Without any ulterior motive, or wishing to placate terrorists, I can honestly say that I wish Israel would stop bombing Lebanon.  That is a moral position, and I'm convinced myself that I didn't get there by being brainwashed by terrorists.

Tell me that I therefore support Hezbollah, Islamic fundamentalism or anti-Semitism and I will scoff.  Which is what that comment would deserve.

Well, we'll always have Paris, Raymond. Who knows? The last hold-outs? I don't know and guess what? Getting to the point today where I don't even care which is the position Israel is forced into. Condemned for its actions -- condemned for its existence, it is left to make its own judgments based on their own moral determinations without regard for world -- or European opinion.

Here's another great one by Mark Steyn. This one made me smile sadly more than once.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

That's interesting. Among other things, Steyn sheds some light here on how Syria fits into things... and in a colorful way !

Hero, I am sure that you leave Chirac in the dust when it comes to morals.

Well, Andrew, I'm sure the Israelis would appreciate a viable alternative to bombing Hezbollah centers within the sovereign country of Lebanon. As imaginary Secretary of Defense, you certainly haven't done your part in coming up with that singularly better alternative -- the one never ever tried before by the Israelis in all their years of dealing with terrorists within and just without their borders. It's not like this is a new experience for them and it's not like they have not tried every alternative short of ceasing to exist.  

Here's something you may not know about but may want to factor into your morality quotient next time you set out to compare and contrast Israel with her enemies.  Did you know that in October of 2000, some scant months after every last Israeli left Lebanon the last time around, and at a time when a new Labour party Prime Minister (Ehud Barak) had just been elected on the promise of bringing the troops out of Lebanon -- did you know that Hezbollah came across the border one fall day in 2000, kidnapped 3 Israeli soldier and killed another batch in doing so. You probably would have been pleased with the "proportionality" of the Israeli reaction which was....

....nothing. They did nothing.

A couple years later, the three dead bodies of the soldiers were returned in a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah which (morally) left some three corpses equalling 400 or so Palestinian prisoners. Oh, and there was one questionable Israeli (alive) businessman who was part of the good and moral and proportiate and measured Israeli response. And the UN watched it all.

But no, Herofix of the UK has a better idea. Maybe not a better idea. I shouldn't put it that way. He just knows what is morally reprehensible under this current particular circumstance. He knows what he wouldn't do. Because chances are, if Israelis are doing it, it's going to fall short of the morality apex.  Terrorists -- whatever that is -- are scarcely even considered in this scenario because it's mostly a question of big powerful Israel damaging Lebanon for god knows what reason.  

I'm breathing a sigh of relief knowing deep in my heart that Israelis spawn a different breed of heroes.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

As is my understanding, the real Secretary of Defence for Israel has proposed an alternative, which is NATO troops inside the Lebanese border.  To my unsophisticated understanding, this is very similar to what I proposed on the Diplomacy thread.  The fact that Britain and the US aren't that keen because they are involved in a morass in Iraq is the fault of those you regularly defend.

You're aware I'm not a Hezbollah supporter right?

 Because chances are, if Israelis are doing it, it's going to fall short of the morality apex.

 That isn't my rationale, but of course, you know that.

I don't know Hero but ..

Raymond - simply that they might be more prepared to commit their troops to a NATO expedition like the one the Israeli Defence Minister suggested.

Jazz - you are sending me on a frantic Google search. 

Edit: I'm going to assume that's something you photoshopped as a hilarious hijink.

And a hilarious hijink it was, Jazz! Glad to see you popping back in with your Jazzistic style!

THE HERO PLAN:

A UN army, fairly large with a mandate to war with Hezbollah (not only if fired upon themselves, but to seek them out and fight) until such time as certain conditions are met, namely, the release of captured Israeli soldiers (or their bodies, God forbid) and the cessation of rocket attacks into Israel. During this time Israel herself refrains from entering Lebanon on the ground or via airstrikes and stops bombing. This should be done very quickly. The army to stay in southern Lebanon for a few years and treat any illegal actions by Hezbollah as a cue to beat them soundly with a large stick until peace is restored.
That's my solution.

And just HOW MANY troops of this fairly large non-Israeli, non-US NATO ilk? Reports I've read say there are 10,000 to 17,000 fighters in SoLe.

Wonder how long it would take for this multi-national, non-Israeli, non-US army to commit "atrocities" and "massacres" in their effort to defang Hezbollah in SoLe. And I wonder how this NATO type force is going to separate the terrorists from the civilians. I wonder if children are under 18 years old and if a neutral force troop should kill a 17 year old fighter, will that be a war crime?

And I really really wonder what magic this neutral multinational force would possess that should render onto them the skills to (morally) decapitate (so to speak) Hezbollah when the Israeli people, who actually have a dog in the fight, were unable to accept the high body count of long term occupation and left after 18 years. What is it that would be different for them?

Call me a nabbering naybob of negativity if you like, but I just don't think your plan is workable, Andrew.

I know, I know. Which part?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Fair enough.  But moving from a moral viewpoint to a utilitarian standpoint, I don't think what's happening now is really 'workable'.  If you count 'losing lots of lives on both sides of the Israeli/Lebanese border' as a tick in a box towards 'unworkable'. 

Just as a little reminder of the region, I always think this is useful visual aid.  This map dates back to 1995, so I think it would be greener still today particular in that upper left-hand corner but still...

Now, as in "Where's Waldo," where's Israel?  Light green = Sunnis, Dark green = Shiites. Who is the biggest problem for the "Greens" = Israel. Kinda makes you wonder why this little oil-less speck of land cannot be left alone, doesn't it?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'll answer my own question. Here's Israel with a few pertinent measurements.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

You could just look at this as bluster. Or maybe they really mean it. If Israel were to fall to a combined force of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, would those forces be wildly emboldened? How would that affect Iraq? Think that's where it ends? Finish off Israel, and all is blissful kite-flying, hookahs and hummus in the Middle East? For those who are hold-outs to the Global War on Terrorism, consider the following. From Asharq Alawsat.

Susan

Hezbollah Envoy: War on Israel to Widen
Monday 24 July 2006


TEHRAN, Iran, AP - Hezbollah's representative in Iran struck a defiant tone Monday, warning that his Islamic militant group plans to widen its attacks on Israel until "no place" is safe for Israelis.

Hossein Safiadeen also reinforced earlier threats by Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah to widen the scope of attacks, which have included unprecedented missile strikes deep into northern Israel.

"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe," Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

"You will see a new Middle East in the way of Hezbollah and Islam, not in the way of Rice and Israel."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Beirut on Monday while en route to Israel. Rice met with Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Saniora about the surge in fighting along the southern border in the last two weeks.

Rice told him, "Thank you for your courage and steadfastness."

Safiadeen's comments reflected the deep opposition within Hezbollah to the efforts to broker a truce, including apparent attempts by Arab powers to pressure Syria into ending its support for Hezbollah, leaving Iran as the group's lone major backer.

Iran and Syria are the main sources of funds and equipment for Hezbollah, which was founded in the early 1980s and took inspiration from Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Syria said Sunday it was willing to work with the United States and others to press for an end to the worse Arab-Israel battles in 24 years — but set conditions that Israel is unlikely to accept. Those conditions include a broader regional peace initiative that would discuss the return of the Golan Heights, which was captured by Israel in 1967.

Arab powerhouses Egypt and Saudi Arabia also were pushing Syria to end its support for Hezbollah fighters, Arab diplomats in Cairo said.

Safiadeen told The Associated Press he "had no news" about Syria considering withdrawing its support for Hezbollah, which touched off the crisis July 12 with a cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers.

"We will expand attacks," he said. "The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave."

Israel claims Iran has supplied Hezbollah with long-range missiles, which have hit the port of Haifa and other places. Iran denies the charges but does not hide its high-level support for Hezbollah.

"This war will be remembered as the beginning of the end for Israel," Safiadeen said.

Nasrallah said in remarks published Monday that an Israeli ground invasion would not prevent Hezbollah from firing rockets into northern Israel.

"Any Israeli incursion will have no political results if it does not achieve its declared goals, primarily an end to the rocketing of Zionist settlements in northern occupied Palestine," Nasrallah told As-Safir newspaper. "I assure you that this goal will not be achieved, God willing, by an Israeli incursion."

Responding to reports about diplomatic efforts to end the fighting, Nasrallah said the priority was to end Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but he added that he was open to discussing initiatives.

Those attending Monday's conference included a top Foreign Ministry official and Gen. Mirfaisal Bagherzadeh of the powerful Revolutionary Guards.

The Palestinian ambassador, Salah Zavavi, said he believes the chances for a comprehensive political solution have passed. Israel also is battling Hamas-backed militiamen in the Gaza Strip claiming to hold an Israeli soldier missing since an ambush last month.

Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections last month but has been snubbed by Israel and many Western countries as it refuses to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

"The resistance groups will not accept a political end to this," Zavavi said. "They will not put down their weapons."

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

That's got to be bluster.

 Today The Independent does that thing that I love them for.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1195264.ece

Well, that was nice. The Independent's Five Options are limited in scope and part of the reason that the once revered newspaper journalists of the Western World feel so... oh, I don't know... so wrong in their conclusions even with their background knowledge. They give away their agenda on the front page with this little visual. (Personally, I think my visuals a few posts ago were more telling.)

Being allergic to side-taking, Andrew, it must have been disturbing to see the Independent emphasizing the divide so graphically. But seriously, I question the conclusion here. Did anyone really ask Vanatu what they thought about an "immediate ceasefire?" Independent minds want to know.

Myself, were I a sovereign country, I'd line up with the right side of the equation over all those on the left, many of whom will count on those on the right to fix their problems when those moments arrive. As they do and as they will. Later, they will blame them for their problems. Then they'll talk about how much they hate them. And so it goes, as that ravaged old curmudgeon, one time great writer, Vonnegut liked to say.

But I'll hang on to this "what happens next?" article to test the Independent's credibility.

1. Unilateral Withdrawal: "Unlikely" that Israel will withdraw unilaterally (Agreed; of course not!)

2. Diplomatic Settlement: "Increasingly likely." Doesn't expect Israel to realize they've launched (oh, it was Israel who "launched"?) an "unwinnable" war (I can imagine what the Independent might have said about 1948). But they find it "unlikely" that Hezbollah will "accept" foreign troops (I don't remember anyone asking their permission). This "likely" option overlooks the fact that Israel's "seeing no military solution" is non-factual as they have already used a military solution to reach this point.

3. Israel Snared in Counter-Insurgency: They seem to like this one and find it "quite likely." This is where they predict Israel starts to lose its resolve along the way. Ye ole quagmire option. Bogged down. As if attacks on its many borders have not been a constant in Israel's history. One could argue this "turmoil-conflict-incursion-whatever" is still part of the 1948 War of Independence, or as the Palestinians call it, "The Great Catastrophe." Maybe one day it will be renamed "The Hundred Years War" unless that moniker has already been taken.

Sure, it's demoralizing, but for Israel winning is a question of survival. For Israel's enemies not winning is a question of humiliation. Again. Ever entertain the question of what would happen if Israel's enemies were suddenly miraculously disarmed? How would things change? What would Israel do differently? Would Israel spread Judaism by the sword across the greater Middle East? I think not. Now entertain the reverse scenario. Israel is suddenly disarmed completely. How soon before Israel is destroyed? Oh well, it's a fantasy and clearly not Option 6.

4. Lebanese Government Fails: They also see a "quite likely" Lebanese government failure with more of the same "onslaught" from Israel. But the downside for Israel with this "quite likely" option is that they'll face further "international condemnation!" That should be a new experience. Once again, see the cover above. In the spirit of asymmetry, I'm sure Israel would prefer those two flags than any random twenty other flags from the left side of the page.

5. Israel Invades Lebanon: An "invasion" (occupation?) is "unlikely." Haven't they already invaded? This option is only because "Israel can't think of anything else to do." Duh. I'm curious about what this "Lebanese population and the rest of the world mobilisation" might be. Wonder if it would be as scary as their "mobilisation" against Hezbollah?

What a relief, though. The Independent says this is unlikely. Someone better tell those IDF troops who are working their way north into Lebanon. Maybe they mean occupation rather than invasion, though Israel has stressed from day one that is not their objective. So why is this even an option? Could the Israelis be lying about their intent? Do they really want to do a "land grab" of Southern Lebanon? Re-settle the unsettled Gaza settlement settlers? I doubt it.

How is Hezbollah different from the Taliban in Afghanistan? How are they different from Abu Sayyef in the Philippines? Throw in Sendero Luminosa in Peru or the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico? These are terrorist groups that have appropriated control of portions of the countries in which they operate. There are three options with such groups:

1. They take over the government

2. They are taken over by the government

3. Status quo of toleration of the current situation. Limited shelf life to this option.

I would choose a conscientious attempt of option 2 in all above cases. Otherwise there is one option:

1. ANARCHY

Like that Van Gogh portrait in the corner. I had almost forgotten how much I love art.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I believe Canada should be on the right side as well ..

OTTAWA (CP) - It’s time to start working diplomatically toward peace in Lebanon - but that doesn’t mean a unilateral ceasefire by Israel, says Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Speaking Sunday on television, MacKay refused to join other countries who have called on the Israelis to rein in their military offensive in the region.

Before hostilities can end, he said, both sides will have to agree on a solution that will ensure Israel doesn’t come under attack again from Hezbollah guerrillas using Lebanon as their base of operations.

“A ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah,” MacKay warned. “Let’s not forget that this was an unprovoked attack by a terrorist organization . . . . The discussions have to focus on the long-term end of violence in the region.”

Good for Canada, who proved their smarts with their election this year. But how about Saudi Arabia? Can we interpret this as the King suggesting his country might (gasp) fight? Or is he merely pointing out that some in the Middle East might do so? Here's the Numero Uno top story today on Albawaba Eygptian news:

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Quite right to hang onto the article.  Glad you liked it.

It merely helped me to imagine what sort of things might happen with the situation in the future.

I'll also happily post any links available to the Panorama Programme on BBC1 this Sunday on Hamas - Faith, Hate and Charity.  Hopefully you'll enjoy that one as much as today's article.

The important question of Vanuatu's opinion remains mired in mystery.

http://www.vanuatugovernment.gov.vu/news.html

Okay, I just dealt myself into the Vanatu game.  Applied for citizenship which I can then follow with investment and land purchase.  Their newspaper, the Daily Vanatu, was filled with stories of local sports rivalries with Fiji and lots of good stuff.  Wow, what a place.  I remembered it from my Amnesty International days when the Vanatu file was always human rights abuse free.  One of the few with an empty file.

Okay, here's the latest translation from Nasrallah's Lebanese TV appearance today.  If this isn't bookmarked, you should do it now unless you speak Arabic and Farsi and have Al Jazeera network on your cable service.  

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD121106 

He was surprised at the Israeli response!   Oh, there is much good material in here and I plan to incorporate great numbers of it for the updated version of "Terrorist, Celebrity or Academic?"

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Women, children, red cross workers and now UN peacekeepers

 http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1228804,00.html

how long can this total disregard for human life be allowed to continue?

Total shame.

UN peacekeepers should know that safety is not there where bombs fly back and forth over your head.
I feel sorry for these poor guys and their family, but lets see what the broader story might be;

From the UN today:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

A quote from the press release:

" It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. "

....

Here is an interesting video compliments of Youtube. "UN ambulance picking up fighters in Gaza Strip"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns&eurl=

Excuse double post. thanks. Comments ? 

comments? This is a thread about the Lebanon conflict, not about trying to link the UN to palestinian militants (and knowing this politics section, most likely prompting some dodgy targetting rationale).

Anyway back to the conflict in Lebanon. Looks like the UK flag can be added to the LHS of the independent's front page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5229920.stm

Judging by Ms Rice's latest comments the US is also beginning to see reason through the clouds of subjectivity. I think my position (and that of others on this thread) has been vindicated somewhat, especially over the last couple of days. Some of you guys will argue til you're blue in the face even when world opinion has shown that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

In my experience, even at my relatively young age, these situations always end up with some form of dialogue or other peaceful intervention taking place to resolve matters. Even if it is a quick fix. This is the main reason why i found it deplorable that when the 'well what would you do' questions were being bandied about that nobody apart from me mentioned a ceasefire. I mean, it has to come at some time, why advocate the continuation of more needless killing? In actual fact, neither side has been significantly weakened, in fact the reverse is true.

I agree with Blair and Bush when they talk about resolving this situation in the context of a wider solution to the middle east question. However, this was seen by many as side-stepping the real and present issue. The US and the UK really only started talking in this fashion because they were being pressured to say something progressive in the midst of the misplaced public support for Israel's disproportionately harsh methods. I'm not up on domestic US realpolitik, but here in the UK Tony Blair has quickly learned that his initial position in regards to this crisis was unpopular even with his own cabinet, never mind the wider british people.

I think that there are actors on both sides that do not want peaceful developments, but the noticeable shift in thinking by those that matter will compel them to sort something out, and soon.