hiredgun

With a bit of distance now between ourselves and this summer's conflict, I'd like to pose a simple question about the confrontation between Israel, Hizbullah, and the Lebanese state; namely, what has been accomplished? What have been the significant consequences of this war, for the actors involved as well as others with a stake in the region?

Let's think deeper than merely listing numbers and material losses, which I'm sure have been expounded in detail in other threads. (I'm not interested in a laundry-list of casualties for its own sake.) I am more interested in the meaning of what has happened. As I see it there are a number of areas of consequence:

1) the Israeli position, particularly with regard to security as Israel's primary concern

2) Hizbullah. Factors to consider include their Lebanese, Arab, and international standings; their position vis-a-vis the Lebanese state and body politic; and their fighting ability.

3) the Lebanese state and body politic

4) the United States and the discourse of the global war on terror

5) Arab (as well as Muslim) regimes and populations

An additional issue is whether this round of the conflict is truly over or only momentarily paused; Hizbullah remains on the ground, and the IDF remains in parts of South Lebanon.

Address one or more of these as you like; they are inter-related and are included mainly as guidelines.

Sun Tzu

I dont think it's over. It looks as though Israel was internationally influenced (or the US was internationally influenced) to restrain itself. Im sure had it been up to them they would have kept going. The war has been going on since the end of WW II, it just has periods of slience. There is going to have to be a definative battle where one side is left standing. Or Israel can abandon the settlements the international community have determined illegal.
The high probability the second of the two wont happen, things are going to get worse and most likely never get better.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

ratbastid

As far as I can tell, two results were produced:

1) Hezbullah is strengthened. They now have the support of all of Lebanon and much of the rest of the Arab world. Prior to this confrontation, they were favored, but not considered a major player. Now they're both a military force and (especially in the aftermath of the attacks on Lebanon) a benefactor of Lebanese society.

2) The US and Israel are further polarized and isolated from the international community. The WHOLE WORLD was screaming for Israel to stop its attacks. Literally, it was every nation of the UN verus Israel and the US. We're now the political fringe, the international bully cruising for a fight. Israel is TOTALLY INSANE about security, and with its American allies, it will operate like the bully's little thug sidekick, enforcing US policy in the Middle East.

Willravel

Israel knew what it was doing. I am almost certian their intention was to prevent Lebanon from becoming a peaceful, non-extreemist state. You see Israel can't control Lebanon if it becomes peaceful. Hezbollah was losing it's standing in the minds of the Lebanese people. Their economy was growing. Lebanon was going to be something of an example for other extreemist states in the region. Israel wouldn't have that, so when the Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, instead of doing a prisoner exchange like normal they decided to go to war. They fought the Hezbollah, Hezbollah gained back a great deal of support, and now we have a Lebanon with a South that is in ruins, the people are pissed as hell at Israel, and I'll bet that Hezbollah gains back a lot of political power after this, and that foriegn policy in Lebanon shifts back to a more extreemist view. So long peaceful Lebanon, hello Israeli dominance in the region.
Their fighting ability was claerly underestimated. It never ceases to amaze me how nations with technologically advanced militaries assume that they can mow down less technologically advances militaries or militias. That's not how it works. Look in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. Now, as stated above, the Hezbollah will regain a lot of political power that they were losing to more peaceful leaders. Lebanon will deevolve.
Once the next elections are over and the Hezbollah gains back more control, the US will declair it a terrorist state, and i will die a little on the inside.
This is a momentary breather between rounds. It will only get worse as time goes on. If Lebanon were to be left alone, the Hezbollah would destroy itself. Most of the Lebanese know that the Hezbollah are to radical to be benificial. The Hezbollah were headed towards obscurity and thus oblivion.

Not so anymore.

roachboy

well, there's this dimension--fundamental but forgotten too often:

source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5752.shtml

which is appalling and ongoing and forgotten.

it appears that the olmert government is heading for collapse.
it will, if polls are correct, be replaced by a rightwing government and wth that any hope of a more rational israeli "security" position will probably go out the window for the foreseeable future.

the brutalization of gaza will continue.

the americans--well the bush administration--is a big big loser in this. the only solace i can see is that the fact that the bush administration is already the richard bey show of international politics--the formation that defies ridicule by actually implementing policies beyond the imagination of a satirist--and thereby has so little credibility to loose that...well....ok i dont really see how any of this functions as solace, so never mind.

lebanon: this is an overview...

source: http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...ing_the_co.php

and this:

source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5768.shtml

here is an analysis of the situation hezbollah finds itself working with now:

source: http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp...0&CategoryID=2

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

_God_

Serious question, no sarcasm intended or implied:

How many times would Hizbollah have to shoot at Israel (or how many Israelis would have to die their hands) before you would consider that a military response from Israel would be warranted?

Willravel

The Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers. In response Israel killed thousands of Lebanese civilians, a few Hezbollah members (somwhere in the low hundreds?), and displaced millions. The ratio of dead Lebanese to Israelis is 30:1.

Israel still occupies some of Lebanon, btw. Israel was forced out of most of Lebanon in 2000, but still occupies Shaba Farms (and area said to belong to Syria, though Syria has not claimed that land since the 1976 6-day war). Syria already ceceeded the area to Lebanon, but the rest of the world has not accepted that ceceetion.

Israel has every right to protect itself within reason. The problem is that protecting yourself by invading a country that has almost no defences is kinda stupid (see US/Iraq war).

_God_

That's an answer to (or a discourse on) a question I didn't ask. It also violates what hiredgun requested, namely:

I don't want to get into a statistical shootout by listing all of the attacks BESIDES the two soldiers--it's hard to believe that you act as if the two soldiers are the entirety of what prompted the violence. Sometimes it appears that many here don't believe Israel has a right to exist.

In other words, I'm still looking for an answer to my question.

Willravel

Alright, I'll give you a straight answer. Israel does not have the right to occupy a country. Israel does not have the right to attack all of Lebanon because of a few extreemists. How many times would Hezbollah have to shoot at Israel before I would consider a military response warrented? Well that depends on the response (which is what I was getting at in my first response). Had Israel gone to the Lebanese government with a plan to work together to remove the Hezbollah, it would have been great. If Israel would have sent in a few military officers to take out the kidnappers, it would have been acceptable. Israel destroyed South Lebanon. That was wrong, and I cannot give you a number of times Hezbollah would have to shoot at Israel, because infinity isn't a number.

You asked for a number, God:
then you corrected me for giving a number.

aceventura3

I think Israel lost the battle for world opinion. The battle was most likely lost before they fired thier first shot, since they are aligned with the USA. I am sure Hizbula was aware of their advantage and used it to their advantage and continue to do so. Most believe Israel was the aggressor and fights without regard for innocent life. Unless world opinion is reversed Israel has been weakened.

These are thoughtful questions.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

To ask such a question reduces the whole decades-long conflict into a single flare-up of violence. It's inappropriate and naive to take the current inflagration out of context. Israel has been a de facto occupier of south Lebaon since 1978, and Hezbollah is an uprising that is dedicated to ending that occupation and securing the return of tens of thousands of Lebanese being held by Israel. I'm not defending their tactics, but reducing this thing to "how many rockets do they have to shoot into Israel before Israel should go bomb the ever living fuck out of them" is simply wrongheaded.

hiredgun

That's a false dichotomy. It isn't a black-or-white choice between the war as it was conducted on the one hand, and an utter non-response on the other. The point is that the war as it was conducted seems to have done more to hurt Israel than to help it; if you agree with that, then in what way can you defend it?

If you don't agree that nothing substantial has been accomplished, then please do explain what we're missing.

Nimetic

Nobody won. It's a question of who lost the most IMHO.

Mojo_PeiPei

Saying Israel's reaction was unwarranted or even illegal is really ridiculous. As a basis of operation the governments' sole purpose is to provide for the common defense of its people. It acts as the sovereign, the leviathan, its power deferred from the people it represents.

When you have Hezbollah a known terrorist organization, representative of a states government (that is holding parliament and cabinent seats), and acting within a sovereign boundaries, you better damn well believe you are culpable for any aggressive actions taken by them. A government is in no way shape or form allowed to act, or in the case of Lebanon not act, in such an indifferent manner, it is surmountable to an act of war. In this instance the actions of a few extremists becomes an action of the state as a whole because the state is facilitating the act of war. Not to mention that on top of everything, Israel and Lebanon were still at a "state of war", they were not nations at peace.

If a country cannot enforce its own laws effectively, and it leads to conflict across sovereign borders, the second sovereign actor has every right to occupy said country to provide for the defense of its people. The only legal obligation a state has is to its people, there is no higher order then the state, no international authority that makes "occupation" illegal or any other sovereign action as such.

----
As far as whats been accomplished, nothing has been. Israel caved to international pressure before it was able to get what it needed done. Lebanon got its own people screwed as a result of their actions in the handling of Hezbollah. The worst part for them though is that Hezbollah was not destroyed by this conflict, it was only strengthed and emboldened. I could forsee this as being the biggest problem resulting from the war as any future action that Hezbollah takes will probably welcome an equal or greater result from Israel next time.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sun Tzu

Is the essence of what you are saying here that it’s not a matter of right and wrong in the eyes of the international community, because no one will have a countries best interest in mind other than the country itself? So then right and wrong out of it, does the bottom line represent when (as been the theme for much of history)- the one with the bigger guns is the one that’s right. I say this because occupants of the settlements- especially in the West Bank (I leave the label illegal / legal off) expand their lands via migration of temporary fencing. This will only accelerate as time goes on. Obviously the expansion is colliding with other indigenous occupants. One can only attempt to guess how either side will feel when approaching each other about this issue. The difference is- some (not all) possibly even far and few between. . . that because the country is that is going to contribute the kind of support I think you are mentioning happens to be Israel, the settler (many- immigrants) have the right to expand their land, the previous owner becomes labeled a terrorist if ANY resistance shown.

Are you stating the settlement expansion at the cost of indigenous occupants can’t be seen as illegal or legal by outside countries with any foundation because they are not Israeli? When conversing with others that have similar views the fact of the expansion remains a key issue that seems to be avoided. Do you think it’s because of the underlying nature of what it really means? Defining what "it" means is a cross between a mathematical equation (population growth vs. land /2) and a reflection of early American history perhaps.

Rockets hurling into towns is terrible. I've been in a couple of bomb shelters in that region (not during shelling), I can imagine how difficult it would be to be cooped up or getting flyers falling from the sky stating "get out were about to bomb the shit out of your house." Not taking any loss of life for granted, I don’t see what recently happened as "the big one". My question is if / when the "big one" happens what do you think the chances that will become WWWIII, if any?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Mojo_PeiPei

In one sense you are right in saying that no agent will have the interest of a state, but that isn't necessarily the point I was making. The point I was trying to make is how a non-sovereign interest would try and implicate its will on a sovereign actor. When you address the question of who is right and wrong, I think there are some things to be considered. Politics by very nature is solely about power, the allocation thereof, who gets what, when, where, and how. A state as an actor cannot be solely bound to work within a framework of "right and wrong", operating under such a tense is ideal, but it isn't practical, as things are not always so easily right and wrong, black and white. To quote Machiavelli:

For me the preservation point was key, but in the context of this conversation I was talking about the occupation of places like the Golan Heights, strategic military positions, rather then places like Gaza and the West Bank. I have a hard time really siding with or defending residential settlements in occupied zones. But in the context of this thread, I find myself perplexed. The problem is with the partition, Israel exists as a state. At it's inception it was attacked by several other sovereign nations, all at the welcoming of the Palestinians. Palestine didn't itself yet exist as a sovereign nation, and when they team with other countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, and they lose, I think Israel has all the rights to hold the contested land, especially for defensive purposes. I think its ironic that these countries are so angry about the occupation, when they had in mind the destruction of an entire state and people.


This question was posed about indigenous occupants, which is more of a Palestinian/Israeli issue, not a Lebanese/Israeli issue. When I initially talked about occupation, I wasn't talking about what Israel is doing in the west bank or gaza, but again the positions taking along the borders of Syria and Lebanon. But if you are asking me personally I can't really say. Any party can levy such claims in regards to legality of state actions, they may or may not be right, bottom line is at the end of the day Israel is responsible to its people, not the UN. Also I don't know about the comparison to American History as it is night and day for differences to me. Tough to say.

Are you asking me? Hope I'm not presuming to much by answering this. I don't know if WWIII will come out of this conflict. In the instance of global conflict I definitly think the Middle East will be a deciding catalyst for the next major conflict, but I think it will immensly larger in scope than Israel and it's neighbors. World War III will come about when the global hegemon, being America, is threatened or taken into conflict. My personal opinion is it will be more of a Russian-Sino, possibly Iran conflict. Who knows though maybe shit will degrade with Israel, at which point Syria and Iran get involved, the US jumps in and stands decisively with Israel, things will probably be so bad that no amount of International pressure will matter and things will gradually get worse. Somewhere in between all of that Russia or China would make a move, and thus you would have your world war.

Does that help, or am I missing something?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.