En este sitio hablan de todo lo que quieras saber sobre gay…

We need to wake up, and realize what our allies are doing!!! No wonder everyone hates the USA.

Israel’s response to the kidnapping of their soldiers was too extreme! What about diplomacy?

Israel’s response to the kidnapping of their soldiers was too extreme! What about diplomacy?

lnrbjtg hvmadnpfi xnpmpuwe…

Terrorist groups claim victory by getting the release of hundreds of prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for the remains of a single Israeli soldier who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. They claim victory simply by continuing to exist. Ha…..

(1) Why would Iran want to provoke Israel into attacking Hizbollah? So that Israel could erode its strategic deterrent? That makes no sense, and in fact, we know that Iran wanted a ceasefire immediately.

(2) Why would Syrian want to provoke Israel into attacking Hizbollah? So that Israel could weaken Hizbollah (its one point of leverage for getting back the Golah Heights) and move further into Sryia and further encircle the Assad regime? Again, just like Iran, we know that Sryia wanted an immedate ceasefire.

(3) All the Israeli analyasts agree that Hizbollah made a miscalculation and that it didn’t expect Israel to respond back in turn. Why would Nasrallah want a to provoke a huge military operation whose save consequences would weaken his standing at home. Let me quote Shaul Mishal, professor at Tel Aviv University

“I think he made a big miscalculation because his judgment was based on the past. Israel in the last few years under (Ehud) Barak and then (Ariel) Sharon built this illusion that it would hesitate before doing anything really drastic and would try to minimise the disadvantages of the existing military order with Lebanon – namely Hizbollah. I think this far-reaching reaction now has taken him by surprise.”

You cannot have peace with the present players and system in power, that is because it is set up to disenfranchise people at home and abroad. If that does not bother you, than stop commenting about the problem at hand. If it does bother you than you have to support something deep and systemic to change the current course.

I’m glad for you, that you are convinced that Shatz has the facts, and that because he visited the region and has talked to some people, that he is portraying what is truely taking place. Did you know that people, depending on their own presuppositions can visit an area, talk to the same people, and come up with an entirely different conclusion?

However, I happen to get information from different sources – and I would say that they are somewhat authoritative. People like Bilal El-Amine, who happens to be there right now, and does not just pop in for occasional visits from the western front to do professional interviews. Guess what, surprise surprise, he is not saying the same thing about the conflict (imagine that).

Most of what he says is what I am hearing from others, on the ground in the region. This man (I use him as one example) is there right now, in fact he is a writer based in Lebanon – and has constant, close and intimate contact with those in Hezbollah (he has hidden in many shelters with them as Israel indiscriminately bombs the hell out of the area). In fact what I have said, and what this connected writer has said is what Nasrallah has said publicly many times, that it “was the only logical conclusion given Hizbollah’s long experience with Israel. To get the remaining prisoners out, Israeli soldiers must be captured – Israel SIMPLY OFFERED NO OTHER OPTION.”

Since there has been quite a bit of banter in regard to the displeasure of the Arab governments against Hezbollah, let’s see what he say’s regarding this issue. We should probably listen to it now, because Bilal who has been through the thick and thin with Lebanon, in the good times and the bad, is probably a high target for assassination because he can’t stop telling the truth and is not part of the “blessed fold:”

“The Arab league meeting and statements by the Lebanese prime minister suggest that there is a convergence of interest between them and Israel over putting a halt to the Lebanese resistance by disarming Hezbollah and burying once for all those forces in the region, including Hamas for example, that believe in the line of confrontation with Israel AS THE ONLY (emphasis mine) road to get some semblance of justice. The Saudi royals and their slavish counterparts in Jordan and Egypt, want Arabs to submit and swallow the humiliation we are subjected to daily in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, all in the name of stability and rational thinking.

“Since 1993 and rhe signing of the Oslo Accords, the Arab leaders, and the US and UN have been saying that negotiations and normalization with Israel are the only way to peace. But we have yet to see Israel make the smallest concession, taking the opportunity to swallow up yet more land, butcher the Palestinian people and continue to imprison thousands. Hamas’ election was but one indicator that ordinary Arabs have understood that successive peace accords have brought them nothing but further misery – only resistance, with all the suffering that comes with it, bears fruit.”

THAT, I submit is what is going on. I just thought you might like to know on this blog, where the heart of the people lies.

Yes, I guess you probably did choke on your dog food when Shatz did not go out of his way to praise the so-called “Party of God.” That said, your Hez apologies (killing 8 soldiers was a “military to military” action, pleez.. )and your usual dishonest portrayal of events and life itself kills any sympathy we all should have for the Lebanese caught in the crossfire by the irresponsible provocation offered us by Hezbollah.

See, Shatz’s “fertile imagination,” as you call his thinking, is born, in part, out of trips to Lebanon and an actual face-to-face interview with Nasrallah. Yes, he prefers to interpret facts and not, in your deranged style, create false accusations out of thin air while ignoring statements and facts as they are.

Yes, I know, I know, anyone who dares to have an opinion contrary to yours is a “racist,” or a “bigot,” or a “imperialist.” What a trip this experience has been in this blog land. And what a mess the left is in when people like you distort and lie and attack other leftists with nothing but blind ideology, distorted facts, lies and ludicrous insults.

I rest my case. You are guily of lunacy.

As far as having to repeat what is taking place in Israel, the rockets flying in and so on, I really do not need to – you have a corporate media which never ceases to emphasize this situation. Actually, I have a number of people who are friends of mine that live in Israel (granted, many are Gush-Shalom variety) but I am worried about the loss of life there also.

Many grow weary of the same condition in the Middle East, but let me assure you – the same condition prevails everywhere. Why? It is like we have a McDonald’s franchise of governments – just swear fealty to the powers that be, and you too may own your own franchise. What’s the requirement? Just write off the majority of your population, supress them to lives not worth living at the least or murder incorporated at worst, and you also can be the cream that rises to the top.

I think on specifics in Mr. Turners response to what I am writing he jests, perhaps he relies on the fact that few that post here would know what actually happened in Nassar’s day (way to long). Mr. Sadat, who can we compare him to? Perhaps to that wonderful humanitarian Gorbachev (of course Sadat never got off the ground) who opened the floodgate to the “free world,” so that they could rush into the arms of compassionate capitalism which summarily raped them (out of the frying pan and into the fire). You see, it does not matter where you go in the world – it is the same disease.

We might even look at Israel, the place always touted as a democracy – yes, an apartheid democracy. Ask those who are not Jewish about the democracy, where religious lifestyles dictate how the non-religious shall live, where after over fifty years there still is no constitution (that is because they make it up as they go along), where parts of the education is controlled by the secret service (not so different than American education, which is connected at the hip with the military industrial complex), where 80% of the resources belong to ten percent of the people, where people are held in prison without charge indefinitely, where torture written into the penal code (we in the United States are trying to catch up here), where the media is held by a handful of families, where newspapers can be closed down pell mell, where non-Jews are forbidden to buy land, etc. However, to be really transparent, this is all part and parcel to some degree in every government franchise throughout the world.

Perhaps some day people will wake up to the game, you just have to do away with the people who make it the only game in town. Yes, that all that current governments are – merely the framework, the camouflage of an elite, it almost does not matter where you do in the world. This is a systemic (not conspiratorial) worldwide problem, I just refuse to write it off to human nature and say it can be changed. Untill than, you can have a spectator seat to the current debacle.

But you are mistaken. When Hezbollah attacked and kidnapped three soldiers in the summer of 2000 (it turns out they were dead, but Israel didn’t know that immediately), Israel didn’t respond, because they were unwilling to open a second front at the time the second intifada had just started. Similar provocations during the 90′s had resulted in limited Israeli incursions into southern Lebanon, which left Hezbollah stronger than ever, and thumbing their noses at the Israelis. In “Operation Grapes of Wrath”, after artillery shelling left over 100 civilians dead in Kafr Kana, Israel was forced to accept a ceasefire and withdraw.

If history were any judge, Nasrallah would have been entirely reasonable in assuming that he would face, at the most, a limited operation like Grapes of Wrath.

What I think Nasrallah underestimated was not Israel’s reaction, but the reaction of the entire world, that is fed up with the never-ending militancy and rejectionism of Hamas and Hezbollah, and are willing to give Israel wider scope to deal with it. It’s not just the U.S.

The obvious reason for Nasrallah’s incursion was indeed mounting pressure, not from democratists, but from Iran and Syria, who had made significant investments in Hezbollah, and wanted to see results. Both have much clearer reasons for wanting to heat things up with Israel.

A certain ennui about indiscriminate attacks on civilians can set in after a while, I suppose. (Especially when they rarely kill anybody.)

“…. Do you think full scale Israeli airwar would have been justified before, during that time of a hot ‘cold war’?”

When did I say anything about justice? It’s war, which is politics by violent means. Politics is about many things, but one of them is timing. Hez struck while Israel was being “disproportionate and indiscriminate” in Gaza, so they must have known it would react similarly to IDF soldier abductions by Hezbollah.

“Imho the argument ‘an eye fo an eye’ doesn’t fly here.”

Well, especially since Israel is taking 10 eyes for every one of theirs getting poked out. But again, it’s not about justice, whether Old Testament-flavored or New. It’s politics.

“Israel as a democratic state should sink so low to embrace the terror methodes of the enemy, with the blatant disregard of human lifes.”

Israel can claim it hasn’t sunk that low, by continuing to target suspected militant activity and materiel, and writing off all “collateral damage” to the enemy’s depravity in using civilians as human shields, plus natural human error. And *that’s* definitely SOP for them. That fig leaf doesn’t cover every pubic hair, it never has, but Hezbollah doesn’t even have a fig leaf, and doesn’t particularly care either.

“If Israel wanted to be not only the military winner, but also the ethical and reasonable one, it should have shown restraint.”

A military victory is no good if it’s a political defeat. Appearing ethical and reasonable can, in some circumstances, be a political win. Israel is after something more important to it than “ethical and reasonable” here, though.

“Bombing the Lebanese army and roads, bridges and fuel depots in the region it controls wll destabilize the fragile Lebanese democracy and spread hatred among its population.”

Or it might strengthen Lebanese democracy by isolating it from Hezbollah, while spreading a unifying hatred among both Hezbollah and the remainder of Lebanon. Israel might prefer two stable statelets (Hezbollahland and the Rest of Lebanon) hating it to one unstable not-quite-state (Lebanon) hating it.

“This isn’t the way to establish the much needed counterforce to Hezbollah, quite to the contrary.”

Depends on what kind of international involvement we see in response. The International Community (or IntCom, in Comsky’s deathless intercap jibe) is still trying to find its ass with both hands.

In the meantime, I’m reading truly brilliant “solutions” like sending an international force that will — wait, no, don’t start giggling just yet — *escort* the Lebanese army to the border with Israel, then — yes, you can start giggling now — *protect* it from Hezbollah. (I think that one was from Thomas “watch-me-wonk-with-my-wah-wah-pedal” Friedman in today’s Int’l Herald-Trib. But I fergit– my eyes are starting to glaze over.)

Well, hell, why make it all so complicated, Tommy? Why not just have the Lebanese army control its border with Hezbollahland in the north, and the Syrian army control Hezbollahland’s border with Israel in the south?

MT, maybe that’s because he views Hizbollah rockets and Israeli retaliation as just being SOP at the Lebanese border? The reports during the last years showed that this hasn’t really been a peaceful border since 2000. Do you think full scale Israeli airwar would have been justified before, during that time of a hot ‘cold war’? Does the assault at the border (imho it’s still unclear on which side) and the capturing of Israeli soldiers justify a counterstrike that isn’t limited at striking Hezbollah, but at destroying everything that might be of military importance, no matter how farfetched the connection may be (dairy farm, lighthouse)?

Imho the argument ‘an eye fo an eye’ doesn’t fly here. Israel as a democratic state should sink so low to embrace the terror methodes of the enemy, with the blatant disregard of human lifes. If Israel wanted to be not only the military winner, but also the ethical and reasonable one, it should have shown restraint. Bombing the Lebanese army and roads, bridges and fuel depots in the region it controls wll destabilize the fragile Lebanese democracy and spread hatred among its population. This isn’t the way to establish the much needed counterforce to Hezbollah, quite to the contrary.

Yup, so far, it sounds good. Shows that the neocons till don’t get it: Faced with growing arab islamism and rising anger against Israel and the west, their only idea is using military force in order to achieve only temporarily relief. In the long run, this strategy is just putting fuel into the flames and will make the outlook even worse.

Yup, Shatz not only seems to be able to “to chew gum and walk at the same time” but also to pass the more difficult LBJ test. I guess you know, the Texan Johnson wasn’t talking about walking

You’d have to think Nasrallah was flatly stupid, if you think he ‘underestimated the Israeli response’. He made his move at a moment when the Israeli response in Gaza was overwhelming — an overwhelming response that hardly left the IDF overstretched. If anything, Gaza was an excellent clue that any Israeli response to IDF soldier abductions and cross-border rocket attacks *would* be overwhelming. Most reasonable conclusion: an overwhelming Israeli response was something that worked for Nasrallah politically, somehow. And he went for it. So it’s mostly a matter of figuring out how this all works for him. As I suspect it does. See below.

“Now Israel has it’s chance to destroy Hezbollah as a military force.”

Nope, because that involves fighting hardened, well-trained, ardent guerilla forces, on the ground, in southern Lebanon. They’ve been there. They’ve done that. And they pulled out.

What this IS, is a chance to get Hezbollah to expend (or otherwise lose) all its accumulated rockets during a time when most of northern Israel is mostly hiding out safely in shelters. And that might be part of Nasrallah’s calculation as well — too many of these destabilizing weapons accumulated on his turf, and it was making Hezbollah too juicy of a target during a time when he was trying to consolidate his statelet in the wake of a Cedar Revolution that left his loyalties to Lebanon as a whole in great doubt. However, he couldn’t take the internal political hits that would come with declaring those arms and disposing of them. So they are being dumped over the border into Israel. Rather inefficiently, if the goal was to take out a maximum of Israelis, which it probably wasn’t. And they are being incinerated by Israeli attacks on suspected rocket caches — VERY efficiently if Nasrallah’s goal is to maximize the number of Hezbollah civilian casualties, which it probably is, because those casualties are a present and future propaganda stick with which to beat Israel. But however these rockets are being disposed of, the most important thing is this: it’s being done in glorious battle against the Zionist Entity, so that his street cred with his loyal fighters will be intact when the smoke clears.

This is also a chance for Hezbollah to do a prisoner exchange, which can be declared victory. The Israelis have offered already. It’s only a matter of time now.

This is also a chance for Hezbollah to be booted out of the Lebanese democratic process — ooh, no, *don’t* throw me into that briar patch, says Brer Nasrallah. But really, he loves his briar patch. Perhaps it won’t be long before his beloved briar patch is surrounded (hence protected) by some combination of Lebanese, U.N. and Syrian troops, none of whom dare go up against his battle-seasoned fighters.

I tell ya, this is a guy who really knows how to run a protection racket, he’s a real goodfella.

Yet nowhere does Virgil mention Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. In his selective view of the facts, he’s hardly different from the staunch defenders of Israel in this latest war of words, who mechanically respond to critics by saying that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah, but without ever mentioning attacks on Lebanese infrastructure outside Hezbollah’s strongholds.

How many people in this debate, before going ballistic on one issue or another, ask themselves if the trajectory of their rhetoric hasn’t been carefully calculated in advance by political analysts who, understandably, try to predict how those in entrenched positions will react?

Virgil doesn’t mention Hezbollah’s Katyushas because it’s inconvenient for his argument. Others won’t mention the Israeli bombing of a power plant fuel depot in Lebanon because it’s inconvenient for *their* argument. Both are turning themselves into war-of-words ordnance, reducing their own brains to ideological inertial-guidance systems. And both sides are thoroughly predictable — as predictable as the arc of a launched rocket.

To address at least one of Virgil’s points — the regime in Egypt doesn’t exist because it’s getting about billion/year in U.S. economic assistance (forget about all the military aid, which has been greater). It got by without such sumptuous aid packages from the U.S. in the Nasser days; and taking that protection money from the U.S. was part of what doomed Anwar Sadat to assassination by an (islamist) Egyptian soldier as Sadat stood on a reviewing stand. Money can be stabilizing AND destabilizing. At the same time. So can the declaration of peace — would Rabin have been assassinated had he not gone down that path?

The Middle East is an overlapping pile of scraps of Empire (Ottoman, British) that happens to have a lot of oil beneath its sands, in an historical epoch when the world is thirsty for it. Israel is a useful irritant, a propaganda lightning rod for the regimes that have taken the place of Empire. The Palestinian issue (and Lebanon too) is useful to those regimes to keep the situation charged at all times, to constantly have an external demon on hand for propaganda purposes. Stable Arab regimes mean stable oil supplies for the West. The Middle East conflict is about maintaining all *necessary* instability in the name of a greater stability — of oil supplies. It has nothing to do with right or wrong (even if genuine rights and wrongs have everything to do with keeping the conflict going), and everything to do with the logistics of modern, petroleum-addicted economies, in a world where sovereignty norms are honored more in the breach than in the observance, wherever that happens to be both possible and convenient.

“we need something that adversely and collectively wakes us up – I am opting for a financial melt down (because all the signs are present), it might be something else, but whatever it is we desperately need a wake-up call.”

Fairly typical, to suggest that economic apocalypse could shake things up enough to make people see clearly. Actually, economic collapse tends to have the opposite effect.

I would agree with Virgil that some of the signs are present — the global residential property bubble that has fueled so much consumer demand (a larger bubble than the stock bubble in total valuation) appears to be on the wane. There are a lot of built-up stresses in the world economy, and rising oil prices (0/bbl is the current estimated oil-shock level, though it might be lower in a cooler global economy) are not a small factor. Every upward ratcheting of the Middle East conflict brings another oil-price increase.

Recently, the chairman of OPEC voiced concern, saying the OPEC stands ready to increase supplies to avert further price increases. Of course, he can’t exactly rub his hands together in glee over how OPEC nation state coffers are overflowing with petrobucks. That would be rather impolitic. But it’s also smart of him — OPEC employs good economists who can calculate that the whiplash effect from an oil shock could erase all recent gains rather rapidly. A scenario in which standards of living are declining not only in the oil-consuming nations but in the oil-producing nations is a recipe for disaster. Regimes (and may I include “the Bush regime”?) may end up sharpening their focus on external enemies, and war is always a good Keynesian stimulus, not just a useful distraction from economic misery. Doing nothing tips the playing field toward islamists, so it’s unlikely they’ll do nothing.

It may seem odd that conflict between Lebanon and Israel, with Syria playing a pivotal role, would increase oil prices — none are oil powers. But remember what the overall conflict is about: all necessary instability in the name of general regime stability, in the interests of stability of oil supplies. Syria would like to own all the pawns in that game, and it’s pretty close: Hamas and Hezbollah are pretty solidly encamped in Syria. A Syria that can turn the heat up and down in the Middle East conflict is a powerful Syria. A Syria that can’t, well …. you can only make so much money in rake-offs from a Lebanon subsisting largely on tourism and hashish export.

Speaking of tourism: amid all the anguished cries about a flattened, devastated, crippled Lebanese economy coming from Lebanese politicians, the Lebanese minister for economic affairs is predicting that Lebanon is likely to have a pretty good summer season next year. There’s plenty of cash, plenty of credit, not all that much that will require rebuilding anyway.

What’s happening today in Lebanon is tragic, but today it will seem like decades ago, after six months or a year of what’s still going on in Iraq.

The article is reasonably intelligent, but, as always, cherchez the unsupported assumptions. Where is this “mounting pressure” against Hezbollah coming from? They’re in the government, they’re armed and supported by Syria and Iran, they rule the roost over there. Because of this imaginary “mounting pressure” they’re going to gamble their existence in a full scale war against Israel? This just doesn’t make sense.

Yet nowhere does Virgil mention Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. In his selective view of the facts, he’s hardly different from the staunch defenders of Israel in this latest war of words, who mechanically respond to critics by saying that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah, but without ever mentioning attacks on Lebanese infrastructure outside Hezbollah’s strongholds.

How many people in this debate, before going ballistic on one issue or another, ask themselves if the trajectory of their rhetoric hasn’t been carefully calculated in advance by political analysts who, understandably, try to predict how those in entrenched positions will react?

Virgil doesn’t mention Hezbollah’s Katyushas because it’s inconvenient for his argument. Others won’t mention the Israeli bombing of a power plant fuel depot in Lebanon because it’s inconvenient for *their* argument. Both are turning themselves into war-of-words ordnance, reducing their own brains to ideological inertial-guidance systems. And both sides are thoroughly predictable — as predictable as the arc of a launched rocket.

To address at least one of Virgil’s points — the regime in Egypt doesn’t exist because it’s getting about $1 billion/year in U.S. economic assistance (forget about all the military aid, which has been greater). It got by without such sumptuous aid packages from the U.S. in the Nasser days; and taking that protection money from the U.S. was part of what doomed Anwar Sadat to assassination by an (islamist) Egyptian soldier as Sadat stood on a reviewing stand. Money can be stabilizing AND destabilizing. At the same time. So can the declaration of peace — would Rabin have been assassinated had he not gone down that path?

The Middle East is an overlapping pile of scraps of Empire (Ottoman, British) that happens to have a lot of oil beneath its sands, in an historical epoch when the world is thirsty for it. Israel is a useful irritant, a propaganda lightning rod for the regimes that have taken the place of Empire. The Palestinian issue (and Lebanon too) is useful to those regimes to keep the situation charged at all times, to constantly have an external demon on hand for propaganda purposes. Stable Arab regimes mean stable oil supplies for the West. The Middle East conflict is about maintaining all *necessary* instability in the name of a greater stability — of oil supplies. It has nothing to do with right or wrong (even if genuine rights and wrongs have everything to do with keeping the conflict going), and everything to do with the logistics of modern, petroleum-addicted economies, in a world where sovereignty norms are honored more in the breach than in the observance, wherever that happens to be both possible and convenient.

“we need something that adversely and collectively wakes us up – I am opting for a financial melt down (because all the signs are present), it might be something else, but whatever it is we desperately need a wake-up call.”

Fairly typical, to suggest that economic apocalypse could shake things up enough to make people see clearly. Actually, economic collapse tends to have the opposite effect.

I would agree with Virgil that some of the signs are present — the global residential property bubble that has fueled so much consumer demand (a larger bubble than the stock bubble in total valuation) appears to be on the wane. There are a lot of built-up stresses in the world economy, and rising oil prices ($100/bbl is the current estimated oil-shock level, though it might be lower in a cooler global economy) are not a small factor. Every upward ratcheting of the Middle East conflict brings another oil-price increase.

Recently, the chairman of OPEC voiced concern, saying the OPEC stands ready to increase supplies to avert further price increases. Of course, he can’t exactly rub his hands together in glee over how OPEC nation state coffers are overflowing with petrobucks. That would be rather impolitic. But it’s also smart of him — OPEC employs good economists who can calculate that the whiplash effect from an oil shock could erase all recent gains rather rapidly. A scenario in which standards of living are declining not only in the oil-consuming nations but in the oil-producing nations is a recipe for disaster. Regimes (and may I include “the Bush regime”?) may end up sharpening their focus on external enemies, and war is always a good Keynesian stimulus, not just a useful distraction from economic misery. Doing nothing tips the playing field toward islamists, so it’s unlikely they’ll do nothing.

It may seem odd that conflict between Lebanon and Israel, with Syria playing a pivotal role, would increase oil prices — none are oil powers. But remember what the overall conflict is about: all necessary instability in the name of general regime stability, in the interests of stability of oil supplies. Syria would like to own all the pawns in that game, and it’s pretty close: Hamas and Hezbollah are pretty solidly encamped in Syria. A Syria that can turn the heat up and down in the Middle East conflict is a powerful Syria. A Syria that can’t, well …. you can only make so much money in rake-offs from a Lebanon subsisting largely on tourism and hashish export.

Speaking of tourism: amid all the anguished cries about a flattened, devastated, crippled Lebanese economy coming from Lebanese politicians, the Lebanese minister for economic affairs is predicting that Lebanon is likely to have a pretty good summer season next year. There’s plenty of cash, plenty of credit, not all that much that will require rebuilding anyway.

What’s happening today in Lebanon is tragic, but today it will seem like decades ago, after six months or a year of what’s still going on in Iraq.