that it is quite possible for the descendants of the inventors (to us) of mathematics, the refiners of eating habits so we do not still tear at chunks of near raw 'stuff', and who many consider the inventors of much of modern architecture...... to have worked out for themselves that with the US giving Israel any amount, at any cost, of munitions, it might be a tad counter-productive to "provoke" an all out military assault.

I should remind us all that the European illegal immigrants to Palestine are reverting to looking just like their original co-residents of Palestine.

To remind you further about what charming terrorists are the Israelis look at this from the Daily Telegraph today.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/22/wbomb22.xml

I could not get the link to work myself, so here it is. For those who were not reading yesterday, that delightful man Menachem Begin was the leader of the murderers, and boasted about it ever thereafter............

In the midst of its campaign against Hizbollah and Hamas "terrorists", Israel has been accused by Britain of feting Jewish "terrorists" whose bomb attack killed 28 Britons 60 years ago today.
The accusation, which reopens the debate about the use of politically-inspired violence in the region, follows the unveiling of a plaque commemorating the attack on the King David hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, by the Irgun Jewish "resistance" to British mandate rule in Palestine. The 28 Britons were among 91 people killed.
This week, former Irgun fighters and current Right-wing politicians unveiled the plaque at the hotel, which read: "The hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 22, 1946, Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel's occupants to leave immediately. For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun's regret and dismay 91 persons were killed."
But Israel's celebration of its "freedom fighters" remains highly controversial at a time when it continues to pound Palestinian "terrorists".
Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, has found herself deeply embroiled in the debate - her father, Eitan, was Irgun's chief operations officer.
Simon Macdonald, the British ambassador to Israel, and consul general John Jenkins, wrote to the mayor of Jerusalem protesting at the plaque. "We don't think it's right for an act of terrorism to be commemorated," their letter read.
The embassy said: "There is no credible evidence that any warning reached the British authorities." The plaque has subsequently been amended, dropping the implication that Britain ignored any warnings.

It is not surprising that the lapdog Blair continues to ape Cheney/Bush: he has been bamboozled by the same gang of lying lobbyists, some of them right up close, like Straw, - former (perhaps?) Marxist or was it Trot, - Mandelson, disgraced but promoted to Brussels, and Levy-in-a-spot-of-bother.

The British public are going to get rid of Blair and his bunch of idiots, but sadly, it will be just as here, The Lobby has them by the nuts too.

Kevin, after rereading 'your' analysis, I think you've got things figured out quite well. I think that the US, though, had foreknowledge of Israel's plan and had given it the green light, not that Israel necessarily needs US permission.
If that is true, then the US is complicit in this destruction.

If you ran over somebody with 'a Honda-supplied car' is Japan responsible?

You have to purchase a Honda. Israel's military hardware are gifts. Stop the gifts, stop the war.

Hostile
Stop the gifts, stop the war.

Tell it to Iran and Syria.

GOP says: "But, we have "understand" [sic] the terrorists and their feelings . . ."

Sun Tzu says: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle . . ."

The aardvark reports, you decide.

aa

So, if Honda gave you a car and you ran over someone, Japan is responsible?

RSM ---- REAL RSMs are Regimental-Sergeant-Majors, and amongst the many I have known I have not met one so incapable to listening, reading, and understanding. Someone, I think, says you are Navy. Are you a recruit, still working on your GED, because that is the level of your comprehension, knowledge and discussion?

you really do not know very much.

If Honda gave you a gun & you shot someone, I would think that Honda's responsible.

I think mitch has it right. The opportunity presented itself (the IDF stumbled), Hezbollah acted, and the rest follows. The Mideast is kind of funny that way - boom.

I think this is actually pretty simple. The hostages in both cases were targets of opportunity, and when opportunity arises, strategy is made after the fact.

In either case, Hezbollah stands to gain -- either with a prisoner swap or because no military response short of out-and-out genocide of the southern Shi'a would do anything but buy Israel some time while they regrouped, doubtless to an even stronger position.

Do I believe Iran's pulling the strings? No. I just think those soldiers presented themselves.

Now ... while I don't tend to buy into conspiracy theories, the one thing I'm still puzzling with is why, in both cases, those Israeli soldiers made themselves so vulnerable.

Doubtless this will be watcher's cue to post his 9/11 conpiracy-grade boilerplate about how it was all a Mossad plot. I don't believe that, but I'm still left with questions. Competent tactical armies don't usually leave individual soldiers vulnerable at a highly militarized and hostile border ...

Bob

If we stopped aid to Israel, it wouldn't make a shred of difference.

What of all the Arab countries and international do-gooders supplying millions a month to the Palestinians? What do they get for it, but suicide bombers. What economy do the Palestinians create for themselves except a terrorist welfare state, dependent on the whole world, and giving nothing back but evil?

Even Israel has fallen into this trap incredibly supplying the Palestinians with $50 million a month!

Stop supplying the Palestinians with money and things will come down pretty abruptly.

maunga
RSM ---- REAL RSMs are Regimental-Sergeant-Majors, and amongst the many I have known I have not met one so incapable to listening, reading, and understanding.

Are you saying Iran and Syria aren't arming Hezbollah?

Red State Mike:

Are we arming the IDF?

BTW, that modified Silkworm that was alleged to have taken out that small Israeli ship was never confirmed as being that type of missile.

It's atill a good suspicion, though.

Bob

I had read somewhere that Hezbollah had been watching the border and that the opportunity presented itself. For some reason, the IDF patrol did something they shouldn't have, and were unprotected. Hezbollah leaped at the opportunity, destroying the tank, killing many soldiers, and the soldier was later captured from the rescue team.

I can't seem to find the article, but it talked about how the soldiers had been out partying the night before because their military service was up, and they got sloppy the next day.

I think that Hezbollah had been planning such an operation for a while, and had even planned for the Israeli retaliation. It seems they have built quite a network of tunnels and bunkers along the border.

As for which side of the border the attack occurred, I remember reading at first that the IDF had crossed into Lebanon, but subsequent news reports had it the other way around. From time to time, I still find an article in the French press that mentions it was an IDF incursion.

michele:

Good info, thanks. That sounds plausible (their hitch was up and they got sloppy on their last day of patrol).

Also, the tunnels had obviously been planned long in advance, although Hezbollah couldn't have been certain of that particular opportunity at the time.

It's still pretty amazing to me that after Shalit's capture, the guards at the Lebanese border didn't instantly go to red alert and take extra precautions ...

Bob

GOP - do you agree that it's in Israel's interest to have a democratic, peaceful government in Lebanon, or is that too much nuance for you? Do you recognize that the majority of Lebanese are anti-Hezbollah and pro-Western (remember those videos of Lebanese shouting "we love Bush" in March?), and bombing their homes isn't necessarily in Israel's interest? Is it in Israel's interest to alienate these people? Are you trying to equate the "Hezbollah" with "Lebanon," in your simple black and white mind?

Since the end of the Lebanese civil war, the Lebanese have conducted several successful elections, most of the militias have been weakened or disbanded, and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have extended central government authority over about two-thirds of the country.

(the above is from the CIA factbook)

Hostile
Stop the gifts, stop the war.

Tell it to Iran and Syria.

There is no comparison in quantity or quality of military and financial aid given by the US and that given by Iran and Syria to Hezbollah. None.

As a US citizen I need to be concerned with my country before I can presume to tell other countries what to do. The US is a much larger contributor to the conflict created by Israel's expansion and militancy than Syria or Iran ever will be to Hamas' or Hezbollah's.

Kevin:

I think you're too quick to dismiss the Bin Laden theory - it's not nearly as complicated as it becomes when you flesh it out, and in doing so, add maximalist parameters to it. A much simpler version is: Hezbollah attacked Israel to create conflict. Period. Maybe get some prisoners back, maybe not. Maybe receive a restrained response and look like you faced down the Goliath. Maybe receieve a massive response and become heros again to all of Lebanon. Maybe come to dominate the government as sectarians of all stripes turn their back on the anti-Syrian coalition for being helpess in the face of Israeli air and ground strikes.

And while Israel may have the relatively sovreign right to respond to attacks on their territory, that won't mean a fig to the internal Lebanese political dynamic. Mark my words: This may cost Hizballah rockets and men, but they will come out politically stronger.

You can boil all of that back down to: create conflict. It's not a two-cushion bank-shot. It takes no more than instinct. That and, of course, Syrian & Iranian backing. And the tactical opportunity that presented itself. And the immediately prior situation in Gaza.

The Cedar Revolution is drowning in blood. I find it intensely unlikely that any agreement to disarm Hezbollah comes on the heels of this.

here's an article that says that Hezbollah has been training for 6 years, but it's from the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060720-095532-3181r.htm

Of course it's in everyones interest that Lebanon be a peaceful democracy. I believe the civilized community feels the same in that Lebanon has been reassured that the UN and others will pay for the reconstruction of their infrastructure. I also think that the majority of Lebanese people would love to be rid of Hizbollah, however my understanding is that Hizbollah occupies two seats in the Lebanese parliament.

Everyone must keep in mind that all of this jihadism (9/11, Khobar towers, USS Cole, Beslan, Jakarta, London, Madrid, Suicide bombers, and this recent conflict) is all related. They are the deadly results of an ideological/religious war against the secular/progressive western civilizations.

michele, I can't seem to find the article. . .

I can't either, and it was only yesterday. I know that I saw a quote from Nasrullah where he said the initial rocketing of Israeli towns was meant to support the Palestinians in spedific response to the Israeli bombing of a house containing their principal mad bomber genius, but I have completely spaced off where it was, and somehow now it can't be easily located in the blizzard of small detail.

This is the problem with the whole history of this conflict, small things built on small things built on small things, and their all insults, and you can't take any part of it out of context.

The only points with a clear distinction are the disolution of Ottoman Empire and the legal status of the inhabitants at that point, or the initial immigration in the 19th century.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Hizbollah planned for six years, I will bet 9/11 was planned for ten years. Our perception of time is completely different than theirs. These people think in terms of decades and centuries wherein we pretty much live year to year. These jihadists plan for years and fight for centuries. We need to understand that.

cld, don't try this revisionism with me.

Re Dershowitz comments on dead Lebanese civilians perhaps not being civilians. Possible yes. Just like in Vietnam, where a dead Vietnamese was a VC and became part of the body count. Do we want to go down that road again?

Jay:

Get your tongue out of Michael Ledeen's ass. The idology in this conflict is less globalizable than Communism was during the cold war. The fact that you *think* it's global is only a testament to how little you know about the Muslim world.

Al Qaeda would *like* to globalize it and ideologize it out the wazoo. But what happens is -- rough treatement by the Israelis *causes* people to turn for solutions and explanations to radical ideologies. If Israel hadn't spent the last 25 years antagonizing its immediate neighbors (Lebanon and the Palestinians), jihadism as a stand-alone system of thought would have about as many adherents as Scientology. Muslims only turn to it en masse when they feel besieged.

Bob

glasnost:

Excellent post and I agree with nearly all of it. I am holding out hope, though (sentimental liberal that I am), for an international force of some type to patrol the southern part of Lebanon after the initial smoke clears. That *might* provide a buffer between the locals and the Hamas guerillas and may serve to keep Hezbollah from being the succor of last resort for a shell-shocked and confused population.

Maybe it's only a pipe dream -- but we have to start somewhare.

Bob

michele,

What's revised?

cld:

The crap about 19th century Jewish immigration.

Remember how MiddleMichael smacked that shit down the other night?

Bob

Every part of what maunga has said is out of context. This was in the 20s and 30s. What else was happening in the world? Let's think-- Oh, yes, there were the Nazis, the Nazis who were allied with the Palestinians, there were socialist bombings, and communist bombings, and the Rape of Nanking, and the Ku Klux Klan. The colonial empires were in their worst state. That was a worse world, altogether.

But, more importantly, he takes it out of context of the succession of trivial slights, the vast majority of them too trivial to have been recorded, that form basis of this whole history.

In the 20s and 30s the British were worried about the collapse of empire and anything that seemed to be accelerating it. They were worried about oil. In fact they were worried about oil almost more than anything. To the British anything that seemed like destablizing the area had to be got rid of as expeditiously as possible, so they thought the smaller population, the Israelis, would have to go.

Some here are happy to justify all manner of terrorist atrocity against Israel, but condemn Israel for action during a mercifully brief period when it really might have been so easily snuffed out?

For those who complain about oil as politics this is the original point, the British wanted the Jews gone to keep the Arabs calm.

cld:

There were no such thing as "Israelis" in the 20s and 30s.

Bob

Israel would like the igniting spark to be over Lebanon and Hizbollah, but it really goes to the shelling and killing of the Palestinians having a beach party. This was what caused Hamas to end a 16 month truce capturing the first soldier, which resulted in the military actions against Gaza. That was the point that Hizbollah entered the fray.

rmck1, there really is no point in you and I debating. The fact that you think all of the mayhem is not interrelated, to me demonstrates your myopia and lack of common sense.

Who is Michael Ledeen?

bob,

No, I don't. Do enlighten me.

Bob,

Now I remember, wasn't he the guy who pointed out that under the Ottomans Jews and Arabs were legally equal as subjects under the sultan?

___ I think of this as the "bin Laden strategy," ___

Funny. I think of starting a war as a justification for various politically desired acts, and to make one look like a hero, as the "Bush strategy".

There were no such thing as "Israelis" in the 20s and 30s.

Let's not climb into the boat with the guy yesterday who insisted there was no military significance to airports, fuel, trucks or geography.

cld, the Ottomans weren't Jews!

___ But, we have "understand" the terrorists and their feelings . . . ___ quoted by GOP above

And their you have the modern Republican party in a nutshell. God forbid that we ever actually try to understand a problem because, you know, understanding it might, like, help to solve it or something.
Attempting to solve problems without understanding them has worked well in exactly what situations? Because, I gotta tell y, absolutely nothing comes to mind.

michele,

What do you mean?

Jay:

> rmck1, there really is no point in you and I debating.

Of course there isn't, Jay -- because everytime we do I kick your ass into the middle of next week :)

*Everything* is related, Jay. Global poverty is related. Globalization is related in every country where it occurs. Hell, even AIDS and SARS and other epidemics are globally related.

Or everything *isn't* related, and is a result of purely local circumstances and contexts.

It all depends on your level of analysis. If you wanna do Osama's work for him and preach some kind of global ideological web that's a wet dream to a handful of Salafist ideologues -- you're only glorifying them and giving them exactly what they're looking for.

Truth is, local contexts and global patterns go together in anything like an intelligent picture of the world.

In the case of Hezbollah -- they have stacks of reasons to be stone-furious at Israel that, at base, have little to do with the rantings of Zawahiri. Hell, they're Shi'ites anyway. Zawahiri would doubtless like to see them exterminated as apostates to True Sunni Islam.

m:

Excellent point. The "whoopsie" missile strike on a Gaza beach that slaughtered a family and caused Hamas to break its 16-month long truce.

cld:

I don't recall MiddleMichael making that point. He did, however, talk about how the Jews that began settling Palestine did indeed buy the land -- but the bought it from wealthy absentee landlords living in places like Egypt. The Palestinians in many cases didn't even know who their landlords were and had been living on their lands for generations.

So while the Jews were within their legal rights -- they still bought the land out from under people who had every reason to believe the land was rightfully theirs. While both sides were justified in believing what they believed about this (and this was doubtless also why some of the landlords were assassinated for dispossessing their Arab brethren in the name of greed) -- the Jews evicted the Arabs en masse and, later on, resorted to terrorism to do so.

Bob

For a little perspective on the underlying issue, see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/israels-endless-war-is-_b_25336.html

rmcki1, no point in arguing with someone who thinks that the Ottomans were Jewish

cld:

That was a truly moronic response.

Israel *didn't exist* until 1948. Ergo, there were no "Israelis" in the 20s and 30s, only Jews in Palestine.

Do I really have to bitch-slap you so hard about a point so painfully self-evident?

Bob

Riiiiiiight rmck1.Self worship is not a good thing and I consider you part of the problem. Don't flatter yourself, it's embarassing. The fact that you continue to not see the connection is the reason we're at this stage. We continue to fight isolated battles and negotiate regionally. We need to confront this now in a different manner.

But keep living in the past, it's what you do best and is why your party will again lose in '08.

Say hello to President Gingrich.

michele:

I don't think cld is quite *that* dense. I'm sure it was just a brainfart.

Bob

I never figured out why the Palestinians didn't all convert to Judaism, get the right to live in Israel, then convert back to Islam.

Hell, they would probably get money from the Israeli government to live in those West Bank settlements!

Jay:

You know what's really funny, Jay? When you get tweaked, you ball yourself up into this K-Mart, Blue Light Special version of rdw :)

michele:

Well of course it's quite true that Jews lived for centuries in the Ottoman Empire. Cld's point was misplaced, because "citizenship" doesn't apply here. They were subjects of the Sultan, not citizens with equal rights as understood by modern nation-states.

I don't know offhand what the differentials in rights / obligations (if any) existed between the Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Muslims.

Bob

bob,

I thought it was me who said that, but I imagine anyone else could have in that endless thread.

(Do you know what Michele is talking about? Is she the Ann Coulter of the Palestinians?)

That absolutely made no sense.

rmck1, you know for a "progressive" you sure do have backwards thinking, as does the entire Democratic party with the exception of maybe a handful.

I got the idea of Palestinians converting after reading a story about Untouchables in India, 1 million of them, converting to Buddhism in one large ceremony. They did it to get better treatment.

For the Palestinians, it would be practical, because as Muslims, they are already circumcised, so that's not an issue. They just have to find an Orthodox rabbi willing to help them out, and they would get the right of return to Israel!

Afterwards, they just need to repeat a phrase to become Muslims again - There is no god but Allah and I am his servant - or something of the sort and voila!

cld:

Yes, I know exactly what michele is talking about. As a Canadian, she has a European-style perspective on Israel -- one which I share. She's not by any stretch an anti-semite or a hatemonger.

She just has a different take on the situation than Americans tend to do, as Israel has been our "critical ally" since at least '68. Johnson worked assiduously to cultivate that relationship, to keep the Jews solidly in the Democratic coalition.

We *do*, as Americans, buy a lot of the Israeli line uncritically.

Me, personally -- I consider myself a philo-semite. And that means I love and admire Arabs (Persians, too) as much as I love the Jewish people.

The Levant has been a troubled region throughout recorded history. So has Ireland -- my country of ethnic origin.

So I can relate.

Bob

The point about the legal status of Jews and Arabs in relation to the Ottoman sultan is that they had an identical relation to the temporal sovereignty of the state. They were not equal in Islam, and in the Ottoman world Jews were regarded as dhimmis.

When the Empire dissolved the question of independent sovereignty of the constituent parts was up for grabs. Palestinians came away with 80% of Ottoman Palestine.

The problem in the other 20% was that Arabs found they would be on equal, and equally non-Islamic status with Jews who wanted to create a socialist state, which to the Arabs was outright atheism, and this was intolerable to them. That and they imagined that, as religious people in a state that was irreligious, they would find themselves in a condition of dhimmitude. And that would be just wrong.

cld:

Are American Muslims in a state of dhimmitude because they live in a constitutionally secular nation?

Somehow I don't quite think this is what they believe ... even if some of them harbor desires to make converts (as, of course, Christian evangelicals do as well).

Bob

bob,

She said I said the Ottomans were Jews. My typing can't be that bad. Probably.

I don't buy any government's line uncritically, but so many here see only the easy obvious story, the little guy and the oppressor, when it's terrifically more complex and nearly the opposite of that.

I lately find myself entranced with the lyricism of Arabic words and accents. Some time ago there was a reporter on tv asking a guy in Qatar how to pronounce the name of the country. He tried every variation he could think of and the fellow insisted every one of them was correct.

bob,

No, they're not. That's an exclusively religious thing. But for people who have an exclusively religious view and understanding of the world, and who are Muslim, that may be their impression, especially in the first few generations after immigration.

I think this is the root of much of the trouble in Europe, with an acculturated resentment against the idea of assimilating to a non-Islamic society.

In fact there was a similar phenomena in Jewish history. After most laws against Jews were abolished in the 19th century, the Jewish population of London soared. But, after a generation or two, almost all of them left for the US. I think this was because they were mostly from Germany and as the watched their children grow up, they watched them becoming English. The US was just a lot more German.

They were confusing their German-ness with their Jewishness.

cld:

If it's "terriffically more complex than that," then the truth can't be "almost the opposite" because you're merely reducing the complexity in the other direction.

I have a pretty nuanced position on Israel. I support its right to exist while recognizing the injustices of trying to push Palestinians off their lands. I also reject Islamic fundamentalism, but also recognize that you need modern states with modern education systems to reduce its spread. Turn Gaza and parts of the West Bank into squalid refugee camps, and -- voila! -- you get frustrated, unemployed people reading the Koran all day long because there's nothing else to do.

Israel believes in collective punishment -- but also fears a modern, prosperous Palestine directly on its borders. They believe the more modern it is, the better weaponry it will have, the more it can directly coordinate with the sponsor states of the resistance groups.

And I think right there is the fundamental miscalculation.

Bob

Perhaps ..he was just sick and tired of being sick and tired of the Israel hammering the Palestians...

After awhile.. it just turns your stomach... if you know what I mean.. or maybe you don't.

Perhaps ..he was just sick and tired of being sick and tired of the Israel hammering the Palestinians...

After awhile.. it just turns your stomach... if you know what I mean.. or maybe you don't.

I fail to comprehend where anybody gets the idea that what Hezbollah did was any sort of "provocation". After all:

A) Israel has launched numerous attacks across the Lebanese border since they abandoned their occupation six years ago. Hezbollah responds with the same, ONCE, and all of a sudden it's such a big deal ?

B) There is some dispute as to who actually crossed which border.

Israel needed a convenient excuse to invade Lebanon, just as the Bushies needed a convenient excuse to invade Iraq.
.

The more modern it is, the better weaponry it will have, is probably just what would happen, and I can't see any middle ground, or any solution.

I think the 'squalid refugee camps' are squalidity of their own making.

If the whole of Palestinian society is dedicated to the propagation of a force to destroy you, then how is 'collective' punishment distinguishable from self-defense?

ahhh kevin, so cozy in your self-actualized rational world. can't quite wrap your little mind around the fact that there are people that find the US and Israel totally predictable, which translates into 'easy to manipulate'; can't quite remember the last time Israel has reacted disproportionately in a violent way; can't quite understand that traitor karl's strategy, the Israel strategy, and the terrorists strategy are all the same - manipulate their people through fear tactics. kevin, your so dreamy you should be a painter, not a pundit wanabe.

The PNAC report was public knowledge. It was not a "two cushion bank shot" for OBL to expect Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld to use 9/11 as the pretense to take Iraq. It was more like a two inch putt.

The Castro Gambit
Exactly! Every time Fidel is worried that the US will open up relations with Cuba he does something to make it "impossible". He knows, and every one (except Bush et al) north of Little Havana knows, that 30 days after complete and unrestrained travel,commerce etc. Cuba would be applying for 51st State admission. These provacations are done only to mantain his position in power, end of story.
If it looks like Hamas will talk to Ohlmert, well let's kidnap an Isreali soldier. Lebanon will throw out Hizbollah, let's invade Isreal. It is almost comedic how all the actors in this farce know their roles. Nasrullah etc. only want power and prestige. They all learned their lines fron Arafat. They don't want a solution , they want a new crisis to maintain the staus quo. Until the middle (if there is such a thing left in the Middle East) throws these jackels out of the pack there will be no peace.

Since the number of Jews who have answered the questions raised by this article is zero, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is all, and it is so relevant to this thread, I feel it needs to be posted again:

Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/wmid26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them. One wonders if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and Guardian, tell use that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been less than three feet away from those killed (there is no spare room in a tank).

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Since later reports indicate it wasn't his, I guess he had the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. This means that he was very close to those killed by the grenades, which means he should have been severely injured, or killed, himself.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. Any why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug? Perhaps, they wanted to prove the total incompetence of the Israeli soldier.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war.

"If the whole of Palestinian society is dedicated to the propagation of a force to destroy you, then how is 'collective' punishment distinguishable from self-defense?"

This question brings up something I've been thinking about for a few days. How much did the Holocaust psychologically effect the Israeli mindset? It seems to me that although the early Zionists may have been reacting to old-fashioned antisemitism, Israeli Jews today (and Jews in general) have become paranoid in their reaction to criticism or aggression. And I can understand this. I think I would react the same way. 'Never Again' means 'Never Again.' Instead of seeing their treatment of Palestinians as being unfair, I think that they really 'believe' that any other 'group,' particularly an Islamic fundamentalist group, is a mortal threat and must be destroyed. That's why Dershowitz and others can defend the idea of collective punishment. I think the Israelis and the Islamists both need intensive group therapy. I say that jokingly, but it may be the only way that this conflict will ever be resolved.

Hello Watcher: I have posted in another thread that first, tanks do not have doors for the blowing off, and second it is impossible to work in a tank in a bullet-proof vest, for both heat and awkwardness reasons. If a HEAT or APDS round penetrates clothing designed for small arms rounds would not defend one.

The stories plainly do not stand up ---- at either end of Palestine.

Bob McK and michele. Jay is partially literate shill for The Lobby (I hope they do not pay him too much.) and cld is Alan Dershowitz's litle brother ---- ie he can use words but they do not hang together. This is a man who thinks Greek influence and "Proto-Hebraic" ditto affected Canaan/Palestine 200 years before either existed. Jay, on the other hand, claimed 'The Bible Unearthed' is an anti-Christian book, whereas its last chapter is headed 586-c440BC.

Rocket scientists in the pay of the Zionists, the pair of them........

I understand that the IDF soldiers were captured inside Lebanon. At least, those were the initial reports in the press. The IDF entered Lebanese territory. Thus, it was Israel which violated the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon. It seems that if this was the case then the soldiers were fair game for capture.

However, none of the mainstream press accounts have explored this critical issue. They all repeat the Israeli claim that Hizbollah invaded Israel and captured the soldiers in Israeli territory. So who's telling the truth here? Hizbollah or Israel? Will we ever know? Shouldn't we know this critical fact?

Also, the last Israeli-Hizbollah prisoner exchange was not completed in full - Sharon held back. Hizbollah therefore felt free to capture IDF soldiers in an attempt to win the release of Hizbollah prisoners in Israeli jails.

And now Lebanon is being destroyed - with U.S. weaponry - because of two captured Israeli soldiers. Incredible that the world stands by, and watches it happen. And we wonder why they hate us.

Kevin, you obviously have no clue what Nasrallah is thinking.

Kevin, Stratfor sends free intelligence reports that have been very helpful in understanding both Hezbollah's and Israel's strategies.
http://www.stratfor.com

Their 7/22 Special Report, Why Hezbollah Fights, exactly addresses your question. I'm unwilling to post the entire rp