Israel Invades Lebanon;
Ongoing Airstrikes Kill Dozens of Lebanese Civilians;
Hizbullah Rockets Wound 11 in Haifa
Israel invaded Lebanon on Monday, sending ground troops into the south. Israeli leaders say that they do not intend a long-term occupation. But then war is unpredictable.
[UPdate: The Israeli land force briefly went over into Lebanon but then withdrew.]
Israel's government killed another 42 Lebanese civilians in aggressive airstrikes on targets mostly unrelated to Hizbullah on Monday.
Thousands of innocent Lebanese have been forced from their homes by the bombings, especially in the South, and have headed up to Beirut (which the Israelis are also indiscriminately bombing). Some 100,000 Lebanese have fled to Syria, though Israeli bombing of roads and bridges has not made it easy for them to get out. Although, because of widespread Western racism, very few over here care about these displaced persons, they face a desperate situation. Roads have been bombed out, and bridges are gone. Lebanese television reported on numerous villages bombed. Rescue teams attempting to take an injured woman to a better hospital with more supplies were blocked when they found the bridge destroyed.
If the reports coming out of Lebanon can be believed, the Israelis are only sometimes striking known Hizbullah safe houses or facilities or missile emplacements. A lot of their bombardment appears aimed at punishing civilian populations and forcing them north to Beirut. Such an approach would help explain the high number of civilian casualties. That is, there may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics.
The Irish Times reports:
' The civilian toll continued to mount in Lebanon yesterday as Israeli planes struck dozens of targets. Nine civilians, including two children, were killed when they were hit by a missile that struck a bridge in the southern port city of Sidon . In the southern city of Tyre , rescue workers pulled nine more bodies from the civil defence building that was hit on Sunday in an Israeli strike. Close to 200 civilians have been killed in Lebanon since the Israeli offensive began last week, when Hizbullah attacked an Israeli border patrol, killing three soldiers and capturing two. Five more soldiers were killed when they gave chase into Lebanon .'
Hizbullah sent rockets on Israel again Monday, with four hitting Haifa, including a strike that collapsed a building and injured 11 persons. Since the outbreak of the fighting last Wednesday, 24 Israelis have been killed, 12 soldiers and 12 civilians.
The Guardian complains that the world leaders again did nothing on Monday to stop the massive Israeli assault on Lebanon.
I should explain to The Guardian about spheres of influence. Great Powers have them, and other Great Powers respect them if they do not want a war. That is why the US did nothing about the Soviets in Hungary 1956 or in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Soviet sphere of influence.
The Levant is now a joint US-Israeli sphere of Influence. Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel and are non-NATO allies of the US. So they won't do more than politely disagree that Israel's wholesale destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure is useful. Turkey is part of the joint US-Israeli sphere of influence, with close military ties to both countries. Iraq is now working the American training wheels, in Bush's parlance, and although it has not formally joined the full US-Israeli sphere of influence, it has no military to speak of and basically its legs are broken. The Gulf monarchies have more or less acquiesced in the situation as well.
Syria and Iran are the only two significant dissenters. Syria is weak and isolated, having been expelled from Lebanon and having lost its Soviet patron a decade and a half ago. Iran is distant from the scene and although it might give some rockets and training to a group like Hizbullah, it does not have a history of direct military intervention in other countries anyway. The Lebanese should not hold their breath expecting succor from either quarter.
The European Powers all ceded the Levant to the US-Israeli sphere of influence a long time ago. They will not get out ahead of the US. They mostly deeply dislike the Apartheid policies of Israel in the Occupied Territories, but they also deeply dislike and fear Hamas and Hizbullah, having their own large Muslim populations that they don't want radicalized.
They probably realize, as David Clark wrote yesterday that Israel's policies are antithetical to the interests of Western governments. But they decline to challenge the US-Israeli sphere of influence because they believe it would cause them even more trouble to do so.
So, basically, the Palestinians and the Lebanese are screwed. The Lebanese might not have been in such a vulnerable situation if they had not kicked out the Syrians, though the Syrians were there in 1982 the last time Israel invaded.
That is why there is terrorism in the Middle East. The Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories has been barbaric and intolerable. It produced Hamas. The Israeli occupation of South Lebanon was barbaric and intolerable. It produced Hizbullah. A wise Great Power can walk back such bad situations, as the US did in Europe and Japan after World War II. Unwise Powers get stuck with the Tar Baby.
But terrorism is a weapon of the weak and should not be over-estimated as a deterrent for Great Powers. Mostly they see it as a cost of doing business, and even where the Powers suffer from it, it has the advantage of rallying home populations behind militaristic policies.
At some point the Europeans may find a way to step in. The elements of an eventual resolution of the current Israeli war on Lebanon are becoming clear in international diplomacy. Italian PM Romano Prodi of Italy is already thinking about how to round up 10,000 UN peacekeepers to insert in the Lebanese south as a buffer between the Israeli army and Hizbullah. Russia agrees and is willing to participate.
Chirac and Blair are also on board with this plan, which will go to the UNSC from the G8 summit.
My advice: don't send the blue helmets unless you authorize them to shoot back when attacked.
On the other hand, the Irish Times report above says that Israeli officials reject a UN deployment and insist instead that the Lebanese army must be stationed along the border.
It is probably the Olmert government's hope that this posting will set the Lebanese army against Hizbullah, producing intra-Lebanese fighting that serves Israeli interests.
Israel, however, does not always get its way. We'll see. Peacekeeping is a ways off. The Israelis will fight their war first.
=====
PS: A reader writes:
' I hate to be picky and pedantic, but can anyone explain to me why, if one of Israel's three conditions is for the Lebanese army to occupy southern Lebanon, it is attacking Lebanese military bases? Don't bother answering--I know there is no rhyme or reason but couldn't help pointing out the discrepancy. The MSM is too dumb to point out even simple things like this.'
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/17/2006 11:41:00 PM
Click to join Infoco
41 Comments:
Ethnic cleansing in Lebanon? To what end? I think you're reading too much into things there.
On another note, it could be that Olmert and Co. believe they'd have a freer hand to respond to perceived threats from Lebanon if the border had Lebanese there instead of Westerners.
That is, there may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics.
As the US learned in Fallujah I and II, there is no such thing as bombing or even invading away a resistance movement.
If the US wants to end organized fighting against the US in the Anbar province it is going to have to depopulate the area. Until a decision is made to do that there will not be a Fallujah III.
As long as there are people in South Lebanon there are going to be organized anti-Israel fighters who will be receptive to weapons from any other enemy of Israel.
The only possible strategy Israel can have is to depopulate the area.
Other than that, what can the goal possibly be?
Of course this cannot be a military action to recover the soldiers. The attacks so far have probably already guaranteed that any exchange sometime in the future will be for the remains rather than for living soldiers.
Dr. Cole,
Do you intentionally try and avoid the word "terrorism" when bringing up a subject like this because of the loaded connotation of the word?
I honestly don't know of a definition of terrorism that would preclude bombing civilian populations in order to influence a desired outcome.
It is certainly a loaded word and maybe using it just isn't helpful, but every conversation in the US media eventually seems to include a comment that Isreal is "taking great pains to avoid civilian casualties". Is there really any evidence of this other than Isreal constantly stating that they are "trying to avoid civilian casualties"?
Thank you sir for your write-up on the spheres of Influence.
I would like to add, if I may, that changes are afoot.
Saudi Arabia, the most important of all, became a US pawn because they feared the Soviets, who were driven by their Global War On Imperialism (call it GWOI,) militarism, and success in the region (Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc.)
Now the USA is playing that Soviet part and are openly hostile to the Arab leaders who do not agree with their idiology.
The other major factor is finance. The Arabs didn't really sell their Oil. The proceesds went back to Western banks so it was spent on Western rather than Arab development.
Bush's stealing of others money (by claiming it is used to fund terrorism) is driving the Arab investments (currently $2.4TR) out of the USA and into China and local development.
The Arabs are now courting the Chinese and Russians to counter-balance the US threat (as they did with Soviet threats.)
Israel is immersurably hated by most, if not all, Arabs. Not only have they occupied Arab lands, but also their brutal and murderous attacks, one of which we are witnessing now.
The latest Arab League meeting did come out blaming Hizbullah. Bush literally instructed them to do so. But at the same meeting they decided that a peaceful solution with Israel is practically impossible and was never intended by the USA/Israel (unless it was total capitulation.)
The Russians, French, and Chinese do not agree with Israel acting as an attack dog in the area. This is a crucial plus.
These and other reasons have caused a major shift by the Arabs that will continue until America's 'strategic interests' in the areas are no more, and can no longer be used as an execuse to support Israel or to virtually occupy them.
Cole:"The Guardian complains that the world leaders again did nothing on Monday to stop the massive Israeli assault on Lebanon."
Rice: Rice: Cease-fire won't help
"U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she didn't see how the immediate cease-fire that Lebanon has called for would solve the problem."
Well, Condi Honey. (You don't mind if I call you Condi Honey, do you? Good.)
A cease-fire might help with the keeping of this beloved country of yours and mine on the right side of its own laws.
Israel Violates US Law With Attack on Lebanon
by Thalif Deen
Israel is in violation of U.S. arms-control laws for deploying U.S.-made fighter planes, combat helicopters, and missiles to kill civilians and destroy Lebanon's infrastructure in the ongoing six-day devastation of that militarily weak country.
The death toll, according to published reports, is over 200 people – mostly civilians – while the economic losses have been estimated at about $100 million per day.
"Section 4 of the [U.S.] Arms Export Control Act requires that military items transferred to foreign governments by the United States be used solely for internal security and legitimate self-defense," says Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.
"Since Israeli attacks against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and population centers clearly go beyond legitimate self-defense, the United States is legally obliged to suspend arms transfers to Israel," Zunes told IPS.
Cole:"So, basically, the Palestinians and the Lebanese are screwed."
Bolton: Of course, but their deaths aren't as important as Israeli deaths.
Gosh, Josh, you should re-read our Declaration of Independence.
a sincere 'congratulations' for saying "Israel's government" killed more civilians. Israel is probably not much more of a pseudo-democracy than the U.S., but this is the first time I can recall reading a mainstream blog that had the audacity to point out that the government of any particular country is not synonymous with the will of its respective population. Give the average Israeli the option to stop the bloodshed and pull-out of the occupied territories and they'd do it in a heartbeat.
all this massacre going on reminds me of a recent South Park episode where the Cartman and crew (Olmert and crew) try to get two boys at school (Israel and Palestine) to fight each other, but the kids just don't see any reason for it. Finally, after relentlessly pursuing the goal of getting these two boys to fight, it's on - to the detriment of both of the fighting boys, while the instigators, Cartman/Olmert and crew, are left unscathed.
Iraq is now working the American training wheels, in Bush's parlance, and although it has not formally joined the full US-Israeli sphere of influence, it has no military to speak of and basically its legs are broken.
Iraq, contrary to what I expected, seems to have been the Middle East country other than Syria and Iran that has spoken most strongly against the Israeli invasion.
Iraq is impotent and in the midst of a civil war, but if it was whole and had surplus military power I'd say it is reasonable to expect that Iraq would work with like-minded nations to assist in restraining Israel in any way it can.
From Israel's point of view it is a fortunate coincidence that Iraq's internal turmoil prevents Iraq from putting any action behind the anti-Israel resolution it passed.
But given the close US relationship with Israel that has been obvious long before the attack on Lebanon, I think Iraqis can be forgiven for doubting that the US is really working as hard as it can to reduce rather than increase the amount of internal turmoil that currently renders Iraq impotent.
"Israel invaded Lebanon on Monday, sending ground troops into the south. Israeli leaders say that they do not intend a long-term occupation. But then war is unpredictable."
But the hype is predictable. Israel is only defending itself. The War Crimes are regrettable.
Americans will not know about them because CNN will refuse to report them.
Does anyone here have a clue how to get at least one of the networks to tell the truth?
"The Gulf monarchies have more or less acquiesced in the situation..."
Yes, but not simply out of weakness and deference to the US. Right Zionists (aka Neocons) in the Bush administration hope that the Gulf monarchies will play a supporting role in Act Two of the Bush (Cheney) Revolution because its central theme is anti-Iranian.
So far, Right Arabists (aka Realists) in the Bush administration--the "peaceniks" who didn't like the pro-Shiite tilt of US policy in Iraq--have been pretty quiet about the Right Zionist drive against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
As for the Gulf monarchies themselves, the Saudis are supposed to allow Israel to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon because they have their own feud with Syria there (see Hariri assassination).
The French are at least as interested in handing Lebanon to the Saudis, so they are unlikely to lead any kind of EU campaign to halt Israel's drive against Hezbollah. As Professor Cole suggests, the most the Saudis and French will do is provide Israel diplomatic/UN legitimacy once the deed is done.
And, according to Meyrav Wurmser (married to Cheney Mid East aide David Wurmser), Jordan is supposed to step in and grab the West Bank after Israel destroys Gaza.
The Gulf monarchies are hardly "Great Powers," but it must be noted that Great Power politics often features strange bedfellows in marriages of convenience.
How else to explain the current Israeli/Arab "unity" against Iran and Syria?
profcutler.com
It is frustrating to see them posting UN troops in Lebanon and not Palestine. At a minimum, post in both areas. That is where all this starts, Israel crosses the line after an extended cease fire with the "terrorists", Israel denighs it, the Arabs retaliate, which receives world wide press coverage (even if they have military targets after an attack on their civilians, and the Israelis come off the victim and everyone in the Arab World seeths. Someone else eventually does something unrealistic or I believe the word you used was "Stupid", and all are punished.
For what the Arabs see as the impetus of this event, and has been covered as such in Washington Affairs Report on the Middle East see http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/13/isrlpa13544.htm
How long do Arabs have to pay with their blood for the guilt of the West?
The one thing that's most of a question to me is the way Hezbollah will respond to the declaration of annihilation directed at them. These spats of enduring violent regions have become typical in the Long War.
What does Israel think will happen when the shooting stops? Hasn't the Iraq situation demonstrated that punitive action to stop an insurgency simply encourages its support among the populace? Do the Israelis want to go back to South Lebanon? We're three years on in Iraq with the Pentagon targeting (according to the Washington Times) an exit year of 2016! Do the Israelis think that Hizbullah would be easier to dislodge (well-funded and on its own territory), than the various Iraqi insurgent groups (less funded, and some, foreigners to Iraq)?
I don't understand what Israel thinks this war will accomplish. They seem to be acting against their own purposes. The Israeli Ambassador to the US (Dan Yalon, I believe), told Wolf Blitzer (what an absurd name) that the solution to the problem of Hizbullah in Lebanon was "to strengthen the Lebanese Army." Then this morning we learn Israel attacked a Lebanese Army barracks, NORTH of Beirut, and killed at least 20. Does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing?
And, as a commentator on MSNBC noted last night, what does Israel think it would accomplish by displacing Hizbullah from South Lebanon when the new missles used by the terror group could reach Israel from the Beirut area (indeed, North of Beirut)?
Perhaps it's an old question regarding the Middle East, but I cannot for the life of me understand what Israel thinks it will accomplish or why our government (Democrats as well as the Bushites, judging by Sen. Clinton's comments at the UN rally yesterday) thinks that Israel's attack will actually resolve anything. If anything, Israel will simply degrade Lebanon governing institutions back to the civil war period. And who's going to pay for all that mess? I know, Joe U.S. Taxpayer (not out of Israel's US subsidy either). To an ordinary (admittedly, very right-wing) citizen like me, none of this makes any sense.
OT: here they go again...
You say the Israeli's are bombing "indiscriminately", yet you provide no evidence or support for that assertion; you are simply repeating the statements of Israel's enemies. I wonder what you expect them to say.
On the other hand, it is quite obvious that firing thousands of unguided rockets into Israeli towns is an attempt at indiscriminate mass murder. But this you do not mention.
Hezbollah is using all of Lebanon as a human shield, to insure maximum civilian casualties whenever Israel retaliates. Every one of those casualties is thus the moral responsibility of Hezbollah -- and the Lebanese leaders that permit Hezbollah to operate there.
As always, excellent commentary about this situation that you can’t find anywhere else. Watching the news, you get the point of view that talks about how Israelis fear rockets hitting their towns. Meanwhile, cities in Lebanon are being leveled and innocent people are being killed. One side gets the benefit of humanity while the other is regarded as something less. This is sick, and it’s a travesty that no one can do anything to stop it. Heck, we’re hard pressed to even get anyone to condemn it let alone intercede.
How will this play out? Hopefully, soon, the fighting will stop and there will be a period of calm that will last a few years. But it’ll happen again. Israel’s slash and burn tactics in Lebanon aren’t going to make the Lebanese respectful of Israelis; it’s going to breed more Hezbollah recruits and others wanting the destruction of Israel. Israel, as an established developed nation, needs to exercise restraint and not bomb the hell out of another country when a terrorist organization nips at its heels. They probably see such restraint as weakness, but I see it as the wisdom of modern civilized society, the philosophy that problems can be solved through diplomacy. Yes, terrorist organizations don’t deserve a seat at the diplomatic table, but they’re there, and there must be a way to neutralize them without resorting to destroying a country.
And the whole situation makes our position in Iraq even more tenuous than it has been. If we want to normalize this region and spread democracy there, you would think we would be aghast at what Israel is doing. It’s not changing hearts and minds the way we want to.
Mosaic last night had clips from at least 3 Lebanese stations showing the carnage the Israeli precision smart bombs were wreaking.
One enduring image was of two rescuers lifting the body of a 10 year old boy onto a blanket. His legs were blown off below the knees and he appeared to be eviscerated.
In retrospect, imagine if the US had used this policy of presemption and disproportionate response during the Pueblo incident or the Mayaguez incident or even during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Imagine if these policies were official US policy during the Liberty incident.
It's useful to remember that this is a Time-Warp War. Israel is stuck somewhere in the middle of the 20th Century, while Hezbollah preserves a mentality from the mid-19th Century (or earlier). To condemn either side is like condemning the Amish of Pennsylvania for some of their quaint customs and beliefs. They are not living in our time, they are living in their own time.
The "leaders" of these cultures are the last people we should expect to move their constituents into the 21st Century. The culture changes must come from the masses. This process will take at least a generation. Meanwhile, following events is a waste of time. Trying to detect a shift in attitudes might be worthwhile.
I think its rather disengenuous to suggest Israel 'invaded' Lebanon. A small and very specific operation was carried out by IDF in southern Lebanon, and then quickly returned to Israel.
I'd like to know why Mr. Cole describes Beirut bombing as 'indiscriminate' and thinks Lebanon is being destroyed. Quite clearly all available reliable information paints a very different picture. Israel is actually acting in a very constrained manner.
'Western racism' has nothing to do with a lack of interest in Lebanese refugees from a situation Hizbollah started. The lack of interest is proportianate to the number of people involved.
And its a little discouraging to see such a highle esteemed professor suggest the very rational and reasonable Israeli suggestion that the Lebanese military be the only military force along the Lebanese border is somehow a contrived plot by Israelis. The question isn't *if* the Lebanese military should be along the border, its why they aren't.
"Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel and are non-NATO allies of the US. So they won't do more than politely disagree that Israel's wholesale destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure is useful. Turkey is part of the joint US-Israeli sphere of influence, with close military ties to both countries."
From what I've read this sums up the position of the ruling elites of these three countries but not their people. Their people ar much more anti-israel (even if not particularly pro-palestinian). This of course causes internal conflict. Places like Egypt I think face a real threat of revolution since they were already pretty close to the edge (when a "democracy" has to attack voters with machetes to keep power it's on the edge). If a hardline islamist group like the muslim brotherhood managed to sweep into power in egypt (or turkey or jordan) on a wave of anti-israeli sentiment then things could change.
So, basically, the Palestinians and the Lebanese are screwed
...sic transit gloria mundi...
wisdoms like this come to mind when thinking about the new David (Arabs) and new Goliath (Israel) and the suffering of innocent people - there will be an end to their suffering, and the now dominant party will be the oppressed one and crying for help and commiseration..
unfortunately, this is how the (in)humanity seems to operate most of the times.
Transformation's Toll
George F.Will
Your initial premise is that Israel is not only bombing known terrorist targets that they have been investigating for many years, but also randomly bombing civilian targets to get people to flee the area. This makes no sense, if your other comment is true, that Israel has also been bombing bridges. A much more logical conclusion is that Israel is bombing terrorists and trying to block their escape. In addition, many of these bloody-handed murderers being bombed have known they are targets for years, and that is why they try to hide in the densest populated area they can.
This war will only end when Hezbollah stops trying to kill Jews, or is defeated. And the chain of terror points right back thru Syria to Iran.
What is absolutely needed is an immediate, mutual and unequivocal cease-fire.
How that would enforced is another thing completely. Peacekeepers? Well, first, that's a real misnomer. I agree that Israel ought to be let to fight it out.
The peace will be kept, if ever, after the shelling has quieted.
Professor Cole,
I am Jewish, American, leftist, I love Israel and I have family in Haifa. I'm sympathetic to your analysis to a point, and I very much hope that Israel should strictly limit any bombing to its goal of hitting Hezbollah. Based on what I have read, I can't be sure that's the case.
But your incendiary accusation that Israel is engaged in "ethnic cleansing" isn't substantiated. Why do you think Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing? Of whom? What do you think Israel wants Southern Lebanon to look like?
I'm under no illusion that Israel is blameless in its interactions with its neighbors, either now or in the past. I know that war is a lousy way of accomplishing just about anything. But I also know that a large majority of Israelis simply want a peaceful neighbor to their north. They sure don't have one right now.
Latest Lebanese casualty figures (info from major Italian daily "La Repubblica", Rome:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/07/dirette/sezioni/esteri/mediorient/18luglio/index.html - item timelined 17.00 hours)
240 deaths in Lebanon due to Israel's bombings so far.
Breakdown:
- 212 civilians
- 23 Lebanese Army soldiers
- 5 (five) Hizbollah militants.
"In addition to Lebanese citizens, the civilian deathtoll includes 7 Canadians, 6 Brasilians, 2 Kuwaitis and a Jordanian.
Immense damage to Lebanon's infrastructures:ports, airports, major highways and hundreds of buildings."
In May 2003, Josh Marshall wrote an essay in Washington Monthy entitled Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.
Today the headlines tell us
"Rice: Cease-Fire Won't Help"
"Military Leaders Foresee Iraq Exit in 2016"
Links to these and other articles as well as what Americans can do about it (VotePeace) can be found
here
It appears to be too much to hope that the oblivious will spot the obvious, so here's the Clue X 4".
Indiscriminate bombing would mean that there is no serious targeting being done.
But ethnic cleansing (even only an element of ethnic cleansing) would militate some kind of targeting.
Sorry, Sir, but you'll have to choose one or the other.
Didn't Israel pull back to its border after invading Lebanon? Sounds like prep for a big invasion. Let's think here, 400,000 Israeli land mines in Southern Lebanon. Perhaps while attacking Hizbullah stong holds, the Israelis cleared out some paths for their ground invasion.
Other movements occurring below most radars:
General overseeing Guantanamo gets top NATO post (NATO takes "control" of Afghanistan)
Lebanon & Blue Helmets
As far as I'm concerned, Blue Helmets will not show, if anything the US will offer air support to Israel by attacking Syria. I just don't buy that Blair and Bush accidentally spoke into a mike. The timing is too perfect. It is just a passive way of showing the chess board.
Then there is a subterranean rumor the Kurds will be used to destabilize Syria. I would have thought the Kurds already cut their teeth on assisting the Turks over 80 years ago. They are still without a country, and what, the US baits the Kurds with autonomy? Maybe people forget the influence US corporate, political power played in carving up the terrain.
The intellectual strategy the US employs is not much different from those days, the language is just updated to fit 30 second sound bites that won't disturb the consumer's appetite. The current drive of US militaristic government wants this war in the Near East for selfish reasons, and they intend to fan the fire. I guess it is a hard pill for people to swallow when their beloved countries (Israel and the US) are accused of racism.
Of course, the euphemism of the day is "democracy." Even Hillary Clinton can't resist beating fearful Americans into a rabid frenzy: war!
Another blatant example of US specific "Western Racism" is that American citizens in Lebanon being evacuated are having to sign a document stating they will pay for their evacuation (reported by CNN today). No other country is having their citizens do this. Obviously, there is some racism going on towards US citizens with ties to Lebanon. I hope more people will blog about this and get our govt. to change this policy.
to clb72,
I wanted to say that I hope that your family will be well. I have visited Haifa; It is beautiful city. For the most part, many were kind to us, though weary of course.
Please understand that I at least feel that both sides are wrong and we are now arguing about degrees. I wish we could have the peace there, that I have hear with my Jewish neighbors.
To Michael and others worried about the low Lebanese death toll:
I heard the other day and Israeli official justifying the hit on the Gaza power plant by saying that they knew it was a war torn area so anything important like hospitals would have back up generators. So too is the south of Lebanon a war torn area. I know families from several villages. There are bomb shelters in the south that would allow them survive, even if homes are destroyed. Their survival is coincidental to the targeting.
Is there a source for the accusation of "indiscriminate" shelling? Israel has run through a couple of thousand sorties using pretty sophisticated bombs. While any death is unfortunate, 240 deaths seems a small number considering the number of bombs. Do you have information about the targets Israel has hit that indicates to you that they were randomly attacked? Otherwise, how do you come to "indiscriminate?"
The Hizbullah shelling is indiscriminate, yet you do not even mention it. The penetration into Israel AGAIN by Hizbullah was provocative, deadly and involved two attacks one of which targeted civilians, yet you write that "Israel will have its war first" competely ignoring who attacked first and who taunted whom.
Is six years of silence from Israel not enough to convince you they had no intentions on Lebanon? Is leaving every last inch of Lebanon insufficient to convince you that "ethnic cleansing" is far from Israel's goal?
What kind of "ethnic cleansing" are we discussing here? Moving people from where to where? To what purpose? Certainly it's not the number of dead to which you're referring because a couple of thousand sorties by the Israeli air force surely would result in far more dead if it were their intention to ethnically cleanse. Would they send warning leaflets and broadcast radio warnings first if their objective was to kill or harm civilians?
An NPR announcer just asked a Lebanese American professor to explain Nasrallah's comment a couple of years ago where he said that it would be helpful if all the Jews in the world moved to Israel because it would then be easier to destroy them. This is the leader of the group, supported by Syria and Iran, that has attacked Israel again but you're writing about Israeli "ethnic cleansing" and "indiscriminate killing."
Oh, and the blue helmets? They are so weak and ineffectual in Gaza that they have threatened to leave because of their sense of insecurity and lack of safety. In Lebanon, it appears that some actually assisted - or at least turned a blind eye - to the 2004 Hizbullah attacks on Israel. I'm sure these situations have earned the confidence of the Israelis in the Blue Helmets.
For those who insist that Israel is showing restrain in their own “Shock a Awe” campaign, what do you think Israel would be doing if they were not showing restrain? Bombing water processing plants and other vital civilian infrastructures doesn’t seem much of a standard restrain.
The logic that by punishing the population they will upraise against not only Hezbollah or Hamas, but against their own government has never worked. Based on history it only works to increase recruits for these organizations.
According to a friend who just returned yesterday from Israel, the word on the street is unanimously “kill them all”.
It only makes sense if you bow to the divine religion of force
Finally the Israeli hawks get to use their awesome new weapons. The international community, the UN can’t or will do nothing to stop this bloodbath as usual. It’s time they give the Palestinians their own country.
This picture of Israeli girls writing on shells looks as impressive as it gets. It is very unlikely to be a fake and tells a lot about heavy indoctrination used to justify the war.
You say the Israeli's are bombing "indiscriminately", yet you provide no evidence or support for that assertion...
I must say I admire Prof Cole for publishing the mindless pro-Israeli comments on this blog, which others would be tempted to reject as mere spam. In the end, they become a damning indictment of their heaertless authors' one-eyed logic.
I challenge those who think Israeli bombing is not "indiscriminate" to explain why motorway bridges and other civilian targets are regularly being hit. This, may I remind you, is yet another contravention of the Geneva accord.
Georgfelis says "Israel is bombing terrorists and trying to block their escape." Tell us, Georgfelis: when you have 3,000 cars stranded on a motorway because the bridge is blown, how do you know which one the "terrorists" are in? Is it OK to bomb all the cars if you think there are "terrorists" in just one of them? And if so, why should you not expect your enemies to apply the same logic?
It's so disturbing to hear people say that the distribution of flyers makes Israel's actions against the Lebonese people morally correct.
If someone were going to destroy your neighborhood, your home, and everything you've worked for, but they gave you the "courtesy" of sending you a flyer to warn this would happen would you be okay with that?
Too many innocent people on both sides are being killed. And Americans are taught to see everything in black and white, never in shades of grey.
I have sympathy for Israel, my grandfather helped found it after all. But none of this is okay. And you'll never be able to wash the blood off of your hands with those flyers.
Dr. Cole said:
there may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics.
This is a reckless and unsupported allegation. I agree with jewlicious, who said:
Israel has run through a couple of thousand sorties using pretty sophisticated bombs. While any death is unfortunate, 240 deaths seems a small number considering the number of bombs.
On the other hand, gandhi said:
I challenge those who think Israeli bombing is not "indiscriminate" to explain why motorway bridges and other civilian targets are regularly being hit.
A bridge is a legitimate military target. Almost any dual-use infrastructure is a legitimate military target. When attacking dual-use infrastructure, every attempt should be made to avoid civilian casualties, and it actually sounds like Israel is trying to do this.
I believe it's acceptable to damage or destroy power plants, but it's not acceptable to intentionally damage water treatment or delivery infrastructure, because lack of potable water is devastating to the civilian population.
I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of Israel, and I was vehemently against the Iraq war, but I think Dr. Cole, Billmon, and some posters here have a knee-jerk reaction against Israel. Looking at it objectively, the Hezbollah attack on Israel was an (in my mind, unprovoked) act of war. Israel has the right to use military action to try to recover their soldiers and destroy or hinder Hezbollah's ability to operate in southern Lebanon.
In regards to the blue helmets, brian had it exactly right:
... it could be that Olmert and Co. believe they'd have a freer hand to respond to perceived threats from Lebanon if the border had Lebanese there instead of Westerners.
I guess you could argue that the Israeli attacks are not "indiscriminate" because - hey! - at least they are bombing Lebanon, not Switzerland, right???
Guess it all depends on what your own personal definition of "indiscriminate" is.
Ganhdi refers to me (and presumably others) as mindless and heartless. Mindless perhaps, but heartless? Why, because I ask how somebody can call bombings indiscriminate without any evidence? At least you didn't call me an Arab-hater or racist, just mindless and heartless.
To be clear, I grieve for Lebanon. It is a horrible shame to see parts of it destroyed and to see the lives of people shattered by this war. I do not believe most Lebanese wanted a war with Israel and I believe they are caught in the middle and some are paying a heavy price for the actions of others. I believe most Lebanese would want peace with Israel. There would be nothing more that I would like to see than a friendly border with Israel and trains running from Beirut to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
That does not mean that Israel is in the wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that Israel is guilty either of "ethnic cleansing" or "indiscriminate bombing." When one makes those claims, one needs some supporting evidence, no?
Israel is justified in pursuing this war. In fact, one might make the argument that far fewer people would be harmed now on both sides had Israel moved years ago against Hizbullah. I would venture that Sharon's past prevented him from considering such a move.
Since I am not an Israeli general and I am not privy to Hizbullah's secret rocket caches, like you, I have to assess the news as it comes out and even then I need to do so with a jaundiced eye. Why would a bridge be hit? Perhaps because it is a conduit for the movement of supplies and Hizbullah men? If you're in a war, do you not cut off supply routes? If you suspect the road or bridge or airport will be used to advance the goals of your enemy, do you wait to attack it because there are cars on it? Sometimes. Not always. The objective is to win the battle and the war; to protect your civilians and your soldiers.
I guess I could attribute Israel's bombing of roads and bridges uncharitably as do you and Dr. Cole, or I could go with what I perosnally know of Israel's armed forces and tell you plainly and clearly that their ethos is to fight morally. I have some evidence for the latter, do you have evidence for the former?
Here's some of my proof. There have been around 1000 targets hit by Israeli bombings in around 3000 sorties in total. In these attacks, as well as artillery attacks from within Israel, a total of 240 Lebanese civilians and soldiers have been killed. These are sophisticated missiles with powerful warheads attached. The artillery is computerized and has accurate targeting systems. If Israel had wanted to kill 10,000 or 20,000 Lebanese by now, do you suppose that would have been a problem for them? Do you think that they'd be tipping their hand to Hizbullah by sending in leaflets and radio broadcasts warning civilians (and presumably Hizbullah men) to vacate an area before it is attacked?
I think the opposite case to Dr. Cole's can be made here, that the civilians among the 240 dead are unintentional victims. Israel is even saying they had no intention of killing the Lebanese soldiers who have been killed. Don't you think they would be playing tough and being unapologetic if their intention was to kill "indiscriminately?"
I am left to wonder why our brilliant anti-Israel writers - as opposed to the mindless pro-Israel ones - aren't directing very strong criticism at those who launched this war and have been directly (and indirectly in the cases of the countries supporting Hizbullah) responsible for attacks on Israel and Israelis. Why aren't you folks demanding that they compel Hizbullah to stand down, release the soldiers and allow Lebanon to be Lebanon without some group or other hijacking it and its foreign and military policies? Is it force of habit? Is it that you're so used to vilifying Israel and its motives that even as it tries to fight a WAR, your basic assumption is to assume the worst?
Oh, and that picture shows no "indoctrination," it shows some little girls disproving the thesis that the bombardment is "indiscriminate." It is clear even to little Israeli girls that the bombs are not directed at Lebanese civilians or army or bridges. Nasrallah is the target. Hizbullah is the target. Here is that professor, Fawaz Gerges, seemingly not a big fan of Israel acknowledging that Israel is selectively targeting Hizbullah targets: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5565394
Mindless perhaps, but heartless?
Sounds like the Bush fraternity defence: OK, we may be stupid, but we mean well....
Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
Israel is justified in pursuing this war.
The Israel v. Lebanon kill rate is now approximately 1:10. Nearly all are civilians, on both sides.
Anyone who does not condemn both sides in such a violent conflict is ultimately just a pawn in the game.
Here's some of my proof...
Sorry, but unlike George W. Bush I am not prepared to debate the fine details while giving Israel time to achieve its military objectives.
Israel is even saying they had no intention of killing the Lebanese soldiers who have been killed.
You freaking idiot. You really believe such nonsense so easily? Worse yet, you have the gall to espouse it in public?
Shame on you.
There will come a reckoning.
The truth will out.
To anybody who cares, it appears a foreign photographer tagging along with an Israeli artillery unit, set up the shot with those girls drawing on those shells. Yup, apparently it's not sinister Zionist "indoctrination" but a little bit of creative non-Zionist photojournalism.
Mr Cole,
I think you were exaggerating a little with suggestion that the Israeli government was engaged in ethnic cleansing in Southern Lebanon, the assault has been excessive but I see no evidence for that assertion.
Civilian death rates have been unacceptably high in most part because the volume of ordinance has been extremely high, there will always be an error factor so more bombs equal more errors, this is exacerbated because the IDF are as incompetent in the field as the Americans. There have however been some strange choice of targets which point to a singular conclusion, that "shock and awe" combined infrastructure targets are the primary objective and not a direct assault on Hezbollah. Not yet.
So why?
This whole affair has nothing to do with the Lebanese, its a manoeuvre to discredit the "realists" in Washington and to give muscle to the "hawks" who want to move on Syria and principally Iran. The lunatics, as they say, are trying to take over the asylum.
People of Israel. Your leaders are doing you a considerable disservice, they have totally underestimated their enemy because they are blinded by their own self-glorification and view them all as "terrorists". They will bring pain to you all that will last for the rest of your lives and maybe beyond. This tactic will only multiply your enemies and diminish your friends. Only you can stop them.
Post a Comment
<< Home