Raf - thanks. One note on #2 - while there had been talk and talk and talk and more talk about HB's weapons, there had really been no sign of any kind of actual political movement (on that or pretty much any other significant issue), especially since Aoun & Nasrallah had their little tete-a-tete.

Great summary of events. Although I disagree with a few points, I am blown away by your very fair and objective approach. Kudos.

ya tom,

you're right - there had been no "actual political movement". but the serious discussion about HAs disarmament among the zu'amaa' (the "bosses") AND within the wider lebanese public was something that had never happened before & one could see HA getting defensive.

right now, it could go either way - HA regaining full popular support against which no politician can move (like it used to be), or its allies (syria/iran) bending to int'l pressure and allowing the establishment of a u.n.-brokered scenario where HA retreats from the border and the lebanese army moves in.

still too soon to call, though.

--raf*

so why aren't the Arabs demonstrating? Is it:

a) state oppression
b) conflict fatigue
c) basic indifference

answers on a postcard.

Good stuff Raf. I am not sure this is going to be the knockdown drag out people think it is. I will wait and see if the Hizb'Allah cells world wide go into action. If they do, then we know this is the "real deal" so to speak.

Israel cannot destroy Hizb'Allah in such a manner. They couldnt do it with ground troops and 20 years, they are not going to do it with planes and helicopters.

As to why the Lebanese army cannot patrol the border, I think we have seen that the last few days. They cannot, and in many cases, do not want to resist the Israelis in the first place.

Lets remember it was the earlier Israeli intervention in Lebanon that gave birth to Hizb'Allah. Even if they could destroy the group something more radical would replace it.

Abu Sinan -

Unfortunately, I suspect the Israelis believe the same thing. Unless Olmert is persuaded to back down (very possible - the world doesn't seem to have much patience for this war), I would expect an actual ground invasion sometime soon. In fact, you could read all this degradation of infrastructure (military euphemism for blasting everything in sight) as a preparation to make hizballah less mobile for when the ground attack starts. Not a happy thought.

also, raf:

Thank you for this. Gives me much to think about.

away from Analyzing.. this is a battle to proove that Arabs became so weak.. HB and palestinian resistance has been trying to tell this Arabic world for tens of years that israel is not as powerful as it looks. why this weakness .. why this negativity? if a small group can do all this to Israel, what would happen if the arabic regimes stopped protecting Israeli borders?

Great essay, raf.

However, and although there's quite enough armchair wanking on the web as it is, I must say that two things don't compute. First, in the obvious interpretation, Israeli strategy just seems too dumb. Olmert and Peretz may be rookies, but the military establishment has had ample chance to learn what they can and cannot do against Hizbullah. Various things may need to be said for internal political reasons, but I'm skeptical of analyses that have them cheerfully shooting themselves in the foot. Second, would not a reasonable tactic for a military solution involve maximizing the chances of carrying it through? That's not what I'm seeing. Too much mayhem. Too damn many innocent people dead. Not enough PR. The only way I can make some sense out of this campaign is as pressure on everyone to create an effective barrier between Hizbullah and the border.

dear michael,

to answer your question, i would like to refer you to ilan pappe's essay "what does israel want?"

while i understand your concerns/questions, you do misunderestimate (if dubya can say it, then so can i) the narrowness of military tunnel vision.

i do think that's at play here.

cheers,

--raf*

I've also read that Israel intends to create a 1km "free fire" zone along the border. The idea, I gather, will be to destroy anything that moves in that zone. This won't stop rocket attacks but it will make physical incursions extremely difficult. This is the same underlying idea as the wall Israel is builing in the West Bank.

I would agree with Raf Bey. Given some of the "security" (read ex-Mil) talking heads I have seen, esp. on US TV (which seems to have adopted the Israeli government line on all things re this crisis), it does strike me that tactical thinking tunnel vision types have the bit in the teeth.

Look at the US military tunnel vision in Iraq. Only now are they realising the tactical focus on killing insurgents may have negative cost-benefit result relative to wider goals. I note also that early on, US military seemed much betaken (from what I saw directly and not stupid rumour mongering) Israeli models of dealing with ralcatricant populations.

Thanks for the pointer, Raf. I'm not sure how much credence to give to the article. The author is clearly an outsider to the military establishment, both in practice and in spirit. There's a common tendency to translate ideological disagreements into unflattering pragmatic analyses on a rather semi-subliminal level. I would be more convinced if this opinion came from a professional, and there's no reason to suppose that it wouldn't have. It's the basic efficiency of the establishment that's at stake.

For the tunnel vision of the US military in Iraq, I agree. But there's a notable difference. The US military came into Iraq thoroughly unprepared for guerilla warfare, while the IDF has been at it for almost as long as it existed. There's only so much that can be improvised on the spot without institutional foundations having been laid over a period of time, especially if one gets sqweamish about burning down villages and demolishing city quarters.

I don't know much about military matters, and especially in Israeli context, not being able to read Hebrew. IDF does give an impression of a reasonably well put together organization, however. Just as Hizbullah gives an impression of an effective guerilla force. In fact, both seem to stand out rather favorably in the region, amidst sclerotic armies and delusional psychopaths. I would be their biggest fan if they could only take their fine assymetrical warfare to some desert island in the Pacific.

Nice analysis, one of the best I've seen anywhere so far, raf*.

I second that.. Great and informative post.. Hang in there..

thanks for the article, and prayers to you. stay safe.

أتمني ان نتبنى جميعا كمدونين كلمه واحده بتاريخ واحد نحدد فيه رأينا للعالم اجمع
اتمني ان ندون مدونه واحد بتاريخ 27/07/2006
كلنا كمدونين نكرر عباره واحده
كلنا مع لبنان وفلسطين ضد اسرائيل والمحتلين
ولننشر كلماتنا القليله في جميع المنتديات والمواقع ليكون هذا اليوم يوم احتجاج
بالعربي بالانجليزي المهم نسمع صوتنا للعالم
وان لم نستطيع حمل السلاح فالنحمل الكلمه
وبأي لغة نستطيع نشرها
بالإنجليزية
We are with Lebanon and Palestine against Israel and occupiers
والفرنسية
Nous sommes avec tous le Liban et la Palestine contre l’Israel et les occupants
والألمانية
Wir sind zusammen mit dem Libanon und Palästina gegen Israel und Besatzer
والإسبانية
Somos todos con Líbano y Palestina contra Israel e inquilinos
والصينية
我们都是同黎巴嫩和巴勒斯坦对以色列占领者
واليابانية
私達はイスラエル共和国および占有者に対してレバノンおよ
びパレスチナとのすべてである
تحياتي للجميع

dear all,

thanks for the nice words. i would like to ask you for one favor: please go visit www.saveleb.org and help. any donation will help. you can even chose according to denomination, yay! (it wouldn't be lebanon if you couldn't ...)

thank you very much.

dear layal,

thank you for your support. HOWEVER, i would like to inform you that i will not be part of any campaign that targets one kind of bad deed by committing another.

i am NOT "against israel".

i am FOR lebanon, palestine, israel, syria, and every other people on this planet.

i am AGAINST any kind of occupation - the israeli occupation in gaza/westbank/east jerusalem & the golan, the syrian occupation of lebanon (until the lebanese people kicked them out last summer), the ba'th occupation of syria, the hizbollah occupation of southern lebanon & lebanese politics ... the chinese occupation of tibet, etc.pp.

unless you understand that it's not about one group of PEOPLE against another but ALL PEOPLE against ALL oppressors/occupiers ... well, until then you're just another fanatic.

have a nice day,

--raf*

Interviewer: Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?

Hassan Nasrallah: I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers.

Interviewer: Did you say this clearly?

Hassan Nasrallah: Yes, and nobody said to me: “No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.” Even if they had told me not to… I’m not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don’t want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: “If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?” I said that it was logical that it would. And I’m telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I’m not exaggerating.

Tsk tsk, shanfara (jinniliyyah). Posting under a different name does not make you a different person.

However, I'm on vacation and in a good mood. Post as yourself (but do stay on topic).

err...shanfara was supposed to have name recognition, being as how you are just another campfire i haunt, unbidden and unwelcome. ca va. ;)

and...that was on topic. nasr'ullah was speaking of the leb gov't in that quote. i'm sick of all the pundits bloviating about iranian and syrian conspiricies.
this war is just a prisoner swap gone bad. hizb' thought israel would swap, because they had before. israel thought they would be reined in, because that had happened before. they both seem a little surprised.
like oryx sez, the prisoner swap involving the leb gov't would allow both sides to climb down and save face.
and people would stop dying.

and i absolutely fail to see the significance of Sameer Kuntar to either side. why should the israelis not trade him? why does hizb' insist on it? he is an obscene monster not worth a single civilian life on either side.

feel free to ban me eerie.
djinn rules. ;)

I don't know what shanfara signifies, only that it's one of your 8 billion aliases. Since you are known by a particular nickname around here, stick with it.

And yes, you are currently on topic. Merely a warning because I don't like banning.