Israeli Ground War Ramps Up;
Worldwide Rallies
; Iraqi Vice President Slams Israel
There were widespread protests in the Muslim world on Monday against the Qana massacre. 120 Egyptian MPs marched to demand the recall of the US ambassador. There was also a demonstration in Shiite Sadr City, east Baghdad, and bigger demonstrations in Pakistan. Don't let the numbers fool you. Middle Eastern governments are carefully limiting the size of the demonstrations, otherwise there would be a sea of people in the streets. The demonstrations that are allowed are for blowing off steam. There were also demonstrations in Paris and Brussels, with 3,000 to 5,000 attending.
Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq vehemently denounced Israel on Monday for its war on Lebanon and especially for the Qana massacre. AP quotes him:
' "What happened in Qana is a repetition to these crimes that happened to our nation decades ago. It's time for this nation to stand up and stop this aggression and all forms of aggression that could affect any of its parts," Abdul-Mahdi said. "These horrible massacres carried out by the Israeli aggression, incites in us the spirit of brotherhood and solidarity," he said in a speech attended by Iraq's president, the prime minister and other top government officials. '
Iraqi politicians are speaking out on Lebanon in part out of sympathy with Lebanese Shiites and in part because things are not going well in Iraq, with another 19 dead on Monday and 29 persons kidnapped in broad daylight.
Back in the Levant, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet have decided to defy calls for an immediate ceasefire in their war on Lebanon. Instead, they will widen the ground war.
Some analysts believe that Hizbullah leader Hasan Nasrallah wanted to draw the Israelis deeper into Lebanon, where his guerrilla fighters would have an advantage, since they know this rough terrain and have had years to booby trap it. It looks as though Nasrallah may get his wish.
Bush continues to block a ceasefire.
An Israeli minister (same link) admitted that if the war stopped now, Hizbullah would have won it. After Israel completely destroyed Lebanon's capacity to function as a normal society, knocking out ports, airport, roads, bridges, telecom towers, etc., etc., and after intensive bombing of the south and an incursion into Bint Jbeil, after all this, Hizbullah has won as of Monday, from the Israeli point of view.
I guess an Israeli victory wouldn't leave much in the country standing, if that is what their defeat looks like.
Meanwhile, the French continued to work on a ceasefire motion, with the foreign minister visiting Beirut. The Lebanese government declined to see US secretary of state Condi Rice on Sunday in the wake of the Qana massacre.
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, broke with Bush on Monday and called for an immediate ceasefire. He intimated that Bush was jeopardizing the US relationship with friendly Muslim governments by trying to out-Likud the Likud (my phrase). He also called for the US to talk to Syria and Iran. He goes on like that and I'd say he'd be a pretty good president on foreign policy issues. But I'd also say it is highly unlikely that a Republican can win the presidency in 08. Bush is poisoning the well too effectively.
A Lebanese man from the south who lost his wife and young son to an Israeli bombing raid wants to know if they were terrorists.
Robert Fisk's account of the scene at Qana is poignant.
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt lashed out at the UN Security Council for not already having decreed a cease-fire, and warned that the "peace process" could collapse if something isn't done soon.
Uh, Hosni, I think that particular cow is out of the barn.
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/01/2006 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
25 Comments:
I have a question about Hezbollah which I'd appreciate if you could answer (though I understand if you don't - I assume you're quite busy!).
Many people think that Hezbollah is, to quote one person I've been discussing the Israel/Lebanon war with, "a recognized arm of the Lebanese defense forces".
Is this a correct characterisation, or is it more of a case that Lebanon can't do anything about Hezbollah acting within its borders? Or what?
Any help from you (or other people viewing this blog) appreciated.
"Israeli minister admitted that if the war stopped now, Hizbullah would have won it."
Scary. Bush believes the same about Iraq; that's why he caricatures any honest appraisal of his accomplishments there as "letting the terrorists win."
As of Monday, I thought Israel had lost the war. Hizballah wasn't sufficiently degraded as a military force in Lebanon such that a ceasefire and international presence would result in a change in the status quo. With Qana, Isrel had used up the "global goodwill" of nearly anyone who had wanted Israel to win.
Excep for the US, whose stomach for blood is incredibly stron, and is demanding victory as payback for the years of weapons and foreign aid.
Not surprisingly, it has been proven again that air power alone cannot win a war by itself (even genocidal air war as the allies used in WWII). This leaves the Israelis with the only option of going into Lebanon with substantial ground forces.
Perhaps this is falling into Hizballahs trap. On the other hand, Israels attacks on roads, international crossing points, airports, Hizballah command posts and storage facilities, wherever located, means that Hizballahs ability to deliver supplies and reinforcements may be sufficiently disrupted that despite Hizballahs preparations, Israel will be able to destroy them as a fighting force and push their remaining missles out of range.
This is necessary in order to stop Hizballah rockets from raining down on Israel, and will prepare S. Lebanon for a ceasfire and international presence that MIGHT not immediately return to the status quo.
I have been struck by the fact a number of Israeli tanks that have been taken out by the Hezbollah (it is unclear exactly how many). That has to have been their most significant accomplishment so far (along with the tactical surprise at Bint Jbail). I assume some numbers of these tanks are the Merkava which has advanced armour equivalent to the US army's Abrams tank with its Chobham armour. This bodes ill for an Israeli expansion of the ground war. One assumes they will, as at Bint Jbail, have to rely largely on light infantry and air power (risking similar results).
The Hezbollah are using Russian military technology to achieve their success against Israeli armour. One cannot help but feel that the Russian weaponry is being used in concert with tactics right out of a Russian playbook. No one else has had the time, incentive, industries, and military to derive such combinations of weapons and tactics to defeat Chobham-like armour. That bodes ill for Western miltaries across the Middle East. To my mind the Russian influence in all this is subtle, overshadowed by perceived Syrian/Iranian influence, and potentially quite decisive.
That things are "not going well in Iraq" is an understatement, at least according to Borzou Daragahi on NewsHour last night. [mp3]
Daragahi described four levels of violence gripping Baghdad
1. the resistance
2 the sectarian
3 the criminal
4. the tribal (an emerging settling of old scores)
He said it was not possible to tell where one ended and another began only that "bullets are flying everywhere". He also stated that he believed that government estimates of internal displacements were understated.
Could Mubarak's comments be construed as a threat that he may consider a re(re-)alignment of Egyptian foreign policy? If so the early seventies are on the way back!
(Trolls: Please note that this is a question, not a rumor or a hope, and is meant to be taken at face value).
You write: "... [I]t is highly unlikely that a Republican can win the presidency in 08. Bush is poisoning the well too effectively."
Never underestimate the ability of the Dems to squabble, ensnare in disparate causes, and pick a candidate who fumbles. Dems remain afraid to profess any distinctive core beliefs or levy the necessary taxes. And it's Hillary, not Hagel, who would be most likely to win Murdoch, AIPAC, Hagee, or JINSA endorsement.
Digby documents how that renowned Middle East affairs expert Rush Limbaugh explains the conflict in southern Lebanon. Did you know that Qana was staged? That Hizb'allah - which Rush calls 'hezbos', get it? wink wink nudge nudge - forced Israel to bomb that building, and they weren't civilians in any case?
One learns so much from listening to the rants of insane bloodthirsty hatemongerers...
Bush continues to block a ceasefire.
The code phrase here is sustainable peace.
A sustainable peace occurs when Israeli expansionist activities can occur without resistance. Methods to obtain sustainable peace include but are not limited to mass murder, depopulation through displacement and/or starvation (the Gaza option), weakening or subjugating alien governments (delenda est goyim) and denigration of principles of justice and equality.
Other code phrases recently used include War on Terror, birthing democracy, and that old stand-by Light Unto Nations.
War on Terror means the justification to attack any Arab, Muslim or oil producing country.
To Birth Democracy is to instigate civil war by imprisoning and releasing civilans until PTSD sets in.
Light Unto Nations means any action taken by Israel is considered, a priori, to be sanctioned and we do mean by God. Therefore any enemy of Israel is also an enemy of God. Delenda est goyim.
How did Olmert put it right after it started? "We don't want anything from Lebanon. We don't want any land. We don't want any water." My first reaction was, "oh, there's an interesting subtext there...he's said more than he realises...i.e., unpack that remark and you get: 'we do want - and have helped ourselves to - and continue to help ourselves to - and will continue to help ourselves to - Palestinian land and water.'"
Three weeks on that "reading" seems naive in the extreme. Given the scale of the thing, I mean. All over one kidnapped soldier! Gimme a break. And given the Round One "result": namely that south Lebanon has been "emptied out" of its inhabitants - nearly a million of them. All except of course - and it's a big exception - Hezbollah fighters. Round Two of course will be to "cleanse" the area of them.
To cut to the chase: how long before the first Jewish settlements start appearing there?
"widespread protests in the Muslim world" ... "Hezbollah leader Nasrallah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah
...now considered by most Arabs in the region to be a Hero," per the mythology of 'David & Goliath'.
Iraqi clerical leader Sistani...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistani
...reacting to the Israeli massacre in Qana ~ sees opportunity to unite warring Sectarian militias / Tribal factions, etc., behind a common purpose: opposition to AngloIsraeli occupation forces ~ he issues 'Fatwa' to that effect, thus.
i am reminded of something that Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said, immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor...
”...I fear all we have done is to awaken a slumbering giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
« Uh, Hosni, I think that particular cow is out of the barn. »
:)
A fitting metaphor for a hapless “peacemaker” nicknamed “la vache qui rit” by his fellow fellahs!
The tragic events of Qana shed a crude light on Bushmert’s “peacemaking” abilities.
Turning a man into a pliant “social” animal takes several years of “upbringing”: you have to remove all traces of humanity from him to produce a full-fledged Israeli sicari swordsman, a passionate Persian pasdaran or a fanatical fascist freak.
Then, and only then, can he join the great horde
For machine-men prefer to hunt in packs
Just like urban gangsters and wild beasts
And they always submit to the pack leader
Be he High Priest, Imam, POTUS or Fuhrer…
Ultimately, I believe the Hizbollah will be fused into the Lebanese Army once a Cease Fire is in effect and the issue of control of Hizbollah is raised with the Lebanese government...
This is not some hairy-fairy dream idea of mine; the Lebanese government had tried to work such a deal with Hizbollah leaders before, but Hizbollah declined as it wanted to act without having the Lebanese government held liable for its activities... Given the current Israeli action against Lebanon, one could argue the Hizbollah might as well don Lebanese Army uniforms...
Here are some of the facets of the coming Hizbollah units in the Lebanese Army that I believe will be the compromise 'disarming' if at all any is carried out:
1. Hizbollah's light infantry units will don Lebanese Army uniforms but keep their local and regional command and control structures, with command overlap only at the highest levels.
2. Hizbollah's trained fighters will keep their rockets and missiles but become part of a specialized Lebanese Army unit for Air Defense and Artillery Command - to be commanded, of course, by senior Hizbollah officers commissioned into the Lebanese Army.
3. The core of 300 to 500 of Hizbollah's highly trained and experienced guerrilla warriors and saboteurs will form a Special Forces Unit of the Lebanese Army with independent command and control answering only to the highest levels of the government. They shall, in effect, run operations in and out of Israel with complete deniability as has been the case with Israel's own secret units functioning in Lebanon.
Some readers may say that this will effectively remove Syria and Iran from controlling Hizbollah, but the Syrians and Iranians do not have to sit across the table and give commands to every Hizbollah soldier - they never have... The commands could simply be relayed by Hizbollah Generals in the Lebanese Army...
And after Israel's current massacre of Lebanon is over, the political alliances in Lebanon will grow CLOSER to Syria and Iran, NOT to Israel... We have already seen old rivals Amal and Hizbollah draw extremely close in this current conflict, what with Nabih Berri acting as spokesman for Hizbollah...
As we have seen in Iraq, ethnic militias living in war conditions threatened by foreign enemies do NOT disarm... They simply melt into the legitimate armed forces of their time, trying to keep their numbers as high as possible in individual units... Their loyalties, however, seldom change.
There have also been rallies in the US against Israeli aggression. Here in Portland, Ore., there was a rally on Sunday attended by "several hundred" (according to the Oregonian). I would say at least a thousand were there.
Juan:
What do you make of the following statements out of Israel, assuming they are correctly quoted? They do not sound like responsible talk. Is there any "meat" in the odd quirks surrounding the Qana bombing, such as the building supposedly falling down later, the condition of bodies, etc.?
I wish this sort of thing wasn't going on, for everyone's sake. I'd like to focus on space dimensions, the quantum measurment paradox and other deep questions about the universe, and know that sanity prevailed around me.
~~~
Last Thursday (?), Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon announced on Israeli army radio: "All those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."
Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."
Juan, I'm a big supporter of your work, but you're so tough on Israel. What do you recommend they do when Lebanon and indeed the world refuse to stop Hizbollah from raining missles on their civilian populations indiscriminately?
-Roger
It seems obvious that even if Israel succeeds in 'militarily' defeating Hezbollah - which remains in doubt and seems largely dependent on Israel's willingness to absorb casualties - then Hezbollah, rather than disbanding, will merely re-cast itself as an insurgency, rather like it was when it defeated Israel's previous occupation of Lebanon.
The problem with this transformation is that it will be impossible for Israel to defeat a Hezbollah insurgency. Why?
Because an insurgency needs very little to function... a few guns, some explosives, the support of the local population, a small amount of outside help (not necessary, but helpful), and, most importantly, a steady supply of young, ideologically fervent, useless (to society, in terms of lack of opportunities for gainful employment) men who are willing, or even EAGER to die for their cause, through suicide attacks if necessary.
With almost a million refugees from Shiite southern Lebanon fleeing their destroyed homes and villages, does anyone think that Hezbollah is having any difficulty recruiting fighters to replace the few hundred that Israel claims to have killed? Or that they will be able to form a powerful and deadly insurgency - with or without the help of Iran/Syria?
So it appears to me that Israel is damned if they do and damned if they don't. There isn't any way they are going to achieve their stated objectives, and the more they bomb and kill, the more likely they are to create a situation in which they cannot hope to win.
And, as has been confirmed by Israel's Justice Minister, Israel cannot stop now, because that would be admitting Hezbollah wins.
So Israel, in its own 'mind' MUST continue because it can't win now, even though it can't win in the future.
What a tragic irony.
Thank you for telling the truth. I hope the western media which is controlled by zionism will be soon freed from zionist censorship. God willing we shall see this very soon...
Have you noticed, by the way, that there have been no Hizbullah rockets launched yesterday or today. No doubt in my mind that Hizbullah saw what was coming, and withdrew their launchers to the north, to avoid getting caught by an Israeli offensive. If this turns out to be true, what will the Israeli offensive achieve? An extended position on the Litani (if they in fact get there), impossible to protect against infiltration?
Limbaugh some years back listed his sources, about a dozen newspapers, I believe 10 American, I Brit ane I Aussie with the NYT and WaPo representing the far out wacky left. Also staff actually reads the papers and passes him portions of articles he finds interesting to skim before broadcast. The choice is between mendacity, laziness or incompetence or all of the above.
The story that Rush was attempting to relate may have found its genesis in an IBA report on the Qana "incident" in which an IDF spokesman said that the building was shelled at 1 AM, giving any residents ample time to escape. Further the building did not explode/collapse until 7 AM when there was no IDF shelling. The IDF has concluded that the basement of the building was being used to house munitions, shoulder held rocket launchers, and other weapons and a malfunction in the weapons stored there caused the explosion.
It was also reported the Hizbullah continues to use ambulances to transport reinforcements to the war zone and to store weapons and munitions in mosques, hospitals, and private homes as well as parking rocket launchers next to schools, hospitals and other public buildings.
I still say this was should be named Lewis Carroll's War.
It's not only the media that seems to have a pro-Israeli bias.
On my blog, I have been getting more and more comments which, when you examine the homepage of the sender, you find bodies like the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs or various Israeli propaganda sites with no details as to who is running them.
Stifling public debate is the name of the game. Sites like this one give us some protection.
Thanks, Juan!
abhinav is more accurate than not, regarding the likelihood of Hizbullah folding into the regular Lebanese army. It's already halfway there. Two cabinet ministers, several dozen members of parliament - how is it possible to see them as other than part and parcel of the Lebanese government? We're the only ones who see it differently, with our labeling of them as "terrorists". No one else sees them that way. Only the US and Israel - and the European governments who dutifully label them thus out of deference to the US.
Hizbullah speaks for all of Lebanon except for the Maronites - and now the Maronites are joining in too, thanks to Israel's war.
Roger wonders about the "incessant rain" of Hizbullah missiles. Incessant rain? In twenty years I doubt that Israel has hasd more than as dozen casualties from missiles, if that. Let's have some perspective here. No missiles have rained down on Israel. And this war started because of two soldiers kidnapped. Two. Israel made a strategic decision to go to war with Lebanon. If two soldiers had not been kidnapped, Israel would have found some other excuse for war. God knows why they did it. To prod Syria or Iran into war? God only knows. But they've done it, and now have to reap the consequences.
With the US bsacking, they can do what they like with Lebanon. And one they've moved into the Beqa'a and occupied the south - somewhere north of the Litani - what then? Will Lebanon accept foreign troops on Lebanese soil? I can see no end to this.
DEMAND A CEASE-FIRE NOW!
Please visit www.ceasefirecampaign.org
almustashriq said:
" No missiles have rained down on Israel. "
Are you deluded?
Are the katushya rockets that are sent deliberately into civilian populations imaginary?
This situation is tough enough; there's no need for blatant lying.
That's what Bush and Rumsfeld do: try to sell us on a fabricated alternate reality.
The radical Arab response to all this is as bad and dangerous as Bush. Instead of taking any responsibility for what's going on yourself, you simply say "Israel would have started a war regardless."
If you want Israel to back off you have to give them a valid reason to back off. If you just want to say "they're evil and that's the end of it", that's not a negotiating position. And lest you think you can keep lobbing missles at women and children just because you -think- you've not done anything wrong, well that sort of "we're going to give Israel no exit" behavior is likely to convince someone to turn Lebanon and Syria into a nuclear wasteland. Dead people don't shoot missles.
Is that what you'd like? If not, you'd better provide Israel a reasonable way out of this.
Animals and people cornered and fighting for their survival are at their most dangerous.
Uh, Juan, you're right that what Hagel said made a lot of sense. But you went on to say he might therefore be good on foreign policy. Well, it'd be nice to think so, but no cigar. Unlike every other Republican who's opposed Bush on the war (Chafee, Leach, Paul, etc. etc.) Hagel has NEVER put his money where his mouth is on this issue. He talks like a skeptic and a moderate on the Sunday talk shows but he's not voted against Bush ONCE on ANY of the important Iraq votes. He's not a maverick but he plays one on TV.
I wish that weren't the case because we badly need real independents and mavericks, particularly now that McCain has relinquished that title, but Hagel ain't the guy. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home