You write "And so Hizbollah seized on the possibility of striking back against Israel, in solidarity with their Palestinian brethren. Was it something? Indeed it was. Would it lead to any good end? It's hard to see how. But at least it was SOMETHING!"

I agree. Better than what the Arab governments(cowards) will do.

I feel like maybe I ought to say that while I was trying to capture a certain way of thinking, I do not myself subscribe to it. I don't, myself, think of "heroism", "boldness", or "audacity" as virtues in government.

Cowards?

Rational actors mate, if you leave aside your emotions.

Israeli forces are world class, not one regional army (ex-Turkey which is not in this equation) is good for anything other than oppressing its own populace and maybe beating up on some bedouine raiders.

Going to war directly or even indirectly w/o plausible deniability is suicide. Suicide rarely gets one much. 67 and 73 showed amply.

Hum, so you think just because you cannot win a cause that it isnt worth fighting? I guess the other option is jsut to sit there and die or be oppressed? You then think the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto should not have fought back? I disagree.

As to Turkey, if you think their army doesnt oppress, then it would seem you do not know who the Kurds are, or their history, past and present, in Turkey.

Israel's military is world class, and just as good at oppressing people as any army in the area.

Andrew "flake" Sullivan weighs in.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/the_war.html

It's funny how people are ony referred to as islamists are islamo-fascists if they're anti-american. No one ever calls the Iraqi or Afghan government islamist even though for the most part it is.

don't we have some lebanon based contributors/authors? i assume they're all putting their heads between their legs at the moment. would still be interesting to get some "play by play" coverage from an aqoulite on the ground.

iran is the puppet master.

"Suicide rarely gets one much. 67 and 73 showed amply."

I don't know, 73? Why did the Arabs view as a victory, and Israel view it as a diplomatic and military failure? 73 was hardly suicide, considering Sadat got Sinai out of its consequences.

The author of this very piece; however he's on vac outside.

Islamo-fascist is a retarded term at best.

I think I'm it in terms of on-the-ground Lebanon contributors, and I am by a complete coincidence on the ground in Cyprus instead. I have no idea if anyone has tagged me as "probable CIA" - if so, this surely won't help that any.

I don't know what Hizbollah is thinking but I can guess what Israel is thinking.

One of the first rules in negotiating is never negotiate with someone who hasn't got the authority to make a deal. If you do, you end up making all the concessions and getting nothing in return. Israel is thinking, with some justification, that that's exactly what they've been suckered into.

You do a deal with the Palestinians but Hamas doesn't like it so you get nothing. You sort out your problems (more or less) with the Lebanese government but Hizbollah doesn't like it so you still find yourself under attack. How do you think the Israelis reacted to Lebanese bleating that they knew nothing about -- and weren't responsible for -- Hizbollah's attack? I'm guessing it was, "So what bloody good are you, then?"

I fear the even moderate Israelis are starting to conclude that unilateralism is the only way forward when you have no one to reliably negotiate with. The Israeli government, at least, has concluded that the best way to nail Jello to the wall is by using a pile driver.

It is ironic that the Israelis themselves are partially responsible for this state of affairs, much as the U.S. bears some responsibility for the rise of Jihadism because of their intervention in Afghanistan. But, to quote a phrase, that was then, this is now. However much they may be responsible for the current situation, they still have to react to it, Unfortunately, the Israelis now have no good options, only less bad ones.

I'm rather more surprised at Israel's choice of actions than Hizbullah's. They're the party most responsible for massive escalation; Hizbullah capturing soldiers is not all new (plus, they have, as Nasrallah keeps repeating, been warning of their intent to do so again for a long time now). And I can't see what Israel stands to gain from this kind of flare-up right now.

But that aside: what feels left out above in Tom's otherwise fine piece on Hizbullah's motivations, is domestic political reasons, related to the self-image thing, but more on the day-to-day politics side.

I'm not very up to date with Lebanese political haggling (but who is? Watching Lebanese political alliances is like staring at a kaleidoscope, except it doesn't return to the starting position after a full twist), but it seems to me that must have been a factor in their decision. I'm not saying it was The Real Reason, but they must have at least considered the internal Lebanese impact of Israel's choice of responses.

I haven't got a clue whether this massive retaliation will in the end strengthen or weaken their image in Lebanon -- probably a bit of each, in different constituencies. It certainly works well with Shia and Palestinians, but aggravates relations to those who already feel Hizbullah is dragging Lebanon into conflicts it can't handle.

Is that kind of polarization good for them? Is it not?

Bah, I'm so tired of reading about this issue. It's as if these groups are all vying for the "Biggest Dick in the Middle East" award.

BTW I'm glad you're not in Lebanon, Tom.

Ask yourself, What would Tony Soprano do?

CRUSH the opposition in the most brutal manner possible. This is war! They have an option of seeing the blood of their nation slowly seep into the battlefield over a period of years or they can wipe out all thoughts in the enemy's mind that they can compete on the battlefield.

alle - I should know better than to even try and predict Leb politics. That said, I'd say the longer things drag on, the better it is for HB. There are probably a lot of people pissed off at HB right now for starting this shite up again (Israel gets a bit of a pass, because hey, they're basically psychotic, and what more can you expect?) - but the "rally around the flag" effect is likely to get stronger as time goes by.

But what do I know?

Mike: Anyone on either side expecting a purely military solution to bring about peace and/or victory is not mentally capable of leading their side's forces.

The Jews of Warszawa got murdered for their trouble. Their uprising was a total failure. And the PKK bombings only aggrevate the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. So those were fine examples.

dubaiwalla, for years we have expended energy on duiplomacy, land for peace, withdrawal, walls, UN Intervention, etc. We are no closer today to a solution than we were when we started. Face it, Palestinians and Arabs believe there is no solution that includes the existence of Israel in that place. And the Arabs don't respect anyone who uses tactics of weakness. No the solution is the same one we used with the Japanese to end that war:
CRUSH the opposition in the most brutal manner possible. This is war! Wipe out all thoughts in the enemy's mind that they can compete on the battlefield.
It happens in the arena. You hear players say we need to jump on them early and hard. We need to drive any thought from their minds that they can win.
I will follow any General into battle who has that attitude, because I know the suffering will be over soon.

so you want to firebomb Beirut and Gaza?

Klaus, what I want is an end to the problem. As I said we have tried all many of things to bring an end to the madness. How long has the war been going on, since 1947? You recoil in horror at the bombing of Beirut and Gaza. That's what we are doing now, but the TV is filled with images of killed and wounded civilians. Ask yourself, how long have the newspapewrs been filled with pictures of dead civilians, since 1947? We bombed the cities of Western Europe until they were leveled in WWII, we firebombed the cities of Japan, then dropped two Atomic bombs on two cities. That is war! You want to take all the fight out of the enemy so that you can live in peace. That is what this is all about, living in peace and there has been no peace since 1947.
Ask yourself, which General would you follow the one that just wants to piss of the enemy so you have to stay in some god-for-saken land for all of your youth or the General who says our objective is to CRUSH the enemy so he will sue for peace, surrender, and we can go home to our wives and children? I know who I'd follow. Do you?

That's beautiful, Mike. With a little more Oriental flavor you'd make a fine jihadi speechwriter.

Well, boring to see the usual discourse.

"As I said we have tried all many of things to bring an end to the madness. How long has the war been going on, since 1947?"

Not hardly.

Not hardly. No hard decisions have been made (except briefly under the first Bush presidency). There have been, indeed, a series of wars since 47. What one would expect under any such circumstances; the French and the Germans took a bloody long time to settle Alsace, for example.

" You recoil in horror at the bombing of Beirut and Gaza."

Horror.

No, not horror you stupid twit, disgust at the sheer myopia of it all.

The classic security problem driven by tactics rather than strategy. Sadly the Israelis have shown themselves to be piss-poor strategists, although bloody brilliant tacticians.

Of course, their opponents, lucky for them, have been even worse - both as strategists and as tacticians.

" That's what we are doing now, but the TV is filled with images of killed and wounded civilians. Ask yourself, how long have the newspapewrs been filled with pictures of dead civilians, since 1947? We bombed the cities of Western Europe until they were leveled in WWII, we firebombed the cities of Japan, then dropped two Atomic bombs on two cities. "

So, you're all the West eh plus Israel?

Here's a free suggestion, a bit of coherency on the use of the pronoun.

Indeed, of course, in WWII both sides bombed civilian targets - it proved a fucking piss poor strategy actually. Rally round the flag rather than breaking the will.

But regardless, your confusion re "we" is amusing.

"That is war! You want to take all the fight out of the enemy so that you can live in peace."

Fine hypothesis. Has never worked.

" That is what this is all about, living in peace and there has been no peace since 1947."

Yes, past tactics have generated an infinite cycle of blood feud like circles of violence. Breaking the will of the enemy doesn't work; it can create pauses but not end the cycle. There have been plenty of pauses, but no settlement that has opened a way to end the cycle of hate. Or even provide the possibility to do so. Rather, both sides have been seeking a Verdun peace to break the other.

"Ask yourself, which General would you follow the one that just wants to piss of the enemy so you have to stay in some god-for-saken land for all of your youth or the General who says our objective is to CRUSH the enemy so he will sue for peace, surrender, and we can go home to our wives and children? I know who I'd follow. Do you?"

Well, it's the wrong fucking question, idiot boy. Conflicts are resolved by political solutions, not crushing the enemy, else like WWI they generate further rounds of conflict.

Bloody dimwits like you, however, pursue Pyrrhic victories.

alle:
So if Hezbollah had kidnapped an Israeli soldier per day for the last 5 years that would be cool?

For me Israel's response was far from surprising. Hamas are elected, continue their previous ideology verbatim, start launching rocket attacks from Gaza, then kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers and hold one for ransom, despite a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. If I were to imagine that kind of crap happening in any other region of the world, particularly in a Western country, there wouldn't have been a second thought about sending in the army. That they would do it was virtually guaranteed, it was simply a question of timing. And it will happen again, as long as these organizations exist. Letting them build in strength indefinitely isn't really an option for Israel.

When Hizbollah decided to jump in, there was no reason to treat it differently than Hamas, given the opportunity was there, the forces were already on alert, and not doing so would compromise part of the point of the Gaza action.

I should note that my family on my father's side is Lebanese; however I've never been there and speak no Arabic.

There is surprising and surprising.

Surprising is Israel going after Beirut and whacking the civilian airport and other infrastructure in the north, going after the Hizbullah elements in S. Leb Land is not in any way surprising.

There are lots of strategic reasons for the Israelis not to escalate beyond a certain point so quickly, but if you want to be myopic, yeah you probably hit the analysis on the head.

Missed this:

I don't know, 73? Why did the Arabs view as a victory, and Israel view it as a diplomatic and military failure?

I can't speak to Israeli views, and only Arab governments involve view it as a victory - in public. No Arab I have ever met buys that piece of idiocy though, no matter how many monuments and lies are told.

73 was hardly suicide, considering Sadat got Sinai out of its consequences.

Are you retarded?

73 was a complete failure and Sinai was won back by Sadat bending over and greasing up in 79. Four fucking years later, by admitting they got shellacked (indirectly admitting) and promising to be good little children.

From the Israeli military's point of view, they're just applying the same plan as they are in Gaza, again making both reponses identical to an extent. That plan being, contain and weaken the target area, then attack, hitting as many targets on their list as possible. They say the airport was used to ship supplies to the Hizbollah, as well as the Beirut-Damascus highway. Naval blockade is simply the same way they control Gaza waters. No doubt the political message is supposed to be similar.

Perhaps though I've become a bit thick-skinned when it comes to Beirut targets being bombed.

Mate, it's not a question of being fucking thick skined, it's a questin of not being so fucking thick.

The issue is not being scandalised by Israeli tactics, it's a bloody recognition that it looks like their last bloody engagement in S. Leb Land, which achieved fuck all besides in the end helping create fucking Hizbullah.

Look up the phrase Pyrrhic victory for fuck's sake.

A response is justified. Whacking Hizbullah military points is justified and would be far less likely to generate escalating. Whacking the airport and a military blockade of the entire country (rather than interdicting the south) is far less so, and pouring gasoline on a fire without a fucking fire break.

So lay off the bloody thickheaded whinging about thick skin and pay the fuck attention.

Take it easy, I'm not under the illusion that this will 'solve' anything. I'm also assuming that the IDF *wants* to escalate the situation.

'an end to the problem' by wiping out the enemy population. An Endlösung, one might say. A final solution.

Strategically inept, but tactically superior, quite like USA, when violence is the only answer. Israel has fought this way for 60 years, and hasn't succeeded yet. Ought to tell you something.

Reminds me of the Leonard Cohen song that starts, 'Let's sing another song, boys, this one has grown old and bitter...'

No Arab I have ever met buys that piece of idiocy though

Hah. You should look back at how Egyptians felt right after 67, compared to how they felt right after 73. I mean, Jesus.

I can't speak to Israeli views,

At least wonder, then, why they don't have this rosy picture of their victory you seem to have.

Israel was high on military superiority crack after 67, 73 went some ways in bringing them down to reality (unlike 67, when the key players were considered heroes, the key players in 73 were considered a disgrace). Damaging the self-confidence and motivation for aggression of your enemy is not suicide, especially when you have the USSR to bail you out.

I suppose you think the 73 war is unrelated to the oil embargo and 73 energy crisis, after which Arafat was invited to the UN and the "Zionism is Racism" Resolution passed. I'm sure Israel was delighted with these turn of events.

Sinai was won back by Sadat bending over and greasing up in 79

Sadat asked Sinai for peace before the war, went to war to get Sinai, then got Sinai after the war. In fact, part of the reason the thing is seen as a failure on the Israeli side is because Israel was pressured to agree to terms in 79 that were worse than the terms Sadat had offered before the war.

No Arab I have ever met buys that piece of idiocy though

Hah. You should look back at how Egyptians felt right after 67, compared to how they felt right after 73. I mean, Jesus.

Bollocks.

In 73 Israel was on the doorsteps of Cairo, only morons (of which Egypt is, one has to admit, more generously endowed than the average nation) continue to buy the utter bollocks that was and is the Egyptian state spin on the disaster of 73.

I can't speak to Israeli views,

At least wonder, then, why they don't have this rosy picture of their victory you seem to have.

Who the fuck is calling it rosy, idiot boy?

As for your characterisations, I am merely refusing to characterise Israeli views - my own impression of those which I have heard differs from your characterisation. However, it is not a characterisation I wish to argue or pursue. Doesn't mean I am either conceding your characterisation nor the facts.

I leave aside your para there, which I consider bollocks.

I suppose you think the 73 war is unrelated to the oil embargo and 73 energy crisis, after which Arafat was invited to the UN and the "Zionism is Racism" Resolution passed. I'm sure Israel was delighted with these turn of events.

no, it obviously fucking isn't, but neither is it the goddamned motherfucking war you drooling idiot.

It's actually the perfect illustration of trying not combat means of addressing the utter shellacking the Arab armies got.

Again, utter motherfucking shellacking.

Sinai was won back by Sadat bending over and greasing up in 79

Sadat asked Sinai for peace before the war, went to war to get Sinai, then got Sinai after the war. In fact, part of the reason the thing is seen as a failure on the Israeli side is because Israel was pressured to agree to terms in 79 that were worse than the terms Sadat had offered before the war.

This is perfect Egypto-Moron logic.

Go to war, lose badly (having one's airforce destroyed, Israeli forces within hours of the capital and no motherfucking conscript goons between them and you) and then go suck cock in Tel Aviv four years later in a publicly humiliating fashion that gets you lots of great goodies from the Americans (who are the ones who applied the leverage, not any goddamned useless cock-sucking idiot Arab military force) but you assasinated... forgot about that victory eh?

Pure and utter bollocks, your entire motherfucking line of argument without the slightest bit of fucking common sense.

"Conflicts are resolved by political solutions, not crushing the enemy, else like WWI they generate further rounds of conflict."

Yep.

So why does Lounsbury call Sadat's sober & realistic rapprochement with Israel "bending over and greasing up" rather than what it is: negotiation.

[Unless you like that sort of thing.]

Given the reality of the situation, it would be intelligent of Hizballah to recognize Israel, stop launching cross-border raids, and focus on Lebanon. But that's not gonna happen, because they are what they are.

Crushing Hizballah with a conventional army isn't easy. In fact it's not possible. But you play with the cards you have: in Israel's case, a conventional army.

I hope they get Nasrallah and kosher the bastard in Dizengoff Square.

Well, yet more idiots.

So why does Lounsbury call Sadat's sober & realistic rapprochement with Israel "bending over and greasing up" rather than what it is: negotiation.

[Unless you like that sort of thing.]

Yes, negotiation, my dear idiot girl.

And all that Sadat could do, really.

However, he got whacked.

It was not a great victory, it was facing up to the fact Egypt had a foreign army in the Sinai, its historic territory, that could, if it desired, hit Cairo at any time at all.

That is the fucking context, you sub-literate moron, and why I called it bending over.

Pay the fuck attention.

Given the reality of the situation, it would be intelligent of Hizballah to recognize Israel, stop launching cross-border raids, and focus on Lebanon.

Eh?

It would be motherfucking stupid of Hizbullah to do so.

Hizbullah is pursuing organisational objectives, not some fairy tale abstract let's all live in peace fantasy tale objectives.

The face-off with Israel generates support, allows them a plausible pretext for keeping a militia and leverage in domestic politics.

All rational and useful things.

But that's not gonna happen, because they are what they are.

Yeah, a rational political actor pursuing their own goals, not outsiders goals.

Crushing Hizballah with a conventional army isn't easy. In fact it's not possible. But you play with the cards you have: in Israel's case, a conventional army.

And that has fuck all to do with the current application of force.

I hope they get Nasrallah and kosher the bastard in Dizengoff Square.

As if Hizbullah would disappear if Nasrallah is made a martyr. Pure illiterate idiocy.

What a total degenerate you are.

Perfect for the Arabs.

And for Tom Scudder.

"As if Hizbullah would disappear if Nasrallah is made a martyr."

They are going to be killed, every last one of them. We don't care about creating martyrs: we only care about our survival.

But you wouldn't understand something as psychologically healthy as that, pathetic little fraction of a man that you are.

in fact, that argument explains why hizbollah did it. They feed on conflict with Israel, so wanted to start it up again. It's their entire raison d'etre. Some mideast scholars here said they were under a lot of pressure to disarm, which of course would kill them as an organisation eventually.

Klaus: I'm not sure that it's actually true that HB would die as an organization if they disarm - the African National Congress seems to have survived the loss of its militant wing, for instance. But I can believe that they believe that it's true.

Diana: Killing Nasrrallah would be a pointless piece of gestural politics that would make some poeple happy but wouldn't advance Israel's position in any substantive way - a pretty good mirror of HB's decision to kidnap the Israelis soldiers, in that sense. How did that "assassinate senior Hamas leadership" thing work out for them?

I'm currently in Beirut.
Hizb has occasionally taken independent military action, but not very often. Although I have no specific information, I think it's almost
inconceivable that Hizb would take action of this magnitude without approval from Damascus.

The difference, though, is that ANC attained its goals, and so could retire fat and happy. If Hizbollah disarmed without ever having done what it set out to do, namely defeating Israel, it would lose face and support. Yes? No?

Klaus: I think in 2000, they could have claimed victory and retired the militia wing. They chose not to, a decision that was probably influenced by a lot of things both internal to the party and from their foreign sponsors & allies.

Diana: The Lounsbury may swear a lot (perfectly understandable giving the idiocy of the comments he's tackling) but he’s both knowledgeable and right, most of the time, and certainly about you. Your comments, no matter how you dress them up with a snoopy moral indignation, are perfect examples of the kinds of morons Lounsbury has to put up with. Your chilling declaration about koshering Nasrallah and "killing every single one of them" are reminiscent of fascist psychopaths. The fact is since your little state was built on the ruins of another nation you sure managed to “kosher” thousands of innocent civilians, not as “collateral damage”, but as a deliberate strategy to terrorize whole populations into submission or as a ruthless revenge for your inability to eliminate your enemies, no matter how weak and “inferior” they seem to your mind. So, may be you don't use "vulgar" language, but you are much more of a low-life degenerate than you suspect; perfect for the Israelis (though I'm sure there are many who are vastly different and would feel disgraced by your twisted mind).

For what it's worth, many (elite educated English speaking) Egyptians I have met consider '73 to have been a victory, or at least have been taught to think of it as a victory (even though in purely military terms it clearly was not).

As you were.

"At least wonder, then, why they don't have this rosy picture of their victory you seem to have."

Who the fuck is calling it rosy, idiot boy?

You did, honey buns. 67 is pretty fucking rosy for Israelis. You fucking put 67 and 73 on the same page in your comment, and it's not something you're in a position to deny. If the Israelis followed your logic and thought that the Arabs committed suicide, they would view 73 in the same light they view 67. They don't.

As for your characterisations, I am merely refusing to characterise Israeli views - my own impression of those which I have heard differs from your characterisation. However, it is not a characterisation I wish to argue or pursue. Doesn't mean I am either conceding your characterisation nor the facts.

I leave aside your para there, which I consider bollocks.

Admirable use of space. Don't argue, call bullshit. Sounds about right.

"the thing is seen as a failure on the Israeli side is because Israel was pressured to agree to terms in 79 that were worse than the terms Sadat had offered before the war."

This is perfect Egypto-Moron logic.

Can you fucking read? That was the Israeli take on it. If anything, you should be calling it Israeli-Moron logic.

Go to war, lose badly (having one's airforce destroyed, Israeli forces within hours of the capital and no motherfucking conscript goons between them and you) and then go
suck cock in Tel Aviv four years later... but got you assasinated... forgot about that victory eh?

Hah ha. Sadat was ready to "suck cock in Tel Aviv" all the way back in 71 because of the fiaso of 67. High on 67, the Israelis rejected his deal, and Sadat figured the only way he could get Sinai back and have the Israelis take him seriously was by using the miliary option. Your claim that Sadat "bending over" in 79 was something new as a result of 73 is retarded given the fact that he was already bending over in 71. Had the Israelis accepted his deal in 71, the guy would have probably been dead way earlier, having capitulated to the Israelis without a fight.

"I suppose you think the 73 war is unrelated to the oil embargo and 73 energy crisis"

no, it obviously fucking isn't, but neither is it the goddamned motherfucking war you drooling idiot.

It's actually the perfect illustration of trying not combat means of addressing the utter shellacking the Arab armies got.

The Arabs used the war and the US re-supplying Israel during the war as a pre-text to the embargo, you crazy ideologue.

Does anyone have definite data concerning the detainee issue? In particular, (1) how many Lebanese nationals are currently being held in Israeli prisons, and (2) how many of these are prisoners of war taken on Lebanese soil as opposed to being under judicial sentence for acts committed in Israel?

My Dear Anglo-Israeli poseurette:

Well, I am expat scum. Part of my career.

However, I'm afraid that I am more than slightly familiar with the pathologies of the I-P conflict, why I've even had the pleasure of being pointlessly detained in Jerusa land by paranoid little whankers doing their service, while on visit to some I biz project.

All in good fun of course.

Now, to the point: They are going to be killed, every last one of them. We don't care about creating martyrs: we only care about our survival.

Yeah, yeah. It worked so bloody brilliantly last bloody time.

Thankfully there are a good percentage of native born who are not pathological nor self-deceiving regarding the pursuit of security.

The core lesson of the past 50 fucking years is neither side can quite wipe out the other, and the circle of blood feud logic imposes severe costs on both sides.

Your survival as a nation is not actually threatened either by the pathetic incompetent retards that are the Palestinian leadership (although long term demographics might, but that's force of nature, not politics), nor Hizbullah.

The flourishing of the state and generally your comfort level are endangered.

Despite the hysterical spin, this has not been a fight for survival in its literal sense for a good long time, and in the long run its is not military force that will buy survival, but a healthy economy.

But you wouldn't understand something as psychologically healthy as that, pathetic little fraction of a man that you are.

Pahtetic pathology of self-induced hysteria is of little interest to me, so whinge on as you like.

However, this does lead me to think about a post on an analysis the "decapitation" and leadership obsession that afflicts Israeli dealings with the Palestinians and others (rather similar to the Bin Laden obsession, thinking taking out one man is going to solve the situ - actually the French fell into the same eliminationist trap in Algeria. And failed.)

tom - ...the longer things drag on, the better it is for HB. There are probably a lot of people pissed off at HB right now for starting this shite up again (Israel gets a bit of a pass, because hey, they're basically psychotic, and what more can you expect?) - but the "rally around the flag" effect is likely to get stronger as time goes by.

Well, that was my first thought too, with the added caveat that it depends on how Israel choses to continue. If they stick to blasting up Lebanese civilian infrastructure and laying siege to the economy, they'll just alienate everyone (even if it can still backlash at Hizbullah after things calm down); but if they find another way at carrying this through, that could change.

asher - So if Hezbollah had kidnapped an Israeli soldier per day for the last 5 years that would be cool?

What? I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say.

on killing nasrallah - Of course that won't end Hizbullah. They've already lost one sec-gen (Musawi), and that didn't change much in terms of their military capability. Killing someone as venerated as Nasrallah would probably provoke a whole new kind of naughtiness in response.

Nasrallah in general strikes me as (a) extremely skilled at leading and building Hizbullah's position in Lebanon, (b) immensely popular with the Shi'a and quite respected by many others, (c) dedicated to the Lebanonization of Hizbullah, (d) strongly principled in his opposition to Israel & a 2-state solution.

I guess that makes him a good guy to have in charge of Hizbullah, from Lebanon's perspective, since he's into reconciliation etc. But it also makes him a more dangerous enemy for Israel, since he leads Hizbullah with such superb skill, and will do his utmost to wreck any Isra-Pal dialogue that Israel might be interested in. So, from a purely tactical, military standpoint, of course they should hit him, to deprive Hizbullah of their most valuable leader.

Still, if whacking Nasrallah risks causing a far more aggressive and assertive Hizbullah in Lebanon, plus enraging the situation generally in Lebanon -- is that in Israel's interest? Hizbullah's adapting to Lebanese politics strikes me as a really good thing for Israel, in the long run, even if it's a bumpy road.

I just found out about this one, and it certainly puts the Israeli response to this in a new and different light (from The Guardian):

For some it inevitably brought to mind a bleak winter day in 1968 when, out of the blue, helicopter-borne Israeli commandos landed on the old airport and blew up 13 passenger jets, almost the entire fleet of the national carrier. The pretext: of two Palestinians who killed an Israeli at Athens airport, one came from a refugee camp in Lebanon, then an entirely peaceable country. The significance of this most spectacularly disproportionate reprisal was something the Lebanese could hardly even have guessed at then. But it was a very early portent of the long nightmare to come: military conflict with Israel, eventually to be compounded with an atrocious civil war that it did much to engender.

I went looking for independent confirmation somewhere, and so far all I've been able to find is this throwaway line from a story on Yahoo:

It was the first time since Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Beirut that the airport was hit by Israel. The Israelis in 1968 sent commandos to Beirut airport, blowing up 13 passenger planes in retaliation for Arab militants firing on an Israeli airliner in Athens.

Plainly, if this happened, it was a ridiculous retaliation against people who had precisely nothing to do with the incident at that time. Plainly, as well, the current overkill re the Hizbullah attack is just SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) and has been for forty years.
It was certainly inexcusably brutal and stupid back then, and it still is.

the current overkill re the Hizbullah attack is just SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) and has been for forty years.

Well, yes. The Israelis have long followed Machiavelli's advice that it is safer to be feared than loved. They have actively cultivated a reputation for being "Crazy Bastards Whom You Do Not Want to Mess With." That's what makes Putin's call for a "balanced" use of force so laughable. True, the Israeli use of force in Lebanon is disproportionate, but that's entirely the point of the exercise.

By the same token, the discussion above about whether to take out the Hizbollah leader misses the point. The Israelis very much want to take out Hizbollah's leader, and his family, too, if they can track them down. There are several reasons for this. First, Israel wants the next leader (as well as leaders of other anti-Israeli factions) to think twice before twisting Israel's tail in future. It is one thing for the leadership of a group like Hizbollah to make matyrs, it is another thing entirely for the leadership of a group like Hizbollah to become matyrs. Generals are always far more risk averse than the foot soldiers they employ.

Second, Israel has a reputation for "getting their man" sooner or later. They make movies about this. Nasrallah is now their man. Israel gets a lot of mileage out of this rep and they want to maintain it.

Third, for the above and many other reasons, the Arab world, as Collounsbury can attest, engages in a great deal of magical thinking about Israel. As a result, many groups who might be tempted to challenge Israel are beaten before they start. The Israelis are very concerned that letting Hizbollah twit them and get away with it will encourage others. Killing Nasrallah may create a matyr, but it will also create another cautionary tale and reinforce Israel's reputation for being able to strike at their enemies at will.

Now you can argue that the Israelis seem to have read the Cliff Note version of Machiavelli because the actual quote is, Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted. The Israelis have managed to make themselves hated as well as feared.

But I'm very much afraid that the operations in Gaza and Lebanon signal an abandonment of Israeli efforts to make themselves if not loved, then at least tolerated. The Israelis calculate that hatred is better than contempt and that, while a "conquer and force them to submit" military solution is not possible, a "fortress Israel" military solution is.

alle:
What? I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say.

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument that the kidnapping is "nothing new". The corollary is that it would be even better if these kidnappings had been regular and frequent.

Re killing Nasrallah, I don't see how it could make things worse. Certainly there are the positives you point out. Creating a more "agressive and assertive" Hezbollah is not really a risk, when they are already in open war. In fact they should have done it early on in the war and capitalized on Lebanese resentment against Hezbollah for starting this situation (though there is of course the practical difficulty of having no idea where the bastard is).

This will not be a popular sentiment on this blog, but the only objective for Israel now has to be to destroy Hezbollah. HB was supposed to be disarmed five years ago after the pullout, and when the gov't still lets them ship new weapons in by the truckload, it's fair to say the Lebs have had their chance.

And since Israel is a representative of the West, hatred of the West will get worse. I can only hope the EU will condemn this harshly. We are Moderate Westerners, after all.

from back-to-iraq.com, Christopher Allbritton:

It appears the bombing campaign is designed to seal off the south from the rest of the country. There is a naval blockade. Israel has complete air superiority. From reports, the last remaining bridges connecting the south to the rest of the country have been blown. Israel isn’t just isolating Lebanon from the world; Israel is isolating Hizbullah forces from the rest of Lebanon. If this campaign is successful, Hizbullah will not be able to get reinforcements and supplies into the south and neither will it be able to pull them back to protect them from Israeli advances.

All this points to an invasion soon, and I think Israel is going to try to destroy Hizbullah once and for all.

Hmm. That would at least be a rational response. Also, achievable, in a military sense. Whether the victory lasts will be the real question, to be answered once the invasion & destruction are accomplished.
Of course the wild card is Iran, which might speed up development of its a-bomb in response. This could get even more interesting.

If this campaign is successful, Hizbullah will not be able to get reinforcements and supplies into the south and neither will it be able to pull them back to protect them from Israeli advances.

Which is what made the airport and road bombings make sense, if you accept the reasons, and therefore unsurprising; it was the same idea in Gaza.

Of course, eliminating Hizballah, assuming it's possible, is a stop-gap measure without more contructive political actions, but clearly the IDF feels it's necessary at this point.

asher - So, you didn't understand what I was saying, then. I don't think Hizbullah capturing soldiers is a good thing, and I didn't say so. I did say that it is not a particularly surprising thing (even if perhaps the timing is), while Israel suddenly going bananas over it and bombing Beirut Airport is. The Lounsbury made similar comments above, perhaps more clearly.

Also, you don't understand the second point I'm making. Hizbullah is and always was aggressive towards Israel - my question was, would they benefit from creating a Hizbullah that in addition to that also wreaks havoc in Lebanese internal politics? They've come a long way in that regard since the 1980s, and as far as I can tell, it's entirely in Israel's interest to encourage further normalization of them as a political party. This is probably not the way.

And lastly, about taking as Israel's goal to "destroy Hizbullah" (and, I may add, any replacements that may pop up as a result of that), through massive military action on Lebanese soil ... well, good luck. What do you think Israel was trying to do in 1982-2000? How did that work out for them?

(However, on killing Nasrallah: good point by Anon)

alle:
On the assumption that this is actually their plan (which is unproven): the key would be to attack conventionally, achieve the goal of destroying Hizbullah militarily in the south, then withdraw. This is well within their capability to do. What isn't well within their capability is to reprise their occupation, which will just put them, again, in the position of sitting ducks for Hizbullah attacks.
The moment when this would have been maximally effective passed when they blockaded the country and attacked the airport and Olmert said it was the Lebanese government doing this, an absurd statement but one which, and this is important, defines it as a war against Lebanon. This made it impossible to isolate Hizbullah, and means that, over time, we probably will see that rally-around-the-flag thing, which would actually be more like a survival response: you can't just sit there forever if you're being bombed relentlessly.
For US-based folks, this would be something to keep in mind: This isn't an overreaction if you follow the Israeli logic, which is that Hizbullah is a part of the government, therefore Hizbullah's actions are now official, and therefore the rocket attacks are the act of a sovereign against another sovereign. For Israel, this is state versus state.
Given this, talk by US commentators of this becoming a regional war is silly. It already is one. Thus, if other Lebanese, through their army or some other means, get involved against Israel, this wouldn't represent an escalation; it would simply be the logical response to a war that has already been unilaterally declared against the nation of Lebanon by the nation of Israel. In this regard, Lebanese frustration over the failure of the UN to pass a call for a ceasefire looks very different.
The only question now is which governments get involved in the melee. As of now, we have Israel allied with the US (and yes, Israel is a de facto 51st state, regardless of what the official pieces of paper say, so the US is involved regardless. Egypt, OTOH, is a dependent colony. About the only thing that's certain at the moment is that Egypt won't attack, because it can't; it would endanger their 2 billion in aid each year from the US. Israel is of course number one with 2.5 billion in aid per year), Lebanon allied with Iran and possibly Syria, and the Palestinian Authority, which through Hamas is also allied with Iran. Which is why the question of the Iranian a-bomb takes on epic importance now. How close are they? Are they accelerating their development?
On the second question, I'd say definitely. It would be a logical response to the current war.

Pantom, I don't think the Israeli government sees this as a war against Lebanon, I think they see this as a war against a state within a state, Hizbollah. Their irritation at the Lebanese government is that it hasn't done enough towards disarming Hizbollah and controlling the southern border. If the Lebanese government can't disarm Hizbollah, the IDF is saying it will do it themselves. Framing this as Israel vs. Lebanon is misleading. I have trouble considering the Lebanese government or political bodies a single, unified government, actually in control of the country, so statements that assume such always feel strange.

Well, you're right, it's strange. Strange, but true. See Ha'aretz:

In a late-night cabinet session in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, the Israeli government decided on a sharp departure from its response to previous Hezbollah attacks, unanimously agreeing that Beirut should be held responsible for Wednesday's events. In the past, Israel has generally pointed its finger at Hezbollah's patrons, Syria and Iran.
"Israel holds the sovereign government of Lebanon as responsible for the action which emanated from its territory and for the safe return of the abducted soldiers," the government said in a statement issued after the meeting. "Israel must act with appropriate severity in response to this attack and it will do so. Israel will respond in a forthright and severe manner against the perpetrators responsible and will act to prevent future efforts and actions directed against Israel."
...
PM Olmert calls Hezbollah border attack an 'act of war'

Olmert on Wednesday declared that Hezbollah's attack on the northern border earlier in the day, during which two Israel Defense Forces soldiers were kidnapped, was "an act of war."
The two were captured as rockets were fired at northern towns, during residents took to their bomb shelters.
Olmert, who was to hold an emergency cabinet meeting later Wednesday, said the attack was not an act of terror but an attack by a sovereign state on Israel.
He said that Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the attack, vowing that the Israeli response "will be restrained, but very, very, very painful."

That's Olmert talking, not me. It explains the bombing of the infrastructure that's taking place, and the blockade.
This is war.

OK, this is starting to get into semantics, but I'll comment further. It sounds to me like Olmert wants to scare the Lebanese government into actually controlling its southern border, in other words to become stronger. Usually in war the aim is to subjugate, destroy, or weaken the enemy, not improve their sovereign control. There's no doubt the target is the Hizbollah militia, which Israel wants to destroy. The war is against them. Olmert is holding the Lebanese government and army reponsible for not dealing with Hizbollah, not for launching the attacks themselves. They're bombing the infrastructure to impede the Hizbollah's movement, their target. While the resulting collateral damage may be part of Olmert's intended punishment to the government, it is not the tactical point of those actions.

Yes, it's war. War against Hizbollah. The threat given to the Lebanese government is that the war will happen on their soil, because Olmert believes they failed to secure it. Turning the clock back 20 years means a 'Lebanon' not even pretending to have sovereign control over its lands. (And possible re-occupation.) I think Israel would prefer not to carry out that threat, since they'd prefer a strong, centralized Lebanon instead of a weak non-state.

No. Not semantics.
In 1968, they blow up thirteen passenger planes because one guerrilla came from a refugee camp in Lebanon. Under no possible interpretation of the facts could you hold the Lebanese government responsible in 1968, but that's what they did.
Ditto today. Israel itself couldn't disarm Hizbullah and occupy southern Lebanon, but they expect the Lebanese government to? Patently absurd.
I honestly don't know why they insist on following this wacky logic. No one else sees it as they do.
Now, it's true that a military attack that isolated the south and destroyed Hizbullah assets in place could succeed, and could be repeated if they try something like this again, and like Syria, Hizbullah would get the message after a time or two. But the continued attacks on even the northern ports of Lebanon show that Israel is being more ambitious, and is treating this as a war against Lebanon. Why, I have no idea. It certainly isn't going to do anything to weaken Hizbullah over the longer run, regardless of how this war turns out.

Hamas and Hezbollah should stop using civilians as human shields!!

Northern ports can be used by Hizbollah to meneuver as well, or perhaps the attacks have mostly symbolic value. I do agree that for the Lebanese government ( such as it is) to deal with Hizbollah is a... complicated task. Especially considering Hizbollah are part of the government.

The problem in a nutshell is that practically everything in Lebanon, in one way or another, can be used, theoretically or in practice, to support Hezbollah's activities, isn't it? A war to destroy Hezbollah, in another words, has to be a war to destroy at least a good chunk of Lebanon. Of course, the destruction would have to be done by Israelis--since I doubt the Lebanese would do it themselves, even if they could "theoretically" (whatever that could mean) do it... I don't know how much support Hezbollah really has in Lebanon--I'd just guess that it can't be terribly popular with the Christians, especially now. On the other hand, I have trouble imagining the Shia letting go of them, any time soon, especially now, seeing as that (I suspect) they probably see them as a shield against both the Lebanese Christians as well as Israel (in both political and military sense--but their political power is much amplified by their military prowess.)

So, maybe what Israel needs now is some form of SLA again? Too bad they just hung out their rank and file to dry the last time (I'd figure only the top people got asylum).

Kao has it right on the head on the comment supra.

The vision of "destroying" Hizbullah is a mirage, and one dangerous to the Israelis as much as anything. Hizbullah, contra the PLO etc, is a popular domestic organisation. Even its domestic enemies are not going to expend political capital when it is facing down the generally hated Israelis, above all when those same domestic enemies must have it in their head that the Israelis will pay fuck all of attention to political cover for them. Being seen as a foreign tool is a great way to shorten one's life the world over.

The more rational goal, making Hizbullah hurt, well that is entirely rational, but puts in different benchmarks for reaction.

At present, it strikes me the Israeli reaction is about in the same league as American airstrikes in Iraq aiming to break the insurgency. The wrong tool for the wrong problem.

I note also that the concept of whacking the leadership as a deterrent strikes me as a losing proposition when facing something like Hizbullah and Hamas. There are far, far too many undettered ... for a lack of a better word "fanatics" that can rise through the ranks and go for broke. Not the same problem as say a Fatah (or PLO: both in the sense of their later institutionalised forms, rather than the early stage radicals). I do not seem any strategic gain from whacking the leadership; I doubt sustained caution will result, rather more radical and potentially more dangerous leadership will percolate.

There is the further equation of the longer term cost benefit analysis re blowback in bombing certain kinds of targets. Of course it is well known the Israelis have little compunction in this area, for some good and many bad reasons, but that doesn't change the observation, that the important question is not the immediate tactical gain, but the longer term results.

That is the Machiavelli advice, better to be feared than loved, but it is best not to be (really) hated. It is good advice. Of course one has to judge that in the aggregate, as there will always be people who hate you (unless you're so insignificant that no one bothers, but then that's another issue). It is preferable to avoid large numbers being really motivated by hate.

Details and specifics of the current conflict aside, groups like Hezbollah (and Hamas and the hardliners in Iran and, indeed, militant groups in other parts of the world too) cannot surivive without enemies and crises. When things become stable, people tend to focus on prosperity, liberty etc., not fanatical self-sacrificing devotion to a cause. That is one of the biggest dilemmas for moderates and modernists in the Arab world.

Most of the SLA and other Israeli allies/puppets was pretty much abandoned and denied asylum, but, yes, the top people were rescued. Including some very unsavory types, which is interesting, considering Israel's moral outrage at how Syria and Iran supports terrorists...

Actually, I was told by a Palestinian guy in Nablus that there are Lebanese Christian ex-militiamen in the army around there, helping to man checkpoints. He listed them as the worst kind of soldier to be arrested by (settler home guards were next-to-worst, regular army was best). Of course, I have no idea if that's true or not, but I suppose they had to find some kind of occupation in Israel.

I suppose they had to find some kind of occupation in Israel.

believe it or not, but no pun intended.

alle: I believe the Israeli soldiers mentioned in the June 17 entry of this Gaza diary (by Chris Hedges) were ex-SLA guys. It's somewhere in WAR IS A FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING. I'd look it up, but the book is in Beirut.

This is very big, though not surprising, news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/world/middleeast/17arab.html

It looks to me like Hizbollah has made a big PR mis-step. They're apparently trying to rally support from arab countries by claiming that they're fighting Israel "for them." In effect, they want to turn the clock back 30 years and get everyone excited about wiping Israel off the map.

But no arab country -- not even Syria -- believes it's possible to wipe Israel off the map or wants to get caught trying. (Iran publicly admits it wants to but knows that it can't.) I bet that even most people on the "arab street" who might like Israel to disappear would be aghast at the idea of trying to make it happen and provoking an Israeli response. While everyone's first response to watching Beirut getting bombed is anger, their second response is, "Thank God it isn't us!"

"Rallying round the flag" might happen in Lebanon given the overwhelming Israeli response. (Though, even then, most people aren't going to thank Hizbollah for getting Lebanon into this mess.) But it sure isn't going to work in other Arab countries.

Hizbollah's mistake is in thinking that everyone wants to "strike back" at Israel. At this point, everyone pretty much just wants Israel to do a fair deal with the Palestinians and leave everyone else alone. I therefore disagree with the recieved wisdom that Hizbollah is going to get political capital out of this. On the contrary, I think that, when the dust settles, they're going to suffer a lot of political damage. I, for one, am so far unimpressed that they've managed to do something completely boneheaded and then get their asses thoroughly kicked. They launched a couple of rockets into Israel. Big deal. With "victories" like Hizbollah is racking up, they could do with a few more defeats.

Unless they pull an extremely large rabbit out of their hat and right quick, all Hizbollah has succeeded in doing is putting the final nail in the coffin of the "drive the jews into the sea" crowd. Israel is now demonstrating that they have absolute military superiority and that they can do whatever they like without fear of retaliation. Everyone's suspected this for a long time, but Hizbollah's ill-considered provocation has demonstrated the bankruptcy of arab military power in the most embarrassing way possible. No one, and certainly not Syria, is going to thank them for that.

Official response from the "anti-Shi'a crescent" shouldn't be confused with popular sentiments. What I'm unclear about is why the Saudis et al aren't playing lip service to the conventional wisdom, but on the contrary are pushing Hizbullah criticism through state media. In the age of satellite TV the risks are clear. I'm having trouble seeing the benefits.

Anon

I'm afraid you're smoking cheap Israeli crack on this:
"Rallying round the flag" might happen in Lebanon given the overwhelming Israeli response. (Though, even then, most people aren't going to thank Hizbollah for getting Lebanon into this mess.) But it sure isn't going to work in other Arab countries

I am back in regoin and I can tell you that popular sentiment is all about smacking Israel down a bit.

The un-enthusiasm in official circles (highly rational as it is) has fuck all to do with Hizbullah's appeal and appeals to the wider populations.

That being said, deep down I doubt many think that Hizbullah can do more than give Israel some bruises.

But satisfaction is relative.

Let me add that this para is slightly delusional:
Unless they pull an extremely large rabbit out of their hat and right quick, all Hizbollah has succeeded in doing is putting the final nail in the coffin of the "drive the jews into the sea" crowd. Israel is now demonstrating that they have absolute military superiority and that they can do whatever they like without fear of retaliation. Everyone's suspected this for a long time, but Hizbollah's ill-considered provocation has demonstrated the bankruptcy of arab military power in the most embarrassing way possible. No one, and certainly not Syria, is going to thank them for that.

I'm afraid that you're addressing a non-existant issue.

Hizbullah so far is getting much credit for punching above its weight.

The issue is hardly the drive Israel into the sea, but the idea of "resistance" for the sake of pride.

It may not be a cold calculation, but it is a key driver.

Hizbullah so far is getting much credit for punching above its weight.

The issue is hardly the drive Israel into the sea, but the idea of "resistance" for the sake of pride.

But that's where we disagree. I don't see Hizbollah as "punching above its weight." I see Hizbollah and Lebanon getting creamed by the Israeli onslaught. They've shown almost zero ability to stand up to Israeli forces. All they've managed to do was fire a few low-tech rockets into Israel -- something the Palestinians have been doing on an almost daily basis for years. (They did manage, apparently to hit a boat as well.) Their rockets, thanks to the Iranians, are somewhat bigger and go somewhat farther but that is a difference of degree rather than of kind.

If Hizbollah's rocket attacks count as "victory" then it only serves to underscore the arab world's abject humiliation. Even the average person on the street can see -- even if they won't admit it -- that the lives of a handful of jewish civilians is a poor trade for ten (or, more likely a hundred) times as many arab casualties and an entire country's infrastructure.

I also think that the issue of Israel's existence does play into this. The Iranians (especially lately) deny Israel's right to exist. Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's existence was the number one stumbling block preventing the world from working with the new palestinian government. Now, Hezbollah is trying to rally the arab world on the same basis.

But even the average guy on the street must now recognize that this is empty rhetoric. Israel is now a fact of life, like gravity. The soul-crushing thing for people like Hamas and Hezbollah about this confrontation must be that not even Syria will come to their aid, not even for the most part, with moral support. Syria is, at this moment, like a deer in the headlights, terrified to move lest it draw down Israel's wrath on itself. You can just imagine how thrilled Jordan or Egypt is about the situation.

As you say, satisfaction is relative. But, when the dust settles, I'd imagine most average arabs will find little about this debacle to be either satisfied or proud about.

Anon, you're misinterpreting people now, making them far too rational. Arabs have been defeated, and defeated, and defeated throughout history, and the Israelis are still not safe. Another defeat is not going to make them. The hate for Israel is growing stronger, and wars grow out of that hate. Israel will never be safe this way. Ever.

What might possibly happen, if the situation escalates, is that some US-friendly Arab governments will fall to some Islamist revolution that is started from massive demonstrations against Israel. Maybe Egypt? Who knows.

Lebanon is getting creamed by the Israeli onslaught, more precisely its infrasctructure and a lot of kiddies and folks in the way. And some Israelis too.

Hizbullah, so far, has not been creamed.

Israel's existence is not at issue in this; this is a fight for prisoners, revenge, and internal status.

I doubt Hizbullah or its supporters are bothered by the destruction of urban Lebanon very much.

Mate

But that's where we disagree. I don't see Hizbollah as "punching above its weight." I see Hizbollah and Lebanon getting creamed by the Israeli onslaught.

You ain't an Arab, is you?

If not, then you're not the subject of the fucking note then. What you see has fuck all to do with local perception.

Even Hizbullah's achievement of 'expelling' the Israelis after the long bloody guerrilla war in the 90s was something of a mirage. But they walked away with the rep, as I learned when I got dressed down by Leb Xian (orthodox though, not Maronite) about doubting the Hizbullah story re 'defeating' the Israelis.

Iran's posturing about Israel, however, has fuck all to do with Israel continuing to exist. It's pure posturing.

In any case, you can write "must" all you want, or you can step back and ponder perceptions.

If not, then you're not the subject of the fucking note then. What you see has fuck all to do with local perception.

Well, you may be correct. But I find that even more disturbing.

There are two possibilities. You may be equating "perception" with "wishful thinking." I'm quite sure that the vast majority of the arab street would like to see the Israelis thrashed and are hoping that Hizbollah will do it. But hoping that they will and believing that they are are two different things. The vast majority of ordinary arabs were also pulling for Saddam, but not even Baghdad Bob now believes that Saddam scored a glorious victory.

What you see has fuck all to do with local perception.

While the news I'm reading and local perceptions won't match exactly, there should be at least some correlation. If people really believe that Hizbollah is defeating the Israelis -- and more importantly, if they continue to believe so after it's all over -- you're describing an entire culture suffering from schizophrenia.

But I think that your earlier observation was correct.

I doubt many think that Hizbullah can do more than give Israel some bruises.

I suspect that the final verdict on Hezbollah's provocation on the arab street will be, "That was brave, but stupid and pointless."

Take a step back, reread for comprehension and then think things through.

The word "defeat" wasn't mentioned.

When you're the man down, even getting some good whacks in on the big guy can give you moral satisfaction. Plug this into massive frustration and even losing with pride (i.e. punching above one's weight, even if the heavyweight favourite wins in the end) has some satisfaction. This is hardly an Arab thing, it's a fairly universal human reaction. It's not motherfucking schizophrenia, it's venting. Of course that itself is hardly universal.

I personally don't get the sense many (except perhaps the delusional) think Hizbullah is winning, but lots seem to feel Israel is getting a small taste of its own medicine. Fair or not, you need not use idiotic phrases like "schizophrenic" to understand the reaction.

There was a comment in the other thread that seemed relevant here (just fished it out of the junkpile actually, from the Levant):

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?

Having debated a very similar issue with Shaheen earlier, there does seem to be an intangible moral/pride sentiment at play, in spite of the heavy losses and immense gap in military capabilities. I would personally characterize this as irrational (if considering tangible cost/benefit alone) but the intangible satisfaction seems to carry significant weight (and perhaps wanders occasionally into delusion).

Well, being in region for a long time, even coldly rational me feels some sympathy for the desire to "hit back" (I also feel sympathy for the Israelis as well who bloody well have to hit back in order not to lose face themselves, and am damned sick of the two sets of idiots running round in circles poking each others eyes out).

Partially irrational, but not that hard to understand and not ipso facto "schizo." It is rather playground though.

Yes. Biggest Dick in the Middle East contest.

Take a step back, reread for comprehension and then think things through.

I'll be happy to re-read for comprehension. Unfortunately, I'm unable to mind-read for comprehension. You're the one who started talking about how Hizbollah had gotten a reputation for "defeating" the Israelis in Southern Lebanon and how reality has "fuck all" to do with local perception.

If, in fact, the arab world believes that Hizbollah's efforts are resulting in anything other than abject and brutal humilation, then "schizophrenic" is probably the politest way to characterize their thought process. The prime minister of Lebanon was on TV crying, for God's sake.

But, as I indicated, I don't believe the arab world is this delusional. I think they would like to see Israel suffer a defeat and that that will ultimately make watching Israel act with complete impunity all that much more galling.

Eerie's second-hand comment is right on point.

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?

This goes back to my original point. Hizbollah and Hamas are trying to turn the clock back thirty years and sign everyone up for jihad to destroy Israel. But, in my opinion, rather than demonstrating that a small group can do "all this" to Israel, they're demonstrating that no one -- and not even everyone all together -- is in a position to challenge Israel militarily.

The arab governments now recognize this and they have no intention of going back down that path. All the arab nations, even Syria, have reached a modus vivendi with Israel. They have precisely zero interest in getting back into any sort of armed conflict.

As you say, the arab street has different perceptions. But given the embarrassing military superiority that Israel is displaying and the (relatively) deafening silence from the world community, I doubt even the arab street is keen on their governments doing anything that might get them in a military confrontation with Israel. While they might want to see someone else "hit back" at Israel, it would be kind of expensive to do it themselves.

History mate:

Israel pulls out c. 2000; Hizbullah, not without some reason is seen as having forced the pull-out by bleeding them year after year.

Not abject, not humiliation.

Lady Eerie,

since our small debate was mentionned (I stayed away from the Lebanon thing here because I definitely grew weary of Arab/Israeli issues a long time ago), I'll just give elements of it here:

- there is indeed an intangible moral/pride element which brings satisfaction.

- rationality is not judged by what kind of satisfication you will have, as much as it is by how you allocate your resources to achieve maximum satisfaction. IOW, if by doing some computation you think destroying the hell out of your infrastructure and reducing the amount of satisfaction obtained by a number of well performing touristic seasons for example is compensated by the satisfaction obtained by the burning of an Israeli boat and throwing rockets on Haifa, then it is a rational choice.

- Satisfaction obtained from economic interests as well as saving lives is definitely vaporized, but we can't speak of choice for those to whom this was the biggest concern, so there's no question of rationality (or irrationality) here.

- My guess is that the parties who decided have had some amount of rationality and miscalculations. I don't think HB thought the Israeli reaction would be as violent, but there are chances it suits their purposes politically. In the case of Israel, besides the satisfaction of poching Lebanese eyes, I don't see what they can achieve. If disarming HB is the goal, then the choice of means is definitely not appropriate and they are also miscalculating. Broader interests (for whoever feels concerned), such as easing the tension on Palestinians in Gaza, (obtaining satisfaction from) giving a few hits to Israelis, might or might not be achieved on the mid to long term, and we can definitely not judge for now.

- Finally, my mixture of gut feelings and (non fully rationalized, by lack of interest) thoughts about this issue: they can all get lost, I really don't care, I'm sick of it (I'm a bit sorry for a few friends of mine whose family is there and who are worrying big time, but my sympathy to anyone doesn't extend further). Israel is a thorn in Arabs' feet, and Arabs are bunch of idiot whining losers. Arabs have no means to solve their "Israel problem", so they either take the crap and shut up or they take the crap and try in vain not to shut up. They have no real structure or capital that they can't lose and rebuild in little time if they weren't a bunch of monkeys. So either way, it's a losing deal or a losing deal, and I'm not under the impression it really changes anything in the big scheme on the mid-long term. If Arabs get smart some day, then Israel should definitely not be their priority, they have a long list of problems to deal with before they can even think of looking in Israel's direction. If Arabs get smart, Israel's border zones/states shouldn't be their priority for building a strong economy, military, politics, etc. They should count them as a constant potential or real battlefields til they can face Israel. And I'm talking about Arabs as if there was one block which saw its interests in the same direction, which isn't remotely the case, and that's part of their being a bunch of losers. In the meanwhile, they deserve whatever they get for the sheer amount of their stupidity.

rationality is not judged by what kind of satisfication you will have, as much as it is by how you allocate your resources to achieve maximum satisfaction.

First, my discussion of rationality was limited to the "Arab street" opinion as demonstrated by my cited comment.

Those Arabs who crow about a destroyed warship and some rockets lobbed at Haifa are somehow overlooking the obvious devastation being wreaked by the IDF on Lebanon. Short-term emotional gratification combined with an almost purposeful ignorance of the actual situation (i.e. Israel levelling the infrastructure of an entire country to settle a score with Hizbollah) is irrational. If this war drags on, the enthusiasm might peter out.

I personally think feeling gratified over a few potshots at Israel in light of the IDF response is utterly perverse and driven by emotion/ideology. Predictable though, human nature.

Second, the leadership of various players (Hizb, Hamas, Israel, Iran, Syria) may be acting rationally to achieve certain tactical objectives in pursuit of a strategic goal. However, the goal itself may not be rational because it is ideologically derived and/or based on emotion (e.g. not feasible, resistant to reality checks). This is a different issue because it is policy-level, not ops-level.

dear all,

i'm just irked by the abbreviation HB for Hizb Allah ...

who started THAT one?

--raf*

ps: it seems to me that a few people here have difficulties to imagine the mindset described by L and shaheen. well ... that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

It's not difficult to imagine, raf. There are similar types in the US. It's just retarded.

Lady Eerie,

If this war drags on, the enthusiasm might peter out.

Not necessarily. The war feeds hatred, which in return feeds enthusiasm at any memory of blow, or any future small blow the enemy can get whatever the price.

However, the goal itself may not be rational because it is ideologically derived and/or based on emotion (e.g. not feasible, resistant to reality checks).

Unless the goals you set are defying physical laws, they are all feasible given enough time, opportunism, good planning and hard work. The best proof for that is Israel's very existence.

As for goals (satisfaction) being ideologically driven or based on emotion, what isn't in the very end? Financial goals? Even those are a mean for whatever satisfaction you can get from showing off with a porshe to buying a home cinema. Or getting satisfaction from building bigger armies and kicking your neighbor's ass...

Anyway, nuff brain whanking.

Raf,
It's worse than you think. I believe it got started when some people started referring to Hizbollah as Hezbo which, predictably, became HB. Just be happy that the Hamas acronym isn't a few syllables longer or people would be referring to it as "Ham."

Eerie,
I still like "schizophrenic" but I can go with "retarded" if that's the sense of the majority.

Unless the goals you set are defying physical laws, they are all feasible given enough time

Obviously all things are possible in the universe given infinite time, resources, etc. Not all things are feasible in reasonable timeframes and conditions, for example destroying Israel and tossing all the Jews into the sea (or similar goal from a hardline Israeli POV).

As for goals (satisfaction) being ideologically driven or based on emotion, what isn't in the very end? Financial goals

Don't be pedantic. Example: The plan for democracy in Iraq (and across the GME), as proposed and executed by the US. Ideologically driven, disconnected from reality.

I still like "schizophrenic" but I can go with "retarded" if that's the sense of the majority.

I think the entire Israeli-Arab conflict is mired in rigid ideological thinking and an inability to confront reality (on both sides).

Retarded is just a blanket statement for the whole bloody thing.

I'm going to pack for my vacation now.

tossing all the Jews into the sea

For the record, this, or the 70 virgins, etc., I've never heard them but from Israelis themselves. I'm not saying they were never said by an Arab, I'm just saying I've never heard them from an Arab. So, it's a bit cliche.

The plan for democracy in Iraq (and across the GME), as proposed and executed by the US.

Okay, not being pedantic but a bit of (boring) nitpicking: Bush, Cheney, Rummy's friends, all are probably much richer now than in 2002. Whatever bull they sold to the public, it was definitely a damn good (rational) decision for them to invade. So again, if we're to speak of rationality, you have to put it in the context of the decision makers. Joy or pain or interests of bystanders and other peons don't count, they're irrelevant. Plus, saving lives or peace have no inherent rational value out of any context.

More interesting: I've been discussing extensively the current Lebanese/Israeli issue with a few Lebanese friends, and this war arguably makes sense from at least a sectarian point of view and maybe even from a Lebanese one. A few random semi-conclusions: this war is likely to strengthen HB on the Lebanese scene (and as a result, Shias). HB will not be disarmed in the context of the current democratic rule in Lebanon. There wasn't enough support and momentum for it, and there's even less of it now. So someone like Saad Hariri is risking political suicide by insisting on their accountability. The current mayhem is the price for quelling rising internal voices supporting HB's disarmament. Shias have interests in keeping their militia strong, as most Lebanese think sectarian strife is still possible. Lebanon arguably might have interests in keeping HB armed as it's the strongest armed force it has. Some ideas are floating about integrating it in the army (which could make it a sectarian army as pre-1975 Lebanese army was, except that it would be the demographically dominant sect's).

[Tossing Jews into the sea] I'm not saying they were never said by an Arab, I'm just saying I've never heard them from an Arab. So, it's a bit cliche.

Obviously not literal. I highly doubt the plan for destroying Israel involves rounding up Jews and actually hurling them into the Mediterranean. It's a euphemism for annihilation or expulsion. My point is that destroying Israel is not feasible in reasonable timeframes under current conditions (i.e. the visible planning horizon). Can say whatever you want about 50 years down the line, nobody knows what the ME will look like then.

Okay, not being pedantic but a bit of (boring) nitpicking: Bush, Cheney, Rummy's friends, all are probably much richer now than in 2002. Whatever bull they sold to the public, it was definitely a damn good (rational) decision for them to invade.

The projected outcome for the Iraq invasion and subsequent reconstruction was based on ideological fantasies, not on the ground conditions/realities. The goal (to create a democratic, pro-US Iraq + free market utopia where tons of money could be made) was never feasible. Not really a rational policy decision if it is based on an ideological foundation of "reforming the Greater Middle East", and completely ignores history, local conditions, etc.

My point is that destroying Israel is not feasible in reasonable timeframes under current conditions (i.e. the visible planning horizon). Can say whatever you want about 50 years down the line, nobody knows what the ME will look like then.

I agree with you here. But in timeframes shorter than 30-50 years, Arabs are losing or losing. So whatever direction they (as whole) take is absolutely irrelevant within that short-mid timeframe.

The projected outcome for the Iraq invasion and subsequent reconstruction

That's what was sold. I agree with you when it comes to those who bought it. Whether those who sold it believed in it or not is another issue. But they sure made benefits.

ya shaheen,

the "throwing the jews into the sea" originated before/during the 48/49 war and was made world-famous when ahmad al-shuqayri (then chairman of the p.l.o.) used it in the run-up to the '67 war.

as for the "70 virgins" ... qur'an 44:51-54 & 55:56, followed by "al-sunan", the hadith collection of al-tirmidhi (vol. 6, ch. 21, #2687), which is one of the kutub al-sitta.

cheers,

--raf*

ps: you don't talk much to ahl al-mashriq, do you?

Raf,

I have no doubt that the "throwing the jews into the sea" has probably been quoted from someone saying it once somewhere sometime ago (how many know ahmad al-shuqayri today anyway?). My point is, no one uses it, and I've never heard it from an Arab. It's the pro-Israeli mirror of "the greater Israel that goes from the Euphrate from the Nile" thing that Arabs attribute to Israelis. Plain bullshit.

qur'an 44:51-54 & 55:56

Nothing about 70 virgins in the quranic verses you mention. I didn't check the hadith you mentionned from al-tirmidhi, but I'll take your word for it. Yet, that's not my point Raf. Al-tirmidhi is *not* a reference to your average Sunni, except in theory as a potential source. Your average Sunni barely knows bits from Bukhari and Muslim. You won't hear the 70 virgins crap from a Muslim, you'll hear it from those who hate them. It's like taking some obscure quote from apocryphal Jewish texts that your average Jew has no idea about and saying it's a motivation in their actions. Again, plain bullshit.

you don't talk much to ahl al-mashriq, do you?

Actually I do Raf. Besides the diaspora, I've worked there, and still maintain an extensive contact with its people. Even though that might not be representative of your average Maghrebi, I'd still bet that your average North African knows way more about the Mashreq than the other way around.

Raf,

an aside unrelated to the discussion. You've gotten a bit personal lately instead of focusing on the issues. Don't make assumptions about me, you'll probably be wrong more often than not. If you have points of contention, don't hesitate to point them out, I don't mind civil disagreements. You're a nice guy and I wouldn't want to change my opinion about that. But if for whatever reason you bear some grudge, just leave it out of this site, you have my email.

Al Akhaine Al Azizaine:

Chill a bit. I'm the abusive fellow here you stupid gits, don't be crowding into my territory.

Re the throwing into the sea, I've heard in the Sham. Not those exact words, but close enough. Not often - indeed pretty rare, and it's fair to say the sentiment is exagerated by many to excuse behaviour on the other side (both sides supporters are experts in excuses....).

Re the theology, well, I leave that aside.

ya shaheen,

i do not intend to throw abu l-maal off his throne ...

the reason why i wondered if you don't speak to mashriqis a lot is that in that region both the "throwing the jews into the sea" metaphor and the "72 virgin" one is more or less part of common knowledge. it's not used every day (or even every friday), but people are familiar with it.

re: the 72 virgins, i gave you the source development from qur'an (where houris are mentioned) to hadith. i did not say, or imply, that every muslim knows the exact al-tirmidhi hadith (or even cares much about al-tirmidhi), but just wanted to provide the source, since you had said that "I've never heard them but from Israelis themselves." again ... it's common "knowledge" in the mashriq, it's being taught in religious education classes in schools and mosques.

i don't really make assumptions. i will, however, state how other people's statements come across. you SEEM to have an "arab male" thing going ... on which i called you in bint's post. since i'm not the only one who noticed this my impression (not assumption) may have been not that far off the mark. or we're all wrong. that happens, too.

re: maghribi knowledge of the mashriq & vice versa - yeah, you're spot on. a shame, really.

--raf*

Raf,

people are familiar with it (...) it's being taught in religious education classes in schools

Okay. As I've never been to any Arab school, I have no idea of the religious education contents anywhere. My knowledge on that would either come from personal study or from contact with people. I know people are familiar with it, but on those issues, the 70 virgins cliches didn't reach me as religious as much as it did in the "apocryphal used for propaganda purposes" (and the same goes with the political "tossing the Jews into the sea").

you SEEM to have an "arab male" thing going (...) since i'm not the only one who noticed this my impression (not assumption) may have been not that far off the mark

I have no idea what you mean by "arab male thing" and I'll leave aside the other person who "noticed" because I don't feel like bringing another fight on this page. But just to correct the impression whatever it is, I do believe that sexism goes both ways. I've seen "Arab males' sexism" justify such an incredible amount of crap against them that I have little tolerance for that kind of stereotyping now. Needless to say, I strongly resent Arab males who reinforce those stereotypes by acting accordingly (they should be recycled into kafta). But it's definitely become an excuse for quite a few sexist women to bang on any Arab male's head too. When it's my head, I tend to dislike it. Normal ya khouya, non?

My comments about crushing the enemy were not received well, but see what Ralph Peters writes today in the NY POST:
A U.S. government official put it to me this way: "Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time." The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists - every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel, Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.

All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely. But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah. Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.

ew, you're back.

Reactions in Europe seem to be divided with few exceptions along party lines. They're all playing the team game again. Leading right-wing newspapers in Denmark proclaim they are 'on Israel's side', while the leading left-wing publication runs a headline, 'We are all Hizbollah' on a report on demos in Holland and UK. Nice. Angela Merkel, whom I thought practical and earth-bound, supports Israel.

There's a small but growing part of me that wants to do away with people.