Israel blasts Beirut

[VELISARIOS]

What do you think about this:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/mideast_conflict

A new war?

[Zilverzmurfen]

A new war?

Did it ever end..?

[telkanuru]

I know it makes me a terrible person, but my first thought at that title was "Well, if they spill 'em they gotta drink up..."

[Slim]

Hizbullah is backed by Iran (among others), who continuously threatens to destroy Israel when they become nuclear capable. Hamas has also pledged to destroy Israel. These people just dont seem to understand how to behave in a civilized society.

Assume they did succeedd in wiping out Isreal, then what? Hizbullah (Shiite) and Hamas (Sunni) start killing each other, and a middle-east Islamic civil war erupts because the infidels are not there to fight any more. Wonderful.

Now they give Israel an excuse to retaliate by crossing the border and kidnapping their citizens. I personally think the kidnapping was done to intentionally escalate things, gain sympathy from the world over Israel's expected "over-reaction" and further polarize the world. It's basically an al-jazeera moment. I was once again "shocked" by the silence from the arab and muslim world "leaders" when the soldiers were originally kidnapped.

Israel is going to capatilaize on the situation and take out as much of each group as it can (and in my opinion, completely justified, "Go Jews!"). Potentially provoking a reaction by Iran, potentially leading to a opportunity to go and take out their nuke facilities in retaliation for whatever Iran decides to do.

Meanwhile, the spotlight will come off of the little moron in North Korea, he gets all upset, and decides to test one of his supposed nukes. With some luck, it will be as successful as the recent TD-2 missle launch. But, their mostly China's problem.

China, most of Europe, and Russia continue to just sit by doing nothing until their oil supplies become seriously jepordized.

We're in for a bumpy ride.

[Miglin]

I think that the Palestinian militant groups are so blinded by their anti-semetism that they're forgetting that if they go too far Israel could easily wipe them out whenever they please. Israel is, whether it looks like it or not, clearly showing an amazing amount of restraint.

[jeff]

It's nasty and going to escalate and get worse. Iran and Syria are jockeying for regional control and don't care how many Palestinians and Israelis get killed. It's all to their benefit:

- The worse things are the better in their eyes, because it makes any "moderate" powerless. That's even more efficient than simply killing them off, as is done in Palestine, or in Lebanon (eg: Rafiq Harriri)
- The more Israelis they kill, the happier they are because they're genocidal racists by policy and think its a good thing. They know that, besides the US, nobody really cares and would never lift a finger to assist Israel
- The more Palestinians die, or any other collateral groups that get dragged in, the better for the terrorist sponsors, because it further disempowers moderates and turns more Europeans against Israel. Palestinians are traditionally used as pawns - their problems are useful for stirring anti-Israel and anti-US hate. They also know that the Arab and Muslim world really doesn't care about Palestinians: the Iranians aren't Arabs in the first place, and nobody gave even a squeak when King Hussein had thousands killed in Black September, any more than anyone cared when Hafez al-Assad had between 10,000 and 30,000 Islamists killed in Syria
- It gives more material for fomenting hate and cementing the power of Iran's government and their efforts towards nuclear weapons, and for Syria's domination of Lebanon. Hamas and Hizbollah get more support, and more people decide to become jihadis
- Israel is condemned for "over-reaction" for responding to the attacks on their people by going after the ones pulling the strings. Israel and their sole allies, the USA are further demonized and isolated.
- USA loses influence (see above)
- Europe, Russia, and China sit on their hands. They don't do anything during the terrorist activities, have traditional anti-Semitism and don't much like Jews (well, the Chinese probably don't care one way or the other), and they know where the money and oil are.

So, basically, it sucks for everyone.

[Slim]

I think that the Palestinian militant groups are so blinded by their anti-semetism that they're forgetting that if they go too far Israel could easily wipe them out whenever they please. Israel is, whether it looks like it or not, clearly showing an amazing amount of restraint.

For sure. And it's not just the Palestinians who suffer from this blinding hatred. Isreal is surrounded by groups of people that want to erase it. I'd say until Israel actually nukes someone, they're probably not over reacting.

[pigeonmeister]

Hizbullah is backed by Iran (among others), who continuously threatens to destroy Israel when they become nuclear capable. Hamas has also pledged to destroy Israel. These people just dont seem to understand how to behave in a civilized society.

Hezbollah is indeed backed by Iran- mainly so they can show the West that they are a poweful nation capable of influencing the region. I think you have to be careful about the rest. Iran has not pledged to nuc Israel- and would never do so. Hamas, in their charter, have pledged to destroy Israel, but they are also elected leaders and so I think that you are basically calling the majority of Palestinians uncivilised. Maybe some Palestinians don't understand how to 'behave in a civilised society' because, and we can debate why, Palestinians have not been allowed to live in a society conducive to moderation and civility.

But to take a broader view- I would agree that this situation shows why nuclear proliferation in the middle east would be a very grim prospect. Even though I don't accept that Iran would ever attack Israel.

Now they give Israel an excuse to retaliate by crossing the border and kidnapping their citizens. I personally think the kidnapping was done to intentionally escalate things, gain sympathy from the world over Israel's expected "over-reaction" and further polarize the world

I agree to an extent, but you have to look at the kidnapping strategy in its own right. Nasrallah has met with success before- a few years ago he negotiated an Israeli colonel and the bodies of 4 dead Israeli soldiers in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian and Hezbollah prisoners. So rather than intentionaly escalate the region by kidnap- Hezbollah kidnap because they had genuine reason to believe it would achieve the aim of prisoner releases.

Rather than just trying to escalate the conflict, Hezbollah are thinking much more local- they are really trying to consolidate their position in Lebanon. Sadly the IDF made a mistake in taking out Nasrallah's predecesor- Nasrallah proved to be a much more effective leader- and armed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah has emerged as a real threat to Israel. Narallah also turned Hezbollah's popularity (for making Israel withdraw in 2000) into electoral success- making them quite a powerful bloc in the Lebenese parliament.

But here is where I find the strategy of both sides confusing. Israel also have their own motivations- this gives Israel the opportunity to clear Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon once and for all whilst showing the world that, despite no military pedigree, Olmert will be as strong as Sharon.

But the only way to really clear Hezbollah out of S Lebanon would be through significant ground troops- not bombing. After all they are still capable of bombing Haifa even now.

In fact the Israeli campaign is really aimed at the Lebanese themselves and their government. The Lebanese in terms of them turning against hezbollah for bringing down the wrath of Israel and the prospect of another hated Israeli invasion. The Lebanse government in terms of getting them to confront Hezbollah. But what I don't understand is how they believe they can do this. They know that the Lebanese army was organised by Syria and is thus Shia dominated. Any attempt to take on shia hezbollah would lead to the army splintering and civil war- as it did in the 70's.

The other thing I dont get is- Israel is also trying to pressure the non Hezbollah Lebanese govt to back off Syria. But in doing so they forget that the majority of Lebanese and the Lebanese govt hate Syria- and indeed succesfully chucked them out. So what can the Lebanese do? Holding the Lebanese govt responsible for the actions of Hezbollah is in my mind unfair. Pressuring them to eliminate Hezbollah, or Syrian support for Hezbollah, by ruining Lebanon's infrastructure is unrealistic and unachievable. The idea that ordinary Lebanese will be forced, by bombs, into fulfilling a stated aim of Israel (i.e you must now hate hezbollah) is to say the least a gamble.

The pressure would be better applied to Iran and Syria, but the fact that this cannot be done, for fear of widening the conflict (more so in the case of Iran) is testament to a lop sided strategy. It basically means that the ordinary Lebanese are getting it in the neck because of the fragility of the Lebanese state and subsequent inability of the central govt to act. The reasons why Lebanon is a fragile state are varied, irreversable in the short term and cannot be addressed by bombing. I don't see how making the Lebanese govt even more fragile helps. I would stop the bombing now.

So both sides have taken an enormous gamble.

I would say that

*Hezbollah gambled first and thus to blame.
*Israel is not justified in targeting Lebanese civilian installations.
*Hezbollah's rocket campaign of North Israel, over the last few years, is the most futile and counter-productive strategy I have ever seen.
*Arresting members of the Palestinian govt is likewise.
*The issue of Palestinian civilian prisoners held by Israel is a serious one that should be addressed- though obviously not this way.
*Israel is asking of Lebanon something it cannot deliver. That it cannot deliver is partly due to the previous Israeli occupation.

Potentially provoking a reaction by Iran, potentially leading to a opportunity to go and take out their nuke facilities in retaliation for whatever Iran decides to do.

Israel doesn't have the capability to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities and it is very unlikely that America would sanction such an action, or that Israel would act unilateraly.

Meanwhile, the spotlight will come off of the little moron in North Korea, he gets all upset, and decides to test one of his supposed nukes. With some luck, it will be as successful as the recent TD-2 missle launch. But, their mostly China's problem

Indeed - but what you gonna do?

[Inquartata]

Hezbollah kidnap because they had genuine reason to believe it would achieve the aim of prisoner releases.

Do you really think this is a reasonable conclusion, given that Hezbollah had just watched the vehement military reaction and refusal to consider an exchange occasioned by the similar capture of an Israeli soldier in Gaza? You really think Nazrallah said to himself "Well, it backfired big time for Hamas, but it'll still work for me?"

In fact the Israeli campaign is really aimed at the Lebanese themselves and their government. The Lebanese in terms of them turning against hezbollah for bringing down the wrath of Israel and the prospect of another hated Israeli invasion. The Lebanse government in terms of getting them to confront Hezbollah.

Oh, Lordy, next thing you know some mullah will be claiming that Israel "kidnapped" it's own soldiers in order to give itself a pretext for a Bush-style pre-planned war against Islam and Arabs...

But what I don't understand is how they believe they can do this. They know that the Lebanese army was organised by Syria and is thus Shia dominated.

From what I've read, the Lebanese military is primarily Sunni. Hezbollah is Shia. The great fear in Lebanon is that sending the Lebanese Army to drive Hezbollah from Israel's borders will lead to sectarian conflict...

So what can the Lebanese do? Holding the Lebanese govt responsible for the actions of Hezbollah is in my mind unfair. Pressuring them to eliminate Hezbollah, or Syrian support for Hezbollah, by ruining Lebanon's infrastructure is unrealistic and unachievable. The idea that ordinary Lebanese will be forced, by bombs, into fulfilling a stated aim of Israel (i.e you must now hate hezbollah) is to say the least a gamble.

The Lebanese Sunni, Christians and Druse and the elected government have my sympathies. They are truly victims here. Not so the Shia Lebanese, who largely support Hezbollah and are acting very defiant and truculent if the news reports are to be believed.

It will be very sad if the nascent Lebanese nation and its elected government fall apart and return to the control of a foreign autocrat or the Islamists or to anarchy because of this war. There have been too few hopeful stories in the region.

Actually, I feel for the common folk in Lebanon, even if they are fools enough to approve of Hezbollah and cheer its actions. Stupidity ought not carry a death sentence, or one of the loss of your home and livelihood.

But then neither can I fault the Israelis for not trying to walk on eggshells while in the middle of a military action...

[jeff]

pigeonmeister, I don't know how you can possibly be so assured that Iran would not nuke Israel if it had the chance, or give the weapons to Hezbollah to do it for them. You may say that it's all bluster and they would never actually do that, but their president has openly said that it's a good idea, has talked about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and has even said that a loss of a few million in Iran would be a small price to pay for having done so. They have an Islamist agenda that seeks to position itself as the dominant regional force, making the entire region Muslim, and have frequently expressed their goal of genocide.

[pigeonmeister]

Do you really think this is a reasonable conclusion, given that Hezbollah had just watched the vehement military reaction and refusal to consider an exchange occasioned by the similar capture of an Israeli soldier in Gaza? You really think Nazrallah said to himself "Well, it backfired big time for Hamas, but it'll still work for me?"

Because Nasrallah had been planning the operation for 5 months before the Hamas operation and would have gone ahead regardless of the Israeli reponse, and because it took a long time for the previous prisoner swap to happen-but it did happen in the end. I'd have thought that someone like you would take the classic hawkish attitude that Israel's weakness at giving in to Hezbollah before only encourgaed them to think they could repeat the success? Nasrallah has an agenda beyond the prisoners I think we all agree, I can even accept that the prisoners were not the primary objective- but to suggest that Nasrallah felt there was no chance of their release is incorrect in my opinion. That he is capable of reasonable conclusions is one for debate anyway.

Oh, Lordy, next thing you know some mullah will be claiming that Israel "kidnapped" it's own soldiers in order to give itself a pretext for a Bush-style pre-planned war against Islam and Arabs...

People already have- check out the wildy antisemtic website in the 'New Thread' thread!

From what I've read, the Lebanese military is primarily Sunni. Hezbollah is Shia. The great fear in Lebanon is that sending the Lebanese Army to drive Hezbollah from Israel's borders will lead to sectarian conflict...

Hezbollah have, sadly, infiltrated the army and there are signficant numbers of Shia in the army as well-so as to split both the army and ferment setarian conflict. But the main problem is that even a unified Lebanese army is in no position to drive hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon.

The Lebanese Sunni, Christians and Druse and the elected government have my sympathies. They are truly victims here. Not so the Shia Lebanese, who largely support Hezbollah and are acting very defiant and truculent if the news reports are to be believed.

Hezbollah were lauded by Sunni and others for getting rid of Israelis troops. When Nasrallah's son was killed: "For days on end Christians and Muslims, both Sunnis and Shi’ites, from all walks of life poured into his modest home to shake his hand, extend their condolences and express their admiration" (Sunday Times-yesterday)

But then neither can I fault the Israelis for not trying to walk on eggshells while in the middle of a military action...

Me neither, I truly feel for the North Israelis fearing rocket attacks at anytime. But I think its time to stop now- And I don't approve of bombs to make up for Olmerts lack of military experience and the subsequent need to portray himself as 'tough'. I also question the notion of collective punishment and whether these tactics will either eliminate Hezbollah or free the prisoners. I think weakening Lebanon to the point of collapse is unfair.

[pigeonmeister]

pigeonmeister, I don't know how you can possibly be so assured that Iran would not nuke Israel if it had the chance, or give the weapons to Hezbollah to do it for them. You may say that it's all bluster and they would never actually do that, but their president has openly said that it's a good idea, has talked about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and has even said that a loss of a few million in Iran would be a small price to pay for having done so. They have an Islamist agenda that seeks to position itself as the dominant regional force, making the entire region Muslim, and have frequently expressed their goal of genocide.

Because you have to understand the role of denying the existance of Israel, and anti-semtism in general, in the 1979 Revolution and political development of Iran thereafter. The President has said it would be better in theory if israel was wiped off the map- that is for his own domestic audience and you will not find a qoute (correctly translated- which in itself is a big issue) which shows a statement of intent. In fact if you bothered to look you would find that Iran has specifically said it would only attack Israel if attacked first. After all Iran maintains that it doesn't desire nuclear capabilites- let alone a nuclear attack on Israel. Any desire you wish to make is purely conjecture.

Are you saying that Iran would risk nuclear war for an ideological conviction? having never attacked another nation and in the sure knowledge that Iran would be largely destroyed. I'm afraid that Americans, because of a unique mindset after the 1980's and subsequent diplomatic isolation, know very little about Iran or Iranians. I think that if you actualy speak to any Iranian specialists they would deny almost all of what you are saying. 'Frequently expressed their goal of genocide' is an example of putting racist rhetoric together and coming up with the idea that this is a serious policy.

It is folly to ignore both the gap between mass-generated, largely symbolic rhetoric and the actual policy, as well as the positive signals of an evolving Iranian position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notwithstanding Iran's declared willingness to abide by the will of Palestinians, above all, a two-state solution. No one in Iran takes seriously Israeli propaganda about Iran's threats to Israel. Obviusly they are anti-semetic and the west have made good political capital out of the outrageous statements made.

Iran's leaders and policymakers by and large consider Israel an "out of area" country not germane to Iran's national security worries. They really care about there direct sphere of influnce- Iraq, Turkey, Ajerbaijan. They have carefully cultivated relations with Russia, China and Germany, they are not going to jeopodise this. They are out to make the world Muslim either- that is a ridiculous statement, they even reserve positions in their parliament for Jews and Christians.

You are putting two and two together which I can understand, but without a real understanding of Iran's strategic and economic priorities. You simply cannot cannot view Iranian politics or foreign policy from a superficial perspective, I know it is tempting. The president, Ahmadinejad, has no military authority either. Above all Iranians are pragmatists and have no desire to seek their own destruction.

Desiring and seeking an end to Israel are two very different propositions.

[jeff]

I don't claim knowledge of Iran's ultimate goals in this direction, but neither do you, and it's a pointless exercise to finely parse their contradictory statements on what conditions they would require for going nuclear. After all, on some days they claim that the nuclear plants are for energy production, on alternate days they brag about weaponry.

It would be foolish to make the assumption that it's public posturing, when so much is at stake. Even if they don't do it themselves - leaving a missile trail that leads back to them - they might make it possible for Hezbollah to do so on their behalf. Whether it's serious policy or not, the head of government frequently and loudly proclaims the goodness of genocide, and they are working to acquire that capability. The more fool we if we brush it off as strutting.

I'm not happy with the "don't worry about it" attitude. It didn't work well for the Hutus and Tutsi, did it? ("ah, they were just posturing!"), nor is it working well even as we speak with the genocide in Darfur. There are always excuses those not directly at risk can come up with, and after the blood has been spilled insincerely say "never again!"

BTW, accounts I've read from Iran include the idea that many citizens consider Great Britain the larger enemy, due to the colonial activities and fight over the nationalization of British-owned oil assets.

EDIT: for typo, and add non-regional references

[Have At You]

I think Hezbollah were very foolish to kidnap and kill the Israeli soldiers. Israel's response, to do limited damage to Hezbollah, was far too limited in my view. Their destruction of the road to Syria, on learning that the kidnap vicitm was going to be transported there, is of the same nature.

I think it was even more foolish, and worse, evil for Hezbollah to respond by shooting rockets at Israel to kill civilians and get the range dialed in for their Syrian-made missiles, and then to launch those missiles at the civilian population in Haifa (apparently the only place they were able to dial in). The destruction of command & control, supplies, and logistical infrastructure supporting the continued importation of such arms from Syria was a limited response by Israel, which again is far too limited in my view.

That said, I agree with Bush's candid remark that the irony is they need to get Syria to knock it off, and they're just focusing on the Hezbollah part. Like trying to cure a melanoma with makeup.

[jBirch]

Can someone explain, rationally, the strong siding with Israel the US is now (and has always in the past) doing? I don't understand why the US is such an unreasonably staunch ally of Israel. What does the US get out of the relationship?

James.

[RITFencing]

The US, or rather the US-govt, gets the popular support of its people. There are a number of voters that are staunchly pro-israeli.

[jeff]

And "unreasonably" is in the eye of the beholder. aint it?

Maybe because it's the only country in the region that remotely can be considered to be a modern (20th C or later) democracy that has any principles in common with the US. Maybe because it's not actively promoting genocide against its neighbors (lying propaganda to the contrary not withstanding), includes women and minorities in the franchise to vote and hold office (did pm really say that there are Jews in Iran's parliament? That's flabbergasting). Maybe because despite its military strength it's still an underdog in the larger sense of being surrounded by many times its number of sworn enemies (uh, that's why it developed that military strength)

[pigeonmeister]

(did pm really say that there are Jews in Iran's parliament? That's flabbergasting).

rushed for time.....but for the time being,

From wikipedia...

Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and as with Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. Maurice Motamed has been the Jewish MP since 2000, and was re-elected again in 2004. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimate there were still 30-35,000 Jews in Iran, other sources put the figure as low as 20-25,000.

Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association" The "Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital" is Iran's largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country.

[jeff]

Well, I stand flabbergasted. Not that there are Jews remaining in Iran - not everyone manages to get out - but that there's a seat for a Jew in the Parliament of a country that calls for genocide against Jews. Long section on "Discrimination" on the page you cite, and hoo-boy! a big edit war shown in the "Talk" section. Makes our little arguments seem mild by comparison.

[umbrella]

Is-real?

I can't believe what they did. it is calculated to turn attention away from the Conflict of the Gaza and Israel.

They blasted a beautiful, modern city - which the Israelis insist they are the Leaders of creating in the Middle-East; and re-create a war that was substantially ended 10 years ago; They JUST REBUILT IT!

I am totally pissed at the lack of compassion, the lack of control and the sheer audacity of their air strike, when it appeared that some semblence of peace was on the horizon.

I feel uncertain about making further statements, but I feel very negatively about this last raid and I wish they would get it together real fast. The Saudis have been VERY patient with these people and could have blown them to Kingdom Come anytime they wanted to but kept themselves open to the pleas for peace from every corner of the world. Isreal wake up and smell the pita bread, because it's right next door ---maybe it is time for their doors to open and do a little more mixing and mingling.

What is your opinion on this before you go off the handle - does anyone have any ideas?