Avoiding a Peacekeeping Debacle in Lebanon
Having shown disdain for peacekeeping and peacekeepers until now, the Bush administration is now pinning its hopes on a UN force to stabilize southern Lebanon.
I have argued elsewhere that a peacekeeping force in Lebanon is “doomed to failure” if detached from a broader political approach, which must include the major states in the region including, realistically, Syria and Iran. A peacekeeping force can buy time and create space, but detached from a political solution cannot win an unwinnable war, and will fail if sent to do so.
My former colleague and friend, political theorist Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University, makes a compelling amendment to my point. Comparing southern Lebanon to Srebrenica in the 1990s he says that addressing this problem will require an international response of the scale of NATO’s belated intervention to stop the brutalization of Muslims by Milosevic.
I attach Shlomo’s perspective, with his permission.
“In the early 1990's, war raged unimpeded in the former Yugoslavia. In Bosnia, masses of Muslims were expelled, killed, wounded and raped by Serbian forces, and Sarajevo was besieged and shelled for more than two years. The international community issued one statement after the other criticizing the Serbs and expressing moral support for the beleaguered Muslims; it sent so-called peace keeping forces, which never succeeded in keeping a non-existent peace, and were openly mocked by Milosevic and his minions. Nothing effective was done to help the outgunned and beleaguered Muslims.
And then, in July 1995, Srebrenica happened: more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred by the Serbs in an enclave under UN protection. The shock waves created such an outcry than even President Clinton, who for years has ducked his earlier promises to help the Muslims, found it impossible not to intervene. Serb forces were bombed by NATO, and soon an international conference was called in Dayton: the war was stopped, the independence of Bosnia was guaranteed, and while the Dayton agreements are far from perfect, they assured the survival of Bosnia as a multi-ethic state. As in many previous cases, out of a crisis, an opportunity was grasped.
At the end of the day, international politics is crisis-driven. Maybe Lebanon has now reached its Srebrenica moment.
For decades, the Lebanese state – tolerant, multi-religious, pacific and mercantile in its basic orientations – has seen its sovereignty and independence undermined externally and internally. To start with, Syria has never accepted its independence and sovereignty: in Syrian textbooks, Lebanon is part of "Greater Syria". Then in the 1980's, the PLO under Yasser Arafat used the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon as staging ground for its cross-border raids into Israel; different religious factions set up private militias, some backed by Syria, others by Israel; in l982, Israel invaded the country, hoping to install a friendly government in Beirut.
While the PLO was relocated to Tunis, the Israeli invasion ended in disaster, and it was Syria which emerged as the king-maker in Lebanon, after its agents murdered the Israeli-backed new President-elect, Bashir Gemayel. Israel, though, kept its forces in the south, but withdrew in 2000, largely due to the resistance of a newly-formed Shi'ite militia-cum-social-movement called Hezbollah. According to international understanding, Lebanese forces were supposed to deploy along the Israel border.
This never happened: instead, the authority of the Lebanese government was once again eroded – this time by Hezbollah, which set up a virtual state-within-a-state in the South, amassing thousands of missiles, occasionally shelling Israel from its outposts, finally leading to the Hezbollah raid within Israel earlier this month which brought about the present Israeli response.
Hezbollah has twin aims: like Iranian President Ahmedinejad, it calls for the destruction of the Jewish state; and – again talking a leaf out of the Iranian Revolution – it calls for turning Lebanon into an Islamic republic. Hezbollah is not strong enough to achieve either of these aims: but by declaring them, it is strong enough both to destabilize Lebanon and the region.
As the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, said last week, the problem is that the Lebanese government has been unable to assert its legitimate sovereignty in South Lebanon. In September 2004 the UN Security Council passes resolution 1559, calling on all foreign forces to leave Lebanon and for all militias to be disarmed. When the then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri tried to negotiate a Syrian withdrawal, Syria manufactured his dismissal and he was later assassinated, by all indications by Syrian agents. The outcry and ensuing crisis did bring about the so-called Cedar Revolution, which convinced Damascus – ever a ruthless though careful regime – to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon, yet its powerful intelligence capability remained. Hezbollah – supported and equipped by Syria – remained in control of the South: the Beirut government never possessed the political muscle to implement Resolution 1559.
The present violence can be – perhaps like Srebrenica – a crisis with a silver lining. Everyone realizes that the root cause of the currently crisis is the illegitimate Hezbollah state-within-a-state in the South and in southern Beirut. Without solving this problem, no cease-fire will address the real issue at stake. Lebanon is too weak to solve this problem itself, nor should it be left to the mercies of its stronger neighbors – Israel and Syria.
There is only one solution: an effective, robust armed international implementation force sent to Lebanon to help its government and army re-assert its sovereignty in the south, disarm Hezbollah (which can of course continue to exist as a political party, representing the historically-marginalized Shi'ite population). Like in the Balkans, such a force should draw its legitimacy from the UN, but by no means should it be another version of the totally useless UNIFIL, stationed in south Lebanon for decades: it never stopped terrorist acts against Israel, nor the Israeli invasion in 1982.
This implementation force should be based on NATO capabilities; it should include a strong European contingent, as well as Russian units; to enhance its legitimacy, Arab and Muslim countries – Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan – should be included. Most importantly: it should have a mandate to use force to implement the legitimate authority of the Lebanese government. With such a mandate, it would receive the support both of Lebanon and of Israel.
The current violence has to stop: but pious calls for a mere cease-fire will just invite more violence in the future. Lebanon is suffering terribly – from an illegitimate Hezbollah state-within-a-sate, which has hijacked the Lebanese population for its aims and from Israel's brutal response: this suffering has to be stopped, but only an effective multi-national force can do it.
Lebanon is an unusual country, tucked besides powerful neighbors. Its culture is an amalgam of East and West. Its first representative at the UN, the scholar and writer Charles Malik, was instrumental in 1948, together with the French Jewish lawyer René Cassin, in formulating the UN Declaration of Human Rights; Adonis, its current most famous poet, combines Greek, Phoenician and Arab legacies in a truly universalist spirit; and another Lebanese, Khalil Jibran, has inspired in his mysticism and sensitivity numerous people all over the world.
This is the country which is now torn asunder by terrorism and war, and the international community has a moral responsibility to rescue it: but this cannot be done by hand-wringing and pious moralism: to counter force – as in Srebrenica, and later in Kosovo – forceful responses are needed. It is a tough test to the values behind the lofty rhetoric of the UN and the EU."
Shlomo is absolutely right, in every regard. Very similar sentiments were issued today (8/9) by Henry Kissinger. Though claiming to be "exhasperated" by Israel's war aims, Kissinger proclaimed outright that Hezbollah must be disarmed for any substantive peace to occur.
Surprisingly enough, Israel has repeatedly stated that it will gladly end its offensive and remove its forces from Lebanon if an international peacekeeping body occupies the Lebanese/Israeli border region.
The group opposed to this, however, is Lebanon, Iran, and Syria (not to mention moderate nations like Saudi Arabia and Jordan).
This refusal on the part of the Arab bloc at having an international peacekeeping force reinforces their said goals of destroying Israel.
It is Israel that wants peace, not Hezbollah. Indeed, Iran and Syria fund and arm Hezbollah to do its dirty work and fight. Nothing else. They do not seek peace. So it is surprising that Israel has come under so much heat lately. It seems as if the world is falling for Tehran's ruse.
Surprisingly, Bush has not.
August 9, 2006 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This implementation force should be based on NATO capabilities; it should include a strong European contingent, as well as Russian units; to enhance its legitimacy, Arab and Muslim countries – Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan – should be included. Most importantly: it should have a mandate to use force to implement the legitimate authority of the Lebanese government. With such a mandate, it would receive the support both of Lebanon and of Israel.
This doesn't sound like a politically realistic proposal to me at all. I can't see Arab forces going into Southern Lebanon with a mission to disarm (i.e. defeat) Hizbollah. Peacekeeping, yes - defeating Hizbollah, no.
Also, whether you think the perception is fair or not, many will find Avineri's use of the Srebrenica analogy to be back-asswards. We do not have 8000 dead Israelis on our hands. Instead, Israel has probably done more damage to Lebanon in a few weeks than all the damage Hizbollah has ever done to Israel multiplied by 10.
I know Israel labors under a perpetual fear of annihilation, and thinks it is only defending itself. But it has chosen to do so in a manner that makes it quite impossible now to mount a broad-based, international disarmament campaign against Hizbollah. People like Alan Dershowitz may be able to come up with clever legal argument for the justifiability of wiping out civilian areas that contain military targets. But even if the arguments are legally or philosophically defensible, they are politically dumb.
While Israelis may be justifiably concerned about the relatively damage done to its northern towns and people, for most of the world these losses appear relatively minor. Everyone else in the worlds is concerned about bleeding Lebanon. The view from Hebrew University is nothing like the view from most of the world's other capitals.
Attempting to solve all the problems of the Levant and beyond with some miracle force is a non-starter. If we can just get a reasonably effective peacekeeping force in there to patrol the border and maintain rough peace, that would be a positive step.
August 9, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good analogy: Srebrenica. From the point of view of Serbs, the root of the problem was that Bosnian Muslim wanted an illegitimate state within state etc. and when less drastic measures were not yielding positive results, Serbs had to send a truly forceful signal to Bosnian Muslim, hence the massacre. I bet that the massacre was merely a tool toward obtaining a lasting solution.
However, even assuming that Serbs have seen the situation correctly, one cannot support certain measures. Israel basically announced open season on all Shia in Lebanon, while killing and destroying some "innocent victims" for a good measure. Excessive brutality in the name of lasting peace is still excessive brutality.
PS. Ahh, good old Henry Kissinger, advising massacres for the sake of somewhat better sounding peace conditions (that were not worth anything anyway). Bomb the lesser people, bomb!
August 9, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an absolutely idiotic proposal to put peacekeepers into the middle of a war. The only way Hezballah and Lebanon are going to accept armed occupiers in South Lebanon is if all parties in the region agree to negotiations on all the festering issues - Golan Heights, Shebba Farms, the West Bank and Gaza. If this is not on the horizon, I doubt if any country is going to offer to be cannon fodder and if they did, Hezballah and other Islamic groups would start chewing them up -just like Iraq.
Israel's attempt to isolate the Lebanese problem from Syria is flat out not going to work. If Israel continues on it's present path they will be sitting ducks for the next 18 years.
The key to Israel's long term survival is to wrap up a peace treaty incorporating Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. That will isolate Iran and significantly reduce Iran's influence in the Islamic world. Israel knows what concessions they have to give to make this happen - lets see if some Israeli leader can gernerate the political will to pull it off.
August 9, 2006 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno if I would take Mister 'War Crimes' himself all that seriously on the subject of substantive peace. He certainly didn't cover himself with glory trying to negotiate with the North Vietnamese in the Paris Peace talks. He was a handmaiden to the illegal bombings and invasions of Laos and Cambodia, had his arms up to his elbows in setting the stage for the Cambodian bloodbath, was apparently involved in the Chilean coup, and was just generally an unsavoury and repulsive character. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't available for an opinion?
Hmmmmm no.
I think that the nuanced position of the Arab states is that they don't want to replace an Israeli occupation force with a foreign occupation force.
First, such an arrangement would be tantamount to legitimizing the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories while a suitable occupation force got together... and that suitable foreign occupation force might be months or years to put together. It's not like it can be done quickly or easily, for simple logistics reasons, and its not like there are volunteers lining up around the block.
Second, it's all well and nice if Israel can get someone else to do its dirty work, but the Lebanese simply don't want to have more dirty work done to them, nor do their fellow Arabs.
Third, the history of international occupation or peacekeeping forces in Arab countries has not been very good lately. We've had recently Somalia (disaster), Afghanistan (big disaster), Iraq (testicles crushing catastrophe). So, there's a certain skepticism about having foreign troops come in.
My impression is not that the Arab states or Lebanon are saying 'no' outright, but they are saying 'no' to situations that they are not comfortable with.
That's not unreasonable. Any third party occupation/peacekeeping force is going to have to have the faith and confidence of the government of Lebanon, the people of Lebanon, the Shiites of Lebanon and Hezbollah. It's dangerous and risky territory they're walking into. If Hezbollah believes that they're fair and decent, well, maybe just maybe, they'll give them a break. If Hezbollah figures its a new bunch of bastards... If the Lebanese figure its just a new bunch of bastards... Well, you get the idea.
August 9, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg you say: "Surprisingly enough, Israel has repeatedly stated that it will gladly end its offensive and remove its forces from Lebanon if an international peacekeeping body occupies the Lebanese/Israeli border region."
I thought I had been following this story fairly closely, reading Ha'aretz as well as a few other international sources. I might have missed something. I thought w Israel said it was NOT willing to get out before the peacekeeping body arrives, and Hezbollah was demanding Israelis withdraw before the peacekeepers arrive. Do I have the story right?
August 9, 2006 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it? Or is the half-century old Palestine problem and Israeli hegemony the root cause? The Hezbollah militia is a resistance movement initially formed to end Israel's occupation (and still has that goal). The whole idea that one party wants peace and will stop bombing civilians and destroying a country if only their opponents will turn in their arms and disband is absurd. Just because the UN passed Res. 1559, it does not mean that it is a viable solution. What about the various resolutions that have been ignored by Israel for forty years like 242 in ’67, which called for immediate withdrawal from all occupied territories and 338 in ’73, which called for the same after that cease-fire?
August 9, 2006 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes the situation difficult when most experts opine that the Lebanese army will not, and cannot, disarm Hezbollah.
It also seems rather petty that Lebanon and the Arab bloc is uncomfortable with having Israel occupy southern Lebanon until a multinational peacekeeping force can arrive. You argue that this position is valid because otherwise it would legitimize Israel's occupation. The only problem is that Hezbollah has no more justification to occupy that region than does Israel.
A point that doesn't seem to be getting enough press is that Israel will end its offensive operations in Lebanon if Hezbollah ceases its rocket attacks. While true that Israel has caused much greater loss of life and destruction of infrastructure, we cannot forget that Hezbollah began this ordeal.
Another point: If Israel is being lambasted by the world for inadvertently causing hundreds of deaths among women and children, why is Hezbollah not receiving ANY noticable criticism for having its guerillas live and fight among these women and children?
August 9, 2006 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, let's get the UN to do the job Israel can't do itself.
Everyone, except all Arabs, who view the oppression of Palestinians as the root cause of the problems in the region. How convenient to overlook that...
August 9, 2006 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 9, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For decades, the Lebanese state – tolerant, multi-religious, pacific and mercantile in its basic orientations – has seen its sovereignty and independence undermined externally and internally.
This ignores the largest problem in Lebanon, which is that the ethnic makeup has changed, while the government is still proportioned on the basis of the demographics of the 1930s. Lebanon's tolerance was always tenuous, and as the politically dominant Christians become an ever smaller percentage of Lebanese, it will become harder and harder to maintain Lebanon as it used to be, regardless of Syrian, Iranian, or Israeli interference.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
August 9, 2006 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It also seems rather petty that Americans and the Congress are uncomfortable with having China occupy the West Coast until a multinational peacekeeping force can arrive."
How does that sound to you? Pettyness aside, its their country. You put in a peacekeeping force without their consent... well, that's just another occupation force, isn't it?
Just because they live there! What are those maniacs thinking.
Uhm, proveably not true. When Israel declared its 48 hour moratorium on aerial strikes, Hezbollah stopped launching rockets for the first day, and launched only ten the next day.
That's an impressive sign of good faith, considering that Israel's 48 hour moratorium only lasted a few hours.
At that point, both parties could have walked back from the precipice. Israel chose not to. It couldn't even uphold its own declaration to stop bombing for two days.
That's as ugly as a dog that's been beaten with an ugly stick. But ugly as it is, its the truth.
Are you sure?
I don't know whether this is true or not. But the word is that Hezbollahs forces prefer not to associate with civilians, because that increases the risk of informants and stool pigeons. One thing for sure, Israel's intelligence on Hezbollah forces and dispositions seems to have been crap. So who knows.
August 10, 2006 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have read the post by Feinstein and Avineri carefully twice because I am really VERY interested in trying to evaluate how various different political tendencies are reacting to the interesting puzzle the Israeli government has set for them.
My conclusion is that this particular tendency has simply gone into catatonic shock and is unable either to express a coherent position or conceal the fact that it is unable to do so.
The comments in response all seem to be politely ignoring the fact that the post is quite literally unintelligible.
August 10, 2006 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
from Jonathan Cook...a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel:
August 10, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If border security is the problem then the solution is an international force posted on both sides of the border, the blue line, until a more permanent resolution is reached.
My logic first and foremost it shows balance, no outsider is going to make a quick judgement as to who started what and who is more at risk from the other. Civilians on each side have to live with the hassle and indignity.
Both sides should want to make the negotiated tradeoffs to simeltaneously get rid of the international force. That may help do the real work to negotiate something worth enough to each side to make them less likely to start this again. As to Israelis I have heard interviewd that they did this to fix the situation "once and for all" I can only wish that for everyone but it seems very naive for this region.
August 10, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absent a seance, self-evidently.
August 10, 2006 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the main reasons why there have been two or three terrible episodes of civilian deaths, among the many other smaller incidents, is that Israeli video shows where Hezbollah rockets are being launched from.
The first of these horrific incidents cost the lives of 56 civilians, that number later reduced to 30 something, when Israeli jets hit a building that was housing women and children. They located that building, however, from video footage which confirms rocket launches took place directly outside of the building.
Let's be honest, the IDF does not order airstrikes on random buildings in the blind hope that insurgents are holed up in it. Buildings are targeted specifically with various forms of intelligence.
And to be honest, how can Hezbollah fighters NOT be mixed amongst women and children? They refuse to fight the Israeli's on an open field of battle. That alone makes them the true cowards, not the IDF.
August 10, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. Unconventioal warfigters are cowards? How about smart, doing the best with what they have? Trying to win? And American history and those pesky behind the tree colonoial soldiers. Let's not spend time continuing this line of argument.
August 10, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Gettysburg, what is the point of calling them cowards? By their value systems, they are heroes. By their traditional beliefs, civilians are killed because that was the will of Allah. If Allah had not meant for them to come to Paradise, he would have protected them.
Do you seriously think that they would value your opinion? They would value having either of us dead. Trying to project your value system onto someone with different motivations just wastes time, if you are trying to predict behavior.
Let's turn from the psychological to the physical. Israel is using a counterbattery (i.e., destroying mortars, cannon and rockets being used against you) doctrine quite different from that of the US. Since they use US Firefinder (AN/TPQ-36 or -37) artillery detection radar, and US M109 155mm howitzers (and, for that matter, M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems), a standard US combination for counterbattery, what is the difference? And you are familiar with these forms? What do you have in mind, besides counterbattery radar? Hint: you can't fire an artillery rocket from inside a building with a roof, unless you intend suicide from the backblast. You might fire it from the roof, but you probably couldn't get out before counterfire arrives.
Firefinder radars can detect a rocket in flight, backtrack its path, and have the launching site identified before the rocket hits the ground. That information can be sent electronically to the M109 or M270, although M270s would be overkill for this situation. For a single launcher target, a six-howitzer battery fire, targeted on the launch site and in a circle around it, would be typical.
Key point: that howitzer battery can fire within 30 seconds or so of getting the coordinates. There are quite a number of variables involved, but each 95 pound shell has an approximately 50 meter lethal radius, with fragments going outside that area. Set to burst in the air, they will wipe out trucks and people in the area, but will not typically destroy buildings or people inside. 155mm howitzers have greater range than basic Katyusha or GRAD rockets, so it's not a question of needing an aircraft to hit the target.
In contrast, unless a fighter-bomber is in exactly the right spot, which must be a suitable distance away from the target so it can line up its bomb-dropping course, it may take several minutes for it to arrive. Typical bombs would be in the Mark 80 (250 pound) through Mark 84 (2000 pound) series, with or without JDAM guidance. Maverick missiles with 300 pound warheads (bomb weights are total including the case) might also be used. These are much more likely than airbursting shells to destroy buildings and the people inside them. Yes, the bombs can be fuzed for airburst, but they still have considerably more explosive than 155mm shells. It's not always advisable to have the biggest bang.
If Israel is using this type of air attack for counterbattery, there is a significant chance that the rocket-firing crew and launcher aren't at the target coordinates by the time the bomb arrives. US doctrine, admittely using self-propelled artillery, is to be moving within 30 seconds of firing, if operating against an enemy with modern counterbattery.
So, coming back to your bravery, and possibly situational awareness, responding to rocket fire with fighter-bomber-dropped ordnance, will lead to using more destructive ordnance with less of a chance at destroying the launcher, because the launch crew are certainly getting out of the immediate area as fast as possible.
It is possible that Israel is using the more appropriate counterbattery gunfire, but their censorship is so strict, and they are so noted for their air force, that the public rest of the world doesn't know they might be using weapons less likely to cause collateral damage. Countries with satellite or aircraft imaging can analyze craters and know what caused them.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 10, 2006 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cook has also been tracking, as best he can under Israeli censorship, how Hezbollah appears to be targeting military sites with their inaccurate missiles. Contrast this with the IDF’s repeated destruction of civilian areas and civilians with highly accurate smart bombs. An update is found in this article.
August 10, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Believe me, the last thing I would ever wish it to convince Hezbollah fighters to adopt Western philosophy. What I was implying is that when Hezbollah guerillas intentionally place themselves among throngs of innocent civilians they should expect horrific collateral damage.
The international community should expect it as well. There is no such thing as morality in warfare.
General William T. Sherman made it policy during the latter stages of the American Civil War to inflict callous damages on civilian property so that they would not only lose heart in the "Rebel" cause, but also to convince them forevermore that warfare is to be avoided at all costs.
There is no need to even mention the European examples of such savagery because it would take the rest of the day to list everything.
No doubt Hezbollah has taken collateral damage into account and is using it to their own advantage by laying claim to the non-existant "Moral Highground."
Just as we should never expect the enemy to subscribe to our ways of thinking, we should never subscribe to their ways.
Hezbollah started this war. Hezbollah fights among women and children. Hezbollah's ranks include members of Iran's Imperial Guard (bodies of whom were discovered by Israeli's on 8/9/06).
It should make little difference to the United States or Europe if the rest of the Arab bloc has united behind Hezbollah. That outcome should have been expected.
What should make a difference to Western powers is whether or not any UN resolution contains language demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah.
It was Malcolm X who, for a vastly different purpose, gave a speech entitled 'The Ballot or the Bullet."
The same theme applies here.
August 10, 2006 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did they?
So its okay to kill women and children?
Should we trust Israel on this? Israel has lied on various items.
August 10, 2006 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of my points is that if Israeli strikes against rocket artillery is being done by aircraft with bombs that do significant collateral damage, Israel has alternatives in M109 howitzers firing airburst 155mm projectiles. While the idea of "military necessity" is discouraged in the Laws of Land Warfare, the reality is that Hezbollah can use either inaccurate weapons or not fight. Yes. Again they would respond, "so?". As far as any UN resolution, they will disarm to the UN only if UN troops pry weapons from their cold, dead fingers. You seem to have a concept that Hezbollah cares about Western opinion. It doesn't? The Israelis discovered bodies of the Shah's Praetorian Guard in 2006? How well preserved were they?
Might you mean the Revolutionary Guard, the Pasdaran? How does one identify a member?
Both sides are committing war crimes. One reasonably should accept a higher standard. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 10, 2006 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How does one identify a member?"
According to one account:
"The bodies did not have any Iranian identification cards so they won’t be revealed as being Iranian, but there were indications on them such as documents in Farsi, tattoos, and facial features."
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=9006
August 10, 2006 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting point. A lot of the confusion in this discussion is based on the perception (actively encouraged by both Israel and US governments) that stationing an international force on only the Lebanese side of the border implies its task is to suppress Hezbollah.
In fact of course no such force can be stationed without Hezbollah's consent and a political settlement acceptable to Hezbollah. Both the Israeli and US governments and any potential contributors to the force are fully aware of that. It is only public perception that is confused.
There is no need for an international force on Israel's side of the border since the Israeli armed forces are entirely capable of dealing with any cross border incursions and it is Israel, not Lebanon that is the underlying problem.
The purpose of the international force is to enable the Lebanese government to take the responsibility for protecting Lebanon from continuous Israeli incursions, instead of leaving it to the national resistance that emerged when it was unable to do so, so that Hezbollah's armed forces can stand down and Lebanon can get on with normal development.
The more important implications are for a political settlement in Gaza and the West Bank. No international forces stationed on the Israeli side of the non-border will help deal with the problem of Israeli domination over and aggression against the Palestinians and no third party forces will be sent to the Palestinian side to oppress the Palestinians.
The international forces that will be deployed to Palestinian territory as part of a comprehensive Middle Eastern settlement will not be there to suppress the Palestinians as the Israelis are still trying to do, but to enable their elected government to get on with governing. That is why it has been the Palestinians demanding an international force while Israel has previously always opposed anything more than monitors anywhere near its non-borders.
Maintaining the perception that Israel is "triumphantly" withdrawing is critical for Israeli domestic problems but has as little connection with reality as Nixon's "peace with honour" or the current pretence that "Israel is at war with Iran, Israel has always been at war with Iran".
Israel is at war with the Palestinians and is now going through bizarre contortions to acclimatize a sizeable minority of its population to accept that its military conquest of "judea and samaria" has simply failed, in much the same way that Nixon had to go through contortions to acclimatize Americans to accepting "recovery of POWs" as the aim of America in Vietnam.
Palestinians will govern Palestine and Lebanese will govern Lebanon just as Vietnamese govern Vietnam.
August 10, 2006 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My emphasis below. I'm afraid that the link brought up a general headline page, and I couldn't find the quote.
One of many articles on tattooing and Islamic law gives a theological basis on why tattoos are forbidden.: I have been receiving many requests for designing or writing names or phrases in Arabic script to be used as tattoos.
I am sorry that I have to decline such requests because tattoos are not allowed in Islam. Thanks to one of Sakkal.com visitors, Br. Jameel, I was informed of this quote from the book The Lawful and the prohibited in Islam by Yousef Al-Qaradawi. I hope you will find this information useful as I did."
Let us stipulate these were converts to Islam, and were tattooed while infidels, which many authorities say is forgiven on conversion. Let us also assume they were ethnic Persian. Could you enlighten us about which specific Persian facial features are unique to the Revolutionary Guard (presumably mummification applies to the Imperial Guard)?
As to the documents in Farsi, if they were made public, surely there are many academics and simple emigres who are fluent in Farsi, and explain the content of the documents as proving Pasdaran membership. Were they not released, but merely alluded to? What a pity.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 10, 2006 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the section of the article that's relevant:
"Israeli military officials say that Israel is holding 10 bodies of Iranian terrorists killed in clashes with the Israeli army in southern Lebanon yesterday. The officials say that the bodies are Iranians who serve in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and were found among the bodies of Hizballah terrorists.
The bodies did not have any Iranian identification cards so they won’t be revealed as being Iranian, but there were indications on them such as documents in Farsi, tattoos, and facial features.
According to an intelligence assessment, there are dozens, if not hundreds of Iranian fighters. Head of Israel Defense Force’s Intelligence Division, Major General Amos Yadlin, said a few days ago that it is conceivable that Iranian soldiers are operating weaponry against Israel or they are training the Hizballah to do so. Yadlin said that Iran is supplying Hizballah with intelligence about Israel
In a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said in reaction that Israel is in fact fighting the Iranian Commandos who are well-armed with modern and sophisticated weapons including Russian made anti tank missiles that were promised in the past not to be given to Hizballah."
One would think that the Israelis would be pleased to provide as much "proof" as they can as Olmert instructed 50 Israeli spokespeople to stress that:
"Our enemy is not Hezbollah, but Iran, which employs Hezbollah as its agent," he told them at the meeting, the first of its kind.
He also urged the spokespeople "not to be ashamed to express emotion and appeal to feelings"
Could be a bunch of hasbara.
August 10, 2006 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, let's recap. These are now Iranian Commandos. Iran does have special operations forces, but why are they randomly scattered among Hizbollah personnel? Training is a possibility, but one usually saves special operations troops for specific strikes. I'm also a bit puzzled about what sophisticated antitank missiles they are using, since those would typically be too heavy to be taken on quick movements. The US tends to restrict them in helicopter- or vehicle-borne units; even in light infantry, they are on Humvees of the heavy weapons D companies.
We have forbidden tattoos on what are presumably the most devout fighters of the Pasdaran. If the facial features are Persian/Aryan, the faces could come from a wide range of places in South and Southwest Asia; there's nothing that unique about Iranian features. We have documents with no translation available.
Does anyone else remember Gleiwitz and its incriminating corpses?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 10, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another account:
"Channel 10 News reported earlier this evening that Israeli forces operating in southern Lebanon had encountered regular Iranian troops fighting with Hezbollah forces.
According to the report, several of the Iranians were killed, and their documentation, authenticating their identity was taken by the Israeli soldiers. In addition some of the Iranians may have been taken POW by the IDF. "
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/9123.htm
The article also says the IDF hasn't contradicted the report and that "it would take some time before they could confirm it"
August 10, 2006 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is at war with Iran. Israel has ALWAYS been at war with Iran. Our enemy is not and has never been the Palestinians and our withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza is to fight our mortal enemy Iran. Those grapes were probably sour any way. Our enemy is not even Hezbollah, but Iran, and certainly not the Palestinians. Do not attempt to explain or justify, just emote about Iran and appeal to "feelings".
Also remember that we have won when we recover every single Prisoner of War and that we will bomb the enemy until they agree to let us leave their territory and take our POWs with us, just like the Americans won "peace with honour" in Vietnam when they fought the Russians and the Chinese there.
August 10, 2006 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arthur my idea of an international force on both sides of the blue line was not just about control by the national government of Israel and Lebanon. Clearly Israel can control its territories. My idea of a cross border force is about some practicalities and some show.
And yes I am with you on the need to keep the bigger issue of Israel and Palestine at the forefront. The abundance of attention on Lebanon is already diverting needed attention.
The real danger in any solutions or even temporary arrangements is that fig leaves and Nixonian covers are just the kind of finesse that this Adminstration seems unwilling or incapable of doing.
August 10, 2006 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink