State your piece, hold your ground, and take your lumps.

I am reading the piece from the pew forum entitled "The Islamic Paradon: Religion and Democracy in the Middle East?|" It was a discussion panel done on May 24, 2005 over a year ago.

Jeffry Goldberg said then that the Lebanese government was told by Israel that "If Hezbollah attacks us over the border, we will attack the power stations that supply the entire country." Thus my question is why did Lebanon allow Hezbollah to arm with missles and rockets and why did Lebanon, a sovereign state, allow Hezbollah to murder and kidnap Israelis soldiers? Shouldn't Lebanon have asked the international community or the Arab league to help them oust Hezbollah?

When the United States was attacked on 9/11 I do not remember asking the worlds permission before annihilating the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

As I recall the US ran around showing lots of countries the evidence for Osama being the mastermind of 9/11 and for the Taliban harboring Osama quietly and without a lot of fuss. We even collaborated with the Iranians on securing the Afghan/Iran border. They did not want the Taliban rushing into their territory after all.

All good questions, but the premises are that this wasn't planned for larger strategic objectives that have little to do with Hizballah or Hamas (not to say that the latter aren't objectives as well, especially for Israel) - certainly on the US side of things, and probably on the Israeli side.

Iran is certainly the centerpiece of the strategic concern of both the US and Israel. While Israel may have a more immediate concern with Hizballah, they tie Hizballah to Iran - with obviously valid reasons, but more so since Israel views Iran as their major competitor in the ME geopolitical sweepstakes.

The US of course couldn't care less about Hizballah except for the same reasons - to establish that Iran supports terrorism and allow the US to ratchet up the rhetoric towards starting a war with Iran for ITS own reasons.

Without considering the background motivations, the actions of the US and Israel cannot be understood.

Some people, such as Juan Cole, are even suggesting that the real goal of Israel is to drive the Shia population of Southern Lebanon north towards Beirut and cause a humanitarian crisis in order to establish another buffer zone in the south.

Others have suggested the reason Israel wants to drive the Shia north of the Litani River is simply to seize control of that river, which has been a source of water rights disputes for years. Who knows? Personally, I'm inclined to think the timing of this indicates much larger goals than mere water rights.

As I've said before, if you don't know why what's going on is going on, you need to reconsider your premises - and ask, "Cui bono?"

As for Gingrich, he's a side issue of no consequence. It's the general neocon braying that needs to be countered.

I also find it amusing that Israel claims the UN is "biased" against it. After Israel has ignored literally dozens of UN resolutions, it wouldn't be surprising if the UN WERE "biased" against Israel, in the same manner that the neocons want it to be "biased" against Iran for merely arguing about their rights in the NPT.

As for Jordon, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, what would they gain by trying to get between the Lebanese government and Hizballah? All that would do is put them at odds with Syria and Iran. And what could they do in any event - put soldiers on the ground? No one is going to disarm Hizballah without dealing with Shia issues in Lebanon - something Saudi Arabia is hardly in a position to do credibly. Those countries have no motivation and little leverage to do anything in Lebanon.

The notion that Israel only needs another week to "route" Hizballah is naive at best. Israel always says they can easily defeat Hizballah. The reality is very different. Israel is claiming today that half of Hizballah's resources are destroyed - yesterday it was a third. Tomorrow it may be three-quarters. A week from now, Hibzallah will still be firing rockets and Israel will be "requiring" several more weeks to "finish" Hibzallah.

Analysts estimate Hizballah has used barely three percent of its rockets so far. Israel's claims of how much it has destroyed have been described as "wishful thinking." Some analysts believe Hizballah has enough weapons to hold out "for months", certainly longer than the week the US has allegedly given Israel, or the two weeks Israel is claiming it needs. Israel is not saying that a full-scale ground invasion is off the table either, given that Hizballah is proving to be very resilient.

And even if Israel can manage to identify and destroy the bulk of Hizballah's heavy weapons, there is nothing stopping Hizballah from rearming, whether the roads are destroyed or not - it will just be harder. Hisballah can merely wait for Israel to cease airstrikes and resume rearming.

In the meantime, it's light weapons remain in its possession. If people think removing the Katyushas means Hizballah can be "disarmed" by anybody, they are making a serious tactical mistake. There is no evidence any significant number of Hizballah's 5,000 fighters have been killed, given that Israel seems to be expending the bulk of its air attacks on the Lebanese infrastructure.

These should all be obvious points that are, as usual, being ignored by the MSM.

Pessimism aside:

(1) Israeli position, I believe, is that this is "open war". Once hostility has begun on one's own territory, ie. involving taking of prisoners, UN permission is not needed for self-defense. Legally, this is true, international laws of war do not require UN permission to respond to hostilities, NOR UN consultation.

(2) it might not be WWIII, but it's still pretty ugly war. Conservatives like Gingrich may like to play with words to spin it as worse or better for their purposes, I don't think Progressives, Moderates, or Liberals should waste too much energy and time on it. It's "Open Hostility", getting more OPEN and more Hostile by the minute. That's all.

(3) I think the other Gulf States were reluctant to go too active in Lebanon because of fear of getting too involved. No doubt Israel and US didn't want the Gulf States to get too involved in Lebanon either. Syria just left Lebanon, and US and Israel didn't want another government sticking its hand in Lebanon.

(4) the need to control is not just for Iran. It's for every nation. That's just geopolitics. And of course, US will never admit it. If it's not Iran, it's North Korea, then it's China, then it's Russia, then it's someone else, so on so forth.

(5) NO, no plans. Bush is the fly by seat of his pants kind of guy, except, he just got a little gun shy from the whole North Korea ordeal. Playing hardball with Kim Jong Il takes a lot out of a Texan. Israel doesn't have a plan either. They are just HOPING that Hezbollah will give up some time soon. Bush is hoping that Syria will somehow solve the Hezbollah problem for the rest of the world. Kinda of the same way he hoped that China would solve the North Korean problem for US.

It's like the South Park Underwear Gnome business plan: Step (1) bomb somebody, ..., Step (3) Mission accomplished.

Thus my question is why did Lebanon allow Hezbollah to arm with missles and rockets and why did Lebanon, a sovereign state, allow Hezbollah to murder and kidnap Israelis soldiers?

The obvious answer would be that the idea of 'allowing Hezbollah' implies and ability to disallow them, and the Lebanese government, hopeful but tenuous as it was, was really in no position to stop them.  Hezbollah has a lot of popular support - and also a lot of popular opposition - and the civil war is still too raw, the tensions still too close under the surface, the  peace still too fragile and the alternative too unthinkable to take a strong stand against them.

You may say it was irresponsible, but when something is out of your power to change, it's out of your power to change.

Incidentally, the Lebanese friends I've been talking to started out fairly pissed off with Hezbollah when this started - and most still are.

Jeffry Goldberg said then that the Lebanese government was told by Israel that "If Hezbollah attacks us over the border, we will attack the power stations that supply the entire country." Thus my question is why did Lebanon allow Hezbollah to arm with missles and rockets and why did Lebanon, a sovereign state, allow Hezbollah to murder and kidnap Israelis soldiers? Shouldn't Lebanon have asked the international community or the Arab league to help them oust Hezbollah?

Thank you. I had not known Israel had made that specific threat to Lebanon.
Does Hezbollah, perhaps, have extensive command, control, communications, and intelligence facilities running on power-hungry computer? Do they have major arms factories with electrical furnaces?
Indeed, is the threat to the Government of Lebanon so severe because the power stations also service the civilian population and government services? Have you consulted Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
US attacks on the power system of Iraq in 1991 were criticized as well, but the justification made was of military necessity in disabling the radars and radios of the Iraqi air defense network. There is some evidence that part, not all, of the weapons selection and targeting were intended to damage but not destroy the power grid. Certain parts were definitely destroyed by Coalition action.
As far as I know, Hezbollah has no extensive air defense network, so it is not clear what military necessity could be claimed by Israel. Attacking the power plants has a definite flavor of collective punishment.
In international relations, there is a generally accepted doctrine of hot pursuit. If a force attacks one country and then shelters in another, the protecting government can be asked to deny sanctuary. Should that not happen, as in Cambodia, Laos, and Afghanistan, the aggrieved country can invade the other country and carry out military acts reasonably proportionate to destroying the force that attacked them.

When the United States was attacked on 9/11 I do not remember asking the worlds permission before annihilating the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

Exactly, although there was some attempt both to get diplomatic consensus, and also to ask the Taliban to extradite al-Qaeda. The Taliban actively participated in fighting with al-Qaeda, which made them co-targets in hot pursuit. This contrasts with some of the situations in Southeast Asia, where the Cambodian and Laotian military stayed out of the fighting and were not attacked.
Had Israel been attacked by Hezbollah and invaded Lebanon, with the invasion clearly aimed at Hezbollah strong points, I believe Israel would have every right to do that. Israel would not have a right to attack facilities not supporting Hezbollah. Such attacks would appear to be collective punishment.
The most appropriate action for Lebanon, when presented with Israel's ultimatum, would be to take it to the US Security Council. That's a bit more specific than "to the international community or Arab League." I do not have the information on the relative military capabilities of Lebanon or Hezbollah to judge if Lebanon would have been capable of ejecting Hezbollah.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yup, the Slashdot version:

1) Bomb Lebanon.

2) ????

3) PROFIT!!!

While it is not a world war, it is a major conflict of reason vs. ideologies, extremists vs. moderates, unity vs. division.

Say what??????????????/

I'd say we have been discussing Lebanon plenty. Hardly silence here.

It's been pointed out that Syria only left Lebanon recently (one year ago?). The government is tenuous at best. It is, rather than a failed state, a rehabilitating state. Its competence was still compromised, in that the Syrian withdrawal did not include Hezbollah.

The government's moral authority has to be backed with manpower, which is the missing element. Israel of course knows this, so their actions in holding a convalescing country accountable for a situation not really of its making are without legitimacy.

Certainly there is political pressure to act but it is a failure of imagination and courage to simply lash out at Lebanon, instead of putting its soldiers where its outrage is, and facing Hezbollah the hard but effective way, on the ground.

Using Israel's rationale, that Lebanon is responsible, leads to the conclusion that Lebanon cannot meet the charge, which leads to the need to occupy and set up a government. Since this is definitely not wanted by Israel her politicians are being dishonest with the people, promising results without hard work.

BTW, again we have to be the laughingstock of the world, with our citizens hepled little, and grudgingly.

 2)Why can't progressives argue against the Gingrich this is WWIII or WWIV (I forget which number) attitde? I heard Newt on the TOday show, claiming that we can't be Neville Chamberlain like? Wasn't that his answer for going into Iraq?

Listen if you are able to Bob Shrum and Pat Buchanan's exchange on Hardball. Now Shrum has a gift for words, but he stumbled all over himself trying to avoid any criticism of Israel to the point when he ran out room to maneuver, he basically admitted that the ethnic cleansing of Southern Lebanon and the destruction of the state was no consequence to him (or the Lobby bought democratic party)

 This post should draw "Zeros" and answer your question.

Voters for Peace http://www.votersforpeace.us/

"Major arms factories with electrical furnaces"? Hezbollah? You're talking about a militia with 600-1000 fighters, not Wilhelmine Germany, for Christ's sake. So I hope that was a joke, Berkowitz.

Call it sarcasm. If Hezbollah did have such factories, which I know they don't, then there would be a military justification for attacking electrical plants. It was Mr. Greenbaum that said Israel had threatened Lebanon's electrical plants if they did not expel Hezbollah.

Since there's no particular evidence that the electrical plants are critical to Hezbollah operations, I'm more inclined to call the attacks collective punishment. And what does the Fourth Geneva Convention say about collective punishment?

Article 33
"No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

Had Israeli forces entered Lebanon in hot pursuit of Hezbollah forces, I'd consider that an action in keeping with customary international law and practice.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

So Lebanon is not responsible for the acts done from its terority? Goldberg's statement was in the context that Hezbollah, like all the Islamists are committed to the extermination of Jews from the Middle East. The warning to Lebanon was to get Lebanon to keep Hezbollah from killing Israelis. A point you seem to ignore.

There is also the matter of eliminating Hezbollahs ability to get rearmed. All the apologists for the killing of Israelis have not seemed to notice the amount of weaponry Hezbollah has. Why does not a non-nation state, operating within a sovereign state, have this sort of armamen?

I am deeply grateful that Israel is not dependent on the approval of the American left of its existence.

I am a bit curious, when 3,000 Americans were murdered you would have do what to Afghanistan?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is the goal of the Zionists and the neocons: to reduce the ME to "chaos", with few or no viable statee of any kind except Israel.

This in turn will justify the state's usual excuse, as exemplified by Chancellor Sutler in the movie "V for Vendetta:"

"I want EVERYONE to remember WHY THEY NEED US!"

The Zionists, the IDF, the neocons, the US military (not to mention the US military/industrial complex) - in general, the state itself NEEDS enemies.

The Zionists and the US intend to create more and more of those enemies, as long as they are enemies without the power to actually conduct STATE levels of warfare, i.e., actually BE threats to the power of those running the state (at least in their view.)

"Terrorism" is the ultimate state con - the unending "Long War" of "1984".

What these morons forget is history. As Dorian Gray said in the movie "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" last night in my DVD player, "I've lived long enough to know. Empires crumble. There are NO exceptions."

The state continues, of course, because that is part of the human irrational condition.

But while the US thinks the brunt of their blowback will be felt by Israel, sooner or later someone will sneak an Israeli nuke into Washington, D.C., too.

The Israelis are even more stupid for not realizing that Washington is essentially sacrificing them for its own ends, just as the "Christian Zionists" intend to in their fantasy.

Ah, well there are those 50,000 Iraqi dead to install a government that has a harsher view of Israel than the American left or the European left for that matter. See how well collective punishment works.

I think the US does have a plan. Our representatives pledged allegiance to Israel in a 410-8 vote. You can read the full policy here.

Here is the heart of it:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;

(2) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;

(3) further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;

(4) recognizes Israel's longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;

(5) demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;

(6) affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions;

(7) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;

(8) supports Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;

(9) commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;

(10) urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;

(11) demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;

(12) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;

(13) expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence; and

(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.

 

Sounds like our plan is to back Israel in whatever it does and start trying to expand the conflict to Syria and Iran.

(1) We need to reassure the Lobby - they're so sensitive, you know.

(2) Don't ask us about Iraq - this is about Israel.

(3) Ditto.

(4) I've gotta step aside and laugh here for a bit, excuse me...

Okay, back to the point.

(6) Read: time to attack Syria and Iran!

(7) Ditto...

(8) In other words, kill civilians for no (rational) reason.

(9) Support the President in supporting a state that kills civilians for no (rational) reason.

(10) Ramp up the rhetoric on Iran.

(11) Pressure Lebanon to do something it can't, so as to justify further Israeli aggression.

(12) Ditto, with the added effort of ramping up the rhetoric on Syria and Iran.

(13) Sorry - another attack... Okay, I'm better now...

(14) Oh, by the way, did we say we supported Israel?

If anybody thinks the US government isn't a party to this by now, they need to develop remedial reading skills.

In my view, the House of Representatives and the US government in general are now complicit in every single war crime the Israelis commit in Lebanon.

Big surprise, given the war crimes already committed in Iraq by the US, with the full approval of Democrats and Republicans in both Houses.