My understanding of the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

[tongodeon]

I intended to post this a week or two ago, but the Syria/Lebanon/Israel/iran issue is rather complicated. It's taken me a lot of reading to untangle the threads and make sense of what's going on over there. Incidentally that's my major problem with almost every opinion piece I've seen written about the issue: there are many uncomfortable truths

Comments

[zadcat]

This might provide a different viewpoint about how it all got started.

[tongodeon]

I'm not sure that's a different viewpoint than how I understand the situation.

that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

That's what I was trying, perhaps imprecisely, to say here:

Israel's goals seem pretty clear: they've known about the rather nasty sleeping giant next door. When he became an awake giant they decided they needed to do something about it.Hezbollah provided Israel with an excuse to take it to the next level, and it was a pretty big excuse compared to potshots across the border. Israel's move also seems to have provided Hezbollah with an even bigger excuse to start using the 13,000 rockets that they've been stockpiling for months. My post was, in no small part, a reaction to many of the posts I've read saying "all this over two captured

[spiritualmonkey]

To me, the point of Monbiot's article is not just that Hezbollah provided the excuse for Israel to do what it was already planning to do (i.e. invade Lebanon in order to take out Hezbollah), but that they were planning on doing in for the past year: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

[tongodeon]

To me, the point of Monbiot's article is not just that Hezbollah provided the excuse for Israel to do what it was already planning to do (i.e. invade Lebanon in order to take out Hezbollah), but that they were planning on doing in for the past year.

This is what Israel meant by calling it an "opportunity". For years they've dealth with an irregular gang of armed civilians that's been taking potshots at them from across the border. Imagine if the Minutemen had rockets and IEDs and RPGs and they ducked into Nogales every few days to kill some Mexican cops or mortar a shopping mall and our government let them get away with it. Mexico would be itching for an excuse to deal with them

[usernameguy]

"I still don't know what the 'right' way is to spell Hezbollah/Hizbollah/Hizbullah

[mister_borogove]

I still don't know what the "right" way is to spell Hezbollah/Hizbollah/Hizbullah.

What usernameguy said, and note also that, as Hezbollah translates to something like "Party of God", some people like to see "A" in the second and final vowel slots to line up with the conventional spelling of "allah": Hizb'allah.

[mmcirvin]

At the same time Hezbollah have been violating far more basic rules: they're operating in and attacking from civilian neighborhoods using civilian buildings as cover and storage.

Is that actually true? This Salon article by Mitch Prothero claims it isn't. The picture that circulated around a lot of warblogs of a supposed rocket launcher in a civilian neighborhood was, I have read, actually a picture of an antiaircraft weapon.

I honestly have no idea what the truth is here.

[tongodeon]

To be technical about it, Hezbollah *are* civilians. They're not the Lebanese Army, they are criminal civilians. If you started shooting Russian rockets at Tijuana you'd be that sort of criminal civilian too, and it would be OK for the Mexican military to shell your house as long as they don't shell the surrounding eight blocks, which Israel seems to be doing.

Your article claims that "Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians like the plague." That seems to be in line with what sploof's co-worker said - Hezbollah only got 11% of the popular vote and people who don't side with Hezbollah don't like them very much. At the same time Hezbollah's support is mostly in the South (where most of the attacks are) and the people who don't support Hezbollah are getting out of Dodge - you're more likely to stick around and even lend a hand if you're a sympathizer or supporter. Sticking around does not prove their guilt, of course

[veep]

Either I don't understand you or you don't understand the article. Many of your main conclusions seem to be based on the idea that Israel reluctantly (or at least justifiably) bombs civilian areas because rocket attacks against them are coming from those areas.

The salon.com article seems to state clearly that Israel is simply bombing non-fighting sympathizers/supporters/members of Hezbollah when they attack civilian areas. The fighters (with their rockets) stay the heck away from all the civilians so they can't be ratted out.

As the original comment pointed out, you said "they're operating in and attacking from civilian neighborhoods using civilian buildings as cover and storage", and the Salon article seems to say that the exact opposite is the case. I think this is a key distinction.

Also, your biggest bit of "evidence" for ignoring the Salon writer's conclusions isn't evidence at all, just as my having never seen Idaho is no evidence of its non-existence.

[tongodeon]

Many of your main conclusions seem to be based on the idea that Israel reluctantly (or at least justifiably) bombs civilian areas because rocket attacks against them are coming from those areas.

Yes, that's my idea and conclusion.

The fighters (with their rockets) stay the heck away from all the civilians so they can't be ratted out.

That's the part that I don't believe. Maybe they're staying away from lawful civilian *persons* when it's practical for them to do so, but they're still taking cover in civilian areas and structures - specifically, the southern area of Lebanon where their civilian support base is strongest and least likely to "rat them out". (To who? Does the IDF have a tip line? Would you call a famously indiscriminate air strike into your own neighborhood because you saw drug dealers there?)

Hezbollah are storing weapons in civilian storage areas. They're digging tunnels with entrances disguised as civilian houses. They're supported by the civilians who comprise their popular base in the south. And I can see

[matrygg]

If I may ask, what is your opinion of the IRA? I see a lot of similarities between Hizbollah and the IRA, personally. I think that Hizbollah is attempting to win popular support, which makes sense both politically and militarily. As Soren pointed out, Hizbollah is not just a military organization, but also a political one. It seems likely that the social services are part of the political aims and just happen to provide popular support for the military ones.

[matrygg]

according to this Hizbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of 1982, so it shouldn't have been a factor in causing the invasion. Do you have a citation for child soldiers being a factor in Christian support for Israel and in what numbers these modern-day janissaries were created?

[matrygg]

I think part of the issue is that Hizbollah's military arm does not necessarily tell the political arm what it's doing, so the analogy might be a smart violent bank robber that stays in the building, and his unarmed accomplice who doesn't really know what's going on, but he's the guy who talks to the press. Also, Hizbollah wants to be a regional actor, so I believe part of the reason they have not disarmed and persued such a confrontational position vis-a-vis Israel recently is because they're trying to show the larger arab world they have a vision and plan for the greater arab world. I also heard something on CNN the other day regarding the emnity between Osama Bin Laden and Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, which may have had a hand in the recent actions. This may be something of a proxy fight for hearts and minds between two competing extremist Islamic viewpoints -- one Shia, one Wahabi.