posted
By nature of the sociopolitical realities of the area, attrition and elimination strategies can't work. Hezbollah's size and structure (and backing) is perfectly suited towards the productive application of asymmetrical warfare against a nation-state. They are fluid and guerilla, they hide behind and within civilian population; they turn every reaction by Israel on its ear and feed it into a delightfully hypocritical middle-eastern propaganda mill.
In any scenario, Hezbollah still exists and Lebanon still loses. The only real question for Israel is how they get the attacks to stop.
The people of Israel, in interviews, are demonstrating awareness of the futility of attempting to eliminate Hezbollah. Instead, they're discussing the validity of the gambit against the region: the attacks against Lebanon can be construed as a measure of collective retaliation; a show of force, a heavily-drawn line in the sand.
The idea that I get from their attitudes on the matter is that you have to weaken Hezbollah's opportunity to operate from the region as much as possible. If the retaliation is consistent and measurably destructive, then the collective support of the lebanese people may stop short from letting Hezbollah take potshots into Israel .. since they won't want to get the country torn into shreds again.
Whether it works or not in the short term may have little bearing on the long-term effect. If Hezbollah gets most of its support from places like Syria and Iran, then they can just send the fighters into Lebanon, not caring that they have to sacrifice the region and the people to increase sentiment against Israel (even if the Lebanese may not exactly be consenting to this utilitarian sacrifice). And, of course, civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction translate into woe and misery that bleating spiritual and political leaders can hone into fury against Israel, by calling them murderers and brutes and whatnot. Thus culturing the support and the fighters for the next generation of conflict.
The deck is stacked against Israel (especially in the public relations department) but -- to me -- it looks like Israel essentially has to tolerate their existence. They've no choice, and they just have to react to it to try to eliminate their potential to act against the Israeli people.
It would be nice if it were possible to reduce this conflict into an attrition where it's Israel versus Hezbollah, and they fight until one ceases to be, but that's reliant on the structure of a stand-up fight where both sides fight openly and wear uniforms and all of that yesterday's-wars stuff. As it is, we're talking smoke and mirrors and hearts and minds and terrible mindless endless conflict.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm aware of the UNWRA leader's statement on Canadian TV about being sure there were Hamas members on staff and not seeing anything criminal in that. I gather you don't buy their statements UNRWA Setting the Record Straight regarding what they claim are a series of false accusations regarding their organization, misuse of vehicles, etc.
what I haven't seen is anywhere where a person has been named or where a known terrorist has shown up on the UN payroll. Just this weird statement by the (now retired) head of UNRWA.
My question to you is about bombs raining down on Israel from places controlled by international peacekeepers. They've been in some sectors since 1974, right? Are those places quieter than before or not?
It seems to me that occupation by peacekeepers is NEVER welcome by the warring factions, but that it usually has several salutary effects:
- general reduction in major violence to practically zero. - return, or sometimes initial establishment of the rule of law - reopening or establishment of schools - innocent civilians ensured of at least food and shelter, and usually personal safety too
There have been problems and abuses, and it'd be tempting to say "well nothings perfect..." But really, what I'm saying is that peacekeepers, to be considered "good" in the current situation merely have to be better than rockets landing in Israel and missles/bombs/occupation going on in South Lebanon.
From the one perspective I value more than any other that can be named here -- that of preservation of innocent lives -- there is no question in my mind that peacekeepers are a better solution for the immediate future than a continuation of the conflict.
Long term, there are questions that need to be asked.
If, for example, Israel could succeed in wiping out Hezbollah forever from Lebanon, damaging it so badly that it never could rise again, and leaving a vaccuum that could not be filled by any terrorist organization, then there might be a vastly larger long-term benefit of simply staying out of Israel's way.
I don't believe that scenario for a minute. What I believe is more likely is that the terrorists will go to ground when things get too hot, Israel will eventually be pressured into leaving Lebanese soil, and Hezbollah will quickly reassert itself. A respite will have been won, but not much else. In the meantime, because innocents HAVE died in Lebanon, public sentiment is shifted away from peace and toward Hezbollah and any other group that can gain a foothold. So, not only will Israel continue having to fight Hezbollah for the foreseeable future, but it will fight the new enemies it has earned itself by killing people who had nothing to do with this conflict other than being in the general vicinity. Their relatives and their offspring guarantee that Israel will enemies to fight in Lebanon for at least the next generation.
We can go around and around on this, but unless Israel is prepared to pound Lebanon into powder, and then take on the next group that comes along, and the next after that, until finally the region is a wasteland, you simply cannot win the peace this way.
And...long before Israel "wins" that peace, the rest of the Arab world would either sweep down and destroy you, or the country's current supporters would make you stop, or we'll all be dragged into a major global conflict.
There is a better way.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sorry not to get back to your point sooner. I do indeed see a difference between blame and responsibility. I thought you were saying that blame results in responsibility which would be exactly backwards from what my understanding is. Looking back, I can't find where I got that from. At any rate, your more recent statement made sense to me.
And I also think the distinction between blame and responsibility is very important.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Then it's going to go on for a very long time. Because we cannot tolerate Hizbollah's continued existence any more.
Now why does that seem so familiar? Oh, yeah, because the previous invasion was a major cause of Hezbollah forming. So after Hezbollah ceases to exist (hypothetically), you can invade again to battle Hezbollah-prime. Rinse and repeat.
We've learned from last time. If necessary, as I said, we'll go to Iran.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, it looks like Israel is quite willing to work with the UN and Lebanese government. They've agreed to a plan where 15000 UN peacekeepers will oversee a transfer of control in the area from Hezbollah (which has controlled it for quite some time) to the Lebanese military (which Israel has essentially no quarrel with).
Olmert considers the deal to have met all of Israel's demands, though its not under the particular sort of UN mandate they wanted (which would have allowed for UN troops shooting more at Hezbollah, basically).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, I meant Iran. Sheesh. change one letter and it's a whole new country.
Anyway, I will say I'm cautiously optimistic. What exactly ARE the rules of "engagement," should it come to that, between the peacekeepers and Hezbollah?
My big concern is that they'll end up caught in the cross-fire if Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel, will Israel hold their fire because a bunch of blue helmets are in the area? If this force proves unable to stop the rockets from flying, Israel isn't going to have a lot of options that include time for diplomacy to work out a real ceasefire.
Anyway...I look forward to reading what the orders and agreements look like.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does Israel GET to Iran anyway? Burn a trail across Syria or Jordan and then hope that they can get across Iraq without any problems, with an INSANELY long supply line, and no forward airbases?
It's impractical to the point of being laughable as a possibility. Israel doesn't invade Iran without help from a bigger player, and the biggest player in the region is the US, and I don't see us giving them a life.
Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, and even if they did, whose to say they'd win? Even getting there would be an amazing feat, and Iran isn't a pushover. They have more manpower available to fight than Israel has citizens total, they have modern weapons, with thousands of combat hardened vets from the Iran-Iraq war 20 years ago.
Airstrikes sure, though I don't know the range of an F-16, but I don't think it can reach Tehran, but invasion is out of the question.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic differences is that actions under chapter 6 proceed with mutual consent (by Lebanon and Israel in this case), while actions under chapter 7 proceed at the UN's prerogative (basically).
Lebanon is likely to allow the UN significant military leeway to respond to further attacks by Hizbollah, so the difference may be minor.
One crucial provision is that nothing happens until Hizbollah obeys the cease fire -- Israel can continue prosecuting their attack until then.
There are some extremely strong provisions against Hizbollah in there, too.
quote:security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani River of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,
'Security arrangements' is code words for 'we get to shoot people who don't comply'.
quote:— full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,
— no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government,
— no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government,
Meaning, even outside that area we get to aggressively pursue Hezbollah where they bear arms, and Syria and Iran are required to stay the heck away.
Oooh, they even spell out the "and we get to shoot people who don't comply" part later:
quote:12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
A broad mandate for combat like that is unusual in UN resolutions. It can only appear because Hizbollah is persona non grata and both Israel and Lebanon agree in principle on the basics (and now the specifics) of the solution: Lebanon in solid control of the region Hizbollah formerly controlled.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Israel could not win an invasion of Iran (though its not clear Iran would really 'win' either; they would both lose), unless Israel were to use nuclear weapons (and they wouldn't really be winning an invasion, then, as they wouldn't want or have need of the place).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I apologize for using your handle instead of your name.
My point is just that you can't blame the media for being one way or the other. Maybe, just maybe, they're actually impartially covering events, and not saying who is right or wrong, because that is not their job.
*gasp* Perish the thought.
As far as Israel invading Iran, it's cute that you think Israel makes its own decisions about these things, it really is.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, is the picture of the woman in front of this bombed out house on CNN's front page. the same woman in front of the other bombed houses in Lisa's link?
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, is the picture of the woman in front of this bombed out house on CNN's front page. the same woman in front of the other bombed houses in Lisa's link?
She looks awfully familiar.
It looks like she has the same spot under her right eye and scar on her left cheek. I'd say that's her.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They changed it. It was the same article on the left, but now there's a different picture - this time with a woman inside a house instead of outside with a shawl.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same thought crossed my mind. She was similar, though I really can't claim it to be the same women. It was rather grainy
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: My point is just that you can't blame the media for being one way or the other. Maybe, just maybe, they're actually impartially covering events, and not saying who is right or wrong, because that is not their job.
*gasp* Perish the thought.
What is your take on the article that Lisa posted, Kasie? It seems like the photography fraud is far from impartial, and not accurately covering events. What job are they doing-just trying to sell papers at the expense of the facts?
posted
You know you can actually delete the post, and not just the text in the post. When you go to edit, there's a checkbox that'll let you do it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is really facinating: Satellite image of Lebanon. The river in the middle divides Israel and Lebanon I think. If you zoom in, it looks even more interesting. If you hold the arrow keys it will scroll, like a video game... Maybe you can see Hezbollah rocket launchers? I wonder if new images will eventually go up showing all the damage.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand his motivation. Does he say somewhere that he wants to be a journalist when he grows up, or is he just thrill-seeking, or what?
Traveling to the front line of a war in order to post information in a blog and podcasts seems more than a little odd to me.
Also, I assume you mean independent as in not-affiliated with any recognized news organization, as opposed to "unbiased."
His supposed insights into "the Arab mentality" made me cringe, frankly. I liked the report overall, but if he was talking about Hezbollah, why get sloppy and generalize to all Arabs? Now...it may be that he was quoting the military spokesperson (or rather, paraphrasing since things were not in quotes), but that just brings up another problem. If the reader can't tell which part of the opinion is coming from the reporter and which part from the source, things can get very confusing. That bit about "the Arab bar for victory is pathetically low" is a case in point. I couldn't really tell if that was a sentiment expressed by the official military spokesperson or if Mr. Totten was trying to educate me on the realities of fighting against Hezbollah, or if he meant that to apply to all Arab armies, or to all Arabs everywhere.
It's a small detail in an otherwise good (but not great) report, but it was particularly glaring because he embedded the comment between two paragraphs of actual quotations from that spokesperson.
posted
He's actually been living in Beirut for 6 of the last 8 or 9 months. He considers it his 2nd home. And he's trying to make this his living now, apprently -- freelance reporter. He has his own personal biases, of course, but he's not beholden to any news agency and has no agenda except his own, which is to go and to see as best he can tell what's truly going on.
He's got some reports from Iraqi Kurdistan as well, if you look in his archives. He was in Israel earlier this year too, as he was moving from Lebanon back to the states and his reports on the state of tension at the border was quite prescient. He also visited the border from the northern side with a Hezbollah "handler" several months back too.
I don't know that he has all the access a "full-blown" reporter for the AP or Reuters might have, but I find that I enjoy his "man on the street" style and how he seems to get the story from the "regular guy" as well as the spokesmen's "official story."
Do yourself a fvor and browse his archives. His trip to Libya a couple of years ago was a great story too -- and excellent photos too. The Roman ruins were amazing, as well as the "covered city."
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While there are some great freelance reporters out there, very often working for a news organization ensures accuracy and credibility, not the other way around.
If an independent photographer had taken those pictures, who would have announced that they were fake and then publicly fired him? Who would have made sure the public was aware of the falsehoods?
Who would have held him accountable?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Bao said, bloggers. You would be suprised just how many people blog about the news and spend all their time trying to keep news sources honest. The information in Lisa's post is basically a huge blog post based on the work of other bloggers.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would be surprised how few people actually read blogs.
Granted, it's probably about the same number of people who read a self-published freelancer, so I bet it all comes out in the wash.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: You would be surprised how few people actually read blogs.
Granted, it's probably about the same number of people who read a self-published freelancer, so I bet it all comes out in the wash.
I'm a corporate blogger, so I did quite a bit of research about blogging communities, ALOT of people subscribe and read blogs. You are right many people such as myself, do not seek out blogs to read, but blogging and blog subscribing is fast growing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Few people read any given blog. A good deal more people read some blog or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another occasionally.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Few people read any given blog. A good deal more people read some blog or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another regularly. Even more people read some blog story or another occasionally.
You are correct, though the # of people in each category is increasing IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: You would be surprised how few people actually read blogs.
Granted, it's probably about the same number of people who read a self-published freelancer, so I bet it all comes out in the wash.
See, but bloggers do. The big bloggers, who get attention from the MSM read the smaller bloggers, who read the smaller bloggers.
Big bloggers have little bloggers Upon their backs to ride 'em And little bloggers have littler bloggers And so ad infinitum.
(With apologies to Ogden Nash)
(Edit: more apologies still. According to Wikipedia, the original is really by Augustus de Morgan:
quote:"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so on ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on, While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on
posted
Right. I should know better than to say bad things about bloggers to people who read blogs and distrust the MSM. Even though millions of people still watch the 6:30 pm evening news.
As far as corporate blogging goes, BlackBlade, I'm legitimately curious - who is your target audience? I know we had an internal blog when I worked at USA Today (really just another euphemism for 'interactive company newsletter', but whatev), but it didn't have its own specific writer. Is your blog targeted at the company's customers or its employees?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
