CORRECTED - Hizbollah saw "limited damage"

[bemildred]

(Corrects spelling of deputy leader's name throughout to Kassem from Qassem)

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The magnitude of the Israeli response to Hizbollah's cross-border operation in July took the Lebanese guerrilla group by surprise, Hizbollah deputy leader Naim Kassem said in an interview published on Saturday.

Kassem told an-Nahar daily that Hizbollah had expected an Israel attack at some stage as part of a joint plan with the United States but it had no indication it would come in July.

---

Two days after the war began, Hizbollah learnt that Israel and the United States were planning an attack in September or October. U.S. media have also said the United States was enthusiastic about Israeli plans to strike at Hizbollah.

"Israel was not ready. In fact it wanted to prepare for two or three months more, but American pressure on one side and the Israeli desire to achieve a success on the other ... were factors which made them rush into battle," Kassem said.

Reuters

[wakeme2008]

1. First we find out about Bush pushing on the arrests in Britain

and now this.

IMHO he is really scared about the Nov elections.

[mike_c]

2. this illustrates why Hiz'bullah, Hamas, etc cannot and should not disarm

Israel, supported by the United States, is undoubtedly going to attack again. The oppression in the occupied territories is ongoing, of course, but Israel betrayed its eagerness to shatter the standoff with Hiz'bullah in southern Lebanon, and will certainly do so again, especially since the most recent Israeli offensive failed utterly to achieve any strategic objectives, and actually resulted in a dramatic increase of violence in northern Israel. Both the offensive and the subsequent ceasefire are lose-lose situations for Israel, and their prior behavior suggests strongly that they will repeat the offensive as soon as they feel "ready." They were apparently planning to do so anyway.

Armed with that knowledge, Hiz'bullah would be foolish to disarm-- to do so would be to rush faster along the trajectory toward the time when Israel feels ready to attack its arab neighbors in southern Lebanon once again.

[maalak]

4. you're right, UN resolutions calling them to disarm are meaningless...

[mike_c]

7. yes, at least without similar requirements for Israel, or other...

...measures insuring the peace. If it was Israel's intent to attack all along, then why on earth would the militias willingly forego the ability to defend themselves, especially knowing that more attacks are likely? If-- as many recite like a mantra-- if Israel has the right to "defend itself" from attack, shouldn't its neighbors enjoy the same right to security against Israeli attacks? And clearly, there is no force capable of defending the Shi'a of southern Lebanon other than Hiz'bullah, at least not at present. Hopefully the U.N. peacekeeping force will stand between them and Israel in the future, but I honestly don't hold out much hope for that-- Israel has already attacked and killed U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, the U.N. force will probably not have much tactical strength, and the rules of engagement are likely to hamper them from acting to stop Israeli aggression. The agreements under which that force is being assembled are themselves predicated upon the desire of the beligerent parties for a cessation of violence-- the parties must essentially agree to respect the peacekeepers, and the mission will certainly not work if the U.N. has to function as a second front against either Israel or Hiz'bullah-- but Israel seems to be telegraphing that it will not stand down except in the short term.

[Kagemusha]

3. I keep completely doubting this.

If they had no indication that an attack would come in July, then that's precisely why a smart commander would provoke a battle then and there through capturing those IDF soldiers. But that version makes for less useful propaganda.

[bemildred]

5. Your skepticism seems well placed.

On the other hand, it would seem to give Nasrallah more credit than he deserves (perhaps) to assert that he forsaw events as they occurred. Nevertheless, it would be wise for Hizbullah to be "surprised" at the magnitude of the destruction now, whatever they may have expected when they conducted the successful attack and capture operation that was used as a pretext for the war.

[bemildred]

6. Hizbollah vows self-restraint

Another take on this statement. I'm assuming he doesn't mean anything kinky.

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group said on Saturday it would exercise self-restraint in the face of what it regards as Israeli breaches of a
U.N. Security Council resolution which ended the war between them.

"Despite that, we as a party have decided to exercise self-restraint during this period to expose more of the U.S. and Israeli misdeeds."

Resolution 1701 was adopted on August 11 and ended the 34-day war between Hizbollah and Israel three days later.

Since then the
United Nations has accused Israel of breaking the truce by launching a commando raid in the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon. The New York-based body has also criticized the Israelis for regularly violating Lebanese airspace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060826/ts_nm/mideast_lebanon_hizbollah_dc