Israel: "Act of War"

[leejo]

Oh lordy. This is looking like something that might get very big, what with Syria and Iran being THAT close to getting in on the action, either pitching or catching.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071306D

[xTYBALTx]

Iran doesn't want a war with Israel before it acquires nukes!

I can't see the situation getting much bigger... but we'll have to see how it plays out.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Iran doesn't want a war with Israel before it acquires nukes!

That would be rational. See, that's your problem right there. War isn't rational.

[Steeler]

I don't know where PM Olmert is thinking of going with this. He's got a new government, so I guess they feel the need to flex a bit. But are they really prepared to occupy southern Lebanon? Or will they just be content to shell it from afar and prevent any infrastructure from building up? Are they looking for concessions from the Lebanese government? Hizbullah runs south Lebanon pretty much as an autonomous region and Lebanon doesn't have the troop strength to secure it from them (especially with Israel shelling assets, blockading the ports, and generally blowing people up).

I think this has to come back to the negotiation table eventually, as there are no good options for any player in this conflict. But if a third party, such as the US, Iran, or Syria, gets involved, all bets are off. Meanwhile, we'll have to see how the Sunnis in Iraq react. Every time stuff like this flares up it knocks a few people off the fence and into a militia camp.

Anyway, I know we have some TGers either in the region or with close ties to it. Hope you're all ok.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I can't see the situation getting much bigger... but we'll have to see how it plays out.

Assassinating a single man started WWI. I can see this becoming HUGE. I can also see it being just more of the same.

We'll see...

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by Steeler

Meanwhile, we'll have to see how the Sunnis in Iraq react. Every time stuff like this flares up it knocks a few people off the fence and into a militia camp.

Hezbollah is a Shia organization

[leejo]

I think this points to one of the interesting side effects of spreading democracy thoughout the region. If a terrorist organization kidnaps a soldier, that's a criminal act. If a duly-elected governing terrorist organization kidnaps a soldier, that's an act of war.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Sinioura's claim that his government was "not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened" at what he conceded was "the international border" of another sovereign nation rings hollow considering his was the first ever government in Beirut to bring Hezbollah into its cabinet. The Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who claimed responsibility for the attack on Israel was Mr. Sinioura's chief interlocutor in the negotiations to set up his cabinet last summer.

In fact, since then, as we have previously noted, the Lebanese government has allowed Hezbollah to control Lebanon's border with Israel, and to act as a government in the largely Shiite southern part of the country. In so doing, Beirut ignored a United Nations resolution calling upon it to assume control of its frontiers and to disarm the terrorist group. Note that pleas of helplessness are unacceptable; the Lebanese government has never invoked its inability to control its territory or asked for foreign assistance in fulfilling its obligations. No, Hezbollah controls its territory as part and parcel of Lebanese sovereignty.

If a Mexican gang crossed into TX and snatched up some border patrol officers, that would be huge. But if (de facto) Mexican soldiers did it, we'd be in Mexico in force immediately.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by Steeler

Hizbullah runs south Lebanon pretty much as an autonomous region and Lebanon doesn't have the troop strength to secure it from them

I think this is an amazing situation and your take on it is nearly equally amazing.
I guess one could argue that generally Lebanon has more to fear from Syria than Israel, but I really doubt that anyone imagines this US President tolerating a Syrian invasion while we have all them purdy fighter jets and helos and airborne troops camped out on the Syrian border.

So what's Lebanon's single biggest security threat? Israel. What larger task does the Lebanese army have other than ensuring that the border with Israel remains secure?

Hezbollah controls that border because that is what the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a member party, wants. They shell Israeli towns across that border and now they encroach it, kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Either the Lebanese government is criminally responsible or criminally negligent but they ain't getting off the hook.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by leejo

I think this points to one of the interesting side effects of spreading democracy thoughout the region. If a terrorist organization kidnaps a soldier, that's a criminal act. If a duly-elected governing terrorist organization kidnaps a soldier, that's an act of war.

I kinda like that side effect. When a terrorist organization commits a terrible act, there is no one to hold responsible, no one to go after. Now that they are associated with the government, they actually have to live with the consequences of their actions. International Responsibility can only be a good thing in the long run, although the manifestation of that Responsibility in the short run may ignite conflict.

[leejo]

Word.

[Steeler]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Hezbollah is a Shia organization

True, but the Sunnis are traditionally supporters of the Palestinians, and are already widely opposed (among both militants and civilians) to the American presence in Iraq. So in this case acts of aggression by Israel could stoke further resentment among Sunni hardliners. The Shia, in general, are gripping the government's reigns in Baghdad and so we have less to worry about them overreacting. The main concern from the Shia is the increased tribal reprisals and government infiltration of partisan militias - more internal concerns.

Leejo, I don't pretend to know the inner working of the Lebanese government, but we do know that there is a complex struggle between Hizbullah, various nationalist groups, anti- and pro-Syrian forces, and many others. It is not the tidy federal government we are used to dealing with as a cogent single entity. As such, the actions of foreign states can drastically alter the balance of power between the very unstable factions.

Maybe Israel is hoping to quash the militant faction and get the larger Lebanese government to exert control over the south. If so, that's a risky gambit that could have an opposite effect. Increased escalation of violence could lend Hizbullah more political authority and weaken elements of the government that might be more conciliatory.

And on a personal note, please stop taking my neutral statements as an endorsement of a particular side. I'm not letting Lebanon "off the hook." I'm trying to look at this an an impartial observer. If I take a side (in as much as that's possible being thousands of miles away) I will make that clear.

[TheFatKidDeath]

A "terrorist organization" can certainly be in the eye of the beholder. Many Lebanese consider the Israeli government to be a "terrorist organization". During the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon it is estimated that around 20,000 Lebanese were killed. Well, some of those killed were "terrorists" but alot were innocent civilians.

Also, until recently, the Israeli government was headed by Ariel Sharon, who was found to be personsally responsible for the massacre of around 2,000 Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp during the first invasion of Lebanon. Sharon, a commanding officer during that invasion, simply looked the other way as the refugee's were killed by Christian militamen. Can we rightly call Sharon a "terrorist"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1817749.stm

Many Palestinians view the Israel government as "terrorists". Thousands of Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army. It's estimated that around eight to nine thousand Palestinians are in Israel jails, many held without trial or evidence. Many more are women and children. Would the Palestinians have the right to invade Israel and free the thousands of prisoners from Isreal jails?

[AMosely]

I would suggest not reading too much into this - not yet, anyway. Israel has been at war, either directly or indirectly, with these same countries/factions/enemies since its inception in 1948. Israel has fought Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and the various military factions born out of those conflicts. Israel has the military strength, the intelligence and the weaponry to do whatever it wishes (offensive or defensive) to its neighbors whenever it wants, this has been proven time and time again. The only variable in the equation is that of diplomacy - what party is in control of the Israeli parliament, who holds the seat of prime minister, and what Israel's current relationship to the US, UN and its neighbors (if at all) is at the time.

This particular conflict involves Hezbollah, which operates primarily out of Lebanon and is funded in large part by the Syrian government. The threat has been there for decades - specifically since Israel tore Lebanon apart 1982 to drive the PLO out of it. Syria does not wish to go to war with Israel - they'd like the Golan Heights back, but they will not fight for it. Syria most likely does want to keep Lebanon in a submissive state, but have been losing their grip in recent years (as has been evident in events such as the assasination of Prime Minister Hariri in Beirut in February 2005).

This will not start a grand war, nor will it ultimately settle the Lebanese border. Israel is going to war with Hezbollah in Lebanon much in the same way that it went to war with the PLO in Lebanon in 1982. The result - Lebanon in tatters (again), Syria restructuring its influence, and more blood on Israeli hands. Utterly useless, miserable conflict, in which civilians will pay the highest price.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

A "terrorist organization" can certainly be in the eye of the beholder. Many Lebanese consider the Israeli government to be a "terrorist organization". During the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon it is estimated that around 20,000 Lebanese were killed. Well, some of those killed were "terrorists" but alot were innocent civilians.

Also, until recently, the Israeli government was headed by Ariel Sharon, who was found to be personsally responsible for the massacre of around 2,000 Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp during the first invasion of Lebanon. Sharon, a commanding officer during that invasion, simply looked the other way as the refugee's were killed by Christian militamen. Can we rightly call Sharon a "terrorist"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1817749.stm

Many Palestinians view the Israel government as "terrorists". Thousands of Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army. It's estimated that around eight to nine thousand Palestinians are in Israel jails, many held without trial or evidence. Many more are women and children. Would the Palestinians have the right to invade Israel and free the thousands of prisoners from Israel jails?

You are going off in completely the wrong direction, FatKid. A "terrorist" organization is not defined by its militant actions, but by its refusal to take RESPONSIBILITY for those actions. Israel, as a Nation, takes full responsibility for all of its military actions against its neighbors. Hezbollah and other similar organizations have made a point to avoid responsibility for their actions. Well, now that Hezbollah is in de facto control of southern Lebanon, that trick's not going to work today. Israel is rightly holding them responsible for their attacks on Israel's sovereign soil.

So...why doesn't the Palestinian Army march on Israel to liberate people from jails? It has nothing to do with who does or doesn't have the "right" to do it, and everything to do with the simple decision that they don't want to live with the military consequences of such an action. Consequences are everything.

[leejo]

I dunno about pointless. I like the Ali G thing about war: "War. What is it good for? Well, for a start, it sorts out who is the strongest out of the two countries."

Civilians elected this government in Lebanon and in Palestine. These groups aren't terrorizing their own people like the villagers in Seven Samurai. They're enforcing the will of the people. And the people are about to be held to account, maybe.