Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (195393)	8/6/2006 6:37:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Jonathan Chait: 'Back Off, Israel,' Doesn't Cut It U.N.-types can't think past cease-fire, and that won't hamper Hezbollah. August 6, 2006 LET'S FACE IT, Israel's counteroffensive in Lebanon doesn't seem to be going very well. Liberals are saying it. Conservatives are saying it. Plenty of Israelis are saying it. But here is the odd thing: Nobody is paying very careful attention to the alternative. The criticism of Israel's ground campaign — however sound much of it may be — takes place against an implicit assumption that peace could be at hand if only Israel stops fighting. Let's examine that idea. The United Nations-types argue that Israel should withdraw from Lebanon and cease its airstrikes and that an international force should patrol southern Lebanon. But every country that could contribute to such a force has insisted they don't want to fight Hezbollah. Kofi Annan has said that a "cardinal principle" of any peacekeeping force would be obtaining Lebanon's consent. And neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese government has evinced any willingness to remove Hezbollah's forces from southern Lebanon. From the doves there is a persistent disconnect between the goals they desire and the means to achieve them. Here is what former President Carter wrote in a recent Washington Post Op-Ed article: "The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented." The passive voice in this last clause — "attacks be prevented" — is telling. Who is going to prevent them? Israel went into Lebanon because nobody else had the desire or the inclination. So, the doves' implied solution is that Israel withdraws from Lebanon and stops bombing, and that Hezbollah goes on its way. This is why they've pointed out that not many Israelis have died from rocket attacks since 2000. But the death toll doesn't quite capture the damage wrought by Hezbollah. The purpose of the missile attacks is to force Israelis to live under a constant threat — missile attacks or cross-border raids that, while sporadic, can occur at any time. No nation would consider that condition acceptable. And even if Israel learns to take periodic attacks from Hezbollah with good cheer, there's no guarantee that the attacks won't get worse. After all, Hezbollah is acquiring newer, more powerful rockets from Iran. So what can Israel do? The conventional wisdom holds that any military action is counterproductive. The doves point out that the Israeli counteroffensive has boosted Hezbollah's standing in the Arab world. Well, sure. But Hezbollah's prestige was also boosted by Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon. If aggressive Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, and conciliatory Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, then maybe Israel's actions aren't really the prime mover here. Maybe Hezbollah has figured out that it can become the champion of the Arab world by putting itself forward as Israel's chief antagonist, and it will continue to do so regardless of how Israel responds. The doves are right that any solution that involves attacking innocent civilians is a terrible one. It's heartbreaking to see houses flattened and children killed. But when you have a nation populated in part with murderous religious fanatics who delight in killing enemy civilians and see the deaths of their own civilians as a strategic boon, any option is going to be terrible. Israel is hoping to change the equation, to force Lebanon to take control of its border or accept an outside force that would do so. The tactic of striking Hezbollah has some chance of bringing that about. Stopping the attack and hoping for the best has no chance at all.

To: jttmab who wrote (195393)	8/6/2006 7:11:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Hmmm, that's sounds surprisingly incoherent. Because you can't logically understand that this is exactly what Hizbullah's presence in Lebanon has done to that country. You can't understand that those 12,000 rockets were JUST AS MUCH A TOOL OF INTIMIDATION against the Lebanese Government, as they were against Israel. You look to your government of Lebanon to do something. They do. They sit on their butts and make phone calls and they go to meetings while your village is leveled. Are you going to vote these guys into office the next election? In the short-term, I would agree. But with a UN presence and a Chapter VII mandate for the disarming of Hizbullah, and separation between the two countries, it will logical that many Lebanese are going to be questioning just what Hizbullah brought down upon them. They are going to be looking for someone to blame and right now it's Israel. But later, when the Israelis clear out, it's going to be Hizbullah that catches the flack, IMO. Some may still consider them to be "heroes", but it's pretty doubtful that many Lebanese will support their targeting UN forces, or reintiating hostilities with Israel.. At least not for quite a few years. Hizbullah, armed and financed by Syria and Iran, have no excuse for dragging Lebanon into this conflict. Hawk