The new Lebanon

[Phx_Dem]

Putting decades of vicious sectarian, political and personality differences aside, Lebanon's body politic came together Wednesday night in a heartfelt display of national unity: Samir Kuntar had been brought home.

After a nearly 30-year absence, there he stood before the frantic multitude, this progeny of Lebanon - whose road to manhood took him from out-of-control juvenile delinquent to adolescent child-killer to unremorseful mature terrorist - in army fatigues, waving the Lebanese and Hizbullah flags, arm outstretched in the Hizbullah salute, a manic glint in his eyes. A true son of his country.

snip

NOW THAT Lebanon and Hizbullah have apparently melded, the self-defeating legacy of IDF inhibition must end. At the start of the Second Lebanon War, former IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz warned bombastically that Israel would "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" if Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were not returned.

No one took him seriously - Israel would never punish "good Lebanon" for the crimes of "bad Hizbullah." The IAF limited itself to mostly targeting Islamist strongholds. But if Lebanon and Hizbullah are now one, Israel needs a radically revised strategy for winning a war on Lebanese soil.

Artificial distinctions between "Lebanese" and "Hizbullah" targets were swept away by Wednesday's display of barbaric unity. Lebanon was revealed in its hostile unanimity. If new conflict comes, Israel must internalize that unanimity of hate-filled purpose, and defeat it decisively.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331010940&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Phx_Dem]

1. Hizbullah moves into 'every town'

Hizbullah is bolstering its presence in south Lebanon villages with non-Shi'ite majorities by buying land and using it to build military positions and store missiles and launchers, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The decision to build infrastructure in non-Shi'ite villages - where Hizbullah has less support - is part of the group's post-war strategy under which it has mostly abandoned the "nature reserves," forested areas in southern Lebanon where it kept most of its Katyusha rocket launchers before the Second Lebanon War.

snip

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331011969&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Vegasaurus]

2. Sad state of affairs for Lebanon

Imagine if all those many militants put a fraction of the energy that they put into trying to murder Jews towards something that would be more meaningful, be in learning, education, development, building.

It's just sick and sad that terrorism and militancy is their entire enterprise, and that the good people of Lebanon are being sucked in.

[bemildred]

3. Codswallop.

A more egregious resort to war crimes will not improve the outcome. There is no "self-defeating legacy of IDF inhibition" that does not - in practice - translate into a modest and necessary adherence to international law and deference to global public opinion. The outcome of the Second Lebanon War was unsatisfactory because it was a stupid war stupidly conducted, and the remedy is to be smarter, rather than to be more indiscriminately violent, next time.

[Phx_Dem]

5. According to the Winograd commission

the IDF made quite a few tactical mistakes, but the primary one was that they overestimated the ability of the IAF to fulfill the main objectives of the war, instead of launching a major ground offensive backed up by the IAF. I don't think the GOI will make that same mistake again.

[bemildred]

6. So you think that equates to a "self-defeating legacy of IDF inhibition"?

The Winograd Commission says a lot of things, but none of them is equivalent to the fatuous claims put forward in the OP, and few of the changes recommended by it have been carried out, or even attempted. Olmert is STILL PM. Hizbullah has more and better rockets. There is nothing in the present situation, beyond wishful thinking, that would lead one to think that a Third Lebanon War would produce better results than the Second, immediate ground attack or not.

[notfullofit]

7. another war could be Lebanon's last.

snip...

By embracing Hizballah's right to bear arms, the Lebanese government is now defying the U.N. resolutions that require its disarmament. And, as destructive as it was, Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006 was largely limited to Hizballah strongholds in the capital and in the south. But in any future confrontation, Israel may use less restraint — and another war could be Lebanon's last.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1824027,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-world

[azurnoir]

8. If the destruction of Lebanon is Israel's intent

then it better hurry because the world has a short memory, and an all out war of destruction against Lebanon could also wind up lighting the powder keg that is the ME.

[bemildred]

9. Or Israel's. Why risk it?

The notion that Israel used "restraint" in the 2006 war is fatuous. Israel did every thing it could to win. Israel demonstrated that it could not defeat Hezbollah on its own ground in the 2006 war, for the second time mind you, and Hezbollah demonstrated in the dust-up a couple months ago that Israel could not defend its own allies in Lebanon; if Hezbollah wanted them dead, they would be dead, so the "anti-Syrian forces" or whatever you want to call them decided to cut a deal. And that is what you have in Lebanon now. Israel has a credible deterrent, Hezbollah has a credible deterrent, this is not such a bad thing.

[azurnoir]

11. True enough

I actually started to say and Israel's last war as well, but decided at the moment to change that, however in this atmosphere of outrage over Kuntar and Hezbollah I am not sure that mutual deterrence will prevail, hopefully your right

[bemildred]

12. Outrage is essential to both sides.

Got to keep the sheep herded together and just a bit panicky. I don't want to defend any of the various atrocities committed by either "side", but I will happily defend the idea that neither side really cares a fig about a few dead people of whatever age, gender, or description, their own or the other guys. Both sides are thoroughly into "the end justifies the means" thinking.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. The lessons were not lost on other parties in the region.

The reverberations in palestine have been huge.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I'll believe in a new Lebanon when I see it...

The violence and suffering over the years has been truly heartbreaking. I hope there will be peace one day soon.

[azurnoir]

10. IMHO that possibility

died or was killed in its infancy two years ago.

[Sezu]

14. Indeed. If only Hezb could have kept its hands to itself. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

15. Longer ago than that, I fear

there has been civil war there, on and off, since 1975.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Yes. Lebanon was in trouble the day the Europeans decided to rule.

We're still living with the consequences of that century's racism and imperialism.

[Dick Dastardly]

20. What are you talking about. It was under Ottoman rule for 400 years

The French took control in 1918 and it became autonomous in 1926 and fully independent in 1943. Your claim is without any basis in reality

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. European colonialism has been disastrous through the Middle East and Africa. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

22. Your comment was on Lebanon n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. As was French colonization of Lebanon!

[Dick Dastardly]

24. Except, as I said the Ottomans ruled it for 400 years

The French took control in 1918 and it became autonomous in 1926 and fully independent in 1943. Your claim is without any basis in reality. How was French rule for 8 years before it was autonomous and then Independence the major disaster rather than 400 hundred years under Ottoman rule?


This is just typical knee jerk blame it on the west or western colonialism BS.

[Vegasaurus]

25. Easier to blame than ever taking responsibility nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. You better go back to wikipedia and re-read.

If you think the French had nothing to do with the post WWII mess, I would suggest you're living in a dream world.

[Shaktimaan]

27. The problem with blaming Lebanon's situation on Europe is

that we have examples of post-colonial states that faced the same issues as Lebanon did and managed to succeed nonetheless. Look at Israel for instance. By any measure it faced far larger obstacles during its formative years than most other post-colonial nations, Lebanon included, yet managed to become a tremendous success.

Yes, the mandate system left states like Lebanon at a distinct disadvantage. Borders were drawn to benefit France and England's post-war needs, not those of the region's people. But pointing to problems faced by these states as the sole reason for their sorry state of affairs is disingenuous. All states face problems, some of their own making, some not. The test of any nation is not how well they do in a perfect world but whether or not the system they built can withstand adversity and have the fortitude to unite for a common good. This culture of nationalism and self-sacrifice is one of Israel's greatest strengths and it is something that Lebanon lacks.

The French cobbled together several different ethnic groups to form a state riven by strife... the seed of today's ethnic divisions were planted by France. But the ethnic differences in Lebanon are not any worse than those in Israel. At this point blaming Lebanon's current crop of issues on France is about as legitimate as blaming Israel's on England. England left Israel with a tremendous number of problems to solve on their own. The battle lines for a war the British failed to mitigate were being drawn as they swiftly packed their bags to leave, abandoning the Yishuv and Palestinians with their legacy. However, against all odds, Israel managed to persevere and build a successful society whereas Lebanon is still struggling to find its sea legs.

If states were merely the sum total of their predecessor's legacy then there wouldn't be such a vast difference between India and Pakistan, Zimbabwe and South Africa or Lebanon and Israel. Blame is easy. Responsibility is hard.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. I bring up European colonialism because our newer posters here seem to suggest

that there is some inborn deficiency in the colonized peoples of the world.

No doubt the colonized must rise to the challenge and work out the mess left by the colonizers in a way that puts the best interest of their countries first.

But I see no harm in accurately describing the genesis of many problems in the world today.

[notfullofit]

13. who really has the power in Lebanon

snip
The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The macabre Israeli-Lebanese deal, which saw living Lebanese prisoners being swapped for the bodies of Israeli soldiers, is a major success for the Shiite militia…. The prisoner exchange shows who really has the power in Lebanon and who can force archenemy Israel to make concessions: It is Hezbollah, it is Nasrallah. That elevates the radicals' image in Lebanon, in the Arab world and in the Muslim world."

"Nasrallah and his militia were able to achieve everything that the Lebanese government would never have been able to accomplish. Israel cannot be pleased by this state of affairs. After all, Hezbollah is not just a dangerous and unpredictable enemy on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Rather the group is also allied with Iran, another enemy of Israel."

more...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566427,00.html

[Sezu]

28. And it gets worse than that it seems.

"Some observers saw Hizbullah's successful deal-making with Israel as a major blow to moderate Arab leaders, such as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is pursuing failing US-backed peace talks with Israel. "Peace talks have led to nothing tangible, but force has," said AUB's Moussalli. "There is a mood among the new generation that Israel can be taken on and defeated. Islamist movements will see their recruitment increase."

............

Bassam Kontar, Samir's brother, told IRIN the prisoner exchange would boost the credibility of armed resistance across the region. "This exchange will raise the big question: Is resistance a way to liberate land, to secure sovereignty and, at least in Palestine, to negotiate with some power in your hands in order to reach your goals? The answer is yes." - IRIN

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=94360

Hezbollah's "victories," embolden those who would war with Israel. It's only a matter of time before all Hell breaks loose.

[LeftishBrit]

16. I realize that I have done what I sometimes criticize others for...

read just the beginning of the article, and made assumptions that were at variance with the rest of it. I thought it was expressing hopes for a 'new Lebanon' at least temporarily free of civil war (the bar is fairly low when it comes to hopes for Lebanon). Instead it seems to be advocating a gung-ho hawkish attitude to Lebanon as a whole: it's the same thing as Hizbullah; Israel needs to 'internalize this hate-filled unity'; etc. I strongly disagree with this view. Of course if Lebanon as a whole does attack Israel, then Israel has to defend itself; but starting with the premise that the Lebanese are just baddies is going to make such war more likely.

I break with the pro-Israel view more on the topic of the Second Lebanon War than almost anything. I think it was a disaster, and that both sides acted abominably, and I can never excuse the cluster bombs. BUT - I don't think Israel can bear all the blame for over 30 years of civil war in Lebanon.

[azurnoir]

17. No Israel does not bear all the blame

for Lebanon's civil war, but with the 2006 conflict what confounded me was why and how in the "heck" was destabilizing Lebanon to the obvious extent that it was going to be destabilized, make Israel any safer or more secure