Middle East thread continued

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor

At least you're consistent. You opposed almost as many wars as I did.

That's OK. I do support the right of countries to defend themselves when attacked though that seems to set me apart from quite a few people here though.

Re Fisk: I think I'll join the ing based on my Googling of him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm still really no wiser as to why Israel targeted Christian East Beirut.

Who knows... it may be because in the next election it seems that Hezbollah will partner up with Aoun and the Christians to try to form a coalition.

How fun would that be. Hezbollah and Christians in it together. Wonder how many people in the West would be able to comprehend that .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Who knows... it may be because in the next election it seems that Hezbollah will partner up with Aoun and the Christians to try to form a coalition.

How fun would that be. Hezbollah and Christians in it together. Wonder how many people in the West would be able to comprehend that .

Quite. What next ? Druze and Wah'habi love-fests ?

Hamas and Fatah scout camps ?

[Arrian]

Dispatch From Beirut
Why the current attacks are worse than the siege of 1982.
By Michael Young
Posted Thursday, July 20, 2006, at 12:09 PM ET


There is a rule I've learned over the years living through Lebanon's multiple wars: The optimistic predictions of anxious civilians are always wrong. A few days ago, people in my mostly Christian East Beirut neighborhood were sure that Israel would not extend its bombing campaign to include them. Yesterday morning, in two separate attacks, Israeli aircraft rocketed trucks a few hundred meters from where I live.

The trucks looked like they were carrying missiles. In fact, they carried equipment used to pump water out of the ground before developing a piece of property. As one wag put it after the attack, "At least the owner of the land won't have to spend money digging foundations for a new building."

Since the outbreak of the latest violence, optimism and pessimism have clashed continuously, with the latter gaining ground. The Israeli offensive looks like it will continue unabated for at least another week or so, before the grinding process of negotiations begins. The second phase may be more grueling, if less wantonly destructive, than the first. Why? Because Hezbollah, and behind it Iran, will block any process that might neutralize the party—let alone lead to its disarmament, as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.

For the Lebanese, this will mean more suffering. Lebanon's prime minister, Fouad Siniora, said yesterday that 500,000 people have been displaced, and most schools, public facilities, convents, and other refuges are overflowing with refugees. The Israelis have not—or not yet—bombed the electricity grid serving Beirut and the areas north of it, so there is still running water. However, they have begun to attack large trucks, on the grounds that they might be carrying Hezbollah rockets. As a result, truck drivers are terrified of taking to the roads, making the movement of medical and other emergency supplies all the more laborious.

I lived through Israel's appalling siege of West Beirut in the summer of 1982, and this latest round is more bearable but also much more alarming. Bearable, because in most parts of the country the lights are still on, there is water, and one can still find fresh food, gasoline, and can even sleep. During the West Beirut siege, the inhabitants had virtually none of this, even as the Israelis bombed the city at will.

But this time, the attacks are also more alarming, because they are not limited, as they were then, to a sector of the capital. All of Lebanon is a target; all access roads, airports, and ports have been blocked or are in constant danger of being attacked, and a much larger swath of civilians are in danger. According to eyewitnesses in southern Lebanon, including journalist friends of mine, the destruction of villages is the worst they've ever seen—both intense and systematic—and it's not Hezbollah that is usually on the receiving end of the ordnance, it is civilians. Much the same is taking place away from the cameras in the northern Beqaa Valley, another majority-Shiite area. As for the Hezbollah stronghold in the Haret Hreik quarter of Beirut's southern suburbs, it has been reduced to dust. While this may have made it a legitimate objective, the suburbs have probably the highest concentration of inhabitants in Beirut, and virtually everybody has fled.

In the safer areas of the capital, life goes on but at a much reduced tempo. In my neighborhood, most stores and businesses have remained shut for days, and those businesses that do open tend to give up at around noon. A waiter at a cafe across the street from my apartment building is pleased to tell me, "We never close." And though they do close, at midnight, these days that is daring enough to qualify as "never."

Throughout this past week, foreigners have been leaving Lebanon in droves, on ships, buses, and helicopters chartered by their governments. July and August are the high points of the tourist season, and thousands of visitors, Lebanese expatriates and tourists alike, were trapped by the Israeli operation. This is not their war, but how can one not feel bad for those Lebanese who have to watch the exodus, particularly those who have lost everything. The evacuation confirms the direness of their predicament and may mean, once completed, that international attention shifts elsewhere.

The politics of a settlement are complicated. Israel initially said its attacks were an effort to secure the release of its two kidnapped soldiers and to disarm Hezbollah. The latter objective, as even Israeli officials now recognize, is not achievable. No state will try seizing the party's arms by force, nor is that feasible at this stage, and Hezbollah will not surrender them willingly. That's why the Israeli strategy at first hand appears to be much simpler: to impose an abysmally high blood tax on the Lebanese in general, and Shiites in particular, so Hezbollah will not again think of kidnapping its soldiers or bombarding its territory.

But where does that lead? The United Nations and European officials have suggested there is a need to deploy an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border. A 2,000-man force known as UNIFIL has been present on the ground since 1978, and its expansion would be a logical step. But this plan will go nowhere if Hezbollah retains its weapons and can fire its rockets against Israel while hiding behind the international peacekeepers. Prime Minister Siniora, and probably much of the international community, is said to want a much more solid arrangement that involves Hezbollah's demilitarization.

Nothing yet compels the party to accept. Its fighting capacity seems largely intact, despite Israeli claims to the contrary. Many Lebanese are fed up with Hezbollah but know it holds the guns. Between Hezbollah and the Israelis, people say, one thing is certain: Lebanon is in for prolonged instability. Then they mention the rock in their stomach.

Michael Young is opinion editor at the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and a contributing editor at Reason magazine.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Spiffor

A lot of the "civilian" casualties in reality are Hizbullah.

How do you know?

Just lets assume that I put "I assume that" in front of the sentence (which of course I didn´t, but only because I forgot to do so )

[Drake Tungsten]

Agreeing with Drake lately... hrm.

May god have mercy on your soul...

[lord of the mark]

todays Jerusalem Post:

Lebanese Druse leader Walid Jumblatt accused Syria of seeking Lebanon's destruction and also called for Hizbullah to be disarmed. Jumblatt said that Iran had asked Hizbullah to kidnap Israeli soldiers to divert attention from its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

"Syrian President Bashar Assad is destroying Lebanon because he wants the international country to talk to him," Jumblatt said. "He is trying to send a message to the world that Syria is capable of destroying Lebanon and that's why it's worthwhile talking to the Syrians."

Jumblatt said in a phone interview that the decision to kidnap the IDF soldiers was taken by Teheran after failing to reach an agreement with the European Union over its nuclear weapons program. "A senior Iranian government official visited Damascus days before the abduction of the soldiers," the Druse leader added.

"The visit came on the eve of the G-8 summit, which was planning to discuss Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranians managed to change the summit's agenda by putting the Lebanon crisis at the top."

Jumblatt also scoffed at statements by Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah to the effect that Hizbullah is fighting the battle of all the Arabs and Muslims.

"Lebanon is still a democratic country and Nasrallah does not have the right to make important decisions about war and peace on his own," he said. "We will never be able to establish a modern state as long as we have an armed organization."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Who knows... it may be because in the next election it seems that Hezbollah will partner up with Aoun and the Christians to try to form a coalition.

How fun would that be. Hezbollah and Christians in it together. Wonder how many people in the West would be able to comprehend that .

from what I understand most of the Christian pols in Lebanon despise Aoun.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It has just occured to me that, if Serbia was doing the same thing as Israel does today, for an identical provocation, everybody here would be talking about bombing Serbia.

Feel free to object if I'm wrong.

I object. Israel has no territorial claims in Lebanon. It is attacking forces that have attacked Israel, over an international border. It does not intend to ethnically cleanse Lebanon - Lebanese refugees will return to their homes when the war is over JUST AS ISRAELI REFUGEES will return to their homes in the North of Israel.

Why is that a Lebanese who runs from southern Lebanon to the north is a refugee, but an Israeli who runs from Northern Israel to Tel Aviv, is not?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why is Israel bombing Christians?

AFAIK, Israel is not targeting Christians, just as Israel is not targeting Shiite muslim civilians. Israel IS targeting Hezbollah weapons stockpiles, hezbollah missiles and missile launchers and missile launching teams, hezbollah bunkers, etc. It is also targeting roads and bridges and other facilities likely to be used by Hezbollah.

If a Christian neighborhood was hit, I would presume, unless you have decisive evidence otherwise, that it was either because Hezbollah had moved forces there, or because a mistake was made, such as a stray bomb.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


only sometimes!? Over 330 civs dead, nary a word on hezb casualties...



You guys are choking on your own propaganda...

Of the 34 Israel dead so far, 19 are military meaning that their success rate is over 50% enemy combatants killed of total casualties!

As I said earlier, it seems to me that the Hezb are far more accurate with their inaccurate weapons instead of the odd hezb killed here and there - cos lets face it if Israel had had a significant military success we'd know about it...

Israel military dead are mainly ground troops whove entered Lebanon. Of the victims of Hezb rockets hitting Israel, I think almost all are civilians.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MOBIUS

Answer me that, Einstein...

1. Until Hezb is beaten, he cant very well say its all their fault

2. He wants money to rebuild. Of course hes going to talk about all the damage

3. However justified Israel may be in defending itself, it does hurt Lebanons infrastructure. Why wouldnt he say so?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
todays Jerusalem Post:

Did you quote this article in order to show that there is a rise in anti-Hezbollah sentiment in Lebanon?

Because Mr Jumblatt already made his position clear four monthes ago, way before the current war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Have you read the article, especially the first one?

I'm not claiming that Fisk is great, and that everything he says is gospel. he's biased, and we all know it. But it's nice to see a journalist who knows something about Lebanon, for a change. And it's nice to read something different than the press conferences of the IDF, or the declarations of Lebanese leaders.

there are many reporters in Lebanon, much less biased than Fisk, whose name is now a verb, meaning to sentence by sentence parse a biased, inaccurate article.

If the questions are about what the IDF is trying to do, or why they did a particular thing, wouldnt IDF press conferences be an important source of information? Or is this like the schoolyard, where someone makes an accusation, and then puts their fingers in their ears when the accused responds?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Why is that a Lebanese who runs from southern Lebanon to the north is a refugee, but an Israeli who runs from Northern Israel to Tel Aviv, is not?

Both are refugees, but we talk about the Lebanese refugees more because:
1. The destruction of infrastructure makes it much harder to actually flee.
2. The impending bombing on infrastructure means that people are dying as they flee
3. It is much harder to bring medical supplies and humanitarian aid to Lebanese refugees, not only because roads and briges are damages/destroyed, but also because Israel targets large trucks. Israel has bombed several ambulances.
4. The safe zone in Israel is pretty big, and can absorb the refugee influx without too much difficulty. There is no safe zone in Lebanon.