To answer Dan's question: nope.

But this is a very good resolution. It tells the Europeans and everyone else criticizing Israel: put up or shut up; if you want a cease fire like you say you do, then it is up to you to put your own country's people at risk by disarming Hezbollah, not just have Israel continue to harbor all the risk.

I'm assuming that no country will actually take up the invitation to join this force, thereby laying bare the hypocrisy of all those countries now criticizing Israel.

Agree. Any multinational force that tries to "constrain" Hizbullah will be killed (as they should be). Unless the multinational force is also going to fire on Israeli troops and occupy Israeli soil and try to disarm the Israeli army, they do not belong there. Either they act honestly and enforce the same rules for Israel as they do Hizbullah, or they do not come at all.

If they come because the USA, Europe and Israel want them, doing the bidding of the USA and Israel, then they will be seen as an agressor and an occupying force and will rightly be bombed like the American and French forces in the 80s were.

If they are fair and they have a non-biased mission and goals, then the may survive.

Perhaps the Iranians and/or Syrians will volunteer to supply the needed troops. I'm sure that would be a big help.

I think the Bushies recognize the logic of not trying to force the IDF prematurely to disengage from their efforts to eliminate the exsiting Hezbollah infrastructure in Southern Lebanon. Viewed in that context, rhetorical support for a multinational force to which that no one is willing to contribute the needed troops serves several goals. On the domestic front, it is a sop to the Dems and others who demand that Bush "do something" to end the violence. There is nothing he can do, but this sort of rhetorical call at least gives the appearance of "doing something" and has the added bonus of being what other, similarly situated leaders (e.g., Blair) are also calling for, no doubt for similar reasons. It's also a useful way to call Kofi's bluff.

Agree. Any multinational force that tries to "constrain" Hizbullah will be killed (as they should be). Unless the multinational force is also going to fire on Israeli troops and occupy Israeli soil and try to disarm the Israeli army, they do not belong there. Either they act honestly and enforce the same rules for Israel as they do Hizbullah, or they do not come at all.

But the rules shouldn't be and aren't the same. Hezbollah is an illegal occupying force in Lebanon on its good days -- which is why the UN has already required that it be disarmed -- and a terrorist organization the rest of the time. Hezbollah as a military force has no right to exist. The Israeli army does.

Any multinational force that tries to "constrain" Hizbullah will be killed (as they should be).

As they should be? You personally believe Hizbullah should not be constrained when they target civilians and use fellow Lebanese as human shields?

Wow.

Agree with Paul.

Folks, we are have our first confirmed terrorist on our hands. Joe M. is clearly a terrorist sympathizer.

Ha.

Israel is the world's largest and most brutal terrorist organization. They are illegally occupying Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, they are illegally bombing civillians, civillian buildings and structures as well as UN troops. They are in violation of 60+ UN resolutions. At best they are a population of racist fanatics. in other times they are a genocidal "nation" of people who live on stolen and ethnically cleansed land. At the least, all key Israeli leaders of the last 59 years should be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.

Now, today, the Lebanese people, the defense minister, the speaker of the house and the president of Lebanon all support Hizbullah's right to defend Lebanon from Israeli agression and consider them a national institution. you can site one resolution that is vague in refering to what may be Hizbullah, but if you ask me, they are in integral part of the Lebanese army.

And, RDH, Israel does not bear the costs of its wars. The USA pays for the weapons and the rest of the world pays to rebuild their destruction. I would love to see them start bearing their own costs, it would make them much less likely to be so violent and wild.

absolutely. I support Hizbullah's right to defend Lebanon.

If you (Paul and Jim) think there is any legitimacy to Israel's actions, bombing Lebanon flat to the ground claiming "self defense" reasons, then you should be well aware of why I would support Hizbullah's right to defend Lebanon for foreign agression.

Like I said before, If there was a force that treated Israel as it treats Lebanon, then i would reconsider. But to send in a force to occupy South Lebanon and try to disarm Hizbullah is a joke. Sent the NATO troops to North Israel to disarm the real terrorists and to get rid of their F-16s and Tanks and rockets. Then let's talk.

In no way do I support everything they do. But are more legitimate then Israel is.

You people in the west who believe you have a divine right to kill and destroy the world are wrong. The poor and weak will fight back. If you think you can go on conquering every country you dislike, you are wrong.

Whatever you think of Israel's actions, targeting civilians is not ethical.

Just because you think Israel is a terrorist, that does not mean targeting civilians is allowed and that Hezbollah can be a terrorist.

Hezbollah is a terrorist. You support Hezbollah. You are a terrorist. Period.

At best they are a population of racist fanatics.

Yet we are supposed to believe that you want a one-state solution because you want to peacefully exist with these people, right?

What a joke. We are seeing your true colors.

You hate Jews. You want to kill Jews. You are a terrorist.

I have often wondered if there ought to be a price for a permenant seat on the UN Security Council of, say, 25,000 troops and their equipment placed at the Security Council's disposal. Veto authority might require that you provide not only the troops, but the logistics to deliver them anywhere in the world that the Council requests.

terrorist, terrorits, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist...............

just keep saying that. Israel kills 1000 civilians and destroys an entire country and you still call us terrorists.

Maybe we should meet in New York or Atlanta or wherever you live and just fight it out man to man. HA. (that's a joke)

People like you think you (though not necessarily you yourself) have the right to kill anyone you want. The reason I support a one-state solution is exactly this reason. Because, unless we have to share our futures, we will just see each other as the enemy. If we have to work together and share institutions, then maybe we will have a mutual future. When one side can ignore the other, and one side can subject the other to various crimes, then that is what you get.

In general, Jews freak out at this idea because they think Arabs are sub-human, and they are so ultra-nationalist that they can't accept any sort of equality with anyone. Plus, they have repeated "terrorist" so many time that they actually have started to believe that crap.

You know, Israel is not the victim in the Middle East. Jews are not always the victims...

what i mean is:

When both sides are invested in a mutual future, they both have reasons to keep it alive. When you isolate both sides from each other, they are both more likely to objectify each other and conflict is more likely to break out.

If the Jews and the Palestinians have to deal with each other and have reason to work together to make the country safe, happy and healthy for everyone, then there will be peace (more or less).

The one-state really is the only solution.

Hezbollah is a terrorist. You support Hezbollah. You are a terrorist. Period. - Jim

You hate Jews. You want to kill Jews. You are a terrorist. - again, the elloquent Jim

This simplistic logic is pretty convenient:
The US supported Manuel Noriega. Noriega was a drug dealer. America is a drug dealer.

The US financed Osama bin Ladin back in the '80s. Osama is a terrorist. America is a terrorist state.

You get the gist.

Hezbollah is an illegal occupying force in Lebanon on its good days

Eh?

Hezbullah is a popular Lebanese political movement on its good days with support of 30-40 percent of the population with an extra-legal popular militia supported by the very Lebanese among which it exists.

One of the most depressing things one notes for all Israelo-Arab conflict is how the slightest smidgen of reason, intelligence or even the vaguest acquiatance with what is typical thought of as 'fact' goes right out the window as the various lunatic partisans have at it.

Bloody hell.

The rotted mess should have been left to the Ottomans.

TARGETING INNOCENT CIVILIANS IS UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL. YOU SUPPORT THAT, JOE M.

I DON'T.

Heavy,

I wasn't making a logical statement. I was summarizing a series of Joe's beliefs sequentially.

Read his posts again-- he states that it is OK to target Jewish civilians because he disagree with government/military policies.

He does want to kill Jews.

And its there for EVERYONE to read.

The reason I support a one-state solution is exactly this reason. Because, unless we have to share our futures, we will just see each other as the enemy. If we have to work together and share institutions, then maybe we will have a mutual future.

WAKE UP, JOE.

MUSLIM/ARAB COUNTRIES DO NOT RESPECT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS.

YOU ARE LIVING IN A FANTASY. ARABS AND MUSLIMS DON'T HAVE SOCIETIES THAT YOU PRETEND COULD EXIST.

An international force as it is currently envisioned is nothing more than an effort to outsource the occupation of Lebanon. Israel doesn't want to spend the blood and treasure maintaining another 'security zone,' but they'd be more than happy to let someone else do the dying for them. It's Israeli occupation by proxy. The Lebanese won't accept it, and, so far, no other countries have been dumb enough to sign on as unpaid auxiliaries for the IDF.

The way forward is not to occupy Lebanon but rather for Israel to return the Shebba Farms region to Lebanon as the basis for a permanent ceasation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. The Lebanese Army would then be trained and armed to a sufficient level to prevent Israeli attacks. With the return of all Lebanese land to Lebanon and a reasonble degree of protection against Israeli attack, there would be little need for Hezbollah to continue and the group would _eventually_ wither away.

If necessary, a mutually agreed DMZ could be controlled by third country forces with the mandate and equipment to repell incursions from either side. This would include TBMD sites to deal with any rocket attacks into Israel and modern SAM batteries to keep the IAF from exercising its habit of indiscriminately killing Lebanese civilians.

"Jim," you are a racist. The Jews uber alles / Arab sind Untermensch ideology you promote is nothing more than the ideological heir of Naziism.

GL,

Those are strong statements with no facts.

Which statement that I made wasn't supported directly from something Joe posted?

FYI- The UN certified that Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Shebaa Farms is considered part of Syria, not Lebanon. Get your facts straight.

Hezbullah is a popular Lebanese political movement on its good days with support of 30-40 percent of the population with an extra-legal popular militia supported by the very Lebanese among which it exists.

The way forward is not to occupy Lebanon but rather for Israel to return the Shebba Farms region to Lebanon as the basis for a permanent ceasation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah.

Question to readers: does anyone believe it would be possible to constitute a multinaional force that would be able to constrain Hezbollah's actions without triggering more bloodshed?

Short term no, Long term yes.

+It would require not allowing Hez, Hamas, etc to stage attacks around the confines of the Multinational troops

+Actual leadership of the troops stationed in the AO

+The ability to disarm Hezbolah

I don't see that happening. While the US may want that, I can't see the UN going along.

Israel cannot 'return' Shebba Farms to Lebanon, as it did not take that area from Lebanon, but from Syria. The UN certified six years ago that Israel got out of every square centimeter of Lebanon.

Egypt made peace with Israel, and got the Sinai back. Unless and until Syria makes such a deal with Israel, it is in no position to grant title to any part of the Golan Heights (including Shebba Farms) to anyone.

Shebba Farms is a completely bogus argument. But let us explore the ramifications of making that argument. Is it your position that Hisb'Allah, as an avowed agent of Lebanon, has started this war with Israel to try to gain this bit of territory for Lebanon? If it is legitimate for Lebanon to try to gain Shebba Farms in war, then it is equally legitimate for Israel to re-invade, and annex land currently part of Lebanon. Are you sure you want to go there?

I have a simple question: what will it take to convince Hezbollah to recognize the right of Israel to exist and thus accept peace with Israel?

Dan -

The comment you made on bloggingheads.tv about comments on posts relating to Arab/Israeli issues... point taken.

Now convince me that these commentors would suddenly go sane if the post was on some other subject.

Good luck.

Unless Israel 'surrenders' by agreeing to a ceasefire which would then mollify a 'victorious' Hezbollah it can't possibly work and therefore one assumes those pushing idea intend something else. I don't think there's any unity concerning what that something else might be. Can't figure out if Israel has crafted very clever strategy here or is just confused - ie is playing Bush admin to some desired end or has walked into trap and is looking for someone to offer a way out.

Alan: imagine if you wake up in your lovely Irving, TX home one morning to find israelies have moved into the living room, and are actively working to get more israelies to move into the garage. If you pick a fight with them they punch you, hard. They're stronger than you.

Do you think you would quickly recognize their right to be there?

Heavy,
Boy, I sure wouldn't. I'd expect the UN to build me a tent in the backyard, and I'd hope that 60 years from now my grandchildren had the gumption to sneak into the garage and stab pregnant Israeli women from time to time.

Sure, my family would be three generation of tent-dwelling murderers, but at least we'd have the support of people like you.

I see the usual nonsense, hysteric wailing and irrationality that characterises such convos has begun.

The sheer level of ignorance, however, does sometimes take the breath away: Hezbollah is a Syrian-Iranian backed private army which won 10% -- not 30-40 percent -- of the seats in Parliament in the last election.

You may wish, my dear drooling git of an ill-informed whanker, wish to inform yourself a bit further on how Lebanese electoral system works and its peculiar communitarian weighting based on ancient population shares.

Well, probably not as of course you've zero interest in doing anything but shrieking on hysterically with hand-waving whanking about Iran and Syria.

By all solid accounts, mate, Hezbullah has solid, near unanimous support from the Shi'a community (in alliance with Berri's Amal), which itself is around 40 percent of the population.

Whinging on about it being supported by Iran and Syria is very much as tedious and utterly pointless as Arabs whinging on about Israel being supported by the US of A. And leads to idiotic, ill informed magical thinking about defeating Hezbullah.

I'm sure as an ill-informed fool, you very much prefer that, of course. Easier that way, living in wishful thinking land.

bgates, I don't specifically support Hezbollah, but I do think us non-middleeasterners probably have a hard time really understanding why there is so much hatred over there.

It's all well and good for us in the comfort of our homes to talk about who threw the first rock, what international law has to say about it, or the vagueries of Iranian influence, American geopolitical aspirations, etc. The fact is Israel is more "establishment" and therefore gets more respect in the world, and cameljockeys in tents don't.

But that does't mean there case is without merit. After watching your spouse get punched in the face a few times in what used to be her own kitchen, you too, would consider murder under cover of night as a fair solution.

No one is going to "disarm" Hezbollah, not without killing half of Lebanon... and then many others in the region. The organization won't disarm itself, but it probably would stand down/stop firing rockets if Israel stopped firing on Lebanon. Therefore, it would be good to have a UN force standing by to go in once Israel and Hezbollah stop firing projectiles (and physically treading) across the blue line. UN forces could probably be peacekeepers, but not peacemakers.

Things will have to be hammered diplomatically before a UN force comes in, as has been noted, and that will be quite a challenge.

"The organization won't disarm itself, but it probably would stand down/stop firing rockets if Israel stopped firing on Lebanon."

HAhahahahahahaha...

Ahahahahaa..

Unlike the other hundred times Israel stopped firing and were attacked in return?

And for the Hezbullah foreign occupation idiocy, "According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Afraid the more ignorant whanking that goes on, the more deluded one's analysis gets.

Don't be afraid, Lounsbury. Pretend you are 007 like the picture on your site -- but neither shaken nor stirred. That'll give you the strength to continue to feel its manly to insult across the board, ya whanka, without adding much value to the blogosphere.

Off topic, but only slightly--

Billmon has a couple of great posts at billmon.org. See "The Definition of Losing" and "The Debacle." He writes not about the morality of this war, but about whether Israel is achieving its goals (hint: not so far; not at all).

Billmon is read-only, no discussion, but I'd love to read some rational, non-mouth-foaming discussion of his thought-provoking ideas.

To oversimplify, Billmon says that the IDF thinks in terms of fighting against a state, and doesn't sufficiently respect the capabilities of Hezbollah as a guerrilla army. The air campaign isn't working, and Olmert's war cabinet rejected a full-scale ground invasion (they "blinked").

Finally, Billmon quotes Zeev Schiff in Ha'aretz to the effect that any settlement will reflect the military situation at the time, which as of now doesn't extend to disarming Hezbollah or much of anything that Israel wants. Billmon concludes that, as of now, Israel would do well to get back to the status quo ante.

It's all amazing to me. I imagine that the IDF had been working on a plan for this war for a long time. How could the plan have been so bad? And has Israel really rejected a ground attack, which looks like their only way of avoiding disaster?

The long-range implications for Israel of losing this war, and having their reputation for military invincibility punctured, are staggering.

Any thoughts (calm ones, please)?

"...flatten the country and make it a parking lot, then you will disarm Hezbollah. (UN Col. Pellegrini)

An original idea.

So much for GWB's claim that democracies never go to war against each other. And thanks, Hal, for the billmon link; he makes interesting points.

I think two things are happening: (a) America seems to have slipped on sh*t, and somehow anyone who is friends with the US also slips on it; (b) the nature of warfare in the 21st century is changing even more than professional militaries realize -- and the endgame has changed dramatically.

What follows from that, though, is that there may be something to Rumsfeld's vision of transforming the military.

The Lounsbury,

So hezbollah is popular in Lebanon. Do you think popular support would translate into a large supply of heavy weapons absent support from Iran and Syria?

If hezbollah did not have heavy weapons it would probably be reasonable to assume that much of the current destruction would have been avoided.

Hal just upthread is like the guy in the theatre standing up amidst the flying popcorn, sodas and food demanding that everyone shut up and watch the movie.

Since I know how he feels, I'll venture the observation that there will have to be a reckoning within IDF after this Lebanon business simmers down. Complacency on the front lines led to Hezbollah's initial success (and probably that of Hamas a few days earlier). The military strategy adopted subsequently was based on an assumption of what should be -- the legitimate Lebanese government having the ability to disarm Hezbollah -- instead of recognition of what plainly was and remains the case, that no such ability existed. The tactics chosen pursuant to that strategy sacrificed the substantial, and rare, political advantages for Israel created by Hezbollah's having started the war without having asked either other Lebanese or the Arab states so often at odds with Israel over the Palestinian question and other issues. Lastly, the execution of the tactics chosen by IDF leadership -- particularly the rules of engagement for aircraft against moving vehicles and targets in heavily populated areas -- has been problematic, based as it most likely has been on very limited Israeli intelligence as to where Hezbollah was concentrating its fighters and how it was moving them and their armaments around the country.

I don't really agree with Billmon that IDF didn't respect the abilities of Hezbollah guerillas; in fact, I think one reason for the air campaign extending across the length and breadth of Lebanon was the Israeli hope that ground assaults on positions that had been prepared for more than five years might be avoided. It is probably true that the Israeli public, and certainly the audience outside Israel, had lower expectations.

That's one caveat; a second was expressed by Dan in Friday's first post. We don't really know how badly Hezbollah has been hurt, how many casualties it has taken or munitions it has lost, or even (which is likely to be important in securing a halt to this round of fighting) whether it has had prisoners taken. But even with those caveats it would be hard for Israelis to look at the course of the fighting from the very start and conclude that IDF leadership has not failed in significant ways.

It's hard to say what implications this might have for the future. After all, the myth of Israeli invincibility on the battlefield has been punctured before, in 1973 and again in 2000, with consequences for Israel that were significant but not devastating. As well, the fact that many Lebanese now support Hezbollah in the war it started two weeks ago does not mean they will be enthusiastic about the terrorist group arming for a rematch once the fighting stops. Of course if Nasrallah does decide this is what he wants to do, Lebanese outside the Hezbollah leadership are unlikely to be consulted; the point here is that establishing the point that it can survive an Israeli assault on long-prepared positions hidden amongst a civilian population outside of Israel may not be as valuable to Hezbollah as we might think. It is not a point that many people outside the Hezbollah command will want to see made a second time.

With Dan's point on a peacekeeping force I can only agree, and wonder if international discussions of this subject are only going on because government's can't think of any other ideas that don't give one side or the other everything it wants. Of course the one "international force" that could constrain Hezbollah, the Syrian army, left Lebanon to world acclaim last year. If Nasrallah's War is Hezbollah's answer to what a Lebanon without the Syrians would be like, it may be the clearest indication we could have of how fragile last year's "Cedar Revolution" really was.

The Lounsbury,

You are right about how these discussiong tend to degrade after while. The flying monkeys do indeed have a strong presence in this thread.

Hal,

I took a look at billmon site and it makes for interesting reading.

However, comments like

"with President Psychopath in the White House"

"It is for the poodle dog, um I mean, the Tony Blair"

"(of which Shrub was so paternally proud just a few short weeks ago) has just told Madame Supertanker to go take a flying you-know-what at the moon"

Make it hard to take him seriously.

Without getting too involved with the lengthy mud-slinging argument that has engulfed most of this comments page, I must say that I don’t believe a multinational peacekeeping corp. will help that much. Hezbollah will not disarm and neither of them will comply with the others prerequisites for a cease fire. If anything in the form of peace will come anytime soon to the area, then world leaders need to go back to the drawing board, I wish I could add more ideas to this but I’m just an observing blogger.

Zathras,

Thank you for some interesting thoughts.

I agree that it looks as though the IDF got caught flat-footed in the Hamas tunnel-digging incident and then in the raid on the patrol by Hezbollah that started it all. You can find this observation in the opinion section of Ha'aretz, too. I hope heads will roll, but that's a poor substitute for getting it right the first time.

As for punturing Israel's reputation for invincibility, I think that 1973 was different. It showed that the IDF could be taken by surprise, which is scary for a small country, but they made a dramatic comeback, and quickly. By the time the US stopped them, the IDF has the Egyptian 3rd Army surrounded, and the road to Cairo was open to them, as was the road to Damascus.

I do not see any such decisive victory in the cards against Hezbollah, and Israel's time for waging war is dwindling. Killing over 50 Lebanese in an apartment house doesn't help, either.

Dan Halutz, the IDF Chief of Staff, comes from the Air Force. I wonder if this is a lot of the problem. He wouldn't be the first air force general to promise that he could win a war with light casualties through bombing. Maybe a weak prime minister and a weak defense minister found this irresistable.

Dan may be right that Hezbollah is suffering more damage than we know, but the external signs say otherwise. Israeli rhetoric on war aims has been dialled down repeatedly since it all began. And they seem to have wanted to take and hold Bint Jebel, which they've now given up on.

I agree with you that the Cedar Revolution was fragile. It "felt" that way at the time, because the Shiites were able to muster a larger counter-rally.

As to Syria, things are looking good for them, I think. Shebaa Farms is in play as part of a settlement, in spite of the bogus nature of Hezbollah's claim. The Golan Heights itself is closer to being on the table than at any time since about 1999. Maybe Syria could promise to rein in Hezbollah in exchange for the Golan. That's an Israeli defeat, as I see it.

Of course the Lebanese people have no say in any of this. Where are their divisions, as Stalin would ask?

TJIT,

If you look just at Billmon's analysis of the military situation in Lebanon, I still think he's incisive. He shifted my thinking, which is not easy to do.

Hal

Well, you have Sinora refusing to speak with Rice, and in the regional media clearly turning on the US. Rather clearer and clearer the magical thinking supra was and is utterly wrong and unmoored.

As to this:
So hezbollah is popular in Lebanon. Do you think popular support would translate into a large supply of heavy weapons absent support from Iran and Syria?

They'd find other supporters. Where there is a political value, force and leverage, a patron can always be found.

If hezbollah did not have heavy weapons it would probably be reasonable to assume that much of the current destruction would have been avoided.

It would be reasonable to assume that had not the US and Israel very badly miscalculated the leverage that could be applied via airpower, the current destruction would have been avoided as well.

Whinging on about Hezbullah having foreign support is empty. It is a political reality, and take away Syria and Iran, one will find replacements. Hezbullah represents a major political force generated by domestic conditions and issues in Lebanon.

Finally, re this piece of whinging:
Don't be afraid, Lounsbury. Pretend you are 007 like the picture on your site -- but neither shaken nor stirred. That'll give you the strength to continue to feel its manly to insult across the board, ya whanka, without adding much value to the blogosphere.
The picture is a joke by the site owner (not me, in short), amusing mate.

Sorry your delicate self can't take learning ythe whanking is just that.

I agree with Hal that 1973 was a different situation, for the reason he gives and also because Israel's principle antagonist then, the Egyptian President Sadat, saw the war as a first step toward the attainment of specific objectives. Egypt's initial success against Israel in the Sinai was useful to him domestically, useful in completing his shift from alignment with the Soviet Union to friendship with the United States and useful to his objective of recovering Egyptian territory. And after he recovered that territory Sadat did not intend to fight Israel again.

So it's possible that Hezbollah's success, limited though it may turn out to be, will encourage it and its patrons to quickly reinforce its position within Lebanon as an autonomous armed force, a position that in the long run can only be sustained if there are occasional clashes with Israel. The now-popular idea that the organization that started the war is defending the population it dragged into it may not after all be a product of the moment's passions. Such a scenario would have serious implications for any nation prepared to contribute troops to a peacemaking force, and is generally depressing to contemplate. But this is the Middle East.

On the other point Hal raised, I'd be surprised if Syria were prepared to make any offer for the Golan Israel would find at all attractive.

Alan: imagine if you wake up in your lovely Irving, TX home one morning to find israelies have moved into the living room, and are actively working to get more israelies to move into the garage. If you pick a fight with them they punch you, hard. They're stronger than you.

Do you think you would quickly recognize their right to be there?

My guess is that Israel is planning an "Alesia" not a "Cannae" therefore long not short.

A different kind of parking lot. Step 1: Get all "non-combatants" who want to leave, out.

The implication here: The now-popular idea that the organization that started the war is defending the population it dragged into it may not after all be a product of the moment's passions. Such a scenario would have serious implications for any nation prepared to contribute troops to a peacemaking force, and is generally depressing to contemplate. But this is the Middle East. (emphasis added)
That the reaction on the part of the Lebanese as reflected in widespread commentary, the poll and the like is somehow irrational and unjustified strikes me as typical of the blinkered analysis that led the US and Israel to utterly miscomprehend the political dynamic they were and are facing with respect to the Israeli bombing campaign against the country.

Certainly Hezbullah is the provocateur. However, there was nothing written in stone that Israel had to (or logically that it would be useful to) conduct an air power campaign against Lebanon, in the misplaced hope of breaking (as the early language went) Hezbullah.

Here in the region the change over the past two weeks is evident, and in fact quite logical: initially Hezbullah attracted not much support given its action. KSA, Egyptian etc governments were comfortable in denouncing it. Israel, however, went to town. Regardless of the empty moral posturing on either side, the result has been a political disaster as quite reasonably, non-Hezbullah Lebanese feel they are the real targets, and that Israel is engaging in its widely perceived (with some justice, if over-done conspiratorial thinking) habit of attempting to destabilise Leb Land. By wider extension, the region certainly can't help but come away with an impression - based on Iraq and now Lebanon - that Americans regard them as sub-human creatures (indeed the sentiment is barely disguised in blog commentary at times) unworthy of consideratoin. Fouad Siniora's anger (recall he's part of the class of the 'Cedar Revolution') is both rational and not-misplaced.

Assertions that the Israelis are "justified" - the Lebs had it coming because they didn't control Hezbullah, etc - are empty political whanking. The reality is a State undertakes actions to achieve aims. The Israeli-US position and air-campaign has achieved the exact opposite of stated (and real) political goals, while the physical degradation of Hezbullah is going to be, at best, temporary.

The phrase Pyrhhic Victory should be retained - as well as the whole of The Prince's advice, not merely the first half of the widely misunderstood, "better to be feared than loved" aphorism. The part about importance of not being hated, for example.

Israel had choices in regards to a response - certainly there had to be one, and violent. However, that choice was not between No Response and the current air campaign. The Americans should have looked to longer interests and restrained from the start (and given political cover for a ceasefire from the start, for when needed, the present call by Rice for a ceasefire looks grossly hypocritical and clumsy. The transparent and clumsy diplomatic maneuvering worthy of a 3rd rate banana republic)

Certainly Hezbullah is the provocateur. However, there was nothing written in stone that Israel had to (or logically that it would be useful to) conduct an air power campaign against Lebanon, in the misplaced hope of breaking (as the early language went) Hezbullah.

What was the alternative? Occupying Lebanon in toto? Tolerating harassment attacks indefinitely? Something in between?

IMO, an air campaign is a good intermediate step. It is an effective way to strike Hizbullah assets without going through the disruption, expense, and casualties of a full blown occupation. The disadvantage is that an air campaign alone is not going to destroy hizbullah, the most it can accomplish is degrading their capabilities and numbers.... which may be enough to get them to leave Israel alone for a while.

Hizbullah's plan is clear: they wanted to stage a hostage drama leading to a prisoner swap. Israel did not follow Hizbullah's script.

Being considered dangerous and unpredictable is a good thing in that neighborhood, it makes the other locals reluctant to provoke you.

Damn shame that it's Lebanon on the recieving end, though. Everyone knows Hizbullah is Syria's bitch.

The difficulty that Israel has aside from the deaths it receives is that IT MAY VERY WELL BE A COMBINATION OF NO WIN AND CATCH 22.Ultimately the israelis do not have the expendable population for a guerrilla war-whether they are right or wrong. I am 78*+ almost 79 years old and realize I know less now about solving problems such as these now than when i was 24. Consider as a simple example the Irish Troubles which have lasted centuries before we have gotten to the point where the opponents are merely Angry with each other..the world does not operate according to Ann Frank desires.what may happen ultimately is when the Israelis are pushed to the wall they will drop a nuclear bomb on Teheran,and Damascus===then we will consider this engagement in Lebanon as a mere 4th of July .
Celebration.

It may be that we are really looking at Darwin in motion with ants finally having the last say.