« What do Columbia U’s Lee Bollinger and the ADL have in common? | “Jewish Neocons Are Dead Wrong, Not Disloyal” –My piece in the Huffington Post »
Whom should we trust on Syria? The Bushies…or the experts?
By Dan Fleshler | October 2, 2007
Ameinu’s web site has some informative pieces on Syria that stand in stark contrast to the don’t-trust-Assad-under-any-circumstances pablum that is available from most American Jewish groups.
What follows is a tidbit from Gershon Baskin, a very wise Israeli Jew who for decades has carried out “Track 2″ dialogue on the toughest issues with Arab counterparts, including Syrian politicians, diplomats and academics. He wrote this in mid-September, before Sec. of State Rice extended an invitation to Syria to attend the peace conference in November, a decision that reportedly made Dick Cheney furious. At the end of this excerpt is a quote from a Bush Administration official, almost certainly someone from the Cheney wing. I wonder whose information and insights deserve to be taken more seriously, Baskin and Track 2 diplomats who’ve been dealing with Syria for years, or the very same people whose information and insights got us into Iraq?? Hmmm…. I really can’t decide, can you?:
From all indications that I have from talks with Syrian officials and from people who have met with the highest officials in Syria in the most recent past, Syria is quite anxious to be invited to the Washington meeting. Senior Syrian officials and people close to the regime have told me and others that Syria is also ready to meet US demands as part and parcel of the peace deal with Israel and a promise of open and positive relations with the United States…
…Even Israeli intelligence reports assert that Syria is prepared to pick up formal direct negotiations with Israel. Everyone involved knows the contours of the potential agreement - the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for full and genuine peace with Israel.
Some Israelis and Americans who have been involved in Track II meetings that have been held with the agreement of senior officials in Damascus have noted more flexibility on Syria’s positions concerning meeting Israel’s security needs and on other strategic issues such as water.
According to people who speak regularly with Syrian officials, Syria is not only willing, but is in fact keen to be drawn away from their alliance with Iran. From the information that we have, Syria would be sincerely willing to take real steps to limit the power of Hizbullah and Hamas. But all of that can only be possible as part of a deal with Israel and with the inclusion and involvement of the United States.
Syria would be ready to replace its Iranian alliance with a new alliance with the United States, as long as it also includes a renewal of the Israeli-Syrian track and progress toward an agreement on the return of the Golan.
It is clear that if the US and Israel do not engage Syria, Damascus has the power to sabotage any Israeli-Palestinian progress, and is very likely to if its isolation is continued. From its point of view, there is almost no reason why it shouldn’t. The continued isolation of Syria by the US and Israel puts the entire potential success of the renewed Israeli-Palestinian track in question….
…I believe the Syrians would be responsive to quiet US diplomacy in the way of creating the mechanism for them to participate in November. I am sure that if the Syrians had an indication from the administration that a positive change in US-Syrian relations was on the way, they could also be quite helpful on the issue of the Israeli hostages in Lebanon and Gaza. There is so much more to be gained from Syrian engagement than from their isolation. Regrettably, in a recent communication with a very senior policy-maker in the White House, I received the following response to the above ideas:
“I appreciate having your views, but you are right: I am not persuaded. This (Syria) is a vicious brutal regime allied to Iran strategically, not tactically, engaged in helping kill Americans in Iraq, helping the worst Palestinian terrorist forces, desperate to reassert its rule over Lebanon, and sponsoring not simply anti-Zionist but the most barbaric anti-Semitic views.”
Similarly, contrast the quote from that Cheney acolyte with information imparted by David Lesch, a Syria scholar who spoke at a recent Century Foundation lunch in NYC (an event I missed because I have to work for a living. Anyone have any ideas on how to solve that problem???). Lesch is well-connected to the Syrian intelligencia. His talk was summarized by Gidon Remba, Ameinu’s Executive Director:
Syrian President Bashar Assad has been telling visiting scholars and diplomats that Syria’s alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas is essentially tactical, and largely expendable in exchange for the right incentives from the U.S. and Israel. Syria is a weak country, economically distressed and running out of oil; it is always seeking leverage, bargaining chips, and in need of Western and Sunni Arab aid. It will trade away its strategic assets with the Islamists in exchange for dividends of greater value from the West. But it won’t surrender its booty in advance of a negotiation, as the Bush Administration has demanded, before confirming that American and Israeli benefits will truly be forthcoming.
Bashar told Lesch in May 2007: “Whoever works more for our [Syria’s] interests, I will be their friend. It is about interests, not ideology, and if the United States works for my interests, I will be their friend.” When one has few friends, Bashar intimated, one cannot be choosy, implying that “Damascus has had no choice but to draw closer to Iran.” But if “given a legitimate option in another direction, it might loosen its ties to Teheran.”
Bashar has also told Lesch that he would be a “hero” if he could bring about the return of the Golan to Syria through negotiations. If the U.S. continues down the path of isolation and confrontation with Syria, a largely Sunni state, we will push it even more into the arms of Shia Iran and Hezbollah. The U.S. and Israel must now work towards an American-backed Israeli-Syrian peace treaty and arms control pact enabling Syria to join the U.S.-allied coalition of Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shia extremists—before the next, far more devastating war.
For decades, I thought this country was run by the kinds of people who used to try to beat me up in junior high. Now, I have come to realize that this country is being run by the kinds of people I used to pity in junior high, because they were a bit slow, they could not quite keep up…
Topics: American foreign policy, Middle East peace process, Israel, Bush Administration, Dick Cheney |
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I havent commented here for a long time. I see you are still making the case for being nice and sweet to Israel’s enemies. So explain somehing to me, Mr. Realist:
Assad was isolated in the late 1990s also. Maybe things weren’t as bad for him then as they are now, but Syria was not exactly given a boost by the Clinton Administration. I read that Assad had an offer on the table in which Barak would have given him almost the entire Golan Heights. But he wouldn’t take it because he insisted Syria had to have a little finger of land at the edge of the Kinneret (what you call Lake Tiberias in the States). If he had so many motives to switch his alliances and get help from the U.S. instead of Iran, why didn’t he jump at the chance then?
And why is he building up a chemical arms capacity? Israel is not going to attack him unless it is provoked.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
What creates confidence?
Words? Probably not.
We’re all in the dark about what happened with the IAF raid in Syria a couple weeks ago. Even Yossi Beilin asserted that he trusted the IDF to its purposes, and did NOT want to inquire publicly as to the mission of the raid.
I don’t know if that makes Yossi Beilin naive in his ignorance, or wise in his knowledge.
I’m not convinced that Syria MEANS to make peace. Recent events in Lebanon (escalations in rhetoric and resumptions of political assassinations with Syria’s fingerprints nearby) convince that Syria is NOT on an active peace track.
More like, “make me an offer” status, waiting for the best deal.
The Golan is difficult for Israel to give up. I visited the Golan in 68, with a reactionary taxi driver guide. He just about through my parents and I out of the car for questioning is vehemence.
But, he did describe a pattern of Syria mortaring civilians in the Galilee periodically from 48 - 67. Sure, that is 40 years ago.
Who knows if it would repeat.
Israel though is waiting for confidence that it would not repeat, not a gamble.
Assad is isolated because there are no more Baathists. No Nassers, no Saddams, no more.
Shia in Lebanon and Iran have to be allies that they are reluctant to endear. Same with Hamas and other groups centered in Damascus.
I would think that it would be far far more useful for Syria to be at peace with Israel and vice-versa. Damascus is only 130 miles from Jerusalem.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Richard,
It is certainly worth talking seriously to Assad, rather than FORCING him to be part of the “Axis of Evil.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Dan,
Since I first read about the secret contacts with Syria in Ha’Aretz, if not before, I have believed that Israel has a much better chance of a peace agreement with Damascus than with Ramallah. I don’t think that the chances are necessarily good. But I think that both Assad and Olmert are strong enough to make concessions on the Syrian front. If Olmert is willing to learn the lessons from the last round when Barak blew his chance at Geneva in 2000, there might be a chance for a peace. But it is probably more likely that Syria just wants to end its isolation and figures that negotiations with Israel, but no deal, is the route to better ties with Washington.
Neither Olmert nor Abu Mazen can afford to make the necessary compromises for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The situation may be ripe for peace with Syria; it certainly is not ripe for peace with the Palestinians.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 am
Talk to him yes. Be gullible no.
Its neighbors. You have to make the best of what you got. They are not going away.
Syria knows that. Israel knows that.
Syria wants the Golan. Are they willing to PERMANENTLY renounce aggression on Israel? Its high ground, strategic ground.
Its not holy land they are talking about, but safety.
When Syria is ready to make that commitment in fact, and show it, then there is a prospect of peace and return of that territory.
The construction of “Syria must be in relationship with somebody” is accurate. They need to trade. They need to function.
And, a peace that is an advantage primarily is not really a peace.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:55 am
Holy land has always struck me as odd.
For a religion, its very odd, as it makes the land the thing (idolatry) that is worshipped.
Not God, not the relationships that constitute a holy community.
Land, and particularly exclusive rights to land, strikes me as at best a means to an end, a means to the end of a vibrant whole Jewish community.
Politics too. They seem to me to be a means to health, not the substance of it, though I am attracted to the slogan “the means are the ends”, meaning when we get to a respectful means of communicating, collaborating and resolving conflicts, we’ve made holy land.
So, I don’t get those that are willing to die and harm for possession of the land, rather than those that are willing to work for the vibrancy of the people.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Syria has really been an over inflated threat since the Camp David Accords made peace between Israel and Egypt. Since that time, Syria has not posed a viable threat to the existence of Israel and, of course, still does not.
In 1991 Syria joined with the anti-Iraq coalition, led by the US, and has, since that time been actively trying to improve relations with the West in general; an effort that has largely succeeded with everyone except the US. [See, for example: http://www.delsyr.ec.europa.eu/ & all the EU/Syrian projects: http://www.delsyr.ec.europa.eu/en/eu_and_syria/euro_projects.htm ]
Syria made more progress with building relations with the US after 9/11 as they both shared the same enemy - Sunni fundamentalists, of whom Syria has butchered vastly more than the US has - in fact, I saved the immediate Syrian response to 9/11 on my “International Islamic Response” website http://iir.internetactivist.org/ [For the Syrian response and US reaction, see: http://iir.internetactivist.org/044.html ] and, of course, they’ve also opened the door to Iraqi refugees, which will be enough to keep them busy for quite sometime. However, it has primarily been the influence of the Israel lobby in the US that has prevented a warming of relations as is meticulously documented by Mearsheimer & Walt (“The Israel Lobby” pp. 263-279). US animosity toward Syria makes no sense whatsoever outside of this context.
As for Israeli-Syrian relations, in the end - as was just reaffirmed by the Syrians, http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20071001-090911-4034r - it all boils down to the Golan Heights as far as Syria is concerned. What you have to keep in mind is that for Syria, the issue is more than one of land, but also the close to 200,000 Syrian internal displaced (de facto refugees, but officially “displaced persons”) that is still a pressing problem for the country: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/062000/0006010.html
Syria can - and does - support anti-Israeli terrorist groups (e.g. Hamas) as well as legitimate resistance movements (e.g. Hizb-ut-Allah) and it has significant irritation value, but does not represent a viable threat to Israel’s existence or to its control of the Golan. As your Gershon Baskin excerpt argues, all Syrian hostility to Israel today (and this was certainly NOT always the case, but times and attitudes change) is based on the continued Israeli occupation of the Golan. In the end, it isn’t all that difficult: no compromise on the Golan, no peace with Syria. And compromise is possible, for example turning the Golan into a jointly administered demilitarized zone (Israel administrating Israeli residents; Syria administering Syrian returnees) has often been suggested.
However, although Syria poses no serious threat to Israel’s existence, it does have a “doomsday” option that provides adequate deterrence against any full Israeli attack. Namely, it has massive stockpiles of chemical weapons - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm - as well as basic ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons - http://www.fas.org/irp/nic/bmthreat-2015.htm . While the bulk of the Syrian missile arsenal is crude Scud missiles with limited directional control, Syria is close enough to Israel that a great deal of precision isn’t necessary, as if they lob them at Israel they’ll hit something. Of course a few Scuds full of sarin in Tel Aviv or other major population centers brings the whole Zionist experiment to an end within a decade (demographics) so it isn’t something Israel wants to risk. Nevertheless, no one – not the Syrians or anyone else – questions that should Syria attack Israel in such a way Israel would utterly and completely destroy Syria, so it is a deterrence situation, not an active threat. Syria will only use this option if it firmly believes it has absolutely nothing to lose, i.e. a full blown Israeli attack. This also means that Israel knows it is relatively safe in the occasional air strike or the like.
Anyway, I think it is fairly obvious to any objective observer that the Israeli/Pro-Israeli demonization campaign against Syria is just because Israel has no intention whatsoever of putting the Golan Heights on the negotiating table, and that is the only thing that Syria seriously wants. So, I believe Israel has decided that the Golan Heights are a fair exchange for eternal enmity with Syria as Syria is no real threat. This is part of the reason why I believe the Saudi Initiative will never get off the ground as the Israelis won’t negotiate the point and this is the only point the Syrians wants to negotiate and this is an integral element of the Saudi plan. If Syria were to be removed from the Saudi proposal it would be much more likely to advance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Dan - I just posted a rather lengthy comment on this thread, but it did include a number of URLs (to substantiate my contentions) so it may have went into your spam blocker. Please check & release. - Thanks, John S.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Did as you suggested, John. Thanks for the comment.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
John,
In 2000 Barak offered Assad the return of all but a small sliver of the Golan, around the Kinneret, and offered a swop for it. Part of the problem with the Syrian demands is that the Syrian demands violate the logic of the Arab demands. The Arabs demand the return of all territory they lost in June 1967 due to “the inadmissability of acquisition by force.” Yet some of the territory that Israel acquired from Syria had earlier been conquered by Syria after 1949 when the armistice agreement was signed. That is why the Israeli offer of a return to the 1949 armistice line or the 1923 international border between mandatory Syria and mandatory Palestine seems to me to be fairer.
In reality I think that Hafiz al-Assad determined that he could not accept less than Sadat received from Israel. Bashir can’t accept less than what his father was willing to accept, so in reality if Israel wants a peace agreement it will probably have to return to the 1967 border–as much as the border can be determined 40 years later.
No one can really know whether or not the Ba’athist regime in Damascus has given up on its old dream of a Greater Syria encompassing Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel. They haven’t seemed to have given up on their dream of controlling Lebanon.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Dan: Thanks for finding & releasing my earlier post.
Tom: “In 2000 Barak offered Assad the return of all but a small sliver of the Golan, around the Kinneret, and offered a swop for it. Part of the problem with the Syrian demands is that the Syrian demands violate the logic of the Arab demands.”
The implication of your comments is that Barak offered and Syria refused, which is completely mistaken; Barak offered and then Barak backed out, the Syrians were willing to accept his offer and all observers - including the U.S. - firmly recognized that it was Barak, not Syria, that prevented the deal from going through. By the time the issue was being taken seriously, Barak was desperate to show how “tough” he could be in response to Sharon’s challenge to the prime ministership and further polling had shown that there was very little support among the Israeli public for returning the Golan. It was Barak, not the Syrians, who prevented a deal from happening to the chagrin of both the Syrians and the Clinton administration. Barak offered and Barak reneged, don’t blame the Syrians.
“No one can really know whether or not the Ba’athist regime in Damascus has given up on its old dream of a Greater Syria encompassing Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel. They haven’t seemed to have given up on their dream of controlling Lebanon.”
This is, of course, total rubbish based on something that hasn’t been true since at the latest the 1960’s (prior to the Six Day War). Syria has a myriad of interests in Lebanon - just as Israel does - and therefore its operations there (like Israel’s) are not surprising, but they do not equate a “dream of controlling” the country. Do they want their allies to be in strong position? Yes, but then again, so does the US (and thus, by extension Israel) and such meddling can certainly be condemned on its own merits, but that hardly amounts to a dream for “Greater Syria.” Keep in mind, no resistance movement on par with Hizbollah developed in reaction to the alleged “Syrian occupation” and it was ended through primarily non-violent popular protest and diplomatic pressure (re: the “Cedar Revolution” such as it was); not exactly the response to be expected by people seeking to permanently control parts of Lebanon (e.g. the Lebanese perception of the former Israeli “security zone”). Further, even the pro-Western government of Lebanon condemned Israel’s recent air raid against Syria, not exactly the reaction one would expect from a government fearing Syrian occupation.
As for the Palestinians, the Syrians have full diplomatic relations with the PLO, which would not be the case if they were making demands on Palestinian territory, instead they would establish a rival faction among their own Palestinian population to support their demands (this was the case back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s). With respect to Israel, I don’t believe Syria - like anyone else in the region - harbors any fantasies that Israel is going to vanish or that conquest is an option. Syria in particular has no doubt about Israel’s military prowess and if it weren’t for the Golan I’m sure they would rush to sign a peace treaty with Israel today.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Desiring to “conquer” isn’t the appropriate yardstick.
Although Syria joined trying to conquer in 1948, 1967, and 1973, prior to 1967 it “merely” shelled primarily civilians.
Shelling civilians is bad enough, worthy to prevent.
Also prior to 1967, there were strong words over the rights to the water in the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret), which are still a prospective conflict if Syria sought its pre-1967 border on the Sea. (Was it Dan that described the 1949 border as more attractive to Israel?)
I find it ironic that John S uses the term “legitimate resistance movement” to describe Hezbollah.
When Israel was in Lebanon, that description might have been appropriate. The only resistance however that Hezbollah is currently engaged in is relative to Lebanon itself.
The war last year was initiated by Hezbollah shelling civilian towns. They might have thought of it as “merely” a minor abduction.
Israel clearly didn’t. Israel thought of it as the initiation of a third front in a war. Syria would have constituted a fourth front.
Peace is made of different stuff.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Hi Richard,
”Also prior to 1967, there were strong words over the rights to the water in the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret), which are still a prospective conflict if Syria sought its pre-1967 border on the Sea. (Was it Dan that described the 1949 border as more attractive to Israel?)”
True, but as was noted compromise on this point is not impossible. For example, the Barak compromise that Tom alluded to addressed this concern and Syria was willing to accept this until Barak changed his mind. It is an issue, but not a real impediment to peace.
”When Israel was in Lebanon, that description might have been appropriate. The only resistance however that Hezbollah is currently engaged in is relative to Lebanon itself.”
Actually, you’re mistaken, they are still resisting the Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms district (http://www.shebaafarms.org/ ). In fact, the 2006 Hizbollah raid into Israeli territory (the “Zar’it-Shtula incident” or “Operation Truthful Promise”) was done specifically to capture “bargaining chips” to trade for the release of Hizbollah hostages still held by Israel (e.g. http://www.samirkuntar.org/ ).
”The war last year was initiated by Hezbollah shelling civilian towns. They might have thought of it as “merely” a minor abduction.”
Again you’re mistaken. Hostilities were initiated when Hizbollah hit an IDF patrol between Zar’it and Shtula in northern Israel, killing three IDF soldiers and capturing two. In making their escape they got into a fire fight with other IDF forces, killing five more IDF soldiers that pursued them into Lebanon. Prior to the actual raid on the IDF patrol, there were some diversionary strikes at IDF positions at Zar’it and Shelomi (Israeli towns), but they were purely diversionary, composed of one Katyusha rocket and several mortars and no one was hurt in the process.
“Israel clearly didn’t. Israel thought of it as the initiation of a third front in a war.”
As is well documented, Israel responded to this raid with a full blown systematic massacre of civilians across Lebanon. To quote Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of the Northern Command at the time: “Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate — not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts.” (CNN, 12 July 2006) And this is precisely how Israel responded; murdering civilians across the country on a vastly larger scale than anything Hizbollah could ever imagine doing. ALL human rights organizations that examined the situation in Lebanon - while condemning Hizbollah for illegally attacking Israeli civilian targets - flatly condemned Israel for not only attacking civilian targets and using cluster munitions to increase the slaughter of civilians. While some Hizbollah and Lebanese Army posts were hit, these were a very small fraction of the targets bombed by Israel, graphically illustrating that the systematic massacre of civilians was precisely what Israel intended.
Hizbollah isn’t “nice” when it comes to Israel and I firmly agree that the deliberate targeting of civilian communities in northern Israel constitutes a criminal act; but there is absolutely no pretense to parity with the IDF, no equivalence whatsoever. No matter how bad Hizbollah has behaved, its worst actions are not comparable with the average Israeli murder spree, much less the campaign in July 2006. The proof is in the body counts, when it comes to butchering the innocent Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and so on don’t even come close Israel’s record.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
“Actually, you’re mistaken, they are still resisting the Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms district”
Except for the 2002 UN certification that Israel had entirely removed its troops from Lebanese soil.
Hezbollah is NO resistance movement. It is a militant movement that gets is validity only in an environment of struggle, not in an environment of acceptance.
“Again you’re mistaken. Hostilities were initiated when Hizbollah hit an IDF patrol between Zar’it and Shtula in northern Israel, killing three IDF soldiers and capturing two. In making their escape they got into a fire fight with other IDF forces, killing five more IDF soldiers that pursued them into Lebanon. Prior to the actual raid on the IDF patrol, there were some diversionary strikes at IDF positions at Zar’it and Shelomi (Israeli towns), but they were purely diversionary, composed of one Katyusha rocket and several mortars and no one was hurt in the process.”
Again, the UN account of the event was that Hezbollah initiated the conflict by shelling two towns for three hours, THEN conducting the abduction after Israeli forces moved from their protective positions to defend the towns.
Israel lost control of its objective in the war and then therefore lost both its focus and discipline. That is the shared understanding of left and right regarding the operation in Lebanon. But, BOTH left and right regarded the operation as an intentional initiation of a third front during a revival of violence in both Gaza and the West Bank. Iran was at least indirectly involved in the Hezbollah initiated event, and threatened a larger escalation.
Israel rightly perceived it as an indirectly (or directly) coordinated war.
The body counts are no proof of anything, as Hezbollah built its rocket launchers IN civilian communities, in schools, hospitals, etc. Genuinely human shields. But, they themselves were conducting a military operation, NOT a resistance one.
“Shabaa Farms”.
“resistance movement”.
You reveal your prejudice John.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
The prejudice is revealed in the rhetoric.
And you somehow expect common Israelis that are subject to shelling to trust your gamble of a single-state?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
“Except for the 2002 UN certification that Israel had entirely removed its troops from Lebanese soil.”
What I find interesting about the UN certification is that it completely discards both the Lebanese and Syrian position – that the district is Lebanese – in favor of the Israeli position, that it is Syrian. However, the point is rather immaterial either way, in that whether the district is Lebanese or Syrian it is still illegally occupied by Israel (no one, not even Israel, claims that it is Israeli land) and of course Hizbollah is both pro-Lebanese and pro-Syrian, so it views its resistance as justified.
“Hezbollah is NO resistance movement. It is a militant movement that gets is validity only in an environment of struggle, not in an environment of acceptance.”
This too is factually incorrect as is undeniably attested to by Hizbollah’s transition into a political party – with plenty of Sunni and Christian allies (in fact several Christians even ran for parliament on the Hizbollah ticket) – a role that has not ended. Right now, Hizbollah’s primary activity is political, not militant at all and their protests against the undemocratic pro-US government has primarily been legal and peaceful using the EXACT same tactics used by the pro-US faction in the “Cedar Revolution.” Of course they don’t get the same level of diplomatic support as the pro-US faction did, so it hasn’t really worked, but even at that they haven’t resorted to militant insurrection. Believe it or not, all Lebanese, of all factions, are absolutely terrified of reactivating the civil war that utterly tore the country apart. No one, including Hizbollah, has any interest whatsoever in that happening.
“Again, the UN account of the event was that Hezbollah initiated the conflict by shelling two towns for three hours, THEN conducting the abduction after Israeli forces moved from their protective positions to defend the towns.”
Really? Do me a favor and back up this contention. Post a link to the UN document you are citing. If my understanding is wrong, I’ll take the UN’s word for it and revise this subsidiary point of my argument accordingly.
“Israel lost control of its objective in the war and then therefore lost both its focus and discipline. That is the shared understanding of left and right regarding the operation in Lebanon.”
Well of course this is the “party line” today, after all, you can’t really expect most Israelis – right or left – to freely admit that they engaged in a deliberate campaign of mass murder against defenseless civilians. However, the quote by Maj. Gen. Udi Adam cited in my last post came on July 12, so they must of “lost control of its objective” within 24 hours of the beginning of the conflict. In which case, it’s rather difficult to argue that the objective was something other than the wholesale slaughter of defenseless civilians.
“But, BOTH left and right regarded the operation as an intentional initiation of a third front during a revival of violence in both Gaza and the West Bank.”
Frankly, I agree with this basic assessment. I do agree that Hizbollah saw the situation as “ripe” for raid into Israel. Further, if Israel had responded with some vague semblance of proportionality I doubt most people – my self included – would have been near as critical of the campaign. Hizbollah certainly provoked the incident and Israel had every right to reply, even with overwhelming force against Hizbollah, but the wholesale slaughter against civilians that it unleashed was completely and utterly unjustified and remains so.
“Iran was at least indirectly involved in the Hezbollah initiated event, and threatened a larger escalation.”
Insofar as Iran arms and supports Hizbollah this might be a legitimate statement, but there was no possibility of a major escalation involving Iran and everyone knows it.
“Israel rightly perceived it as an indirectly (or directly) coordinated war.”
Coordinated by Hizbollah? Certainly. Coordinated by Iran? Prove it. You won’t because you can’t, its nothing more than completely unsubstantiated speculation.
“The body counts are no proof of anything, as Hezbollah built its rocket launchers IN civilian communities, in schools, hospitals, etc. Genuinely human shields.”
That is an absolute lie that was firmly discredited by human rights workers on the ground (UN, AI, & HRW) at the time dodging Israeli bombs and missiles. There is absolutely no proof – none – to substantiate this completely and utterly discredited bit of propaganda and the HR workers were under pressure to find evidence of this (they all mention looking for this and NOT finding any evidence of it at all). Hizbollah exists on the sufferance of those civilians that Israel massacred (which is one argument I saw from the Israeli Right defending the slaughter, I think it was at Gamla) and they have NEVER (neither during the Israeli occupation nor after it) deliberately endangered their own communities (where their wives and parents and children live) by using their own families as “human shields.” Not only is this a lie, but it is an effort at dehumanization by showing what “monsters” they are, that is, it’s a blood libel.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
And Richard…
As for my rhetoric and the tone of my replies since topic moved from the general geo-political significance of Syria to the Summer War of last year, this doesn’t express prejudice, it expresses outrage.
At the time, three friends of mine were on the ground in Lebanon working with a small NGO in the Palestinian refugee camps. They had access to all the material coming out of Lebanon at the time, the video, the photos, and so on providing absolute undeniable proof of what Israel was doing. Much more comprehensive information than most of the world was getting graphically showing what Israel was doing across the country. It was all completely outrageous by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, and when this topic comes up I can’t help but express this outrage.
This completely eradicated any lingering belief that I might have had that the Israeli credo of “purity of arms” was anything more than an empty propaganda slogan or that there was any lingering pretense to humane behavior among the IDF. It made the raids of the Janjawid Militia in Darfur look like a bad joke. And the fact that this slaughter was done in the name of the state of the “Jewish people” is such a obscenity as to make Holocaust deniers and Neo-Nazis look like an insignificant nuisance compared to the IDF in the effort to vilify the Jewish people.
Frankly, if you want to get me all fired up, defending the slaughter in Lebanon of last year is one very effective way of doing that.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:28 am
John,
It expresses BOTH outrage and prejudice.
You select what you consider truth. “They had access to all the material coming out of Lebanon at the time, the video, the photos, and so on providing absolute undeniable proof of what Israel was doing.”
Your key word was the word “all”. That is an exageration.
If you heard me “defending the slaughter in Lebanon of last year is one very effective way of doing that”.
The significance of maintaining a clear objective and strategy, IS that it focuses on that objective and does NOT degrade into wholesale slaughter.
I’ll find the UN reference. I’m not making it up. I read it on a UN website during the week of the war.
That historical tidbit of the sequence was lost to the left.
You call Hezbollah a “legitimate resistance movement”, and that prejudice defines your description.
You shift to actually defending Hezbollah, imagining that somehow it does NOT intentionally agitate as its means of “organizing”, does not intentionally shell civilians.
And, that its agitation is somehow morally superior to Israel’s.
Shall we both get fired up?
Hezbollah and human shields. The siting of their rockets, their weapons caches, IS in villages, in towns. It is not separate, not distinctly military.
That might be relevant for self-defense. (Certainly Israeli outpost has weapons caches.) And, at the same time, when a conflict escalates to the status of war, those weapons caches become a target, and if they are located near schools/hospitals function rhetorically for the left as human shields.
If it was NOT a military objective to attack them.
Was it a war?
YES. It was a third and prospectively fourth front in a campaign, intentionally and opportunistically encouraged, with the fantasy of seeking advantage.
Shabaa Farms, as a justification for shelling civilians.
ODD.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:41 am
At least we agree that Israel was right in responding militarily, and we are also in agreement that the Israeli response was unfocused and therefore cruel and unnecessary.
We disagree about the nature and veracity of Hezbollah. At the time I read Hezbollah press statements, by Nasrallah directly, that the abduction occurred deep within Lebanon, later discovered to be entirely and intentionally false (though never acknowledged by Hezbollah as intentionally false).
While many, I assume John, distrust Israeli official statements, I utterly distrust Hezbollah public statements.
I am not gullible in the slightest.
Israel is guilty of not understanding the significance of many of their military actions on the ground, how it is perceived, and perceivable.
Hezbollah is similarly utterly ignorant (and John S is in defending them as “legitimate resistance movement”) as to the significance of the timing of adding a third active front.
Syria was NOT that stupid. In the same context, they restrained from making war. They knew, rightfully, that in a time of assault, a military response is more likely to be excessive than to be insufficient.
It is a principle of the shift in logic during war, that success in achieving the mission trumps the ethics to achieve the mission. That is the distinction between a state of war and a petty agitation.
Hezbollah erred enormously in making war, not agitating, in this case.
It is a consequence of its militancy, its failure to act in ways that enable communications so as to diffuse potential conflicts and actually get some reality check on likely consequences.
While Syria is in a state of conflict with Israel, it does have those channels.
It takes recognition of Israel to make that happen (which Syria does not have formally).
October 6th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hezbollah’s means of making war.
In Lebanon it was a bait and entrap process. They wanted Israeli military deaths. They wanted that “victory”.
In Israel it was to shell civilian cities with innaccurate but still deadly missiles.
Nothing strategic about it. Perhaps conceived of as a deterrence.
Used though.
And, the left regards that as “valid resistance”.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:08 am
“New Crisis Erupts
New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line towards IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon.
Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and the IDF. While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shabaa farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks. In addition to air strikes on Hizbollah positions, the IDF targeted numerous roads and bridges in southern Lebanon, within and outside the UNIFIL area of operations”
“http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html”
This report used different wording for the incident from an earlier draft siting more dense shelling of two Israeli towns, not “near one”.
Nevertheless, it does describe the abduction as intentional and coordinated, and a much larger and more intentional operation than the left selects.
The United Nations report of the history differs radically in interpretation.
It does NOT name Hezbollah as a “legitimate resistance organization”, but more accurately describes what I interpret as a deferred civil war in which Hezbollah is primarily seeking advantage and credibility for its effort to dominate Lebanese politics.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Richard,
It expresses BOTH outrage and prejudice.
No, it does not. Since you apparently have no idea what the word “prejudice” means, let me cite the Miriam-Webster Dictionary Online to you:
Prejudice: “1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights; especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics”
None of this applicable to my comments in any way. The outrages of Israel’s assault on Lebanon was photographed, videoed, and witnessed beyond any rational dispute. There is no prejudice in my comment, just outrage.
“Your key word was the word “all”. That is an exageration.
This, for example, is a statement of prejudice in that you’re just “pre judging” that my contention is an exaggeration; you have no idea how much material I was getting from these people at all.
”You call Hezbollah a “legitimate resistance movement”, and that prejudice defines your description.”
Of course this is inaccurate as well. Hizbollah was initially a terrorist organization, but it turned itself into a legitimate resistance movement and remains one to this day. They haven’t engaged in any action that could be considered “terrorist” unless you’re willing to apply the same label to the IDF, who similarly abducted enemy combatants and shelled defenseless civilians. You can’t have it both ways, either Hizbollah AND the IDF are terrorist formations, or neither of them are as Hizbollah engages in no militant activity that the IDF does not.
”You shift to actually defending Hezbollah, imagining that somehow it does NOT intentionally agitate as its means of “organizing”, does not intentionally shell civilians. And, that its agitation is somehow morally superior to Israel’s.”
Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote. If you do so, you’ll notice I said nothing of the sort.
”Hezbollah and human shields. The siting of their rockets, their weapons caches, IS in villages, in towns. It is not separate, not distinctly military.”
I’ll repeat my previous challenge yet again, prove this contention with documentation from an impartial source. You won’t because you can’t; it’s just an Israeli blood libel out to demonize the civilians being slaughtered. There were some towns with arms caches and the like, but that isn’t good enough to justify bombing the communities into oblivion (the legal standard being “military necessity”), which is precisely why the hasbaraniks opted to make up the lie that Hizbollah was actively firing from these communities (which would thereby reach the “military necessity” threshold), a charge that has been completely discredited by third party observers on the ground. So, am I wrong? Prove it.
”At the time I read Hezbollah press statements, by Nasrallah directly, that the abduction occurred deep within Lebanon, later discovered to be entirely and intentionally false (though never acknowledged by Hezbollah as intentionally false).”
That much is true and I’ve never said otherwise.
”While many, I assume John, distrust Israeli official statements, I utterly distrust Hezbollah public statements.”
Fair enough. This is why the third party observers were so important. By the end of the first week, there were third party observers EVERYWHERE which is why what Israel did was so well documented. It is also why Israel is so opposed to official peacekeepers or other third party observers on the ground in the OPTs.
”Israel is guilty of not understanding the significance of many of their military actions on the ground, how it is perceived, and perceivable.”
This is a matter of opinion both ways, but I don’t agree with this at all. Just as the general said on the first day of the conflict, I believe they knew exactly what they were doing and did it deliberately. It was one of those occasions where the official statements and the actions on the ground coincided perfectly. Just as importantly, in the beginning, Israel didn’t even seem to deny that widespread mass murder was their intention, it was only once so much uncontestable documentation of what was happening became readily available (something my friends on the ground played a direct role in) that the Israeli government changed its tune. Worse, Israel kept it up long after everyone knew exactly what was going on, again arguing that they both knew what they were doing and were doing it deliberately.
”Hezbollah is similarly utterly ignorant (and John S is in defending them as ‘legitimate resistance movement’) as to the significance of the timing of adding a third active front.”
Rubbish. I think we both agree that Hizbollah knew what it was doing and timed it appropriately by their lights; I think it is fairly undeniable that they were trying to take advantage of Israel’s situation vis-à-vis the Palestinians. And again this in no way justifies Israel’s response.
”It is a principle of the shift in logic during war, that success in achieving the mission trumps the ethics to achieve the mission. That is the distinction between a state of war and a petty agitation.”
Maybe if you’re a Nazi, or in a Darfurian militia, but realistically the reason there are laws of war and thus “war crimes” or “Crimes Against Humanity” is specifically because this “shift in logic” that “the ends justifies the means” (re: “that success in achieving the mission trumps the ethics to achieve the mission”) IS NOT acceptable among civilized nations. In fact, following the rules of war is one of the defining characteristics of civilized nations. Those who adopt this “shift in logic” are war criminals and deserve to be strung up in Nuremburg or imprisoned for life via the Hague as surely as any Nazi, Serbian militiaman, or Rwandian butcher. The “ends never justify the means” when the means are illegal indiscriminate mass murder.
“Hezbollah erred enormously in making war, not agitating, in this case.”
I agree and disagree. Hizbollah was certainly not expecting the Israeli response that came about; nor, frankly, was anyone else except those that just automatically assume the very worst about Israel (and no, that doesn’t include me). No one expected that particular reaction from what realistically amounted to a minor border raid; it would be as though Syria decided to launch all out war on Israel because of the recent bombing raid; grossly out of proportion to the provocation. However, in the end, Hizbollah emerged much stronger and in much higher popular estimation than they had prior to the conflict.
”And, the left regards that as ‘valid resistance’.”
Yet again, go back and re-read what I actually wrote as opposed to falsely putting words in my mouth. All the same third party observers that condemned Israel’s onslaught in Lebanon just as surely condemned Hizbollah’s attacks on the civilian communities of Israel as well. Yes, there were lots of third party observers on the Israeli side of the Blue Line as well. These attacks were condemned as “Crimes Against Humanity” and I completely concur. Nevertheless, if you want to talk about equivalency, there is none as Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity were on a vastly larger scale if only because they had better weapons and range.
“New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line towards IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon.”
This completely agrees with what I said previously. Your contention – and the one I want you to document – is that ”the UN account of the event was that Hezbollah initiated the conflict by shelling two towns for three hours, THEN conducting the abduction after Israeli forces moved from their protective positions to defend the towns.” This account does not substantiate your contention at all, it substantiates the narrative I provided previously.
”Nevertheless, it does describe the abduction as intentional and coordinated, and a much larger and more intentional operation than the left selects.”
This wasn’t what I disputed. In fact, I even agreed with you on this particular aspect of the question.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I’m not going into an exegesis of your comments, John.
I contest ANY inference that Hezbollah is a “legitimate resistance movement”.
It is an opportunist party, at least partially a proxy of Iran, that is trying to take over Lebanon.
According to multiple UN resolutions, Hezbollah has been declared to be an extra-legal militia. The latest UN resolution required the demilitarization of the region between the current border and the Litani, which Hezbollah has violated.
It is an extra-legal militia in Lebanon, an army pretending to be political. They should choose.
The UNIFIL report sited was vague. The original citation that I read at the time did describe the shelling of Israeli towns (plural) for between two and three hours prior to the abduction, as an intentional tactic.
Notables often cited by the left, Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole, repeated the original Hezbollah assertion that Israel initiated the raid inside Lebanon, and that Hezbollah conducted a “heroic” defensive action. (Pretty gullible if you ask me.)
Even your comment of Hezbollah’s intent at the time sounded horrendously gullible to me, John. My understanding of your description was that they sought bargaining chips to trade for Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli jails. EXCEPT that there were only 4 at the time, and that they demanded instead the release of hundreds of Palestinian women as justification.
You can paint Hezbollah as a “legitimate resistance movement” if you like, but it smells.
The “shift in logic” during wartime from an emphasis on restraint to an emphasis on accomplishment of mission, occurs in EVERY war, and by every party. The tactitions are given the power.
Those that start wars should be accountable for the unleashing of the violence.
Hezbollah was naive to the point of criminality to think that in an environment of already existing near-war, that Israel would allow further warring/opportunism on a third front.
Shelling Haifa is a war crime. Thanks for the acknowledgement.
Taking out an electrical grid, or a transportation system, is not.
In Israel, the responsibility for the failure to define a mission rests at the top. The consequences of that failure were that tactitions were given vague but rhetorical instructions. The Sharonists assumed that the orders were to occupy again and executed that strategy. The absence of consistent guidelines as to how to deal with civilians, was a serious negligence, a violation of both international norms, AND Israeli norms.
The failure resulted in two poor consequences: unnecessary abuses of many Lebanese civilians, and also importantly, the failure of the IDF to remove Hezbollah as a militia in the region. (The UN had already failed at that.)
October 6th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
” preconceived judgment or opinion”
This is the definition of “prejudice” that I consider relevant.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:41 am
I contest ANY inference that Hezbollah is a “legitimate resistance movement”. … You can paint Hezbollah as a “legitimate resistance movement” if you like, but it smells.
I suspected as much as soon as I pointed out that Hizbollah does not use any tactics today (this wasn’t always true, but certainly has been for the last 20 years or more) that the IDF does not. However, it is a matter of opinion and, of course, you’re as welcome to yours as I am to mine.
The UNIFIL report sited was vague. The original citation that I read at the time did describe the shelling of Israeli towns (plural) for between two and three hours prior to the abduction, as an intentional tactic.
Nevertheless, I notice that you can’t seem to produce a link. Keep in mind that virtually ALL UN documents relating to Israel/Palestine, as well as great many related to Lebanon and Syria can be found at the UNISPAL site: http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf
Notables often cited by the left, Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole, repeated the original Hezbollah assertion that Israel initiated the raid inside Lebanon, and that Hezbollah conducted a “heroic” defensive action.
I didn’t follow Chomsky’s comments on it very closely, but I believe you are right about Juan Cole in this instance. However, what precisely is your point?
Even your comment of Hezbollah’s intent at the time sounded horrendously gullible to me, John. My understanding of your description was that they sought bargaining chips to trade for Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli jails. EXCEPT that there were only 4 at the time, and that they demanded instead the release of hundreds of Palestinian women as justification.
Odd, that Israel can be so upset about its three hostages (one in Gaza, two in Lebanon) but you automatically assume that Hizbollah couldn’t possibly be as passionate about its four hostages held by Israel. For the record, before Israel’s grossly disproportionate response, the Hizbollah operation was called “Freedom for Samir Al-Quntar and his brothers” (via Dr Mohamad Jawad Khalifeh, on Hizbollah’s Al Manar TV, see also related: BBC “Nasrallah Demands Militant Freed” 09/12/2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5340364.stm) and was only later renamed “Operation Truthful Promise.” As for the demands for the release of hundreds of Palestinian women hostages held by Israel, this came much later, when Hizbollah was worried that the Lebanese might hold them responsible for the Israeli onslaught. Luckily, for them at least, Israel’s grossly disproportionate response as well as Hizbollah’s quick and effective humanitarian relief completely vindicated them in the eyes of most Lebanese.
The “shift in logic” during wartime from an emphasis on restraint to an emphasis on accomplishment of mission, occurs in EVERY war, and by every party. The tactitions are given the power.
I cited the Israeli general saying, quite clearly I think, that everything and everyone was fair game in Lebanon and that is exactly how Israel responded. Using your own argument, the only possible conclusion is that Israel set out with full knowledge and intent on a deliberate mass murder campaign, and of course that is exactly what they did.
Those that start wars should be accountable for the unleashing of the violence.
I guess you have no concept of proportionality. I could go into the legal definitions in international law and alternate opinions (the International Law Commission has written extensively on the issue in working to formulate a definition of the “Crime of Aggression” used during Nuremberg). However, that would be rather boring and you’re plainly no lawyer, so let’s look at it a bit differently. Do you have children?
If a two year old child throws his dinner across the table (provides a provocation), there are many different ways you can respond. If you respond with “perfect proportionality” you would just throw some food back at him, but this does nothing to accomplish the goal of teaching the child that this is unacceptable behavior and would likely just result in a food fight. You could also respond “proportionately with overwhelming force,” which would be taking the child from the table and giving him a good spanking. This drives home the message that this behavior is unacceptable and very few would condemn you for taking this action. However, if you decide to beat the hell of the child with a baseball bat and then shoot him to death, this would be grossly disproportionate regardless of the initial provocation. No matter what the two year old child did (the provocation), the latter disproportionate response is not justified by any conceivable stretch of the imagination and responsiblility falls on you, not the child.
After the Hizbollah raid into Israel (the provocation), a “perfectly proportionate” response would have been to raid a Hizbollah convoy or checkpoint and kill a few fighters and abduct a few more. However this would not have taught Hizbollah that its initial raid was unacceptable and would likely have resulted in an increase in cross border raids. A response using “proportionality with overwhelming force” would have been a deliberate campaign striking Hizbollah targets throughout south Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, transport routes between Hizbollah-controlled territory and Syria, and so on and so forth. If this had been Israel’s response, I don’t think the criticism – and certainly MY criticism – would have been anywhere near as fierce. Hizbollah certainly provoked the conflict and Israel had every right to respond. However, Israel chose to respond with gross – and criminal – disproportionality to the Hizbollah provocation and in doing so – like the father who kills his child for throwing food – the accountability falls on Israel regardless of the provocation.
Hezbollah was naive to the point of criminality to think that in an environment of already existing near-war, that Israel would allow further warring/opportunism on a third front.
Hizbollah itself freely admitted that it misjudged the Israeli response, but that still doesn’t justify the Israeli response.
Shelling Haifa is a war crime. Thanks for the acknowledgement.
I never said otherwise, after all the exact same sources that documented Israel’s massive war crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in Lebanon also concluded that the Hizbollah strikes on Israeli communities constituted the same (just on a much smaller scale).
Taking out an electrical grid, or a transportation system, is not.
Actually, you’re mistaken again. Taking out the civilian infrastructure is only a legal action IF the “military necessity” threshold is met. So, striking at the infrastructure in Hizbollah-controlled territory might have been justified, but that of the whole country was certainly not. Causing unnecessary suffering for civilians in war that does not meet the “military necessity” threshold constitutes a war crime in its own right (without even talking about actually killing civilians) and can be prosecuted as such.
And, of course, your implication that this was all that Israel did is grossly misleading. Like it or not, in that particular conflict, when it comes to the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, Hizbollah doesn’t even come close to Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity.
The failure resulted in two poor consequences: unnecessary abuses of many Lebanese civilians, and also importantly, the failure of the IDF to remove Hezbollah as a militia in the region. (The UN had already failed at that.)
Not to mention they didn’t get the two soldiers back either. That is, despite the massive onslaught Israel released on Lebanon – against both legitimate combatants as well as vastly more completely defenseless civilians – Israel failed to accomplish anything at all, except strengthening Hizbollah.
”preconceived judgment or opinion” - This is the definition of “prejudice” that I consider relevant.
Such was my suspicion and as I said, it is completely inapplicable to any of my comments. Israel’s behavior during the Summer War are far too well documented, no preconception is needed at all to justify my expressions of outrage at this incident.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:25 am
We both agree that Israel failed to accomplish what it legitimately sought to, and in a cruel manner. (I guess you selected not to read that phrase in my posts.)
It would be more useful if you avoided the tit for tat, and at least for a moment address my contention that you expressed an odd bias to defend Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is NOT a “legitimate resistance movement”.
It is more importantly an opportunist party actively seeking control of Lebanon (by any means), and a client of Iran and Syria.
The question of how to respond to that reality is a good one. But, the fantasy that Hezbollah is an innocent (by any implication) is ridiculous.
You also never engaged the significance of joining a war on Israel, as joining a war. You quote proportionality only relative the abduction of two.
Further, you ignore proportionality as a measure of Hezbollah. Proportionality would be asking for the release of two Hezbollah prisoners, not 800 Palestinians.
“Its well-documented”. So show us the specifics, and in context.
Israel did not knock out the roads of all of Lebanon, nor the electrical infrastructure in all of Lebanon. It did attack a couple targets on the coast and central Lebanon and near the Syrian border. Specific ones in most cases.
There were exceptions, abusive ones.
Human shields. Hezbollah does necessarily site arms and rockets in civilian areas, probably not only.
Your vehemence at objecting to the idea that Hezbollah operates where it lives is odd. It is either a popular army or it is a professional one.
Nevertheless as a militia in a civilian state, it is operating in an extra-legal manner.
It consistently rejected folding its staff into the chain of command of the Lebanese state army. It prefers to remain an extra-legal militia.
It needs to CHOOSE. And you probably need to choose to cease being an “enabler”.
Of course, like all militancies, it chooses to join only when it thinks it can win. The logic of a democratic nation-state in which it merely participates is rejected.
To my mind, militancy as a means is a wasted life.
“The means are the ends”
I would never defend it.
I do defend Israel’s right to defend itself, and as I am not privy to the information necessary to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate means and decisions, I am somewhat powerless to judge.
I can judge what I do see, as the Israelis can as well.
In the case of the Hezbollah war, Israeli leadership demonstrated a great deal of negligence.
The principle of specific objective with consistent and legal rules of engagement are what facilitates a legitimate defense in contrast to an ineffective AND disproportionate one.
As the objective was not specified, and then that the rules of engagement could not then possibly be identified, there were poor (and occassionally) cruel tactical choices and behaviors.
In contrast, Hezbollah shelled cities. The ONLY impact of that is random violence intentionally directed only at civilians.
That is why they are called a terrorist group. No specific objective. No rules of engagement, either general or specific to the context.
You should actually attempt to judge behavior, identify norms, identify exceptions.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:30 am
For what its worth, citing UNISPAL rather than UNIFIL when the subject is Lebanon, is a little misleading.
” According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:
* Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
* Restore international peace and security;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.
According to Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006, UNIFIL, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426, shall:
* Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
* Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon;
* Coordinate its activities referred to in the preceding paragraph (above) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
* Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
* Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel.
By this resolution, the Council also authorized 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.”
Is the Lebanese army in control? Is the area de-militarized?
October 7th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Lots of negligence going around.
Is the Lebanese government negligent in not securing its borders and allowing arms to be shipped through Syria to Hezbollah?
Every day it occurs. Where is the UN? Where is the sovereign Lebanese state?
October 7th, 2007 at 8:01 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
“The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns, wounding several civilians, as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[21] Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were seized and taken to Lebanon.[21] Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon, which damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport which Israel said Hezbollah used to import weapons, an air and naval blockade,[22] and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.[23]”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/africa/web.0712mideast.php
“The fighting on the Lebanese border erupted around 9 a.m., when Hezbollah attacked several Israeli towns with rocket fire, wounding several civilians, the Israeli military said. Israeli civilians rushed into their bomb shelters and many remained there through the day.
But that attack was a diversion for the main operation, several miles to the east, where Hezbollah militants fired antitank missiles at two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence, the military said. Of the seven soldiers in the two jeeps, three were killed, two were wounded and two were abducted, the military said.”
“The operation had been planned for months, he said, though he added, “The timing, no doubt, provides support for our brothers in Palestine.”"
(referring to a Nasrallah statement).
I note that the article states “according to Israeli military”.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:05 am
“From the inception of Hezbollah to the present[9][8][56][57][58] the elimination of the State of Israel has been one of Hezbollah’s primary goals. Its 1985 manifesto reportedly states “our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements .”
Also from wikipedia.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:06 am
“Hezbollah’s spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin, however, had this to say about an Israeli withdrawal from Sheba Farms: “If they go from Shebaa, we won’t stop fighting them. … Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine, … The Jews who survive this war of liberation can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.”"
Also from wikipedia.
October 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
It would be more useful if you avoided the tit for tat, and at least for a moment address my contention that you expressed an odd bias to defend Hezbollah.
There is no “odd bias” to defend to Hizbollah. My position reflects that of the international human rights community: Hizbollah certainly provoked the incident and Hizbollah committed Crimes against Humanity just as surely as Israel did. However, Hizbollah is a legitimate resistance movement (primarily seeking an end to the Shebaa occupation and return of its hostages held by Israel) as well as a fully legitimate Lebanese political party (and no, the idea of an organization being both an armed resistance movement as well as a political party is not unique to Hizbollah, even inside Lebanon itself). The idea that just because they are undeniably hostile to Israel does not make them illegitimate in any respect; there are perfectly sound reasons for their hostility.
You also never engaged the significance of joining a war on Israel, as joining a war. You quote proportionality only relative the abduction of two.
Because there is nothing to address here. We’ve already agreed that Hizbollah sought to take advantage of the upsurge in Palestinian resistance in timing its raid. However, if I didn’t know better, it would almost appear that you’re arguing that thousands of Lebanese civilians should be held responsible for the Palestinian resistance in Gaza? I certainly hope this is not what you’re arguing, and assuming this is not your argument then trying to connect the Israeli onslaught against the Lebanese to the situation in the OPTs has no merit at all.
Further, you ignore proportionality as a measure of Hezbollah. Proportionality would be asking for the release of two Hezbollah prisoners, not 800 Palestinians.
That would be “perfect proportionality” although one can’t really be surprised if Hizbollah attempted to use its leverage for the release of all its members currently held by Israel (officially four people, although there are claims that Israel holds more). However, when it comes to the demands for the hundreds of Palestinian women hostages, your view reflects the perspective of the UN Secretary-General who “urged Hizbullah leaders to avoid disproportionate demands and protracted bargaining that cannot be considered adequate in the face of the humanitarian urgency of the cases and the clear message of resolution 1701 (2006).”
The proportionality I was discussing was that of actions taken, not current negotiating positions. Frankly, I think agree with the Secretary-General and you that Hizbollah’s demands are disproportionate and unreasonable, so the net result is there is no basis for a deal at this time. This is an unreasonable bargaining stance, so the reasonable response is no bargain. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Israel’s onslaught against Lebanon last year.
“Its well-documented”. So show us the specifics, and in context.
LOL, just Google it, there is an enormous amount of material detailing every aspect of the Israeli campaign specifically because within a few days there were third party observers as well as free lance photographers and camera men all over Lebanon. However, here are just a few:
- HRW: Israel/Lebanon: Israeli Indiscriminate Attacks Killed Most Civilians
No Evidence of Widespread Hezbollah ‘Shielding’
- HRW: Why They Died, Civilian Casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 War
- HRW:
Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon
- AI: Israel / Lebanon: End immediately attacks against civilians
- AI: Israel/Lebanon: Out of all proportion - civilians bear the brunt of the war
- AI: Israel/Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or “collateral damage”?
- ICRC: Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war
- ICRC: [VIDEO] Lebanon: a summer under the bombs
- ICRC: 2006 Annual Report: Lebanon
For photos (many of which my friends were involved in getting out of Lebanon): Here; Here; Here; Here and so on and so forth.
The Summer War was probably one of the best documented conflicts in recent memory. All you have to do is actually look for the information to see what Israel did.
The rest of your line of apologies and excuses for Israeli behavior fall completely flat in the face of the evidence, including of course, Israel’s own statements. Your continued insistence that only Hizbollah deliberately shelled civilian towns and cities is not only patently false in every conceivable respect but also appears to reflect a “see no evil” attitude, as though if you just close your eyes and refuse to look at the reality, your blindness somehow reflects reality. It does not. Not only did Israel deliberately bomb civilian towns and cities throughout Lebanon - even in the far north where Hizbollah had no support, or at least didn’t until the Israeli bombing - but it did so on a much larger, and much deadlier scale than Hizbollah’s complimenting war crimes against the Israeli towns and cities.
When I come across people (and I do) who try to excuse, justify, or minimize Palestinian suicide bombers attacking completely civilian targets inside the Green Line, I find this obscene because there is no excuse for such actions whatsoever. In the exact same vein, I find your attempts to excuse, justify, and minimize the Israeli onslaught against Lebanese civilians in July-August of 2006 just as obscene because again there is no excuse for such actions whatsoever. Your arguments, justifications, and excuses are the EXACT parallel to those who tried to defend the Netanya suicide attacks and just as vile. If you’re unwilling to admit the very simple - and incredibly well documented - truth that Israel engaged in a grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate massacre of civilians in this particular instance, then you are personally validating the exact same arguments put forward by those who defend the indiscriminate massacre of civilians conducted by Palestinian suicide bombers. I’m no “enabler” of terrorism or an apologist for it, however you certainly are at least an apologist when the terrorism is conducted by Israel.
That is why they are called a terrorist group. No specific objective. No rules of engagement, either general or specific to the context.
As I’ve already argued - and documented - the Hizbollah raid had a well defined and rational objective, to acquire “bargaining chips” to achieve the release of its hostages held by Israel. I also notice you didn’t bother to contest this assertion.
For what its worth, citing UNISPAL rather than UNIFIL when the subject is Lebanon, is a little misleading.
Not really. I was just providing you with a link to a very large repository of UN documents, many of which discuss the situation in Palestine as well as elsewhere (Lebanon, Syria, et. al.) in the same document and are therefore included. If what you were looking for isn’t there, that’s fine. Just trying to help you prove your contention.
Is the Lebanese government negligent in not securing its borders and allowing arms to be shipped through Syria to Hezbollah? Every day it occurs. Where is the UN? Where is the sovereign Lebanese state?
It is a valid question, but it has nothing whatsoever with defending Israel’s behavior in the Summer War.
As for your citations regarding the initial diversionary strikes that began the Hizbollah operation, although I don’t trust Wikipedia at all as anyone can go in and modify it, I did go to the trouble of looking at its citations and the contention that “The fighting on the Lebanese border erupted around 9 a.m., when Hezbollah attacked several Israeli towns with rocket fire, wounding several civilians, the Israeli military said,” is at odds with what I originally wrote. Fair enough and I’ll concede the point as it in no way undermines my primary argument that there was no excuse for Israel’s extremely disproportionate response. Thanks for that, I’ll keep that in mind next time I argue this. Believe it or not, if you legitimately find some contention of mine in error and can prove it, I’m more than happy to accept this and amend my arguments accordingly. Although in general I don’t trust politicized Israeli sources, I don’t find the “according to Israeli military” caveat unreasonable in this instance as who else would be there at that stage to report? Point taken.
Regardless, this is just a subsidiary point and certainly doesn’t justify or excuse Israel’s behavior during the Summer War in any way.
October 7th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Hi Dan & Richard - I just posted a response to Richard’s last four posts, but as it included a number of URLs, I believe it went into the spam filter again. It would be appreciated if you could release this. - Thanks, John S.
October 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sorry, I meant Richard’s last six posts…
October 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
John,
Actually your account of the 2000 Geneva negotiation did not contradict mine–except for your willingness to lay all blame on Israel. Barak changed his mind on the complete return, not wanting to return areas on the border that Syria captured between 1949 and 1967 and territory that never belonged to Syria in the past (the eastern shore of the Kinneret) and he offered compensation for this elsewhere. Not everyone blames Jerusalem and Barak completely for this. Ross thought that Assad was focused on his son’s succession and was weak from his advanced cancer. But the problem is still that the Arabs want to be able to profit from war but not let the Israelis do the same, a double standard but not the one that Israel’s critics are always talking about.
As far as Lebanon goes, those politicians and public figures who vigorously oppose Syria and are visible and important tend to end up dead, usually from car bombs. Plus, Damascus doesn’t have an embassy in Beirut but sees fit to summon Lebanese politicians to Damascus for consultations like vassals.
As far as Palestine goes, Damascus may have official relations with the PA, but has traditionally supported its own Palestinian client organizations, initially al-Saika and then the various Front organizations. Hamas was up until recently an extension of this. Hamas was the first Islamist Palestinian organization that Damascus supported, but after Hezbollah, this was easier.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hi Dan - despite how you may take my views, you have to admit that I keep it a bit interesting…
Anyway, please be so kind as to remove my previous post to Richard from the spam filter so I can respond to Tom. Yours, John S.
October 7th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
John,
Done. It’s #32. Sorry it took me so long to get to it. I actually don’t know enough about Syria or Lebanon to feel comfortable commenting. Quite a rare admission for a blog concerned with the Middle East, huh?
October 7th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Thanks Dan, I appreciate it. The spam blocker doesn’t like too many URLs…
As for Syria, it isn’t all that hard to learn the basics as they are really not all that complex. Conversely, Lebanese politics and the factions are a nightmare to understand, and if the discussion was related to the diverse Christian factions and the like, like you, I’d have to claim ignorance. However, since there has been such a passionate opposition to Hizb-ut-Allah, I’ve actually gone to the trouble to see where they stand on things, both within Lebanon and elsewhere. They are certainly not “nice” guys and pro-Israel advocates have more than just cause to hate them, but at the same time - contrary to Richard’s contentions - they are not utterly irrational psychopaths lusting after Jewish blood (I can give you the contact info for quite a few Jews who have gone and met with them personally, including Richard’s own citation of Jeffery Goldberg from the “New Yorker” via Wikipedia), but a rational resistance movement, at least by their own lights. Their positions aren’t all that bizarre or crazy, but they are - beyond any doubt - very much hostile to Israel.
Anyway…
Tom, please allow me to get back to you in the morning.
Shalom/Salaam
John S.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
“and no, the idea of an organization being both an armed resistance movement as well as a political party is not unique to Hizbollah, even inside Lebanon itself”
Its what defines Lebanon as well as Palestine as being in a state of deferred civil war. Palestine has an excuse, as it is a state in development, not yet a fully sovereign state. Lebanon has none. It is sovereign, but allows the fascistic relationship of political parties maintaining militias.
The phalange gave up its arms. Its time for Hezbollah.
The Lebanese army is the military of the state of Lebanon, not Hezbollah.
I can’t believe that you distract from the reality of Hezbollah shelling civilian cities, with NO pretext of objective, or rules of engagement. Entirely random and entirely directed at civilians.
The litany of HRW abuses and AI citations include MANY that are ambiguous relative to your standard, particularly the selective interpretation of what is a direct military target.
And your comments on the rearming of Hezbollah in violation of the UN resolution?
And your comments on the relationship between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah?
“legitimate resistance movement”.
The purpose of civil disobedience is to evoke a response. The purpose of Hezbollah violent efforts was similarly.
The BIG shift, which you failed to engage, is whether the event was a skirmish or a war.
When Hezbollah escalated to attack Israeli cities, even after their first unilateral attacks on civilian towns, they confirmed their understanding of the event as a war.
You select citations that contest that Israel conducted its WAR improperly, but then compare that to ONLY the initial Hezbollah abduction (although also accompanied by war crimes, initiating the shelling of civilian towns).
That is intellectually disproportionate. How do you conduct your conflicts?
You also neglected (selectively) to consider the context of a three front war. It wasn’t Hezbollah solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
Israel erred in giving Hezbollah what it wanted. Although in the first three days of the fighting, Hezbollah was entirely discredited as opportunistic and thuggish in the Arab press and by statements from nearly all governments in the Islamic region (excepting Iran and Syria).
In response to the fiasco, Israel - a democratic state, undertook a very public criticism of the conduct of the war. They emphasized the failure to defend effectively and professionally, and only incidentally focused on the human rights issues.
Hezbollah has not been subject to the same public scrutiny to be seen by the world, although its objective failures and opportunism is evident and enormous.
There was near concensus in Israel that the events was of the nature of war, a third front, and NOT of the nature of a skirmish as the left conveniently revises.
In the press, it was a war of propaganda, a war of perception.
Propaganda is ALWAYS a selective process.
“Crazy Miranda, lives on propaganda.
She believes everything she reads.”
October 7th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“However, if I didn’t know better, it would almost appear that you’re arguing that thousands of Lebanese civilians should be held responsible for the Palestinian resistance in Gaza?”
Clearly, I am arguing for the illegitimacy of Hezbollah as a militia, that Hezbollah is largely responsible for the suffering of the Southern Lebanese by initiating aggressions so flagrantly and lying so amateurishly.
And, also, I am clealry condemning the gullibility of the ideological left in apologizing for Hezbollah as a “legitimate resistance movement”.
You are insulting when you attribute callousness to Lebanese in my comments.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:00 am
To summarize,
My understanding of the Israel/Hezbollah war as far as Israel’s role was that Israel’s goal of defending was just, but a large portion of the means taken were not.
John and I could agree on that I believe, except for his statement that “Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance movement”, and his implication that Hezbollah as a militia and simultaneously an electoral political party is a just combination.
I would acknowledge that many in Southern Lebanon regard Hezbollah, and not the state of Lebanon as their protectors from both Israel and from the Phalange.
But, I would contest that Hezbollah is currently and for a long time seeking advantage, not representation, in Lebanon and relative to Israel. Hezbollah had militant precursors in Southern Lebanon that have been fighting Israel since 1948.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
The reason that I question the validity of “outrage”, is that in reviewing what the outrage is about, a large proportion is ambiguously describable as war crimes.
For example, in reading the HRW accounts, they did note that Hezbollah personnel do not wear uniforms, but wear civilian clothing. It moderates the contention that an attack on a car for example, was a war crime, both in effect and in intention.
In contrast, there is NO AMBIGUITY about ANY of the civilian targets that Hezbollah shelled. There is no humanity at all, entirely anomymous.
As the wording of the law on human rights does not clearly address the role of non-state militias, Hezbollah gets the cover of ambiguity.
It gets the cover of ambiguity on its siting of arms and weaponry. It gets the cover of ambiguity on its public statements. It gets the cover of ambiguity on its identification of combatants. It gets the cover of ambiguity on its role as an representative vs resistance. It gets the cover of not being a state, and never having to decide one way or another if it subscribes to rules of international law, whether multi-lateral or bilateral.
It gets to stay the two-year old child of John’s example. (Did you mean to compare Hezbollah to a two-year old by analogy. I doubt that they would be excited by that.)
In contrast, Israel is largely accountable. Legally accountable to its populace in the form of court system, elections. Responsible to the public in the form of a genuinely free press. Responsible to bi-lateral and multilateral international institutions.
Israel’s violations are exceptions, some of incidents, some of policies, that are required to and are corrected.
Even the use of bomblets are ambiguous according to international law. If one assumed that the area was cleared of non-combatants, then the use of otherwise cruel means, would not be.
Granted, that HRW concluded that Israel erred in not clarifying that the area was cleared of non-combatants, shifting the norm legally.
According to many, the reality that ONLY slightly over a thousand Lebanese died in an all-out war, was evidence that Israel’s military DID have general rules of engagement which were applied and enforced at least partially.
You do understand the reasoning that Israel either ambiguously, rationally or opportunistically regarded Lebanon as the party undertaking war on Israel, was due to the ambiguous status of Hezbollah.
As a part of the government, Hezbollah can either be understood as part of the Lebanese military, or not.
The ambiguity is not really an option as to their status. (Sometimes, maybe, possibly).
October 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi Tom,
I think most observers grant that it was the Israeli side that ended the negotiations and prevented a settlement on the Golan. In Clinton’s autobiography he basically says as much and Dennis Ross agreed more or less. For a good article on the Ross view, see Joshua Landis, “Golan Talks according to Dennis Ross” and though he is more critical of the Syrians, the net result is that it was Barak that killed the deal. Of course this wasn’t just a matter of Barak as an individual changing his mind, but was brought about in reaction to a general lack of support for surrendering the Golan (even in part) by his own governing coalition as well as the general public. The Israeli Right basically knew they had Barak under control on this one and Barak chose not to fight them; it was easier to maintain the status quo than to try to maintain his coalition against popular opinion to make a deal. For a good synopsis of Israeli opposition, see the very right-wing Middle East Intelligence Bulletin: Barak Faces Obstacles in Road to “Peace” with Assad. The end result being that Barak just didn’t have enough domestic support to press forward and therefore opted not to. There were some minor points of contention between the Syrian and Israeli positions (something staunchly anti-Syrian writers like Daniel Pipes has focused on), but nothing that couldn’t be overcome had Barak expressed a willingness to continue negotiations.
As far as Lebanon goes, those politicians and public figures who vigorously oppose Syria and are visible and important tend to end up dead, usually from car bombs.
Are you implying that Syria is behind these bombings? I grant that Syria - or its proxies - may have been responsible for the Hariri assassination, but this developed into a complete disaster for Syria in every possible respect. After that disaster for Syria, I find it very dubious to suggest that the later assassinations were committed by, or endorsed by, Syria as these actions have certainly not been of any benefit whatsoever to the Syrians or in their interests. Who is responsible? No one really knows and Lebanon is so incredibly factionalized its anyone’s guess; however, every one of these post-Hariri assassinations has hurt Syria’s standing - both inside Lebanon and elsewhere - so I don’t think its too much to suggest that it may very well be the work of some anti-Syrian faction (there are many and they fight among themselves as well). The Syrian regime may not be the most savvy in the world, but they’re not complete idiots either and plainly these post-Hariri assassinations are not serving Syrian interests.
As for the rest of your comments, there is no secret that Syria has a vested interest in maintaining its relationships with allied factions in neighboring states (and territories) and it is no secret that Syrian patronage can be heavy-handed as well. However, this does not translate into an effort at creating a “Greater Syria.” Syria is simply too weak and too flooded with internal problems (increased pro-democratic and pro-Islamist agitation, renewed vigor among Kurdish separatists, more then a million Iraqi refugees, limited efforts at economic reform, and so on and so forth) to be seriously expansionist in any meaningful way. In fact, Fred H. Lawson, in his “Why Syria Goes to War: Thirty Years of Confrontation” makes a compelling argument that virtually all of Syria’s external conflicts since 1967 were more the product of the Syrian government trying to deal with domestic problems than the product of a cohesive foreign policy, like the theoretical “Greater Syria” agenda. The supposition that Syria is driven by a “Greater Syria” agenda is neither supported by what Syria says or what Syria does; and even if this were not the case, Syria is simply too weak (militarily, economically, and in every other way) and facing too many internal challenges to make anything of it.
As I said before, I strongly believe that if Israel were to make an offer that the Syrian government could live with, I believe they would jump at the opportunity to sign a peace treaty with Israel, not necessarily out of any love of Israel, but out of a desire to end its last serious military threat and to enter the good graces of the United States.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Syria was reportedly offered (publicly) return of the entire Golan (not the contested strip on the Kinneret) in exchange for severing alliances with Iran, renunciation of intervention in Lebanese politics, and renouncing the permission of Palestinian and other militant groups from headquartering in Damascus.
He rejected that proposal.
That is what it would take to get “into the good graces of the United States”, practically.
Thankfully, the US is still a close ally of Israel.
There is an either/or element to this mess. I contest that the either/or characteristic is founded on the rejectionism of Israel by the more militant Arab and Islamic states and powers in the region.
“I’m pissed, but it will pass” compared to “I’m pissed, and I will never seek my own happiness until you are dead.”
Are the conflicts conditional (and therefore resolvable) or are they unconditional (and therefore unresolvable)?
If unresolvable, then strong military responses are NEEDED. If resolvable, then sincere olive branches are NEEDED.
Hezbollah describes an unconditional hatred. Hamas describes an unconditional hatred. Iran describes an unconditional hatred. Institutionalized in their formative documents, and stated in definitively negative terms.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Richard,
Like it or not, Hizbollah will not be disarmed against its will. It has a very effective command and control structure and its armed forces have parity with the official Lebanese Army. Further - and more importantly - Hizbollah is popular, and not just among the southern Shia, but throughout Lebanon and the larger Arab world. Regardless of how we (you & I) may view it, the popular perception is that Hizbollah has militarily defeated Israel twice (once in forcing an end to the Israeli occupation and second in the Summer War) and they are very effective (much more so then the official Lebanese government) at providing humanitarian relief as well as providing basic social services (schools, hospitals, &c.). At the same time, they do not discriminate between their own Shia base and others in Lebanon, a fact that resulted in them being viewed positively by “the man on the street” throughout Lebanon as well as the number of Sunni Muslims and Christians that even ran for election on the Hizbollah ticket.
If all the Lebanese beside the southern Shia communities hated Hizbollah, they could be forcibly disarmed, though with difficulty; however this just isn’t the case. In fact, Israel’s onslaught last year and Hizbollah’s reaction (both responding in kind to the Israelis as best they could and the immediate humanitarian relief it provided inside Lebanon) just reinforced Hizbollah’s position and standing. While there are Lebanese factions, including factions in the government, that would like to see Hizbollah disarmed, they are a distinct minority with little popular support.
You may not like this, but that is completely immaterial. This is the reality of the situation. Hizbollah is an integral element of Lebanon, it sits in the government, and it has a lot of popularity even outside of its Shia base. Like Hamas, this is a creature of Israel’s own creation (Hizbollah developed as a direct reaction to the Israeli invasion and occupation that began in 1982) and it is there to stay. It does not automatically follow that non-violent co-existence is impossible, but it does mean that as long as Israel remains perceived as a threat to Lebanon, Hizbollah will be viewed as a necessary counter-measure. The Summer War reinforced this perception to an extreme degree. You’ll note that since then even the anti-Hizbollah factions have gone quiet about disarming them for the most part.
And your comments on the rearming of Hezbollah in violation of the UN resolution?
I agree that Hizbollah remaining armed is in violation of the relevant UN resolutions, but as noted above, there is nothing to be done about it, largely thanks to Israel’s own actions that just reaffirmed Hizbollah’s importance.
And your comments on the relationship between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah?
What about it precisely do you want me to comment on? There is no secret about the relationships between the three.
The purpose of civil disobedience is to evoke a response. The purpose of Hezbollah violent efforts was similarly.
Actually, if you’ve been following events in Beirut, Hizbollah has been using peaceful protest and civil disobedience, in an exact emulation of the “Cedar Revolution,” for many months now. Of course without the same diplomatic support and external pressure the tactic hasn’t been very effective. Nevertheless, as noted previously, neither Hizbollah nor most other Lebanese have any interest in seeing the civil war return and almost all factions - including Hizbollah - are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening without surrendering their political positions and interests.
The BIG shift, which you failed to engage, is whether the event was a skirmish or a war. … When Hezbollah escalated to attack Israeli cities, even after their first unilateral attacks on civilian towns, they confirmed their understanding of the event as a war.
I really don’t see the significance here. The initial raid was certainly a skirmish, but it quickly developed into a state of active warfare. In either case it doesn’t justify the various war crimes and Crimes against Humanity committed.
You select citations that contest that Israel conducted its WAR improperly, but then compare that to ONLY the initial Hezbollah abduction (although also accompanied by war crimes, initiating the shelling of civilian towns).
Obviously you’re not reading anything that I’ve written, please go back and do so. As for “Israel conducted its WAR improperly,” I think EVERYONE is in agreement on that point, even the Israeli government and the Winograd Commission.
You also neglected (selectively) to consider the context of a three front war. It wasn’t Hezbollah solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
I’ve addressed this almost every time you’ve mentioned it, and as far as I can tell it has no bearing on anything at all. I didn’t say Hizbollah was acting in solidarity with the Palestinians and yet, as we’ve agreed, Hizbollah certainly took advantage of the upsurge of Palestinian resistance to determine its timing. You mention this over and over again as though it somehow justifies or excuses something: it does not. If you have point in bringing this up, would you please get around to making it?
Israel erred in giving Hezbollah what it wanted. Although in the first three days of the fighting, Hezbollah was entirely discredited as opportunistic and thuggish in the Arab press and by statements from nearly all governments in the Islamic region (excepting Iran and Syria).
That is true, that is also when Hizbollah decided to connect the release of the Palestinian women to its demands as something of a “popular” measure. Regardless, Israel’s grossly disproportionate response quickly overshadowed the initial provocation.
In response to the fiasco, Israel - a democratic state, undertook a very public criticism of the conduct of the war. They emphasized the failure to defend effectively and professionally, and only incidentally focused on the human rights issues.
Very true.
Hezbollah has not been subject to the same public scrutiny to be seen by the world, although its objective failures and opportunism is evident and enormous.
I don’t think this is true at all; Hizbollah has been subject to extremely harsh criticism from a myriad of perspectives and in a myriad of places. Nevertheless, as repeatedly noted, Israel’s obscenely disproportionate response completely overshadowed Hizbollah’s many failures with respect to the Summer War. Just like the father who murders his child, the murder completely overshadows the initial provocation because it is so much worse, so too with Israel’s killing spree across Lebanon.
There was near concensus in Israel that the events was of the nature of war, a third front, and NOT of the nature of a skirmish as the left conveniently revises.
This still justifies and excuses absolutely nothing.
Clearly, I am arguing for the illegitimacy of Hezbollah as a militia, that Hezbollah is largely responsible for the suffering of the Southern Lebanese by initiating aggressions so flagrantly and lying so amateurishly.
You’re more than welcome to your opinion; however, opinions being subjective, you can’t be all that surprised to see that many people - including many Lebanese - completely disagree.
My understanding of the Israel/Hezbollah war as far as Israel’s role was that Israel’s goal of defending was just, but a large portion of the means taken were not. John and I could agree on that I believe,…
True.
But, I would contest that Hezbollah is currently and for a long time seeking advantage, not representation, in Lebanon and relative to Israel.
You act as though there is something odd or unusual about this. Of course Hizbollah - like any other political faction anywhere in the world - seeks its own advantage.
The reason that I question the validity of “outrage”, is that in reviewing what the outrage is about, a large proportion is ambiguously describable as war crimes.
As mentioned previously, if you just refuse to face the facts there isn’t much to be said. Your strategy of sitting there with your hands over your eyes doesn’t change anything at all. If you just want to ignore the extremely well documented reality of the Summer War, your ignorance is your problem not mine. It is just as bad as those who flatly refuse to look at the photographs of the aftermath of suicide bombings as they would rather not deal with the reality of it.
(Did you mean to compare Hezbollah to a two-year old by analogy. I doubt that they would be excited by that.)
Probably not.
As for the rest of this, quite obviously you have no understanding of international humanitarian (as distinct from human rights) law at all, even the basic principles, much less a working knowledge related to applicability. Further, explaining/teaching the basics of international humanitarian law is well beyond the scope of this discussion thread. Just a word of friendly advice, you should really not try to argue legal points when it is patently obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You’re pretty good at these online discussions, sometimes you make new or interesting points or at least force me to go back and check my sources, however legal issues are not your forte.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“Like Hamas, this is a creature of Israel’s own creation (Hizbollah developed as a direct reaction to the Israeli invasion and occupation that began in 1982) and it is there to stay. ”
Another fantasy/exageration.
I read the HRW and AI reports. Your citation of them describes them as a slam-dunk. My read of them describes a portion that are clear, and a much larger portion that are ambiguous.
The experience of the Lebanese was of overwhelming assault, and often without apparent cause.
The experience of Israelis was similarly of unilateral assault and often without apparent cause.
That communication disconnect creates the condition for future war.
I agree that Hezbollah is there. But, you site it as a “legitimate resistance movement”, with the implication that you believe it should be, rather than the meaning that it just is by virtue of popular support.
I don’t have any means to corroborate nor dispute your assertion about the degree of popularity of Hezbollah.
I do think