Lebanon update

Juan Cole has an excellent summary of the latest news about Israel's assault on Lebanon.

Comments

[Norman Costa]

To fellow schizophrenics who support and oppose Israel at the same time:

What is the wisdom of Israel's military attacks on Lebanon? You don't free two hostage soldiers with a full-scale, service-integrated, military assault on south Lebanon. Shortly after the IDF started it's attack, the Lebanese defense leader issued a public order for all Lebanese military units in the north to head south and defend the country. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, knew that this was an empty order and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, understood that no national military forces in Lebanon were going to get out of bed, leave their military bases, gird their loins, make ready their weapons, and march to face the IDF on the field of battle. So what did the IDF do? They bombed and demolished every bridge and road and intersection and means of vehicle access to southern Lebanon. The Lebanese order to their army was rescinded.

Of course, Israel can claim justification for the obliteration of Lebanon's infrastructure since the order to the Lebanese army, on its face, posed a clear and present danger to the IDF. Of course, responsibility for the collateral death and destruction to innocent people and their homes and livelihoods can be laid squarely at the feet of Hezbollah, the undisputed (and I agree) provocateur.

Let's take a look at the military objective of disabling, once and for all (or at least to a significant extent) the capability of Hezbollah to act militarily against the northern borders of Israel. Sounds logical and even moral. There are estimates of up to 30,000 fighters with Hezbollah who are trained and equipped. Let's go with a conservative estimate of 15,000 fighters waging a war with asymetrical tactics. To date the death toll in Lebanon is several hundred, and that includes the anonymous collaterals. The IDF reports that they have reduced Hezbollah's effectiveness by half. Can I get a, "What bullshit!", from anyone. You eliminate Hezbollah's effectiveness when you kill, wound, or capture 12,000 of them and confiscate and destroy almost all their military supplies, equipment, and communications infrastructure. Does anyone think the IDF is going to accomplish that anytime soon, or ever.

Did anyone miss the fact that Hezbollah have more accurate and longer range rockets, and apparently a lot of them? Did anyone react with a "Holy Shit!" when they used pilotless, bomb-laden aircraft to attack IDF forces at sea? The press reported it, but apparently they missed the significance of the development.

So what is really going on? On the face of it I can't find any justification for the outsized and, eventually, frustrated military attacks in the service of dealing a severe blow to Hezbollah, getting Lebanon to take 1559 seriously (as if it could), and securing the release of 2 IDF hostages.

In my wishful thinking, I can find justification if some larger purpose is being served that will bring a greater measure of security to both Israel and Lebanon. The attacks on the transportation infrastructure in Southern Lebanon in response to the Lebanese defense minister's order to the army may be instructive. Syria and Iran have been careful, to a fault, not to say anything that could be interpreted (honestly or not) by Israel as requiring an immediate military response against them by Israel. There is plenty of speculation (and that is all I can label it for now) that the US and Israel were looking for an opening that could be the pretext for a strike against Syria or even Iran. The IDF does the dirty work and the US replaces and upgrades all the spent precision munitions and F-16s. The IDF even came close to the border of Syria with some attacks. Some suggested they were provocatively over the border, but Syria quickly made an announcement to say they weren't. They couldn't even bring themselves to say really nasty things about Israel.

If Syria gets the message, either willingly or with the whack of an IDF two-by-four over its head, then maybe this military action can be justified and it won't seem so outsized and disproportionate. Then I can applaud the brilliance and daring of Israel's gamble. Oh, how I wish, I wish, I wish, ... !

[Alan Bostick]

uan Cole has an excellent summary of the latest news about Israel's assault on Lebanon.

In other news, in Armonk, New York, a dog bit a man. And scientists say that the sun rose in the east this morning.

[The Phantom]

Anyone in NYC and environs can tune into 77AM, where on the John Batchelor Show this subject, including the 1400 year jihad against Christians in Lebanon is being discussed.

It is astonishing that there are any Christians left there.

[fsdhkiue]

Take a deep breath here. Before you react with distaste for all DRM, remember that government-created technical mandates are generally not a great idea. This one involves the creation of -- get this -- a "Regulatory如烟往事博客 漠北孤烟博客 记忆深处博客 天涯无悔博客 寂寞如烟博客 blog 谷歌和百度的博客 三国演义博客 中国文秘网 皮肤病医药网 Authority of technical measures." That authority will
take a look at interoperability claims and make a decision. It will have the power to issue injunctions and financial penalties.

[Alon Levy]

Phantom, for your information, Hezbollah's political allies are the Christians.

[The Phantom]

Alon

That may be considered a combination of legitimate decision making (out of anger to Israel ), Stockholm syndrome, and desperation.

The Christians are well on their way to being pushed out of Lebanon by now, as they were in Syria, etc. And it surely wasn't the Israelis who chased them out of there.

Any tactical decisions made by the Maronites should be seen in that light. It postpones the day of a Christian-free Lebanon. A wee bit.

[Mnemosyne]

The Christians are well on their way to being pushed out of Lebanon by now, as they were in Syria, etc. And it surely wasn't the Israelis who chased them out of there.

Christians make up a full 1/3rd of the population of Lebanon. Christian sections of the country and of Beiruit are being just as hard-hit by Israeli bombs as the rest of the country.

I think Lebanese Christians would prefer the Israelis to do them no further "favors" of blowing up their homes, schools and hospitals.

[The Phantom]

Mnemosyne

Any Lebanese, Christian or Muslim, will tell you that Christianity is in very rapid decline there, as it has been in decline in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and in the entire Muslim Arab world, without any exception.

Don't expect any of the remaining Christians to do a hora in praise of the Israeli bombers, but they know who their historical and long-term persecutors are, and they are not the Israelis or "the Jews".

[Jose]

Clearly, this is not as much about the hostages as it is about the long-term security of Israel, but does the complete destruction of Lebanon's economy and infrastructure really help that? Clearly Israel was provoked, and has a right to some response. I would even go so far as to say they have the right to militarily disarm Hezbollah because of the repeated attacks, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Hezbollah was created because of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and I can't help but wonder if, in the long term, this war won't just draw many more Lebanese to the anti-Israeli cause.

[Count Zero]

"Any Lebanese, Christian or Muslim, will tell you that Christianity is in very rapid decline there, as it has been in decline in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and in the entire Muslim Arab world, without any exception."

Your source for that bit of information?

[Count Zero]

"Hezbollah was created because of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and I can't help but wonder if, in the long term, this war won't just draw many more Lebanese to the anti-Israeli cause."

Do they care? No. Israel is expansionist as shown by it's actions, and this conflict will probably lead them into another occupation of Lebanon.

Israel has had no immediate threat to them from any of it's neighbors, other than the harassment from factional terrorists. Why should they care about international opinion, let alone that of the people of Lebanon, when they have never faced any repercusions from their actions. Many countries will bluster, but no western country will actually do anything. However, what is clear that killing off fleeing civilians within a gauntlet set up by the IDF for the civilians to run will quickly reduce international sympathy for what happens to Israel to a minimum. If they want to use a sledgehammer to kill an ant, let them deal with the consequences. It's ironic that after the barbarism the Jews had to endure at the hands of the Germans, they would perpetrate the same brutality on the Lebanese.

[LeTigre]

Provoking? Let's see... Israel kidnaps scores of civilians and high-ranking Palestinian politicians from Gaza and Hezbollah than captures soldiers. Israel initiates artillery and airpower bombings that result in high civilian casualties and Hezbollah responds with missiles while their infantry dig in to defensive positions---a result where Israeli civilian and military casualties are more proportionate.

Even if the facts above are not reported by the mainstream news or accepted by those posting here, there is the question of Israeli/U.S/U.K. goals.

Military History has taught us that when one Nation-State invades/attacks another's territory/populace, than the otherwise complacent or undecided population of the nation which has come under attack will empathize with the defenders and resist the attackers. In other words, Israel knows full well what the outcome will be by attacking Lebanon. Hezbollah may weaken slightly, but they will become stronger in the long run. Compound this with the reality of Lebanese civilian deaths and thousands more wounded, around 3/4 of a million people displaced, a humanitarian crises looming, and continuous bombardment and destruction of the infrastructure---the purported Israeli goals of hindering Hezbollah are not only unrealistic, but mask the real reason for Israeli aggression.

So what is the REAL reason for the attack?

Why would the U.N. state Israel has basically overreacted while the U.S. continues to protect the behaviour through UN veto powers and votes?

The more violence, chaos, and division there is within the Middle East, the less likelihood for a Pan-Arab alliance. And the last thing the US wants in the Middle East is stability leading towards Pan-Arabism.

Why? Because, like most, if not all wars and military ventures, it comes down to the control and access over resources (directly or indirectly)--in this case, oil. And even if the US does not import most of its energy needs from the Middle Eastern region, control over such oil reserves means control over who does--and that equates to real economic and political power.

By painting Hezbollah as the sole provocateur (which it was not), pressure is put on Syria and Iran to either discontinue support for Hezbollah or face some sort of consequence. It is a historically classical, albeit farcical, excuse for going to war. And more powerful, invading countries continue to use it. Israel is no exception.

[Jose]

Throughout Israeli history, Israel has chosen, in the name of security, to act/react militarily in ways that only hinder that objective. Examples are so numerous that I don't think I need to mention any. I disagree, however, that their goal is to destabilize the region to prevent arab countries from uniting against them, because ultimately that instability would only make the situation worse.

Their motives are not so overtly imperialistic as the US because Israel doesn't stand to gain much in the way of access to strategic resources this way.

That still leaves the question, what are Israel's goals? My guess is that it's just simply lack of foresight. Israel has always responded to attacks with disproportionate counterattacks, and always pretended that they did nothing to provoke their enemies. They can't negociate or capitulate because, for one thing, they have absolute military superiority thanks to the US so they never really have to give in, but also because to give in to even the most reasonable demands is "letting the terrorists win."

[The Phantom]

Decline of Christians...not exactly hard to find but here is one piece that deals with it.

There are supposedly more Maronite Lebanese in Brazil than are in Lebanon. In a generation, there will be only small numbers in Lebanon, which will be like Syria is now, the home of a small, cowed, Christian minority.
---

--Israel is expansionist as shown by it's actions--

Which explains why it unilaterally left Gaza. And why it left Lebanon until the recent bullshit. And why they gave Sinai back. Yes, they're the worst!!

[Alon Levy]

Begin gave Sinai back because he was forced both by dovish elements in his own country and in the US, and Sharon unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in order to cover up his corruption scandals.

[Count Zero]

--Decline of Christians...not exactly hard to find but here is --one piece that deals with it.

I dont' see where they state any statistical census data. Here is my own research done on the web for just Lebanon.

--There are supposedly more Maronite Lebanese in Brazil than --are in Lebanon.

Doesn't matter, their growth rates are unrelated. Saying the growth in Brazil indicates a decline in Lebanon is incorrect.

--In a generation, there will be only small numbers in Lebanon, which will be like Syria is now, the home of a small, cowed, Christian minority.

I've already shown that to be untrue.

1986
----

Maronites in Lebanon : ~ 356000

2006
----
Maroinetes in Lebanon : ~ 850,000

So it appears their population in Lebanon has almost doubled in 20 years. So how is that a decline? A decline in what? A comparison to the population growth of Muslin Lebanese? I'm pretty sure if you compare the growth rates of both, they would be pretty proportional to each other. Not going to bother to deal with other countries. I think it's kind of eroneous to just state Christianity is declining, when it's not. Which would mean population before < population currently.

--Which explains why it unilaterally left Gaza. And why it left --Lebanon until the recent bullshit. And why they gave Sinai --back. Yes, they're the worst!!

They left because we paid them to leave. Remember when we said we would give them $250k per person to leave? Sorry but they didn't leave because we asked nicely, there was alot of money involved.

[Count Zero]

Actually it was more like between $250k-400k

http://www.hic-net.org/documents.asp?PID=255

[The Phantom]

--Begin gave Sinai back because he was forced both by dovish elements in his own country and in the US, and Sharon unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in order to cover up his corruption scandals.--
Even if all that is true, they returned these lands. Hardly the actions of an expansionist state.

---

Count Zero

Where's the source of your information? It's wrong, bro. This is simply not a debatable point.

Don't believe me, talk to a Lebanese or a Syrian, etc.

http://openlebanon.org/modules/weblinks/singlelink.php?lid=257

http://c4rpme.org/bin/articles.cgi?Cat=christians&Subcat=cmr&ID=300

http://voanews.com/english/archive/2006-01/2006-01-17-voa55.cfm?CFID=31488101&CFTOKEN=86439679

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060628/19502.htm

[Count Zero]

Christinas in Syria, from the Arab Christian Wiki...

"In Syria, Christians formed just under 15% of the population - about 2.7 million people, in the 1960 census, but no newer census has been taken."

So it would be hard to say whether it is true or not that Christianity has declined in Syria.

"The largest population of Arab speaking Christians is found in Egypt, where, according to government estimates, they number over 4 million people, or 6% of the population. (Many Egyptian Christians believe this number to be an undercount, and claim to actually number about 10% of the population.)"

So again..using census data from 1917...

773,036/11,281,788 ~ 7 percent of the population

As you can see, the population has increased either 1%-3%, depending on how accurate their claims are. This seems to indicate there hasn't been a population decrease at all, considering. Another country that hasn't experienced a decline.

http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/discussionpapers/DP97.22/ap4-1.htm

[Count Zero]

--Count Zero -Where's the source of your information? It's wrong, bro. This is simply not a debatable point.

It's not 'wrong', and yes, it is debatable. You can't just say "it's not debatable", when it is in fact.

Again, I don't see where any of those links present hard data, they are just stating that it has. Believing a population has declined and it actually being so are two different things. And a 1-5 year decline in a population doesn't indicate that a population decline is a trend. Could mean alot of things, war, persecution, etc. are causing people to leave, but it doesn't mean they are declining in that area in the long term. It's also hard to tell when many of those countries haven't been performing census's, so everyone is just "guessing" that this is occuring. If 500k people leave, yet there is a population increase of 3 million over the next 10 years...that isn't a population decline. You would really have to look at long term census data to determine if there really is a decline. Guess we'll have to wait and see, however historically, there hasn't been a decline. I notice that most of the links you post are Christian groups, which could be biased, have many reasons for siting that Christianity is under attack in the middle east, when it is not. I haven't seen one of them post actual hard data to prove their claims.

Oh and data on Maronites in Lebanon provided by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite for 2006 and
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_LebanonChristianMaronite.htm
for 1986.

[The Phantom]

The BBC would hardly be seen as Christian or even sympathetic to Christianity.

I like wiki and use if myself, but they've not been error-free.

Again, speak to a Lebanese or a Syrian, of either persuasion about the decline.

The persecution of Arab Christians began over 1000 years ago.

The decline in numbers didn't start five years ago, and is probably now irreversible.

[Count Zero]

I don't think because it appears in the BBC means it can't be biased. That's like saying there are no conservatives at the WP or NYT, which would also be untrue. There are in many of the muslim areas laws which give Christians freedom to practice their religion, maybe not to the extent we have, but they certainly aren't dragging them out to be executed. The persecution of Muslims probably began 1,000 years ago as well, depending on whose viewpoint you take. I could as easliy say the Baptists have been persecuted and that their faith is in decline because of it. Does that make it true? The information on the wiki page I sited was on more than one website, though what you say about it is sometimes true.

http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=470745&ct=1571507

--Again, speak to a Lebanese or a Syrian, of either persuasion about the decline.

The fact is, neither of us can, so until an accurate census can be taken - I kind of doubt it. Either way, it doesn't appear that there has been if you look at the census data, they've stayed proportionaly the same, so the facts speak for themselves - I don't think speaking to someone whose perception is that it's in decline, makes it so.

[LeTigre]

That still leaves the question, what are Israel's goals? My guess is that it's just simply lack of foresight. Israel has always responded to attacks with disproportionate counterattacks, and always pretended that they did nothing to provoke their enemies. They can't negociate or capitulate because, for one thing, they have absolute military superiority thanks to the US so they never really have to give in, but also because to give in to even the most reasonable demands is "letting the terrorists win."---Jose

Simply lack of foresight? Absolute military superiority? Letting the terrorists win? A 'simple lack of foresight' of what? What are they not foreseeing that is so well hidden from them? Since Israel uses disproportionate force so often, than the Israeli analysts undoubtably can foresee what the results will be from such counterattacks, even if they PRETEND not to. And to give the impression that they don't have any foresight is basically all they can fall back to. Even so, it is not realistic to think their security analysts, military planners, and international policymakers can't comprehend the consequences---that's all they do, of course they know.

Israeli bureaucrats have many experts working for (or with) them who are very well versed in military history and international relations. They know that absolute military superiourity (conventional and nuclear weapons)does not guarantee long term stability and ultimate victory...it does not even equate to short term objectives being met.

As for counterattacking due to not 'letting the terrorists win': this is no new catch phrase--it has been used by regimes, empires, and powerful nation states in order to justify strong military action--and it is propoganda fabricated by such a nation state. It is used to fuel support and play with the emotions of the citizenry. But it is not the real reason for an attack, nor does it achieve Israel's purported goal of security, peaceful resolution, and prosperity.

This, like most matters within the international community, is about power and control. Control over land issues, resources, and subjugated peoples.

The US does stand to gain ALOT with an unstable Middle East run by dictators, kings, emirs, and sultans. And if the US has imperialistic goals they want to achieve or continue to retain, than it is in Israel's interests to do the same. First, Israel obtains its regional militry superiority from the US--and this is not out of US charity. Such military night comes with heavy expectations. Second, Israel shares economic interests with the US, much more so than with other, secondary or tertiary tiered competing powers within the world and the region. So, the middle eastern oil resources, who has control over them (and to what degree), who profits from them, who dictates how much goes where and to whom: these are all very important enough for a superpower with imperialistic motivations along with that superpower's allies. The world economy is influenced by whomever has that control. And Israel profits quite well with such an arrangement, just as they do with the blood/diamond/precious metals enterprise within Congo/old Zaire, the corrupt'oriental' rug industry within India/Pakistan, and other nefarious ventures. All one needs to do is conduct some research into international 'labour relations' and they can see how it all works.

Regardless, Israel's and the US goals are to ensure there is not a strong Pan-Arab community nor strong democratic institutions within Arab nation states. How interesting that Lebanon's infrastructure has been destroyed. Now, instead of a democracy emerging, there will be a Lebanon that will turn towards the likes of Hezbollah even more. Syria and Iran will become more defensive against US interests and Israeli intentions. The US-backed Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, etc will become more repressive towards their citizenry. Sounds to me, the stated objectives and goals of the US and Israel are slightly different than their objectives of more control and power. But than again, that is the way of the world...

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

www.spiritualprogressives.org seems to have a balanced perspective on the situation. They are raising money to put an ad in the New York Times, to advocate for a cease-fire and an airing of grievances and discussion. There are those who don't feel that a balanced view is correct, and that one side or the other, or the third side, are in the wrong. I am most sympathetic to Israel, and not sympathetic to Hezbollah at all, but I do not agree that any one side is without stain. From Tikkun:

We are calling upon the international community to foster a new approach to resolving conflicts. We approach these issues from our commitment to a “Progressive Middle Path,” recognizing that in the context of the past 120 years, both sides have legitimate grievances and both sides have acted with insensitivity and cruelty toward the other. We do not accept that one side is the “righteous victim” and the other side the “evil aggressor.” But we do recognize that at this moment Israel has far greater military power, and so we ask for Israel to take the first steps toward ending the cycle of hatred and violence, even as we condemn Hezbollah for initiating the current escalation of violence and for its bombings of Israeli cities.

I urge you all to support the moderate point of view, and to support a mediated cease-fire in the area, if not the entire middle east.

[The Phantom]

A ceasefire --and a demilitarized zone--, yes. That would be a good first step.