Israel & Lebanon

[michaeledward]

Hezbollah, a terrorist organization which is not the legitimate government of Lebanon, launched an Iranian missile at Haifa, 30 miles into Israel from the Lebanese border. In your opinion, how should Israel have responded? That's the question.

It is a difficult question, isn't it?

The current problem is exacerbated by the fact that nobody is talking to anybody in that part of the world. Because of that, we (the U.S and Israel) are shackled by our own policies. The 'All-Hat-No-Cattle' foreign policy is bearing fruit (and that is a reference to the current Administration).

Let's be clear, what was fired toward Haifa was a 'rocket', not a 'missile'. Hezbollah is believed to have about 13,000 Katyusha rockets with a 10 to 12 mile range (although 2,000 have been fired in the past week). They are further believed to have some rockets with greater ranges; but the vast majority of their rockets are very short range, and very inaccurate.

That the United States is not talking to Hamas (democratically elected), and that major financial aide to the Palestinians has stopped, places the Palestinians in very dire straits. Our relationship with Syria is tentative at best. We have no relationship with Iran. Our relationship with Damascus is weak.

Hamas reached out to Israel (according to the link above) and was slapped by Iran. All of these players need to sit down and talk about solutions.

The people firing rockets are thugs. But, President Bush doesn't send the National Guard into Detroit to break up the gangs. It is perhaps a very bad analogy, but what is needed in Lebanon, is policing. And if we can't even agree to talk to the parties involved, the children are going to have a party at the house while the parents are away.

It sure would be nice to have some 'Grown Ups' in the State Department.

 

[CanuckMA]

Your analogy is indeed flawed. What if a group of thugs called for the destruction of the US nd started firing rockets, howerver innacurate they are, at San Diego from positions in downtown Tijuana? What would the US do? complain to the UN?

 

[Flatlander]

It's terrible knowing that children are dying. However, I think that we can surmise that, in most (if not all) violent conflicts, irrespective of the supporting bodies, governments, or organizations involved, children are going to die.

So, the appeal to the "children are dying" emotion is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The only way to resolve that problem is to eliminate conflict, and that's not a pragmatic viewpoint. There is no such possibility for the elimination of global conflict without jeopardizing the freedoms or the safety of others.

There is no global harmony. There must always be a figure of authority to enforce justice and keep the peace. That enforcement must be predicated upon the use of force. Unless of course anyone has a different suggestion that is going to be of any use to a nation of people surrounded by other nations of people that want to kill them as soon as the opportunity presents itself....

So, with that said, I suppose that we all need to decide whether we believe in Israel's right to exist, and therefore to defend itself from those who do not believe in their right to exist. Yes, I believe that a nation's right to defend itself is implicit in that nation's right to exist.

Note, however, that I've not suggested that I am of an opinion one way or the other about Israel's right to exist. I am merely attempting to work out the logic of this situation.

So, if you're following my reasoning thus far, I think that Phoenix44 raised the question that really carves to the bony center of this issue:

Here is my question, and it's not rhetorical, but a real question:

What do you feel would have been an "appropriate" response to a terrorist missile attack on a city 30 miles from the border with a country which gives safe haven to the terrorists who've been engaged in smaller attacks for years?

Diplomacy? Complaining to the UN? Complaining to the "legitimate" Lebanese government?

Personally, I think that in the context of their environment the only reasonable response is one that reduces the risk of harm to their populace. It seems to be heavy handed, but seriously, their citizenry remains, for the time being, at great risk.

As a citizen of a nation, I entrust my government to take on the responsibility of protecting me from hostile foreign nations with the appropriate usage of military might and diplomacy. Diplomacy is perhaps more useful as a preventative measure. I imagine my spirit would be somewhat offended if I died as a result of my government's unwillingness to militarily intervene to ensure my safety as I went about my daily business. So, perhaps those of you who speak out loudly against this international use of force may benefit from looking deep within yourself and asking, "With whom does the responsibility lie to protect the citizens of a nation?" Also, "At what point does that responsibility need to turn into action?"

 

[michaeledward]

Your analogy is indeed flawed. What if a group of thugs called for the destruction of the US nd started firing rockets, howerver innacurate they are, at San Diego from positions in downtown Tijuana? What would the US do? complain to the UN?

What is .... Invade Iraq?

 

[michaeledward]

As a citizen of a nation, I entrust my government to take on the responsibility of protecting me from hostile foreign nations with the appropriate usage of military might and diplomacy. Diplomacy is perhaps more useful as a preventative measure. I imagine my spirit would be somewhat offended if I died as a result of my government's unwillingness to militarily intervene to ensure my safety as I went about my daily business. So, perhaps those of you who speak out loudly against this international use of force may benefit from looking deep within yourself and asking, "With whom does the responsibility lie to protect the citizens of a nation?" Also, "At what point does that responsibility need to turn into action?"

Again, good questions.

Where things get fuzzy, this time, is that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel are not strictly actions from "Foreign Nations". The governments of those countries are weak, the militias are reckless and supported by outside agencies.

Are there actions that could have been taken earlier to strengthen the governments? Sure ... don't cut off Hamas at the 'Peaches'. You don't have to take them to the Senior Prom, but blacklisting them is certainly going to put them in 'The other guy's camp'.

Governments should always be ready to take action ... but that action need not be military.

There are two thoughts concerning use of military ... that of the Just War, which I believe I subscribe to; which calls for a measured response. And there is the unconditional war ... for which 'unconditional surrender' is the only acceptable outcome .... and there are times when I think that might be appropriate.

But, what is occuring now ... is inappropriate.

I just read that Paula Zahn asked the Israeli Defense Minister if they are using Phosphorous Weapons in Lebanon .... the question was dodged. The pictures of burned babies, children, and women should be played on every TV set in America.

 

[Don Roley]

Again, good questions.

Where things get fuzzy, this time, is that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel are not strictly actions from "Foreign Nations". The governments of those countries are weak, the militias are reckless and supported by outside agencies.

Are there actions that could have been taken earlier to strengthen the governments? Sure ... don't cut off Hamas at the 'Peaches'. You don't have to take them to the Senior Prom, but blacklisting them is certainly going to put them in 'The other guy's camp'.

Governments should always be ready to take action ... but that action need not be military.

Wait, so you are saying that it was wrong for America to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan?

All the points you made against Isreal's move into Lebanon are the same that could be said about Al-Queda and the Taliban.

-A terrorist orginization targets civilians.

-It is operatiing openly in a country and the goverment will not (can not) stop them from launching those attacks on the civilians of other countries.

The one difference is that America went in and took out the Taliban when they would not hand over Bin Laden and the Isrealis are not trying to overthrow the goverment of Lebanon. So America's use of force was more than the actions you are saying are unjustified.

If we are consistant with the logic we use, then either Isreal is justified to take the action that will stop rocket attacks that target their people, or America overreacted when it invaded Afghanistan. Which is it?

 

[mrhnau]

I just read that Paula Zahn asked the Israeli Defense Minister if they are using Phosphorous Weapons in Lebanon .... the question was dodged. The pictures of burned babies, children, and women should be played on every TV set in America.

As should the pictures of the soldiers killed and captured in the Israeli sovereign land. As should the bodies of every Israeli killed or mained in current missile attacks as well as suicide bombers. As should the checks written to Palestinian suicide bombers from the previous Iraqi government. As should the gassed bodies of Iraqis slaughtered by Hussein. As should be the starving populace of North Korea.

Lets show both sides, shall we?

There are two thoughts concerning use of military ... that of the Just War, which I believe I subscribe to; which calls for a measured response. And there is the unconditional war ... for which 'unconditional surrender' is the only acceptable outcome .... and there are times when I think that might be appropriate.

You don't win a war by partially defeating your enemy. you win a war by eliminating your enemy or defeating to the point of surrender, which typically comes at the point in which they can no longer wage war.

Israel has tried "measured response" before. They give up land, make concessions, bargain. They wind up still losing more civilians. They bargain again, give up more land, make more concessions. Its clearly not working.

Hezbollah's stated mission is the destruction of Israel. Its like cancer. Cancer kills you, or you kill cancer. Pretty much a binary situation that Israel has been forced to deal with. Ugly situation, but its what they have been dealt.

 

[Don Roley]

(fingers firmly rammed into ears)

"lalalalalala"

That is about what this amounts to. If you can so easily ignore everything that this administration has said and done, then there really isn't any point discussing this.

The bottom line is that the PNAC neocons desire a conflict with Iran (and Syria btw). They have said it in official documents explaining their policy and in various interviews. These people are strongly allied with the extreme right wing in Isreal who would like to have the US have a larger presence in the region. Politically, all of these manuevers could accomplish these goals.

If you care to try to debate something, they you should try to use logic, facts and deductions and not silly conspiracy theories.

You can't really show any proof and have to say that because some folks may want a desired outcome that it must be the case. There is no connection between your postulating and the actions taken.

With a conspiracy theory, you take the dodge that you can't show any connection because it is a conspiracy. In the circular logic, the fact that their is no evidence is somehow thought of as proof to the conspiracy theory. You tend to add a little varient by saying that you have done some extensive research on the matter that none of the rest of us ever see.

But that is not the way you debate things. If you want to convince someone like me you will have to lay out all your points to see and examine. If you lack several points and can only point to possible motive with no evidence of connection they you will not get far with me.

Let me show you how things should go.

Fact- Syria used to have almost total control of Lebanon.

Fact- Syria backs, influences and helps arm Hizbollah.

Fact- Syria lost a lot of that influence in Lebanon after the events following the assassination of Harrari.

Fact- Hizbollah attacked Isreal with rockets and captured some of its soldiers.

Fact- That is the reason given for Isreal's actions.

Fact- People streaming out of Southern Lebanon are praising Hizbollah , expressing displeasure at the lack of support from their own goverment and showing anger at America for not stopping Isreal.

Speculation- Syria pushed Hizbollah into the attacks in order to regain a lot of the power it had lost and edge out the US in the region.

Now, if you want to convince me that America set this whole thing up to go after Iran you will have to start by explaining exactly how the US goverment got Hibollah to launch the attacks that led to this state of affairs.

 

[michaeledward]

Wait, so you are saying that it was wrong for America to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan?

All the points you made against Isreal's move into Lebanon are the same that could be said about Al-Queda and the Taliban.

-A terrorist orginization targets civilians.

-It is operatiing openly in a country and the goverment will not (can not) stop them from launching those attacks on the civilians of other countries.

The one difference is that America went in and took out the Taliban when they would not hand over Bin Laden and the Isrealis are not trying to overthrow the goverment of Lebanon. So America's use of force was more than the actions you are saying are unjustified.

If we are consistant with the logic we use, then either Isreal is justified to take the action that will stop rocket attacks that target their people, or America overreacted when it invaded Afghanistan. Which is it?

"Which is it?" ...

Oh, yes, Foreign Policy must be a simplistic 'black or white' dichotomy. There is no room for subtlety or shades of grey. That opinion is, as I mentioned before, 'All Hat No Cattle'.

(postscript - Incidently, the guiding principles of foreign policy can be, effectively black and white, but, when it comes to executing that policy in the real world, realpolitick must take over - an example of this would be Ronald Reagan. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no Reaganesque guiding principles - it is whatever is expedient for politics)​

But, there was a difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. The raids in Israel were against military targets. While the argument can be made that the Pentagon was a military target, it would be more difficult to argue that the World Trade Center was so.

Another difference, as I recall, is that the United States spoke with the Taliban prior to the invasion, demanding they turn over bin Laden. Military actions came later in Afghanistan (3 weeks, if I recall) than in Lebanon.

Now, one might argue that there are military hostages involved in Lebanon, so sooner action was required. To which I would point out that Israel currently has over 9,000 Lebanese and Palenstians detained in their facilities. And, in the past, Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges.

Further, our response in Afghanistan was much more measured. While we did go about eliminating al Qaeda's training camp facilities, we did remove the Taliban from leadership positions, we did degrade to the point of useless the facilities in the country, we did not drive 20% of the population from their homes.

 

[Makalakumu]

Now, if you want to convince me that America set this whole thing up to go after Iran you will have to start by explaining exactly how the US goverment got Hibollah to launch the attacks that led to this state of affairs.

Red herring in bold. The US government doesn't need to get hizbollah to attack Isreal. It only needs to urge Isreal to respond and THAT is what I said in previous posts. War by Proxy.

Here is a more detailed look at why I think this...

1. Who backs hizbollah financially? Iran.
2. Who desires regime change in Iran? Neocons in America.
3. Who is providing Isreal with massive shipments of arms in order to launch this campaign? The US.

At the very least, it is feasible to say that the US supports this action and it is not out of the question to say that the US urged this action as a way to start cutting away Iran's influence in the Middle East. Isolating an enemy like Iran is obviously a good tactical decision if one's goal is ultimately to change the regime to something more "America Friendly".

Don, neoconservative journals like the Weekly Standard and think tanks like the Project for the New American Century have been writing about this stuff for years. All of this has served as a blueprint for the Bush Administration's foriegn policy.

This document in particular, cooked up by an unelected think tank, should be particularly startling in the accuracy of its prose. This lays out a general outline of everything that would be done. Things like extending America's hegemony, increasing our military spending through the roof, repositioning our military to control the middle east, weaponize space and controlling the internet are all layed out.

And if you pay attention, even a little bit, you can see all of the steps being taken in order to accomplish these goals.

Okay, here is another question...

5. What is the impetus behind all of these radical changes? Because of 911 many people would answer terrorism, but IMHO a closer examination reveals something a little different.

I postulate that Peak Oil is the driving force behind all of this. Our nation is incredibly threatened by the increase in competition for this resource and by its inevitible decline in production. Everything we do requires this resource and if we are not able to secure a place at the top of the pile when it comes to competition for it, then we will not be able to maintain much about our way of life for long.

The threat of terrorism doesn't even come close to magnitude of this threat to our country.

Anyway, back to this situation. You have called this a "conspiracy" theory and in the attempt to snipe you actually stumbled onto a hint of truth. "Conspiracies" are the epitome of the Straussian Noble Lie, which I detailed above. This is the philosophic backbone of neoconservatism. It's how they get the job done. In a netshell, a Noble Lie is a lie told the populace in order to accomplish the greater good. A learned few know the truth and what is good for everyone and everyone else needs to be taken there by any means possible. This used to be a liberal philosophy, but it was eventually eschewed by intelectuals because of its obvious elitist implications. It eventually found a home on the Right, IMO because of a number of unquestioned philosophic myths like "American Excellence" that are easy to exploit and hide behind.

With that being said, here is another question...

6. How many times has this adminstration said one thing to the people in order to accomplish an entirely different goal?

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me," doesn't even begin to describe the answer to this question. EVERYTHING that this administration does follows this template. From domestic programs like No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies, and Healthy Forests, to the War on Terror, all of them are classic examples of the Straussian Noble Lie. The "greater good" or goal that is known by a few is shrouded behind smoke and mirrors. From all of this, it should be crystal clear that neoconservative is to conspiracy like butter is to toast.

From all of this, I think it is perfectly rational to believe that the US secretly influenced Isreal to take this action in order to begin a proxy war with Iran. The perfect situation exists to tell a Noble Lie. However, if you understand the philosophic underpinnings and you are aware the administrations influences and their stated goals, you will see something entirely different.

You (and many others) are doing nothing but parroting the Noble Lie and it is truly nothing but a political carrot on a stick. And in the meantime, the jackass that American politics have becomes moves on toward "greater good" of the "hidden" goal.

 

[CanuckMA]

military[/B] targets. While the argument can be made that the Pentagon was a military target, it would be more difficult to argue that the World Trade Center was so.

Another difference, as I recall, is that the United States spoke with the Taliban prior to the invasion, demanding they turn over bin Laden. Military actions came later in Afghanistan (3 weeks, if I recall) than in Lebanon.

Now, one might argue that there are military hostages involved in Lebanon, so sooner action was required. To which I would point out that Israel currently has over 9,000 Lebanese and Palenstians detained in their facilities. And, in the past, Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges.

Further, our response in Afghanistan was much more measured. While we did go about eliminating al Qaeda's training camp facilities, we did remove the Taliban from leadership positions, we did degrade to the point of useless the facilities in the country, we did not drive 20% of the population from their homes.

Te rocket attacks conducted by Hezbollah since Israel withdrew behind the internationnaly recognized Lebanese border are not against military targets. Hezbollah fires rockets from whithin civilian population. The launchers are indeed military targets. The prisonners ae convicted criminals. There a also thousands of Israelis who have fled their homes in Northern Israel.

 

[Don Roley]

Foriegn policy is indeed a matter of what you want to do according to your principles, and what you actually can do with what you have. But we are arguing those principles here and your principles point to the idea that we were wrong to strike back at the Taliban.

But, there was a difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. The raids in Israel were against military targets. While the argument can be made that the Pentagon was a military target, it would be more difficult to argue that the World Trade Center was so.

Another difference, as I recall, is that the United States spoke with the Taliban prior to the invasion, demanding they turn over bin Laden. Military actions came later in Afghanistan (3 weeks, if I recall) than in Lebanon.

Now, one might argue that there are military hostages involved in Lebanon, so sooner action was required. To which I would point out that Israel currently has over 9,000 Lebanese and Palenstians detained in their facilities. And, in the past, Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges.

Further, our response in Afghanistan was much more measured. While we did go about eliminating al Qaeda's training camp facilities, we did remove the Taliban from leadership positions, we did degrade to the point of useless the facilities in the country, we did not drive 20% of the population from their homes.

Hezbollah did indeed attack military targets as well as civilian ones. The rockets coming down now are targetted at civilian targets and not military bases. That makes them terrorist in my book.

When you say that we did not cause 20 percent of the people from their homes, you fail to take into account that we did everything we had to do. When a group calling and targetting you for extinction like Al-Queda did with us and Hezbollah is now trying with Isreal, you either elimintate them or they will eliminate you. Period. The matter of Hezbollah and Lebanon has been known and discussed for a lot longer than three weeks. If nothing has happened by now, there is no reason for Isreal to believe that Lebanon would do anything in the future.

The fact that you ignore the reason for the large numbers of civilians at risk scares me. Hezbollah sets up rocket launchers and bases its military forces close to civilians in the hope that Isreal will not target them. If we hold Isreal responsible for fighting back and not those that set off rockets in school yard- who gets the advantage? Not those that try to avoid civilian deaths.

The principle is the same. Whether it is Afghanistan or Lebanon, if someone is attacking you from an area and the goverment there can't or won't step in to stop them, then you need to take action yourself to eliminate the threat.

 

[Don Roley]

Red herring in bold. The US government doesn't need to get hizbollah to attack Isreal. It only needs to urge Isreal to respond and THAT is what I said in previous posts. War by Proxy.

You can't expect Isreal not to respond to attacks. And you are not proving that the US encouraged them in any way to do so.

Look at what you call sources. Anything from the goverment? Nope! Some people on the internet call for something, and since some of the political views of the writers may be held by certain people in the goverment, you hold that up as proof?!?!?

You might as well hold up the writings of Osama Bin Laden and say that he is behind every Muslim group in the world.

Now if you tried that, you would be asked to prove things. So now try to prove something like a link and a reasonable postulation as to how America got Hezbollah to attack Isreal. Because it is certain to anyone who knows the region that Isreal will attack those that attack it despite the best efforts of some past administrations.

 

[Makalakumu]

You can't expect Isreal not to respond to attacks. And you are not proving that the US encouraged them in any way to do so.

Sure, it makes sense for Isreal to respond. This is why it is the perfect Noble Lie. However, some questions a rational person might ask would be why now? How long have these attacks been going on? Who is supporting this invasion? Why are these people supporting this invasion?

Look at what you call sources. Anything from the goverment? Nope! Some people on the internet call for something, and since some of the political views of the writers may be held by certain people in the goverment, you hold that up as proof?!?!?

Do you want a signed document that details that the US secretly urged Isreal to respond to Hizbollah's attacks by invading Lebenon? Don't be silly. Also, if you would even both to read my posts, the links presented and the ideas shared, you might have noticed that these people I'm talking about are more then just "people on the internet." Have you ever looked at who actually is part of PNAC? Have you ever looked at what the believe? Have you ever attempted to understand their worldview, their philosophy? Obviously not.

The bottom line is that any reasonable person who has done all of that can see a pattern forming in the current events. It fits the profile.

You might as well hold up the writings of Osama Bin Laden and say that he is behind every Muslim group in the world.

This is nonsense.

Now if you tried that, you would be asked to prove things. So now try to prove something like a link and a reasonable postulation as to how America got Hezbollah to attack Isreal. Because it is certain to anyone who knows the region that Isreal will attack those that attack it despite the best efforts of some past administrations.

More nonsense.

Don, as usual, you have no rational response to my arguments. I suspect the sniping is about to commence...that, too, fits the profile. Here is a little friendly advice. Stop typing. Read. Think. Respond to the points actually raised in prose. That is how you will formulate a rational response to my ideas. This isn't a black and white issue and it is much bigger then Isreal responding to rockets fired from Hezbollah.

Your problem, IMHO, is that you lack the big picture...

 

[michaeledward]

Foriegn policy is indeed a matter of what you want to do according to your principles, and what you actually can do with what you have. But we are arguing those principles here and your principles point to the idea that we were wrong to strike back at the Taliban.

Don Roley .. that is not the argument I have made.

That is the argument you want me to have made, so you can climb atop your high horse.

You just go on putting words in my mouth.

 

[michaeledward]

Te rocket attacks conducted by Hezbollah since Israel withdrew behind the internationnaly recognized Lebanese border are not against military targets. Hezbollah fires rockets from whithin civilian population. The launchers are indeed military targets. The prisonners ae convicted criminals. There a also thousands of Israelis who have fled their homes in Northern Israel.

Yes, you are correct. The rocket attacks are launched into civilian areas. I'm not sure you can say they 'target' civilians, because there is no targeting mechanism on a rocket. The Katyusha rockets really are a weapon of fear. While there are some casualties and fatalities, it is a very inefficient weapon.

I agree that the launchers, and those who launch those rockets are appropriate military targets. We're there launchers on the runways of the Beruit airport? In the broadcast studios of Lebanon radio and television stations? The Banks?

What is the appropriate weapon for eliminating a Katyusha rocket, launcher, and operating personnel?

Personally, I am not certain it is a 500 pound GPS guided bomb.

I have done a quick search on 'Israeli Refugee' and 'Israeli leaving Northern Israel' ... and I find no substantiation of large numbers of Israeli's leaving Northern Israel. I'ld be interested to read such article.

 

[Makalakumu]

In 1982, Isreal invaded South Lebenon and occupied Beruit. They attempted to install a pro-western government that would sign a peace treaty with them...and ultimately failed. If Isreal sticks around to do this again, I would have to say that that action supports PNACs goals and that my assessment was spot on. However, if the Isreali army limits their actions to South Lebenon and leaves the Lebenese government alone, I would reassess my opinion that the US had a major hand in precipitating this action.

 

[mrhnau]

In 1982, Isreal invaded South Lebenon and occupied Beruit. They attempted to install a pro-western government that would sign a peace treaty with them...and ultimately failed. If Isreal sticks around to do this again, I would have to say that that action supports PNACs goals and that my assessment was spot on. However, if the Isreali army limits their actions to South Lebenon and leaves the Lebenese government alone, I would reassess my opinion that the US had a major hand in precipitating this action.

and the fact that Israel would be acting in its best interest has nothing to do with it? I don't see any way Israel can be successful without some modification of the Lebanese government. The Lebanese need a different approach towards rooting out Hezbollah. Diplomacy seemed to not work, so the only tool Israel has left is force. This hardly seems to support the hypothesis that PNAC had anything to do with the decision making process.

If Israel can effectively limit Hezbollah by staying in South Lebanon, that is what they will do. If it requires going North, that is what they do. I hardly think PNAC comes into the decision process. I also think Israel will lose all international support if they completely destroy the entire nation if taking out only the South will do. Evaluating that decision is going to be the difficult part, especially since they have a leaky border with Syria. Who is to say Hezbollah isn't going to jump across the border and wait for a withdrawl in a few weeks/months? Or encourage a more regional war that involves Syria and Iran?

 

[mrhnau]

An interesting read.

The shop where he works abuts a vast mural depicting a female suicide bomber with a baby in her arms, accompanied by the words I LOVE MOTHERHOOD, BUT I LOVE MARTYRDOM MORE.

How would you suggest combating someone like this? Obviously there are those out there that believe this, even though its not the popular opinion.

How does one fight someone willing to blow up themselves and their children to support a cause?

 

[Makalakumu]

and the fact that Israel would be acting in its best interest has nothing to do with it? I don't see any way Israel can be successful without some modification of the Lebanese government. The Lebanese need a different approach towards rooting out Hezbollah. Diplomacy seemed to not work, so the only tool Israel has left is force. This hardly seems to support the hypothesis that PNAC had anything to do with the decision making process.

If Israel can effectively limit Hezbollah by staying in South Lebanon, that is what they will do. If it requires going North, that is what they do. I hardly think PNAC comes into the decision process. I also think Israel will lose all international support if they completely destroy the entire nation if taking out only the South will do. Evaluating that decision is going to be the difficult part, especially since they have a leaky border with Syria. Who is to say Hezbollah isn't going to jump across the border and wait for a withdrawl in a few weeks/months? Or encourage a more regional war that involves Syria and Iran?

Hezbollah is backed by Iran and the Lebenese government has, at many times in recent history, been nothing but a thrall of the Syrian government. Even now, the Lebenese government is highly influenced by Syrian Baathists.

The Project for the New American Century is a neoconservative think tank that thought up the foreign policy for the United States. Most of its signatory members now hold key behind the scenes positions in the current administration. Part of their strategy, as they have written many times in documents easily available on the internet and on their website is to limit the influence of Syria and Iran and move toward regime change. (The other two places where they called for regime change was in Afghanistan and Iraq, btw.)

If Isreal occupies South Lebenon in order to curb Hezbollah and then they move north to Beruit in order to install a government that is more pro-west, then they would be making large steps toward the goals stated in the PNAC documents (the blueprints for the Bush Administration's foreign policy). Thus, it makes perfect sense for the US (via the Bush Administration under the guidance of PNAC) to provide money and arms to the Isreal as they undertake this action. This is why it is my current position that the US secretly urged Isreal to take these actions in order to wage a proxy war against our "enemies".

I hope this clear things up a little...