OK, here come all the conspiracy theories.

The U.S. and Israel are already at war with Iran. This administration is insane and we need to be marching to Bush’s ranch in Crawford with torches and pitchforks to end this once and for all. Who will board a bus for Texas in the morning? Let’s mobilize, people.

If it seemed like the multinational fix were the only likely outcome, or even the most likely outcome, I would be willing to credit this explanation. But it seems merely a plausible outcome; equally plausible outcomes would include an Israeli quagmire and WWIII.

I can say this: outside organizations were briefed by the Israeli government just after the beginning of the offensive, and were told that (A) the offensive was expected to last two weeks; and (B) the Israelis characterized the offensive as a demonstration to the U.S. of how to crush an insurgency through intelligence + firepower. It was not directly stated that the U.S. was not informed in advance of Israel's plans, but people who were backbriefed on the talks have told me they believe that to be the case based on other evidence. Since this comports with what I'm reading in the Israeli media, I have no reason to doubt them; it certainly explains how USG was caught up short diplomatically and politico-militarily.

I don't buy it. If the Israelis truly wanted "both the diplomatic involvement of the international community as well as a multinational force in southern Lebanon, and they figured the only way to make this happen was to conduct a major assault that would spur the international community into action," why has the US -- which has been tacitly and not-so-tacitly in Israel's corner in this conflict -- been standing aside while Israel has so manifestly failed to silence Hezbollah's rockets, and succeeded in killing hundreds of civilians? And if a four-week bloodbath was part of the plan all along, is Weintraub really suggesting that the Bush Administration was willing to act so blatantly against the interests of the Us in order to dance to Israel's tune?

No, I don't buy it at all. Weintraub may find it hard to believe that Israel has failed so spectacularly, but so what -- there's still all kinds of denial going on about the debacle in Iraq. Israel screwed the pooch, plain and simple, and did enormous damage to its credibility, prestige and security. And the Bush Administration cheerfully followed Israel right down the bloody garbage disposal. There's a word for this kind of performance, and it isn't a "two-cusion bank shot"; it's good old fashioned incompetence, with a tragic seasing of hubris.

Of course, no one bothered to ask Hisbollah what their opinion might be. What happens if Hisbollah decides that it's not in their best interest to allow the ceasefire and, with it, the multinational enforcers to come into existence. All it would take is one or two "crazy" rocket launchers to keep shooting into northern Israel and the Israelis would keep bouncing the rubble. Hisbollah might decide to keep that situation in effect for a long time, with 30,000 Israeli troops deployed long term in a guerrilla war bleeding them dry and crashing their economy. That's what happens when 4GW concepts get applied.

"Or is a cigar just a cigar?"

Not when it belongs to Bill Clinton.

Good post.

As you suggest, Belmont Club-style theorizing about the deep and subtle strategies behind Middle Eastern events tend to be post-hoc rationalizations. In reality, politicians and generals blunder regularly. Clemenceau said, "War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."

This reminds me of a William Arkin analysis in WaPo that Josh Marshall recommended as a corrective to conventional wisdom (that this whole episode is a major screw-up for israel and a disaster for Lebanon). In Arkin's column he makes the point that Hezbollah's arsenal and infrastructure have been degraded. Of 10,000 or so rockets that Hezbollah had the IDF destroyed about 1000 and another 2000 were fired so fully one-third of their rocket arsenal was gone. So in the new accounting, one is to count every casualty Israel sustains as a Hezbollah defeat...one less target for Hezbollah. In this new accounting, it only takes a few of these Israeli "victories" to equal the American "victory" in Iraq.

Occam's razor, and all that.

Once war is unleashed, all bets are off, including plausible scenarios, likeley outcomes, and wishful thinking. Weintraub's thesis is a bit like Pee-wee Herman falling off his bicycle in front of some teenage boys, and then announcing "I meant to do that!".

This seems to me a variation of the argument that the Jews are just too clever to make any real mistakes; they must have some master plan up their sleeves. It's funny how anti-semites and pro-Zionists both believe that the Israelis are supermen who are in command at all times and can do anything.

Could this be Bush's Bay of Pigs? Did he encourage the Israelis to start this war, believing that they could polish off Hezbollah all by themselves? And now he is faced with the decision: Do we jump in and save the Israelis or leave them on the beach?

Since the number of Jews who have addressed the questions raised by this article is few, and the number of Jews who have considered it seriously, is zero, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is almost all, and it is so relevant to what is going on in Gaza and Lebanon, I feel it needs to be posted again:

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA PUBLISH THIS? I wonder indeed.

An update of the Israel Fakes a Provocation article for those following the link from www.whatreallyhappened.com

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

The following passages in italics are from this article published in the Telegraph on 26/06/2006.:

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, or the Israeli listening equipment, hearing their tunneling activity.

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? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

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. And why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug?

Not only did the Israeli watchers sleep during the explosions and pandamonium, but our heroic freedom fighters did not put a foot wrong as they ran through the no-mans land minefield. Allah, was truly with them.

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.

The Jew press then claims that the Popular Resistance Committees, the armed wing of Hamas and the (previously unknown) Army of Islam were jointly responsible for the kidnapping of Shilat.

Why three groups you may ask?

The reason for three groups, is so that each of them might believe that the other has the "kidnapped" soldier, when, in fact, none of them have him. He is sipping coffee in Tel Aviv.

And why did a "previously unknown" group put up its hand?

Well, just in case one of the groups had doubts that the other group had the "kidnapped" soldier, they certainly couldn't be sure the "previously unknown" group didn't have him,... because after all, they don't have any idea who is leading, or anyone in, this unknown group.

So the reason for the weird "I did it arrangement," is so that the Jew press can claim that the Arabs claimed responsibility, when all they have done, is to NOT deny they did it.

Oh yeah, the "previously unknown" group is a Jew invention. It doesn't exist, except in the Jew newspapers.

Of course, shortly, the Army of Islam will need to be created (by the Jews) in order to negotiate the "release" of Shilat.

As part of the fabrication, the Jews chose to have a Israeli/French citizen "kidnapped," as the French have not been slavishly following the Jew script, and this could be used to force their hand in the desired way.

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. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

Weintraub's theory is garbage.

Israel hates multilateral solutions. It hates the UN too. It goes out of its way to avoid both at almost any cost. Have a look at the number of UN resolutions directed against Israel, and the number of securty council resolutions the US has had to veto to help Israel out.

The idea they would go to war to get their northern border protected by the and the French does not pass the laugh test.

Kevin,

Yes. I actually think Israel's leaders wanted the outcome to be a multinational peacekeeping force to replace Hezb's fighters in Lebanon. They've been saying that in public since the first few days of the conflict. I don't think it's even that tricky of a strategy.

Weintraub: "Governments do a lot of stupid things, based on a lot of stupid assumptions, but is it likely that in this case the Israeli government was being that stupid? Unlikely."

Alas my least favorite argument in the world: "How stupid would I/they have to be to...?"

After the Iraq fiasco, I'm not certain that there's ever a single clear reason behind any war.

"In other words, Israel's current miserable situation was actually part of the plan all along."

As you serious?

That is the standard Jew answer to all Jew f**kups.

It was part of the plan all along,....

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,...

{Groucho}
I love my cigar, but I take it out every once in awhile.
{/Groucho}

Yes. I actually think Israel's leaders wanted the outcome to be a multinational peacekeeping force to replace Hezb's fighters in Lebanon. They've been saying that in public since the first few days of the conflict.

Much simpler is that the Israelis were simply stunned by the ferocity and effectiveness of Hezbollah resistance and forgot that they did not have control of the images and the message in the way they do in Gaza or in the West Bank. And that this time the US failed to offer the sort of ladder that usually helps the Israelis up from their own excess. The multinational force idea is simply the Israelis lookly wildly around for another ladder.

slim, no point being polite, just go fuck yourself. Just what the fuck you think you're accomplishing with your constant reposting of your hate rants I have no idea.

Kevin wrote:

"Has anyone read anything that suggests Israel was trying to provoke an international intervention from the very beginning? Or is a cigar just a cigar?"
_____________

Kevin, if the Israelis thought that their airpower could do the job alone, then it would be the first time they've ever relied on that theory. It certainly isn't US military joint doctrine, though doubtless there are some Air Force types who secretly believe it. (Even the misunderstood "Shock and Awe" is intended as an adjunct to a land assault.)

The Israeli air assault has all the classic qualities of an effort to "shape the battlespace." That's what hitting all those bridges, roads and airports is about, cutting lines of communication. That means they have something long term in mind. Yet, they began the campaign with only two brigades on line at the border and haven't fully mobilized. That suggests they don't intend to do the whole job themselves.

Typical Israeli tactics use a combination of blinding speed and intensely focused force (their version of the German blitzkrieg). If they thought they could clean out all of Hezbollah themselves, they'd have used quick armored thrusts to get well behind the forward positions, then spread out to cut off and kill the remaining pockets of resistance. They're not doing that. Here they are, taking their sweet old time, cleaning out villages in turn on their way to the Litani, giving Hezbollah plenty of time to run away (though without their heavier equipment). It's got the US Army officers I work with scratching their heads.

A possible explanation is that they don't intend to push for a killing blow, but are preparing for an inevitable ceasefire and some kind of robust international force. Cleaning out the border area would enable such a force to deploy without hindrance, leaving Hezbollah as just another armed militia with no immediate purpose if it cannot again threaten the border.

Of course, it you intended such a course of action, you'd almost certainly claim to be doing otherwise. Are you certain all those leaks aren't intentional?

Maybe Israel just wanted to destroy the infrastructure built up by Hezbollah and set them back many years? Afterall, Hezbollah is now pressuring Arab governments to push for a ceasefire. If Israel scerwed up so bad, shouldn't Hezbollah press their advantage and prolong the conflict?

The cigar is just a cigar.

Slim:

As you serious?

That is the standard Jew answer to all Jew f**kups.

It was part of the plan all along,....

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,...

And yet, according to you, they rule the world. Imagine what they could do if they weren't such fuckups!

Freedom F*cker: Hezbollah is now pressuring Arab governments to push for a ceasefire.

And the Iraqi insurgency is on its last legs . . .

And the tooth fairy is real . . . and the tooth fairy is Freedom F*cker!

Under a sane U.S. administration the Israelis wouldn't have got a green light to be so savage, and might not have attempted such a disproportionate response if they knew they weren't going to be able to push it as hard as they wanted.

The U.S. acting as a brake on rather than a catalyst for conflict is part of what has kept the ME from blowing up badly over the years. Instead, we have Dubya doing what he does best - producing another horrific intractable problem for his successor to deal with.

Sounds more like a win-win situation for Iraqi forces right now:

• They get to pound Hizbollah
• They don't actually care if they leave chaos in their wake
• They don't have to say, 'they have missiles!' anymore, because the world can see that indeed, there are missiles and fighters and an army hiding in the Lebonese suburbs.

Which all seem like win situations to me - and they always had the Frence-like attitude of combat-unit searches for captured citizens and military.

"And yet, according to you, they rule the world."

I have never said any such thing. You piece of lying trailer trash.

The real problem is that Jews are organized liars. They lie as a community.

One of the major lies spread by Jews, is that Jews are "very smart" people.

But this just isn't true, as the evidence clearly shows.

Look at the amazing miscalculations of the US Jew "intelligentsia" concerning their attack on Iraq.

The list is very long. These guys are really, really, stupid.

Look at the amazing miscalculations of the Israeli Jew "intelligentsia" concerning their attack on Lebanon.

The Janitor at MIT could have predicted the outcomes better.

The real problem is that the Jews who make the decisions are REALLY STUPID.

And the reason this is not clear to all, is that Jews continually lie about their abilities.

A great example of organized Jew lying about how great they are, is the Einstein myth.

Weintraub seems to have overlooked that PM Olmert promised that the IDF would not stop until Hezbollah was DISARMED. Clearly, the Israelis are not about to accomplish that.

Not to mention that Olmert has been further humiliated by his claims of significantly destroying Hezbollah’s ability to launch rockets with the increased level of rockets launched over recent days.
.

You could be right, JimBOB, but what if they pull it off? Even if the Israelis stumbled into it, wouldn't getting a real international force on the Lebanon border serve to hamstring Hebollah? It might also result in the Lebanese government doing something about their totally inadequate military.

Trashhauler

No significant international force is going to step in; W hasn't got the prestige anymore to get it done, and no major international power wants to step into this hornet's nest.

As VJ pointed out, Olmert boasted they were going to completely disarm Hezbollah. Having a few fig leaf blue helmets hiding in barracks doesn't do this, and instead Hezbollah is now seen through the region as an equal partner with Israel in a cease-fire.

Trowel as much lipstick as you want on this pig, it isn't going to fool anyone. Israel tried to take Hezbollah down and failed.

"Under a sane U.S. administration the Israelis wouldn't have got a green light to be so savage, and might not have attempted such a disproportionate response if they knew they weren't going to be able to push it as hard as they wanted."

That's right. Israel should be allowed to kidnap two and kill no more than eight Hezbollah associates. That would be proportionate and wholly acceptable.

"Trowel as much lipstick as you want on this pig, it isn't going to fool anyone. Israel tried to take Hezbollah down and failed."

Does this mean Israel is weak because she doesn't have the fortitude to blow up the civilian human shields the Hezbollah is holding hostage?

JimBOB, I'm not trying to dress this up in any way. Kevin asked for indications that might suggest something other than an Israeli/Hezbollah fight to the death and I gave my military observations. I make no claim to know whether they are following the right course. I'm just pointing out some facts. Anyone who thinks the slow Israeli advance is caused by stiff Hezbollah resistance doesn't know much about warfare. Especially as the Israelis normally conduct it.

You are correct about one thing. If they get an international force, it won't be a few blue helmets who spend all their time playing basketball. It will have to be a real fighting force with a flexible enough ROE to stop Hezbollah from reestablishing themselves in the border area. I have no idea if anyone is willing to provide such a force. Perhaps NATO? They've already taken over a fighting role in part of Afghanistan. This would be a simpler task than fighting Taliban in the Hindu Kush.

Freedom Fighter:

What do you call a bunch of people who destroy a whole nation on the basis of two soldiers being taken captive.

What do you call a bunch of people who murder civilians in their hundreds, going on thousands, in a preplanned attack.

You call them EVIL NAZI JEWS.

From the Jerusalem Post, 17 july,

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886020732&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

On Sunday, senior diplomatic officials said
Israel will not rule out an international presence in southern Lebanon to prevent Hizbullah from returning there after the completion of the current military operation.

The official said this would undoubtedly be on the agenda when a high-level delegation headed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's senior adviser V.J. Nambiar and Terje Roed-Larsen arrives on Tuesday.

Diplomatic officials said that what was being discussed was something that went beyond UNIFIL, and would be more like the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in Sinai, the multinational peace-keeping force stationed there.

However, a senior source in the Prime Minister's Office said, "We are not even close to that point," and that Israel wanted to see the Lebanese army deploy along Israel's northern border.

You can say that isn't quite what Kevin asked for, but if you're bidding on a house are you going to start low or high?

Candi must have left some videotapes of the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal with the Israeli government during her last visit. Not only did PM Olmert say the other day that "We're making progress", but today a high-ranking IDF officer said "We have Hezbollah on the run".

What next, "We're bringing freedom and democracy to Lebanon" ?
.

The Israeli message to the Arabs seem pretty clear. Any time they inflict damage on Israel, the Israelis will return the favor a hundred fold. I don't know about you, but this seems a much better deterence to terrorism than understanding root cause and appeasement.

"What next, "We're bringing freedom and democracy to Lebanon" ?"

That would be horrible... wouldn't it?

slim, I notice that your email address is "home.com."

Home wouldn't happen to be in Beirut, would it?

Please get your cell leader to assign someone else to this site. Either that or swap prepared posts with the person next to you. Your stuff is getting stale.

I think this article by Dan Levy is a better explanation:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html

The article says, in part:

Witnessing the near-perfect symmetry of Israeli and American policy has been one of the more noteworthy aspects of the latest Lebanon war. A true friend in the White House. No deescalate and stabilize, honest-broker, diplomatic jaw-jaw from this president. Great. Except that Israel was actually in need of an early exit strategy, had its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hezbollah's advantage, the Qana tragedy included. The American ladder had gone AWOL.

More worrying, while everyone here can identify an Israeli interest in securing the northern border and the justification in responding to Hezbollah, the goal of saving Lebanon's fragile Cedar Revolution sounds less distinctly Israeli. Perhaps an agenda invented elsewhere. As hostilities intensified, the phrase "proxy war" gained resonance.

Israelis have grown used to a different kind of American embrace - less instrumental, more emotional, but also responsible. A dependable friend, ready to lend a guiding hand back to the path of stabilization when necessary.

After this crisis will Israel belatedly wake up to the implications of the tectonic shift that has taken place in U.S.-Middle East policy?

In the past, Israel has always known that the US would urge restraint past a certain point when it came to military actions. With this Administration that has not been the case. I don't think there was any plan beforehand to attack and then force the international community to act, that just doesn't make sense by any notion of strategy. My guess is that with this new ballgame of a US administration that is willing to urge Israel to go farther than it would normally, Israeli strategy went a bit wacko.

In any event, I think Weintraub is way off base here.

"What do you call a bunch of people who murder civilians in their hundreds, going on thousands, in a preplanned attack."

Hmmm... which civilians are you talking about? Americans? Britons? Spaniards? Jews? Hindus? Aussies? Buddhists? Africans? Russians? Thais? Moslems?

Are the evil NAZI Jews killing all those people in their hundreds?

Freedom F*cker: I don't know about you, but this seems a much better deterence to terrorism than understanding root cause and appeasement.

Stalin thought so too.

And Saddam.

How nice of you to compare Bush and Israel's policies to Stalin and Saddam.

Sweet!

Freedom Fighter wrote:

"The Israeli message to the Arabs seem pretty clear. Any time they inflict damage on Israel, the Israelis will return the favor a hundred fold. I don't know about you, but this seems a much better deterence to terrorism than understanding root cause and appeasement."
____________

Nothing so simplistic as that, FF. The Israelis understand the root cause(s) well enough and are willing to address them, when the situation allows. Who would have thought ten years ago that they'd buy into the idea of a Palestinian state? They know that their economy and that of the Palestinians is inextricably linked and has been for some time. And they've always understood that their fight was not with the Lebanese people as a whole. They just don't buy into the idea that military force solves nothing. From their perspective, it's prevented their destruction several times.

Of course, by Jeff Weintraub's (mistaken) use of Occam, there is never any gross incompetence, only disguised long-term scheming. For instance, many people I've talked to have concluded that no one could have been so stupid as to have made as many mistakes in Iraq as the Bush administration did, and therefore it's much simpler (and they're right, it is simpler) to assume that massive destabilization of the Middle East was the plan all along.

There seems to be a systematic logical error here, and an interesting failure of occam's razor. Clearly gross incompetence exists, even in those with able reputations, but a secret plan seems almost always a simpler hypothesis than a chain of incomprehensibly stupid decisions.

Perhaps in part the philosophical solution lies in the selection effect: because serious errors are much more noticeable than steady competence, one notices many more instances of strings of stupid decisions than a random sampling would suggest. So even if, in a given instance, a series of incredibly dumb decisions by a previously competent person seems much more unlikely than that the person has a secret scheme, the selection effect means that such surprising dumbness will be noticed much more often than chance would suggest, and thus occam's razor should be biased towards granting extreme incompetence the benefit of the doubt.

Certainly, if Bush and Israel hadn't fucked up their respective wars so badly, no one would even be asking the question of whether things actually went according to some secret plan.

"Stalin thought so too.

And Saddam."

As did FDR, JFK and every other US president (maybe with the exception of Jimmy Carter). So your point is?

"Who would have thought ten years ago that they'd buy into the idea of a Palestinian state?"

With the preview of what a Palestinian state would look like, is anyone still buying into that idea?

"They know that their economy and that of the Palestinians is inextricably linked and has been for some time."

I wouldn't say that. Just because they are linked does not mean they cannot function without each other. My bet is the Israelis will adapt much better than the Palestinians. Much of the cheap labor used to be provided by Palestinians are already being replaced with immigrants from SE Asia.

They better buy into the idea, FF. Conventional wisdom is very probably right in this case - there must be some sort of two state solution.

It doesn't matter in the greater scheme that Hamas cannot yet control all its members. Incomplete command and control is a characteristic of resistance movements and will take a while to correct. Hamas still has to make things work or be voted out of office. Supporting Palestinian independence was a smart move for both the US and Israel, no matter what the immediate problems are.

The only question that remains -- that is, once we dispense with the idiotic notion that Israel wanted nothing less than a "robust" international force on its northern border, and concluded the best way to acheive this was to bomb Lebanon back to the stone ages (or at least to the late 1980s) -- is will Israel be able to resist striking out at Syria?

On the surface, it appears Israel has everything to lose the deeper it pushes into Lebanon; it will find itself politically isolated in the region and will suffer all the costs of such an endeavor in terms of lives lost and resources expended. The cost of attacking Syria are even more stark.

But with the neo-cons increasingy desperate and with troops spread through Iraq and Afghanistan, the Cheney administration might sieze this opportunity to unleash the Israeli proxy army. To paraphrase Dick: fuck restraint, on to Damascus!

Consider Hezbollah's initial attack -- even if it was prompted by Israel's reinvasion of Gaza -- as another gift, much like 9/11 was, to the demented neo-con dream of Middle East transformation.

Freedom Fighter said "I don't know about you, but this seems a much better deterence to terrorism than understanding root cause and appeasement."

Sure, nutcase,.... kill more people who's property you've stolen and/or wrecked, just like the Nazis you are.

Continue this policy till everyone on the planet hates Jews,... all Jews.

Continue this policy till one of these "deterred" Arabs sets of a nuke in Tel Aviv.

It will happen. It is only a matter of time.

Why will it happen,... because of nutcases like Freedom Fighter and their policy of "deterrence."

Besides you have it all wrong,... the terrorists here, are the Jews.

There's a lot of talk about an international force, but no will. It simply won't happen.

The only plausible outcome is that Israel will be left holding a "security zone" in southern Lebanon - hopefully, not for another 18 years.

Losing so badly was not the plan. Eventually having a multi-national force instead of Hezbollah in South Lebanon was.

I'm with nightprowlkitty upthread. The most plausible story is that the Israelis expected the US to pull on the leash after a few days of bombing, resulting in a bloody nose for Hezbollah and the restoration of Israel's "deterrent capacity." Trouble is, they forgot who runs US foreign policy these days, and so they got stuck with a no-win campaign.

Since the onset of this war we've seen a steady stream of conspiracy theories. Set side by side, they'd stretch from Tripoli to Eilat. I came to call them blancmangist, recalling Monty Python's sketch about pudding-shaped alien invaders. Its dark punchline: "They mean to take Wimbledon!"

There's less to this war than meets the eye. Read "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the neocon mission statement, and see. Its scenarios read like that grade school joke: "Germany got Hungary and ate Turkey."

The players here are military, diplomatic and geopolitical dimwits, making it up as they go along. Halutz is IAF, so he thought "air strikes" as Rummy was trimming forces and thought "lean and mean" for Iraq. Why tax ourselves? They're not worth the headache!

Just a cigar? Kinda. Just one twist. For clowns this dangerous, I'd say it's an exploding cigar.

What is this , a " can't see the purloined letter " routine ?
How long has it been obvious that the PAC wants the Middle East on the boil ? Ordinary considerations of nicely-nicely do not apply.
Whether or not George and the boys are collectively insane is moot : they have their blueprint and are following it through to its logical conclusion. Consequences are the cost of doing business.
Check out Ha'aretz on Aug 5 ( today ) for a rundown of how a tie in with Washington brought credibility to fringe elements in Israeli politics.

Kevin: who are these people who have taken up residence in your comment thread? Yikes.

Personally, I find the idea that Israel was actually trying to get the UN involved completely ludicrous. Israel does not trust the UN. It does not trust most of the Europeans, who would have to provide most of the troops if those troops were to be competent. I mean, would you want even a souped-up UNIFIL guarding your border? Only if that border was as peaceful as, say, our border with Canada.

Plus, if they were actually angling for a multilateral force, why the confused first few days, the failure to really put troops in until after they had been driven back from Bint Jbeil -- if it comes to that, why be driven back from Bint Jbeil? Is there some equally convoluted explanation of why what looks like handing Hezbollah an immense propaganda victory while jeopardizing their own reputation for military awesomeness is somehow part of a very very cleaver plan?

Occam's razor. They thought we'd stop them. It's what a friend would have done.

MidEast Security expert Patrick Lane on the "cease-fire" agreement:

1- France and the United States are not at war with each other. They cannot agree to end the fighting.

2- Hizbullah thinks it is winning both tactically and strategically. Why will it agree to anything other than a cease-fire in place?

3- Such a cease-fire will be a victory for Hizbullah.

4- Who will disarm Hizbullah if it accepts such a cease-fire?

The news babble over this non-event is meaningless.

hizoy, I don't think Israel was confused in the first few days. I think Halutz genuinely beleived he could "shock and awe" hizbollah into submission. Where have we seen this picture before?

The Israelis appear largely to support the incursions into Lebanon and Gaza. As with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it's not wise to discount the purely political aspects of the situation. The public wanted something done in the worst way, and that's exactly what they got.

smedleybutler: you may be right, though the idea that anyone thought that they could remove, among other things, over 10,000 katyushas from the air is a little hard to comprehend.

In any case, while I still don't buy the story, I came back to eat some of my words. Ha'Aretz:

Israel drops call for immediate deployment of int'l force in S. Lebanon, UNIFIL can oversee cease-fire

The cease-fire agreement between the U.S. and France to end the fighting in Lebanaon I think will spur Estonia and Zaire to conclude their own cease-fire agreement to end the bloodletting in Iraq. It's about time!

But seriously, the more I hear administration hacks speaking in terms of "transformational" cease-fires, the more I understand that Rice and Bolton are providing additional cover for Israeli miliatry operations, which may spin wildly out of control to the detriment of Lebanon, Israel, and possibly Syria, which in turn could cause tremors inside Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, which of course is all a prelude to the march on Tehran...

The fact that so many think this "crisis" will be contained inside Lebanon, that it will simply run its course in a few weeks, simply hardens my gut feel that we ain't seen nothing yet.

smedley, you do know that the "Shock and Awe" concept is not designed to make anyone submit by itself, don't you?

In any case, the Israeli air campaign is nothing similar to the "Shock and Awe" tactic.

I guess Freedom Fries there doesn't consider someone a civilian if they're not lucky enough to live in a country he likes.

Trash, from what I understand, massive and sustained aerial bombardment is a "type" of shock and awe, as was, say, the German blitzkrieg. Whether or not this alone causes "submission" isn't the point. The point is that since its inception, the proponents of air power have always overstated its effectiveness.

"The point is that since its inception, the proponents of air power have always overstated its effectiveness."

No doubt about that, smedley, and I speak as a retired Air Force pilot. :)

However, the concept of "Shock and Awe" as developed in the 1990s is not simply massive, sustained bombardment. Don't bother reading the Wikipedia entry on the subject - it is highly inaccurate.

According to its authors:

http://www.shockandawe.com/shockch2.html

"Shock and Awe are linked to the four core characteristics that define Rapid Dominance: knowledge, rapidity, brilliance, and control."

While they speak of historical examples of how both shock and awe have been used, the type of "Shock and Awe" they hypothesized is only a part of the effort to gain Rapid Dominance. Rapid Dominance is a joint concept, not simply an air concept.

Under the current concept of "Shock and Awe," is part of an extremely rapid campaign that is so violent and overwhelming that the enemy is confused, off-balance, and made unable to react in a coherent fashion so that they can be defeated even without the destruction of most fighting units. A true "Shock and Awe" air campaign would simultaneously hit all command and control nodes, all power grids, lines of communication, and important military and transportation infrastructure. To be effective, it must exploited by an immediate and overwhelming ground assault.

This is not what the Israelis have attempted, in any particular. Their sortie rate has been far below their peak capability. What they have been doing is a very measured shaping of the battlespace. Their ground assault is not designed to overwhelm, but to gradually push the enemy back. Such tactics are a sharp departure from normal Israeli tactics. However, there is no evidence that this departure is unintentional.

Something else is going on here.

中新网圣彼得堡七月十七日电 (记者 朱大强) 中国国家主席胡锦涛今天在此间强调，为保障全球能源安全，我们应该树立和落实互利合作、多元发展、协同保障的新能源安全观。八国集团同中国、印度、巴西、南非、墨西哥、刚果(布)六个发展中国家领导人对话会议今天在圣彼得堡举行，讨论了全球能源安全、传染病防控、教育、非洲发展等四个议题。胡锦涛发表讲话，着重就全球能源安全问题作了阐述。他说，全球能源安全，关系各国的经济命脉和民生大计，对维护世界和平稳定、促进各国共同发展至关重要。每个国家都有充分利用能源资源促进自身发展的权利，绝大多数国家都不可能离开国际合作而获得能源安全保障。具体而言，应该着重在以下三方面