Middle East thread continued

[GePap]

Israel seems to have no real strategy currently in lebanon, not one that will work.

It has not been brough up, but there is a reason Lebanon saw a 20 year civil war, and has been a problem before that- it is a contry rife with secterian divisions.

I bet those Lebanese bloggers that dislike Hizbullah are probably either Maronite Christian or Sunni Moslem. The Sunnis and Maronites have been the ones holding the power in Lebanon, and fighting amongst themselves for that power. The Shia were always marginalized, unimportant. But they happen to be the biggest single group in Lebanon. The Israeli invasion of '82 and the Iranian revolution radicallized and politicized them, and Hizbullah is their political party. The government in Beirut, one of Maronites and Sunni's, can;t take on Hizbullah because they have not shown much ability to offer anything to the Shia. Why then should the Shia back a "Lebanse government" that does not represent them like Hizbullah does?

Lets take the suggestions made, the Israel bomb just Hizbullah positions-that would be proportionate, certainly, as oposed to their current actions, but if the Beirut government stayed silent and tacitcly let Israel do that, are they not sending the message that they will let a foreign power kill fellow Lebanese simply because, well, it serves their interests? What kind of "national government" would do that? Anbd what messages does that send to the Shia in southern Lebanon?

At the same time Israel does not want to invade southern Lebanon, probably because they are aware of what that would mean, and what it would really lead to (another long occupation like last time). So all they do is bomb Lebanon, hoping they can get the Maronites and Sunnis to take on the Shia, which would just lead to another civil war, and in no way actually helps Israel because Iran will back its religious breatheren, and Syria has every interest in letting Lebanon fall apart again, and making things hard for Israel.

Yes, Israel is in a tough spot, but they seem incapable of taking a step back, breathing, and trying to come up with a strategy that actually will work long term, as opposed to simply reacting, and making things even more complicated.

[Ramo]

Yep, the Confessional system severely under-represents the Shia, one of the main reasons for the rise of Hizb in recent years. Beirut denies them democratic representation, so they look towards carving out autonomy in the South. Amal, the other Shia party, is generally supportive of this goal.

And bombing Beirut's infrastructure is just plain stupid. I have no idea what Olmert's thinking on this. The Lebanese gov't isn't likely to play ball with Israeli designs. If it does, expect a long bloodbath that takes far more than two lives. People have been comparing post-invasion Iraq with the Lebanon for a reason.

[Ecthy]

Winston (make of this whatever you want)

That Spiegel article rules, read it today and thought about posting it, but figured people would ask for a translation

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢

However I don't understand how bombing civilian Lebanese infrastructure (bridges, highway, airport runway...) fits in the story of destroying Hizbullah's installations. Even Der Spiegel states that the IDF bombed the fuel tanks of a power plant and that most deads are civilians.

You seem to miss the point that those infrastructures while sited in Lebanon actually is controlled by Hizbullah. Hizbullah isn't like IRA, RAF etc. it's more like a regular army that has regular control of the area.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat


You seem to miss the point that those infrastructures while sited in Lebanon actually is controlled by Hizbullah. Hizbullah isn't like IRA, RAF etc. it's more like a regular army that has regular control of the area.

Actually, NO. Hizbullah does not "control" those roads, or bridges, and certainly not the airport, or ports in Nothern Lebanon which were just attacked.

What Hizbullah controls are villages and sites in southern Lebanon and the Shia neighborhoods of Beirut.

The infrasctructure is used by all Lebanese, and open to all Lebanese.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, NO. Hizbullah does not "control" those roads, or bridges, and certainly not the airport, or ports in Nothern Lebanon which were just attacked.

What Hizbullah controls are villages and sites in southern Lebanon and the Shia neighborhoods of Beirut.

The infrasctructure is used by all Lebanese, and open to all Lebanese.

Why shouldn't they allow other lebanes to use airports etc ? Of course they do, though, that doesn't change the fact that they control it as in they decide what is allowed. There is a reason to why the legal government of Lebanon doesn't control the southern part - they are not as strong as Hizbullah.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Why shouldn't they allow other lebanes to use airports etc ? Of course they do, though, that doesn't change the fact that they control it as in they decide what is allowed.

Except that that isn't even remotely true, specially for the airport or ports in the north. Hizbullha is armed and controls the south, but it does not "decide" who uses the roads, nor the international airport.

There is a reason to why the legal government of Lebanon doesn't control the southern part - they are not as strong as Hizbullah.

1. That assertion has nothing to do with your claim that Hizbullah "controls" the civilian infrastructure.

2. The Lebanese government's inability to tackle Hizbullah is as much political as military.

[Ramo]

The idea that Hizb controls the Beirut airport is absurd. That would make them the de-fact gov't of Lebanon.

[Winston]

Whether they control it or not isn't the sole determinant as to whether the airport is considered a valuable target.

Airports tend to handle the transportation of goods and passengers, as do harbours, roads and bridges. Best way to control such infrastructure when in a state of war is to incapacitate it.

[Ecthy]

That's just so fukking brilliant, Winston. Thanks for enriching us with your logistical wisdom

[Winston]

Apparently it wasn't too obvious for some.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that that isn't even remotely true, specially for the airport or ports in the north. Hizbullha is armed and controls the south, but it does not "decide" who uses the roads, nor the international airport.

It goes fine for the southern part of Lebanon. About the northern installations, well, neither you nor me has any real knowledge about why they are attacked, but I'm pretty sure that the Israelis has their reasons.

Besides being pretty good in military actions, they also are so accustomed to the political part of such actions that they have reasons to do what they do.

1. That assertion has nothing to do with your claim that Hizbullah "controls" the civilian infrastructure.

2. The Lebanese government's inability to tackle Hizbullah is as much political as military.

The political part is only a minor thing, though it exists. Even if the Lebanese government should descide to disarm hizbollah, it doesn't have the power to execute it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo
The idea that Hizb controls the Beirut airport is absurd. That would make them the de-fact gov't of Lebanon.

That is an absurd statement - why would that make them de-fact gov ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat


It goes fine for the southern part of Lebanon. About the northern installations, well, neither you nor me has any real knowledge about why they are attacked, but I'm pretty sure that the Israelis has their reasons.

Israel has given reasons for all its attacks. The stated reason for attacking the airport, as well as roads, and bridges has been to stop supplies reaching Hizbullah. The reasons given for attacking the ports in the north was to disable rada installations that were "targeting" Israeli warships.

Besides being pretty good in military actions, they also are so accustomed to the political part of such actions that they have reasons to do what they do.

Yeah, the Israelis always know the political ramifications of their military actions. I mean, just look at 1982.....

The political part is only a minor thing, though it exists. Even if the Lebanese government should descide to disarm hizbollah, it doesn't have the power to execute it.

The political part is the reason for the Lebanse govenrment not being able to tackle Hizbullah. If the Lebanese government were seen as the legitimate government of all Lebanese, then the Shia in the south would not stand in a governments attempt to control the whole of its territory. But the Beirut governemt had little legitimacy amongst the Shia, so it can;t move against Hizbullah unless it can convince the Shia that their interests lie with the government as opposed to Hizbullah.

[Thedrin]

Deleted