Does the Israeli military offensive have anything to do with election ...

[kentuck]

in this country in November? Is this meant as a diversion from a bigger event?? If not the election, what could it be? Would an attack upon Syria or Iran distract the Arab people from the Saddam execution? Are the Republicans attempting to get the Democrats to appear weak on defense or "anti-Israel"? Any ideas on this?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. I'd say you're reaching

The Israeli government isn't going to send soliders to die for desired results in the US election. The country is too small to keep such secrets.

[kentuck]

5. Of course not....

They would have to perceive it is in their own interest. US troops would not be sent to die for a desired result in an election either, right?

[Fredda Weinberg]

24. Don't equate the US with Israel

Israel's much smaller with an heterogeneous population. Each soldier's death is felt by a proportionately larger portion of the population.

[leveymg]

8. . . . not far enough.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, the present offensive against Hezb'allah was planned under Sharon more than a year ago and has been discussed by the Israelis and the Bush Administration. That should tell you that this was no spontaneous event.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon serves several agendas. The White House sees it as part of its regional re-engineering program, and as a way of putting pressure on Iran. The GOP welcomes it as a pre-midterm election rally-round-the-flag opportunity. And, for the neocons -- both American and Israeli -- it's a further step toward the realization of the 1997 "Clean Break" agenda of "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, and Iran as part of a goal of creating permanent Right-wing rule inside Israel (and the U.S.). Finally, continuous destabilization in the Middle East does wonders for the bottom line of the multinational energy and arms cartels.

So, the incursion into Lebanon isn't simple an either/or proposition that was necessarily the product of either the U.S. or Israel, one at the expense of the other. There are parallel goals. All the players are being used by the others, but not very effectively, because the success of the plan depends upon getting public opinion so paralyzed by fear and turmoil that all the players will have the room to consolidate political power or hold onto windfall profits.

Instead of escalation into a smoothly-engineered regional crisis, they are all pulling each other down together, and the scheme is collapsing into itself. The signs of overreach has already resulting in in political paralysis and breakup of the original Likud/GOP coalition. The parties of the Right in both countries are headed for a catastrophy.

Another phony war is only going to hurt them politically at this point. As for the oil companies, further profiteering risks re-regulation and punative taxation in coming years. Arms merchants are already facing indictments, in an investigation that could become much wider.

Some very highly placed people, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and career intelligence officers, are well aware of these games and have been a step ahead of them. They aren't going to stand by again, as they did in the run up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and let this build into an actual U.S.-Iran war that would set off an uncontrollable escalation of conflict that results in the loss of American global hegemony.

[malaise]

15. Great analysis

Thanks. They cannot fool everyone.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Dunno. But it works well for them as a wedge issue.

Promotes disunity in the ranks.

[bigtree]

4. but, with 64% thinking Israelis assault went too far

it could also undermine any confidence voters might have in Bush's and his republican's war campaign

[The Magistrate]

10. That Figure Is Appearing Widely This Morning, Sir

But so far I have not seen any source attached. Could you be kind enough to tell me its origin?

[The Magistrate]

3. No, Sir

Both Hezbollah and Israel have acted for their own reasons, out of their own views of their own immediate self interest.

[kentuck]

7. I agree that both have acted in their own interests but...

I am not convinced the US was not in on the planning or that those 2000 satelite-guided missiles were already in the pipeline but, coincidentally, just at the right moment, were ready to ship to Israel. That is more than a little coincidence, in my humble opinion.

[The Magistrate]

9. There Does Not Really Seem To Have Been Much Planning, Sir

Certainly there were general contingency plans in place, and a target list, and doubtless someone will now post a comment about discussion of plans occuring some months ago, but the actual operation shows a number of signs of hurried muddle that would be absent from a major action already in place and ready to go a signal. The most important of these is the slow build-up of ground forces and the tentative nature of the rather tardily commenced operations into the Hezbollah zone.

[leveymg]

11. Actually, it seems to be going pretty much according to plan

Except that civilian losses, and resistance by Hezb'allah forces, are causing a hell of a political mess for the Israeli government. This from the SF Examiner article Saturday:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21...

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range (rockets), bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.

[The Magistrate]

13. That Article Has Made Many Appearances, Sir

And is the sort of contingency plan my comments refered to. It seems pretty evident it had not been fleshed out to a practiced operational plan in the interim between that briefing and the present events. Yes, it was on the shelf, and yes, it was taken down from the shelf and passed around immediately after the Hezbollah success against the border patrol. But it is clear it was not gamed, it was not rehearsed, it was not updated, that there was no signifigant reconnaisance preparation over time immediately prior to its distribution, and it is those sorts of things that make the difference between a contingency plan and an operational plan someone intends in advance to execute on or about a certain date deliberately.

[leveymg]

14. There's a major difference between planning and execution

I'd like you to point to the specifics upon which you base your statement: "But it is clear it was not gamed, it was not rehearsed, it was not updated, that there was no signifigant reconnaisance preparation over time immediately prior to its distribution."

There have been reports that state the opposite, that this operation is the best-planned in recent Israeli history. I'll try to locate something along those lines, if you like.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

20. Unfortunately, Sir

That site is generally looked on with disfavor here, and commonly removed under our policies.

It is always possible to find someone saying that a military operation is going just fabulously. My view of the situation is my own, based solely on impressions gathered from available reports and a certain degree of interest in the general topic of military history that gives me some background to arrange them by.

[kentuck]

16. Do you know how many Israelis were killed by Hezbollah in the past year?

Before this latest incident and the resulting casualties? I have no idea. Does anyone know? Was it a dozen? Was it a hundred? Was it one? How many rockets were fired into Haifa before the last couple of weeks?Or is this mostly a preemptive operation?

[The Magistrate]

18. None Had Been Fired Into Haifa, Sir

That is a new development since the joining of major hostilities. My impression, and it is vague, as the matter has not engaged my attention much for months, being simply too depressing to contemplate for long, is that there have been a few rockets fired over the previous year to no particular effect. There have ben some exchanges of fire on the border, and some Israeli over-flights, that have also been shot at ineffectually.

There is no doubt that the capture of the soldiers was a pretext for engaging Hezbollah. But that is not, as some seem to think, some horrible thing that is grounds for strenuous condemnation. Rather, it is how affairs of state are generally conducted. The fact is that for six years, there has been a low-grade border war conducted between Israel and Hezbollah. These things build up tensions over time, and sooner or later one item will push matters over the edge. The action by Hezbollah, being not only effective but occuring shortly after the campaign commenced in Gaza, was such an incident. That it was seen and understood such an action would eventually be required before that incident provided suitable grounds is far from stating that everything was in place to carry out the operation, and only an eagerly awaited pretext was lacking. Had that been the case, the operational picture would, in my view, be a good deal sharper and more effective than it has been.

[leveymg]

19. Four, according to this Denver Post 7/17 article:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_4060819

The Lebanese health ministry said about 150 Lebanese, nearly all of them civilians, have been killed since the fighting began Wednesday while more than 400 have been wounded. Four Israeli civilians had been killed by Hezbollah rocket fire until Sunday's attack, which killed eight government employees of Israel Railways and wounded

[The Magistrate]

22. That Would Seem, Sir

To refer to the interval between Wednesday and Sunday, or in other words after the commencement of the general hostilities.

[leveymg]

27. Pre-July 2006, no rocket attacks from Lebanon since 2001

According to this site, "Major Terrorist Attacks on Israel" that summarizes each fatal attack going back to 2001, there had been few or no fatal attacks from within Lebanon during the last five years. Most attacks were Hamas or Al-Aksa Martyr Brigades suicide bombings: http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_attacks.asp

A quick review shows there were two rocket attacks from Gaza, the more recent being:

June 28, 2004: A Kassam rocket fired by Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip struck near a nursery school in the northern Negev town of Sderot, killing an Israeli man and a 4-year old Israeli child.

I think this is the most comprehensive accounting you'll find. Overall, it appears that Hezbollah has not been actively attacking Israel until fighting started a couple weeks ago, but their rocket capabilities are much more lethal than could have been predicted based on recent history.

[The Magistrate]

29. Thank You For The Information, Sir

That there were no fatalities over that period does not surprise me. There have generally, though, been many more launchings of rockets than fatalities: that is certainly true of the Gaza region, where there have been many more than two, and is probably true in the north as well.

[leveymg]

32. You're welcome, Sir.

If this is accurate, it shows that Hezb'allah wasn't involved in systematic attacks against Israel during the five years prior to July, 2005. Why then the apparent intensive planning with the Bush Administration for over a year?

This further buttresses the case that Israel's response, at least in Lebanon, was totally disproportiate and inappropriate.

[The Magistrate]

34. It Does Not Show That, Sir

It only shows that their efforts had little effect. It does not speak at all to its build-up of arms, consolidation of political clout and prestige as the militia that had defeated Israel and drove it out of Lebanon, or to the sphere of independent operation opened to it by the departure of the Syrian occupation force from Lebanon recently.

[leveymg]

36. I'd have to see evidence that H'allah had been carrying out unsuccessful

attacks during that period. Since the war started, their military seems to have proven itself to be surprisingly capable. Their build-up of arms also seems to be justified by the massive scale of the Israeli military incursion. The consolidation of political power in southern Labanon, you are correct, is directly tied to the prestige that group earned by resisting the Israeli occupation.

As for the departure of Syria from Lebanon, wasn't that something the Bush Administration once touted as evidence that its policy of hardball pressure on Syria had yielded good results? A pyrrhic victory, indeed, if the intention was to promote peace in the region and security on Israel's northern border.

[The Magistrate]

39. On Consideration, Sir

It will doubtless be clear to you, simply from examining the present events and comparing the number of rockets fired to the casualties inflicted, that the occurance of one fatal instance requires the occurance of many other, and ineffectual ones. The normal practice was firing in ones and twos, and it is vanishingly unlikely that the first and only such would result in a fatality. The weapons are quite innaccuate, and mostly even today are landing in fields outside towns.

For the rest, you seem to me to have some elements in a reversed order, for it seems to me the present incursion would not be taking place but for the stockpiling of weapons. It is certainly incapable of warding it off, as present events demonstrate amply.

The departure of Syria was widely desire in Lebanon, and in the world at large, and that the present administration has sought to make propaganda hay from it is immaterial. Syria has covetted Lebanon from its establishment as a modern nation after the Great War, and most Lebanese do not want to be a part of Syria. Syria's occupation, occassioned as a "peace-keeping" action during the Lebanese civil war, had long outlived any purpose but that of Syrian expansionism, at least in most eyes.

[Crazy Dave]

6. It's pretty much got the nation's attention off Iraq and Afghanistan

Hell...I even knew for a fact the NOLA victims wouldn't even be a factor by now with this nation's short attention span. Have you also noticed the news networks are showing a lot more coverage of the brutal and horrific atrocities against innocent civilians in this conflict versus what they were allowed to report in both Afghanistan and Iraq? It's always "civilian causalities?!?", "what civilian casualties", "we never target innocent civilians", etc. Then the all famous quote, "if you accuse the United States of killing innocent civilians you are helping the enemy!"
Oh I'm so sorry to do that Mr. Rumsfeld. I didn't know that school bus full of kids you blew up was so dangerous to our nations security.

[leveymg]

12. Don't worry, we'll still be losing those wars when this is over.

Politically, Bush-Cheney lost Iraq in April 28, 2004 when the Abu Ghraib photos were released by sources inside U.S. military intelligence.

USG and international agency people have already concluded that Afghanistan, outside Kabul, is no longer under coalition control, and the level of resistance will grow until we are forced to depart.

These basic facts are still known to the American people, who have their own problems.

[theboss]

21. You honestly believe that Bush controls Israel?

No one one controls Israel. As a nation, they have always done exactly what they wanted when they wanted.

And boolah to them for that.

[kentuck]

23. Israel is connected at the hip to America...

in my opinion. No one may "control" Israel, but they are dependent on American aid and military to keep them secure. They are nowhere as "independent" as you may think, in my opinion.

[Fredda Weinberg]

25. Israel survived before receiving US aid

And with the end of the Cold War and the support the Arab nations used to receive, the dependency is even less.

[kentuck]

33. When did Israel not receive American aid ?

I can't recall.

[The Magistrate]

35. In The Early Stages, Sir

Israel recieved no material assistance from the United States. In the '48 war, its most important source of weapons was Czechoslovakia, which supplied them as directed by the Soviet Union. Some surplus U.S. equipment was acquired, but much of it from points outside the United States, and none of it by U.S. government agency. Subsequently, the bulk of their modern equipment was purchased from France. It was not until after Nasser solidly aligned with the Soviets, and subsequent to the Suez episode, that the U.S. began to play any role in support of Israel militarily or economically, and U.S. support did not become predominant till the period of the '67 war.

[kentuck]

37. How in the world did they survive?

God must have been looking over his chosen people? :sarcasm:

[The Magistrate]

38. They Fight Pretty Well, Sir

That is, after all, the usual reason....

[kentuck]

41. Is that hand-to-hand combat or with American-made F-16's?

I do recall the heroic rescue at Entebbe. Of course, because of the sheer numbers of their enemies, it is understandable that they would need the most modern weaponry. Right?

[The Magistrate]

42. As The Period Mentioned, Sir

Is that before U.S. aid, the relevance of F-16s seems questionable. Both '48 and the Suez campaign involved a good deal of hand-to-hand combat, as did the wars of '67 and '73, and the engagements with Syria in Lebanon during the eighties.

[kentuck]

44. Unquestionably very brave people...

But if all they have to fear are these rockets that hit at random around Haifa, I think the threat is heavily exaggerated. Just my opinion.

[theboss]

40. Some Soviet aid, a developing economy, and a spectacular military

Also some amazing Arab incompetence in the field.

[leveymg]

43. Here's a good, short history of the US-Israel military relationship

When Did the U.S. and Israel Become Allies? (Hint: Trick Question)
By Jay Cristol
http://hnn.us/articles/751.html

[Bretttido]

26. It's acting as a wedge issue, whether intentional or not

People that keep insisting on picking fights with fellow democrats about it need to STFU and register some people to vote in November instead.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. "All politics is local." Tip O'Neill

Politicians (or, "leaders") are seldom reluctant to use any issue to distract, serve as wedge, bludgeon, divide, or bamboozle whichever portion of public they target.

They are reactive by nature and seldom try to initiate or prevent anything save that which will keep them in power or enhance their chances of achieving it.

That the Republicans are trying to get the Democrats to appear "weak on defense" or "anti-Israel" is a given. That the Democrats have been suckered (again) into taking Republican positions on both is to be expected.

[underpants]

30. Repubs are against terrorists Dems are for terrorists

that's the tag line here, at least the one they want.

I posted about this a few days ago.

All the RW noise machine is completely behind Israel for two obvious reasons.

1. The Jewish vote-do they really think they can take a chunk of it? Who knows and who cares-the point is to make it seem reasonable when votes start flipping all over the place in November. I am fully convinced that their constant campaign only serves to make the announced poll results seem at least somewhat reasonable.

2. Hezbollah are terrorists
If you support them in any way you support terrorists
If you don't back Israel completely you support terrorists
Democrats support terrorists
Who are you going to vote for now?
----this is another wedge issue for them.

Also see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2732709

President Bush echoed the view: 'We're going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We're going to tilt back toward Israel." Bush continued, 'If the two sides don't want peace, there is no way we can force them.' Colin Powell said, 'a pullback by the US would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army.' ; Bush added, 'Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things'
The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p. 71-72

[ButterflyBlood]

31. Last time I checked, Israel has their own government

They are not controlled by the Republicans.

And the Likud is no longer in control, so any connections they had are now invalid.