"the headlines in the papers, whatever the language (excluding the delusional US media) and whatever the political orientation all revolve around the same story line: "The American-Israeli War / Aggresion against Lebanon."

That is interesting to note because when all this started most news networks were giving equal time Haifa/Beirut. But with the lebanese casualties mounting and nothing happening in israel for the most part they are all now focusing on lebanon.
I don't mean to ridicule anyone's suffering but it was almost comical watching someone in Haifa running down the stairs to the shelter and shouting to the cameraman 'Do you see what we have to go through in here?' and then cut to lebanon with all the dead.

“The administration has an irrational fear that talking is a sign of weakness. It is the best way of gathering information and influencing events.”

How much of that do you think is influenced by what I said earlier about the US administration's unwillingness to concede that there is a difference between old militia type groups (known objectives, structure, figureheads, some pragmatical sense) and the new fangled alqaeda type groups? both in terms of strategy and threat.

“The Bush administration is allowing itself to be suckered into believing it can achieve political goals through military means. They seem to have learned nothing from Iraq.”

I don't think this is an accurate summation of what is going on. Certainly the current administration (as have some previous ones and largely for domestic political reasons))will go along with pretty much anything Israel does. But Israel does not return the favor and does not think of itself as the 51st state. Israel charts its own course, acts in what it believes are its best interests and could not care less about broader U.S. foreign policy goals.

Hence, the burbling coming from Rice & Co. who are attempting to shoe-horn what, from a U.S. perspective, is a foreign policy cluster-fuck, into some post-hoc grand strategic vision consisting mostly of hand-waving and Noble Phrases.

But, while one can argue it is unworkable, the Israelis do have a strategic vision and the present conflict may well serve Israeli foreign policy goals.

“The administration has an irrational fear that talking is a sign of weakness. It is the best way of gathering information and influencing events.”

From the Israeli perspective, this is risible. I kind of agree with the Israelis that talking to Hezboallah isn't going to get Israel to their strategic goals. Hezboallah looks for pretexts to tangle with Israel, not reasons. The whole Sheba farms thing, for example, is a crock. The problem for the Israelis is that converting radicals to moderates seems to merely create an evolutionary niche for other radicals.

So Israel has decided to go with the "fortress Israel" solution. They have no illusions about democracy, economic development or even "peace." Rather their goal is to physically separate Israel from its neighbors/enemies. That's what they're doing with the Palestinians and that seems to be what they're trying to do in Lebanon. It appears to me that the Israelis are trying to drive all civilians out of the area south of the Litani and it would not surprise me a bit if they tried to keep it more-or-less that way and turn the entire area into a free-fire zone. If an international force can keep Hezboallah out of that area, fine. If it can't they'll just blast away, international force or no.

The point here is that Israel, as opposed to the U.S., has little interest in diplomacy. Israel believes -- and has always believed -- that what really matters are facts on the ground. Their adventure in Lebanon is an effort to create those facts. This might work, it might not. But it's a far cry from the "magical thinking" -- if desperate attempts at rationalization really count as "thinking" -- behind drivel like "birth pangs of a new mid-east."

"Israel charts its own course, acts in what it believes are its best interests and could not care less about broader U.S. foreign policy goals.

Hence, the burbling coming from Rice & Co. who are attempting to shoe-horn what, from a U.S. perspective, is a foreign policy cluster-fuck, into some post-hoc grand strategic vision consisting mostly of hand-waving and Noble Phrases."

That's an interesting take on the situation. But ... but are you telling me that the US foreign policy is being shaped by israel?

While Anon is right about the fundamentally different motivations behind the Israelis versus Americans, I have to say that I find the (not unlikely) proposition that their aim - a depopulation and displacement of a third of Lebanon - is not magical thinking to be risible. Without even the benefit of the Maronites on their side this time, Israel will find it impossible - barring engaging in genocidal behaviour - to depopulate Southern Lebanon. It's simply not a sustainable proposition.

However, it does seem like Israel may think it is.

And that is indeed magical thinking.

Its a shame that the Americans have abandoned their decades of diplomacy (albeit sometimes forceful) and intrigue for crude out-and-out bullying.

Whatever happened to the days when the CIA just overthrew/assasinated leaders who didn't get things done in a way that suited the U.S.? The political situation wasn't happier, but at least the body count was lower, and it seemed the results were more effective...

I don't mean to sound cold, in fact it's the opposite; it is forever to mankind's shame that so many people die and so much destruction occurs because a few men are simply bad at politics.

Sorry 'bout that, just had to get it off my chest.
I think something has been overlooked in this whole situation - the Syrians can now play to both sides: they can somewhat credibly tell the Lebanese people "now see what happens when you make us leave - it was better when we were around", and to Israel/U.S. that, hey, "Syria hasn't attacked Israel recently, and can reign in Hizbollah, how about letting us into the south to police a ceasefire?" A Syrian force would avoid a U.N. force getting stuck in a messy place between Israel and Hizbollah...

Israel will find it impossible - barring engaging in genocidal behaviour - to depopulate Southern Lebanon.

Barring engaging in genocidal behavior, yes.

But I think "genocide" is too strong a word. IIRC, the Israelis have already told civilians that they ought to leave the area south of the Litani river. I think that even after a peacekeeping force moves in, the Israelis will make it clear that they consider the area a military zone and that civilians reside there at their peril. Any provocations will be dealt with both swiftly and harshly. Given their actions so far and their low opinion of UN peacekeepers, I doubt if they will be much deterred by the prospect of accidentaly offing the stray Fijian. But we shall see, I guess.

But ... but are you telling me that the US foreign policy is being shaped by israel?

Rather, US foreign policy is shaped, in part, by domestic political considerations. Israel has a very strong domestic political lobby comprised largely of fundamentalist christians. Ironically enough, the jewish Israeli lobby isn't all that big a factor as jews lean strongly to the Democrats.

Economist had a good piece on America's support for Israel. Most pathetic for me as an American is the petty, self-destructive competition between liberals and conservatives to see who can be the greater blind supporter of Israel.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7255198

This parsing strikes me as rather precious:
But I think "genocide" is too strong a word. IIRC, the Israelis have already told civilians that they ought to leave the area south of the Litani river. I think that even after a peacekeeping force moves in, the Israelis will make it clear that they consider the area a military zone and that civilians reside there at their peril. Any provocations will be dealt with both swiftly and harshly. Given their actions so far and their low opinion of UN peacekeepers, I doubt if they will be much deterred by the prospect of accidentaly offing the stray Fijian. But we shall see, I guess.

Declaring 1/3 of another country a 'free-fire' zone where milloins civlians, because when it gets down to it of their ethnicity, "live at their peril" is called "ethnic cleansing.

And not morally different than Hezbullah rocketing northern Israel.

Perhaps your standards differ.

a depopulation and displacement of a third of Lebanon

Anyway, it's not a third. It's more like an eighth. Is that really so much to ask?

Declaring 1/3 of another country a 'free-fire' zone where milloins civlians, because when it gets down to it of their ethnicity, "live at their peril" is called "ethnic cleansing.

And not morally different than Hezbullah rocketing northern Israel.

Perhaps your standards differ.

Perhaps these charges deserve a less flip answer.

First, to understand someone's point-of-view is not necessarily to endorse it. I can condemn the Israeli over-reaction in Lebanon while simultaneously appreciating where the shades-of-gray are in the analysis that allows them to justify it.

Second, this is not, from the Israeli perspective, "ethnic cleansing." At the moment, the Israelis are, in effect, declaring Lebanon south of the Litani to be a war zone and warning civilians to stay out. I'm guessing that the Israelis still intend to treat that area as a war zone even after a multi-national force is in place, with the proviso that they will only attack with some sort of new provocation.

Now, from the people who live there's perspective, this may amount to the same thing. Nonetheless, there is a world of difference between saying, "Get out and stay out just because" and saying "Come back if you want to. We're not targetting civilians specifically, but we are going after any Hezbollah in that area. If you get in the crossfire when we go after them, don't come crying to us."

This is a far more traditional approach to war than the silly modern conceit that precision weapons are so accurate and intelligence so good that wars can be conducted without unduly bothering the locals.

Having said all that, I do note that Israel has a tradition of "ethnic cleansing" dating back to its founding -- indeed, the Israeli reverse-diaspora was itself a kind of ethnic cleansing. I suspect the Israeli government finds the idea of getting inconvenient civilians to relocate themselves easier to rationalize than I might.

And not morally different than Hezbullah rocketing northern Israel.

As noted above, I have to disagree. What Hezbollah is doing has no military value whatsoever. Israel is not attacking civilians willy-nilly. They are, at least, trying to attack targets that have a military value, however loose their standards for choosing targets may be. For example, my understanding is that a number of civilian deaths came about when people fled north on the roads. They'd get the whole extended family together and load them into a truck or van and head out. The Israelis suspect it might be a truck full of rockets and the end result is as tragic as it is predictable.

In my book, that's a huge moral difference, albeit of little practical significance, perhaps.

Declaring 1/3 of another country a 'free-fire' zone where milloins civlians, because when it gets down to it of their ethnicity, "live at their peril" is called "ethnic cleansing.

Indeed, I seem to recall a quite similar Russian declaration regarding Grozny, before they shelled the crap out of the place yet again. For very similar reasons, for that matter.

Well

First, to understand someone's point-of-view is not necessarily to endorse it. I can condemn the Israeli over-reaction in Lebanon while simultaneously appreciating where the shades-of-gray are in the analysis that allows them to justify it.

Don't scurry behind 'understanding' - I understand the Israelis motivation well-enough and have hardly been shrieking about war crimes and the like.

Your phrasing was (and below isn't) one of 'understanding' the view, but adopting it.

Second, this is not, from the Israeli perspective, "ethnic cleansing."

Who gives a bloody fuck?

This is rather like noting 'Well from the Serb perspective....'

The policy hypothetical you outlined was and is effectively ethnic cleansing.

Dressed up in rationalisations and the like, but the facts remain the same: Hezbullah is profoundly supported by the population of the area in question, 10-15 odd years of Israeli occupation the last time around did not change that, nothing in the foreseeable future will.

Ergo, the solution (if one wishes to use the word abusively as it solves nothing) amounts to ethnic cleansing dressed up in rationalisations, excuses and self-deception.

At the moment, the Israelis are, in effect, declaring Lebanon south of the Litani to be a war zone and warning civilians to stay out. I'm guessing that the Israelis still intend to treat that area as a war zone even after a multi-national force is in place, with the proviso that they will only attack with some sort of new provocation.

Emphasis added.

Intend in some magical sense I suppose, insofar as anyone with half a bit of sense knows that the multinational force is a fictive solution.

Now, from the people who live there's perspective, this may amount to the same thing. Nonetheless, there is a world of difference between saying, "Get out and stay out just because" and saying "Come back if you want to. We're not targetting civilians specifically, but we are going after any Hezbollah in that area. If you get in the crossfire when we go after them, don't come crying to us."

There are words for this kind of grotesque rationalisation, but none are particularly polite.

There is not, in fact, a 'world of difference' - it's mere rationalisation.

This is a far more traditional approach to war than the silly modern conceit that precision weapons are so accurate and intelligence so good that wars can be conducted without unduly bothering the locals.

Traditional, as in Mediaeval.

Again, the tortured excuse making you're engaging in out of sympathy remains tortured excuse making.

One need not engage in hand-waving about 'modern conceits' re 'pin-point' accuracy to observe ordering out for an indefinate duration (i.e. until some magical and impossible goal is achieved) an entire population is ethnic cleansing.

There are two choices: political solution or more decades of war and attempts to impose one point of view. The second has been tried, the first may be worth a shot if only for the sheer novelty value.

Having said all that, I do note that Israel has a tradition of "ethnic cleansing" dating back to its founding -- indeed, the Israeli reverse-diaspora was itself a kind of ethnic cleansing. I suspect the Israeli government finds the idea of getting inconvenient civilians to relocate themselves easier to rationalize than I might.

Well, indeed, as you've done a sporting job at trying already.

Rationalising however isn't really the question; rather it's the efficacity of the 'solution' - which will not be efficacious.

As noted above, I have to disagree. What Hezbollah is doing has no military value whatsoever.

Well, actually it does, within their limited capacity. Insofar as most of the rocketed zone was evacuated already, and the entire area is filling up with Israeli military assets, crappy rocket attacks have some military value in attempting to disruptlogistics and imposing economic infrastructural costs. If one wishes to engage in rationalisation on the same order as supra, of course (and the next phrase as well)

Israel is not attacking civilians willy-nilly. They are, at least, trying to attack targets that have a military value, however loose their standards for choosing targets may be.

I am reminded of the scene in the Battle of Algiers where the Algerian leader offers to exchange his hand-basket bombs for the French fighters.

Quite frankly, however, by any standards, even were Hezbullah actually concerned about civilian targetting, and running a proper military targetting campaign, the difference in intel and military means itself would make more or less the same results

For example, my understanding is that a number of civilian deaths came about when people fled north on the roads. They'd get the whole extended family together and load them into a truck or van and head out. The Israelis suspect it might be a truck full of rockets and the end result is as tragic as it is predictable.

After being ordered out by the very same Israelis.

Nice little Catch-22 on the heads of the filthy sub-humans: flee and you're suspected of being para-military assets - stay and you're suspected of being para-military assets.

Beautiful bit of rationalising standards for the Israelis, hey, how can they know... (except when they wish to justify whacking something, then there is intel).

In my book, that's a huge moral difference, albeit of little practical significance, perhaps.

In my book, if I strip away the hypocritical standards, I see a fairly narrow moral difference.

On one side there is Hezbullah which is utterly indifferent to civilian casualties on the Israeli side, and 'deliberately' targets (which is to say fires away blindly, utterly indifferent to the distinction) said civilians. On the other side there is IDF, which is largely indifferent (except for PR reasons) to civilian casualties and fires at targets as it feels needed (having the advantage of satellites, aircraft and other advantages of a vigorous State intel service).

In the end, the morality of the farce doesn't interest me, one can twist it in various macabre directions according to whatever weight one wants. The idiocy of the conflict in this particular set of circumstances, and the fact it is largely a negative based on miscalculation is what interests me.

Ethnic cleansing campaigns are very rarely "get out and stay out just because".

Dressed up in rationalisations and the like, but the facts remain the same: Hezbullah is profoundly supported by the population of the area in question, 10-15 odd years of Israeli occupation the last time around did not change that, nothing in the foreseeable future will.

Ergo, the solution (if one wishes to use the word abusively as it solves nothing) amounts to ethnic cleansing dressed up in rationalisations, excuses and self-deception.

And here, you've gotten to the nub of it.

First, what provocations have the Israelis offered to the Lebanese over the last five years? Pretty much nothing, AFAIK. Hezbollah had various reasons for wanting to pick a fight with Israel, but none of them had anything to do with protecting the population of Southern Lebanon.

But you're probably right, the population of Southern Lebanon probably does strongly support Hezbollah. But that really weakens your argument and makes your comparison to Serbia ludicrous. Serbia tried to drive Albanians out of Kosovo because they were Albanians. As you have such an aversion to "magical thinking," you can appreciate that Israel's decision to go after Hezbollah is an effort to impress upon the people in Southern Lebanon that it is magical thinking to allow Hezbollah to operate in your neighborhood and imagine your status as a civilian will somehow protect you from any serious repercussions when the Israelis go after them. If enough people in Southern Lebanon decided to boot Hezbollah out and let the Lebanese army in, the Israeli attacks would stop. Until then, everyone, say the Israelis, better get out of the way or suffer the consequences, especially if you happen to live in a village liberally sprinkled with rocket launchers.

So calling this "ethnic cleansing" is histrionic nattering as the Israeli attacks have nothing to do with status, ethnic or otherwise, and everything to do with the population's decision to "profoundly support" Hezbollah. At most, it is a sort of collective punishment, which is bad enough but which has a long tradition in Israeli policy.

There are two choices: political solution or more decades of war and attempts to impose one point of view. The second has been tried, the first may be worth a shot if only for the sheer novelty value.

Actually, the Israelis feel they've given both of these a go and have adopted a third way, if you'll pardon the expression. They've pretty much given up on the idea of a political solution with the Palestinians and the idea of a political solution with Hezbollah is ridiculous. AFAIK, Israel has left Lebanon alone for the last five years or so. I do not believe that the Lebanese government itself had any particularly serious bone to pick with Israel. But Hezbollah exists primarily for the purpose of stirring shit with Israel when it is in its, and its patrons (especially Iran's) interest to do so. What sort of useful political dialogue would you suggest they have?

As I've noted before, the Israelis have decided to establish a physical barrier to keep Hezbollah at bay, just as they are doing with the Palestinians. The new Israeli policy regarding Hezbollah is "Out of range, out of mind."

Traditional, as in Mediaeval.
Again, the tortured excuse making you're engaging in out of sympathy remains tortured excuse making.

Poppycock. Declaring an area to be a war zone and warning neutrals to stay out is an accepted practice. IIRC, the British declared the area around the Falklands to be a war zone in 1982.

Your amazing psychic parsing abilities aside, I do not agree with what the Israelis are doing and I do not think that it will work as their current strategy is both morally whiffy and militarily suspect. Nor, however, do I think that the Israelis are completely deluded. They have a specific and concrete goal in mind. The Israelis do not care about promoting democracy, they do not care about "transforming" the middle east and they do not care if Indonesians like them or not. All they are concerned about is keeping their enemies at Katyusha length. Perhaps the Israelis have miscalculated or perhaps they calculate that this is the best of a bad set of options. In any event, it would take a level of moronitude of which I do not believe you are physically capable to suggest that the Israeli actions in Lebanon are at all comparable to the complete disconnect from reality that passes for American policy in Iraq.

It becomes rather boring to argue a hypothetical with someone who runs behind the skirts of his own hypothetical rather than grapple with it, but as I have a large download in process.

Now I wrote:
Dressed up in rationalisations and the like, but the facts remain the same: Hezbullah is profoundly supported by the population of the area in question, 10-15 odd years of Israeli occupation the last time around did not change that, nothing in the foreseeable future will.

Ergo, the solution (if one wishes to use the word abusively as it solves nothing) amounts to ethnic cleansing dressed up in rationalisations, excuses and self-deception.

To which the reply is:
First, what provocations have the Israelis offered to the Lebanese over the last five years?

Running off with the excuses of "provocations" and the same bloody whinging excuses that I already said I don't give a bloody fuck about?

However, the provocations would be water theft, taking prisoners, and the like.

At least in the eyes of Hezbullah.

However, that is all rather besides the point.

The problem is not "provocations" - it's the response.

Some responses are reasonable.

Some are not.

Hezbollah had various reasons for wanting to pick a fight with Israel, but none of them had anything to do with protecting the population of Southern Lebanon.

Which has fuck all to do with anything at all.

But you're probably right, the population of Southern Lebanon probably does strongly support Hezbollah.

There's no probably about it.

There is absolutely nothing but positive evidence in support of the proposition.

But that really weakens your argument and makes your comparison to Serbia ludicrous.

Quite the contrary.

It emphasises the point, as your superficiality shortly proves:

Serbia tried to drive Albanians out of Kosovo because they were Albanians.

Ah, indeed. But you forget an item. Because they were and are Albanians who overwhelmingly support and supported an independence movement perceived as threatening Serbian state coherence.

In the perception of the Serbs. And certainly those same Albanians overwhelmingly also supported what might well be termed terror tactics against neighouring Serbs.

Small wrinkle then in your argument, such as it is.

In the case of Bosnia, you've got a mixed case, but again the ethnic cleansing was sold on excuses like "security" and occuping vital lands, etc.

There are always, reasons beyond mere existential dislike. Often there are even reasons one can dress up

As you have such an aversion to "magical thinking," you can appreciate that Israel's decision to go after Hezbollah is an effort to impress upon the people in Southern Lebanon that it is magical thinking to allow Hezbollah to operate in your neighborhood and imagine your status as a civilian will somehow protect you from any serious repercussions when the Israelis go after them.

Appreciate?

I appreciate that the Israelis are engaged in the most magical thinking that they can break an organisation such as Hezbullah or that punishing its supporting population is going to result in any long term good.

It's an effort at collective punishment, in the lines of what the Israelis already tried.

As such efforts almost never, ever work.

If enough people in Southern Lebanon decided to boot Hezbollah out and let the Lebanese army in, the Israeli attacks would stop.

And if the Israelis did X, Y or Z they'd have peace as well.

Sing me another song.
So calling this "ethnic cleansing" is histrionic nattering as the Israeli attacks have nothing to do with status, ethnic or otherwise, and everything to do with the population's decision to "profoundly support" Hezbollah.

Histrionic natting?

I'm responding to your motherfucking idiotic hypothesis as justification for war crimes.

I don't give a bloody fuck as to your contemptible justifications and convulated logic trying to justify ethnic cleansing.

Not any more than I have any bloody respect for the mirror image on the Hezbullah side.