President George Bush, in a statement that carried echoes of his famous “mission accomplished” speech, declared this week that Hezbollah “suffered a defeat” in the recent weeks of fighting with Israel in Lebanon.
But that’s not how many military analysts, the Israeli public, Hezbollah or much of the Arab world saw it; Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasted that his militia had stood its ground with Israel’s powerful army and inflicted painful casualties.
And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is reeling from domestic criticisms that he didn’t achieve the stated objective to decimate Hezbollah.
Now the United Nations is going to finish the job of disarming the militant group? Don’t hold your breath. Expect an emboldened Hezbollah to live to fight another day — and that’s bad news for Lebanon, for Israel and for peace in the region.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
56 Comments
So let me get this correct Randy?
Most of the world sits around condemning Israel for trying to attack Hezbollah.
The media constantly portrays Israel as the bad guy and everyone wants Israel to stop.
Bush is constantly questioned as to why they don’t make Israel stop or when will they?
Everyone is demanding that the UN, which you now indicate as incompetent, should come in.
And now, you sit here talking about how Hezbollah’s living on will cause more problems and they are emboldened?
HELLO!
This is what us evil, horrible, conservative, actually want to kill the terrorists have been saying all along.
We need to kill and defeat the terrorists.
Sigh…
“Terrorism” is a subjective thing Nathan.
What Israel does could be considered terrorism.
That the US slavishly supports Israel could be considered “terrorism”
So. Israel charges into a swamp by engaging an asymmetrical opponent, and winds up militarily weaker and politically isolated. Great job egging them on, Dick.
Israel now finds itself in precisely the disaster that Iraq has become. No surprise that Cheney was the author of both debacles.
NOW can we impeach the motherfucker?
Israel invaded Lebanon, a much smaller weaker country for the sole purpose of causing as much destruction as possible. The apparent “crime” was that two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. Funny, if any nation we were at war with came into our country we’d capture them too, and we wouldn’t call it kidnapping.
In the end they made Hezbollah heros throughout the Middle East. They were the first political group to successfully fend off an attack from Israel. Hezbollah is now immensely popular when before they were a weak party on the verge of having to disarm lest they lose political power and get voted out of office.
I still don’t see how Bush sees the wanton slaughter of civilians and children as a victory. Oh right, the guy is a heartless asshole.
It was an act of war.
No Hezbollah did not lose and neither did Israel in a military sense, the two soldiers were a starting point by both sides. Iran through Hezbollah has been gearing up for an all out war in the region, they started shipping the rockets and missiles to Lebanon before the invasion of Iraq. And had kept doing it since just for this conflict. Israel has known this and has been looking for a reason to go after Hezbollah ever since.
The fact that there was a incident with both the Palatines and Hezbollah at about the same time is not a random occurrence. Iran has a great deal of control over both Hezbollah and Hamas and it was planned.Though I have no proof I would suspect that the conflict was ended by a secret message to Iran. Back off or you will be the target! Israel is like a chained Pit bull that Iran and Syria are going to keep throwing kittens at from two sides. As soon as Israel really tears one up then that will be use to ignite a region war between Israel and the Arabs. The United States of course will come to Israel’s side and be drawn into the fight.Neither Iran nor Syria believe that they can take on the United States by themselves. But by careful planning they hope to get many of the Arab countries into this fight including Egypt, Saudi-Arabia even Jordan who maybe our best Arab ally in the region. If not through the official Government there, then through the force of the people of those countries. Turning it into a Islamic cause of defending their brothers.
Maybe war is not the answer to all problems, anyone figure that out yet?
If the mission was to kill as many civilians as possible in a month then “Mission Accomplished”.Another glowing mid-east triumph for the Administration.
Liberal Mantra – “It’s Bush’s Fault.”
Repeat 128 times per day. More if necessary.
Wingnut Mantra — “It’s Clinton’s fault.” Repeat for 6+ years.
Where DOES the buck stop, LRB?
It appears Israel already violated the cease fire. That sure didn’t last long. Who will the betting pool?
LRB, how’s that crow taste?Must be good, you’re back for more.
Oops, I meant to put this here. Sorry for the double post, but here is where it belongs.
Read Thomas PM Barnett’s “Blueprint: A Future Worth Creating.” I caught him on TV last night and this is one smart cat. Arrogant and professorish, but he sees way beyond the short-sighteneness of the bible-thumping LRBs of the world. His take on the recent flare-up is that Iran got tired of waiting for the U.S. to attack it, so it used and armed its proxy, the Hezbollah, brilliantly to show us and the Isrealis what can happen. Excellent diplomatic/military work from a part of the world that has been doing it for centuries and a country that is run by pragmatic people instead of idiots like Bushco. He’s my new intellictual hero.But then I believe in thinking about consdquences and diplomacy, which of course, are two concets foreign to the LRB Bush apologists of the world.To borrow a quote: Worst President Ever!!!
“But then I believe in thinking about consdquences and diplomacy, which of course, are two concets foreign to the LRB Bush apologists of the world”.
Posted by: Dennis | August 19, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Dennis, jush how to hell do you have “diplomacy” with a group that has as its objective to remove you from the face of the earth and will settle for nothing less?
That is the core of diplomacy, which is a subtle field of endeavor, a skill that requires patience, a long view and the ability to work with people who are bent on your destruction. We did it for 40 years with the Russians and they had as many nukes as we did. Patience doesn’t seem to be a right-wing ability.
Lebanon was persuaded a year ago to remove its anti-aircraft protection. They were rewarded with the destruction of their country. Now we are demanding that the only force in Lebanon with any ability to fight back against Israeli invasion also completely disarm. Their reward?
“Lebanon gives warning after Israeli raidSAM F. GHATTASAssociated PressBEIRUT, Lebanon – Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a “flagrant violation” of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms shipments from Iran and Syria.
Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.
The fighting did not appear to be escalating, but it highlighted the fragility of the truce as the United Nations pleaded for nations to contribute to an international peacekeeping force due to patrol southern Lebanon.
Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr threatened to halt the army’s deployment in south Lebanon if the United Nations does not take up the issue of the raid. A stop to the deployment would deeply damage efforts to move in the U.N. force to strengthen the cease-fire.
“If there are no clear answers forthcoming on this issue, I might be forced to recommend to the Cabinet early next week the halt of the army deployment in the south,” Murr told reporters after a meeting with U.N. representatives.”
For peace-keeping troops to have any hope of convincing Lebanese resistence fighters to lay down their arms they must show both the capability AND THE WILLINGNESS to shoot down Israeli planes and to kill or capture Israeli invaders whenever necessary. Only then, and also after the Lebanese Army demonstrates such capability and willingness, is it realistic to expect disarmament by resistence fighters.
Sorry to inform you Dennis that it was MAD not diplomacy that kept the Russians and the US from a war. The “Islamic fascists” believe that they will go to Paradise when they are killed in battle. It is more like the Japanese and their kamikazes pilots. Both sides must want diplomacy for it to work. The “Islamic fascists” believe that it is their duty to kill all people who will not convert to their brand of religion.
If Hezbollah laid down its arms, there would be no war, while if Israel laid down its arms, there would be no Israel.
Fighting terrorism certainly gives life to the old adage, “Never get into a fight with ugly people-because they have nothing to lose.”
RA -if you believe that then you have never read the Book of Joshua. When the terrorist Stern Gang terror-nombed the King David Hotel and drove out the British peace-keepers that showed that they only knew violence. That has not changed in the subsequent 60 years with the successors to that terrorist group.
In fact, I suspect Iran might see having nukes in the face of Israel’s nuclear arsenal as possibly giving them the deterrence of MAD.
Ben, if you don’t like the Christian Right, you sure as hell are not going to like the “Islamic fascists” if they get into power.
I really don’t understand why you support people who want to kill us if we don’t convert to their brand of religion.
Even the worse like Fred Phillips has not gone that far.
RA – I don’t support them. I oppose ALL brands of “Abrahaimic Fascism” and ALL brands of “Sharia Law”
For goodness sake, read some quotes from the Iranian president.
This guy says it’s his objective to destroy Israel, and that his country is a nuclear power and will not be stopped.How naive must a person be not to read the whole picture?I don’t think any other country in the world openly declares that it’s going to abolish another country from the face of the earth.
Try opening the TV and hear a LEADER OF A UN MEMBER saying he wants to wipe your country, your family and you from the face of the earth, while denying what Hitler did just 60 years ago to your ancestors. This is all fact, and all quoted from stuff he said in the past couple of months, not speculation. And it’ must be really scary if you are a citizen of Israel.
Here is a line fron a poem in praise of Muhammad, his army and jihad, composed by Ka’b b. Malik prior to the siege at Ta’if (in Arabia), about two years prior to Muhammad’s death:
We shall fight as long as we liveTill you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
RA – that poem sounds like something that might have been written for those other jihads into the Holy Land – the Crusades.
RA – you might also consider the forced conversion to Christianity at gunpoint that was carried out in the New World. That is the legacy that I have inherited from MY ancesters. I oppose ALL such forced conversion; whether by YOUR religion or any other.
Well, Right Angle, I said patience and a far-reaching vision. Both are in short supply. MAD was useful, granted, I never said we didn’t need a military (mine is bigger than yours), but Russia kept diplomats in the U.S. and we kept diplomats in Russia the whole time. The Kamakizis, were tactical, and although they cause a lot of damage, they didn’t turn the war around. War, as our famous German said, is the continuation of diplomacy by other means. I’m saying the Bushcos went to war before even trying diplomacy. As teeth-pulling irritating as diplomacy can be, it is still a better option than war. Think about this. Diplomacy with the radicals may not be productive, I admit. So, let’s do diplomacy with their sponsors. That’s where the true power resides anyway.I just bought the new Atlantic in which James Fellows is pointing out how we have won, we just need to realize it. Am looking forward to reading the article.
Until a little over a month ago the US had some very important allies in the Lebanese government; notably Saniora and the younger Harera (son of the assisinated Prime Ministar). No longer do we have these allies against fundamentalism.
The atrocities carried out against their people have turned these former allies against. A couple of days ago Hariri accused Israel of “feeding off the blood” of the Lebanese people.
Wouldn’t it make sense to cultivate alliances with elements in the Arab world who themselves fear fundamentalism? Leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are appealing to the US to help them fight fundamentalism; Bush is rebuffing them – AGAIN.
Sounds good to me.Whatta you think, RA? Too woosie?
Ben, I believe the difference is now there is no Christian religions that is forcing conversion or die, but there still is Muslims who do.
Muslims have used force to convert people throughout history. It dates back to their invasion of Spain and the Barbary Coast Pirates, which was Moslems from along the coast of North Africa which captured ships and forced the occupants to convert to Islam or die.
And I agree that we should fight against any Muslim groups who would do that. I also think we should fight against ultra-religious who would deny full rights to unbelievers – such as land owbnership rights as practiced in Israel. Or those in Kansas who wish to use their version of a Holy Book to force laws on the rest of us.
I still think we need to isolate the extremists – whoever they are. We are foolish when we do the opposite and undermine leaders like Saniora and Hariri. It was quite disturbing to see the Arch-bishop of Beiruet condemn that which the US supported and to say his flock supports Hizbollah.
“Leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are appealing to the US to help them fight fundamentalism; Bush is rebuffing them – AGAIN.”
I have to leave now to go to the play “Noises Off” in Winfield. But tell me how they are appealing and how is Bush rebuffing, Thanks
They recognize the obvious – the continued occupation and oppression in Palestine is a root to the problems there. They want the US to get on board and support a settlement. The US refuses. Israel doesn’t want to give up its expansionism – they are too covetous of the land upon which their Palestinian subjects live.
These leaders recognize the reality that this brutal oppression gives the radicals in their midst a reason to exist and great recruiting tools. They also realize that the failure of their own armies to protect their populations pretty much REQUIRES that militia groups be armed.
“They said the Israelis identified themselves as Lebanese soldiers, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted.”
Haven’t we labeled acts of disguising ones fighters as others as being terrorism?
Right Angle, there are those Christians who bomb women’s clinics, blew up the Oklahoma Federal building, wear pointy hoods, support wars against nations just for the purpose of bringing Armageddon, and my personal favorite, you’ll die and ‘burn in hell’ for not converting.
politicalmom,
For your information; “the two men who were convicted of the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal building,, Timothy McVeigh and his friend Terry Nichols, had sympathies with the anti-government militia movement. McVeigh later claimed that his aim was to avenge the Waco Siege”. I have never seen any reports that they were “Christians” trying to convert. You have to admit that Waco was one of Clinton’s administration’s biggest screw-up.
As far as
“there are those Christians who bomb women’s clinics, wear pointy hoods”, I do not know any church that supports doing those things and I believe that they are done by a very few number of crazies.
“support wars against nations just for the purpose of bringing Armageddon”, again, I am not familiar with anyone, Christian or not that are looking forward to Armageddon. If or when it does occur, it will not be fun.
“and my personal favorite, you’ll die and ‘burn in hell’ for not converting”, that is their opinion, they did not threaten to kill you My statement was: Ben, I believe the difference is now there is no Christian religions that is forcing conversion or die, but there still is Muslims who do.
I DID NOT SAY THAT THERE WERE NO CRAZIES THAT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS!
Ben, I firmly believe that President Clinton was very smart in foreign affairs and had some good people working with him. I believe that President Clinton wanted more than anything to be the President that brought peace to the Middle East. He was able to twist Israel into giving up more than they had ever done before or since. It was not Israel that backed out of the deal. Why should the U.S. get back involved without some indication that both sides want peace?I see no reason to believe that the U.S. could have any positive effect as long as one side state that their objective is to remove the other from the face of the earth.
The three leaders met at the White House in December and a final settlement proposal was offered. The U.S. plan offered by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank (either 96 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from Israel proper or 94 percent from the West Bank and 3 percent from Israel proper), with no cantons, and full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result. In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinization plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years.
The reason for Arafat’s rejection of the settlement, according to Ross, was the critical clause in the agreement specifying that the agreement meant the end of the conflict. Arafat, whose life has been governed by that conflict, simply could not end it. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross. Ben-Ami agreed with this characterization: “I certainly believe that Arafat is a problem if what we are trying to achieve is a permanent agreement. I doubt that it will be possible to reach an agreement with him.” Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt concurred: “The failure of Camp David is largely attributed to the fact that Arafat did not even negotiate….It didn’t matter what he put on the table; he put nothing on the table.” Kurtzer added that he would never understand why Arafat withdrew from the talks without even offering a maxima list position.
Instead, Arafat pursued the path of terror in hope of repositioning the Palestinians as victims in the eyes of the world. “There’s no doubt in my mind,” Ross said, “that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.” That judgment proved to be correct as they have got a lot of people beliveing that!
Looks like I got the last word
RA – that “offer” was discussed but never made. The only REAL road to peace ever entered by Israel was by Yitzak Rabin – that is why the Israelies assasinated him. His assasination ended progress on that road.
I agree that Arafat was a problem – that is why his death and the ascendance of Abbas was such an opportunity. Unfortunately Israel refused to negotiate seriously with Abbas until AFTER the elections that brought Hamas into power. Now Israel refuses to negotiate with the newly elected leadership; kidnapping them instead.
As for “we don’t negotiate with terror groups” – plaese note that we happily negotiate with and send arms to the successors to the terrorist Stern Gang (including terrorist Ben Gurian when he was alive)
Ben, I don’t disagree with anything you said in your last post except everything I have read, it was Arafat that refused and I have never seen any indication other than that the Palestine’s goal was only to destroy Israel.
I see no reason to believe that the U.S. could have any positive effect as long as one side state that their objective is to remove the other from the face of the earth.
ALSO
Haven’t we labeled acts of disguising ones fighters as others as being terrorism?
Posted by: Ben Huie | August 19, 2006 at 06:36 PM
One side wear uniforms and are easy identifiable while the other hides behind civilian clothes. Back in the old days, those in civilians’ clothes would be called spies and executed.
So, RA, the Israeli’s who wore Lebanese uniforms should all be shot.
As for civilians being spies I’m not so sure. Remember, ‘we’ are in THEIR country – they live there. If the US were occupied and we were resisting would we be spies?
So, RA, the Israeli’s who wore Lebanese uniforms should all be shot.
YES!
Ben, do you see any indication other that the Palestine’s only goal is to destroy Israel?
Both sides will have to compromise and I don’t see that among the Palestine fighters.
They want Israel off the face of the earth. That leaves no room for Israel to negotiate.
RA – the Palestinian Authority has endorsed the Roadmap – Israel has rejected it. Palestinians have also invited peacekeepers to control things while a state gets organized – Israel rejected that as well.
“RA – the Palestinian Authority has endorsed the Roadmap – Israel has rejected it. Palestinians have also invited peacekeepers to control things while a state gets organized – Israel rejected that as well.”
Posted by: Ben Huie
I have been out of town a lot, I must have missed that. Could you provide me some links? I will google and see what I can find.
“The Palestinian Authority accepted the roadmap, but so far has not implemented key provisions such as combating terror effectively (May 2005). The Israeli government accepted the roadmap, but with the fourteen reservations below, and has likewise not implemented key undertakings of its own for Phase I, especially the freeze on settlement activity and removal of illegal outposts (detailed in the Sasson Report on illegal outposts).”
RA – that is old news about the Roadmap. It is also old news that Israel basically declared war on the Palestinians immediately after the election that bruoght Hamas into power. It is also old news that Israel refused to negotiate with Abbas before that election; thus undermining him in that election.
It is rather difficult for an entity with zero military capability to do much. That is why the PA has asked for peace-keepers.
Ben, do you believe that of the Palestinian groups would accept the 1947 boundaries? Would the Jews go back to the 1947 boundaries?
What would you accept as a compromise? What do you think would be a fair compromise and why?
Asking Palestine to “compromise” with Israel is like asking the Indians to compromise with Custer’s cavalry.
Israel has been on an extermination plan from day one.
CapnAmerica,
I don’t believe that either side has suffered enough that they will compromise for peace. There are some of the Palestine factions that will not settle for anything less than the complete destruction of Israel and Israel looks like they will not give up some land.
It has to get to a point where both sides realize that it is not worth all the killing and want peace. Until that time, I think the US should not get in to the negations.
RA – if the US should not be trying to help negotiations then should we be sending cluster bombs to one of the combatants. Perhaps one reason that “I don’t believe that either side has suffered enough that they will compromise for peace” is that the Israelis have suffered very little in all this compared to everyone else. And that is at least in part because we continue to aid/enable them so much.
RA – the Palestinians have said they are willing to go back to 1967 boundaries and even to ‘adjust’ those to allow for some settlements to remain. It is called the geneva proposal.
Israel and the US reject that.
I consider that to be a fair compromise – it minimizes dislocation and has been endorsed by moderates on both sides. The main difference in its acceptance is that the moderates have sway over Abbas on the Palestinian side but not oevr Olmert or Bush.
The other thing aout the geneva proposal is that it allows for creation of a VIABLE state instead of the isolated/surrounded rump entities proposed by Olmert/Bush.
Ben,Thanks for reminding me of the Geneva proposal. It has been so long since I had read anything about it. The last I had heard and the latest that I could find is that neither side accepted it ” http://www.heskem.org.il/heskem_en.asp
Popular support for the Geneva proposal seems to be growing in Israel, but the government remains adamantly opposed. On the Palestinian side, the agreement’s main advocates have run into strong and sometimes violent opposition.
http://www.heskem.org.il/heskem_en.asp
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora quashed hopes of a peace deal any time soon, saying Lebanon “will be the last Arab country that could sign a peace agreement with Israel.”
Well Gee Right I can hardly blame him!
Israel only invaded his country and killed his citizens. Hardly the stuff of peace treaties!