September 21, 2006
Nasrallah's Malaise
While I'm being slow, here is something to read. Hezbollah really did get its collective ass handed to it.
UPDATE: See also Mustapha at Beirut Spring and Abu Kais at From Beirut to the Beltway.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at September 21, 2006 12:54 AMThat's nice -- I was just thinking, again, that you should put up quickies of your own or links to stuff you found interesting or important.
Isn't the cartoon a version of:
Defeat is Victory.
"Nasrallah has apparently come to the conclusion that he was too hasty in pulling the trigger on July 12, and admits that he did not expect so strong an Israeli reaction."
One positive and two negative reactions to that paragraph:
Positive: There is a recognition of reality separate from the rhetoric of victory and military prowess. Nasrallah recognizes that the military adventurism was not a net positive for even Hezbollah, let alone Lebanon, so in spite of the bombast being delivered, there is a rational side that can separate what really is from the rhetorical constructions they build in their speeches to the public.
1st Negative: Too hasty? That suggests that many believe there would be a proper timing to committing a provocative act that allows them to get away with it.
2nd Negative: "...did not expect so strong an Israeli reaction". The implication of that remark is that Hezbollah is clearly expecting the status quo of small violent act followed by small violent act. In other words, their actions are not towards a greater end, they're merely continuing acts of violence towards maintaining a state of violence and fear. The ulitmate implication is that Hezbollah is not interested in ending the conflict at all.
Reactions, Michael? Again, I'm very far removed from the events, so it's hard to know if you're getting a good read on events and personalities from only what you see in the news and other info sites like yours. Posted by: ElMondoHummus at September 21, 2006 06:00 AMGreat cartoon. It is a shame that so many people live with such strife because a few people make bad decisions.
Posted by: Angela Homes at September 21, 2006 08:40 AMMike, while there might be elements of truth to this report - I can believe that Nasrallah might be unhappy being schlepped around from basement to basement avoiding Israeli assassination - and he'd be smart to be concerned about losing his military infexibility in South Lebanon -
I see a lot of unsourced wishful thinking about Nasrallah's internal standing in the Shiite community.
I was reading an article on Alternet the other day about the Lincoln group, and the goal-oriented, Power Point Nasrallah's in Trouble slant of this article makes me think of Psyops.
Posted by: glasnost at September 21, 2006 11:00 AMWas Olmert a genius after all?
Posted by: fsge3g53h at September 21, 2006 04:36 PMOlmert was definitely not a genius. He had no idea what he was doing, and, while HA are reeling, Israel is bruised as well. We, too, would have liked it if we could go back to July 12. There is such a thing as defeat for both sides.
Posted by: Disc on Key at September 22, 2006 11:12 AMDitto on the wishful thinking comment. The minute we believe Israel came our ahead, we're doomed. Facts are stubborn things and should be acknowledged.
Posted by: tdk at September 22, 2006 01:53 PMDid Lebanon lose? Yes
Did Israel win? No
Did Israel lose? To some extent, Yes
Did Hezbollah lose? No
Did Hezbollah win? Maybe
Posted by: Lira at September 22, 2006 06:27 PMLira,
Is any Israeli territory occupied? No
Is any Hezbollah territory occupied? Yes
Stick with the facts....
There is a myth about the invulnerability of terrorism. The knee-jerk reaction of the press and general public is so automatic that they don’t even notice it.
Further humiliation of Hezbollah would help to break the mold of what a good news story is composed of. Currently, reporters look for stories that embarrass Israel or the US. They feel that this is the kind of story that will bring them a larger readership and also appeals to some of their political beliefs.
If the media discovers how weakened Hezbollah has really become it will give reporters a new angle to approach current events.
We need more balance in the media because they typically publish damning stories about terrorist organizations only with “balanced” negative coverage of the US and Israel (except for large scale atrocities like 9/11). However, they never feel the need to “balance” their stories when publishing harsh stories against the efforts of the US and Israel.
Information is control and modern day terrorists have played the media like a symphony.
Hopefully things will change
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 22, 2006 07:34 PMDear Freedom NOw,
As much as I might agree that the media is slanted, this was never about territory. Hezbollah didn't care about territory, they encouraged the Israeli Armed Forces to invade. They wanted Israeli casualties. Like the U.S., Israel places a premium on the life of their citizens. Hezbollah doesn't. Israel's failure to commit lifes to finish the job says everything. Hezbollah didn't win, they just exposed a major weakness. Every adversary of Israel woke up and took notes.
Posted by: Blix at September 22, 2006 08:28 PMSo what did Hezbollah win that they didnt already have? (hint it rhymes with "nero")
What did Israel win that they didnt already have? (hint the first word rhymes with "muffler", the second word rhymes with "moan")
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 23, 2006 03:43 AMBlix,
I am sorry I didn’t address your comment.
Hezbollah propaganda has focused on alleged Israeli atrocities and the alleged complicity of the US and Great Britain.
In doing so they have successfully cultivated the image of Israeli "warmongering" among their sympathizers and in the international media as well.
So the lesson that Israel’s adversaries have really learned is that Israel is prone to "disproportional responses".
Regardless of propaganda, a real-life lesson that Hezbollah has learned from this conflict is that if they kidnap Israeli soldiers, Israel will respond by seizing many more Hezbollah captives. Israel captured 13 Hezbollah guerillas in the recent conflict.
Hezbollah cannot win that battle.
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 23, 2006 03:44 PMDear Mr. Totten: Did you hear the president's speech to the UN on Tuesday? It had a paragraph in there that you especially would appreciate:
"The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world." One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become President of this Assembly. Mr. Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home."
Posted by: mjnugent at September 23, 2006 07:56 PMMichael, Can you forget about Nasrallah for a minute ? Why don't you pick on that idiot, Olmert? He also speaks about victory although the majority of israelis disagree. Can you do that just for the sake of minimum objectivity (That way you may show a slight difference from the American MSM!)
Can you tell us what war-objective israel declared was acheived?
Thanks!
Posted by: AR at September 23, 2006 08:54 PM"Surprisingly, Nasrallah’s standing among the Christians is somewhat better for now. That is because of the alliance he struck before the war with the strongest Maronite, Gen. Michel Aoun. Together they are pressing to rout the anti-Syrian government headed by Fuad Siniora, or at least to broaden the coalition by adding more partners from Hizballah, along with Aoun’s faction (the Patriotic Current) and other figures such as the Christian Suleiman Franjieh from the north, the Druze Majid Arslan and the Sunni Omar Karameh."
Michael, any way to explain this?
Posted by: redaktor at September 23, 2006 09:13 PMI will have to agree with you that Olmert is a bumbling fool. The objectives his administration stated at the break of the war were not met. To me, the most important remains open - the return of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, and actually Ron Arad as well. The second objective - the destruction of Hezbollah's military capabilities - was most definitely not achieved, although it would be naive to not see that it was partially accomplished, at least for the near term. Hezbollah's military capabilities were degraded, and their longer range significantly so. Destorying the short range Katyusha's was an unrealistic objective.
In the end, additional facts on the gound have been established, which while not stated as objectives, do represent positive outcomes (nt a victory). First, for the first time in decades, the Lebanese government is exerting its sovereignty over South Lebanon. What the long term for this will be, I don't know. Second, and not less important, was the realization of certain deficiencies in the IDF's command structure and operational tactics (as well as the neglect in training and logistics). The latter point is of utmost importance since this was a localized, low-scale conflict, and the appropriate corrections will be made to prevent such a recurrence.
The difference is in what is happening in the ground. Olmert was intreviewed a few days ago by the IBA - quite a long interview. He was drilled by the interviewers, and unlike Nasrallah who claims victory, he stated that in retrospect he said many stupid things. More important is what will happen.
I, for one, am of the opinion that Olmert needs to be accountable, but do not want it to be a hasty resignation due to public pressure. I think that the conduct of the government needs to be scruitinized by an impartial party, and if they deem that they should resign Olmert should do so. Not because I am an Olmert supporter (I am not), but because certain democratic processes need to take place. My opinion is that this government failed miserably and needs to resign, but there are facts which I do not know which must br taken into account.
So, hopefully, the democratic processes of the institutions will function as they should, and those culpable will be held accountable. One thing is apparent to me - the next government will take the security of the country and its citizens much more seriously.
The Anti-Olmert crowd is doing exactly what the American Democratic Party is doing over Iraq.
I'm not crazy about Olmert myself, but these are all Islamist and Leftwing talking points. Israel came out on top in this conflict.
Dont think that Islamist and Leftwing websites havent picked up on that. They are loving every minute of it...
The Pro-Iranian and Hezbollah newspaper "Iran Daily":
http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2495/html/politic.htm#s125553
The Anti-Semitic UK newspaper the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1878460,00.html
I am American Jew who lived in Israel for 14 years. In the Israeli political spectrum, I consider myself to be right of center. In US politics, although I am independent, I would say that my views are pretty much along the lines of the Republican Party (although a littl bit more to the right on National Defense).
I would have to disagree with you on this one.
I am far from being in the left - I am not a Kadima supporter because I am to the right of Olmert, and was totally opposed to the disengagement.
As far as I am concerned, the 3 worst PM's Israel has had, from Israel's existential standpoint, are Rabin, Barak, and Sharon.
Rabin brought Araft into our midst, starting the destabilization which has culminated in the current mess vis-a-vis the PA. Barak withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon, singlehandedly creating the conditions which led to the war in Lebanon, and Sharon's "disengagement" only emboldened Hammas.
I do not think that the voices being heard in Israel against the Olmert government are analogous to what the Democratic Party is doing over Iraq. The voices from the democratic party over Iraq are ones of appeasement, whereas those in Israel are of taking responsibility for the failures and investigating them properly to prevent a recurrence.
I do not think the voices heard in Israel are the left wing talking points. I would hardly consider Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon a leftist. I think you are confusing the fact that, unlike previous conflicts, this one happened to bridge the political ideological divide. You have people from both the right and left asking for the same things - a level of cooperation which will probably will not recur.
This coalition government's appointments were a disaster. When Peretz was given the Ministry of Defence, to me it was writing on the wall. To be truthful, I would not let him manage a vegetable stand in the market, much less put the future of the country's existence in his hands.
With all the sorrow for the losees - both human and economic - on both sides of the border, I am glad that the conflict broke out when it did. Like pre '73 Israel, our leadership got into a "conceptsia" - an erroneus reading of the geopolitical and military map. While over the last decade the Israeli economy - on a macro scale - has become very strong (as evidence by its relatively unscathed state after this war), it was achieved at the expense of the social fabric of the country and military readiness.
This conflict was, for all practical purposes, a relatively minor one. To me, the most positive outcome of this conflict vis-a-vis Israel was the fact that the deficiencies came out in a non-existential war, and as such we will be to correct them so that next time we will not be as ill prepared. By this, I am refering to problems in the command structure, in the emergency stocks, in the training, and also to the privatization of a large portion of the logistics - which showed that in a state of real conflict was inadequate.
Hopefully, the next government (regardless of who it is headed by) will learn from the mistakes of this government.
I would agree with you that the incessant public debate may appear to be similar to the Democratic Party's attacks against US operations in Iraq, but they are very different.
Posted by: bk at September 24, 2006 01:02 PMSchmuck,
I don*t know if you intentionally meant to mislead us . . .
**
libs cut and run......
kinda like the folk hero ronnie regan did in lebanon when the marine barracks was bombed and 100s killed? **
Posted by: t. schmuck esq. at September 24, 2006 04:07 PM
President Reagan did order a hit on Hezbollah to avenge the death of 241 bombed marines in 1983.
It was Secretary Wineberger who cancelled that order, not Reagan.
Wineberger, Reagan*s lifelong friend was forgiven, but he should have been placed in front of a firing squad.
Pulling of that punch was repeated often through 8 years of Clinton*s stint in office.
Every pulled punch by the US and Europe added to Hezbollah, Taliban and Al Qaeda bravado and so today they gain an avalanch of followers.
Now with Iran, backed by Putin and China and with Pakistan signing with Al Qaeda and the Taliban not to mention Central and south American backers like Hugo Chavez and there is also 440 million Muslims in Indonesia, we seem to have a problem.
Add to that the uninformed Canadian, British, American and Euro leftists like Taliban Jack, calling for troop pullout, and the problem seems ominous indeed. = TG
Posted by: TG at September 24, 2006 05:18 PMDear Freedom NOw,
I agree re: Hezbollah propaganda. The U.S. played into their hands with the publicized delivery of bunker bombs and Sec. Rice's fumbling performance (Constructive destruction/birth pains????). Oh well.
"In doing so they have successfully cultivated the image of Israeli "warmongering" among their sympathizers and in the international media as well." Yep. The bombing campaign had a lack of finesse.
"So the lesson that Israel’s adversaries have really learned is that Israel is prone to 'disproportional responses'." That's a given. I'm from the U.S., disproptionate response is appropriate if it is effective. Israel was not effective in her response.
"Regardless of propaganda, a real-life lesson that Hezbollah has learned from this conflict is that if they kidnap Israeli soldiers, Israel will respond by seizing many more Hezbollah captives. Israel captured 13 Hezbollah guerillas in the recent conflict." We'll see. Like the U.S., Israel places a premium on the lifes of their citizens. I might be wrong but I believe Israel will barter the release of many Hezbollah for the release of few Israelis.
Hezbollah demonstrated that Israel is not invincible. Hezbollah may not have won, but like the U.S. in Iraq, maybe Israel is not as awesome as we'd like to believe.
Take care,
Blix
Posted by: Blix at September 25, 2006 01:42 AMI think everyone misunderstands where I am coming from.
BK, The most vocal critics of Olmert at this point and time is the Right. I am saying that the tactics of the Right are similar to the Left (in this instance). They are defaming their leader in the wake of a conflict. At least they didnt do it during wartime. If you are offended by the comparison I apologize, but it must be said. I dislike misinformation.
Blix, I did not imply that the Israeli response was disportional. I only pointed out the point of view of Islamists and Leftists.
The Right thinks that Olmert didnt go far enough and the Left says that he went too far.
I am skeptical of both points of view.
Olmert had a political reality that he had to work with and accomplished everything that he could under those circumstances.
On the other hand, this was a war. People die in wars. In urban combat civilian casualties are assured. Just as much as friendly fire is assured. In fighting an illegal militia like Hezbollah which hides among civilians - those casualties will be worse and are the fault of the militia for intentionally putting civilians in harms way. Then they have the nerve to display their lifeless bodies in a perverse spectacle for the cameras. The many scams they portrayed in the media just compounds the problem with an ideology that relies on misinformation and the suffering of civilians.
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 25, 2006 09:06 AMFN,
Is Israel safe from future Hezb rockets? Not really - Nasrallah just announced a couple days ago that the party has more than 20,000 rockets.
Is any Lebanse territory occupied? Yes but not for long, as the IDF is progressively withdrawing from all pre-July 12 positions.
Hezbollah weakened? Maybe
Hezbollah able to regenerate? Absolutely.
Posted by: Lira at September 26, 2006 04:32 PMFN,
Like you, I don't think Olmert either went too far or not far enough.
Given the amount of force which was expended, my belief is that both strategically and tactically he messed up big time - and that is the reason why I think he needs to be held accountable.
Strategically, he took an opening situation where, for the first time since I can remember, the west was behind us - if not actively by acquiessing quietly in the hope that we get rid of Hezbollah. Tactically, he made every mistake you can think of. I could write tomes on this issue, so I will defer at this point.
The reason I disagree with you vis-a-vis the analogy to the Dems criticizing the Bush administration is simple. The dems are doing so by deligitimizing the reasons for which the Administration went to war, and deligitimizing the results of the election which brough this administration to power. I have yet to hear anyone in the Israeli left or right delegitimize the governments existance by such means.
I do believe that this government needs to be held accountable for its actions. It is my opinion that when al is said and done, Olmert and Peretz will have to resign their posts. I do, however, want this to be a conclusio to a true investigation. That being said, Israeli politics has a thing for self-flagellation.
Lira,
Is Hezbollah weakened, able to regenerate?
IMHO, even if they are able to reconstitute their military capabilities (they are doing so already by moving their caches into the Palestinian refugee camps, which are extra-territorial to both UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army - right, that's waht Lebanese sovereignty is), I do not think they will be so quick to use them as they were just now. I believe they understand that Israel can wipe out Lebanon, and will do so if the situation escalates. This is the reason why they refrained from sending rockets at Tel Aviv, for that would have changed the course of the conflict altogether. Will they use them - I am 100% certain they will, within the context of a larger confrontation with their patrons. However, at that point, all of the political brakes will be released andit will be an entirely different opera.
bk, it is hard to consider Hezb's current "limitation" on the use of weapons is a "victory" to Israel or a "defeat" to Hezbollah.
It looks like we are being to the situation between 2000 and 2006, can someone honestly deny that hostilities could flare up at any other moment?
That is the most disgruntling situation.
Posted by: Lira at September 28, 2006 06:14 AMInteresting points Lira. I guess if you consider losing territory, getting your butt kicked and the retaining missiles with no military value as victory, ...then you may be on to something there.
When you said, "Did Hezbollah win? Maybe" I thought perhaps I misread your statement.
But if you switch the definition of victory with defeat, you can accomplish anything!
It would be interesting if Hezbollah were to restart the hostilities, though. This time they would have to fight Israel, the UN and the Lebanese army.
If you werent cheering for Hezbollah, then you wouldnt be so disgruntled. Smile!!!!!!!! (oh, I know you "dont cheer for Hezbollah, you hate them"...ahemmmm...doesnt mean you cant use them to achieve your political goals, whatever they are. Anti-Olmert or Anti-Israel. Extreme Rightwing, Leftwing or Islamist...)
Start cheering for Democracy. If you dont want to, then lets go start some brush fires, you dont need missiles to do that...
And please dont take my comment personal. I didnt use any foul language or personal attacks. I'm just enjoying the direction that this conversation is taking us.
Cheers
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 28, 2006 05:48 PMI actually had read Nasrallah's interview in Assafir (have you? can you even read Arabic?), and then started reading the article you linked to, and stopped at the first paragraph. It so clearly twists the spirit of the interivew. It is said that Nasrallah was disappointed and "saddened" with the stances of some Lebanese politicians (March 14). How he became depressed and on prozac in ur blog is a mystery. People, come on please. Hizbollah's rally was one of the biggest in the history of the country. Hizbollah's popularity has never been higher. When are you going to acknowledge your ennemy? Are you going to keep enjoying your lies among yourselves? Keep reading articles written by people who have their own agenda and dont have a clue about what is happening in Lebanon; it will do you so much good.
Posted by: J at September 29, 2006 07:28 AMHow far back does your memory go? The largest rally in Lebanese history was in response to a Hezbollah led rally to support the Syrian murder of Hariri. On March 14th 2005 one million Lebanese gathered in Beirut to protest against Syria.
You say that Hezbollah’s recent display of mass brainwash is a sure sign of victory. In order to win a victory you have to win something. What did Hezbollah win that they didn’t already have? They were already wildly popular with the 1,000,000 Shia, 200,000 Palestinians, 1,000,000 Syrian migrant laborers and the other members of their coalition “The Resistance and Development Bloc” (this time around who knows how many supporters from Syria were shipped in by Assad, the Buffoon?).
Actually, I think this phony Hezbollah victory is great! Why cant their other Nazi saluting brethren in Germany celebrate their victory in WWII too?
Long Live the Freedom Fighters!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 29, 2006 05:37 PMFN,
Israel will be retreating by Monday from all Lebanese territory occupied during the last war, hence the losing territory argument does not apply.
There are scenarios for military wins and losses. An army like Israel's attacking a militia like Hezbollah is not supposed to be stopped at Bent Jbail, Marjeyoun or Khiam after 34 days of fighting.
That by itself is a military victory for Hezbollah. The many IDF losses during the offensive that stalled a few kilometers inside the Lebanese territory is also another indication of defeat.
That is what military scenarios describe. Now if Hezbollah was a full fledged army with the same weaponry as the IDF, I can assure you that there might have been territorial "gains" on both sides of the border, especially if Hezbollah MIGS were pounding Haifa, Safed, Tel Aviv or Beer Sheba.
Regards
Posted by: Lira at September 30, 2006 09:24 AMAhhhhh… “retreating” huh? Good, you bring up an important point that will allow us to examine how Israel has won this conflict.
Israel has no territorial claims over southern Lebanon. Israel has recognized Lebanon’s sovereignty over that territory, not Hezbollah’s.
Let’s look at how the war started. Hezbollah attacked an Israel tank stationed in Israel’s sovereign territory. An unprovoked act of aggression. HOW IS ISRAEL TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? …By installing a buffer zone between it and Hezbollah. The last time they had a buffer zone they attempted to leave it in the hands of Christian militias. The militias bolted and ran as soon as Israeli troops withdrew back to Israel.
This time Israel has learned from its mistake. They demanded that the Lebanese army take over the buffer zone, but also called for UN troops to bolster their force. So now Israel has TWO armies defending its buffer zone, at no expense to them. No Israelis are put at risk. Excellent!!!!!!!
Let’s examine some other “retreats”. In 1989 US troops invaded the country of Panama to bring its leader to justice. Later US troops withdrew from Panama. In 1983 the country of Grenada was invaded by US troops. Most or all of those troops have since withdrawn. While these battles saw a complete defeat of those countries and Hezbollah was not completely destroyed, the fact remains that when troops invade a land that they do not claim as their own they inevitably withdraw. If a country withdraws under favorable conditions then that is a strategic victory. US troops were not defeated when they withdrew from Grenada or Panama, they got what they wanted and left – just like Israel did here in 2006. The Israelis are some smart SOBs!
In regards to the military “defeat” that you are talking about…
Israeli troops quickly reached their objective of the Litani River 24 hours after the Israeli government announced the objective and Hezbollah was unable to stop them. The Israeli government originally announced that it would take them a week to get there, but sliced through Hezbollah’s lines much quicker than expected. That is a historical fact. What you are referring to was small unit actions. It is true that Israel needed to mass their troops because of Hezbollah’s massive underground bunker complexes. These bunkers could take direct hits from most conventional weapons, yet when Israel put their mind to it, they swept right through these fortified positions. Israel seized all the territory that they claimed they would take and there was nothing that Hezbollah could do to resist.
Israel reaches the Litani in 24 hours:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2305375&page=1
Israeli government says it will take a week to reach the Litani:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3289830,00.html
Anytime you need access to factual information I would be more than happy to help you, Lira. Your dream of Hezbollah jets pounding Israel is amusing. Israel has defeated the air force of almost every Middle Eastern country many times over and yet you could fantasize about such a thing. The impotence of Islamic armies is the main reason why terrorism is such a problem today.
Posted by: Freedom N0w at September 30, 2006 03:47 PM@Freedom Now,
This war was not about "Facts". Not about territory, not about killing Israelis.... This war was about taking over Lebanon.
Those guys are waiting for the Mahdi to come, and in the meantime, they talk to him and send him letters. They are playing a different war; and have little to lose. Indeed, they lost little; they have "the power of poverty".
Most of what is destroyed was, in their view, "impure money"; they are not beholden to Lebanon, in the sense that they see the economy in the hands of Christians, Sunni, and Druze. Lebanon is a tool that is easily expandable in the greater shiite-Islamic struggle.
In this context, you need to view the fighting as a larger battle, "a buffer zone between [Israel] and Hezbollah" will do little. They will attack elsewhere, as in Argentina; this is not a "tactical" fight...
You need allies in this fight, but Olmert stupidly played in their hands not only by weakening Hezb's ennemies, but also by alienating the rest of the world.
On balance, he strengthened them; they will be back again.
Posted by: Jeha at October 1, 2006 03:47 AMFN, we've only engaged into the matter of territorial matters because you mentioned it as a victory argument for the IDF :)
If you would take the time to come back at the first comments in this thread, you would notice that the points made are:
1. Is Israel safe from future Hezb rockets? Not really - Nasrallah just announced a couple days ago that the party has more than 20,000 rockets.
2. Is any Lebanse territory occupied? Yes but not for long, as the IDF is progressively withdrawing from all pre-July 12 positions. (in reply to your territorial "victory" of the Israeli army, FN said: Is any Israeli territory occupied? No / Is any Hezbollah territory occupied? Yes)
3. Hezbollah weakened? Maybe
4. Hezbollah able to regenerate? Absolutely.
5. In a scenario of militia vs army, the army was defeated. If that was army vs army, I agree that Israel has made some territorial gains, however and I repeat, an opposing army would have made territorial gains and caused similar material damage.
6. An additional point that you raised in your last post is that the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL now patrol the border, however you're surely aware that Hezbollah fighters are still by and large present in every location in South Lebanon, well beyond the Litani and that their weapons are still operational.
It is too early to speak of the Lebanese Army, the UNIFIL and Hezbollah in the South as time will only tell.
7. Finally, concerning "reaching the Litani", it should be noted that the segment supposedly "reached" by Israeli forces is 5 kms away from the border. The Litani was not even reached, fighting was ongoing in the village (Taibeh) overlooking that ridge.
The least that the IDF could have done is "reaching" the Beaufort castle that indeed translates into "reaching" the Litani.
Again, a militia doing this to a full-fledged army is certainly not a defeat by anyone's book.
Cheers
Posted by: Lira at October 1, 2006 02:50 PMAs far as a Hezbozo takeover of Lebanon is concerned… Shiites comprise only 30% of the population. Hezbozo’s brand of Islam is a fundamental theology based on the Iranian model. They are very intolerant of any other religious teachings.
The top three Lebanese religious factions are almost evenly split in population. Christian, Sunni and Shia, while the Druze are far more powerful than their share of the population.
Unless Hezbozo becomes secular and breaks with Syria they don’t have any chance of taking over Lebanon. They are a minority without the resources to subjugate the unwilling majority.
Poverty has its disadvantages too.
Of course Hezbozo will try to strike Israel from another route. That doesn’t mean limiting Israel’s vulnerability doesn’t help. Look at the Israeli Separation Barrier. Since its construction the Intifada has fizzled out. Now if Israel had a buffer zone between itself and the Gaza Strip they would be sitting pretty!!!!!!!!!
……..I don’t know what external allies Israel can obtain in the Middle East besides the Kurds. Even when Lebanon was ruled by Christians the country still went to war with Israel in 1948. In the wake of the war Lebanon has had no stomach to continue the futile fight against such a superior opponent. However, all Lebanese governments have pretty much opposed Israel politically and sympathized with its Arab neighbors. This sentiment led them to foolishly allow the Palestinians settle in southern Lebanon, we all know what became of that. The Israelis would have better luck finding allies in Antarctica. Anybody that sides with Israel is going to get bombed, everyone knows that.
Lira,
If Hezbozo won this battle then why do you admit that they have been weakened, while Israel has not? You also admit that they have lost ground, but consider that a victory. It doesn’t matter if they are a militia or a pre-school gang. Israeli air power pummeled them with impunity, they lost HEAVILY fortified territory and couldn’t stop the Israeli offensive.
You also still focus on the militarily ineffective rockets that Hezbozo has. Here’s a good one for you. In WWII Germany launched hundreds less V2 rockets against Western Europe than Hezbozo launched rockets against Israel. The Germans succeeded in killing about 9,000 people while Hezbozo only killed 54 Israelis.
Before you get into another propaganda rant that Hezbozo is only a militia, consider this. Nazi Germany fielded a superior weapon in WWII and yet it made almost no impact on the war. These brush fire machines that Hezbozo brags about are militarily worthless.
You guys scorn my references to Hezbozo’s loss of territory because it IRRITATES you. You say that there is more involved here then just facts. That’s a laugh!!! Yet the ceasefire has held, the UN & Lebanese army has secured the buffer zone and ISRAEL’S NORTHERN BORDER IS QUIET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER 20 YEARS (another uncomfortable fact). If this is defeat I’ll take it over a Hezbozo phony victory any day.
Long Live the Bozo Victory!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Freedom N0w at October 1, 2006 07:20 PMFN,
If Hezbozo won this battle then why do you admit that they have been weakened, while Israel has not?
Hezbollah weakening then regaining strength is not a victory for Israel, that we all agree upon.
You also admit that they have lost ground, but consider that a victory. It doesn’t matter if they are a militia or a pre-school gang.
Hezbollah not losing some ground would have meant a complete and utter defeat for the IDF, Israel’s pre-declared goals was to destroy most if not all of Hezbollah’s military capability in the South, this did NOT happen. The nature of warring factions DOES matter, if the IDF achieved the same results versus the Palestinians as it did versus Hezbollah, then analysts would have considered the IDF actions versus the Palestinians as a major defeat, however Tsahal has faired better versus Hamas, Islamic Jihad and co, hence nature of each warring factions matters when evaluating results.
Israeli air power pummeled them with impunity, they lost HEAVILY fortified territory and couldn’t stop the Israeli offensive.
Which goes about to say that even with full air control, the IDF wasn’t able to achieve any significant move in South Lebanon.
You also still focus on the militarily ineffective rockets that Hezbozo has. Here’s a good one for you. In WWII Germany launched hundreds less V2 rockets against Western Europe than Hezbozo launched rockets against Israel. The Germans succeeded in killing about 9,000 people while Hezbozo only killed 54 Israelis.
Each civilian loss of life is one that should not have happened, and counting civilian deaths is not an indicator of victory/defeat, unless you would consider Israel’s slaughtering of 1200 Lebanese civilians as one indicator of victory? I think not, hence Hezbollah’s killing of civilians is not a victory for Hezbollah but it is still a loss for Israel, as the 1200 casualties are a huge loss for Lebanon, hence Lebanon lost a lot – which is the topic of another discussion since Hezb vs IDF/Israel is being discussed here.
Nazi Germany fielded a superior weapon in WWII and yet it made almost no impact on the war. These brush fire machines that Hezbozo brags about are militarily worthless.
Hezbollah made most of what it has, which is an achievement in the military sense.
the ceasefire has held
Hezbollah was not looking for a full-fledged war with Israel, his is a long-term bleeding type, “guerre d’usure”.
the UN & Lebanese army has secured the buffer zone
You're surely inflating the role that the UN and Leb Army are doing in the South. Rockets can still be fired today from South Lebanon without the UN nor the Lebanese Army being able to stop it! Do you think it’s that hard to setup a couple rocket launchers from some hidden valley and let them off? Hezbollah has taken a political decision currently not to fire those rockets and if IDF commandos operating in South Lebanon with aerial support were not able to stop the firing of those rockets towards Israel, then UN and Lebanese Army personnel are surely not going to do so if Hezb decides to shoot.
ISRAEL’S NORTHERN BORDER IS QUIET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER 20 YEARS
It’s nearly as quiet as it has been between 2000 and 2006.
Posted by: Lira at October 2, 2006 03:14 AMLira,
All you and your friends are doing is trying to lower the bar for victory so Israel cannot win any conflict, even if they win.
Victory = “a superior position achieved against any opponent”. There is no sliding scale to accommodate the terrorist organization of your choice.
Hezbozo has recently admitted that they have suffered a setback (in addition to their previous admission that they underestimated Israel’s response). Their Deputy Secretary-General confessed that they can’t return to the south…adding that “things have changed and we must have time for some introspection”.
While unarmed Hezbozos can walk the streets, it is clear that they do not control Southern Lebanon anymore. That is a fantastic victory for the Clown Militia!!!!!
I have to admit that’s a slick statement you made saying that it is, “It’s (Israel’s northern border) nearly as quiet as it has been between 2000 and 2006”. That is classic misinformation. Judging by your choice of words, you are clearly aware that the Hezbozos continued to attack Israel during that period, but not with the intensity that they previously did. The Bozos never recognized Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon because Syria encouraged Lebanon to claim the Shebaa Farms, which was never a part of Lebanon. So the attacks continued, BUT NOT ANYMORE.
What strategic gain does Hezbozo get from their rockets? Almost 4,000 rockets and what did that accomplish? The only way those rockets can perform effectively is in large concentrations, but they cannot wield these weapons in this manner because of Israel’s complete air superiority. Instead they are forced to shoot and run, rending these attacks worthless. Hezbozo is wasting their money that could be used to buy more accurate weapons (or I should say Iran is wasting their money).
You claim that the Bozos are practicing self-restraint because of the infinite wisdom of their clown leaders? Israeli jets will pound the hell out of the Bozo Nation if they start shooting those rockets. Because they lost the last war they know that they can’t afford to withstand that kind of bombardment again. They are too busy rebuilding.
The Shebaa Farms seem so far, far away now…
Posted by: Freedom N0w at October 2, 2006 06:45 AMFN,
Victory = “a superior position achieved against any opponent”. There is no sliding scale to accommodate the terrorist organization of your choice.
You still have to define what “superior position” was actually achieved and against who and how? IDF did NOT achieve victory versus Hezbollah, at best it’s a draw and some would consider it a defeat as time passes by and Hezb gets back to its old form --- was Israel's goal to erase danger/threat from its Northern borders or was its goal to achieve destruction and damage? Not a victory as danger/threat still there.
Quote:
"It looks like it's quiet, but it's not," said a soldier who would give only his first name, Maor, and held a military order declaring the border area at Metulla a closed military zone. "It's still very dangerous. They still have guns and (Hezbollah) flags. They're not shooting now, but they can."
August 20, 2006 / Associated Press
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060819-1707-israel-touringthedamage.html
Hezbozo has recently admitted that they have suffered a setback (in addition to their previous admission that they underestimated Israel’s response). Their Deputy Secretary-General confessed that they can’t return to the south…adding that “things have changed and we must have time for some introspection”.
From the same article: "There is no army in the world that can [force us] to drop our weapons from our hands" and guess what are those weapons for?
More from the same: One example, apparently under serious consideration by Hizbullah, is how to retaliate against Israel's violations of Lebanese airspace . UNIFIL has recorded more than three dozen violations by Israeli aircraft since the cease-fire came into effect. "We have reported them to the UN Security Council. What more can we do? Shoot them down?" says UNIFIL spokesman Alex Ivanko.
But Hizbullah might attempt to do just that. "We were unable to make good use of our anti-aircraft capabilities during the war. This is something we are looking into for the future," says Abu Mehdi. "The resistance is planning a new strategy."
While unarmed Hezbozos can walk the streets, it is clear that they do not control Southern Lebanon anymore. That is a fantastic victory for the Clown Militia!!!!!
One should actually visit South Lebanon to check how control is performed pre and post July 12. You wouldn’t notice much difference, that’s because Hezbollah is undercover and you would rarely if ever see armed militia men.
I have to admit that’s a slick statement you made saying that it is, “It’s (Israel’s northern border) nearly as quiet as it has been between 2000 and 2006”. That is classic misinformation. Judging by your choice of words, you are clearly aware that the Hezbozos continued to attack Israel during that period, but not with the intensity that they previously did. The Bozos never recognized Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon because Syria encouraged Lebanon to claim the Shebaa Farms, which was never a part of Lebanon. So the attacks continued, BUT NOT ANYMORE.
The attacks were sporadic between 2000 and 2006, and post July 2006, the repeat of such behavior isn’t far fetched by any means.
What strategic gain does Hezbozo get from their rockets? Almost 4,000 rockets and what did that accomplish? The only way those rockets can perform effectively is in large concentrations, but they cannot wield these weapons in this manner because of Israel’s complete air superiority. Instead they are forced to shoot and run, rending these attacks worthless. Hezbozo is wasting their money that could be used to buy more accurate weapons (or I should say Iran is wasting their money).
The strategic gain for Hezbollah is the damage inflicted to Israel, unless Israel does not care about human or material damage, hence one has to wonder what Israel cares for.
You claim that the Bozos are practicing self-restraint because of the infinite wisdom of their clown leaders?
What claim?
Israeli jets will pound the hell out of the Bozo Nation if they start shooting those rockets.
And… Hezbollah regenerates, which should be easier for him especially that the last war did not nearly achieve the expected damage on Hezbollah.
Because they lost the last war they know that they can’t afford to withstand that kind of bombardment again. They are too busy rebuilding.
Guess they were too busy rebuilding for 18 years following the 1982 invasion which one may add was much more destructive than the last war, still that didn’t prevent them from inflicting sustained damage on IDF and their proxy, did it?
The Shebaa Farms seem so far, far away now…
Right… Israel “forgot” to evacuate from the Northern side of the Ghajar village, seems like more alibi for Hezbollah to act.
Posted by: Lira at October 2, 2006 08:08 AMJeha seems to have something of the meat of things . . .
**
Most of what is destroyed was, in their view, "impure money"; they are not beholden to Lebanon, in the sense that they see the economy in the hands of Christians, Sunni, and Druze. Lebanon is a tool that is easily expandable in the greater shiite-Islamic struggle.
In this context, you need to view the fighting as a larger battle, "a buffer zone between [Israel] and Hezbollah" will do little. They will attack elsewhere, as in Argentina; this is not a "tactical" fight...
You need allies in this fight, but Olmert stupidly played into their hands, not only by weakening Hezb's ennemies, but also by alienating the rest of the world.
On balance, he strengthened them; they will be back again.
Posted by Jeha at October 1, 2006 03:47 AM **
=== True, but even a larger battlescape than that. ** Iran against *the West**!
I think the CURRENT loading up of modern big scale weaponry going on as we speak, into the Gaza from Egypt is only part of a much bigger mess to come.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52231
I am surprised that so many think there is a simple conflict between Hezbollah and IDF.
Why do you not think it is between Iran and the USA?
Too bad that you let ARAFAT fool you for so many years.
I am not happy about the way things are going. Do you see the bigger picture? = TG
Posted by: TG at October 2, 2006 01:14 PMLira made me think, what advantage does Hezbozo gain from its rockets? He celebrates them in every comment so there has to be something about them.
As I’ve already shown the effectiveness of the missiles is nil. Even compared to the V2 campaign using the outdated technology of the 1940s, the Nazis launched hundreds of less missiles with greater effect than the Hezzy clowns.
They were so ineffective that Hezbozo didn’t even bother to aim them at Israeli troops, instead they directed them at civilians. So the object must have been to terrorize the Israeli population. The effect was the exact opposite. Fanatical anti-Olmert activists who were angry over his “appeasement” marched side-by-side with liberals and centralists to unite against a common enemy. It was yet another miscalculation by the Bozo Militia.
So the only possible justification for persisting with such an ineffective strategy is pride. This is the same kind of pride that gives comfort to the small-minded activists who burn flags and hit symbolic items with the bottom of their shoes as if they had scored some important victory.
Once again their pride led the Bozos to throw away any sympathy they may have earned by threatening every single group present in Lebanon today. From the Lebanese army, to the UN to the Lebanese people.
That is why I call them Hezbozos. The media universally condemned the Israeli air strikes against the Kingdom of Hezbozo. When the Bozos had a chance to win the support of the entire world they threw it away. Instead of playing the profitable role of the victim, Hezbozo’s leader Nasrallah boasted and threatened like a buffoon. He could have turned defeat into victory, but his arrogance cost him a golden opportunity to milk the sympathy of a world that desperately wants to give him such support, but is revolted at the sound of his voice. Such opportunities rarely happen more than once.
Here are a few choice quotes from Nasrallah in the aftermath of the Israeli victory:
“The resistance in Lebanon protected Lebanon from civil war.”
Among the destroyed buildings from a war that he admits to have unwittingly initiated, he has the nerve to say such a thing. The one point this conflict has proven is that the Lebanese army is much more qualified to protect Lebanon than Hezbozo.
“We do not want to keep the weapons forever”
Hezbozo was supposed to disarm over 15 years ago according to the Taif Accords and other UN resolutions. This statement, among others, cost him quite a bit of sympathy from the Lebanese.
“In the past when the Resistance was on the borders, any bulldozer advancing even 10 meters would be hit and forced to retreat, and none dared to enter. Now our border is open and they enter here and there every now and then. What happened has happened but what about the future?”
Nasrallah admits that the Bozos have lost control over southern Lebanon. His references to Israeli bulldozers is aimed at the fact that during the “peaceful” years of 2000 – 2006 Hezbozo planted roadside bombs in Israeli territory and if they were discovered before detonating, the Bozos attacked Israeli armored bulldozers sent to destroy the bombs. Nasrallah laments the fact that they can no longer attack Israel directly. TOO BAD WARMONGERS!!!!!!!!
“Entire political forces met at Bristol [Hotel]. They brought their deputies, leaders, and members of political bureaus to show that the rally was big. They then issued a statement in which they said the war which took place in Lebanon was an Iranian war for the sake of the Iranian nuclear file, or a Syrian war to obstruct the international tribunal. Actually, we did not tolerate that although we - and I repeat this on the day of victory - take pride in our relationship and friendship with the Islamic Republic of Iran under the leadership of His Eminence Imam leader Al-Sayyid Khamenei, may God keep his shadow. We also take pride in our relationship with Syria - leadership and people”
Nasrallah admits his allegiance to foreign powers hostile to the independent Lebanese government. Another brilliant piece of statesmanship guaranteed to win the goodwill of the Lebanese people. Once again his pride leads him to boast of his dependence on such pariahs. Foot in the mouth syndrome doesn’t win friends.
“The division is national and not sectarian.”
As a response to criticism from his fellow Lebanese Shia, this quote recognizes that Hezbozo has not achieved their desired goal of political unity from the war. Sayyed Ali Al-Amin (the Grand Mufti of the southern city of Tyre) stated, “I don't think Hizbullah asked the Shiite community about the war. Perhaps the great emigration from the south is the best proof that the people of the south were against the war. The Shiite community authorized no one to declare war in its name or to drag it into a war that was far from its wishes and from the wishes of the other ethnic communities in Lebanon.”
Many Christians and Sunni leaders have also blasted Hezbozo for bringing the war to Lebanon. In the Arab world leaders from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have even denounced Hezbozo for the same reason. In Lebanon there were large scale protests against Hezbozo just last week.
Yet any statesman of the tiniest amount of intelligence would have seized this opportunity to capture the world stage and plead his case to a willing media. Hezbozo’s bellicose rhetoric failed to win over the media and alienated any new potential allies.
It’s no small wonder that Nasrallah underestimated Israel so seriously.
Posted by: Freedom N0w at October 2, 2006 09:15 PMFN,
Not sure how your last post relates to the topic of victory/defeat in Hezbollah vs Israel
Posted by: Lira at October 4, 2006 11:17 AMRe-read it then...
Posted by: Freedom N0w at October 5, 2006 09:29 PMAn analysis by Uri Avnery:
Thirty three days of war. The longest of our wars since 1949.
On the Israeli side: 154 dead - 117 of them soldiers; 3970 rockets launched against us; 37 civilians dead; more than 422 civilians wounded.
On the Lebanese side: about a thousand dead civilians; thousands wounded; an unknown number of Hizbullah fighters dead and wounded.
More than a million refugees on both sides.
So what has been achieved for this terrible price?
"Gloomy, humble, despondent," was how the journalist Yossef Werter described Ehud Olmert, a few hours after the ceasefire had come into effect.
Olmert? Humble? Is this the same Olmert we know? The same Olmert who thumped the table and shouted: "No more!" Who said: "After the war, the situation will be completely different than before!" Who promised a "new Middle East" as a result of the war?
The results of the war are obvious:
The prisoners, who served as casus belli (or pretext) for the war, have not been released. They will come back only as a result of an exchange of prisoners, exactly as Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah proposed before the war.
Hizbullah has remained as it was. It has not been destroyed, nor disarmed, nor even removed from where it was. Its fighters have proved themselves in battle and have even garnered compliments from Israeli soldiers. Its command and communication structure has continued to function to the end. Its TV station is still broadcasting.
Hassan Nasrallah is alive and kicking. Persistent attempts to kill him failed. His prestige is sky-high. Everywhere in the Arab world, from Morocco to Iraq, songs are being composed in his honour and his picture adorns the walls.
The Lebanese army will be deployed along the border, side by side with a large international force. That is the only material change that has been achieved.
This will not replace Hizbullah. Hizbullah will remain in the area, in every village and town. The Israeli army has not succeeded in removing it from one single village. That was simply impossible without permanently removing the population to which it belongs.
The Lebanese army and the international force cannot and will not confront Hizbullah. Their very presence there depends on Hizbullah's consent. In practice, a kind of coexistence of the three forces will come into being, each one knowing that it has to come to terms with the other two.
Perhaps the international force will be able to prevent incursions by Hizbullah, such as the one that preceded this war. But it will also have to prevent Israeli actions, such as the reconnaissance flights of our air force over Lebanon. That's why the Israeli army objected, at the beginning, so strenuously to the introduction of this force.
In Israel, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment and despondency. From mania to depression. It's not only that the politicians and the generals are firing accusations at each other, as we foresaw, but the general public is also voicing criticism from every possible angle. The soldiers criticize the conduct of the war, the reserve soldiers gripe about the chaos and the failure of supplies.
In all parties, there are new opposition groupings and threats of splits. In Kadima. In Labour. It seems that in Meretz, too, there is a lot of ferment, because most of its leaders supported the war dragon almost until the last moment, when they caught its tail and pierced it with their little lance.
At the head of the critics are marching - surprise, surprise - the media. The entire horde of interviewers and commentators, correspondents and presstitutes, who (with very few exceptions) enthused about the war, who deceived, misled, falsified, ignored, duped and lied for the fatherland, who stifled all criticism and branded as traitors all who opposed the war - they are now running ahead of the lynch mob. How predictable, how ugly. Suddenly they remember what we have been saying right from the beginning of the war.
This phase is symbolized by Dan Halutz, the chief of staff. Only yesterday [15 August] he was the hero of the masses; it was forbidden to utter a word against him. Now he is being described as a war profiteer. A moment before sending his soldiers into battle, he found the time to sell his shares, in expectation of a decline of the stock market. (Let us hope that a moment before the end he found the time to buy them back again.)
Victory, as is well known, has many fathers, and failure in war is an orphan.
From the deluge of accusations and gripes, one slogan stands out, a slogan that must send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone with a good memory: "the politicians did not let the army win".
Exactly as I wrote two weeks ago, we see before our very eyes the resurrection of the old cry "they stabbed the army in the back!"
This is how it goes: at long last, two days before the end, the land offensive started to roll. Thanks to our heroic soldiers, the men of the reserves, it was a dazzling success. And then, when we were on the verge of a great victory, the ceasefire came into effect.
There is not a single word of truth in this. This operation, which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them.
The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in 20 places to the mortal attacks of the guerrillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons.
If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation after all - well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical - not to say vile - exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory", as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed.
The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the ceasefire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani.
For comparison: in the first Lebanon war, that of Sharon in 1982, the army crossed the Litani in the first few hours. (The Litani, by the way, is not a real river any more, but just a shallow creek. Most of its waters are drawn off far from there, in the north. Its last stretch is about 25 km distant from the border, near Metulla the distance is only 4 km.)
This time, when the ceasefire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place.
If a commission of inquiry is set up - as it must be - and investigates all the moves of this war, starting from the way the decision to start it was made, it will also have to investigate the decision to start this last operation. The death of 33 soldiers (including the son of the writer David Grossman, who had supported the war) and the pain this caused their families demand that!
But these facts are not yet clear to the general public. The brainwashing by the military commentators and the ex-generals, who dominated the media at the time, has turned the foolish - I would almost say "criminal" - operation into a rousing victory parade. The decision of the political leadership to stop it is now being seen by many as an act of defeatist, spineless, corrupt and even treasonous politicians.
And that is exactly the new slogan of the fascist right that is now raising its ugly head.
After World War I, in similar circumstances, the legend of the "knife in the back of the victorious army" grew up. Adolf Hitler used it to carry him to power - and on to World War II.
Now, even before the last fallen soldier has been buried, the incompetent generals are starting to talk shamelessly about "another round", the next war that will surely come "in a month or in a year", God willing. After all, we cannot end the matter like this, in failure. Where is our pride?
The Israeli public is now in a state of shock and disorientation. Accusations - justified and unjustified - are flung around in all directions, and it cannot be foreseen how things will develop.
Perhaps, in the end, it is logic that will win. Logic says: what has thoroughly been demonstrated is that there is no military solution. That is true in the north. That is also true in the south, where we are confronting a whole people that has nothing to lose any more. The success of the Lebanese guerrilla will encourage the Palestinian guerrilla.
For logic to win, we must be honest with ourselves: pinpoint the failures, investigate their deeper causes, draw the proper conclusions.
Some people want to prevent that at any price. President Bush declares vociferously that we have won the war. A glorious victory over the Evil Ones. Like his own victory in Iraq.
When a football team is able to choose the referee, it is no surprise if it is declared the winner.
Posted by: Lira at October 10, 2006 04:05 PM
