Middle East thread continued

[Edan]

Originally posted by General Ludd
weapons from iran to lebanon

It's not weapons from Iran to Lebanon. It's weapons from Iran to Hezbollah.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fine plan. You get right on it.

[Sprayber]

The Isralies are bombing what they are bombing because they can and in their mind it is limiting their enemies ability to act out. The idea of bombing America or Europe is stupid to even consider. I don't see Iran or Syria in any hurry to get involved in this despite the bravado coming from Iran. If I were the Palastinians or Lebanese I would be ****ing pissed that Iran only seems concerned about threatening to do something if Syria is attacked and Syria is keeping its mouth shut except for the usual line of the evil Zionist.

The only people actually trying to do something are the Egyptians. They may not have been successful so far but at least they are doing more than talking out their ass. From what I have heard Egypt has actually been trying to broker a deal. Ineffective yes, but at least they are trying.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sprayber
The only people actually trying to do something are the Egyptians. They may not have been successful so far but at least they are doing more than talking out their ass. From what I have heard Egypt has actually been trying to broker a deal. Ineffective yes, but at least they are trying.

I would say that the guerillas are also doing something.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
That is an absurd statement - why would that make them de-fact gov ?

Well, that would have them controlling the majority of human traffic in and out of the country, wouldn't it? That would give them sufficient leverage to essentially call all the shots, or so I would think. Mind you, I know little about Lebanon...but then, the same is apparently true of most of the other people in this thread and that isn't stopping them, so I guess it hardly matters.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Not very well if Hezbollah can get weapons through it.

What does that have to do with anything? Why would the Lebanse government want the political headache? To make Israelis feel safer???

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by GePap
What does that have to do with anything? Why would the Lebanse government want the political headache? To make Israelis feel safer???

No, to make it so that Israel wouldn't feel the need to bomb the airport.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


What does that have to do with anything? Why would the Lebanse government want the political headache? To make Israelis feel safer???

Uhh, to prevent Hezbollah from continuing to grow in strength - making it harder to deal with - enrouching on Lebenon's soverenty? Havin

That is, if Lebenon's government minds having a terrorist group operating on it's territory and being used by Iran and Syria as their proxy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by LordShiva


No, to make it so that Israel wouldn't feel the need to bomb the airport.

Again, why should the Lebanese government risk civil war in order to make the Israelis feel safe? Civil War worse than airstrike v. Airport.

The real point is that Israel took the raid as a pretext, which is that they will try to force the Central government to take on Hizbullah, since they seem currently not inclined to actually invade southern Lebanon yet. The raid in the airport served far more then just to cut off Hizbullah from weapons. Its meant to cut of the governemnt and strangle the entire country, hoping the Sunni and Maronites will strike at Hizbullah.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Uhh, to prevent Hezbollah from continuing to grow in strength - making it harder to deal wih - enrouching on Lebenon's soverenty?

Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government....

That is, if Lebenon's government minds being used by Iran and Syria as their proxy and putting it at risk from Israeli retaliation.

And that "proxy" is also the most popular political party of the largest single group in lebanon....

[notyoueither]

Why should the Israeli government leave the airport open for delivery of yet more rockets for Hezbollah to launch at Israel?

It's nice that you think you know what is going on, but more of the 'bad Israelis!' schtick isn't very convincing.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government....



And that "proxy" is also the most popular political party of the largest single group in lebanon....

And those people in Lebanon are reaping what has been sown.

[GePap]

A few colunms form the Lebanese Daily Star, which is a nice paper coming from the ME:

The 4 pairs in the Middle East's death dance

By Rami G. Khouri
Commentary by
Saturday, July 15, 2006

You need to understand the relationship among four pairs of actors to grasp the meaning of the escalating attacks by Hamas, Hizbullah and Israel in recent days. The four pairs are Hamas and Hizbullah, the Palestinian and Lebanese governments, Syria and Iran, and Israel and the United States.

Simplistically, US President George W. Bush has depicted this latest round of war as a clash between good and evil, while the Israeli government has tried to blame Palestinians and Lebanese who only want to make war against a peace-loving Israel. The more nuanced and complex reality is that all the actors in the four pairs collectively play a role in the ongoing fighting, as we witness the culmination of four decades of failed policies that have kept the Middle East tense, angry and violent.

Hizbullah and Hamas emerged in the past decade as the main Arab political forces resisting Israeli occupation in Lebanon and Palestine. They have enjoyed substantial popular support in their respective countries, while at the same time eliciting criticisms for their militant policies that inevitably elicit harsh Israeli responses. We see this in Lebanon today, as the Lebanese people broadly direct their anger at Israel for its brutal attacks against Lebanese civilian installations, but more softly question Hizbullah's decision to trigger this latest calamity, and also fault Palestinians, Syria, other Arabs and Iran for perpetually making Lebanon the battleground for other conflicts.

It is no coincidence that Israel is now simultaneously bombing and destroying civilian infrastructure in Palestine and Lebanon, including airports, bridges, roads, power plants, and government offices. It claims to do this in order to stop terror attacks against Israelis, but in fact the past four decades have shown that its policies generate exactly the opposite effect: They have given birth, power, credibility and now political incumbency to Hamas and Hizbullah, whose main raison d'etre has been to fight the Israeli occupation of their lands. Israeli destruction of normal life for Palestinians and Lebanese also results in the destruction of the credibility, efficacy and even, in cases, the legitimacy of routine government systems. So, the Lebanese and Palestinian governments are key actors in current events - or non-actors in most cases.

The Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that could protect them and deliver essential services. With every new Israeli attack against the Hamas and Hizbullah leaderships or the civilian populations, four important things have happened, and will probably happen during this round of war: The Lebanese and Palestinian governments have lost power and impact; Hamas and Hizbullah have garnered greater popular support, which enhances their effectiveness in guerrilla and resistance warfare; they have expanded their military technical capabilities (mainly longer-range missiles and better improvised explosive devices); and, the anti-Israel, anti-US resistance campaign led by Hamas and Hizbullah has generated widespread political and popular support throughout the Middle East and much of the world.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb

This is linked to the third pair of actors, Syria and Iran, who have carefully and patiently positioned themselves as allies, patrons, hosts, financiers, arms suppliers and ideological brothers of Hamas and Hizbullah. While these two Islamist groups are primarily driven by local resistance to Israel, and are Palestinian and Lebanese in their basic identity, they both play important roles in the foreign policies of Iran and Syria.

We are now witnessing strong convergence between two parallel but linked trends: The sovereign state actors Iran and Syria are fighting deadly political battles against Israel, the US and, increasingly, Europe, while Hamas and Hizbullah fight similar battles against the same foes. It makes eminent sense, from the perspective of Damascus and Tehran, to foment greater troubles now for the US and Israel along the Lebanon-Israel border.

The strike on Wednesday was opportune for the Islamist groups because Israel is deeply perplexed about how to handle Hamas' resistance in Palestine, and the US seems unable to offer any policy other than to support Israel's right to defend itself while withholding the same right from Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.

The fourth pair of actors, the US and Israel, find themselves in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years. Israel has this to show for its track record of being tough: It is now surrounded by two robust Islamist resistance movements with greater striking power and popular support; Arab populations around the region that increasingly vote for Islamist political movements whenever elections are held; immobilized and virtually irrelevant Arab governments in many nearby lands; and, determined, increasingly defiant, ideological foes in Tehran and Damascus who do not hesitate to use all weapons at their means, however damaging these may be to civilians and sovereignty in Lebanon and Palestine.

The US for its part is strangely marginal. Its chosen policies have lined it up squarely with Israel, it has sanctioned and thus cannot even talk to Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas, and it has pressured and threatened Syria for years without any real success. The world's sole superpower is peculiarly powerless in the current crisis in the Middle East.

As long as these four pairs of main actors persist in their intemperate policies, the consequences will remain grim. The way to break this cycle is for all actors to negotiate a political solution that responds to their legitimate grievances and demands. Everyone involved seems prepared to do this, except for Israel and the US, who rely on military force, prolonged occupations, and diplomatic sanctions and threats. What will Israel and the US do when there are no more Arab airports, bridges and power stations to destroy? The futility of such policies should be clear by now, and therefore a diplomatic solution should be sought seriously for the first time.

Rami G. Khouri is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

[GePap]

Iran and the radicals push for war

By David Ignatius
Daily Star staff
Saturday, July 15, 2006

After Hizbullah guerrillas captured Israeli soldiers Wednesday, a furious Dan Halutz, Israel's military chief of staff, warned that the Israeli Army would "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years." Unfortunately, that statement was truer than he may have intended. By pounding Beirut's airport and other civilian targets Thursday, the Israelis have taken a step back in time - to tactics that have been tried repeatedly in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories without much success. Many Lebanese will be angry at Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, for provoking the crisis, but that won't translate into new control of the militia's actions. Instead, the outcome is likely to be similar to what has happened in Gaza over the past several weeks, where Israeli attacks to free a captured soldier further weakened the Palestinian Authority without much damaging the terrorists.

Watching the events of the past few days, you can't help but feel that this is the rerun of an old movie - one in which the guerrillas and kidnappers end up as the winners. Israel's fledgling prime minister, Ehud Olmert, wants to emulate the toughness of his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, but that shouldn't include a replay of Sharon's 1982 Lebanon invasion, a strategic mistake that spawned Hizbullah in the first place.

Hizbullah's action in seizing the Israeli soldiers was utterly reckless. That's the new part of this crisis - that Iranian-backed radicals deliberately opened another front in a war that, in their minds, stretches from Gaza to Iraq. Watching Nasrallah's performance at a news conference Wednesday, he seemed almost to be inviting an Israeli counterattack - knowing it would destabilize the Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora, whose establishment in the wake of the Syrian withdrawal last year was one of the few solid achievements of US policy in the region.

Israeli and American doctrine is premised on the idea that military force will deter adversaries. But as more force has been used in recent years, the deterrent value has inevitably gone down. That's the inner spring of this crisis: The Iranians (and their clients in Hizbullah and Hamas) watch the American military mired in Iraq and see weakness. They are emboldened rather than intimidated. The same is true for the Israelis in Gaza. Rather than reinforcing the image of strength, the use of force (short of outright, pulverizing invasion and occupation) has encouraged contempt.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb

The danger of Iranian-backed adventurism is immense right now, but that's all the more reason for America and Israel to avoid past mistakes in countering it. Reliable strategic lessons are hard to come by in this part of the world, but here are a few.

The first is that in countering aggression, international solidarity and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United States should work closely with its allies at the G-8 summit and the United Nations. Iran and its proxies would like nothing more than to isolate America and Israel.

A second point - obvious from Gaza to Beirut to Baghdad - is that the power of non-state actors is magnified when there is no strong central government. That may sound like a truism, but responding wisely can require some creative diplomacy. The way to blunt Hamas is to build a strong Palestinian Authority that delivers benefits for the Palestinian people. The way to curb Hizbullah is to build up the Lebanese government and army. One way to boost the Lebanese government (and deflate Hizbullah) would be to negotiate the return of the Israeli-occupied territory known as the Shebaa Farms. That chance is lost for now, but the Bush administration should find other ways to enhance Siniora's authority.

A final obvious lesson is that in an open, interconnected world, public opinion matters. This is a tricky battlefield for an unpopular America and Israel, but not an impossible one. To fight the Long War, America and Israel have to get out of the devil suit in global public opinion. For a generation, America maintained a role as honest broker between Israel and the Arabs. The Bush administration should work hard to refurbish that role.

In the Lebanon crisis, we have a terrifying glimpse of the future: Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war. That's the chilling reality behind this week's events. On Tuesday, the Iranians spurned an American offer of talks on their nuclear program; on Wednesday, their Hizbullah proxy made what Israel rightly called "an act of war." The radicals want to lure America and Israel deeper into the killing ground, confident that they have the staying power to prevail. We should not play their game.

Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

[GePap]

Nasrallah has dismissed international law

By Chibli Mallat
Commentary by
Friday, July 14, 2006

The worst, inevitable scenario has taken place. The domestic deadlock in Lebanon has now taken on an international dimension as a result of the Cedar Revolution's failing to produce a president who would have started a new dynamic of peace in Lebanon, and by extension in the region.

If that was the inevitable part, the worst one comes from the terms chosen by Hizbullah's leadership Wednesday after its forces crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border to kidnap two Israeli soldiers. In his news conference, the party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, dismissed international law. Such dismissal will come to haunt us all, including Hizbullah's top cadres, because respect for international law is the one differentiating characteristic that Lebanon, as a small country, has managed to retain in a lawless region. For years it stuck to the legitimacy of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425, and today it seeks to establish a mixed Lebanese-international tribunal to put on trial those responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

As defined by the Security Council, one consequence was particularly grave in the way Hizbullah crossed the Lebanese-Israeli border. As it did with Hamas, whose leadership it has callously decapitated in Palestinian areas during the past three years, Israel will want to go after Lebanese leaders, and neither Europe nor the US will stand in the way of such a vengeful path as the violence spins out of control.

In such times of hardship, leadership is needed. That leadership can only come from the Lebanese government forcing an immediate Security Council resolution that meets the challenges raised by Wednesday's grave developments. The government must seek to disengage Lebanon from the regional trauma shaped by violence and retaliation, and persuade the Security Council to find the needed common ground to prevent any escalation into full-fledged war, occupation, and more assassinations.

Such a resolution should carry three operative clauses. The first would ensure the release of the two Israeli soldiers, to be followed by negotiations through the UN secretary general on all outstanding issues between Lebanon and Israel, including the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. Should the release of the two Israelis not take place, then a third clause would kick in where the Security Council can look into collective measures to force compliance. This condition should be written into the resolution.

Until the passage of such a resolution, the Bush administration must impress on Israel the need to refrain from embarking on violence that forces radicalization and results in further misery for all, especially civilians.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb

The Lebanese, for their part, must make sure that constitutional means are followed when it comes to taking decisions on such grave matters as war and peace. Hizbullah cannot go it alone and expect the government and the country as a whole to accept the sacrifices that all are suffering. The closure of Rafik Hariri Airport is a harbinger of far greater tragedies to come.

On the basis of what the government and Hizbullah declared on Wednesday, such a resolution is still possible. The Lebanese must play their part with courage and speak openly to the Hizbullah leadership. Nasrallah's warning about the need for the country to almost blindly support his party's policies was unwarranted. Most Lebanese have provided, and continue to provide, national legitimacy to Hizbullah, without which it would turn into an absolute pariah internationally.

Hizbullah also must know that its unilateral steps carrying Lebanon into open violation of international law will split the country and revive renewed collaboration with Israel in some sections of the population outraged by such unilateralism and bearing a long-standing grudge against the party. Moderates among us will be unable to prevent this divisiveness from developing into an unbridgeable gulf within the nation.

The Israeli government must also understand that the cycle of violence will impose a logic of its own, whose consequences are unpredictable - except for more casualties and domestic and regional polarization. That is why the US and France must firmly hold back Israeli escalation until the Security Council meets and proposes a workable alternative.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has blamed the Lebanese government for Wednesday's actions. He is wrong because he knows the government is split, that most ministers do not condone Hizbullah's escalations and have said so, and that the Syrian and Iranian leaderships have been stoking the flames in Lebanon to deflect domestic pressures. Punishing Lebanon as a whole does not make sense, let alone targeting defenseless civilians and the nation's infrastructure.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora must go to New York as soon as he can in order to find a solution. Let us rally behind the terms of a UN resolution that solves the crisis. Otherwise, Lebanon will be torn asunder.

Chibli Mallat, a law professor at St. Joseph University, has campaigned for the Lebanese presidency. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.