Feelings are still running high both on the ground in the Levant and around the world. Feel free to vent in this thread, as previous threads have gotten long and unwieldy.
Some news-stories to consider:
* Lebanon rejects UN initial draft; wants it to call for Israel withdrawal (Forbes)
* Verdict on Lebanon: could do better (SMH)
* Concerted Hezbollah barrage kills ten as violence drags on (Monsters & Critics)
* Israel fights back on the PR front (Australian)
Addendum: Forbes has just published a chronology of the attacks causing deaths in the current conflict.
Thought this was interesting – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/ehud-olmert-wise-man-or-_b_26473.html
particularly the comment re the impact upon moderates within Iran. Given Israel’s posturing over Iranian nuclear weapon capabilities (or otherwise – there’s the little matter of delivery they dont seem to have sorted yet), is the current military adventurism as much about displaying Israeli military capacity & their preparedness to incur non-combatant casualties, a message that Iran would be receiving loud & clear? Reports also out of the States today that Bush has yet to speak to Olmert.
According to both Israel and Lebanon, a state of war does not exist between those two countries.
1. Israel has not declared war on Lebanon.
2. Israel claims that their forces are targeting only Hezbollah personnel and infrastructure.
3. The Government of Lebanon has not given permission to the armed forces of Israel to conduct their purported “police action” on Lebanese soil.
4. The Government of Lebanon has not granted permission for any UN forces to intrude upon their territory with the object of enforcing a “settlement”.
This odd state of affairs has some remarkable juridical consequences.
1. Israel may well have broken international law. But there is no forum to which Israel may be cited. Let’s put discussion of this to one side.
2. However, the law of Lebanon still stands. The government of Israel and their co-conspirators in the IDF have probably broken Lebanese criminal and civil laws. Chief among these are murder, manslaughter, robbery, burglary, wilful damage and trespass.
3. Lebanese Property owners and citizens are acting in self-defence if they resist Israeli conspirators perpetrating the above crimes.
4. Any Israeli national apprehended during the commission of the above conspiracy may face criminal and or civil charges under the Lebanese legal system.
5. If Israelis wish to avoid these legal penalties, they must leave the jurisdiction of Lebanon before they are apprehended.
6. If Israelis wish to remain in Lebanon they must:
a. seek immunities from the Lebanese authorities. It would appear that the Lebanese authorities would be very unlikely to grant immunities to Israeli felons.
b. attempt to establish an alternative juridical authority in part or all of Lebanon by virtue of the right of conquest. It would seem that the Israeli co-conspirators have neither the desire nor the ability to establish such a regime in all or part of Lebanon.
Thus only exhaustion will bring an end to the Israeli conspiracy. They will withdraw having destroyed much which may be replaced and having made many more unnecessary enemies.
A few accomplices in the conspiracy will no doubt be captured and will likely be made to take the blame for the misdeeds of the chief concocters of the Israeli conspiracy.
The “war” situation is certainly complicated by current international law whereby only nation-states are meant to be capable of conducting “war”. Obviously both Lebanon and Israel wish to avoid any impression that they are, as nation-states, in a full state of war.
Yet, when artillery has been flung about for three weeks in various locations and the non-combatant casualties on both sides are mounting, it seems a special obscenity of its own to not call what’s happening a war.
Not going to disagree with this.
But the point is that this “action”, whatever you call it, can only be ended with a settlement.
Before a settlement can be reached there has to be consensus about what is being settled.
If it isn’t a war, what is it?
One alternative is that this “action” is a criminal conspiracy concocted in Jerusalem which is punishable under Lebanese law. Like drug networks, the Messrs Big seldom get prosecuted, but that doesn’t prevent prosecution of accomplices.
You raise some disturbing points, Katz.
All this horror could be bogged down in semantic debates among the PTB (Powers That Be) for weeks, months, maybe even years.
It seems to me that if Israel can’t eliminate Hezbollah (weakening them is not enough) the only way an international force can go in is with Hezbollah’s permission/acceptance.
If Israel can’t eliminate Hezbollah the latter is going to claim victory.
There’s no outbreak of commonsense on the horizon as far as I can see.
Agree with Brian, and would add that all the commentary and analysis I’ve read suggests that Hezbollah does have the characteristics of a well-embedded mass social movement amongst the Lebanese Shi’ite population. This suggests that eliminating Hezbollah would be (a) extremely difficult and (b) likely to have fearful human consequences if it were to be achieved. It is very difficult to see the way clear to any remotely positive outcome. I guess I’m in the ranks of those who don’t like what’s going on, yet don’t yet have a feasible alternative solution to suggest.
Well, Brian, I think this Hizbullah thing is a bit of an Israeli smoke-screen seeing as Hizbullah probably aren’t the only militia fighting the Israelis although they are probably the largest. One must keep in mind that the Lebanese haven’t had a chance to create a professional army since the Israeli withdrawal about 6 years ago (maybe that’s not such a bad thing: look at the IDF).
Interesting points, Katz. I get the feeling that the Lebanese government isn’t going to walk away from peace negotiations without some significant reparations from Israel. Nor should it
What do you guys think of Paul McGeough’s coverage of this so far? It seems like he’s trying to make it balanced but his editor isn’t helping, eg with a headline like “Hezbollah’s aim is for power in Lebanon” – what, pray, is Israel’s aim in Lebanon? Is the IDF an innocent victim of Hizbullah’s power play, eh? Give me a break….
To quote the War Nerd “Hezbollah IS southern Lebanon. Its like trying to ‘expel’ ants”.
And yes, the new resolution is weak, unworkable, and ridiculously pro-Israel (they just have to call it a “defensive action” and its bombs away).
In any case, as others have hihglighted – no country is acutally going to commit troops to the UN unless Hezbollah is on board with the deal. Otherwise they’ll just become an IDF proxy, I doubt even the US will sign on those terms.
So, we are back to a politcal negotiation and solution – after another completely pointless, counter productive, civilian-massacring, militant-strengthening, failed military pissing contest in the ME.
This war has been going on for decades and has decades to run. The current battle is a particularly nasty one. But sooner or later the front will move on according to the unknowable logic of war. It will have nothing to do with the false lamentations of a Tony Blair or a Kim Beazley (whose objectionable mutterings about a Lasting Solution imply that the root causes for this war can be eradicated by sufficient numbers of Israeli/US bombs being dropped quickly and widely).
Until the Western powers stop using Israel in their quest to secure strategic objectives in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, the war will not end.
Eventually – 35 years – the West will no longer have the same strategic interests in the region and will then promptly abandon Israel who will then be forced to restitute occupied territory etc for peace.
But in the meanwhile Israel will make strategic hay as they, almost understandbaly given their invidiuos position see it, while the Western powers will continue to battle Chinese and Russian interests over the dead body of Arab and Persian sovereignity.
Hey, great comments guys. But I just successfully posted one of my own after Brian Bahnisch’s above and now it’s gone.
HUH???
It’s not that what I say is particularly insightful but it feels a bit rude if not disturbing…
Well said, Wbb. Spot on prognosis.
Nope, totally wrong. You’ve got the cart before the horse. The US derives very little, if any, strategic benefit from its relationship with Israel. Israel uses the US, not the other way around.
If you don’t believe me, read the much-discussed recent article by American political scientists Mearsheimer and Walt:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
You might ask: so why does the US keep supporting Israel? The article above ascribes it to a strong domestic pro-Israel lobby. This lobby exerts power over both Republicans and Democrats, so don’t expect policy to change any time soon.
Katz, where on earth do you get the notion that, because war hasn’t been declared, combatants are liable to Lebanese criminal and civil laws? Very silly. Most modern inter-state conflicts are not declared, eg the Falklands 1982. That’s why the Australian Defence Force uses the term “law of armed conflict”, rather than “law of war”. This is clearly an armed conflict. Normal criminal and civil law does not apply.
Israel will not “make hay”. Rather they are yet another demonstration of the old adage that overwhelming military victories make for really awful peace circumstances. Just look at what was imposed upon Germany after WWI. Even that imperial warrior and arch hawk Churchill was moved to recognise that the Versasilles treaty was a colossal mistake that played no small part in provoking WWII. Likewise with Israel – they have won so overwhelmingly – in 1967, 1973, 1982 – in a military sense that they have come to believe that all their political problems can be solved with military might. In fact, they can’t. Yet another illustration of the appropriatness of Clauswitz dictum that war is just politics carried on by other means. And, what it implies is that Israel will never get their peace unless and until they reach a political solution with the Palestinians that is acceptable to the Palestinians. After all, the Israeli’s kept up fighting the British – with terrorist tactics amongst ogther means – until they arrived at a political solution that Britain was willing to give and that they were willing to accept. Why on earth they imagine that the Palestinians and the Lebanese will be willing to settle for what they themselves were not willing to is a mystery to me…
Paulus, where on earth do you get off half-reading an argument?
Your jejuene comments refer only to international law. As I said upthread:
Here is chapter and verse: The Geneva Conventions provides limited cover:
At least one party must assert the existence of a state of war.
Neither side has done this.
So, as it must be clear to anyone with any intelligence who is capable of reading with a modicum of comprehension (which criterion have you failed Paulus?) my comments refer only to Lebanese law.
Thus I repeat. Lebanon may well be quite within its rights to prosecute members of the IDF for their part in the criminal conspiracy to murder, wilfully damage property, etc.
And members of the IDF may well be liable for civil court prosecution as well.
It’s completely up to the Lebanese authorities to decide on how to proceed against any members of the conspiracy to commit crimes against persons and property. What you think, Or I think. or what the world my think, has nothing to do with their freedom of action in this regard. And it seems that the Israelis have not availed themselves of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Thanks LeftyE, heard that in passing and wondered if I heard it right. Made me think of the South Park deer hunting epsiode where you can only shoot deers if you’re being attacked – ‘it was coming right at me’ etc.
Notice for Christo: LP’s spaminator thinks you’re spam, for some reason. I’ve just trawled through 60 spam and your comments were among them, so here they are. Apologies.
LP gets a few hundred spam a day, so it depends who’s online & checking them as to whether or not your comments get through if they’re erroneously detected as spam & put in the list for deletion.
Nope, half wrong, Paulus. The relationship is mutually beneficial. Hence its durability. The neocon/Likudnik conspiracy is exaggerated. The US is nobody’s patsy.
The US benefits because Israel is its best permanent military base in the region. It comes with a full espionage service. It has its own complimentary nuke-ready army on-call 24/7.
And best of all, courtesy of its encirclement of 3 million Palestinians who serve as nothing more than hostages, Israel can be lead by the USA to stir up the region, through ham-fisted brutality in the West Bank and Gaza, any time Washington feels like it needs to make another strategic move on the bloody board of the ME and Persian Gulf.
Get a donkey like the immortal Ariel Sharon to provoke a riot, throw around a few terrorism accusations, and then move into the next country on the list unmolested by polite world opinion.
It’s the single name issue, again. Most spam comments are by first names – Bill, Jane, Christo etc. People are best off emailing us if their comment doesn’t appear, because as weathergirl says, we get so much of it and don’t get a chance to check regularly.
Strummer – you are right. But Israel absolutely does not imagine Arabs will settle with the status quo. Israel knows this is war for keeps and for a long time to come.
They will only be forced to sue for terms when the USA gets over its hyrdocrabon problem. Suddenly the USA will decide that Israel does not afterall have any divine right to treat the region purely on its own terms.
Is why Iran and nukes is the big issue now. If Iran gets the bomb then they can alter the military balance and so all long-term US plans go out the window. Iran won’t get there. Too much at stake for Western interests. Big, big war is a distinct possibility. All depends on US electorate. (And voting machines.)
Can I please row slightly differently from the crowd here?
I’d like to suggest this whole ugly war ( or whatever it can legally be called) has been triggered because Hezbollah and Hamas paymasters in Damascus and Tehran were very worried that the Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel were about to come out with a dramatic new document suggesting a new path to peace between Palestine and Israel.
Barghouti – the Fatah militant imprisoned in Israel – had brought together all the Palestinian factions represented inside the Israeli prisons and nutted out a dramatic new position paper.
This was about to be released and would have frozen out the Damascus and Tehran position of total denial of the existence of Israel.
As Barghouti and co in Israeli prisons have high standing in the Palestinian street this would really have put the kybosh on the extremists inside the Hamas regime and Hezbollah.
So after a long period of uncomfortably recognised cease-fire this bloodshed was triggered.
None of this excuses Israel’s response…but it does give a rational explanation to why we now have this ugliness.
I am sure Israel could just as easily file an affidavit against Lebanon for aiding and abetting the terrorist group known as Hezbollah who have broken international law by firing rockets into civilian populations – trying to find a court that would hear it might be a bit tough though.
The case against Israel would be tossed out as Israel has a legal right under international law to defend itself from attack. Perhaps in future Hezbollah should confine their activities to those of a more social nature?
When I say “aiding and abetting” I am referring to the legitimisation of Hezbollah by the Lebanese Govt and their refusal to disarm Hezbollah and their direction that UN Resolution 1559 does not apply to Hezbollah.
But you know it’s more complicated than that, don’t you, Rog?
(Don’t you?)
Rog, legally and technically, what are Israel defending themselves from?
Michael G asks what “legally and technically, what are Israel defending themselves from?” This appears to be the biggest mystery of all. Apart from the legalities, which, I freely confess, I cannot judge, but would appear to be dubious to say the least, one has to ask what exactly Israel hopes to gain from this conflict. If their technical aim was to weaken Hezbollah and prevent it from being able to lob rockets into their territory, then they have failed miserably. Not only has Hezbollah been able to maintain, even increase the number of rockets they are firing off, they have also gained immeasurable political prestige and capital from the fact that they appear to have put up a much better show than any previous Arab army over the past sixty years. A number of people have commented that in order to win, Israel must completely anhiliate Hezbollah – something they are manifestly unable to do, while to win, Hezbollah just has to be seen not to lose – which they can do just by remaining as a force in being. The only people who appear to have done really well out of this whole sorry series of events are the Iranians. They get to re-affirm their power and influence in the region, frustrate American aims and policy, battle test some of their weapons systems and procedures. Hezbollah have also done well; Israel and the US, on the other hand, have lost on just about every measure that can be applied. And the people of Lebanon have paid the highest price, with their country laid to waste…
This is a reasonable cassus belli Rog.
The fascinating question is why Israel has neglected/refused to avail itself of this justification for its actions.
Probably, the answer is that the government of Israel thought that they could provoke anti-Shia/anti-Hezbollah action among the population of Lebanon.
Disastrously for Israel, this hope/expectation has proven to be wrong.
I wonder if the fabled Mossad was consulted on this interesting question of the reactions of the Lebanese people. If Mossad were consulted, I wonder if the Government of Israel listened to their advice.
I don’t see that the USA has done so badly out of this either. They have advanced their propaganda line that Iran is responsible for all the trouble caused by Arab guerillas – whether Shiite Lebanese or Sunni Palestinians.
The USA has had their propaganda that Iran is the stealthy supplier of weapons across the region become an uncritically accepted and sinister article of faith. This is nice for the USA, because then their own arms shipments into the region are seen as just a right neighbourly helping hand to folks surrounded by Injuns.
If this war is preparing the ground for anything it is for a larger war. The USA might appreciate a bit of confusion and smoke to justify a “quick clean hit” on Iranian facilities. All it needs is for that feckless bunch of crazies – Hizbullah – to eventually fluke hitting something big with an “Iranian weapon” – and there is the causus belli we’ve all been waiting for.
Perhaps the military impotence of Hizbollah will spare us. This year.
Another loser as the Asia Times reports is the Atlantic Alliance. Messrs Gillerman and Bolton have been conspicuous by their obnoxiousness as far as the Europeans and particularly the French are concerned. It’s clear that Israel and the USA are now attempting by political pressure at the UN to steal a political victory when militarily, so far, Israel has had a hiding from Hizbollah. Some Israeli generals are it seems going beserk in now calling for the destruction of ALL Lebanese infrastructure, such is their humiliation.
Its becoming clearer therefore, who by degree, is the consistently greater terrorist organisation. One day when the oil is all gone, Israel will have a lot fence mending to do, if it still exists that is.
Olmert, the Chief of Staff and the Defence Minister will not be long in office. The inevitable result of delusions of grandeur one can easily surmise.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH08Ak01.html
Katz, reread your own quote from the Geneva Convention:
Israel/Lebanon falls within the category of “any other armed conflict”. That’s the end of the matter.
Your legal view is novel, to put it mildly. I can’t recall the Brits prosecuting Argentine POWs in 1982 for murder or destruction of property, despite no war being declared by either side.
If Israelis commit war crimes per se, the Lebanese can try them for those crimes under the law of armed conflict. They don’t necessarily need to send them to an international court — they can constitute their own war crimes tribunal. But, to repeat, the peacetime Lebanese civil and criminal law is totally irrelevant.
Read it again Paulus. Declaration isn’t the issue.
Crap. Lebanese authorities can do what they like. All they need is a defendant.
wbb wrote:
No, no, no. The US has never used Israel as a military base. Israeli and US armed forces have never fought together (except once, in a very small way, when Israeli special forces were hunting Iraqi Scuds during the first Gulf War). The Israeli espionage service has been caught spying on the US, and a couple of its agents are currently languishing in US Federal prisons.
The US military presence in the Middle East exists on bases in Iraq, Gulf states, and Turkey, the island Diego Garcia, and onboard ship.
Israel’s “ham-fisted brutality” just serves as a problem and irritant for the US, which would like nothing more than to cozy up to the Arab countries (or at least the Arab ruling elites).
It would make things immeasurably easier for the Yanks to have a negotiated Israel/Arab settlement, which is why successive US presidents have invested so much time and effort in bringing Israeli/Arab leaders together for talks (most recently, Clinton hosting the Barak/Arafat summit at Camp David).
I wish people who posted opinions on the Middle East knew a little of its history!
The answer is easy Katz, there is no proper court.
Of course, Israel could take the UN to court for failing to fulfill their obligations too, but for the UN there is no penalty for its inactions, just endless botheration.
In the meant time, the Arabs have refused any UN peace deal so Israel can continue pounding Lebanon. Makes sense doesnt it.
A couple of references for you, Katz. Read ‘em and learn something about the law.
In the following article, a legal commentator analyses the conflict in terms of the law of armed conflict (no mention of Leb domestic law). He adds,
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-middleeast.html
In terms of the long-running Israel/Palestine violence, the following article from 2002 reported on a survey of legal experts about the legal nature of the conflict:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/me-intro.html
Katz, don’t embarrass yourself any further by pursuing this argument.
P.S. Katz wrote “Lebanese authorities can do what they like. All they need is a defendant.”
True. By definition, a state can do whatever it likes to a prisoner in its custody.
However, Israel would then be perfectly entitled to reject the Lebanese court’s jurisdiction, and resume hostilities to get their guy back.
There has been a lot of interesting speculation about what the Israeli’s are really up to.
I’ll go back to Thomas O’Dwyer reporting from Tel Aviv on 14 July as to what both sides were up to. There was a definite opinion that Hezbollah miscalculated. I still think it was possible that they wanted a prisoner exchange, and by the way this is what we can do with our nice new rockets.
As to Israel, I did hear that the cabinet was far from unanimous, but O’Dwyer quotes Shaul Mishal of Tel Aviv University:
He also quotes Knesset member Khenin as saying:
Nevertheless, now that it has started, how can it be stopped? An appropriate analogy may be WW1 which started with someone knocking of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, in Sarajevo and ended with rewriting the map of Europe and the Middle East.
I hope not, but a few days ago the Hezbollah bloke said that if they didn’t stop bombing Beirut he’d lob one on Tel Aviv, to which an Israeli guy said, if they do that we’ll flatten the whole of Lebanon in retribution.
Paul Rogers in a recent dispatch thinks there will be a long conflict and a fair chance of expansion:
The Hezbollah only have to survive to win. Israel can’t win and it can’t lose, so the logic is that they keep fighting.
You’re a tool Paulus.
Those refs above the above-quoted piece of self-defensive bad advice are about
in relation to any prosecution that may take place under international law. They are not about the
.
This is the third time I’ve made this point. If you can’t understand the distinction, you don’t have any business wasting band-width with your absurdly irrelevant comments.
Go away and die.
Rog,
Your explanation is no explanation because there is no court to assess Israel’s current explanation for their actions in relation to Lebanon.
In other words, why has the government of Israel said anything?
Re-writing the strategic map may be what it’s about, Brian. Charles Krauthammer had an interesting article up recently. He argued that Israel and US did a kind of deal. The US would keep the UN off Israel’s back for a few weeks while Israel destroyed Hizbollah, Iran’s surrogate in the Levant, which would support US strategic interests in the region. Israel, he argued, has not been up to the task, despite being the regional military super-power.
I don’t think I agree with Krauthammer, but it’s an interesting theory.
Brian, I’ll pit my expert against your expert!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP
I am convinced that Israel’s overall strategy is simply to demonstrate disproportionate and unpredictable response to its adversaries: “You attack me, even in a small way, and there’s no telling how much damage I’ll inflict back!”
It makes some sense, perhaps, in a strategic situation of assymmetric conflict against enemies who could keep making small pin-prick attacks indefinitely.
Paulus, I tend to agree with you. Don’t forget that only a couple of weeks prior Hamas had tried the same tactic from Gaza, and Israel had hesitated before responding with military force.
I think Israel had simply had enough and in both cases was saying: when the dust settles and the dead are buried you won’t even think of trying this again.
The first casualty of war is always the truth:
Israel says:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1141692006
From the “Battle of Britain” movie, a sarcastic Heinkel pilot:
Paulus:
“Brian, I’ll pit my expert against your expert!”
Only a true lover of war would say that being ‘prepared’ for the destruction of your neighbour given the slightest provocation constitutes a ‘plan’. Plans have defined, achievable, measurable goals, they have timetables, they have contingencies… they have some degree of PLANNING.
Stockpiling weapons, training soldiers and identifying targets do not alone make a plan.
I don’t really want to get in a knot over this. How can I really know what is going on from this distance?
But if you are saying, Paulus and Rob, that retribution is a large part of the Israeli motivation I’d tend to agree with you. But if so there is hypocrisy too. They are wont to say that they have no argument with the Lebanese people. Then they kill people harvesting vegetables.
Oh, I know, anyone driving a truck might be carrying missiles and any warehouse might be storing them.
Thats crap Brian, all reports are that hez fighters are dug in well and unlike previous encounters are proving hard to shift and Nasrallah has continually upped the ante, at no point has he been conciliatory…this all points to a Hez plan.
Maybe they didnt count on Israel fighting back so hard, who knows, you have to take it as it comes.
Which means Israel is correct in responding to the situation only as it arises and are not guilty of any satanic zionist plot.
Katz: right boyo, here comes the knockout blow. Your stream of rubbish has been based on the premise that:
You later wrote, “At least one party must assert the existence of a state of war. Neither side has done this.”
Well, guess what Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said a few days ago:
http://www.lebanonembassyus.org/Speech6.html
The Lebanese foreign minister said to the UN Security Council:
http://www.lebanonembassyus.org/Speech5.html
The Lebanese PM described the attack on Qana as a “war crime”.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/israeli-air-raid-killing-over-60.php
I could go on and on. Lebanon has clearly asserted the existence of a state of war.
Are you honourable enough to admit you were wrong?
rog, the interesting question is what Nasrallah’s plan was or is. I don’t buy that Hizbollah was ‘surprised’ at the Israeli response. They’d been watching what happened in Gaza. They knew Olmert had been hammered by the military to delaying the response by force to allow a diplomatic solution. They had prepared for this conflict for six years.
Why did they pick that moment to strike?
Recall that Hizbollah cleaves to the theology of the fundamentalist Sh’ia; that Hizbollah was set up, funded, trained and equipped by fundamentalist Sh’ia Iran; that Ahmadinejad fervently believes in the return of the occulted 12th Imam; that al-Mahdi’s return will be heralded by chaos, violence and destruction; that Ahmadinejad believes that August 22nd in the date of his return; that Iran possesses missiles capable of reaching Israel, and possibly nuclear-armed ones; that Ahmadinejad has picked August 22nd as the date of Iran’s response to UN demands that it cease its nuclear program.
Interesting scenario.
Rob, i’d missed that there was some sort of prophecy fulfilment belief tied up in all this mess, although I do know vaguely about various Mahdi prophecies.
Fabulous – as if it all wasn’t intransigent enough, we gotta get some prophecy freaks involved. Got some reading for me?
Prophecy fulfilment on both sides, tigtog and Rob – let’s not forget the Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists in the US.
Working on a post now, tigtog.
Well yes: we wrote all about that for 06/06/06.
Yeah, I know, blogyonks ago.
Sorry, Rob – that last comment of mine was meant for Mark, not you.
I’ll look forward to reading it, Rob.
I’d forgotten the apocalypse, tigtog! A lot of blogwater under the bridge since then!
..in blogistan.
rog, I like your last comment.
In your earlier comment you quote me assaying:
You say:
Bully for your certainty, but then I note that you go on to say:
And then you say Israel is “responding to the situation only as it arises”.
I’m a simple man, rog. At the outset Hezbollah said they were interested in a prisoner exchange and had recently (2004?) done just that mediated by German spooks. It remains a possibility that they spoke the truth at that point. The Israeli response in anyone’s terms was disproportionate and I suspect unanticipated even in full knowledge of their form in Gaza. I’m not suggesting Israel has a “satanic zionist plot”, the suggestion from the Tel Aviv political scientist was that they have many ‘plans’ none of them related to reality.
Hezbollah may have timed their sortie because Israel was preoccupied with Hamas and wouldn’t want to open another front. If so they miscalculated.
All I’m saying is that what may have begun as a sortie with limited aims has spun out of control and may spin further to the detriment of all of us.
It does seem to me that Israel, since the opening incident, has been the main determinant of the style and scope of what has subsequently occurred and that Hezbollah has been the one âresponding to the situation only as it arisesâ?.
But I’m not blessed with certainty, so I won’t be rude about your rudeness.
Meantime, Hillel Schocken at Haaretz.com thinks the past attacks on the civilian population of Lebanon were inadequate. What should have been done in the beginning was to issue an ultimatum for a final solution.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/747479.html
Schocken aweful.
Oh dear!
In his latest piece Immanuel Wallerstein reckons that:
He suggests that support is slipping away and even the US can’t be relied upon in the long term. Also their enemies can be relied upon to grow in strength. He suggests:
He thinks Israel’s current approach is wrong-headed and ultimately humiliating.
ZNet has just brought us an interview with Noam Chomsky about a letter written by John Berger and signed by Chomsky, Harold Pinter, José Saramago, Arundhati Roy, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn and others.
The shorter Chomsky, and presumably the others, is that the US and Israel consistently refuse to enter into dialogue that could lead to a more abiding settlement, including with Iran on the nuclear issue.
I think it was Leftie E who said earlier that Israel would need to engage in a major fence-mending sometime in the future.
I bring you these things for information, rather than stoushing. But yours truly did say many threads ago that Israel would ultimately have to learn to live with people who don’t necessarily like them very much but have the capacity to lob bombs anywhere in their territory.
Brian, the Wallerstein article is just nonsense, especially the second quote. I wonder what Hamas and Hizbollah would say if they were told they were the guarantors of Israel’s survival. Howls of derisive laughter, I should think.
No, Idiot.
None of your purblind cutting and pasting has proven anything. None of the Lebanese gentlemen you quote say that there is a state of war between the states of Lebanon and Israel.
They are refering to the state of war between Israel and Hezbollah, which as even you should know, Paulus, is not a state actor.
Can’t you do better than that?
I say, Katz, Immanuel Wallerstein believes Israel is at war with Lebanon.
For the article Brian linked: “We are now in the midst of warfare between Israel and Palestine in Gaza and between Israel and Lebanon.”
And as you know, Katz, war occurs between states, so you can’t actually have war, per se, between Israel and Hezbollah.
So either (a) the Lebanese PM and FM are ignorant of the most basic principles of international relations, or (b) they were referring to war between Israel and Lebanon. I prefer explanation (b).
Thanks Rob for that reference. Hey Katz, why don’t you email Immanuel Wallerstein and tell him he’s an “idiot” too for writing that “we are now in the midst of warfare between Israel and Lebanon”.
You know, you can actually back down and admit you were wrong. I promise not to mock you too much. Some people are mature enough to admit error (as I did in the other thread about defamation).
I doubt Wallerstein meant in the legal sense. For all intents and purposes, Israel has turned its “action” against Hizbollah into a war against Lebanon, in part by the indiscrimination that characterises *many* of the strikes, and in part by forcing Hizbollah and the Lebanese government closer together. Pedantry runs second best to analysis, I’d have thought.
At some appropriate moment I’d like to drop that quote from Wallerstein — about Israel desperately needing Hamas and Hizbollah in order to survive — onto a couple of Israeli blog sites I go to. And a couple of Palestinian ones. And a couple of Lebanese ones. I can imagine the response.
Well, perhaps you could do Wallerstein the courtesy of not quoting him out of context, Rob, which sounds like what you mean to do. Since what he’s clearly arguing is that Israel needs them as peace partners. Which it does, unless you’ve joined the crew that’s fantasing about extermination.
Wallerstein is Jewish by the way, and one of many Jews who oppose the current Olmert line.
And if you go back and look at the archive of his commentaries, you’ll find that he’s been right more often than not.
If you’re reading him through some sort of black and white prism, Rob, it’s a pity, because both he and you deserve better.
I was going to use the exact quote that Brian used.
“…unless you’ve joined the crew that’s fantasing about extermination”. No, I’ve not joined either Hamas or Hizbollah.
What I mean, Rob, is that the Palestinians won’t go away, and the Lebanese Shi’ites are hardly going to be overjoyed by Israel’s recent actions.
And perhaps, instead of being a provocateur, you might like to include his conclusion:
And perhaps you could even link to the full article. Did you read it?
Rob, for what Wallerstein said, read what I said:
Hamas are the duly elected government of Palestine and they don’t like Israel very much.
Leftie E says Hizbollah are southern Lebanon and they don’t like Israel very much. The Hezbollah are Shi’ite and are about a third of the population. The Hizbollah resistance forces are said to number about 3,000. The Lebanese army of about 80,000 can’t control them, or won’t. The Leb army is poorly equipped and the vast majority of them are Shi’ite (because of poverty amongst the Shia) and the defense minister is, I understand, also Shi’ite.
The Lebanese have to live with Hizbollah, they have no choice, and so will the Israelis eventually.
Tonight’s Dateline on the effects of the IDF’s Lebanese adventure on Syria should also give cause for pause. They don’t seem to like Israel very much either and still have direct issues with them.
Rob, I was very hesitant about quoting Wallerstein, because he writes in a simple style but the meaning is deceptively dense. I was going to include the bit that Mark has quoted and also an exhortation to read the whole thing, but didn’t for the sake of brevity.
If you are going to toss him around for laughs you won’t get anymore Wallerstein from me, which is a pity. The man deserves respect!
Yes, I read it. I was hoping that IW would provide some additional argument to back up the preposterous claim he made in Brian’s second quote, but there was none.
A little bit difficult to see a guarantor for Israel’s survival in Hassan Nasrallah:
“If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)
“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.” (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)
Rob, I’m going to bed, but Nasrallah isn’t Hizbollah. There will be a time when Nasrallah is not a factor. At that time it seems to me likely that Hizbollah will still be around, influential within Lebanon and Israel will have to come to learn to live at peace with the Shia of southern Lebanon.
At present Israel seem determined to radicalise the Shia and make heroes (or martyrs) of the Hizbollah.
But all that has already been said.
That’s right in a way, Brian. Iran is Hizbollah, and right now Iran is governed by a man who sees the destruction of Israel as the only cure for the disease of the Middle East.
Rob, are you being deliberately tendentious? I’ve already said that what Wallerstein means is that Israel will have no choice in the medium term other than to make peace with the Lebanese Shi’ites and the Palestinians.
If the best strategic analysis you can come up with is to quote Ahmanijad’s speeches endlessly, why do you bother? What’s the end point of your position? Nuke Iran?
As the Irish Captain said on Lateline tonight, George W. Bush is right in a way – Syria can stop Hizbollah. But that requires talking to Syria. Richard Armitage says the same thing – the US must talk to Iran.
I have no doubt that no one could accuse Armitage of being an opponent of Israel. What ever is the point of your comments? To cast political aspersions? I’m totally unable to understand how they constitute either analysis of the current and prospective balance of forces or any path towards a solution. Are you in favour of perpetual war?
Oh dear, oh me Paulus,
Your Lebonese citations are mere persiphlage.
Here is the important made by Lebanon’s Head of Government to the Diplomatic corps in Beirut:
continues to drip with the blood of innocent women and children. I also ask you, and this is why I called you here today, to urge your governments, especially those who are members of the Security Council, to back our request for an immediate session of the Security Council and our call for an unconditional cease-fire.
Finally, I would like to assure you that, while we can understand the anger being expressed during the spontaneous demonstrations at UN House that we have been witnessing on our television screens today, we deplore the attacks against the building and ask the demonstrators to express themselves peacefully. UN House is a house for all Lebanese.
Excellencies, ladies, and gentlemen, deep within you, in your heart of hearts, you know that Israel is committing atrocities on a scale that your consciences will not tolerate. So please pass on the truth, the whole unadulterated truth, to your governments and organizations, and urge them to move swiftly to ensure an immediate cease fire and withdrawal to the Blue Line, and back our call for an immediate session of the Security Council.
You will note that the only time he uses the word “war” is to challenge Israel to define what that nation claims it is doing. This vital communication, which by diplomatic custom explains the position of Lebanon to the entire world, makes absolutely no mention of a state of bellicosity on the part of Lebanon.
Now, this may change at any time, but until now the Lebanese government has made no move to announce a state of war with Israel. In fact they have studiously avoided the “W” word in relation to their own actions.
Mark, I think you know perfectly well that Wallerstein’s claim in the paragraph Brian quoted is patently ridiculous.
– does not equate to:
“Deep-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism” indeed. Hizbollah from its inception was funded, equipped and trained by and owed its ideological allegiances to Iran — a non-Arab, non-Palestinian state that has existed in its present configuration only since 1979.
I know Wallerstein is one of your favourite philosophers, Mark, and I don’t want to seem to be slagging him — I don’t know his other stuff — but this article was simply idiotic.
Jihad on Ahmadinejad
Root Beiruit
Wallerstein is a wally.
Nuke Nasrallah (‘n all da Wogs wot doan agree with me)
Now that’d be a quad rant wouldn’t it?
Well, it seems to be clear to me now that Hezbollah’s ultimate aim is the ethno-religious cleansing of the Middle East. They have made this call for Arab Muslims to evacuate Haifa. Arab Muslims, not civilians. If Israel had called on only Jews, or ‘sympathetic’ groups, rather than (as they have done) non-combatants to evacuate Southern Lebansese villages, no doubt the Nazi-Israeli parallels would have been coming thick and fast (who am I kidding, leftist supporters of Hezbollah do this already). I think it is clear who the real Nazis are.
Gilbert, I’m not aware of any ‘leftist’ supporting Hizbollah or their targeting of civilian populations. For myself I’m just calling some realism on the part of the Israelis. Who, I say again, are primarily responsible for the nature and scope of what is happening now.
Rob, I’ve been listening to reports overnight and this morning about Syrians working in the fields in Lebanon taking casualties, about the difficulty of aid agencies in getting supplies through to threatened populations in southern Lebanon (they have to get Israel’s permission and in recent times Israel is mostly refusing), about the prospect of hospitals having to close, about how the Lebs wanted to move in earthmoving equipment because they could hear voices under the rubble. Israel refused and the voices have now gone silent.
What effect do you think this will have, Rob, on the radicalisation of populations so affected?
Then if an international force is put into southern Lebanon against Hizbollah’s wishes with the express purpose of suppressing Hizbollah I would think you are setting up a situation where the usual ‘terrorist’ harassment will be a constant problem. You might even set up a situation that attracts external jihadists as well.
Wallerstein is just being realistic. Furthermore he has enormous knowledge and understanding of how power is articulated in the world. If the best you can do is call him “simply idiotic” then I’m outta here. But you might also want to look at what he said in January about Sharon’s Illusion.
I misunderstood your quotes from Ahmanijad. I thought you were quoting Nasrallah. As far as I can tell Hizbollah is not Iran any more than Israel is the US.
Perhaps you could look at the Chomsky interview where he says:
Rob, I don’t know enough to critique Chomsky’s claims. But my starting assumption is that he’s not an idiot.
Gilbert, it’s obvious that you can be critical of Israeli strategy and tactics without supporting Hizbollah.
On the prospects of a UN force, this interview from Lateline is very interesting indeed:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1711145.htm
Are you sure about that?
Who gives a rats about what the ISO thinks, Gilbert? They’re about as far out on the fringes as you can get.
Gilbert, I didn’t express myself well. The International Socialists support Hizbollah as an armed resistance movement and their capture of Israeli soldiers. They are silent on the appropriateness of lobbing missiles on civilian populations. That is more than a shame, they need to have a stance on that also.
I was thinking of leftie commenters on LP. I’ll now speak for myself. Hizbollah is to be lauded for it’s non-military activities in running businesses and providing social services to their populations. But the Lebanese government stated that their cabinet’s unanimous position (including Hizbollah members) was that all the arms should be under the control of the Lebanese army.
Israel’s actions are making this less likely to occur IMHO.
Other than that I’d argue for realism. Hizbollah armed resistance can’t be wished away. It is extremely unlikely to be blown away. Israel needs to change it’s thinking sooner or later as it’s current use of overwhelming force is counterproductive, radicalising its enemies, losing it friends and supporters and tends to delegitimatise itself as a civilised democracy.
Paul Laudree on the longer history of the Israel and Lebanese conflict from palestinechronicle.com:
Please note the question mark, but the author suspects it will be a very long time before Israel leaves and that the Lebanese population will be expelled from their homes below the Litani in the interim.
This is what is called annexation and empires or mini-empires are the entities that usually accomplish such things and not democratic nation-states in their more mundane incarnations.
It is also emprires and mini-empires that crush democratic governments and we need always to remind ourselves that both the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon have democratically elected governments.
Bartelby, I did hear that where populations had fled young men often stayed behind. The reason? There is a fear that any evacuation may turn into permanent refugee status. So young men are staying behind to maintain a stake of ownership of a house or a pile of rubble or whatever.
There was an interesting interview with Robert Papes on The World Today. Inter alia he thinks Israel missed an opportunity to solve the matter diplomatically:
And if you want to know how the Red Cross and UNICEF are getting on, have a look at this report by Barney Porter.
Nor am I, but I find the implicit suggestion that the IDF isnt targeting civilians insupportable. Look at the mortaility figures – the IDF claimed “hit rate” on Hezbollah, as a proportion of overall deaths (400 Hezbollah/900 civilians) is exactly the same as Hezbollah’s attacks (IDF 40/ civilian 90). Except ten times as large.
Obviosuly , stats are a fairly grim reduction of of a complex and horrible war – but both sides are targeting civilians here. Or at least, are equally indifferent to who gets hit.
I think there is a difference, Lefty E. Hezbollah isn’t even attempting to aim their missiles at military targets. And they strongly differentiate between Arab Muslims and the other civilians they want to kill. Israel says, “civilians, leave town.” Hezbollah says, “Arabs, leave town. We only want to kill the Jews.”
Were that true in any meaningful sense Gilbert, you’d expect only Jewish casualities and we know that’s not the case.
Well, that’s right, Anthony. There may be any number of reasons why Arab Israelis don’t heed Hezbollah’s warnings. However, the warning has indeed been issued in those terms and you need only follow the link I gave above (from The Guardian, no less) to satisfy yourself.
I was actually thinking on both sides of the border.
Warnings are issued and some people don’t listen, can’t leave or are not permitted to leave. Hezbollah’s warning implicitly says it intends to kill Jewish civilians. If that is not relevant to you, so be it.
Worrying news from Italian doctors at palestinemonitor.org that makes talk of warnings somewhat bizzare:
I’ll be interested to see if there’s any independent corroboration on that, Bartleby. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but would the Israelis be that foolish?
Remember that the Gulf War I story of Iraqi soldiers tipping premature babies out of neonatal intensive care units in Kuwait turned out to be a propaganda hoax. Atrocity stories are easy to spread.
Yeah whatevs Gilbert. It’s just I’m fresh out of for ‘giving ineffective warnings and killing civillians in villages which don’t happen to have your own people in it’ merit certificates this week.
tigtog,
The Italian doctors are calling for an inquiry, but they are relying on reports from the field as prima facie grounds for such an independent inquest. From gas in WW1 to Agent Orange and Gulf War syndrome: Is there anything that human beings are not capable of?
I don’t have much trust in human nature during wartime either, Bartleby, but I’m always hoping to be proved unduly pessimistic.