Israeli attacks have killed hundreds of Lebanese and have displaced hundreds of thousands. Lebanon faces a humanitarian crisis, with major public health risks posed by lack of safe drinking water and other basic facilities.
Remember that at the beginning of Israel's military response to Hezbollah's July 12 raid, the chief of Israel's general staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz,
... warned the Lebanese government that Israel would attack its infrastructure and “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years” if the soldiers were not returned, Israeli TV reported. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, described the Hezbollah raid as an “act of war” by Lebanon and promised a “very painful and far-reaching response”.
Note that PM Olmert, at the very beginning, said that it was Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, that had committed an act of war against Israel.
Evidently, while Western analysts talk about Hezbollah being a state within a state inside Lebanon, or a "para-state," or an "non-state actor," and all those kinds of fancy terms, evidently Israel's leaders think that those are distinctions without a difference. With Hezbollah significantly integrated into Lebanon's national government, perhaps we might ask in what way is Lebanon itself innocent of that act of war? It's a hard question.
But apparently not to PM Olmert. In his view, Lebanon itself aggressed against Israel. Lebanon's government may be unable to bring Hezbollah to heel, but it is unwilling to do so in any event. Lebanon's chief officials, including the head of state and the prime minister, officially characterize Hezbollah as a national resistance movement.
Remember that even though it is ultimately beholden to Syria and Iran (mostly Iran), not the Siniora government in Beirut, Hezbollah's members are Lebanese, not Iranian or Syrian. It operates wholly inside Lebanon except for forays into Israel or sending terrorists on missions abroad. It is not possible, inside Lebanon, to fight against Hezbollah while somehow leaving Lebanon intact.
This is by no means to say that Israel is exempted from the accepted principles of distinction and proportionality in Just War Theory. It is to say that Israel believes that, tactically, fighting Hezbollah inside Lebanon is no different than fighting Lebanon as a whole. So Israel's air force target list is no different, either.
That being said, I also wonder whether the great vigor with which the IAF prosecutes violence across the whole of Lebanon has a longer-reach purpose than striking or hindering Hezbollah. Haaretz reported yesterday of "Major General (reserve) Amos Gilad, who headed the research division of Military Intelligence in the 1990's,"Apparently, assuming the job of the defense minister's diplomatic-security coordinator has not changed the veteran intelligence officer's assessment of the situation. According to sources in the defense establishment, Gilad has succeeded in convincing the minister, Amir Peretz, and those around him that the key to the crisis in Lebanon lies in a peace agreement with Syria. Major General (reserve) Uri Saguy, who was chief of Military Intelligence and head of the negotiating team with Syria, relates that his public appeal (Haaretz, July 18) to open a channel of communication with Syria fell on open ears among his former colleagues in the IDF top brass. They told him that there are those in the General Staff who agree with his every word.
What the nature of such a "peace agreement" might be is not explained by Haaretz, but consider that its urgency is heightened by Damascus's dismissal of the idea of a multinational force deploying to southern Lebanon:
An editorial in the Syrian government daily Al-Ba'th declared this week that anyone who thinks that an international force on Lebanese soil is the solution is wrong. "These forces ... would be occupation forces, like the forces that have occupied Iraq and other places in the world," it said.
So what can Israel do to make a peace agreement appealing to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad? Obviously, Assad would have to think that however much he might want to war against Israel, it would be worse than making peace.
How to persuade Assad of that fact? Well, maybe by this:
. . 
Is Assad considering Damascus looking like this?
Obviously, this is all speculation on my part. But I am wondering whether part of the intention of Israel's bombing campaign is to mount a demonstration. In military terminology, a demonstration is a show of military force in an area where combat is not sought or toward an adversary against whom combat is not sought. Its purpose is either deception or deterrence.
Could it be that Israel, in attacking Lebanon so severely from the air, is also deliberately signaling Assad that a peace agreement with Israel will be much preferable to the alternative?
Isn't there a less grandios, nay less M. Simonesque, theory? The Israelis figure that the Sunnis, the Christians, and the Druze all implicitly agreed to look the other way concerning Hezbollah hijinx. Intercomunal peace was purchased at the expense of Israeli security. Making greater Lebanon feel the consequence of Hezbollah misconduct is a way of giving the rest of Lebanon an incentive to reign in Hezbollah. If Israel can degrade Hezbollah's conventional military capability, then Lebanon would have the incentive and the capability of controlling Hezbollah.
It also unfortunately gives the rest of Lebanon an incentive to work towards the "utter annihilation of the Zionist entity."
The psychology here is all backwards. To see why, consider a plan that involved making the United States feel the consequences of the Pentagon's misconduct by bombing downtown New York, thereby giving the US public the incentive to reign in the US military. Ignoring the moral aspects for a moment, how well do you think such a plan would work?
It's better to be loved than to be feared, but if you can't be loved, you might as well be feared. Unfortunately the Israelis are neither. The "Zionist entity" and its Arab neighbors have been at war for 2 generations now -- it would take something pretty impressive to actually intimidate the populations of either side now. Maybe a nuke in Beirut or Tel Aviv would do it, but I doubt it. Lesser atrocities will just make people angrier without any real deterrent effect. Bombardment is a great way to kill people, but is far less effective at making friends and influencing people than is generally thought.
a plan that involved getting the US populatiothe US population being intimidated into curbing the Pentagon's excesses bu
It also unfortunately gives the rest of Lebanon an incentive to work towards the "utter annihilation of the Zionist entity."
No, it presents a choice. Had the greater Lebanese polity felt the Love for Hezbollah, they would have sent the troops southward.
The psychology here is all backwards. To see why, consider a plan that involved making the United States feel the consequences of the Pentagon's misconduct
You lose me with your hypothetical. The fact that you feel disassociated from the U.S. military doesn't make the Pentagon any less a part of the U.S. government. The bulk of Lebanon has plausible deniability when it comes to Hezbollah -- those are that other group's nutcases. A Sunni can easily feel no responsiblity for what Hezbollah does. The fact that peace protestors march on everything from Bush's ranch to the local public square indicates that the bulk of Americans do take responsibility for what the Pentagon does.
It's better to be loved than to be feared, but if you can't be loved, you might as well be feared.
I personally want to be loved, but want my country to be feared. Israel doesn't need to be loved by Lebanon, but it needs the government of Lebanon to have the same self-interest in a peace that doesn't merely outsource the violence to neighboring countries.
---
And please don't get me wrong here. This is not a case of Israel responding to Hezbollah attacks by immediately bombing, say a Sunni enclave in the North. I'm suggesting that in targetting Hezbollah infrasture that might also be useful to the rest of Lebanon, Israeli does not necessarily have an incentive to go easy.
No, I think the reasons for Israel's bombing campaign are pretty straightforward.
1. The Israeli Army is not very good, comparitively speaking, and has not fought a war in a long time (early 1980's). Policy makers have sought at every turn to tell Syria they had no intentions towards Syria, precisely to avoid engaging the Army against dangerous foes and leaving the southern flank (Egypt) unguarded.
The Army cannot be committed without leaving Egypt a free hand to invade, and the Israelis do not trust the Egyptians one bit.
2. Israel is a small nation and casualties are felt strongly. Israel withdrew from Lebanon to avoid casualties, and has no desire to occupy it in any case or expose it's troops to any more danger than required. Hence the deliberate attempt to avoid occupying much territory.
3. Hezbollah has had six years to dig in and Israel knows any straight on attack will be a replay of Iwo Jima. Hence the avoidance of ground actions.
4. Even the most solidly supplied dug in force needs food and water. Israel is attempting to conduct seige warfare ala the Romans by using a strength, the IAF, against Hezbollah. Cutting off resupply and communication. Attempting to starve them out.
5. Israeli Objectives are: stopping the rocket attacks, and return of the kidnapped soldiers. It's clear that only killing most of Hezbollah's fighters will do so; it's attempting to draw in Hezbollah to redoubts where they can be starved out.
6. Mobilizing the Army is expensive, conducting an Air War is not, and Israel does not have unlimited funds. The Air Force also has no effective counter by Hezbollah and so plays to Israel's strength and Hezbollah's weakness.
7. The Israeli public under daily rocket attack could care less about Lebanese civilians; no more than the Londoners felt bad about Dresden under the V-1 and V-2s. Since even now French Jews flee France due to anti-Semitic murders and violence, Israel does not care about the Nazi Pope, Vichy France, or the useless and anti-Semitic UN. Only domestic opinion counts and the other Arab nations are not mobilizing for war. Lebanon and Iran are on their own.
Reality is that Israel has no constraints against operating as it wishes; the "International Community" will do what exactly? Send a sharply worded letter? Condemn Israel's existence for the billionth time? No "Peace Keeping" force in the world absent the US Marines allowed to find and kill Hezbollah will keep rockets from raining down on Israel, and so Israel can fight for a long time. Because internal domestic political considerations demand:
An End to the rocket attacks
Minimal Israeli casualties
[Note: other "non-state" actors can send rockets into wealthy Western nations for various demands, just imagine Morocco rocketing Spain for the return of Al Andalus.]
I disagree because that attacks were 90% against Shites/Hizballah areas. I think that indeed Israel held all Lebanese accountable but not at same level.
Harming Syria, Dream on
How US should deal with Iran
on FreeSyria wordpress, say no to War
So is Lebanon responsible? Or not? In any way? In some way? Six years of preparing the Lebanese ground for battle, in the south, in the Bekaa, in the east, in Beirut---digging bunkers, digging tunnels, emplacing over ten thousands missiles (not that anyone really knows how many)---and no one noticed or knew? (OK, well, UNIFIL sure as hell didn't, but that's par for the course---or maybe they did, but, well...that's par for the course, too.)
But Siniora's tears are surely impressive.
Anyway, Here's something that really ought to be ignored by progressive moralists and their preaching ilk---and quite a few others besides.
When speaking of Damascus do not leave out Bush/USA. Syria has been responsible for more American deaths in Iraq than Israeli deaths by Hizbolla/Syria.
Not to mention Iraqi deaths - which would make that government a party as well.
America will have to get agreement from Syria or the war goes on.
This is a multi-lateral problem. Not bi or even tri.
===================================Hizbollah is part of the Syrian Government. President Lahoud is a Syrian poodle. So Lebanon is in fact responsible for Hizbollah. Deny all you want. Facts is facts.
Or are you folk still into the political wing - military wing schtick? Two wings, one bird.
======================================Jim Rockford,
Israel has 10,000 troops in the field. Another 10,000 to be added today. 200,000 sitting idle. Seems really stupid unless.....
More preparation of the road net in Bekaa today. I men bombing.
Israel is immune to casualties right now. The people want to DESTROY Hizbollah. Israel lost 2,500 men in '73. They will expend a lot if their existance is threatened.
Your point about Israeli objectives make no sense. Hizbollah is not the real problem. Syria and iran are. My views on this are well known. Defeating Hizbollah is a tactical victory. Defeating Iran/Syria is a strategic victory. Olmert promised a strategic victory.
Agree about the cost of mobilization. Lots of troops sitting idle. Why? Well I have my theories.
But i do pretty much agree with your points other than the above nits. However, they lead me to a different conclusion. Syria/Iran need regime change. Thus I expect it.
I don't know what page Fares was refering to but here is his main link:
http://freesyria.w*rdpr*ss.com/
He and I are at each others throats (in a very respectful way). LOL
Any way he is Syrian and has links to other Syrians. A view we are not getting much.
Here is another sane Syrian:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/syrian-brit-speaks.html
Marshalls,
You ought to add Fares to the side bar. He is prolific and reasonably sane. possibly saner than I am. (not hard I know) LOL.
Also blogger Josey Wales from
http://lebanonesque.bl*gspot.com/
Post war these folks are going to need all the help they can get.
Simon
I dont think beating up the Lebanese was ever a conscious decision by the Israelis. It was part of the Olmert mentality when the Isralis went in. The first priority was to prevent IDF casualties, and if that meant blasting any Lebanese radar or other targets that looked remotely threatening, so be it. That in itself stems from lack of a strategy in the attacks overall- the importance of the Lebanese governments role and the need for their goodwill wasnt realized until the initial 'bomb em til them quit' strategy failed.
Now Israel has a bigger problem with the endgame they have cobbled together, because even if the Lebanese army can be deployed in the South they have no incentive to confront Hezbollah and plenty of emotional reasons to abet them. Every peace plan now being contemplated is a stupid waste of time until somebody addresses who will either disarm Hezbollah or assault them if they break a cease-fire. There is exactly one force in the world willing to do that and it is Israel. Until that dynamic changes, its all a waste of time.
If I were Israel's spokesman, every time someone asked me my opinion on a given peace plan, my answer would be "Under this plan, what will happen the day after Israel withdraws across the border and rockets are launched after them?" What will French peacekeepers do? What will the Lebanese army do? The answer, obviously, is nothing, so the plan is a nonstarter. Israel really doesnt do a very good job of framing their position in the media.
Even if Israel somehow manages to kill most of the currently active Hizbollah fighters (which we all, including the Israelis, would be much easier than it is proving), aren't they guaranteeing tens of thousands of new recruits, from all the survivors of the refugees and the famines, who will inevitably blame Israel for bombing them into poverty? Granted, many of the Druze and Christians who will now hate Israel for a generation or two, are unlikely to wield guns side-by-side with groups such as Hizbollah, but there are still tens of thousands will happily do so.
m (#12)
Yes. Taking action will generate angry people who will rise up.
If Israel moves the population into northern Lebanon, those angry people will be father away.
There are no easy answers. For a population that was content allowing Hezbollah shooting rockets into Israel, one wonders what they were expecting to have happen? Israel sending flowers?
Looks like Israel is back in the occupation business. I hope they move north quickly and cut off the Syrian supply lines.
There are always options, however. Nothing in the ME ever plays out in a straight line, that much is certain.
It's a shame this debate is even being made in these terms. The issue that should be debated is much more straight forward, and critical:
If you fight from civilian positions, and your enemy counterattacks you there, who's responsible for the civilan deaths? Your enemy for counterattacking, or you - for making civilian positions a target?
The world should be arguing that the combatant who makes civilian positions a target is the combatant responsible for the civilian's injury. That would not only be correct as far as the rules of war are concerned, but putting the onus on the attacked to pick the attacking needle out of the haystack re-enforces the precedent that protecting your forces by using civilians as a shield is valid and effective strategy. - Which will only encourage the most violent and extreme belligerants of the world to put civilians in the battlefield. More than that, actually - it insists they make civilians the battlefield.
The world should hold Hezbollah to acount for every civilain death. But the world isn't doing that. They're validating Hezbollah's tactics, nullifying rules of war designed to protect civilains, and thereby only asking for more and bloodier conflicts in the months and years to come.
#12 m ismail,
If the war makes new recruits then the beating was not severe enough.
See Germany 1918 vs 1945.
So may I ask just how severe a beating will be required? Since you seem informed on such matters.
How severe will the defeat have to be for the defeated to give up all hope that violence can solve their problem?
who's responsible for the civilan deaths?
That's easy. Morally, both are entirely responsible for the results of their actions. Unlike legal responsibility, the sum of moral responsibility isn't limited to 100%.
Even if Israel somehow manages to kill most of the currently active Hizbollah fighters (which we all, including the Israelis, would be much easier than it is proving), aren't they guaranteeing tens of thousands of new recruits, from all the survivors of the refugees and the famines, who will inevitably blame Israel for bombing them into poverty?
so what? they are untrained. sending them to fight israeli will cause massacre of hizballah forces. training them will take years. if after years lebanese want to fight israel again, that would cause even stronger israeli response, perhaps even total destruction of lebanon.
Israel has what it takes to lay any and all of her enemies to waste. It’s just a question of escalation and political will.
Israel could end this current conflict by tonight if they wanted to, but they’d face international condemnation for reducing Lebanon- and Hezbollah- to glowing green shards of glass.
There's a Bedoin saying, "you beat the dogs to scare the lions"
I think you're saying the same thing.
Ain't this a piece of work. Two soldiers get kidnapped by terrorists and the Jwsd tell Lebanon We are going to bomb you back 20 years if not bomb you back ot the stone age. Man woman, child, Christian, Jew, Arab, all of you Lebanese are going to pay for these two soldiers.
Now look at us in Iraq. Moron socialworkers, driving up and down highways getting killed to save the gooks from themselves. Beautiful neocon soldier warrior pictures of poor damaged Iraqi babies, weeping and wailing as we sacrifice ourselves for all the innocents in Iraq.
Innocents? What the fsuck? Who are we kidding?
Let's take a page from the Jewish book and bomb the Iraqis, man woman and child, Christian, Arab, Jew. All of them. Bomb the Iraqi infrastructure back to the Stone Age if they kill one more American. If the Jews can do it in Lebanon for the kidnapping of two Jewish soldiers,why are we not doing it in Iraq?
Why are we schizophrenic on this whole thing. Americans have to fight and die civilizing Iraqis, building schools and water works, making nice-nice and handing out candy? Yet the Jews get to blow all of Lebanon the fsuck up for kidnapping a couple soldiers?
What the fsuck is going on here? What kind of insane schizoid split mind mental cluster fsuck has infected us?
If Jews can kill, we can kill. Just because we are gentiles doesn't mean we have to die saving Iraqi gooks.
Hey! I have a plan! We send the Jews back to Israel, we Americans take over Lebanon, spend billions rebuilding it, hand out candy bars to the Cute Little Lebanese Kiddies and get OUR collective @sses shot away for the next fifty years standing inbetween the Jews in israel and Hezbollah trying to build ANOTHER multi-racial multi-cultural country. Now THERE'S a plan!
(Oh, and be sure to leave our own back door wide open so all of Central America, South America, Mexico and the Caribbean can invade and replace us while we are off defending the Jewish border in Lebanon. "It's Good For Business" ™)