"This is not the way the war was supposed to have ended for Israel"

[bigtree]

15 August 2006 11:58

Robert Fisk: Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure



Far from driving the Hizbollah north across the Litani river, Israel has entrenched them in their Lebanese villages as never before.


They made a desert and called it peace. Srifa - or what was once the village of Srifa - is a place of pancaked homes, blasted walls, rubble, starving cats and trapped corpses. But it is also a place of victory for the Hizbollah, whose fighters walked amid the destruction yesterday with the air of conquering heroes. So who is to blame for this desert? The Shia militia which provoked this war - or the Israeli air force and army which has laid waste to southern Lebanon and killed so many of its people?

You have to be down here with the Hizbollah amid this terrifying destruction - way south of the Litani river, in the territory from which Israel once vowed to expel them - to realise the nature of the past month of war and of its enormous political significance to the Middle East. Israel's mighty army has already retreated from the neighbouring village of Ghandoutiya after losing 40 men in just over 36 hours of fighting. It has not even managed to penetrate the smashed town of Khiam where the Hizbollah were celebrating yesterday afternoon. In Srifa, I stood with Hizbollah men looking at the empty roads to the south and could see all the way to Israel and the settlement of Mizgav Am on the other side of the frontier. This is not the way the war was supposed to have ended for Israel.

Far from humiliating Iran and Syria - which was the Israeli-American plan - these two supposedly pariah states have been left untouched and the Hizbollah's reputation lionised across the Arab world. The "opportunity" which President George Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, apparently saw in the Lebanon war has turned out to be an opportunity for America's enemies to show the weakness of Israel's army. Indeed, last night, scarcely any Israeli armour was to be seen inside Lebanon - just one solitary tank could be glimpsed outside Bint Jbeil and the Israelis had retreated even from the "safe" Christian town of Marjayoun. It is now clear that the 30,000-strong Israeli army reported to be racing north to the Litani river never existed. In fact, it is unlikely that there were yesterday more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers left in all of southern Lebanon, although they did become involved in two fire-fights during the morning, hours after the UN-ceasefire went into effect.

Down the coast road from Beirut, meanwhile, came a massive exodus of tens of thousands of Shia families, bedding piled on the roofs of their cars , many of them sporting Hizbollah flags and pictures of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah's chairman, on their windscreens. At the massive traffic jams around the broken motorway bridges and craters which litter the landscape, the Hizbollah was even handing out yellow and green "victory" flags, along with official notices urging parents not to allow children to play with the thousands of unexploded bombs that now lie across the landscape. At least one Lebanese child was killed by unexploded ordnance and another 15 were wounded yesterday.


full article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece

http://deficientbrain.blogspot.com/2006/08/fisk-desert-of-trapped-corpses.html

[deaniac21]

1. You think it's over?

[bigtree]

2. this phase is

the future has to be managed by the Lebanese . . . with help.

[deaniac21]

6. That is debatable...

[Nimrod2005]

5. For this generation, yes. They will do it again in about 20/30 years.

Unless Israel signs a peace treaty with Lebanon.

[Spearman87]

9. I think it will be repeated in less than 10 years

And once again Hezbollah will have re-armed with better, more sophisticated weaponry.

[bigtree]

11. Then Syria is where Rice should go next to negotiate the Golan Heights

in return for Syria's cooperation in an arms embargo as well as securing their help in the disarming of Hizbollah altogether. If there was a diplomatic effort betweem Israel and Syria, brokered by the US, which ended in an agreement between them, it would effectively dissolve any need Syria might use to justify the presence of Hizbollah militias in the south. As it stands, Syria sees Hizbollah as the only effective barrier to keep Israel from advancing on their country.

If Israel is truly interested in a permanent solution to armed resistance in south Lebanon, they would be better served by dialogue than by their blustering, scattershot 'defenses' which have only served to deepen support among the Lebanese for the direct and active confrontation of Israel Hizbollah now provides.

[Spearman87]

61. Israel will not be in the mood to negotiate one iota

of land. They just got through with a war launched from lands that they gave back. They will now shift policy to hardline Right and jealously guard as much "buffer zone" as possible.

And this absolutely is not the time when Syria and Iran will any longer think a peaceful solution with Israel is necessary. This is a landmark shift in the ME balance. Hezbo did what no Arab army was able to do in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 or 1982. They held the Israeli military to a stalemate. Previously there was the perception that an Israeli military victory was inevitable…. Israel was capable of imposing a unilateral military solution on any Arab force. Hezbollah just showed that they could fight to a point where Israel preferred a cease-fire. Part of the reason Nasrallah has become a ME Rock Star—and is on his way to doubling the membership of Hezbollah—is that he has shattered with myth of Isreali invincibility. He got a ceasefire, but he did not truly need one—He could have fought on. This outcome fundamentally shifts expectations and behaviors. Israel has lost its big psychological advantage. Try to think like those Yellow flag wavers think as they march triumphantly through the streets of Beirut and the various outposts of the “Arab Street” all over the ME. If 6 years after Israel last pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah is capable of being built up to this impressive degree, what is possible in 6 years more? If a major encounter in Lebanon need not end in defeat, then maybe at some point an Arab offensive operation need not end in defeat. What is possible 6 years after that?

Syria’s stature will now be elevated as Hezbollah's patron. Jordan and Egypt will reexamine their assumptions about Israel. Hezbollah's victory—and make no mistake it is viewed as such in the larger Muslim world—is a big victory for Iran and the Shia generally, vis a vis expanding Iranian power. The Shia have already witnessed the limits of American power, with the situation in Iraq. More myths are falling. I would expect Hezbollah and Iran to move to exploit the situation, not think in terms of concessions towards a state that both have said is illegimate and should ultimately be destroyed. Would Syria be more amenable to peace? Maybe, but I think ultimately they will foresee greater benefits from continuing their alliance of convenience with Iran, rather than breaking ranks and concessions with the US/Israel.

This is not the end of this movie series. We’ll be back in these same theatre seats again, and I suspect next time the movie rating will be “R”.

[bigtree]

67. I tend to think that the principals know the score here. The rest of us do

This was a tragic mess for all concerned. If they just keep their actions to themselves they can spout off any platitude they want about whatever 'victory' the imagine they got out of the bloody conflict. Hizbollah's lucky Israel wasn't given more time to level Lebanon down to Nasrallah's bunkers. Israel's going to be lucky if their Palestinian prison doesn't start rioting and threaten to burn their house down. Not to mention the Israeli soldier's lives, lost in numbers that will shake Olmert's government to the core with self-doubts and self-recriminations. All of that and the prospect that they have actually made themselves even less secure for all of their efforts and the devastating losses on both sides of the border.

Both sides would be well served to stop the senseless violence and begin to talk again. Who wants to go back to what we just experienced? Not Israel. Not Hizbollah either, in my opinion.

[Spearman87]

75. You're kidding? You think Hezbollah sees what just

happens the same way we do, when you say "Who wants to go back to what we just experienced?" Hezbollah is not bothered by civilian casualties! They don't even recognize Civis as noncombatants. I'm rushed and flustered by a little domestic problem here, so I apologize if this comes out the wrong way. Ok, here is who would want to go through this again: Iran. It got their nuke issue on the back burner, and it gives them an excuse for needing a "deterent". So Hezbollah wants to also. Hezbo is an Iranian puppet that welcomes civilian casualites as an additional recruiting too. Don't you believe it's true that Hezbo has gained magnitudes greater visibility and credibility out of this whole saga? That's what I'm seeing and hearing from journalists on the ground.


<<"This was a tragic mess for all concerned.>>"

No way. This was no tragic mess for Iran. This was no tragic mess for Nazrallah. This was a golden success for Hezbo, and a surprisingly more positive outcome than Iran probably expected during the first week.

[bigtree]

76. ok, the leaders survived unscathed

but what else is new?

How about the followers?

[Spearman87]

82. I’m worried, and I tend to worry too much

by nature. The followers, it’s just sad, but the leaders eem to have no problem attracting new chattle to sacrifice. Uneducated, poor, hopeless, majority under-30 societies in that part of the world. Fueled by a media and govenments that encourage a cultural belief that Israel and the US are responsible for all the evils in the world, and their lack of prosperity—The Small Satan and the Great Satan. And the radical groups have developed a superb strategy of infiltrating into the populations and providing social services (probably funded by Iran) to engender loyalty. And now even more and more well-to-do middle-class Muslims and university students are becoming radicalized. What can you say to a couple who was planning to fly with their 6-month baby and detonate an explosive in one of her formula bottles during flight? I don’t know what possibly I can do to reach people who are that point in life. (I know, I know, the answer is to “turn off the TV”, Al Jazeera, etc :_))

I hope you are correct and I prove to be wrong. But this is the mindset I see growing among Israelis (Excerpts from a post I saw elsewhere, by a conservative, pro-military force Jew):


<<"The Olmert government and Liberal leadership have proven a dismal failure. Concede territory for peace = an invitation for disaster. The Israeli people now know that appeasement will only embolden the Islamics. I see the Conservatives taking back leadership in Israel. Olmert is to Israelis as Jimmy Carter was to Americans. Israel will bring Benjamin Netanyahu back much as Britian brought back Churchill after Neville Chamberlins failures. Hezbulloh may now be able to win the nation of Lebanon and control that government. Bush is wrong. We want Hezbulloh to control Lebanon. That way Israel can defeat Lebanon and not be bogged down in a guerilla war. Air power could level Lebanon in a day when you don't have to sort out the PC targets. Let the people vote the Hezbos in. It would be the worst mistake they ever made. Israel has no downside. What will the world community do, hate them? If Israel can fight nation states, not movements/guerillas/terrorists they can win in devastating fashion. Syria is now threatening Israel because of perceived weakness. If Israel elects Netanyahu they'll have the will to thrash Syria to the point that even Arabs can't claim victory.>>"


I just don't foresee enough willingness to compromise on either side. But like I said, let's hope that you prove to be correct, and that my own thinking proves to be too clouded by the loud volume of nearby TVs, as Kenny Blankenship is convinced :_). What I said the first time may not have come out exactly right or with the right tone though, sorry.

[deaniac21]

22. It may be 20 or 30 minutes...

[bigtree]

23. but, ya know . . .

you just can't keep those blue helmets down



A U.N. peacekeeper, with his rifle pointed downwards, observes a minute of silence in front of the memorial of the 246 UNIFIL peacekeepers, (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) who have died in South Lebanon since the mission was established in 1978, in the coastal town of Naqoura, Southern Lebanon, Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2005. They first landed in the Middle East in 1956, with lofty goals and helmets painted blue. But over the next half-century, dug in between Arab and Jew, U.N. peacekeepers often found little peace to keep. (AP Photo/Mohammad Zaatari)

[deaniac21]

33. Yes, they are a tremendous force to be reckoned with.

Thank goodness they are there!

[bigtree]

36. in place of the mindless, reckless violence that's now receding

thank goodness they are there.

They still haven't declared that it will be a fighting force. Their role has much more promise than all of the idiotic violence that preceeded their arrival and was waged around the UNIFIL observers. Nice of you to be so dismissive of their mission. Perhaps you will resign the region to perpetual violence. Pessimisim has its own reward. I prefer to remain optimistic that peace will be victorious over the senseless killing on both sides.

[hogwyld]

10. It's over, and israel got it's ass kicked

their myth of invincibility has been crushed, and they will now be forced to acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians rights to their lands or face elimination.

[ShaneGR]

12. "Or face elimination"

What do you mean by that? Push em into the sea? Nuke em? eh?

[hogwyld]

46. I don't wish the elimination of a country

I'm just saying, if israel doesn't start to negotiate honestly with the Arab nations, they may take matters into their own hands. Maybe my previous post came off wrong, and for that I apologize. I prefer the 2 state solution with the borders set at 1967 levels.

[bigtree]

47. that's a relief

it sounded ominous. I tried to clean it up for you :P

[hogwyld]

55. After I reread, it sounded horrible

I just hope that the jews take advantage of this opportunity for dialog. You can humiliate your opponent only so many times before that proverbial last straw.

[cali]

80. The Jews?

Surely you mean the Israelis, don't you? You seem to be conflating the two. Do you really need it explained to you that all Jews are not Israelis, and are not responsible for the government of a country?

[Missy M]

13. I think Israel should acknowledge the Arabs and...

Palestinians rights to their lands AND the Arabs and Palestinians must acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The last thing anyone should want is the elimination of Israel.

[Taxloss]

15. You appear to be relishing this.

I wouldn't write off Israel if I were you.

[bigtree]

16. Israel's violence didn't change the balance of actual power

It altered the political landscape in Lebanon and among Arab states to a heightening of animosity and recrimination toward them. But, the balance of military power still favors Israel and has not created conditions for their 'elimination'

But their actions have increased the potential for some reprisal coming from aggrieved Lebanese or some sympathizer somewhere who might feel emboldened by the Lebanon quagmire to continue the attacks on Israel, their troops still in Lebanon, or against some interest in another country as has happened before.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

27. I don't agree with that. Israel won

Or is still winning, however you want to look at it. They killed more people and destroyed more of Lebanon than the other side. I know people have all kinds of views but in a war the side that kills the most wins. Lebanon is a mess, and Israel only had a few things damaged, and way few people killed. Plus Israel is still occupying Lebanon and they even have a UN resolution saying they can occupy it and keep killing Lebanese people if they feel like they need to for their security but if Lebanon fights back that is a violation of the cease fire and also terrorism. So Israel ends up with more land and it is land that has water that they want, and they killed more and destroyed more. So I don't really agree that they are the ones that got their ass kicked. We have the most weapons and the most powerful ones, and that is the kind we give Israel so we or Israel will always win any war because we can kill more people than other countries.

[RoseMead]

28. By your criteria, the US is winning in Iraq n/t

[FlavaKreemSnak]

29. Yes we are also winning in Iraq. We are killing way more Iraqis

And we have destroyed way more of their stuff, like cities and art and things, and also if they fight back, it is terrorism, and every other country in the world is too scared of us to do anything about it, so if what you want is to be winning a war we are doing it.

[bigtree]

34. you talk like Lieberman

what are we 'winning' in Iraq again?

[FlavaKreemSnak]

37. We are winning more dead Iraqis and more destroyed Iraq

that we can put our military bases in so we can make sure that the oil goes where we say.

I think maybe you are getting confused about what the question is. I think that Lieberman and I may not have the same point of view about whether that is a good thing for America or whether it is right. But that is not the same question as whether we are winning. Of course we are winning, because we have more money and more bombs so we can kill more people and take whatever we want that they have. That is what war is about.

Then after that you can talk about whether it is a good thing for the country, or the right thing to do, but all I am talking about is who is winning the war.

[bigtree]

40. such a confused reasoning

I respectfully disagree that there is anything that the US will 'win' in Iraq. The invasion and occupation has been a miserable failure, even if you use the standards that the Bush regime set for 'victory.'

I certainly don't view the fact that we killed tens of thousands of Iraqis as 'win.' It's a tragedy, one that has escalated the animosity toward our nation throuought the region and the world, lowered our nation's credibility, fostered a wave of violent resistance to our attempted consolidation of power there, and set the stage for a generation of terrorism around the globe in protest and reprisal over our illegal and immoral imperialism.

Some 'win', huh?

[FlavaKreemSnak]

48. But we did kill them, and that is what we wanted to win

Or at least what our government wanted to win. I am saying that whether you or I think it is good or bad does not make any difference. It was what Bushco wanted to do, and they are doing it. We don't need any credibility because we have more money and more bombs, and since we consider that fighting back against us or Israel is terrorism, sure we have set the stage for a lot of it, because if you think back to your history classes every time there is an occupation the people that get occupied fight back, and they don't care if the occupiers consider it terrorism, or what they get somebody to sign, any more than we would if it was us being occupied, even if there are people who don't like to admit it, because the point of view is so different. So whether what we are winning is something that you want, or something that you think is good for America, or whether I think it is is not the same as whether we are winning it or not.

[evermind]

62. Also by this criterion, the US won in Vietnam!

something is clearly off...

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. The one who gets to keep the land wins

It doesn't matter how many of your own you lose in the process.

"In Srifa, I stood with Hizbollah men looking at the empty roads to the south and could see all the way to Israel and the settlement of Mizgav Am on the other side of the frontier. This is not the way the war was supposed to have ended for Israel."


Remember London didn't look too good when they 'won' the war either.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

32. I don't think Israel is going to let Lebanon keep any land

I guess maybe if we told them they had to or no more bombs but we are not going to do that because we have unconditional support for Israel, and if they want the land, and the water, then they get to keep it and if the Lebanese people fight back, they will just get bombed some more. We don't know yet if Israel means to let them have any of Lebanon, they have just started the occupation there.

[Fredda Weinberg]

35. Yeah, that's why Israel returned Sinai w/all those oil fields n/t

[FlavaKreemSnak]

39. Here is an article about it

http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/charleslu.html

tells about it. It was basically because America was having to pay too much for them to keep fighting with Egypt, which has a big population and it was going to be cheaper to make the deal and then just make sure to try to keep a pro-American leader in Egypt and keep the people under crackdown, which is getting more expensive now.

But there is also this other article that helps explain why Israel is not taking it back, at least not yet.

http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/german/books/mem/n01a09.htm

[Fredda Weinberg]

44. Fighting with Egypt? Talk about historical revisionism.

Sadat started the initiative ... so what the US had to do with it is beyond me.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

50. Well who started Sadat? :) And yes you can find all kinds of versions

That is why the ones that I picked I tried to make as much of what people would agree as the official version, in case there are people who haven't read about it because no offense if you are older, but to a lot of people it was a long time ago, and just like I had not read anything at all about it until a little while ago, maybe there are other people who haven't read anything about it and don't even know that anybody was ever fighting with Egypt, so they can read those articles and then if they are interested they can read other different ones that maybe have different points of view and they can think about them.

[Fredda Weinberg]

56. Yeah, but you don't get to rewrite history

Nobody "started" Sadat - his brother died fighting the Israelis and while this quote is apocryphal, it's true enough; he's supposed to have said, "The Saudis are willing to fight to the last Egyptian."

Israel's had no problem returning valuable land before - as I noted, the Sinai holds oil. Why should Israel occupy Lebanon, which has none? For one reason only - to stop shelling across the border.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

66. OK That is your point of view but look at the 2nd link

That person has a different point of view. And depending on how much you want to look you can find like 12 different points of view, and each one will say that the other ones are wrong and rewriting history and this is what Israel thinks and this is what somebody else thinks, maybe they want it to have natural expansion of settlements, and maybe they want it because of religious reasons, and maybe they want it because they think it would help them with the oil they are talking about in that second link. And every person in Israel does not always think the exact same thing as every other person there. It doesn't matter which country you go to, there will be different points of view and different ideas about history and also what they think about the present and the future. So all we can do, if we really want to know about it, is read as much as we can from all the different points of view and not just the Israel ones. Because whether something is a fact does not have anything to do with whether it is a fact that somebody else thinks it is.

[Fredda Weinberg]

69. A 10 year old magazine article? So why did Israel

*leave* Lebanon? Sorry, but this is simply illogical.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

74. Somebody must agree with you there because they are back

They are occupying it again so everybody can have their own opinion about why until we find out. :)

[TahitiNut]

51. Neither side "wins" a minus-sum game. Both sides lose.

It's delusional to claim that whomever loses the least is a "winner." Real life is never a "win-lose" (zero-sum) game - it's either win-win (plus-sum game) or lose-lose (minus sum game), and the fundamental requirement for win-win is cooperation/collaboration.

The delusion of least losses being a "winner" is one that's perpetuated by those on both 'sides' who profit (narrowly benefit) from the misfortunes and sacrifices of their cohorts. These are the exploiters - the parasites - in a society, and they're called 'king' or 'president' or 'owner' or 'arms manufacturer.'

This is one of the reasons that war follows war and killings follow killings ... the losses suffered on both sides are always blamed on the other side and no amount of losses on the other side ever compensates for such losses. This is why, throughout history, mankind as gone to the extremes of genocide - no matter how much loss is inflicted on the 'enemy' it's not enough. Even when the 'enemy' is eradicated, it's not enough - and another 'enemy' is sought.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

64. I agree with you about the morals etc of it. But war is not about morals

It is about one side killing the most people, and getting the most of their stuff.

And I also agree with you about the history and extremes etc and all of that is maybe why some people are against having wars, including me, but I am still saying there is a difference between saying who won and whether winning a war is a good thing or a bad thing. It is like if you have this really cool gold chain and I steal it, then I have your gold chain no matter what anybody thinks about stealing or whether it turns out to be a good thing for my life, etc. OK maybe that is not such a good example but I am not very good at thinking of good examples.

[Shipwack]

59. No, war is not won by who ever kills the most.

War (to quote a famous phrase) is an extension of politics. It is a tool to an end. Israel went into this claiming that there goal was to eliminate Hizbolla(sp?). They kept on claiming that they were going to keep on fighting until this was accomplished. All Hizbolla had to do was survive.

It soon became apparent that the Israeli army couldn't defeat an asymmetrical force (a guerrilla army that fault in small, loosely organized groups). Well, they could, but it would involve the death of every single man, woman, and child in Lebanon. So now the cease fire and withdrawal.

Israel has lost stature. Maybe militarily they are almost as strong as before, but the mystique of the "mighty Israeli army" has lost its luster. This is troublesome. It is much better to convince your opponent that you are too strong to fight than to fight and win.

Does this make me happy? No. I care not for either side, but a weakened Israel is probably not going to help stabilize the region. Unless, of course, as others have suggested that they take this as a wake-up call that they are going to have to deal with their neighbors as human beings...

[FlavaKreemSnak]

65. I think you are talking about the best way to win

And I can't argue with you about that, or agree with you either because I don't know about strategies, etc. I am just talking about how you know who won. Israel has messed up a lot of Lebanon and killed a lot of people and is still there occupying and yesterday they killed 4 more people.

I know that people consider fighting back against Israel or against us to be much worse morally than anything we do or that Israel does, but that doesn't really have anything to do with who won and who lost. Also I don't think that Hezbollah or anybody thinks for a minute that they can fight back against us or Israel and win, because we have the most powerful weapons than anybody else, and more of them, plus more money and this is not a secret. It sounds like you mean that now Hezbollah is all like oh look we can beat Israel. They didn't and nobody is going to think they can, especially not people who have been being bombed by Israel, and Hezbollah does not have even one bomber plane! But people anywhere are going to fight back if they get invaded, even if they know they can't win, and even if they people invading them think it is terrorism for them to fight back. Because the points of view are so different. You know what I mean, just because I think something doesn't mean you are going to think it too, even if I am 100% convinced of it or even if it is like my moral code or religion or something, you are still going to have your own point of view.

OK here is a better example than the one in my other comment. If it is a boxing match and somebody gets knocked out and you think that they should have stopped the fight in the round before, and that both of the fighters should have done something different or they should not have put them together in the ring to begin with and it is not going to be good for the career of the guy who knocked the other one out because he did this or he did that. Even if you are right about all of your opinions the one who got knocked out is still on the ground and the other guy still won.

[Shipwack]

68. Once again, no.

The number of "bodies down" has nothing to do with it. It is what the goals of each side are.

There were more Allied bodies on the ground at the battle of Normandy, but the Allies won that battle.

There were more Persian deaths than Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, but the Persians won.

During the battle of Hampton Roads, the CSS Virginia destroyed two ships, caused a third to withdraw, and fought the USS Monitor to a standstill. Even though more ships were destroyed by the South, and more men were lost by the Union, the battle was at best a draw, and strategically a loss for the South, since the Monitor kept the South from achieving their goal of exiting the harbour and breaking the Union blockade.

As for the rest of your post...

"Also I don't think that Hezbollah or anybody thinks for a minute that they can fight back against us or Israel and win, because we have the most powerful weapons than anybody else, and more of them, plus more money and this is not a secret."

Superior weapons, money, and size don't automatically equate to assured victory; read about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sometime. Or America's involvement in Vietnam, for that matter...

[FlavaKreemSnak]

70. LOL OK I have figured out that we are both wrong

Because we don't know the exact and true goals of Israel and of America! Because look, don't you think it is just a little bit weird that all these people are talking like how tiny little Hezbollah with nothing but these old weapons and no airplanes won a war with this huge army like Israel has and all the latest and hugest weapons we give them? Especially since Hezbollah is also saying that and there are some articles with Israeli leaders sounding like they agree with him!

But at the same time, they are still there, occupying Lebanon. So that seems like a kind of strange situation to say oh well we did this and they did that and things didn't work out, when they have worked out well enough so that they are there occupying, plus all the larger numbers of dead people and destroyed cities which OK if you don't want to count those because the battle of Thermopylae, that is cool, but I don't think that you can compare these others like VietNam because the US is not still occupying it and we are actually the ones occupying Afghanistan right now, so you can say that we lost in VietNam and that Russia lost in Afghanistan, but if you are counting it like that, then Israel did win because they are still occupying Lebanon.

Also I will get back to what I said first. We don't really know what they are all planning, Right now it looks like what they want is to get some soldiers from Europe to come do the occupation for them or at least help so there will be less Israeli soldier deaths. Because if you look at the worst damage and what people are upset about it is destroying the tanks.

You sound like you know a lot about strategies and things so you are going to have a better answer but if I was Hezbollah I would not be celebrating so much and thinking oh well we have beat Israel and America and those soldiers who look like they are still here occupying are really just getting ready to leave.

So after thinking about everything you have said and reading some other things, I was wrong to say Israel won but you are also wrong to say they lost because the war is not really over yet so we don't know.

(the edit was for the first part of the sentence where I pasted wrong and didn't get the first words so it didn't make sense)

[rman]

84. Some Israeli official actually said something along the lines of

"we will continue".

[maxsolomon]

3. thank you, lord, for the healing gift of religion

-bill hicks, RIP

Olmert let Bush lead him down the same rabbit hole we're in.

Go all in, or don't go in.

Hezbollah turns my stomach, taking pride in the destruction they were part of.

[bigbrother05]

4. Starting to sound like they tried to "shoot the moon"

and wound up set, big time!

When you overreach on the world stage, a failure can often reverse years, if not decades, of progress.

I have no "side" in the ME, except for the side of humanity. I hope, for everyone's sake, that this will not be the beginning of a long, dark period of destructive behavior on all sides. Israel has usually been pragmatic in their adventures in the past. My fear is that the end-timers/neo-cons in our midst have infested all they have come in contact with.

Will the scales fall from their eyes on the road to Damascus?

[sui generis]

7. gotta throw a little Tao here -

this is EXACTLY the way things will be in the future if nothing changes anything right now.

Israel sucks at protracted wars. We all do, clearly, but let's be serious, this is like a war between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or maybe Topeka and Kansas City, MO. The people who survive don't have to cross an ocean to take their vengeance on you, either side.

I don't know if Israel could have possibly been stupider, even if this were a science fiction novel. This "war" was exactly, precisely, the worst possible thing they could have done in the circumstance, and a grade schooler could have told them that.

Not giving props to anyone, but Israel is becoming quite like the U.S. in not recognizing that consequences evolve and perpetuate from every action involving force, such that force is truly the last resort after EVERYTHING else has been addressed.

[catmandu57]

8. I hope this has made the pnac wake up and take notice

it wasn't the push over they expected, nor did they draw Syria and Iran into the conflict. There was an air of desperation about this whole thing from the start, almost as though they were risking everything on this throw and came up with snake eyes.
I think their plan has backfired big time and the world has dodged a big big bullet for now anyway.

[JHB]

19. BWAhahahahahahaha!

I'm sorry, with "PNAC" and "wake up and take notice" in the same sentence, I just couldn't help myself. ;)

Colossal arrogance means never having to admit having one's head up one's a**.

[Marr]

24. I couldn't agree with you more. This whole thing reeks of the

PNAC crowd and their rose-colored "planning". They always just assume that every step of their plans will result in a best case scenario. This whole episode has the stink of recent history's greatest idiots, the PNAC.

[QuestionAll...]

54. maybe it is going according to plan...

if the plan is to provoke the Arab states into an all out war, then they can bring out the big guns.

I've long dropped the idea that they are 'incompetent' - the pnac devils surely know what they're up to.

[Emit]

41. PNACers, if they can get their way, are not done yet

Did anyone catch Bill Kristol debating Richard Holbrooke on Charlie Rose last night?

http://www.charlierose.com/

It's not over yet.

[bklyncowgirl]

79. Forget it, Bush says Isreal won.

...And in the PNAC fantasyland alternate universe, they did.

These guys will keep on doing what they're doing. Remember, they create their own reality.

[aquart]

14. Fisk. Not a stupid man.

But biased? Just a touch.

I kinda love "Far from driving the Hizbollah north across the Litani river, Israel has entrenched them in their Lebanese villages as never before."

Yep. Israel FORCED Hezbullah to take advantage of Lebanon's weak government by entrenching itself within the civilian Lebanese population. Oh, yeah, they did. What do we call that? Using human shields?

And isn't it sweet of Hezbullah to hand out notices telling parents not to let their children play near the nasty Israeli bombs. So concerned.

BUT THEY ARE NOT LEBANESE. Let's not forget that. And any Lebanese child who dies is one more paid for Sabra and Shatila because Hezbullah knows who slaughtered the Palestinians in those camps, even if the rest of the world prefers to forget. So screw their concern. They aren't quartered in Gaza.

[Taxloss]

17. Bravo. n/t

[bigtree]

20. That's quite an opinion you have about the interests and views of Lebanese

I wonder if the Hizbollah Cabinet members would agree with your asssertion that they are not Lebanese. If the citizens of Lebanon vote for Hizbollah members in a free and fair election than they are indeed representative of those Lebanese who voted for them.

[Nimrod2005]

25. Shia Lebanese are not Lebanese?

What are they?

[Emit]

43. Hizbollah are not Lebanese?

Also, regarding the latter part of that comment you made:

"BUT THEY ARE NOT LEBANESE. Let's not forget that. And any Lebanese child who dies is one more paid for Sabra and Shatila because Hezbullah knows who slaughtered the Palestinians in those camps, even if the rest of the world prefers to forget. So screw their concern. They aren't quartered in Gaza."

Can you clarify what you mean by this. I do not follow the reference here to Sabra and Shatila, nor do I get exactly what you mean.

Thanks.

[underpants]

18. Now now now Georgie said they won

So that is settled.

[catmandu57]

21. Jeebus fuck

The looks on deadeye and kindasleazy are priceless.

[glitch]

49. The whole picture is priceless - look at the lunatic in the middle too

This is what we have representing the USA to the world.

[jsamuel]

26. Can I ask a question?

Does Israel now control the source of the river Jordan?

I asked this in another thread, but I should have asked it here, because this is where it is relevant.

[Emit]

52. Water issues are key in this area

and have been since biblical times, especially the development of water sources in the Jordan basin.

[pelsar]

53. yes...

its orgins are based in israel, some parts from 1948 others from 1967

[FUGW]

31. Ended? This is just the intermission, the 2nd act will Shock and Awe you.

[breakaleg]

38. This article says they saw very few IDF troops in southern Lebanon

approximately 1000, not the 30,000 claimed by Israel. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this? Where are those troops Israel says it called up?

[Clarkie1]

42. I do hope Hezbollah will be disarmed, otherwise there will be no peace.

At least, no lasting peace.

Israel is not going to go away, and Israel is not going to tolerate acts of terrorism originating from Hezbollah against it's people. I hope the Lebanese people understand that, otherwise they will pay a terrible price.

[bigtree]

45. you and me both Clarkie1

I'll be devastated if Hizbollah starts shelling Israel again. I don't think they will be disarmed by force. I believe Syria needs to be engaged in negotiations on the Golan Heights in exchange for their cooperation in an arms embargo and the disarming of Hizbollah.

[savemefromdumbya]

57. I'm sure there is going to be more?

Fox still thinks there is?

[Atman]

58. Waitaminnut! I thought all these people lived in caves?!!

I'm being sarcastic, of course. But I'd be willing to bet that subject line is not far-off from the thinking of those of the BushCo mindset. His dumb-ass supporters are among the most ignorant of Americans, and many have been implicity led to believe that these are just smelly dessert-dwellers who live in caves and scavenge for food. When was the last time anyone in America saw anything about Beirut on their teevee that didn't involve bombs and haggard refugees? That must because it's just a backwards hell-hole, right?

The American media and BushCo will never tell Americans how "normal" and "Westernized" Beirut was, even for a prominent city in the heart of the Muslim world. They seem to go on the assumption that as long as Americans think we're (read: Israel) only bombing smelly cave-dwelling towelheads, then everything is cool.

But imagine YOUR hometown. Imagine YOUR city. Imagine looking out your window and seeing your entire neighborhood flattened. These aren't/weren't caves, and these people aren't who Bush wants you to think they are. They are like you and me, with families and kids, who just want some fucking peace and normalcy in their lives, but are forever thwarted from achieving it...by their leaders.

Maybe it's really just time to say "Fuck leaders. We can do it better on our own!"

[k_jerome]

60. did some guy named Israel steal your girlfriend in high school..

you are relentless.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Philosoraptor]

63. Pat Robertson agrees.

Virginia television broadcaster Pat Robertson says Israel's cease-fire with Hezbollah has rendered the entire bloody conflict pointless.

Back in Virginia Beach from Israel to resume hosting his "700 Club" broadcast, Robertson said the cease-fire means that, "nothing came out of this at all." Robertson suggested that the invasion of Lebanon failed to achieve its objective. He said, "Israel went in, but what have they done?"

In his visit to Israel last week, Robertson prayed for victory with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

[nolabels]

73. People that like to grow potatoes in their ears shouldn't need words...

to change other's feelings.

Someone should send Mr.Robertson a note telling him how communication is a two way reciprocative enterprise.


http://www.mupwj.org/washington.htm

[Strelnikov_]

72. "Show The Weakness Of Israel's Army"

Don't really agree with this statement.

To me, it shows the capabilities of fourth generation warfare (or whatever the war pimps call it) performed by a well trained adversary in a prepared defensive posture.

Even the best army cannot overcome a bad plan. Given time, there would have been only one outcome, but at an unacceptable cost.


This should be a warning to the neocons and their Reich-Wing enablers.


Why do I think it is a lesson that will not be heeded.

[rman]

83. Well, it's a good excuse to get more money, more guns, and

to create a more aggressive military doctrine.
I for one would not be surprised if some neocon think-tank is already drafting a document titled "Rebuilding Israel's Defenses".

[Dunedain]

77. I don't think

a good many people in this country will quite understand the significance
of what Mr.Fisk is saying until their lives are touched by this madness.

It's frustrating that this kind of information elicits arguments over
veracity and causation, who has the greater casus beli. People are dying
as a result of an armed conflict and the representatives of our country are
either belligerent to the prosecution of that conflict, or deafeningly silent about it.

Possibly more aptly stated, silenced about it.

George Bush can certainly be shown to be a complete and utter buffoon, and most likely he is.

These years have brought incremental steps toward an abyss. We're all playing street hockey,
preoccupied with arguing about who fouled whom, and whether or not it was a score
for this side or that; meanwhile a truck is coming.
Question is, who's driving the truck?

[eridani]

78. Israel caught between military power and unwillingness to commit genocide

Genocide was the only winning option, and in the end they were unable to choose it, thank heavens. Let's hope Nasrallah has the sense to lay off of the rocket crap and stick with increased political influence as his only prize.

[Major Hogwash]

81. Jesus, Robert Fisk has been on top of a lot of this stuff lately.

Have you noticed how many articles he has turned out lately?

It's incredible.
And he always seems to get the "inside" story of the real "inside".

Good article.
Thanks of posting this.