Dean Barnett says the Israeli-Hezbollah cease-fire means that “Lebanon officially becomes Hezbollah-land. Hezbollah will rightly be considered the victor for withstanding the IDF’s onslaught. And the battle will resume at a time and place of Hezbollah’s choosing.” (Hat tip: Insty.)
[Source: The Irish Trojan’s Blog] quoted: Hezbollah will rightly be considered the victor for withstanding the IDF’s onslaught. And the battle will resume at a time and place of Hezbollah’s choosing.”
I think so long as isreal doesn’t bomb lebanon anymore you won’t see hezbullah attack israel. hopefully both sides will obey the terms of the truce. the fact that hezbullah has accepted the terms of the truth is some of the best news ive heard in a while. sadly the infrastucture of lebanon has pretty much been destroyed by israel, and rebuilding will take years.
Israel has fucked up. It should have used special ops and ground forces to begin with. Instead, Olmert initiated this ridiculous air campaign that killed hundreds of innocent civilians, destroyed much of Beirut and drew the ire of the international community while making the IDF look hapless in the face of a bunch of criminals, who are now seen as folk heroes by the Arab Street. Olmert will, and should, lose his job over this.
Don’t play games Israel might bomb
next week. Then turn and say we don’t
know why Hezbulah is committing
terrorist acts against us. The U.S.
want to make it legal that why
we have this silly little cease
fire truce.They just set Lebanon
up for the biggest fall knowin
they don’t think before they
shoot.Its just a trap!!!
Texasyank, if you have a thought about something how about making a real response instead of a half-assed remark. I guess you would rather Isreal keep bombing this country into oblivion instead of try to make peace. Hezbullah has actually agreed to this truce, this is a gigantic positive step and great reason for optimism. Sadly, my fear is that there has already been too much damage to Lebanon for it ever to be stable again.
Texasyank truth is its not
over.Now you and I
know that these people
in that area have been
fighting since before Jesus.
I thought black folks loved
to kill each other but this
is what people in the middle
east live for.Now France
England and the U.S. are
into this circus.
Yea: You want a real response? Fine. In 2000 Israel completely withdraws from Lebanon, across a border certified by the UN. What in God’s name was Hezbollah’s reason for initiating this current conflict, for taking steps to kill Jews, except that they simply possess the ability to kill Jews? What is Hezbollah’s reason for accepting the cease-fire, except to retrench and gather its strength for another round of missiles?
Hezbollah’s sole reason for existence is killing Jews. That’s it. There is no other. The only upside is that, six months from now, when Hezbollah’s unprovoked missiles are raining down on Haifa, the Israeli government will justifiably fall. Then Hezbollah can deal with Netanyahu. Good freaking luck.
The Israeli ambassador to the US was on CNN this morning. He was asked the same question on this thread - “Did Hezbollah win?” Here were his reasons why Hezbollah lost:
1) Lots of fighters dead.
2) Lots of bombing capacity compromised.
3) UN force to ensure no new bombing capacity, and
4) The Lebanese don’t like Hezbollah anymore and will rid themselves of Hezbollah.
As far as reasons 1 and 2 are concerned, Vietnam taught us clearly that when a big force fights a smaller one, these are givens and not necessarily conclusive.
The UN force argument was interesting since it came one sentence after the ambassador explained the invasion as due to “many failed UN resolutions in the past”. Maybe the ambassador thinks this is the resolution that will hold?
Relying on the UN in Lebanon seems an odd strategy. What’s that saying about keeping doing the same wrong thing…?
The ambassador’s last, and best, argument is that the Lebanese will not want to harbor the virus in their land. That I agree with. But when the ambassador says ‘Lebanese’, he means the 70% of Lebanese not represented by Hezbollah. The 30% Shia who like Hezbollah might like them more.
Perhaps the rest of Lebanon attempts to rid itself of Hezbollah? My understanding is that the Lebanese infrastructure is in shambles. What highway will the Lebanese army use to transport equipment to the battle against Hezbollah? What airfield will they use to land reinforcements?
Who will pay to repair all the infrastructure damage done over the last month? That infrastructure was built out of the pocket of a former corrupt prime minister. Who will pay to rebuild it, especially knowing that Hezbollah is rearming and would be able to redestroy the same infrastructure in a Lebanese Civil War?
Seems to me its beyond far fetched to think that the rest of the Lebanese can summon the military capacity to destroy Hezbollah given the ruined state of the country.
In conclusion, to Alasdair’s point:
Maybe things will look better in Israel in a week.
The silly notion lurking in the background of all these discussions is that we have a World War Two style conflict at hand: in other words, if we just fight — ‘we’ being Irsael and the USA– we will eventually root out the “terrorists” just as we rooted out the Nazis. (Well, okay, we did NOT actually root out the Nazis. We left much of the nazi infrastructure in place, , including the Nazi legal system of Judges and lawyers, many of whom participated in the Nazi Holocaust.)
But people supporting conflict really have an inaccurate view of the style of conflict we have going here. That’s what makes it ridiculous to support the Iraq War and Israel’s actions in Lebanon. The fighting will not come to an end in the foreseeable future. If we were actually focusing on a single, clearly defined enemy who had a particular physical location, then I could understand this approach. But as things stand now, America and Israel are simply — as far as I can tell– trying to inflame and encourage conflict because they imagine they will uproot versions of Islam they come in conflict with. And they imagine that conflict will come to an end and the enemy will be defeated and things will reach a turning point. Can anyone imagine how far in the future that actually is?
You don’t change the hearts and minds of people with war.
If we were actually focusing on a single, clearly defined enemy who had a particular physical location, then I could understand this approach
Nun Mouse, this is a fairly important observation.
Notice everyone how, in the latest iteration of “why its good to have troops in Iraq”, it’s because “we need to keep a check on Iran”.
I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. If it weren’t Sunday, I might comment on how choices like de-Baathification of Iraq, rooting out Sunni ‘insurgents’ at all junctures, etc - that is, our stategy in Iraq up ’til now - was opposite our (apparent) strategy going forward. But that’s not my point.
Rather, if people here and in official channels are going to say “Troops need to stay in Iraq because we need to check Iran”, then that should at the very least be an official policy, complete with vetting of all ramifications such as what it means to now turn and openly engage Shia’s in Iraq. Etc.
I don’t understand how we can ask an all-volunteer army to risk their lives for something that more or less amounts to “Well, you’re already there, so…why don’t you just hang around for a while”.
Here’s one example of what I was referring to in my post above:
A while back, the US was hanging around Iraq until Iraq got an army. “We stand down as they stand up”. That was a couple of iterations ago.
Suppose we really are in Iraq now to check the aggression of Iran.
For the foreseeable future, Iraq will be ruled by Shia’s, closely aligned with Iran.
If our goal is now to prevent Iranian expansion, and that implies putting a check on the sitting Iraqi government, do we now want Iraq to have no army at all?
And if so, how would our troops ever leave?
These are tough questions. People need to ask them.
Jazz - you ask who will build the roads to allow Lebanon to move its troops ? Answer - at an admitted guess - the Israeli forces currently on the ground in Lebanon, who will make sure the roads and infrastructure in the non-Hezbollah areas gets rebuilt as quickly as possible … it would also not surprise me if Israel found itself with new and productive citizens in the next while, from those who decide they would rather live in a coutry that’s *not* Muslim and yet where they can still *be* Muslim or Christian or Druze or whatever …
Andrews comment– “I’m sure if we give the Arab children enough candy, they’ll stop becoming terrorists”– besides showing an amazingly high level of basic ignorance about the human condition, reflects a real deep seated racism on the part of many conservatives.
If you ever were to make a similar comment about Jewish children here, there would be immediate cries of racism and antisemitism.
But the silence of most of the conservatives on this blog and others, assuming they read the comment, is telling about the duble standard and racist attitudes few here want to acknowledge.
It’s similar to the constant comments about how all Arabs are against Israel existing. Of course, no one ever talks about those in charge of israel not wanting a Palestinian State to exist.
“Of course, no one ever talks about those in charge of israel not wanting a Palestinian State to exist. “
munkar mendacious mouse strikes again !
Unless, of course, the reliably-wrong reactionary rodent simply means that the Israeli leaders don’t want to see a Palestinian State established in what was the 1948-1967 borders of Israel ? That, I would suspect, is a truism with which even us conservatives cannot argue meaningfully …
1948-1967 - the West Bank and Gaza could have been the sovereign State of Palestine any time it wanted to, and Israel could have done nothing about it … so why did it not become a sovereign state during those 18+ years, A Nun Mouse ?
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 12th, 2006 at 5:41:17 pm
Israel’s loss
[Source: The Irish Trojan’s Blog] quoted: Hezbollah will rightly be considered the victor for withstanding the IDF’s onslaught. And the battle will resume at a time and place of Hezbollah’s choosing.”
August 12th, 2006 at 6:20:07 pm
I wish everyone would just love each
other! Get real
August 12th, 2006 at 6:24:12 pm
I believe Hezbulah is responsible for
B.P. crusty pipe in Alaska.
August 12th, 2006 at 6:35:24 pm
I think so long as isreal doesn’t bomb lebanon anymore you won’t see hezbullah attack israel. hopefully both sides will obey the terms of the truce. the fact that hezbullah has accepted the terms of the truth is some of the best news ive heard in a while. sadly the infrastucture of lebanon has pretty much been destroyed by israel, and rebuilding will take years.
August 12th, 2006 at 6:56:07 pm
Israel has fucked up. It should have used special ops and ground forces to begin with. Instead, Olmert initiated this ridiculous air campaign that killed hundreds of innocent civilians, destroyed much of Beirut and drew the ire of the international community while making the IDF look hapless in the face of a bunch of criminals, who are now seen as folk heroes by the Arab Street. Olmert will, and should, lose his job over this.
August 12th, 2006 at 7:16:04 pm
“I think so long as isreal doesn’t bomb lebanon anymore you won’t see hezbullah attack israel.”
Oh, okay. That settles that.
Brother.
August 12th, 2006 at 7:41:59 pm
Don’t play games Israel might bomb
next week. Then turn and say we don’t
know why Hezbulah is committing
terrorist acts against us. The U.S.
want to make it legal that why
we have this silly little cease
fire truce.They just set Lebanon
up for the biggest fall knowin
they don’t think before they
shoot.Its just a trap!!!
August 12th, 2006 at 8:02:24 pm
Texasyank, if you have a thought about something how about making a real response instead of a half-assed remark. I guess you would rather Isreal keep bombing this country into oblivion instead of try to make peace. Hezbullah has actually agreed to this truce, this is a gigantic positive step and great reason for optimism. Sadly, my fear is that there has already been too much damage to Lebanon for it ever to be stable again.
August 12th, 2006 at 8:23:48 pm
Texasyank truth is its not
over.Now you and I
know that these people
in that area have been
fighting since before Jesus.
I thought black folks loved
to kill each other but this
is what people in the middle
east live for.Now France
England and the U.S. are
into this circus.
August 12th, 2006 at 9:30:32 pm
Yea: You want a real response? Fine. In 2000 Israel completely withdraws from Lebanon, across a border certified by the UN. What in God’s name was Hezbollah’s reason for initiating this current conflict, for taking steps to kill Jews, except that they simply possess the ability to kill Jews? What is Hezbollah’s reason for accepting the cease-fire, except to retrench and gather its strength for another round of missiles?
Hezbollah’s sole reason for existence is killing Jews. That’s it. There is no other. The only upside is that, six months from now, when Hezbollah’s unprovoked missiles are raining down on Haifa, the Israeli government will justifiably fall. Then Hezbollah can deal with Netanyahu. Good freaking luck.
August 12th, 2006 at 9:33:03 pm
As for Corner Rat: Right. And I’m the one giving pat answers. Come up with something close to lucid, and then we’ll talk.
August 13th, 2006 at 12:31:46 am
You don’t need to answer because truth
does not need a answer. So continue
your silly rant. Yank my Texas
August 13th, 2006 at 1:30:08 am
Not sure why, but I suspect Israel isn’t in quite such dire straits …
Give things a week or so …
August 13th, 2006 at 3:31:46 am
LrHtFY675dWJ 1Y66M9NBXShvYD ceT8V6T2m6iB
August 13th, 2006 at 5:37:49 am
The Israeli ambassador to the US was on CNN this morning. He was asked the same question on this thread - “Did Hezbollah win?” Here were his reasons why Hezbollah lost:
1) Lots of fighters dead.
2) Lots of bombing capacity compromised.
3) UN force to ensure no new bombing capacity, and
4) The Lebanese don’t like Hezbollah anymore and will rid themselves of Hezbollah.
As far as reasons 1 and 2 are concerned, Vietnam taught us clearly that when a big force fights a smaller one, these are givens and not necessarily conclusive.
The UN force argument was interesting since it came one sentence after the ambassador explained the invasion as due to “many failed UN resolutions in the past”. Maybe the ambassador thinks this is the resolution that will hold?
Relying on the UN in Lebanon seems an odd strategy. What’s that saying about keeping doing the same wrong thing…?
The ambassador’s last, and best, argument is that the Lebanese will not want to harbor the virus in their land. That I agree with. But when the ambassador says ‘Lebanese’, he means the 70% of Lebanese not represented by Hezbollah. The 30% Shia who like Hezbollah might like them more.
Perhaps the rest of Lebanon attempts to rid itself of Hezbollah? My understanding is that the Lebanese infrastructure is in shambles. What highway will the Lebanese army use to transport equipment to the battle against Hezbollah? What airfield will they use to land reinforcements?
Who will pay to repair all the infrastructure damage done over the last month? That infrastructure was built out of the pocket of a former corrupt prime minister. Who will pay to rebuild it, especially knowing that Hezbollah is rearming and would be able to redestroy the same infrastructure in a Lebanese Civil War?
Seems to me its beyond far fetched to think that the rest of the Lebanese can summon the military capacity to destroy Hezbollah given the ruined state of the country.
In conclusion, to Alasdair’s point:
Maybe things will look better in Israel in a week.
I’m less optimistic about a year from now.
August 13th, 2006 at 6:02:51 am
[…] nd its Iranian and Syrian masters. Neville Chamberlin would be proud. H/T: Brendan Loy [link] The URI to TrackB […]
August 13th, 2006 at 7:57:45 am
Maybe we need to arrange a softball game between Hezbollah-land and Jesus-land. Winner takes on Israel for the cup.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:51:36 am
The silly notion lurking in the background of all these discussions is that we have a World War Two style conflict at hand: in other words, if we just fight — ‘we’ being Irsael and the USA– we will eventually root out the “terrorists” just as we rooted out the Nazis. (Well, okay, we did NOT actually root out the Nazis. We left much of the nazi infrastructure in place, , including the Nazi legal system of Judges and lawyers, many of whom participated in the Nazi Holocaust.)
But people supporting conflict really have an inaccurate view of the style of conflict we have going here. That’s what makes it ridiculous to support the Iraq War and Israel’s actions in Lebanon. The fighting will not come to an end in the foreseeable future. If we were actually focusing on a single, clearly defined enemy who had a particular physical location, then I could understand this approach. But as things stand now, America and Israel are simply — as far as I can tell– trying to inflame and encourage conflict because they imagine they will uproot versions of Islam they come in conflict with. And they imagine that conflict will come to an end and the enemy will be defeated and things will reach a turning point. Can anyone imagine how far in the future that actually is?
You don’t change the hearts and minds of people with war.
August 13th, 2006 at 10:25:54 am
I’m sure if we give the Arab children enough candy, they’ll stop becoming terrorists.
[rolls eyes]
August 13th, 2006 at 10:32:21 am
If we were actually focusing on a single, clearly defined enemy who had a particular physical location, then I could understand this approach
Nun Mouse, this is a fairly important observation.
Notice everyone how, in the latest iteration of “why its good to have troops in Iraq”, it’s because “we need to keep a check on Iran”.
I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. If it weren’t Sunday, I might comment on how choices like de-Baathification of Iraq, rooting out Sunni ‘insurgents’ at all junctures, etc - that is, our stategy in Iraq up ’til now - was opposite our (apparent) strategy going forward. But that’s not my point.
Rather, if people here and in official channels are going to say “Troops need to stay in Iraq because we need to check Iran”, then that should at the very least be an official policy, complete with vetting of all ramifications such as what it means to now turn and openly engage Shia’s in Iraq. Etc.
I don’t understand how we can ask an all-volunteer army to risk their lives for something that more or less amounts to “Well, you’re already there, so…why don’t you just hang around for a while”.
August 13th, 2006 at 10:41:05 am
Here’s one example of what I was referring to in my post above:
A while back, the US was hanging around Iraq until Iraq got an army. “We stand down as they stand up”. That was a couple of iterations ago.
Suppose we really are in Iraq now to check the aggression of Iran.
For the foreseeable future, Iraq will be ruled by Shia’s, closely aligned with Iran.
If our goal is now to prevent Iranian expansion, and that implies putting a check on the sitting Iraqi government, do we now want Iraq to have no army at all?
And if so, how would our troops ever leave?
These are tough questions. People need to ask them.
August 13th, 2006 at 11:22:36 am
Jazz - you ask who will build the roads to allow Lebanon to move its troops ? Answer - at an admitted guess - the Israeli forces currently on the ground in Lebanon, who will make sure the roads and infrastructure in the non-Hezbollah areas gets rebuilt as quickly as possible … it would also not surprise me if Israel found itself with new and productive citizens in the next while, from those who decide they would rather live in a coutry that’s *not* Muslim and yet where they can still *be* Muslim or Christian or Druze or whatever …
August 13th, 2006 at 1:05:32 pm
“I’m sure if we give the Arab children enough candy, they’ll stop becoming terrorists.”
Naw. We just need to stop using U.S. made bombs to blow up their houses and kill their friends and family.
August 13th, 2006 at 5:23:17 pm
Amen
Family is right and we are just guess
in another man house.
August 14th, 2006 at 5:12:19 am
Andrews comment– “I’m sure if we give the Arab children enough candy, they’ll stop becoming terrorists”– besides showing an amazingly high level of basic ignorance about the human condition, reflects a real deep seated racism on the part of many conservatives.
If you ever were to make a similar comment about Jewish children here, there would be immediate cries of racism and antisemitism.
But the silence of most of the conservatives on this blog and others, assuming they read the comment, is telling about the duble standard and racist attitudes few here want to acknowledge.
It’s similar to the constant comments about how all Arabs are against Israel existing. Of course, no one ever talks about those in charge of israel not wanting a Palestinian State to exist.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:35:48 am
Nun -
Yes, because diplomacy with these people haven’t been tried and should glean some real progress.
Oh, wait. I just remembered the last 50 years of the middle east. Scratch that.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:32:43 am
“Of course, no one ever talks about those in charge of israel not wanting a Palestinian State to exist. “
munkar mendacious mouse strikes again !
Unless, of course, the reliably-wrong reactionary rodent simply means that the Israeli leaders don’t want to see a Palestinian State established in what was the 1948-1967 borders of Israel ? That, I would suspect, is a truism with which even us conservatives cannot argue meaningfully …
1948-1967 - the West Bank and Gaza could have been the sovereign State of Palestine any time it wanted to, and Israel could have done nothing about it … so why did it not become a sovereign state during those 18+ years, A Nun Mouse ?