Middle East thread continued

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

I quoted it because someone here accused Olmert of idiocy for saying that Iran was behind the kidnappings, as a diversion. I doubt very much that Jumblatt spoke aboout the kidnappings four months ago. This would seem to be an independent source, unless you think Jumblatt is coordinating his statements with Olmert.

It also places the statements of Siniora in context.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

How many have lived in Lebanon for 30 years, know the place, understand the people?

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?

It is always interesting to have an idea of what the respective propagandas are. ISF press conferences are as such as interesting as Nasrallah's interview. However, these news items alone are far from satisfying.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

A. I dont see MORE talk about Leb refugees. I see an assumption that no Israelis are refugees. Israelis are displaced, theyve moved - theyre NEVER called refugees.
B. Hezb rockets are also fallling on Israeli infrastructure, and presumably on the roads leading south as well. Theyre just less accurate.
C. Israel is targeting large trucks with good reason. Rarely does a country fight a war without attacking the other sides supply lines. Hezb uses trucks to move missiles and forces.

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.

A. ? Have there been any attacks on the coast north of Beirut? Tripoli, etc? I havent heard there is - thats the old Maronite homeland, and id be surprised in Hezb has moved up there, or if Israel had any targets there.

B. Much of Southern Israel is within range of rockets from Gaza, including the city of Ashkelon.

C. Israeli attacks in Lebanon apparently destroyed a Zal Zal rocket, an Iranian rocket with a range to reach Tel Aviv. We dont know if Hezb has any other Zal Zals. Or if Syria and Iran are trying to get some in to Lebanon.

D. If and when Israel withdraws from the West Bank, all of central Israel will be within rocket range (even without the Zal Zals) Thats not a comment specifically about the current war, but its been noted and I thought was worth a reminder.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


It is always interesting to have an idea of what the respective propagandas are. ISF press conferences are as such as interesting as Nasrallah's interview. However, these news items alone are far from satisfying.

Your wording implies you give the same credence to Nasrallah as to the IDF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that that is not what you meant.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I quoted it because someone here accused Olmert of idiocy for saying that Iran was behind the kidnappings, as a diversion. I doubt very much that Jumblatt spoke aboout the kidnappings four months ago. This would seem to be an independent source, unless you think Jumblatt is coordinating his statements with Olmert.

I don't think Jumblatt coordinates his statements with Olmert.

However, I don't see how his repeating Olmert's claim gives any more credence to said claim. Jumblatt is an independentist. he's anti-Syrian and anti-Hezbollah. For him, this war is an opportunity to rally support against Hezbollah. He stands to win support by painting the current conflict as a proxy war between Israel, Syria and Iran, using Lebanon as a battleground (which might very well be true btw).
If this version became accepted, it would show the Lebanese that Hezbollah doesn't care for them, and only cares for its masters. Incidentally, Nasrallah spends quite some time in his interview positioning himself against that idea.

A world-widespread idea, as to explain that Iran is to blame (= that Hezbollah is but a foreign tool), is that Iran wanted to divert the G8 from the nuke issue. Why would Jumblatt not repeat it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


A world-widespread idea, as to explain that Iran is to blame (= that Hezbollah is but a foreign tool), is that Iran wanted to divert the G8 from the nuke issue. Why would Jumblatt not repeat it?

because if it was as so obviously idiotic as some people say, it would make him appear foolish to Lebanese.

This doesnt prove its true, but it shows that its a serious possibility, to Jumblatt's audience in Lebanon, which really ought to be able to judge better than folks here.

[lord of the mark]

"Up a steep path

By Haaretz Editorial

Defense Minister Amir Peretz lives in Sderot, which has been targeted by Qassam rockets for the past four years. He does not have to read reports to know that ongoing rocket fire on a civilian population and a defense establishment incapable of protecting the citizenry have destructive consequences.

The ability of Hamas and smaller groups to manufacture cheap, homemade rockets bypasses the separation fence between Israel and the territories and makes a mockery of the Israel Defense Forces. It raises questions about the pullout from these territories in the absence of a central government determined to foil the fire.

If Israelis doubt their government's ability to stop the rockets from Qalqilyah to Kfar Sava, Beit Hanun to Sderot and Beit Lahiya to Ashkelon, they will not support a move that is vital to Israel's peace and security. The move is dismantling the West Bank settlements and leaving the evacuated areas to Palestinian sovereignty. This is a grim but necessary political lesson.


Israel learned a similar lesson in the '70s and '80s, in an earlier edition of what is taking place in Lebanon now. Katyushas fired at the Galilee and Kiryat Shmona drove Israel to launch Operation Litani against the Palestine Liberation Organization in southern Lebanon, dubbed "Fatahland." A while later it was followed by the war in Lebanon, whose initial ground scope, 40 kilometers, derived from the PLO's gun range. The rockets brought the IDF into Lebanon. They are threatening to do so again, and to prevent Israel from leaving the territories as well.

Therefore, the defense establishment heads should not be allowed to consider the advantages and disadvantages of means against missiles as though this were a purely military issue, like whether the navy should invest in a missile boat or a submarine. These are important arguments, but unless the rocket and missile problem is solved, the government will have to give up climbing the steep slope of evacuating the territories.

In previous years the General Staff and Defense Ministry management failed to assess the urgency of the rocket threat. They shelved the Nautilus system to intercept incoming rockets or artillery. Instead they set a complacent timetable to convert the Barak Weapon System, a ship-borne anti-missile-missile point defense, to coastal defense batteries that would protect Haifa bay, Tiberias, Nazareth and the Ramat David base. Had the defense establishment heeded the experts' warnings in 2004, including members of a committee appointed by the defense establishment itself, Israel might have been able to counter the salvos from Lebanon at this time.

Political intervention in professional considerations is usually not a good idea. Such intervention could be tainted with personal whims and bias in favor of cronies. However, this is not the case with the projectile weapons and tunnels the terror organizations are using as a means of getting either under or over the fence.

Peretz's decision to concentrate the efforts on handling these two problems in his ministry and give them high priority is an appropriate move along the right trajectory. "

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Your wording implies you give the same credence to Nasrallah as to the IDF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that that is not what you meant.

"The first casualty when war comes is truth"

In war, I don't grant any trust to any official propaganda of any side. All communication done by either side is spin to look in a more positive light. I'm not saying that they're saying all lies - there is certainly truth in what they say, among lies.

But truth or lies, it's all spin, and that's normal. Every modern military has a press corps, whose spin is the very job. As to Hezbollah, they've long understood how essential propaganda is, and they're skilled at it.

To me, the IDF is a less unreliable source than the Hezbollah in peacetime. But forgive me if I distrust the propaganda of any side of an ongoing conflict, on a matter of principle.

[lord of the mark]

so

If Israel makes a peace deal with the Palestinians and withdraws from all of the West Bank.

If a "non governmental org" in the West Bank aquires a stock of thousands of missiles, and crosses the new international border to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

If Israel attacks the organization, as intensely as it is attacking Hezbollah.

The world community, led by folks like our esteemed posters here, will determine that an Israeli operation like the current one is disproportionate, and urge action to stop it?

This does NOT fill me with renewed enthusiasm for the prospects of success of an Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"The first casualty when war comes is truth"

In war, I don't grant any trust to any official propaganda of any side. All communication done by either side is spin to look in a more positive light. I'm not saying that they're saying all lies - there is certainly truth in what they say, among lies.

But truth or lies, it's all spin, and that's normal. Every modern military has a press corps, whose spin is the very job. As to Hezbollah, they've long understood how essential propaganda is, and they're skilled at it.

To me, the IDF is a less unreliable source than the Hezbollah in peacetime. But forgive me if I distrust the propaganda of any side of an ongoing conflict, on a matter of principle.

The fog of war is a fact, and we dont generally learn the real truths about war till years afterward.

But folks here are asking for an explanation NOW of specific Israeli actions. I think the IDF is the right place to start in explaining that. Certainly id start with that, rather than the assertion that to Israel "all arabs are alike" The IDF has been dealing with Lebanon for decades, and is more familiar with the political and religious of complexity of Lebanon than ANY poster here.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
because if it was as so obviously idiotic as some people say, it would make him appear foolish to Lebanese.

"Some people" being me, let me just say that.

What I found "rich" wasn't the idea that Iran tried to manipulate the G8 talks. I don't believe in that idea
(because it assumes that Iran knew that Israel would escalate the incident into a major crisis, which is either a very bold gamble or prescience), but a Hezbollah-Iran conspiracy is very possible, and it is a fairly reasonable conspiracy theory.

What I found moronic of Olmert (or if it wasn't moronic, manipulative in a fashion similar to Arab leaders who blame everything on foreigners) is that it's the G8's fault for having been manipulated. If Olmert so wanted the Iranian nukes to be a priority on the G8's agenda, he should have been wiser than to escalate the incident into the most mediatic international crisis this month.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"If Olmert so wanted the Iranian nukes to be a priority on the G8's agenda, he should have been wiser than to escalate the incident into the most mediatic international crisis.

If you wish to be better informed about the pressures on Olmert, you would do well to read the Israeli press. I dont think you really grasp the POV of the Israeli street, which has seen the withdrawl from South Lebanon lead to the 2nd intifadah, and has seen the Gaza withdrawl, of which Olmert was a firm supporter, apparently lead to continued terror, to the election of Hamas, to the conversion of Gaza into a base for rocket attacks on southern Israel. And has seen continued attacks across the northern border. I would venture to say that the Olmert govt would have fallen if Olmert had not reacted forcefully (forcefully enough to create the international crisis) to the kidnapping.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"Some people" being me, let me just say that.

What I found "rich" wasn't the idea that Iran tried to manipulate the G8 talks. I don't believe in that idea
(because it assumes that Iran knew that Israel would escalate the incident into a major crisis, which is either a very bold gamble or prescience),.

Is Iran THAT ignorant of the Israeli political scene, and the pressures on the Olmert govt? Cant they spare at least one person to read Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post every day?

[Cort Haus]

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.

This is true, and Serbia would get bombed, but that doesn't make Israel wrong to defend itself, as Serbia was right to defend itself against terrorism. Unfortunately NATO joined the terrorists in '99.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"The first casualty when war comes is truth"

In war, I don't grant any trust to any official propaganda of any side. All communication done by either side is spin to look in a more positive light. I'm not saying that they're saying all lies - there is certainly truth in what they say, among lies.

But truth or lies, it's all spin, and that's normal. Every modern military has a press corps, whose spin is the very job. As to Hezbollah, they've long understood how essential propaganda is, and they're skilled at it.

To me, the IDF is a less unreliable source than the Hezbollah in peacetime. But forgive me if I distrust the propaganda of any side of an ongoing conflict, on a matter of principle.

i would also point out that in the case of the Jenin "massacre" the IDF reports proved to be far closer to the truth than the anti-Israel spin.