Analysis: Explaining the Baalbek operation to Kofi Annan

[Violet_Crumble]

After several hours' silence, Israel finally came out with an official version of the reconnaissance operation near Baalbek.

The operation was intended to foil the passage of arms from Syria to Hezbollah. The mission was accomplished and on the way back the unit was surprised by Hezbollah fighters. In the battle that ensued one Israeli officer and three Hezbollah fighters were killed.

Israel says the operation was not a violation of the cease-fire, because it was an intelligence-gathering mission, not an attack, which Security Council Resolution 1701 calls against. Had Hezbollah not discovered the unit and it had returned home safely, the operation would have remained covert.


<snip>

In this case, too, the operation was authorized in a consultation between Olmert, Peretz and IDF chiefs last Wednesday. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni did not know of it in advance.

Even so, those who authorized the operation should answer whether they took into account the great political sensitivity of sending a unit into Lebanon with air cover - apart from risking soldiers' lives and a new entanglement.

Before the cease-fire has been stabilized and while the UN force is still being set up, Israel is already operating in Baalbek, providing the other side with excuses not to keep up its end of the deal.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/752219.html

[The Magistrate]

1. If, In Fact, Arms Were Being Shipped, Ma'am

That, too, would be a violation. My own expectation is that neither side is going to adhere fully to the terms.

At least the pace of killing has dropped considerably, though, and that must be accounted as a good thing.

[maalak]

2. Lebanon & Hezbollah have unfortunately made it painfully clear...

... that they have no intention of disarming. :(

[madrchsod]

3. that is absurb

what rights does israel claim to make another country disarm their military?

[idontwantaname]

4. theyre breaking the terms of the UN resolution, duh.

or maybe it was in self defense... you know... like the terminator. go back in time and take care of business so you dont have to worry about it in the future.

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

[malaise]

10. Bingo

but resolutions are for everyone but Israel. Where is 242 today?

[maalak]

14. Hezbollah is NOT Lebanon's army...

the terms of the cease-fire were clear, Hezbollah was to be disarmed and control of the region turned over to the Lebanese army.

[idontwantaname]

29. the IDF is not lebanons army either. unilateral israeli action is BAD! n/t

[IntiRaymi]

47. Yes it is.

Israel prefers the weak and helpless 'official' army for obvious reasons. The army is the organization that ensures sovereignty of a people over a particular piece of land, and this is what Hezbollah has accomplished.

[The Magistrate]

52. That, Sir, Displays A Certain Misunderstanding Of Relevant Terms

The army of a country is a body of the government of that place, and does what it is directed to do by the government, and nothing else. Hezbollah does not in any way answer to the government of Lebanon: not even the members of Hezbollah in that government represent the real controlling authority of its armed body.

The idea Hezbollah ensures the sovereignty of Lebanon is laughable. Hezbollah showed in this conflict that it was absolutely powerless to prevent or repel a full-bore Israeli invasion of the place: the fighting halted only due to the actions of outside bodies who found some interest of their own, humanitarian or otherwise, in restraining the conflict short of a complete decision. Further, without the activities of Hezbollah on the border, there would have been no Israeli interest in attacking any portion of Lebanon, so that it in fact creates the very danger it claims to defend against, and then in the event cannot provide any effective defense against. It is approximately the posture of an arsonist who joins a volunteer fire department and guarantees himself plenty of opportunities to watch things burn, and strike heroic postures over it into the bargain.

[IntiRaymi]

54. Not at all.

Israel has failed in its attempt to control the area south of the Litani, due to its inability to defeat Hezbollah.
You are ignoring facts, both on the ground and in the worldwide court of opinion, in your effort to restrict definitions. They have done what the lebanese army has failed and/or refused to do.
You also state a number of points that can be argued till we both turn blue in the face: Israel has been occupying and attacking Lebanon on a semi-constant basis, since at least 1983. This is its history, and it may easily be extrapolated to the future.
And, anyways, isn't this really just a fight between stooges?

[The Magistrate]

55. Your Reference To 'Stooges' Is Unclear, Sir

You also slide over without mention that from the late 1970s, the south of Lebanon has been the operating ground of a variety of private, non-governmental armed bodies that made it their practice to assail Israel from Lebanese soil. States do, generally, tend to take steps to quash such activities.

It is true that the Israelis retired from southern Lebanon six years ago, as the very small drain of casualties was politically unpopular in Israel, and it seemed a sort of costless concession to make, particlarly in conjunction with U.N. directives that Hezbollah be disarmed by the Lebanese government. That these latter were not carried out is the proximate cause of the present difficulties.

There are a number of common misconceptions about concerning the resisting power of guerrilla bodies: they are greatly over-rated, and in all instances depend on factors external to the guerrilla fighters themselves operating to restrain the activities of the conventional force opposing the guerrillas. Guerrillas cannot impede the major operations of a formed military force in any signifigant manner: they cannot long prevent it going where it wants to, they cannot effect its aerial assets or its stand-off artillery. Indeed, they cannot bring their resisting power, such as it is, to bear at all until the enemy has advanced a good distance into the country it is attempting to defend. And if they cannot contrive events that weaken greatly the politocal will of the country they are engaged against, or that bring in the intervention of more sizeable powers in the situation, they will eventually be winkled out by a sufficiently ruthless foe.

There is nothing restrictive about stating that the army of a country is the armed body maintained by its government and obeying the orders of that country's government: the fact is that is the only definition in existence of the army of a country. You have my sympathy if that is inconvenient to the view you would rather adopt, but will not have my, or many other's, acquiesence to the special pleading you seek to substitute in the question.

[hack89]

35. When did Israel demand that Lebanon disarm?

or did I miss something? Hezbollah is an extra-government religious militia that is required to disarm according to a UN mandate.

[Monkie]

6. "IF arms were being shipped" and "the resolution WAS violated by Israel"

two very different things..
one is a unsubstantiated excuse made by a party accused of violating a UN resolution (something not new to the "state" of Israel)
The other is a statement of fact, widely reported, and confirmed by the leader of the party responsible for these resolutions and the monitoring thereof, yes the UN itself.
A clear difference "sir"...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/752201.html

Annan: IDF raid in eastern Lebanon is violation of cease-fire
By Amos Harel and Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press and Reuters

In the wake of an Israel Defense Forces commando raid near Baalbek in eastern Lebanon on Saturday, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Israel had violated the UN-backed truce and made him "deeply concerned."

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701," a spokesman for Annan said in a statement posted on the UN Web site.

The statement said that according to UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, "there have also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft."

"All such violations of Security Council resolution 1701 endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation and undermine the authority of the government of Lebanon," the statement said.

[Igel]

19. However, the contingency is crucial to understanding.

If arms were being shipped and it's a violation of the ceasefire, Israel's actions suddenly get demoted to an understandable and plausibly justifiable action, and Lebanon should be denounced. They announced a couple of days ago that they had set up posts along legal and illegal border crossings (notice how they had no trouble identifying numerous illegal border crossings) to 'monitor' them. They did not agree to 'monitor', they agreed to 'prevent'.

If arms were not being shipped, Israel's actions are an inexcusable violation of the ceasefire.

So how about we sponsor a resolution condemning Israel for the violation in no certain terms. This is all that we can reasonably push for.

"We conditionally and equivocally condemn the Israeli IDF's actions as a possible violation of the ceasefire." This can be in tandem with "We conditionally and equivocally condemn the Lebanese Army's possible witting acquiescence to the shipment of arms to a non-state militia whose stated goal is the elimination of a UN member state."

Such strong language.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. That'd be a violation as well...

So far I haven't seen anything saying that arms are being shipped into Lebanon, apart from the claims of a few DUers and of course the Israeli military. I don't find either of those sources particularly believable when it comes to that...

I think the term 'fragile' when it comes to this cease-fire is pretty spot on. I doubt that either Israel nor Hezbollah has much intention of sticking faithfully to it, but every day when there's not civilians being killed is a bonus....

[PCIntern]

15. You haven't seen anything yet...?

Perhaps Iran will call Mike Wallace back and invite him to videotape them sending the replacement arms across the border. Then we'll have it notarized to your satisfaction.

Where do you think Hez is getting their arms, including their anti-tank weapons...a flea market in Tenafly, New Jersey?

[breakaleg]

24. Are you implying that we will never see any actual prroof that they

were shipping arms - in this specific case - and that we have no choice but to take Israel's word for it? If they were prepared to break the cease fire agreement, then they SHOULD have had proof. And they should be prepared to offer it.

The only reason they wouldn't is that they don't have any. It was likely another unprovoked attack by Israel.

[The Magistrate]

26. If The Shipments Are Done Competently, Sir

There will not be proof of any high grade. Persons engaged in something clandestine do take pains to conceal their activities, and intelligence agencies do not reveal what they learn, as this alerts the target to where the operation is shoddy or infiltrated.

"There's more than enough to break knees in an alley, but nowhere near enough to convict in a court."

[breakaleg]

27. So where is the justification?

Assuming if they are good at what they do, they won't get caught or leave tracks, then Israel is assuming they are doing something wrong and attacking just in case?

[The Magistrate]

28. If The Israelis Have Knowledge, Sir

They are unlikely to share it widely.

A good deal of the problem in commentary on the matter is that much of it seems to proceed from a view that one side is comprised of angels and the other of devils. The fact is that no party tot his conflict is worthy of trust, and all can be expected to cheat on and defy the cease-fire, and any other diplomatic undertaking on the question: people determined to destroy a determined enemy are like that....

[idontwantaname]

30. one devil has 3 hands in the cookie jar...

there are many many ways israel couldve dealt with the "arms shipment". one would argue the better way to have gone about it would be to produce the said arms exchange.

why am i so critical of the israeli govt? if this was an isolated incident with hezbollah perhaps i would have more faith in their claims. however i have witnessed the lies and the way of the gun the israelis rule in the west bank... and after seeing that i dare not imagine the hell gaza has been through.

[The Magistrate]

34. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

What means would you suggest they employ to "produce the said arms exchange"? Perhaps a commando operation to procure samples by engaging the persons superintending the shipment?

[idontwantaname]

37. receipts.

but seeing how smashingly well the commandos did, i would say next time just send a load of photos to the UN and lebanese govt... along with followup letters and lots of complaining. perhaps even share some intelligence. work as a team, which i know is absurd.

who would want to work on the same team with someone who nearly destroyed your country and killed ~1000 of your civilians. but then again would you want to be on the same team as some spineless guy who cant CONTROL his own civilians... well... maybe control is the wrong work. the govt isnt suppose to control its people now is it?

i must say though, after all is said and done, i am glad the IDF chose the commandos over the air strike option. maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks.

[The Magistrate]

38. Receipts, Sir?

How do you imagine these things are conducted?

Actually, Sir, regarding your second point: a government certainly is supposed to control the employment of violence for political aims within the territory over which it is sovereign; there is not supposed to be any of that save what the government of the state in question directs. The government of a state is quite properly held responsible for acts against another state by a private armed body that government fails to control, or at least fails to take meaningful steps to attempt to control.

[idontwantaname]

39. receipts was just a joke

and if what you say above is true, than i suspect the israeli govt has a lot to answer for with the way their campaign has been going in the OT the past 20 years.

hezbollahs presence in southern lebanon is impotent(or benign?) compared to the illegal israeli occupation of the west bank, and former occupation of gaza.

[The Magistrate]

40. Regarding The Jordan Valley, Sir, Your Meaning Is Unclear

[idontwantaname]

41. i dont know that clarification will help or turn into a quagmire

you wrote:
The government of a state is quite properly held responsible for acts against another state by a private armed body that government fails to control, or at least fails to take meaningful steps to attempt to control.

------------------------

by similar token, the state of israel(pot calling the kettle black) is held responsible for its actions (army and civilian(settlers)) in the neighboring territories. when boys and men get abducted in the middle of the night by the IDF what is one without the capability to "bomb a country decades back" suppose to do?

when a young man gets hit by a stray israeli bullet, what is his family to do? the israeli govt is not taking responsibility for the actions of its armed body.

when the israeli supreme court rules the wall is unjust and orders it be moved, and it is not moved, what is a village to do?

my point now being there are many many many either 1) israeli govt supported and sponsored "terrorist" activities occurring, or 2)these actions are going on without the govts consent and the govt blatantly fails to attempt to control this abuse(of power).

so in conclusion, the IDFs actions(in the jordan valley) dwarf the "arms exchange" between hezbollah, yet if the IDF were to be confronted with similar resistance toward its "terrorist/criminal acts" it would... well, you know, act in self defense.

[The Magistrate]

44. The Clarification Is Appreciated, Sir

Israel is certainly wrong not to exercise lawful restraint on the actions of militant settlers, and buys itself a good deal of trouble by failing to do so.

The Israeli government certainly ought to heed its own High Court on the matter of the course of the security barrier, and again, buys itself a good deal of un-needed difficulty by failing to do so.

You may forgive my refraining from engagement on the rest, owing to our shared interest in avoiding quagmire....

[idontwantaname]

45. agreed. good day to you. n/t.

[breakaleg]

31. Not so. It's not about good guys vs. bad.

It's about the fact that Israel makes claims without justification, and acts in ways no other democracy would ever consider, let alone get away with.

It's pretty convenient for them to never have to show proof. This way, they can claim what they want, and kill who they want and never have to admit they were wrong.

Wait a minute, that sounds more like Saddam and Iraq than any democracy I've heard of. Israel is closer to a police state than anything else.

[The Magistrate]

32. Israel, Sir

Acts like any and every other state does: it does what is in its power to do that it conceives to be in its own best interests to do. There is nothing exceptional about it at all; there are some exceptional qualities to the circumstances it confronts.

[breakaleg]

33. State sponsored terrorism is not what every other state does.

[The Magistrate]

36. That, Sir, Strikes Me As Humorous

Indeed, were one to engage it seriously, it would be difficult to determine where to begin, for first it would be necessary to extract some genuine meaning from the statement, and that is not an easy task.

"State terrorism", like its precursor "terrorism", means only violence of which the person employing the term does not approve. Your use of it tells me you do not approve of many actions by the Israeli military, but that was not in question in the first place, and it tells nothing at all about those actions you disapprove of. Therefore it conveys no useful meaning, and cannot be said to advance discussion of the matter.

Were you to commence with particulars, we would doubtless find that many Israeli actions you are of the opinion are dead wrong strike me as things that are necessary and supportable, and well within the normal bounds of state action throughout human history. There would be little profit to such an exchange.

[breakaleg]

42. I guess I find the idea of preemptive strikes to be wrong.

Kidnapping individuals they feel are guilty of some crime that they are never brought to court for. Killing individuals they feel will one day commit a crime. The innocent civilians that die as a result of such actions.

Self defense is defending oneself against an immediate threat or danger. ie. someone comes towards you with a weapon to kill you on the spot. Then you could call that self defense. It's not called self defense to simply decide to kill Palestinians because they want you all dead. There has to be an immediate physical threat.

The bottom line is, Israel has killed far more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. That can't even be construed as self defense. I think even the Israeli's realize they are abusing this notion.

[The Magistrate]

43. As Indicated, Sir

A group like Hamas defines itself as being in a state of war against Israel. Therefore its leading membership has no more immunity than the leaders of the government of any hostile state from the actions of the state it declares itself at war with. "Crime" has, really, nothing to do with it. The existance of armed militant bodies is a standing and continuous threat: no one at war waits for the enemy to prepare or launch an attack before acting on their own against their foe. Each side continuously plans and undertakes efforts to harm the enemy, regardless of what the enemy does. The casualty rate is meaningless: to be less efficient as a military force conveys no virtue, nor is greater efficiency as a military force a sign of vice. There is a pragmatic arguement for not standing with a knife to a man with a gun, but the question is hardly a moral one, nor does the likely result establish the man with the gun was in the wrong, either regarding the root of the quarrel, or in his conduct during its course.

[breakaleg]

46. Well...

The existence of Hamas is due to the occupation by Israel. If it's not called murder when Israeli's kill Palestinians, then the reverse should also hold.

It's the very fact that anyone would argue that "the casualty rate is meaningless" that is the problem. The fact that Israeli's feel their lives are worth more than those of Palestinians screams to their racism and their lack of objectivity.

I'm not suggesting the man with the gun was wrong if faced with a knife. I'm saying that you don't respond to a gun when a guy is coming at you with words.

[The Magistrate]

48. Hamas, Sir

Is merely one of the newer organizations in a long chain, that dates back to periods when the term "occupation" generally referenced the existance of Israel on any territory at all. Hamas remians dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and on religious, not nationalist grounds, which presents an intractable problem, as people are not prone to much compromise on religious questions.

Who is objective in time of war, Sir? What people do not feel the lives of their fellows are "worth more" than those of their enemies? You have granted the right of self-defense as a general principle, and what is that but accepting that the life of a person attacked is worth more than the life of a person attacking? Trying to leap from this to accusations of racism misses so many intervening steps as to guarantee a tumble, and lisence the view that the conclusion preceeded any consideration of evidence. It seems to me that attempting to describe meaning to the neutral fact of a differential in casualties is a real problem, but there is nothing that can be drawn from it of any importance beyond the weaponry available to either side, and its ability to employ its arms effectively.

Not for nearly ninety years has it been possible to say either side in this conflict has been coming at the other with words alone.

[bemildred]

16. I fear everyone is just resupplying, reloading, adjusting their tactics.

I hope that is wrong, and there is some room for that hope.

The "resolution", of course, will not compel anyone to do anything, except for compelling more tedious bleating from dishonest "diplomats".

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is My Guess As Well, Sir

The general meaning of "we accept this cease-fire" is "we are low on ammunition"....

Everything hinges on how much damage the Israelis actually did to the fighting components of Hezbollah, which we are unlikely to get honest account of for months if not years, and whether the U.N. force actually acts to hinder resupply. Certainly if the latter does not occur, this episode is sure to be repeated in coming years.

[bemildred]

20. I expect the UN force, whatever it's composition,

because it will have no dog in this fight, and
because the "resolution" is clearly a PR vehicle
only, to stay resolutely on the sidelines, whenever
possible.

The interesting question at this point, as it
appears to me, is whether the three stooges will
be removed, or will be permitted to continue in
power some while longer.

Meantime, we can expect the status quo ante from
before the war to continue, low level provocations and
tit-for-tat "strikes" and "blows", until someone decides
to heat things up again.

[The Magistrate]

21. Grim But Sound, My Friend

It would be unfortunate, though, in my view, were Olmert and Kadima to fall, as the obvious alternative would be a reconstituted Likud, and that would certainly make the situation worse.

[bemildred]

22. That does not make the question uninteresting, Sir.

:hi:

[The Magistrate]

23. No Sir, It Does Not: It Merely Makes It Unpleasant....

Happy hunting, my friend!

[bemildred]

25. Unpleasant is the one thing we may rely on, Sir.

And the same to you, my friend.

[The Stranger]

50. I haven't seen any evidence of Lebanon not complying?

My own expectation is that neither side is going to adhere fully to the terms.

Have you?

[The Magistrate]

51. Are You Looking For Any, Sir?

Or merely resting on the comforting view that no one would think of supplying arms to Hezbollah to replenish what they have expended and lost, and that a government full of functionaries sympathetic to it, and presiding over a polity legendary for smuggling activities in bulk over decades of recent history, could not possibly be anything but vigilant as the security staff at a casino in the matter?

[FlavaKreemSnak]

5. The resolution still lets Israel do its military operations in Lebanon

If it didn't, we would never have let them make it. If they feel like they are threatened they can do pre-emptive attacks, and they can also keep getting more weapons from America but of course nobody in Lebanon is allowed to fight back or get any weapons from anywhere unless if we give some to the pro-American leaders so they can kill the anti-American ones if they try to fight back against the occupation.

[PCIntern]

7. By 'occupation'

I presume you mean occupation of the entire sliver of land which many, but not all of us, refer to as 'Israel' (rather than the 'Zionist Entitiy').

You believe that a sovereign state should sit idly by while other sovereign states arm militias intent upon the destruction of the first and rain rockets and mortars down upon the civilian population?

I just want to clarify who wishes to destroy whom.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. You presume wrong. They're talking about Southern Lebanon...

And while Israeli troops remain in Southern Lebanon it will be seen as an occupation. Which is why it's essential that the international force takes over from them sooner rather than later...

[PCIntern]

11. Yeah well guess what...

they're not gonna let them re-arm so as to kill Israelis. No matter what you think should happen.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

12. The international troops are going to help them occupy it

And I guess kill anybody that tries to fight back. I know UN troops aren't really supposed to do that but I think we will make an exception because it is Israel and America has unconditional support for Israel and they were losing too many of their soliders trying to occupy it without help from the international troops. But I don't think that the people in Lebanon really care whether it is international troops or not, I think they don't want to be occupied at all, at least most of them, they have the pro-American leaders etc and what Condi was saying is that we will give them $ if they will send their soliders to help Israel kill the ones that fight back.

[The Magistrate]

18. If That Is What They Do, Sir

It will be very much to the good. So long as Hezbollah remains a signifigant armed force, there will not be peace on the border between Lebanon and Israel. Persons who are interested in a real reduction in the amount of killing over the long term will have little difficulty agreeing with the neutralization of Hezbollah.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

49. Took them "several hours of silence" to fabricate those lies?

[IntiRaymi]

53. Juan Cole has posted a link to an arabic language newspaper.

The raid into Baalbek had nothing, really, to do with stopping shipments - a simple air attack would suffice. The reason for this raid was to kidnap/rescue someone.
http://www.juancole.com/
Who links to:
http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=4&issue=10127&article=378869
I can't read the article Professor Cole has cited - I do not understand arabic, so I am taking his word for it. But, from his excellent blog:
"Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the Israeli raid into the Biqa' was aimed at kidnapping a prominent Hizbullah leader, or possibly recovering captured Israeli soldiers. The official Israeli cover story is that they were preventing the supply of arms to Hizbullah by Syria. But that makes no sense. Why would you send a special ops team into a village near Baalbak to stop truck shipments? You would just mount an air raid on the truck. You send in a team of men to capture someone."
.......
On a separate note: This language division is killing me - I feel that I have been succesfully isolated from a fair accounting of the issue by the well controlled national media.
I think I'll learn farsi/arabic/whatever - It is definitely worth the time.


On edit: Crap Grammar.

[breakaleg]

56. excellent article - thanks for posting.

I agree that if they wanted to thwart a tranfer of weapons, they would have been more effective going after it from the air. After all, why would they risk more lives now, after they bombed them for a month for that same reason?

[ama]

58. IDF officer killed in commando raid in east Lebanon;

The unit was transported by helicopter before dawn, and was being driven in two vehicles to raid the office of senior Hezbollah official Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek in the village of Bodai before being discovered by Hezbollah militants. A battle gunbattle erupted and the troops were forced to retreat
Lebanese sources said the troops were carried in two Lebanese army vehicles and were wearing Lebanese army uniforms.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/752185.html

Despite the official denials, it seemed, a routine arms interdiction effort would not have required the high-level approvals or the top-level secrecy. Rather, it seems, it was an attempt to snatch senior Hezbollah officials to use as bargaining chips for the release of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers. There was no indication as to the identities of the prisoners taken, and no confirmation by Hezbollah that prisoners were taken.

The IDF reported that the mission was accomplished in full before the commandos, dressed in Lebanese army uniforms, were discovered on their way back to transport helicopters.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/9218.htm

[The Magistrate]

57. Mr. Cole, Sir

Does not in his report indicate any source for information about the Israeli plan, but offers only a recitation of opinion. The only solid basis for the opinion is that a person known to be a handler of funds from Iran to Hezbollah hales from and perhaps was present at the location raided. The conduits for money and arms will certainly show a decided over-lap.

"War requires funds, you know."

[IntiRaymi]

59. If you are more willing to accept Israeli sources

I refer you to post #56, in response to mine.
They state essentially the same thing that Professor Cole 'recited.'

[The Magistrate]

60. My Willingness To Accept Sources, Sir

Relates mostly to my assessments of whether a person is in any position to know what he or she writes as fact, and whether the comments he or she makes on presented facts hangs together well.

It is hard to see how the person who wrote the item Mr. Cole cited would be in any position to know the orders this commando group was given, or be acquainted with the intelligence on which they were based.

In treating the passage of money as something quite seperate from the passage of arms in his comments, Mr. Cole engages in some obfuscation, probably knowingly, because the two things are generally inter-twined in any smuggling operation, and it is hard to believe Mr. Cole is unaware of this.

[IntiRaymi]

61. I have found Professor Cole to be as impartial an observer as you can find

Why would he knowingly obfuscate a situation such as this one?
The nature of an intelligence assessment of an action, of which little information is known, is that of being able to correctly interpret the actions, in light of percieved goals, and supposed mission statements.
There is no reason for Israel to reserve for itself the ability to interpret its own actions.

[The Magistrate]

62. And He Strikes Me, Sir

As a fellow with a most one sided view of matters, and few scruples about bending his knowledge to back his pre-conceptions, and what he wishes others to be convinced of: no accounting for tastes, eh?

[IntiRaymi]

63. I knew it would come to this.

Professor Cole is one of the most knowledgeable authorities in this matter. You are highly critical of him, and keep calling him 'Mr. Cole', because he has taken an honest stance in this matter.
He is not a sycophant, and has chosen to view this issue with an honest and unjaundiced eye.

[The Magistrate]

64. As He Agrees With You, Sir

Naturally you will view him as honest, and doubtless as brave, thrifty, reverent and loyal, and probably helpful and cheerful as well. His eye strikes me as pretty jaundiced, and his writings as obviously tailored by exaggerating some facts and suppressing others. It is true that he is knowledgeable, which in some ways makes the obvious slant of his efforts over-all more troubling. Persons who do know matters more deeply than the average run have, it seems to me, a duty to inform others first, and seek to persuade them afterwards, rather than take advantage of the less informed by seeking first their persuasion and informing them only incidently in the course of that project.

[IntiRaymi]

65. I tend to agree with his opinions for one reason:

He seems to be as alarmed about the disregard for human rights that Israel has shown as I am.

[The Magistrate]

66. And Since, Sir, Israel Is Pretty Penny-Ante In That Field

You will then see why he fails to much impress me: describing a stubbed toe in tones appropriate to an amputation at the knee will not commend someone to me as a commentator of consequence.

[IntiRaymi]

67. Impartiality is not the same mindless support.

I suspect that you would level the same accusations on anyone else 'guilty' of not being blindly pro-Israel.
Is this even a productive discussion? I feel that I am interacting with the flowery wallpaper on some wall.

[The Magistrate]

68. If You Imagine Me Blindly Pro-Israel, Sir, Than It Probably Is Not

Save for that degree of amusement we each have doubtless felt over it in our own ways....

"And Bethlehem inflamed us both, like the shy one at an orgy."

[IntiRaymi]

69. From what I have seen you post, yes, you are.

[The Magistrate]

70. And Yet, Sir, You Say That Like It Were A Bad Thing

We disagree on the matter, that is true enough....

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

[IntiRaymi]

71. It definitely is.

Anything onesided is bad, since it removes rationality from your thought process.
For instance, papering over human rights abuses requires it.