…this time? The signs do appear to being pointing to a possible employment of European forces in Lebanon, not least with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and others expressing a preference for “EU countries” or NATO - which is mostly the same thing, especially militarily - to supply troops to any peacekeeping/peace enforcement mission there.
The reason why particularly EU forces might be wanted is that the experience with UNIFIL, the existing UN force there, is not great. As what could be termed a “classic” UN force - blue helmets, white AFVs, no Chapter VII authority, and often drawn from neutral and third world armies - it never had a chance of keeping the PLO or Hezbollah out, and neither did it have a chance of standing up to the Israelis. For their part, the Israelis would obviously like any international force sent to the Litani to be effective. And if it is not effective, it won’t protect the Lebanese from the Israelis either!
Unfortunately, effective international forces for this job are in short supply. The US is out of the question, even if it could spare the troops. British armed forces are frantically overstretched. It seems unlikely to say the least that India would get involved, Pakistan would not be welcome, neither would Turkey for different reasons. Vladimir Putin has said that Russia would support a peace force, but its deployable forces are small, and a dose of the Grozny approach to peacekeeping would do everyone a power of bad. That doesn’t really leave anyone else.
Update below the fold.
If the British army is wildly overcommitted, who will come to the party? The answer is NATO’s Response Force 7, which could sail either under the NATO banner or that of the EU. NRF-7 includes naval and air assets likely to include one carrier and its task group, 40 or so assorted aircraft, and an army brigade. The current force lead is the Franco-German Eurocorps, which by happy accident has just finished a major exercise with the rest of NRF-7 on the Cape Verde islands.
Details can be found here (pdf). There’s one serious problem, though. Take a look at the Land Component order of battle. As well as a multinational HQ with a Spanish general overseeing the French brigade commander, we have the French 110th Infantry Regiment, the French 3éme Hussards tank regiment, the 3rd Belgian Parachute Battalion, the 1st Battalion, 6th Saboya Infantry from Spain, a mixed logistics battalion, a Latvian bomb disposal company…and the German 292nd Jägerbataillon (Light Infantry Battalion), 295th Panzerartillerie (self-propelled artillery battalion), 550th Panzerpionierekompanie (Armoured Engineer Company) and a German military police company.
Is it possible to send German soldiers anywhere near Israel? We may be about to find out. Update: Whether or not it’s possible to send German soldiers there, it looks like it possible to send German secret agents there. According to the Lebanon Daily Star, the Lebanese foreign minister has just been speaking to Peter Witteg, the zuständige leiter at the German foreign ministry, about Germany acting as honest broker to set up a prisoner exchange. Apparently Hezbollah, acting through Nabih Berri as an intermediary, has permitted the Lebanese government to act as an intermediary with Germany acting as an intermediary with Israel in order to gain the mutual release of prisoners. That’s a lot of intermediaries, but it is true that the German secret service has been responsible for setting up past Hezbollah/Israeli exchanges.
July 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
It looks like that’s already been agreed on in principle. German foreign policy and defense officials are currently queueing in front of microphones, apparently to prepare the German public by stating that, if asked, and backed by a “strong mandate” (see Scott’s post), “it would be impossible to refuse to help”.
July 24th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Agh, no! Please tell me no one is willing to sign onto this dog!
If they go in, NATO and Europe get to be the bad guy here. There is no way this is going to be just some little token peacekeeping force - the idea is to send them in to attack Hezbollah, to make Europe defend Israel from Arabs, not the other way around. This is such a monstrously bad plan, I don’t know where to begin. The IDF - with no illusions about human rights or international reputation to uphold - is not able to get rid of Hezbollah. What on Earth can possibly lead anyone to think Europe’s going to be able to do it?
This could work if (and only if) Israel forbade the EU from going into Lebanon. That this plan was floated by the US and backed by Israel dooms it from the very outset. There is no way to avoid being seen to be doing Israel’s dirty work. It could easily be a fiasco so bad as to make the Iraq war look like a good plan.
No, non, nein, nee! A million times no!
July 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Don’t hold it in, Scott.
Perhaps we should have a Montenegrin-independence style AFOE debate on this?
July 24th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I’m game. I can’t get any work done til they fix my server anyway.
I’d make the basic question simple: Would Europe be going in with the intent to root out Hezbollah?
If yes, how in merry hell do they expect to do that?
If no, will they defend Lebanon against Israel when (and it’s when not if) Hezbollah fires rockets on Israel again?
If yes, are European troops prepared to kill Jews to defend Hezbollah? Is Europe prepared to live with that?
If no, then we’re talking about sending a force to Lebanon without expecting it to keep any peace or serve any function except as target practice for Hezbollah and the butt of Israeli political contempt.
The IDF occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and every year Hezbollah grew stronger. They forced the US and France to withdraw peacekeepers in shame, and eventually managed to force Israel to abandon its security zone. I see nothing about the Eurocorps to suggest it’s going to do any better than the IDF did, especially as Hezbollah is now stronger, better armed, and better trained than when Israel left. Where Hezbollah had many opponents in Lebanon a month ago, it now has none.
If outside forces can’t or won’t got to war with Hezbollah, then the only reason to put troops there is to defend Lebanon from Israel despite provocations from Hezbollah. This amounts to using European forces to give Hezbollah cover.
There is no way to come out of this on top. There’s just no way. While it goes on, Israel and America’s less savory elements get to complain about how Europeans are such dhimmicratic anti-Semites because they’re soft on Hezbollah; and Hezbollah gets to complain that Europe is the lackey of Zionists and so they can run around and blow up buildings in Europe, of which the number one target is likely to be my wife’s office.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
On the good side, if it gets the Israelis out to stay, and if they play the game and exchange prisoners, Hezbollah’s immediate goals are largely met, as are Israel’s. And therefore the rocket fire should cease anyway. Deploying it without terms of agreement would be foolish in the extreme.
Interestingly, the Lebanon Daily Star is reporting that Hezbollah has agreed that the Lebanese government can negotiate through a third party for the exchange of prisoners, and the Lebanese foreign minister says this is Germany - the BND has in the past been the instrument of exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel.
In the end, though, the question is what happens once the parties disengage. The answer used to be that restored democracy and economic recovery in Lebanon would gradually secure the authority of the government down south. This is clearly now not going to happen.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
While you two are duelling, there is this vague tinfoil hat idea playing in my head.
I do not see any international army firing on Israelis ever, so what would be left is an international army firing on Hezbullah with the consequences Scott mentioned in his last comment.
Is my tinfoil hat too tight or is it possible that somebody somewhere is trying to push Europe into something much bigger?
July 24th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Ha, yes. As much as part of me — from the sidelines — wants to see Europe take up this role, I think it would be going profoundly against its self-interest. Any time someone gets involved in a conflict, they’ll be the bad guys to someone or other, but the problem goes much deeper than that. The problem is that the “resistance” rhetoric that’s part of Hizbullah’s ideology, the same rhetoric that dominates the popular political consciousness in the Arab world isn’t specifically anti-American. It’s a direct continuation of the old anti-imperialist talk, as you can readily tell from listening to al-Jazeera talk shows. The cookie points that France scored with the Iraq war hasn’t turned them into the good guys in populist parlance. They’ve simply become bad guys who get mentioned a little less. I really don’t know what has moved Chirac to talk about “répression”, but despite the amusing ring that the word has to Anglophone ears, I’m pretty sure that the EU or whoever else can turn into an occupier of Arab lands at the snap of Nasrallah’s fingers.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Alex, it’s possible - just barely - that a large European force would bring a temporary end to the fighting if Israel agreed to negotiate for its soldiers and stopped bombing Lebanon. But unless the result is the end of Hezbollah, Europe is left holding the bag for peace that can only fail.
Guy, I wonder too about the notion that someone might want to draw Europe into a war against Syria and Iran. But events move too quickly and unpredictably for me to think this has all been carefully thought out. More likely, it gets Israel a reprieve - an excuse to not continue in a losing battle in Lebanon while displacing the blame for any future problems onto Europe. That strikes me as a more credible spur-of-moment plan. Although, recent reports that Israel planned this with the US months ago suggests a desire to get everyone into a larger war. I can’t totally discount the prospect, but I try not to consider conspiracy where mere incompetence will explain events.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
“If no, will they defend Lebanon against Israel when (and it’s when not if) Hezbollah fires rockets on Israel again?”
Classic.
Umm, if we are going to bother with a “peacekeeping” force (scare quotes very intentional) dontcha think the peacekeeping force should fight Hezbollah when they start firing rockets on Israeli non-combatant/civilian targets? That would be the point of having such a force. No need to protect Lebanon from Israel, the peacekeeping force would be “keeping the peace” by keeping Hezbollah from firing on civilian cities.
Surely the point of the “peacekeeping” force wouldn’t be to keep the “peace” by letting Hezbollah fire rockets on Israel indefinitely. That isn’t keeping the peace. That would be letting Hezbollah indiscriminately kill Israeli civilians for so long as they can get rockets (which is quite possibly forever). And they don’t even have to sneak people in for a suicide attack.
“While it goes on, Israel and America’s less savory elements get to complain about how Europeans are such dhimmicratic anti-Semites because they’re soft on Hezbollah”
Well, thus far you are soft on Hezbollah. It is the simple truth even before there are EU/NATO troops there. If you don’t want people to notice it you should hide it better. Even rhetorically Europeans are soft on Hezbollah. Hezbollah hasn’t had even a fig-leaf of excuse on Israel since 2000. What are they, fighting over Syrian land now?
July 24th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Fwance would volunteer but there are no african villegers to shoot and rape. Maybe Israel could march their Ethernopians into Southern Lebanon as bait.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
So Scott, you have made it clear that you would like to world to surrender to Hezbollah. Ok. Then what? The absence of Israeli rocket fire does not peace make. How about some solutions.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
So, Sebastian, you feel that a peacekeeping force should go to Lebanon to fight the enemies that Israel is incapable of defeating? You’ve expressed contempt for Europe as a power before, how do you imagine feeble Europeans are going to manage to destroy a terrorist organization Israel failed to stop after 18 years of trying? Do you think that European peacekeepers who can’t stop Hezbollah from firing rockets will dissuade Israel from striking back in Lebanon in the future? The current bunch of UN peacekeepers certainly hasn’t.
I restate my case: It seems unlikely that European forces can stop Hezbollah if Israel can’t. It seems to me even less likely that they will fight an Israel that strikes back against them. So then, exactly what peace are they supposed to be keeping? You have made no counter argument at all.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Okay Pete, I have a solution: Israel acknowledges that Hamas is the legally elected government of the Palestinian Authority, which it officially recognizes as the negotiating agent for Palestinians under the “Road Map”. It releases Hamas officers in detention, withdraws from Gaza and resumes final settlement talks under the “Road Map”. And maybe makes an official statement that Palestinians have a right to a real state on territory currently occupied by Israel, and that Israel has a legal obligation to compensate Palestinians for territory seized over the years. That would be real progress, progress worth lives, including quite possibly mine.
I’ll stand for sending the IDF, Russia and the combined armies of all of NATO into Lebanon and searching every house in the country for Hezbollah members and arms, if and only if Israel will acknowledge and address in good faith actual, legitimate grievances against it. Anything else is a waste of time, money and lives that will only set the stage for more, probably worse violence later.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
On a positive note, no one is going to send in NATO troops unless there is a diplomatic solution that makes their success at least plausible. As a result of the recent mayhem, there’s an unprecedented amount of political willpower converging to contain Hizbullah. Israel and the US obviously want to do it. The Europeans want to do it. The regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia want to do it. The Lebanese, except for the Shi’a want to do it (just because everyone in Lebanon is justifiably angry at Israel right now, doesn’t mean some of them aren’t also justifiably angry at Hizbullah). A competent containment force may provide the missing piece of the puzzle. Or it may not. This is a game of risk. If European politicians don’t want to take that risk, that’s perfectly understandable. If they do, I think that deserves respect.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Scott,
You said:
“Although, recent reports that Israel planned this with the US months ago suggests a desire to get everyone into a larger war.”
Do you care to elaborate on this point? I seriously doubt that anyone–beyond radical elements–wants the US to get involved in another war. It would be close to impossible to open another front for the US’s military without realigning troops, extending combat tours, or bringing back the draft. Also, Israel has always been technically at war with Hezbollah, so this most recent round of Mideast violence was always on the verge of happening anyway.
However, Scott, I do agree with you on the principle points of a EU/NATO peacekeeping force. I too doubt that they could stop Hezbollah from firing rockets, but I do think that they’re presence would stop an Israeli land invasion and might halt Israeli bombings. The peacekeeping force would basically be in the cross-hairs, and hopefully their presence would be enough to keep Israel from counter-attacking. It wouldn’t be fun to be in their position though.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Scott. I asked you for solutions regarding Hezbollah not Hamas. At this point I think they really are two really different problems. Seriously, what is going to stop Hezbollah if not Israeli aggression, if not UN/Nato/EU or whatever forces? Despite what you feel about Israel (many of your beefs justified in my opinion)it is a Democratic state under siege by foreign agents. What to do? Finally, although I disagree with you I offer my condolences as you are obviously wrapped up personally in this. I know people on both sides of the border and the suffering is intolerable.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
MacGyver, I doubt most Americans want the US in another war in the Middle East. But, I can see real advantages for Israel, and I no longer consider any level of duplicity beyond the Bush administration. I suspect something like an open-ended bombing campaign against Syria and Iran might be considered feasible. The US Air Force isn’t really engaged in anti-insurgency fighting in Iraq the way they were in the invasion, and I imagine their armories have been refilled.
Michael, I think a lot of those Middle Eastern regimes that are making anti-Hezbollah statements are doing so for reasons other than support for an anti-Hezbollah crusade. Abu Aardvark has been on about that for a while. Hezbollah is a regional force - I don’t think they’ve hit anyone but Israel since the Khobar Towers bombing a decade ago. There’s no reason for the rest of the world to view them as a big immediate threat.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Sorry Scott, I hadn’t seen your front-page post on the matter when I wrote the comment.
“So, Sebastian, you feel that a peacekeeping force should go to Lebanon to fight the enemies that Israel is incapable of defeating? You’ve expressed contempt for Europe as a power before, how do you imagine feeble Europeans are going to manage to destroy a terrorist organization Israel failed to stop after 18 years of trying? Do you think that European peacekeepers who can’t stop Hezbollah from firing rockets will dissuade Israel from striking back in Lebanon in the future? The current bunch of UN peacekeepers certainly hasn’t.”
This is a multi-part problem. I don’t think UN (or other) peacekeepers should go in if their goals allow for Hezbollah to rain rockets on Israel indefinitely. That isn’t keeping the peace. UNIFIL couldn’t dissuade Israel from striking back because UNIFIL wasn’t doing anything to stop the rockets and was almost certainly guilty of covering up assistance of bribed UN soldiers in an Israeli kidnapping. (It also hid evidence such as the kidnappers auto which could have led to the kidnappers). If a European force were to go in with that mandate, they should clearly not bother.
If they are too weak to go in, which may be true, they should not bother.
But if both of the above are true, they should consider not missing an opportunity to be silent when Hezbollah attacks Israel and Israel fights back.
If Hezbollah’s goal were to get Israel out of Lebanon, it has already won. If its goal is to destroy Israel (and that is its stated goal), Israel is allowed to fight back. If Hezbollah uses things like Lebanese airports to supply, Israel is well within its rights to demand that Lebanon cut off the support (already demanded, not acted upon) or such targets are completely lawful to bomb.
I don’t care if Europe doesn’t want to get involved. But if it doesn’t want to get involved, it should quit pretending that it has anything useful to say. An oh so concerned attitude about Lebanese civilians with indifference to Israeli civilians is annoying.
Would this have been such a big deal if it were just Hezbollah sending rockets to randomly kill civilians in Israel with no Israeli response? Would we be seeing multiple posts from fistfulofeuros and crookedtimber if that was ‘all’ that was going on? That isn’t exactly a hypothetical is it?
July 24th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Pete, I’ll stand for moving heaven and earth, and I think most Lebanese a lot of the rest of the Middle East will too, if the issues that make Hezbollah popular are addressed. No, I don’t think Hezbollah will disappear for any reason other than force of arms. And, I don’t think any level of force of arms short of the genocidal will make them disappear unless their key issues are taken away from them. I think Lebanese Shi’a will hesitate to actively support Hezbollah if the cause of Palestinian liberation were seen to be making real progress without them.
Hezbollah may well receive lots of support from Syria and Iran, but they are not a Syrian or Iranian invention. Local support is far more important. Addressing Shi’a issues in Lebanese politics would help too, but I have the impression that was happening before the bombing started.
This is the same strategy used against European nationalist terrorism, like the IRA. The IRA declined when at least some of the issues it used to gain support were addressed. I think no other strategy is likely to lead to a real peace in this case either.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Some kind of israeli escalation would have been sorta understandable, if foolsish, but the way they’re actually conducting this campaign is both immoral and deeply foolish. Bombing stuff other than Hezbollah positions, killing lots of civilians…
July 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I don’t care if Europe doesn’t want to get involved. But if it doesn’t want to get involved, it should quit pretending that it has anything useful to say. An oh so concerned attitude about Lebanese civilians with indifference to Israeli civilians is annoying.
So, in what way is America prepared to get involved? Or should they shut up too?
Most of the official response from Europe has been something on the order of “we deplore Hezbollah attacking Israeli civilians, and we deplore Israel’s disproportionate response” so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. My response has been different - I’ve expressed no sympathy for any of the casualties on either side so far. I expected some flack for that, but not for being unequal about it.
But for the record: I feel for all the people who find their lives disrupted and loved ones killed, who are experiencing personal tragedies, because of the decisions of remote politicians and militants. I feel for the Israeli ones and for the Lebanese ones just as I felt for the ones in New York on 9/11, in Iraq during the US invasion and the insurgency that followed, and those in Western Sahara, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Nepal, and in every other corner of the world where political violence takes the lives of people who just want to be left alone.
I note, however, that in this conflict most of those people are in Lebanon.
However, political decisions must be made in fashion that balances the personal tragedies of some against others. I do not believe that sending a peacekeeping force to Lebanon under realistic conditions will do anything but lead to more tragedies later.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Scott,
I think Abu Aardvark makes a good point about the surprising openness of their anti-Hizbullah stance. But I don’t agree that these regimes don’t see Hizbullah as a threat. Nasrallah has a remarkable power to whip up essentially anti-establishment popular sentiments in the public at large through both words and actions. While militant Islamists have not yet managed to mount a strategic challenge to the regimes in either Egypt, Saudi or Jordan, in this day and age that has to be a source of their concern. It’s not clear to me precisely to what degree the basic calculus of Mubarak and the Saudis with respect to Hizbullah has changed, but so far their actions seem to suggest a broader agenda than simply currying favor with the neocons. Note also that the Saudis have a standing alliance with the Hariri people.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
“So, in what way is America prepared to get involved? Or should they shut up too?”
Actually America had been surprisingly though appropriately quiet until yesterday.
Those countries which aren’t willing to get involved should indeed pretty much shut up. There isn’t a country around that would let another country’s nationals shoot missiles at their cities.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Sebastian Hoslclaw: An oh so concerned attitude about Lebanese civilians with indifference to Israeli civilians is annoying
While the firing of Katyusha rockets into population concentrations is a crystal clear war crime, so is the Israeli bombing of hospitals, civilian trucks, residential areas, etc.
The difference is that while about a dozen israeli civilians have been killed, hundreds of lebanese civilians have been killed, and half a million have become refugees of war. Half a million.
Due to the disparity in magnitude between the plight of those two civilian populations, I cannot but conclude that your asking for equal concern about it is either hypocritically partisan or (unconsciously?) racist.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Sebastian, you’re full of it:
Initial statements:
12 July U.S. Blames Syria, Iran For Israeli Soldiers’ Kidnapping12 July France Condemns Israeli Attacks, Hezbollah Kidnapping12 July Angela Merkel: The attacks did not start from the Israeli side, but from Hezbollah’s side.
Further US action:
15 July: US vetoes Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire.20 July: US House of Representatives passes a resolution supporting the attack on Lebanon
That’s the US being quiet? And you malign European countries for making statements?
July 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Those countries which aren’t willing to get involved should indeed pretty much shut up.
So should chickenshit cowards who can’t wait to send other people’s kids to fight their wars which they are not willing to pay for.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
“There isn’t a country around that would let another country’s nationals shoot missiles at their cities.”
Hizballah has done the same thing for six years. The soldiers got caught because a local commander fucked up, not because Hizballah statred doing something different. They didn’t need to escalate, and Sharon wouldn’t have, but Olmert felt too weak not to.
Escalation wasn’t illegitimate though. What’s immoral is targeting civilians for no particular reason.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
These two threads have been rather tiresome. No one’s said anything interestring, insightsful or informative.
Does anyone have an opinion on how a European employment would play out. Could we accomplish anything? Wouldn’t Hizballah just keep on doing what they’ve done for six years, now with our boys in the line of fire?
July 24th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Reuters-
Israeli shell hits UN post in S. Lebanon
BEIRUT (Reuters) - An Israeli tank shell hit a position run by U.N. peacekeepers in south Lebanon on Monday, wounding four Ghanaian soldiers, a spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon said.
The four soldiers were evacuated to a UNIFIL hospital at the border town of Naqoura, Milos Strugar said in a statement. The shell also caused extensive damage to the position near the village of Rmeish, he said.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
And you malign European countries for making statements?
Nevertheless, the fruits of success are small, the cost of failure is high, the likelihood of failure is very high and our means are limited. Why would we want to become involved in any way?
Furthermore, isn’t our safety increased if Hizbollah is occupied and decimated? Given that a peace force would have to do exactly that, isn’t it better for us to let Israel do the job?
July 24th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“Furthermore, isn’t our safety increased if Hizbollah is occupied and decimated?”
No.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Surely Blind Freddie can see that Israel and America are setting the scene for Israel to become the regional superpower while America takes care of the rest of the world.
This is not about who fired a few rockets, this is about reshaping the world map. I would prefer not to live in a world run by America and Israel. It would be 1984, Hollywood-style.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:44 am
“Surely Blind Freddie can see that Israel and America are setting the scene for Israel to become the regional superpower while America takes care of the rest of the world.”
Yessss, our Jewish-American cabal is slowing taking over the world. Before too long we’ll own it all. We will slowly suck the life force of the entire planet and enslave everyone. Wahahahah. Wahahahahaha.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:14 am
What about a peacekeeping force from China? Don’t laugh, they certainly have the manpower to spare and probably can be trusted to be evenhanded because they don’t much like either side.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:14 am
David wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on how a European employment would play out. Could we accomplish anything? Wouldn’t Hizballah just keep on doing what they’ve done for six years, now with our boys in the line of fire?
I´m afraid Hisbollah would, sooner or later.
I can´t see them disarming and sooner or later they would “test” us. Just firing a missile from outside the “European zone” for example.
Let´s be realistic here. Any peace-keeping / enforcing force would have to occupy the whole of Southern Lebanon. And crawl into every hole in the ground if they want to ensure that no missiles could be sent to Israel. That would require at least 20.000+ of combat troops. Probably more. Not counting support troops. Plus air support. That in itself is unrealistic.
We could do it, I suppose. But in that case we probably would have to accept high casualty rates sooner or later. Casualty rates the Israeli defense forces don´t want to take today. So why should Europeans accept them?
Not to mention, what would that force do if one / some missiles were fired off just outside their “occupation zone”? Start shelling that position, call in air support?
If the European forces don´t react, they get blamed by the Israelis and the Americans. And probably see Israeli jets heading north sooner or later. If they do react, they might face suicide bombers (and a war). And get blamed for any civilian deaths. The Americans know why they don´t want to send any troops.
The Israelis couldn´t stop Hisbollah and they probably got better intelligence and have more Arabic speakers than any European military. Unless Hisbollah on their own decides to disarm and European troops are only there to build trust, I don´t see how any European force could succeed.
A European force just would be more cannon fodder for the Bush - Blair dream of changing the Middle East. Blame any casualties on Syria and Iran for example….
Not to mention that any European troops under NATO command would be effectively under the command of an American general. Don´t know how that would play in the Arab world…
July 25th, 2006 at 2:39 am
Macgyver, I do hope you are kind to your seeing-eye dog. Your grasp of the situation is somewhat limited!
July 25th, 2006 at 3:54 am
I don’t take that as an insult when it comes from you, big guy.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Wasn’t meant as an insult, MacGyver.
People have got to focus on the big picture and ignore the propaganda. We are heading for big, big trouble but no one is going to come out with banner headlines. We’ll just slide into it and, when it’s too late, people will say,”How come we didn’t notice what the bastards were doing?” Just like WW2.
Only the bastards in this case claim to be on our side!
July 25th, 2006 at 7:09 am
What about a peacekeeping force from China?
The Chinese love their children, too.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:24 am
David,
Does anyone have an opinion on how a European employment would play out. Could we accomplish anything? Wouldn’t Hizballah just keep on doing what they’ve done for six years, now with our boys in the line of fire?
The advantage Europeans have over the IDF and the Americans in that region is (relative) credibility and a different, non gung-ho, approach - cf. the way European troops handle things in their sectors of Iraq and Afghanistan. They are more likely to gain the support and cooperation of the local population. Experience with home-grown terrorist groups in Europe shows that there will always be a small group of nutcases that continues no matter what, but also that the effectiveness of such groups and their ability to inflict harm is greatly reduced if you are able to undermine their infrastructure - read: the support provided by non-terrorist others in the form of shelter, food, transport, secrecy etc.
So getting the population on your side is key, and the Europeans could be more succesful in that respect. However, for the time being it seems unrealistic to expect more than just a firm reduction of the number of attacks, unless you get both the Hezbollah leadership and the nutcases on board (for which Israel would at least have to give up the Shebaa farms on the Golan Heights). So some restraint on the part of Israel is required as well - and this should be part of the agreement.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
You seem to envision troops who doesn’t patrol the border, but rather southern Lebanon, trying to disarm Hizbakkah. But they won’t go along with that. Are we supposed to go to war with them rather than keep the peace? That’s not gonna happen.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Somebody mentioned China. I think there actually are a few Chinese troops in UNIFIL. Perhaps they should be reinforced?
July 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I’d say cease-fire, move in international troops, talk about disarmament (for which Israel would have to give something in return) - in that order. I.e. more or less the French proposal.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Right, if I can be arrogant enough to “sum up”, we seem to have some consensus that a) an international force might be useful, b) but only in order to secure some sort of negotiated solution, which would c) probably be along the lines of the French/EU proposals.
This brings to mind the old thing about “first, catch your fish”. However, it’s also true that the prospect of a meaningful international commitment might make it easier for the sides to reach agreement.
On the downside, there’s the problem that NATO and the EU are a good working definition of “the West”, and if things go wrong this would have a nasty Huntingtonian look to it.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Well, our intersts are harmed by mideast instability, so it could be a good idea if we have a fish. But I can’t see Hizballah agree to disarmanent. I’ll defer to more informed people, though. Anyone reading this?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
It’ll be a good idea if we have a fish - I like that.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
More seriously, the only thing that would compensate Hezbollah for its rockets would be a suitably powerful political role in Lebanon. And that would mean opening the giant ship loaded with shipping containers of crates of cans of worms that is the Lebanese National Convention. Based as it is on the fiction that Lebanon does not have a Shia majority…
July 25th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
More seriously, the only thing that would compensate Hezbollah for its rockets would be a suitably powerful political role in Lebanon.
Could be right, but from what I understand Hezbollah’s official goals are 1) Israel leaving those Shebaa farms on the Golan Heights (which Hezbollah claim are Lebanese but which the UN says are Syrian), 2) Israel leaving this world altogether. Goal number 1 could be a serious topic of discussion.
As for the power bit, my impression was that tehy had more or less accepted long ago that the Islamic Republic of Lebanon will have to be installed by democratic means, so I would not start the negotiations with offering them more government power than they have.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Making Lebanon a democracy would give them more power, I’d think, but that’s not viable.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
“Are we supposed to go to war with them rather than keep the peace? That’s not gonna happen.”
The whole problem is that you can’t “keep the peace” while they continue using rockets to randomly bomb Israeli cities. The whole formulation “keep the peace” makes no sense in such a situation because there is no peace to keep. All you would be doing in that case is setting up a situation where Hezbollah continues attacking Israel indefinitely and Israel never gets to fight back. Israel might find some reason to object to that.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Although, recent reports that Israel planned this with the US months ago suggests a desire to get everyone into a larger war
Do you care to elaborate on this point?
Jewish conspiracy theories? How passe. Yes, please elaborate, or be consigned to your usual position as resident FFOE idiot.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
That’s what I was saying.
July 25th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Hey.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html
“Saturday saw another development in the status of Fuad Siniora’s government versus the strength of Hezbollah. After the government received “a franchise” to enter into negotiations on a prisoner-exchange deal, Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah representative, announced that once the IDF withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, Hezbollah’s role as a “liberating” army would be over, and it would stick to a purely a defensive role.
Advertisement
This is a very significant statement, because it begins to define the conditions for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
The government of Lebanon, Hezbollah, the United States, France and the United Nations have all realized now that the key to achieving a long-term and sustainable cease-fire by means of the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south lies in a resolution to the Shaba Farms dispute.”
July 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Yes. Hizbullah’s agenda with regard to Israel has always been very practical. Nasrallah, unlike the al-Qaeda folks, is a shrewd and sober political operator, if a little on the bloodthirsty side. Both sides are playing a chess game of sort. Only with high explosives.
Israel has also signalled its readiness to surrender the 25sq km of the Shebaa Farms, on the border between Syria and Lebanon but occupied by Israel since its pullout from Lebanon six years ago. That would strengthen the Lebanese government and undermine Hizbullah’s claim to be resisting Israeli “occupation”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828123,00.html
July 25th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
This is a very significant statement, because it begins to define the conditions for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
These are conditions for a temporary truce. It doesn’t solve the problem.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Israeli bombs kill five Indian soldiers
Five Indian soldiers from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in south Lebanon were killed in Israeli shelling on Tuesday evening, Aljazeera correspondent reported.
An AFP report meanwhile said, quoting Lebanese police, that Israeli warplanes hit a UN observation post during a raid in south Lebanon on Tuesday.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:46 am
All of this discussion is now dated. Condi has a whole new vision for the Middle East. America, that genius of foreign policy, following its brilliant successes in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (to name a few) is going to remake the whole of the region (into its ugly image).
I’d start building that bomb shelter right now if I were you. In Britain, you are much closer to the action than we are in Australia!
July 26th, 2006 at 4:01 am
A buffer force is an irrelevancy. Only the Syrian government can disarm Hizballah. Syria knows where they live as the nasty phrase goes. The targets bombed are part of the supply line from Syria.
This is not about kidnapped soldiers any more. It’s about the choice facing Syria – part of the problem or part of the solution?
Cairo, Amman and Riyadh don’t want the Iranians gaining even more influence. The real question is, what’s in it for the Syrian regime? Is there even a little carrot or just the possibility of avoiding a stick that’s getting bigger and bigger?
Syria may have difficulty understanding the Cheney-Hadley philosophy: “Speak in mumbles - and hit people occasionally, or they might start believing that thing is only a walking aid.”
July 26th, 2006 at 6:02 am
I’d start building that bomb shelter right now if I were you.
Man, I should start a company selling pre-fab bombshelters for left-wing moonbats.
There seems to be a huge demand for that. Would also, of course, encourage support for more wars, if it could be made into a thriving business
July 26th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Scott Martens - “I have a solution: Israel acknowledges that Hamas is the legally elected government of the Palestinian Authority, which it officially recognizes as the negotiating agent for Palestinians under the “Road Map”. It releases Hamas officers in detention…”
Such an action would simply hand over Palestine to Iran.
What part of the following don’t you understand?
“A relationship has also developed between Hizballah and Al-Qa’ida, according to a former Al-Qa’ida member who was captured and convicted of bombing U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ali Muhammad said that “Hizballah provided explosives training for Al-Qa’ida,” and that he personally arranged a meeting between Hizballah’s chief and Osama bin Laden in Sudan. In 2002, leaders of Hizballah, Al-Qa’ida, and Hamas met formally in Lebanon to discuss future joint terrorist attacks against America, Britain, and Israel.”
“In 1992, Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas signed an official agreement of cooperation. As recently as 2002 [2006 now], it has been known that Iran was directly involved in numerous attempts to launch rockets into Israel through members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who were trained by Hizballah in Iranian camps.”
“Hamas actually maintains its own “embassy” in Tehran.”
“In the manifesto published by HT on January 28, 2006, the Party [Islamic Liberation Party] called upon Hamas to maintain the current “state of war” against Israel as long as there is no Caliph who can liberate Palestine. The Party emphasized that the comprehensive liberation of Palestine will be attained only after the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate and under the flag of Islam: “the day will come when the knights of Islam will follow the paths of the greats (military leaders) that conquered Palestine, liberated it and protected it. They will put an end to the Jewish entity and will return all of Palestine to the bosom of Islam. Those who negotiated with the Jews and recognized their state, even on a sliver of Palestine, will be wrapped in disgrace in this lifetime and will suffer torments in the afterlife.”
Sources:
The Institute for Counter-Terrorism
http://www.ict.org.il/
The Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami al-Filastini)
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=28
The Islamic Liberation Party and its Relations with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority
June 2, 2006
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=569
July 26th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Scott Martens,
Why would you want to hand Palestine over to Iran?
That’s what happens if Israel embraces Hamas.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Scott,
Have you read any of this:
Hizballah, Hamas, Al-Qa’ida, Palestinian Islamic Jihad , and the Islamic Liberation Party:
“A relationship has also developed between Hizballah and Al-Qa’ida, according to a former Al-Qa’ida member who was captured and convicted of bombing U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ali Muhammad said that “Hizballah provided explosives training for Al-Qa’ida,” and that he personally arranged a meeting between Hizballah’s chief and Osama bin Laden in Sudan. In 2002, leaders of Hizballah, Al-Qa’ida, and Hamas met formally in Lebanon to discuss future joint terrorist attacks against America, Britain, and Israel.”
“In 1992, Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas signed an official agreement of cooperation. As recently as 2002 [2006 now], it has been known that Iran was directly involved in numerous attempts to launch rockets into Israel through members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who were trained by Hizballah in Iranian camps.”
“Hamas actually maintains its own “embassy” in Tehran.”
“In the manifesto published by HT on January 28, 2006, the Party [Islamic Liberation Party] called upon Hamas to maintain the current “state of war” against Israel as long as there is no Caliph who can liberate Palestine. The Party emphasized that the comprehensive liberation of Palestine will be attained only after the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate and under the flag of Islam: “the day will come when the knights of Islam will follow the paths of the greats (military leaders) that conquered Palestine, liberated it and protected it. They will put an end to the Jewish entity and will return all of Palestine to the bosom of Islam. Those who negotiated with the Jews and recognized their state, even on a sliver of Palestine, will be wrapped in disgrace in this lifetime and will suffer torments in the afterlife.”
Sources:
The Institute for Counter-Terrorism
http://www.ict.org.il/
The Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami al-Filastini)
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=28
The Islamic Liberation Party and its Relations with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority
June 2, 2006
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=569
July 26th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Movie Guy, do you seriously imagine that every anti-Israeli force in the Middle East is stage managed by Iran? Israel agreed to negotiate with its enemies. No other path to peace is likely. Negotiating with one’s enemies means negotiating with people who hate you. Israel, instead, has decided to pick and choose who it wants to negotiate with. This would be akin to the US refusing to negotiate with the Soviet Union on arms reduction during the Cold War on the grounds that it doesn’t like Communism.
Once you’ve made enemies, you don’t get to pick and choose among them.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Why would you want to hand Palestine over to Iran?
That’s what happens if Israel embraces Hamas.
How, and why? I think you’re confusing Hamas and Hezbollah. And in any case, what does “hand Palestine over to Iran” mean? Iranian troops on the streets - how would they get there? An Islamic state? Well, Iran is less of a religious tyranny than Saudi Arabia and more of a functioning society than Palestine at the moment. There seems to be a general assumption in the US that Iran is really the same thing as the Soviet Union in about 1948, rather than just another Middle Eastern state with its own set of internal divisions, national interests, strengths, flaws, cultural/historical priors etc. There is literally nothing better that could happen than an understanding between Israel and Hamas.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Scott,
I attempted to put up a couple of posts that included some links, but they were “captured”. The program has them on a hold for review.
To overcome this problem, I posted quite a few links under 10 or 11 different posts at your web site, Pedantry.
Two posts didn’t fly, but the rest are up.
This is information that I believe would be worth reviewing.
Good luck.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Scott and Alex,
Israel is not going to negotiate directly with terrorist organizations, at least not formally.
There will be no full trust or understanding with Hamas nor the Islamic Liberation Party (ILP), which is a prime supporter of Hamas within Palestine. See the Hamas Covenant and ILP manifesto (links at Scott’s web site, Pedantry)
Let me share a little background history to clear up the relationships between Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas, plus a hint at an alliance with Al-Qa’ida (or Al Qaeda). Worth noting.
Source quotes:
“A relationship has also developed between Hizballah and Al-Qa’ida, according to a former Al-Qa’ida member who was captured and convicted of bombing U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ali Muhammad said that “Hizballah provided explosives training for Al-Qa’ida,” and that he personally arranged a meeting between Hizballah’s chief and Osama bin Laden in Sudan. In 2002, leaders of Hizballah, Al-Qa’ida, and Hamas met formally in Lebanon to discuss future joint terrorist attacks against America, Britain, and Israel.”
“In 1992, Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas signed an official agreement of cooperation. As recently as 2002 [2006 now], it has been known that Iran was directly involved in numerous attempts to launch rockets into Israel through members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who were trained by Hizballah in Iranian camps.”
“Hamas actually maintains its own “embassy” in Tehran.”
“In the manifesto published by HT on January 28, 2006, the Party [Islamic Liberation Party] called upon Hamas to maintain the current “state of war” against Israel as long as there is no Caliph who can liberate Palestine. The Party emphasized that the comprehensive liberation of Palestine will be attained only after the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate and under the flag of Islam: “the day will come when the knights of Islam will follow the paths of the greats (military leaders) that conquered Palestine, liberated it and protected it. They will put an end to the Jewish entity and will return all of Palestine to the bosom of Islam. Those who negotiated with the Jews and recognized their state, even on a sliver of Palestine, will be wrapped in disgrace in this lifetime and will suffer torments in the afterlife.”
Sources:
NIPR - Power and Interst News Report
The Institute for Counter-Terrorism
The Jewish Virtual Library
So, yes, Iran is most assuredly tied directly to Hamas, Hamas is tied to Hizballah, and Hizballah is tied to Iran and Syria. The principal funding comes from Iran. Large monies.
Iran called for Israel’s complete destruction as late as 8 July during a conference held in Iran. The other players were in attendance.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Also note the problems that Jordan is having with Hamas.
The problems are not isolated to Israel.
And Hizballah is also not limited to Lebanon. Hardly.
July 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I’m sorry, but out of three references, two I’ve never heard of and one I have prior experience of as a source of mad-right nonsense. There seems to be a strange worldview in some quarters in the US and Israel that there is a Dr Evil who controls all Teh Terrorists, and if we could just whack him all would be love again.
The absurdity of this is easily seen by the fact that, if there really were coordinating conferences in Lebanon between Al-Qai’da, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Cats’ Protection League, and we knew about them, they’d be dead and the war would be over.
July 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
There is certainly nothing wrong with the NIPR - Power and Interst News Report analysis.
I see no bias in their work. Note the biography info from around the planet.
You’re being rather naive to think that Iran doesn’t have considerable influence with a number of terrorist groups. Last year, the SecSTATE calle Iran the central banker for terrorist activities in the Middle East.
If you think that the U.S. would have taken out the H, H, and I leadership because of such meetings, then you should be able to explain why AQ is doing so well.
I believe you should take a broader view as to what has been happening. I’ve followed this stuff for fifteen years, having lived through some of it in Europe and Central America.
If you want to narrow it, the answer is simple. Iran =>Hamas and Iran =>Hizballah.
Fact.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
There will be no full trust or understanding with Hamas
Funny, that, considering that Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas as a counter to the PLO in the first place.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Would you be interested in a fairly long post regarding the recent NATO excercise that was carried out in the Cape Verde Islands? I was there on business at the same time. I was also mugged and was not allowed out of the country. Equally, with no passport or driving licence, I found it very hard to get Western Union to release funds authorised by my UK bank released. It took about 3 hours with a Portuguese Tour rep who was a star. Then I found when I got home that W.U. had billed me twice. More phone bills to my bank. W.U. swore blind I claimed both amounts USING MY PASSPORT AS I.D. - I wouldn’t have needed the funds if I hadn’t had my passport, driving licence, a significant amount of cash etc stolen from me.
I ramble. I can post on the NATO excercise if you like and explain the problems it caused to civilians.
thanks
Jo
July 27th, 2006 at 9:04 am
MG - “Why would you want to hand Palestine over to Iran? That’s what happens if Israel embraces Hamas.”
Alex - “How, and why? I think you’re confusing Hamas and Hezbollah. And in any case, what does “hand Palestine over to Iran” mean? Iranian troops on the streets - how would they get there? An Islamic state? Well, Iran is less of a religious tyranny than Saudi Arabia and more of a functioning society than Palestine at the moment.”
Alex, I have read many of your posts. You seem like a decent fellow. But your knowledge of Iran is not up to speed. Hamas is very much connected directly with Iran.
In a friendly spirit, perhaps this will help:
Iran
Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran FAC, NCRI - IRAN NEWS
Iran Focus - Iran NEWS
Iran Focus: Iran - Terrorism - New Reports
FAC, NCRI: Iran - Human Rights Abuses News Reports
Iran Focus: Iran - Human Rights Abuses News Reports
FAC, NCRI: Iran Mullahs’ Terrorist training camps - 14 June 2005
20 Iran Focus: Terrorist Training Camps Identified in Iran - listed by name and location - 27 Feb 06
U.S. information (just two documents):
U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Iran - 8 Mar 06
U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06
Other sources:
BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre
PINR, the Power and Interest News Report; and here
July 27th, 2006 at 10:33 am
I think you are veering perilously close to spam. This seems to be a list of lobby groups either aligned with the Iranian monarchy in exile (NCRI, Iran Focus), with the Israeli government, or the Bush administration. Treating similar sources with credence does not have a good record of success recently. Iraqi National Congress anyone?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Movie Guy, two of Israel’s prime ministers were avowed, confessed terrorists, and another one almost certainly ordered terrorist attacks, while another has admitted to aiding and abetting terrorists. If there is one nation in the world that ought not to be able to say “we will not negotiate with terrorists”, it’s Israel. Israel can have no peace until it is prepared to negotiate with its enemies in good faith. The whole point of negotiations is to deal with your enemy. Iran has nothing to do with either of those principles.
Also, I’ve deleted your posts on Pedantry as link spam. Please make your own arguments, use sources as necessary, and be prepared to defend your sources as something other than propaganda. Multiple links do not make your case for you.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Scott Martens - “Movie Guy, do you seriously imagine that every anti-Israeli force in the Middle East is stage managed by Iran?”
Alex - “I think you’re confusing Hamas and Hezbollah. And in any case, what does “hand Palestine over to Iran” mean? Iranian troops on the streets - how would they get there? An Islamic state?”
No confusion. Just plenty of cross reference research.
It’s apparent that there is a background knowledge problem in your “reasoning”, which detracts from potentially credible or very credible presentations concerning the events of the ongoing Israel-Hamas-Hizballah-Iran-Syria conflict. If you don’t understand the basics of the relationships involved, as made available from the Internet and print publications, it’s unlikely that you can appreciate any major role for Iran’s involvement in the current situation. This, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth.
Neither of you have acknowledged any relationship between Hamas and Iran whatsoever, yet Hamas maintains an office in Tehran and Hamas representatives have been photographed with the new Iranian president and other government officials in Tehran and other locales in Iran. Similarly, there appears to a possible move under foot whereby one of Hizballah’s principal leaders may shift his base from Lebanon to Iran (this was noted before the current conflict began by more than one global news media firm and a few government sources). Further, there is government intelligence evidence being confirmed by some news media sources that Iran’s officials met with Hamas leaders and “encouraged” its leadership to initiate the first killings and kidnappings that lead to the current escalation.
While one can blindly dismiss the timing of the attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hizballah as mere coincidence as related to EU-3 and G-8 pressures on Iran to comply with nuclear nonproliferation requests negotiated throughout the same time period and as related to the Iranian president’s remarks on 7 July and 8 July, the direct relationships do exist. The major news media and better scholars researching the ongoing warfare situation have pulled together enough information to allow such relationships knowledge to bubble back to the surface.
As to Alex’s further questions, note the Iranian supreme cleric and presidential communications on this matter. Both such groups of communications related to exporting Iran’s revolution are, again, readily available. Similarly, there is no mystery as to the growing concerns expressed by many Arab nations in the Middle East over Iran’s desire to become the regional power.
So, I ask my original question again - Why would you want to hand Palestine over to Iran? Particularly, considering Iran publicly stated goals for all of the Palestine territories.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Movie Guy, two of Israel’s prime ministers were avowed, confessed terrorists, and another one almost certainly ordered terrorist attacks, while another has admitted to aiding and abetting terrorists. If there is one nation in the world that ought not to be able to say “we will not negotiate with terrorists”, it’s Israel. Israel can have no peace until it is prepared to negotiate with its enemies in good faith. The whole point of negotiations is to deal with your enemy. Iran has nothing to do with either of those principles.
Scott,
I understand what you are saying. I have said it previously, but I was generally wrong. Israel will gain little from talking with terrorist groups that only have the aim of destroying Israel’s existence and the avowed death of all its citizens. You can’t negotiate effectively with terrorist organizations that have such firm aims and repeated demonstrated performance. To suggest that this opinion is unrealistic brings LaLaLand pie-in-the-sky thinking to mind. Prove your case if you can, but otherwise you are riding a dead horse into an imaginary reality. Once you figure that out, what’s are your recommended options?
To suggest that the aims of Israel and its citizens are the same as Hamas, Hizballah, and other terrorist organizations (infiltrated and/or elected within governmental bodies or not) is not the case.
The post-warfare issue is UN resolution 1559, followed immediately by other initiatives to resolve the remaining serious issues in Gaza. The two-state plan is still a viable course for Palestine and Israel. Whether changes will occur within that framework remain to be seen.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Scott - “Also, I’ve deleted your posts on Pedantry as link spam. Please make your own arguments, use sources as necessary, and be prepared to defend your sources as something other than propaganda. Multiple links do not make your case for you.”
You need not be so disingenuous. The links were posted in response to your apparent naive view that there is no relationship between Iran and Hamas. You never acknowledged receiving or reviewing the links (your choice as a courtesy to a fellow poster) until you made your accusatory “link span” post on July 27, 2006 03:11 PM, an elapsed time period in excess of 24 hours.
You have had plenty of time to fire off an email to me (the more mature and decent approach), expressing your apparent ‘don’t want to know about professional research or analysis’ displeasure with having anyone share background information that included the official two-state plan for Palestine plus various assessments of Middle East situations by PINR, the Power and Interest News Report, the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, U.S. State Department assessment of Iran, and other sources beyond sound bite news media presentations.
I don’t care that you deleted the information sources. No merit badges were offered. But you can’t act as though you weren’t provided an opportunity to consider a few other sources, including government documentation and quotes. It was yours to read or scan like an adult, or chuck away like a know-it-all wearing rose colored glasses. You chose the latter path. No big deal.
As for defending any arguments that I may present, citing any professional level documented research and analysis is not propaganda. It’s a step up from news reports, many of which are cranked out in haste to meet deadlines. Some news reports are fine, if not excellent, but the general absence of analysis simply reinforces the sound bite environment that many wallow in.
You need not worry about my ability to support any of my comments or presentations with supporting evidence or commentary. I am well known in blogland for having good support sources if deemed appropriate.
What you should worry about in my judgment, Scott, is continuing to misrepresent the ongoing military engagement as only between Israel and Hizballah. That is simply misleading. Clearly, the military engagement is between Israel, Iran and Syria, as well as Hamas and Hizballah. Fortunately, the nations and organizations that met in Rome this week know very well who the principal trigger and behind-the-scene players are, as do many in the news media.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Alex - “This seems to be a list of lobby groups either aligned with the Iranian monarchy in exile (NCRI, Iran Focus), with the Israeli government, or the Bush administration.”
Alex,
I didn’t say that such sources didn’t have a point of view. Most sources do, including news media outlets. But the larger point deals with consolidation of news stories as opposed to those articles created solely by Iran Focus or NCRI. Both organizations routinely identify their news sources for stories that they create. The external news reports are easily verified, and IF and NCRI provide chronological listings of such news stories. I have had no difficulty in verifying any external news articles found at either source.
If one dismisses such sources as pure, useless propaganda, one is also dismissing included news reports from the following sources:
Agence France Presse (AFP)
AKI (adnkronosinternational, Italian news agency)
Al-Jazeera
Amnesty International
Azzaman daily
Bloomberg
CNSNews.com
DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH)
International Herald Tribune
Iran Azerbaijan daily Gondleague
Iran semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami
Iran state-run daily Khorassan
Iran state-run news agency Mehr
Iran state-run daily Sharq
Press Association
Reuters
RIA Novosti, Russia
United Press International (UPI)
The Associated Press (AP)
The New York Sun
The Daily Telegraph
The Globe and Mail
The Guardian
The New York Times
The San Francisco Chronicle
The Scotsman
The Sun
The Sunday Mirror
The Sunday Telegraph
The Time, Europe Edition
The Times (UK)
The Washington Post
The Washington Times
United Press International (UPI)
World & Nation
Do you dismiss all of these news media sources as pure, useless propaganda?