The Head Heeb

"Israel can reject a ceasefire and hope that another week or two of fighting will bring it enough military gains to offset Hizbullah's new political advantage."

They can't reject a ceasefire when they run low on fuel.

I must say I don't understand Israel's tactics in this war. They are supposedly grinding away methodically at rocket-launching sites, ensconced among civilians. HA has 15,000 rockets. How long will it take to identity and destroy all of them? Two years? Sorry, bad jokes for bad times.

C'mon, the US will stop this, the writing's on the wall. And Israel will have accomplished zero in terms of enhancing its security, in fact, the opposite. It has been exposed as vulnerable to rocket-fire, without gaining the slightest sympathy. Think HA doesn't see that? (And Iran.)

According to what I've read, the IDF made some major mistakes on a purely military level. They sent in a force of 2,000 to fight 2,000 entrenched soldiers in B'Jbail; the US always makes sure that it's a 3:1 ratio.

From what I read on Arab blogs, they are delirious with joy over HA's glorious victories.

Now this.

Great job.

Right, stupidity.

I essentially agree, but a pair of somewhat related points:

1) What carried the day for Hezbollah was the strategy of choice for the Palestinians and Chechens: systematic use of civilians as human shields. As with suicide bombings (which are now killing as many people a day in Iraq as Israel killed here), the people who shrug off the tactic when used against Israel may find it a little more problematic when it shows up in their back yards in a few years.

2) At the end of the day, the Lebanese are supposed to be running their own country, not just behaving as responsibly as Israel fails to give them excuses not to. In a year, when the Beirutis are complaining about Syria or Hezbollah or Iran or the Israeli response to a new round of rockets, remember what Siniora said today.

I'd also note that all the experts who were explaining that Israel could pound Shiite Lebanon will the full support of the rest of the country don't seem to have been entirely on the mark.

But, as you say, stupid beyond belief. At least exercise a little extra caution in Qana, of all places!

Jonathan,

A question and a point.

The question first. How did HA accumulate 15,000 rockets under the eyes of the world, so to speak? Was there an Israeli Churchill warning of the dangers of this?

OK, that's two questions.

Two, how did Israel stumble into this? Let's step back and see how things were in late June. I think it all started with the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, and the country began to get whipped up into war fever as a result.

It's a well-known fact that Israel is extremely averse to casualties. Aversion to taking military casualties is admirable up to a point, but it can be debilitating. When Shalit was taken prisoner in late June, it seems to me that the country overreacted badly (example).

Shalit was a soldier, not a baby. Yes, It was a provocation for Hamas to have crossed a border & attacked, but it wasn't a terrorist attack like blowing yourself up in a market. Shalit was a soldier, and a legitimate military target. And the Israelis had gotten quite sloppy, allowing that tunnel to be built right under their noses.

Step back and look at all this like a chess player. Do you think that Hizbollah (HA) has found a way to finally checkmate the Israelis strategically? Lebanon isn't even a failed state -- it's a fake state. They have been referred to as a "state-within-a-state." Not so. They are a successful state within a fake state.

So HA gets the best of both worlds. If HA formed an actual state, they would have to answer to someone, even if only to the UN. (Not much, but something.) They would have to pretend to be responsible. But the setup they have now gives them the best of all worlds: no responsibility, good strategic position, and freedom to wreak havoc. Pretty cozy. Why would they want to give that up?

It's horrible that so many children died, and aside from that, I pretty much completely agree with Johnathan.

"I think it all started with the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, and the country began to get whipped up into war fever as a result."

No, that's what the media report. The current round started with rockets and rockets and even more rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza. Sure, they were crude and homemade, but when rockets hit your house and threaten to kill you, you're not going to ask wether they're "crude" or "homemade".

The rest of your post is based on that misconception, so I'm afraid it doesn't really hit the mark.

I think all this talk is premature. There is no complete ceasefire. There is a lull in air strikes.

It's easy to say that bombing an apartment building is a major stupidity based on the results and, not of lesser importance, the soccer-like faked screams coming from Seniora.

To declare this stupid is basically to declare that the bombing of Southern Beirut is stupid and that bombing of any Hezbollah site in a civilian building is stupid. Saying so, however, implies that Israel is smart only as long as it restricts itself to Hezbollah targets with no civilians in the vicinity.

In this kind of war this is how everyone fights; the US fought and fights in Iraq, the way the US fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The sanctimonious Brits fight this way in Iraq too. Every one does it, but not everyone is a small country with Israel's wide context.

Where are things going now? I believe that Hezbollah was king before as it is now. It all depends on Bush/Rice. The US and UK can still get the old deal with enough backbone and enough smarts. In any event, unless either Syria or Iran change this war will continue.

TH: I'm not disagreeing with Israel's right to respond, I'm questioning the wisdom of the strategy. I'm questioning why and how thousands of weapons can be accumulated over a period of years and no one said anything. I'm questioning why, despite the fact that there's been massive aerial bombardment of Lebanon, the rockets still rain down on Israel, and there's been hardly any ground action. Why it took days to subdue two small towns and the territory has now been abandoned.

Are you familiar with the details of Shalit's capture? How the hell could the IDF have allowed that tunnel to be built? Why did the IDF walk into an HA ambush?

What is Israel's goal in this war?

Sorry dude, propaganda doesn't make it with me anymore.

Diana:

Instead of wisdom of the action, it's easier to understand the reasons for it. The tens of thousand of rockets were well publicized in every Israeli newspaper for years. Hezbollah rockets are in basements, caves, shelters, etc. Only the war in Kosovo was won by an air force; it was probably an aberration. Israel does not want high casualties, for EU reason could not attack lately and didn't want to fight the Syrian before. Air bombardment seems the natural solution.

It may work in the long run, but Israel should have known that it has limited time. The EU will scream bloody murder sooner or later and Qanas always happen. (When it is called Faloga no one cares.)

Shalit’s capture and the two soldiers in Lebanon were results of negligence. The current chief-of-staff doesn't seem as one of the best ones.

It is amusing to see the use of the term 'human shields' when civilians are obviously, and admittedly, being deliberately targeted to instill terror in an attempt to pressure their abandonment of Hezbollah.

Perhaps the civilians were hiding behind militants?

Hello! It's been a while.

This talk about a ceasefire is unrealistic - there is no political will for such a thing in the Israeli mainstream at the moment. In fact I don't think even the notion of a ceasefire exists among the majority of Israelis at the moment.
Sure, there are articles about all kinds of European and UN ceasefire proposals in the newspapers, but most people's eyes just glaze over them. War is the game of the day.
This may change in the future - but in any case, it was outlandish to expect the IDF to have ceased fire before the Qana incident.

You've probably noticed that the Israeli mainstream left has become remarkably hawkish ( can we start counting the disappointed Peretz fans? ).
From my side of the aisle, it's interesting to note that the leadership of the Israeli hard right actually come off as being more moderate nowadays. When there are no Jewish settlements involved, they revert from emotion-laden blood & soil nationalists to the cool-headed tacticians they probably were in the IDF. Notably, I remember Eitam explicitly recommending against an all-out ground attack on the first days of the conflict.

So much for the "72-hour humanitarian ceasefire":

Even that was too much for the Zionazis. God only knows how many innocent people died this time.

God damn them all to hell.

You've probably noticed that the Israeli mainstream left has become remarkably hawkish ( can we start counting the disappointed Peretz fans? ). From my side of the aisle, it's interesting to note that the leadership of the Israeli hard right actually come off as being more moderate nowadays.

I've noticed precisely that, and wonder if things would have been run a little more intelligently if Amos Oz and the others had taken their usual role instead of competing to out-hawk the right.

It is amusing to see the use of the term 'human shields'...

I'll tell you what I find utterly depressing:

My family and friends have been under attack for years from suicide bombers and now rockets, and I'm still sickened and heartbroken by Arab civilian casualties, whether unavoidable or not. But as far as I can tell, no one in Lebanon or the rest of the Arab or Muslim world* seems to have the slightest embarassment over the systematic raining of rockets on Israeli civilians or the systematic use of Lebanese homes to store and fire weapons. Hezbollah is so outraged by civilian deaths that they're going to start killing even more civilians; Hamas is so outraged by civilian deaths that they're going to start bombing buses again (which is why their bombers were caught the day before the Qana incident); the Arab world celebrates Israel's being brought low yet again by squeamishness over civilian casualties and simultaneously accuses Israel of deliberately targeting civilians.

And this is all presented as completely sane! I'd say it's a case of projection, but honestly I don't think there's even enough empathy for that.

So keep laughing. I'm sure Hezbollanon will be every bit as comical as suicide bomber-controlled Iraq. Lessee, today we have -- ohmigod.

Also Sunday, gunmen killed at least 23 Iraqis on a highway south of Baghdad, commandeering three mini-buses and herding their occupants into nearby palm groves where they were lined up and shot...The mini-buses were carrying pilgrims to the Shiite holy city of Najaf...

And this barely even qualifies as news any more! (Nor does yesterday's US bombing of an insurgent-held building, killing two plus 29 civilians.) Good luck there, Lebanon.

* Some blog commenter here or there notwithstanding...

JSinger, what are Israel's settlers by your reasoning, if not "human shields"? Why do you view civilians in Lebanon as fair game, but draw a different line when it comes to the settlers? Should both groups be off-limits, or will you admit your hypocrisy?

You say "Hezbollah is so outraged by civilian deaths that they're going to start killing even more civilians". Yet Israel's pretext for its most recent attacks on both the Palestinians and on Lebanon, with extraordinary consequence for civilians far beyond what Hezbollah or Hamaz could even dream of causing in Israel, were attacks on military targets. (Oh, but you contend that it's different because you're "heartsick" about the deaths of civilians whose demise you otherwise endorse. I'm sure they'll appreciate your sympathy.)

Which of Israel's military actions embarrass you? I'm not sensing that your attitude much differs from the Arab attitude you describe.

This was probably another set-up by Hezbollah. There are too many coincidences involved for it to be coincidental, as the detectives on Law & Order would put it. Qana, the site of a previous deadly Israeli mistake, the large number of children involved, Mohammed el-Dura writ large, (remember the Palestinian boy supposedly killed by Israeli fire and whose death was touchingly recorded by a French TV News crew and only much latter did it turn out that he was killed Palestinian gunfire?) Coming when Hezbollah was feeling pressure to agree to a cease-fire and just in time for the Sunday Morning news shows here in the US were the crowning touches in this plan to smear Israel with the old "baby killer"
tag.

Glad to see that Israel wasted no time in getting out that the area was being used to fire rockets at Israel and hence was a legitimate target of war. Also good that Israel is not letting this deter from its air and I hope, land campaign against Hezbollah. Important now that both Israel and the US stand firm against allowing this Hezbollah scheme from ending the Israel's actions against Hezbollah before the IDF completes its mission. Otherwise in the future whenever Hezbollah or other Islamic Terrorist Groups are being hard pressed by Israel or the US, they will arrange for a similar group of women & children to be killed in air strike. If I offend anybody by this realistic analysis, I apologize, but I do believe it is an accurate one

Now it's claimed that Qana may have been staged.

Peter, yes precisely, Oana was a staged tragedy. Using women & children as human shields is standard operation proceedure for Islamist Terror Groups like Hezbollah. Thanks for the link.

JSinger: yesterday's US bombing of an insurgent-held building [in Iraq], killing two plus 29 civilians

It may support your point about the effect of the Israel-Gaza-Lebanon fighting on the news that I haven't read about this incident. I've poked around, but still have not found coverage. Can you point to some? Thanks in advance.

Diana:

They can't reject a ceasefire when they run low on fuel.

Israel isn't facing an imminent fuel shortage - among other things, nobody's even suggested renewing the 1973 oil embargo. If anything forces a ceasefire on Israel, it will be diplomacy rather than fuel, but it looks like the Security Council will take at least a few more days to agree on a plan.

At any rate, the IDF seems to be in the process of changing tactics in the hope of buying time. Israel has agreed to a 48-hour suspension of air operations, which seems to mean cessation of targeted strikes but continuation of tactical air support for ground units (which is much less likely to lead to civilian casualties). According to Ze'ev Schiff, they've also promised to lay off Beirut. At the same time, both Peretz and Olmert are saying that ground operations will continue and intensify.

If I had to guess, the IDF will end up drastically scaling back air operations and increasing the ground troop commitment, with the goal of pushing HA out of a three or four-mile strip along the border before Condi pulls the plug. If this succeeds, Israel will gain a buffer against low-trajectory rockets (albeit not long-range ones) and put a dent in HA's claim to have won all the battles on the ground, and might be in a better position to hand off to an international force. This is something the IDF should have done two weeks ago, though, and I'm not about to put odds on it succeeding now.

I must say I don't understand Israel's tactics in this war.

Me neither. My guess is that the war is being run by generals who have no appreciation for (and don't particularly care about) Lebanese politics, and that the political echelons aren't providing the necessary oversight and limits.

And in purely military terms, it seems clear that the generals have underestimated the enemy, and that they fell in love with air power. That's changing now, but much too late.

From what I read on Arab blogs, they are delirious with joy over HA's glorious victories.

Why should we be the only ones to have chickenhawks?

It's a well-known fact that Israel is extremely averse to casualties.

I think it's more that Israel is extremely averse to leaving captured soldiers in enemy hands. Israel can deal with combat deaths and injuries, but the thought of soldiers in captivity is much worse given that captors are unlikely to treat their prisoners according to Geneva Convention rules. It's a weak spot, certainly, but maybe not as much of one as you suggest.

But the setup they have now gives them the best of all worlds: no responsibility, good strategic position, and freedom to wreak havoc. Pretty cozy. Why would they want to give that up?

The short answer is "they'll have to give it up if the rest of the world decides they're too dangerous in that position to tolerate." And as of Saturday, it looked like that might be on the verge of happening. Right now, the prospects of that look much worse.

J. Singer:

What carried the day for Hezbollah was the strategy of choice for the Palestinians and Chechens: systematic use of civilians as human shields.

I don't deny for a minute that HA's tactics are despicable. Nothing I say here should be interpreted as excusing HA in the slightest degree.

The thing is that Israel played into HA's hands pretty neatly, and it didn't have to do so. There were, and still are, ways that Israel could have fought the war without being so reckless with civilian life. There were ways that Israel could have adjusted its tactics to reinforce diplomatic progress, such as agreeing to Egeland's 72-hour ceasefire while Siniora and Rice double-teamed HA. Instead, the IDF let HA play it like a drum, and whatever war crimes Hizbullah has committed, there's no excuse for that.

I'd also note that all the experts who were explaining that Israel could pound Shiite Lebanon will the full support of the rest of the country don't seem to have been entirely on the mark.

When 37 kids get killed in a place that is a symbol of a previous war, all bets are off. Not to mention that HA was waiting for something like this to happen, and that it played the political cards perfectly.

So keep laughing. I'm sure Hezbollanon will be every bit as comical as suicide bomber-controlled Iraq.

That isn't necessarily guaranteed. HA is riding a wave of emotional support now, but that won't necessarily survive the war, and it might overplay its hand by trying to settle domestic scores.

Some have called this a coup d'etat, but I don't think I'd go that far. HA still can't stand up to the whole rest of the country, and it still has limits.

TH:

The current round started with rockets and rockets and even more rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza.

The "current round," maybe, but the conflict didn't begin with rockets any more than it did with Gilad Shalit's capture. There was an occupation before the rockets, and terrorism before the occupation, and the War of Independence/Naqba before terrorism, and massacres before the war...

It's long since become impossible to describe anything that goes on in the Middle East as cause or effect. Every event is, in some way, both.

Shmuel:

To declare this stupid is basically to declare that the bombing of Southern Beirut is stupid and that bombing of any Hezbollah site in a civilian building is stupid.

It may well be that all these things are stupid, given that (1) they haven't materially advanced Israeli war aims, and (2) they have materially damaged Israel's diplomatic standing. What I was saying in the main post, though, was that the Qana bombing was particularly stupid in light of the political situation at the time, given that it derailed a diplomatic effort against HA that was showing signs of success.

Even aside from moral issues, I don't see any tactical justification for it.

In this kind of war this is how everyone fights; the US fought and fights in Iraq, the way the US fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The sanctimonious Brits fight this way in Iraq too. Every one does it, but not everyone is a small country with Israel's wide context.

This is true, and I agree that it isn't particularly fair. The United States can carpet-bomb a city or strafe an Afghan wedding and go blithely on with the war. Hell, Sudan can commit outright genocide by proxy and not suffer too many adverse consequences. But as you recognize, Israel isn't a superpower like the US, nor is it in an overlooked location like Sudan. In fact, it looks like even the US and Sudan aren't the US and Sudan anymore.

On the scale of wartime atrocities, the Qana bombing is no more than ordinary, and it certainly doesn't justify cries of "zionazi." But Israel is under much greater political scrutiny than countries like the US, and it knows this, so it should be tailoring its tactics accordingly.

And for what it's worth, my preferred solution would be for all countries to be under the same level of scrutiny as Israel, not for Israel to be under less scrutiny.

RL:

This talk about a ceasefire is unrealistic - there is no political will for such a thing in the Israeli mainstream at the moment.

We both know it isn't only Israeli public opinion that counts. The United States and the Security Council can pull the plug, and I'm guessing that they'll do so within the week.

You've probably noticed that the Israeli mainstream left has become remarkably hawkish (can we start counting the disappointed Peretz fans?).

Yes, I've noticed. To some extent, the left is correct. Israel was attacked on its own territory without cause, and there was no occupation to add moral ambiguity to the attack. The left was, I think, correct in concluding that Israel had a right to respond and that a counterattack against HA was legitimate self-defense. Unfortunately, the left seems to have lost the plot in failing to criticize the way the war was fought, and I agree with J. Singer that this deprived the system of a critical reality check.

From my side of the aisle, it's interesting to note that the leadership of the Israeli hard right actually come off as being more moderate nowadays [...] Notably, I remember Eitam explicitly recommending against an all-out ground attack on the first days of the conflict.

Hmmm, is it "moderate" to recommend against a ground attack? Air power seems to have done more damage to civilians without winning the war, so wouldn't a ground operation have been the more moderate way to fight HA?

David:

This was probably another set-up by Hezbollah.

The evidence of that seems pretty dubious. There was some speculation at first that the building collapsed several hours after it was hit, but the eyewitness reports suggest that it fell right away.

At any rate, in light of what happened, the speculation about a setup seems repugnant, and I doubt anyone in Lebanon will believe it. And even if HA did such a thing - which I'll acknowledge is within their capability - the IDF didn't have to p;ay into their hands so perfectly. That's what I mean by "stupid."

Head Heeb -- It seems like you are doing exactly what Hezbollah wants. If Hezbollah fires from civilian areas, it, not Israel is reponsible for civilian casualties in counterattacks. To blame Israel is the worst kind of moral confusion.

In my opinion the main mistake the generals/government made is ignoring the famous Israel International Clock. As opposed to everyone else, Israel doesn't have enough time to both bomb Hezbollah/civilian targets and finish the job; the EU will stop Israel way before the finish. The clock will run longer if civilian casualties are very very low.

The big question, for which I have no answer, is whether the second way "recommended" by Jonathan and others, mainly left wing Jews who feel besieged by left wing anti-Semites, is whether the alternative inflicts enough damage to Hezbollah.

There is also the comfortable myth that the Hezbollah wasn't hit severely. Well, if you have 15,000 rockets and 10,000 are eliminated you are severely hit, but you can still scream victory. The full assessment of the damage is unclear except that it is not fatal.

quantum,
Please keep in mind that Jonathan is clear morally, ethically and otherwise; he is certifiably confusion-free. As opposed to many other blogs, his blog is straight, deep and decent. I myself disagree with him frequently, but don't doubt his thinking or motives; our backgrounds and age could not be much more different. This blog is an oasis, please help keep it like that.

The real reason for the wars in Gaza and Lebanon is that in both cases the IDF got caught with its pants down and wanted the battles to restore lost prestige. The problem is that BOTH Israel and the Arabs consider that civilians have a lesser value than fighting soldiers, because the loss of a soldier entails a greater loss of prestige.

You can rationalize Qana all you want, but does that make the victims any less dead? Mr. Olmert can declaim, "Lazarus Come Forth!" until Judgement Day without getting a response, because he can only take innocent lives, not restore them.

For a good post about questions concerning whether Qana was a staged tragedy see here

For a most eloquent column on why Israel is fighting this war, see "Cry to those using babies" by Naomi Ragen

We are told that Hezbollah is not powerful enough to defeat Israel, but does that mean Israel should wait untill it is? Hezbollah has made pretty good progress in making itself a threat over the last six years. With more help from Iran & Syria how much longer will it take before it is a genunine threat? Also if Israel fails to deal Hezbollah a decimating blow, how long before the Arab states, including Egypt & Jordan, decide tht Israel is a Paper Tiger and threaten Israel's existence like they did in 1967 & 73? There is an old saying on both sides of the US-Mexican border, that if step on a scropien when it is small and its stinger can not yet seriously hurt you, you do not have to worry about it latter on when it would be large enough to kill you. Hezbollah is already pretty good size, Israel needs to stamp on it down before it gets larger.

One good thing that has come out of Sunday's tragedy is that both Israel & the US have evidently rejected all the hysterical cries for a cease-fire and are contiuning the campaign against Hezbollah.

Finally, I just want to say that those who prior to Hezbollah's rocket attacks warned that Hezbollah was a real threat tio Israel were right and those of us, such as myself, who downplayed Hezbollah and said it was not a threat, were wrong.

there was going to be a 'Qana' even if Qana did not exist...

it was all planned

Over at the Power Line Blog, John Hinderaker asks an interesting question:

This AFP photograph shows Beirut demonstrators with a giant poster of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that was used in a rally protesting the accidental killing of civilian human shields, along with terrorists, in Qana:

What seems odd about this is that the banner was unfurled within hours after the Qana attack took place. The building where the civilians died was bombed on Sunday morning, and the demonstration took place during daylight hours, later the same day. I have no idea what kind of facility it takes to produce a 30-foot-high banner like this one. It is obviously professionally done. It would be interesting to know where this banner was produced; who designed and paid for it; and how its production was expedited so that it was ready for use, on the street, within hours after the event being protested.

...................

it was all a set up

Can you think of an example where a country had large portions of its territory including major cities bombed and then responded in way that was proportionate or not "stupid"? Is there an actual occurence of somebody responding to serious aggression launched from civilian areas which did not result in significant civilian causalities? If not, then I don't think Israel should abide by a standard that is applied to it alone no matter the reasons for that double standard. Jonathan, I think you underestimate the amount of criticism Israel would face even if it were possible to fight Hiz without hurting any civilians. As David Brooks said, the Europeans want Hizb disarmed they just don't want anybody to do it.

please look at this series of STAGED and timed photos

link

On 18 April 1996, the village was also visited by death and destruction. re-visiting the photographs of the time, however, who do we see at the centre of the action? Why, "Green Helmet" of course. This is a younger man, without his glasses, but recognisably the same man, in his now classic pose of handling a victim of an Israeli "atrocity".

His presence at Qana on Sunday, and his central, unchallenged role, cannot have been a coincidence. Is he a senior ranking Hezbollah official? If not, who is he?

.......

10 years later, THE SAME MAN IS PHOTOGRAPHED IN QANA, HOLDING A DEAD CHILD

Shmuel, thanks for the vote of confidence in my integrity. I hope you also realize that my opinions have nothing to do with "feeling besieged by left wing anti-Semites." I've never hesitated to defend Israel's right to exist and protect itself, and I've made no secret of my admiration for Israel's achievements and its judicial system's insistence on maintaining the rule of law. Nothing about that has changed. I am a Zionist and will always be one.

I feel the way I do about Israel's current military operations for three very simple reasons: they're the wrong way to fight (i.e., militarily ineffective and reckless with civilian life), they're doing untold damage to Israel's diplomacy and security, and they're ultimately corrupting to Israel's soul. When I say these things, I'm saying exactly what I mean.

As for your question of "whether the alternative inflicts enough damage to Hezbollah," I suppose we can never know. I do know, however, that no army has ever defeated an entrenched guerrilla group from the air. NATO beat Serbia from the air in 1999, but it was fighting a state rather than guerrillas. The United States won in Afghanistan because it had allies on the ground. Israel couldn't hope to defeat HA by bombing alone, and given the near certainty that bombing marginal targets would lead to massive civilian casualties, I'd argue that the current outcome was guaranteed.

At any rate, Lebanon still seems to be proposing a version of the Siniora plan, so maybe this will all end up with something livable. We can only hope.

Jonathan/Shmuel,

A few rambling responses & observations.

I know that there won't be an Arab oil embargo. I was referring to the fact that, among the munitions that Israel orders from the US, is jet fuel. See this article:

"Since Israel started to bomb Hezbollah targets in Lebanon last month, it has asked for faster delivery of JP8 jet fuel and guided bomb units (GBU28s). The jet fuel order could be worth up to $210 million and the 100 GBU28s, which are better-known as bunker busters, could cost $30 million. Other outstanding deliveries include F16 fighter jets and armoured troop carriers."

Should the US decide to "delay" the delivery, the war is over.

Shmuel pointed out that the HA rocket accumulation was written about in Israeli newspapers. OK, but that's not what I asked. Was there a politician shouting this from the rooftops? Willing to look like a madman? Willing to risk his reputation, his career? Did anyone like, say Eitam care, or does he only care when settlements are concerned? Is there any political figure in Israel who does more than just gaze into his own navel?

On the contrary, the whole notion of HA developing into a credible fighting force seems to have been taken with remarkable equanimity in Israel. I scratch my head at things like this (from On The Face):

"Ehud Barak was elected prime minister in 2000 largely on his promise to withdraw the IDF from southern Lebanon after an 18 year occupation. For many Israelis, Lebanon was our Vietnam. Those who were against the withdrawal based their opposition on the belief that, without an Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah would be free to build itself up militarily to the point of posing a threat to Israel's security. The response of Barak and those who supported the withdrawal was to promise that if Hezbollah did attack, Israel would respond with full military force."

Emphasis added to underscore my utter bafflement at such indifference to the idea that you might have to fight another war to set things right in Lebanon.

Another Israeli blog, An Unsealed Room, links to an article in Haaretz that literally made me want to vomit, so self-satisfied was the author at what he was describing.

What other country would have allowed itself to be leveraged out of Lebanon as a response to parental pressure? Look, I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. I don't think she should make our foreign policy.

I'm not saying it was wrong to quit Lebanon. But to move your soldiers out in response to parental pressure and then forget about the place, as if it were in the middle of the Indian Ocean, strikes me as insane. (I know you are going to say that I'm exaggerating, but don't deny that the Four Mothers had a huge impact.).

The reason I mentioned the kidnapping of Shalit was twofold: 1. This strange attitude Israelis have of regarding their SOLDIERS as precious babies needing special protection does not inspire admiration even from Israel's friends, and 2. the horrible sloppiness in allowing that half-mile tunnel to be built. Do you think that the nitwits who allowed this outrageous breach of security to happen will be fired? Not a chance. The institutional culture of the IDF is corrupt. Idiots get promoted. No one pays for mistakes. Officers like that Druze who shot the Palestinian girl at point blank range in Gaza get let off, because the Jewish powers that be don't dare discipline a Druze. This is corruption.

If all of this seems a bit off topic, it's not. Wars aren't fought by armies, they are fought by cultures. There's an American way of war. The Israeli way of war, in this case, has shown a side of Israeli that is ugly, corrupt, bullying and lastly, stupid:

About the time clock. Allison Kaplan Sommer said something of the same on her blog. Please, spare us the kvetching. This time you didn't have a time clock. The US was willing to let you do the job. The Canadian PM voiced support. The Australian PM did the same. OK, the French didn't, but they can't help themselves. Blair stood behind Bush, covering his back. Even the Saudis said that HA was wrong.

And you guys blew it. Because you didn't want to do the job. The whole thing was a con job. Qana was just the icing on the cake. Context is all. Qana happened in a context, which is that Olmert and his "Defense Minister" got conned by an air force man with a tummy ache into doing stupid shit, and guys like Eitam knew the score all the time. I just wonder whether Eitam cares one way or another about rockets falling on northern Israel. If it's not Judea and Samaria, does he care about it? He's what you call a "clever dick." Pun intended.

Here is what passes for strategic thinking in Israel, as I see it:

You get out of Lebanon and it falls off the face of the earth. (If you can give me evidence to the contrary, I'll eat my words in public) You bomb people but don't send in enough boots because you don't want the casualties. You say that it's a war for Israel's existence, as if (I repeat myself) these 15,000 rockets were discovered on July 11, but guys like Eitam know better, and counsel against a ground invasion. The huge air war, coupled with the tiny ground invasion, makes you look like cowards AND bullies. The fact that Eitam was against a big invasion tells us a lot, a whole lot: they thought that a lot of boom-boom would scare HA into cutting and running.

This is where hubris leads you.

Diana,

I do not know if you are correct but you certainly write well.

One thing the Israelis generally do is learn from their own stupidities and that might well help them here. With that in mind, my gut reaction is that the war will go on for awhile and that, in the end, the Israelis will largely succeed - present impressions notwithstanding to the contrary -.

In the end your advice is not very valuable. Creating a safe haven for Hizbullah in Qana (just because it´s a sensitive spot) is not rational and does not help Israel in any way. Fighting means killing. Sooner or later something is going to happen somewhere, no matter how careful you are (even in ground fighting civilians get killed). If you have aproblem with that, you should not assume there is a silver bullet that will solve the problem of world opinion. Israel will always be vilified. Three dead are as good as thirteen or thirty to achieve exactly the same amount of rage. Maybe I am a little cynical because I live in Germany and have observed this for many years. Israels campaign has been condemned from the very first minute as aggression, as racial genocide, as biblical vengeance ("an eye for an eye"). Not so much from politicians, but from average people and journalists. I have colleagues who firmly believe Israel started the 1967 war. Whom do you blame for that? Our hometown newspaper claimed that the Jenin "massacre" was covered up, weeks after even the UN conceded it did not happen. And they use international law like an expensive whore: it is everything you want it to be. That´s ill will. No amount of cleverness will change that. I do not know what will.

For goodness sake, calm down people. Can anyone really have expected the IDF to completely eradicate a guerilla force like Hezbollah in two and a half weeks?

After the capture/kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, one columnist in haaretz said that Israelis have "Entebbe Syndrome," in which they expect the IDF to come off with a daring, 100% successful rescue. It looks like Israel, and many people who obsess over this conflict, also have "6 day war syndrome," expecting Israel to sweep across the land, sending its enemies fleeing with their boots off.

There were similar reactions to the NATO bombing of Serbia, where people said that the war was a failed military operation the first couple of weeks. Wars take time. And, unfortunately, innocent lives are often taken, by mistake, negligence or recklessness. I will note that the reported deaths in Qana have now been lowered to half of what was initially reported. But corrections don't make the news cycle.

Of course, that is not to say we should WANT this war to go along. If a sustainable cease-fire can be resolved that adequately protects both sides security and gets the soldiers released, then I'm all for it. It's not unhealthy to be sickened by pictures of dead children. It's how we all should feel. But it should not lead to off the cuff reactions about the efficacy of a military action or a decision as to long term policy.

The IDF has not lost its military capabilities simply because it was unable to finish the war before an op-ed writer or a blogger's deadline for his or her next entry. I am not a military expert, so I can not say with any conviction whether Israel is achieving its objectives. From a purely lay-perspective, it looks like Israel has made at least some dent in Hezbollah's capability, and has done so without even a significant commitment of ground troops to date. At the same time, it appears that the IDF has made some bad mistakes, including allowing its initial ground foray to fall victim to a Hezbollah ambush and of course the Qana bombing.

Personally, my feeling is that while it's fine for Israel to look to negotiate a cease fire, they shouldn't do so simply because of the public shock of the Qana bombing. But again, that's just the lay-opinion of someone making a snap judgment.

You bomb people but don't send in enough boots because you don't want the casualties.

My guess is that the logic wasn't so much Clinton as Rumsfeld: Israel felt (probably correctly) tremendous pressure to not be seen as "occupying" and tried to fight a war with as light a footprint as possible.

As for Qana, while there certainly are the same theatrics the Palestinians frequently use to maximize photo ops of civilian deaths (and if only out of curiosity, I'd like to know who that Greg Packer-like guy is who keeps showing up in pictures from different cities and decades), I simply can't believe they would actively kill people like that. On the other hand, the number of recovered victims is considerably lower than claimed, and hopefully won't climb too much further.

It seems to me that, on the face of it, winning a war via air power alone, bombing the enemy into submission, was supposed to the more humane, "civilized", "non-Vietnam-like" way of achieving victory, but apparently the tables have now turned and now Israel is a big bully for NOT having sent tanks rolling through Lebanese cities. Ah well.

"For goodness sake, calm down people. Can anyone really have expected the IDF to completely eradicate a guerilla force like Hezbollah in two and a half weeks?"

On the contrary, I expected this war to go on for 3 or so months. But your question indicates a fatal blindness on your part: do you really think that Israel could completely eradicate HA? I only thought it could eradicate the missile threat. HA in its entirety is an expression of the underlying demographic realities of Lebanon. Don't you know that? This cannot be "eradicated" by military force.

Neal: thanks. My sorrow now is that all this death and destruction will have created a situation where HA is stronger and more entrenched, and Israel is diplomatically weaker. The exact opposite of where Jonathan correctly said the aims of a just war should be.

I've come to the conclusion that some people really don't see war as a means to an end, but as the end in itself. What took me so long?

Let me respond a bit more in detail to her accusation of Israeli cowardice and hubris. Again, this is lay opinion, so disregard it if you wish,

To say that Israel simply ignored Lebanon after withdrawing is just wrong. Israel has been telling anyone who would listen that the presence of Hezbollah was a threat to peace, and that action needed to be taken to disarm it. The rabbi of my congregation went on one of those "hasbara" tours a few years ago, and government officials were able to point, often within the view of the naked eye, to the Hezbollah artillery positions.

In Gaza, Israel was of course regularly criticized for "overreacting" to the regular launch of Qassams. When Israel shut down the Karni crossing because of suspected weapons tunnels, certain other bloggers that some of us frequent decried the "collective punishment" and later mocked Israel for shutting down the crossing in response to a hysterical woman. Well it turns out those tunnels are a hell of a lot more problematic than some of us thought.

Whenever Israel took ANY trivial action, such as sending recon flights into Lebanese airspace, it was sanctimoniously warned by the usual suspects that this was a "dangerous escalation."

Why didn't Israel do more? Because it couldn't do so politically and Israel knew it. Israel has had war plans for this for over a year. And of course, people like Juan Cole now cite that for the proposition that Israel was planning on invading Lebanon all along. This is garbage. Israel had plans, but no causus belli. Hezbollah decided to bait Israel at probably the worst time, when it had already been breached on its southern front and when a soldier had been captured. The response was inevitable.

Then there is the question of ground war vs. air war. From my uneducated perspective, I tend to agree that Israel relied too much on initial air strikes, and its initial attempts at a ground foray were disastrous when the Golani Brigade walked right into a Hezbollah ambush. But while this may have been an immediate tactical mistake, I don't think one can credibly say that the IDF is reluctant to commit ground troops. They did so in Jenin in order to reduce civilian casualties, and it led to many more dead Israeli soldiers (and yet there were STILL accusations of a massacre!).

I know one colleague who served in Lebanon prior to the 2000 withdrawal. Even back then, Hezbollah would use UNFIL positions as cover for their artillery fire. He and his fellow soldiers routinely had to do it the hard way, going around the bases and engaging Hezbollah up close, rather than simply bombing the cover. A lot more Israeli soldiers died this way. But it was the right way.

So Diana, I really think you are being unfair to Israel when you accuse it of cowardice and hubris. The fact is that Israel's army is more constrained by hypocritical international politics than any other, and still manages to do a decent job protecting the country.

I'm sorry if the IDF's aura of invincibility has been shattered by the fact that they were not able to dislodge Hezbollah in six days. Hopefully when this week's news cycle wears off, people will realize that Israel is just doing what every other country would do, and stop trying to micro-manage its tactics.

One thing I question in your post above, Jonathan, is whether it *is* legal to bomb what is known to be a civilian hiding place because there is some chance that the place also has military value.

That is, does the law against killing noncombatants require you to avoid certain civilian casualties even if you must forego what might be a place with rockets?

With respect to the moral issues, rather than the legal ones, the doctrine of the double effect is in operation whenever one makes a military strike, of course. But it does matter what can be foreseen for that doctrine to apply. So it seems like the doctrine of the double effect allows you to target a missile position even if a miss may lead to unintended civilian casualties. However, if you are dropping a bomb on a place that certainly contains civilians (and either possibly or certainly contains weapons) you are intentionally killing civilians. I don't see a way around that.

Diana, you misread my question. I do not expect Israel to completely eradicate Hezbollah. My point is simply that those who are judging (or really just mocking) Israel are holding to a ridiculous standard of success.

My feeling is that Israel wants to, at the very least, significantly dent Hezbollah's capacity, get its soldiers back, and work out a solution where the international community will finally take Hezbollah seriously so they either commit troops to an international force with teeeth or come up with some other way to prevent Hezbollah from using South Lebanon as an occupation regime.

And at least to some extent, its working. Hezbollah is being declared a "winner" basically because they still are allowed to hate Jews. Yes, I realize that Nasrallah is the latest man of the hour. The streets of the Arab and Muslim world are littered with torn posters of such heros. Nasser, Arafat, Assad, Yassin. All people whose main accomplishment is "standing up to the Zionists" all while the people they claimed they were protecting became worse and worse and worse off.

Most likely, Israel will recover from this and continue its progress as a modern state. Because while Hugo Chavez is decrying Israeli genocide, he and the other leaders of Mercosur are also anxiously working out the final details of the Israel-Mercosur free trade agreement. Trust me, Israel feels a lot better now about its diplomatic position now than it did in the 70s, when it had the reputation of plucky underdog but was also a diplomatic and economic non-entity in the majority of the world.

As for Nasrallah, yes he becomes "the man" for now. Sort of like that cool kid in high school who stood up to authority, got to date the hot girls, and now is divorced, paying child support and cleaning his nerdier classmates' pools.

Gil and WF:

I think you underestimate the amount of criticism Israel would face even if it were possible to fight Hiz without hurting any civilians. [...] Israel will always be vilified. Three dead are as good as thirteen or thirty to achieve exactly the same amount of rage

I don't really buy the "Israel is damned whatever it does" argument. Granted, nothing will ever be good enough for the Israel-is-always-wrong crowd, but there are certainly parameters in which the Western public will accept Israeli actions as legitimate self-defense.

One need look no farther for examples than the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal and the current Lebanese crisis. When the Popular Resistance Committees first began shooting Qassams into Israel after the pullout, both foreign governments and the Western media were initially understanding of Israeli retaliatory strikes. Likewise, during the first couple of days after the Hizbullah raid, received opinion in the West was running in Israel's favor.

In both cases, the IDF overreacted and ended up losing public opinion. In Gaza, Israel continued artillery shelling after it became clear that the shells weren't suppressing the Qassams, reduced its margin of error to 100 meters (which was practically guaranteed to lead to civilian deaths sooner or later) and interfered with the delivery of humanitarian supplies. In Lebanon, the IDF bombed a lot of targets that contained civilians and weren't obviously connected with Hizbullah, and Haim Ramon said some stupid things about pressuring the Lebanese population to act against HA.

These were perceived - rightly so, I think - as exceeding the bounds of self defense. On the other hand, while I have no way to prove it, I think Israel might have kept public opinion on its side (especially in Lebanon where there was no occupation to create moral ambiguity) if it had pursued a more narrowly targeted campaign. I do read European media, and I don't think it's unalterably opposed to Israeli defensive action. It isn't a good idea to write off world opinion, both because the world isn't necessarily against Israel and because Israel needs international help to achieve security.

Diana:

On the contrary, the whole notion of HA developing into a credible fighting force seems to have been taken with remarkable equanimity in Israel.

I'm not so sure it was. My read in 2000 was that the Israeli government wasn't thrilled about HA fortifications along the border, but viewed them as less destructive than continued occupation. Later, when HA entrenched itself, some political and military people did warn that it was a long-term security threat (I doubt the contingency plan would have been developed otherwise), and Israel was quietly on-side in promoting resolution 1559.

Many people, myself included, did become too complacent about the situation on the border. If you'd asked me a month ago, I'd have said that HA stages a border incident every now and then to make a point, but that it it had too much invested in the status quo to start something major. I was wrong, and I admit that. This kind of thinking may have contributed to tolerance of HA, a sense that there was no urgency, that it was best not to rock the boat and to let the United States and France try to disarm HA diplomatically. Maybe this is what you mean by "remarkable equanimity," and if so, you're right, but it's not as if Israel was doing nothing at all.

Wars aren't fought by armies, they are fought by cultures. There's an American way of war. The Israeli way of war, in this case, has shown a side of Israel that is ugly, corrupt, bullying and lastly, stupid.

Actually, I'd argue that the Israeli campaign in Lebanon is an example of the American way of war. Somewhere along the line, the IDF brass seems to have fallen in love with American doctrines of air power, technological superiority and "shock and awe," given up on force accountability and bought into the pre-Iraq notion that infantry was obsolete. The thing is, this doctrine is ugly, corrupt, bullying and stupid, as the Iraqis have been finding out for the last three years.

You can get away with that kind of thing, for a while, if you're a superpower with overwhelming force and resources and if you don't mind reducing a few cities to rubble. You can't get away with it if you're a regional power that's under a microscope and has to at least pretend to have moral scruples. And if you try it, it will ultimately eat your soul.

The IDF should have known better, but like all armies, it doesn't change its thinking until it fails in practice. That isn't an Israeli thing, it's an army thing, and if anything they got it from us.

Joshua:

Can anyone really have expected the IDF to completely eradicate a guerilla force like Hezbollah in two and a half weeks?[...] It looks like Israel, and many people who obsess over this conflict, also have "6 day war syndrome," expecting Israel to sweep across the land, sending its enemies fleeing with their boots off.

No, I don't think that Israel was going to eradicate a guerrilla force in two and a half weeks. On the other hand, as Shmuel points out, all of Israel's wars are fought under the International Clock, so it has to fight in such a way that (1) it doesn't lose time, and (2) that it doesn't accelerate the clock. If Diana is right in saying that Israel didn't have a clock at the beginning of this war, then it was even more important not to start the clock.

And while I'm not going to do any more second-guessing than I already have, I'd argue that for a country fighting under these constraints, the right thing is usually the smart thing. At the moment, the IDF seems to be switching to more direct confrontation with Hizbullah; I hope it works out better than the bombing has.

Most likely, Israel will recover from this and continue its progress as a modern state.

I have no doubt that it will. As I argued in the other thread, the country whose existence is at issue in this war is Lebanon, not Israel. On the other hand, Israel can damage itself, and it can lose the political and diplomatic support which are at least as valuable as economic ties. Even Tzipi Livni called the Qana attack a diplomatic turning point against Israel, and while it might be a short-term turning point, Israel needs short-term support right now.
What I'm trying to say here is that any country, and especially Israel, needs to fight with politics and diplomacy in mind. Yes, Israel's going to survive this, but the way it's fought thus far hasn't helped its cause.

RL:

It seems to me that, on the face of it, winning a war via air power alone, bombing the enemy into submission, was supposed to the more humane, "civilized", "non-Vietnam-like" way of achieving victory

That's what it was supposed to be when it was first dreamed up. If Kosovo didn't put a stop to the notion, then Iraq certainly should have.

The problem with air power is that it's much easier for people on the ground to exercise judgment. That doesn't matter so much with major targets - it's easier to kill a military base from the air than from the ground, and the chances of making a mistake are low - but once you get to marginal targets, the rate of mistakes and amount of collateral damage get much higher from the air. The number of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition air strikes is somewhere in the tens of thousands by now.

Air power certainly has its uses, but it's only worked once as an exclusive method of winning a war, and it's never worked against a guerrilla enemy where most of the targets are marginal. Exclusive use of air power isn't really a humane or sanitized way to win a war, and most of the time it isn't a way to win at all.

Min:

One thing I question in your post above, Jonathan, is whether it *is* legal to bomb what is known to be a civilian hiding place because there is some chance that the place also has military value.

In purely legal terms, that depends on the value of the target - the more important it is, the more force you're allowed to use. If Hizbullah had its main arsenal in the basement of an apartment building, for instance, it would probably be legal under IHL to bomb the building even if there were civilians inside. On the other hand, if the building was used as cover for rocket fire the day before, then that wouldn't be a good enough reason to attack it.

Of course, these are only the legal considerations. Morally, there would also be the question of whether it's acceptable to intentionally perform an act that is certain to lead to civilian deaths (whether dropping a bomb on an apartment building or hiding weapons in it) and how to respond if the other side performs such an act. Ordinary principles of self-defense really don't fit well here given that third parties are inevitably being harmed; more likely, this kind of situation is governed by a rule of necessity that mitigates but does not eliminate culpability.

Diana,

You write: "Neal: thanks. My sorrow now is that all this death and destruction will have created a situation where HA is stronger and more entrenched, and Israel is diplomatically weaker."

I am not sure that is likely. I think that what will occur here is that Hezbollah will have some temporary increase in support among Arabs until it is remembered that they are Iran's surrogate. Then they will deflate.

Moreover, Hezbollah, whatever they say publicly, will think more than twice before starting something as they just did. After all, if they want to maintain their support in Lebanon, they will not do so if they start up again only to have the Israelis bomb them back into the stone age. That is called deterrence.

So, by my estimate, the Israelis are doing a lot better here than meets the eye.

As for Israel's standing in Europe, I do not think it depends at all on Israel's behavior or, for that matter, on Israel's existence. I think it depends entirely on how Europeans view the behavior of Muslims - and mostly Muslims in Europe -. And, as was reported, the view in Europe of Muslims has changed dramatically among elites, most especially in France, and that has resulted not in an improvement in the assessment of Israel but, instead, in a decline for support of the Arab side. Or, in relative terms, Israel's standing has improved substantially even in France. And, that is the best that can be hoped for now in Europe.

Jonathan,

As for your statements about the morality of war, I think the starting point is that war is not a moral thing. That is true whether civilians are killed unintentionally or they escape harm. Further, when a war starts and one side does not accept the notion that the other side has any civilians, I see no reason to draw such a fine line as you do.

Anyway, none of this matters in the context of this dispute. Israel's behavior has largely been exemplery, especially given that Hezbollah intentionally uses Lebanese as shields in order to garner publicity when the Israelis respond.

Air power certainly has its uses, but it's only worked once as an exclusive method of winning a war...

Jonathan, I assume from the context (and previous references within this thread) that this is a reference to Kosova/Serbia.

The point you made above--that in the Serbia case the enemy was a state and thus the successful air war is not relevant to the Israeli fight against Hezbollah--stands as valid. But it is debateable whether that can be called a war won with air power alone. Would the outcome have been the same had the US not been coordinating much of its aerial campaign with the KLA? If the answer is plausibly "no" then that example does not violate the normal rules about needing force on the ground.

Lots on my plate now, I really have no time to respond in depth.

One thing's for sure: it isn't over till it's over. The ground invasion seems to have begun and more than that, we really don't know. The fog of war.

Moshe Arens in Haaretz expresses what I was trying to say:

"There is probably no better air force than the IAF, but it should have been clear from the start that suppressing the rocket attacks against Israel could not be left to the IAF alone. And suppressing these rocket attacks must be the IDF's primary objective in this war. Not only to protect Israeli civilians, but because the outcome of Israel's war against Hezbollah will be measured in the minds of the Arab world by the degree to which Israel was successful in suppressing the Hezbollah rocket assault. The accomplishment of the government's stated aims for this war - the substantial weakening of Hezbollah's military capabilities and its removal from southern Lebanon - is dependent on that. On the other hand, the perception that Nasrallah was victorious in this war will have dire consequences for Israel and for the entire Middle East.

If the IAF is not successful in suppressing the rocket attacks, can a major campaign by ground forces supported by the IAF do it? When the IDF reaches many of the areas from which rockets are being launched against northern Israel, rocket attacks will be substantially reduced. "

Right. But it's risky....

"The IDF has not told us what percentage of the hundred or so rockets a day are being launched from southern Lebanon and what percentage of the rockets in Hezbollah's arsenal do not have the range to hit Israel from launching sites beyond southern Lebanon. That information, which is surely available, would make it clear that the entry of ground forces into Lebanon would substantially reduce the number of rockets hitting Israel."

It does seem that this is happening now. But after the first week, as the missiles fell, as Israel kept pounding targets, it looked as if Israel was loath to commit ground troops out of...what? Caution? That's a nice way to put it.

Then, in the midst of all this, came Qana. Now perhaps Shmuel is right--there's no difference between Qana and any other kind of strategic bombing. And frankly I wasn't terribly impressed with Jonathan's reference to Siniora's "diplomacy"--isn't this the same Lebanese bullshit we've been listening to since 1982, or was that 1994, or was that 2001...? They talk and talk and they come up with some yada yada framework, and meanwhile, HA keeps accumulating weapons. And they promise that soon, next year, they'll have HA marginalized, and it doesn't happen.

War has a logic, like any other series of events. You can't stop a war because someone might be saying something to someone.

But appearances matter, even in war. Especially in war. And Israel's reluctance to commit ground troops, while claiming this is an existential war, and when civilians have born the brunt, looked terrible.

Yair Lapid in Ynet

4. Something has changed for us. We quietly and with dignified sorrow accept the fact that civilians are being killed in this war but cannot tolerate the idea of our soldiers dying.

The old consensus? Or just some Haaretz leftist shvitzing?

"What is the point of endangering soldiers' lives, when it is clear in advance that Israel will not be able to preserve the battles' military achievements?"

Lastly, Jonathan, I have repeatedly disclaimed any and all military expertise, but the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force would have called for a massive ground invasion. I haven't got the military expertise to question military tactics, so I won't. What I do reserve the right to question is the basic logic of a limited campaign juxtaposed with an "existential" threat (the quote is from Charles Krauthammer, sorry, no link). If they are threatening your existence, then you don't send in 4,000 ground troops.

Finally lastly, Joshua, you say, "the Israelis" ahve been warning about HA for years...can I have a name?

Continuing this saga:

Jonathan, is it even possible for Israeli reaction to be proportional in the eyes of the world? My claim is that "Israel overreacted" is a shorthand for "we expected you to react lightly and slightly, but since you didn't pretend to play dead - you overreacted." In other words that will be more palatable: a reaction to Hezbollah of a two or three days is fine; four days and more is a no no.

We actually going back to the rule of proportionality that sounds to me like a bitter joke. If 5 guys decide that 1:3 is proportional, it makes 1:6 disproportional. It is not surprising that if the 1:6 guys is very strong, the 5 guys just shut up, but if she/he is a tiny dude – you just witnessed a violation of the rule of proportionality and she/he overreacted.

In real political terms the EU has missed a golden opportunity to play a superpower and an honest broker, something they really want to be, by totally siding with the Hezbollah (let's face it, that's the bottom line). My explanation is that the old anti-Semitic urge of the EU is much stronger than its brain. Rapists go through a very similar process.

Diana,

The entire Israeli government repeatedly called for Hezbollah to be disarmed. I'm not sure what names you want. Former PM Sharon, former FM Shalom, former Counsel General Alon Pinkus. And the current crop of ministers at various points in time. The government's position (and for that matter, the opposition's position) was that Hezbollah had to be disarmed, and that its state sponsors should be sanctioned as well.

Joshua,

You are nicely vague about these claims. You still haven't cited the name of a credible Israeli politician who was willing to stake his reputation about the HA threat.

That said, it seems we were all premature about the effect of Qana. Who knows what will happen. Bush is a stubborn guy, which quality previously I have detested, but if he is determined to support Israel in its goal of uprooting HA, then I have to give him that.

As for Qana, it's been explained to me that when the drones lock onto a target, and the target is a mobile rocket launcher next to a civilian installation, and the reaction time is very short...things like this happen. It's horrible, it's a tragedy, and I don't buy the stuff about staged massacres that I've been reading on some other blogs...but it happens. You can't allow something like this to deflect you from your goal.

My criticism so far has been of Israeli strategy, not the goal. But, since I really don't know anything about strategy, maybe I should "get off" here and let history take its course.

Shmuel:

Jonathan, is it even possible for Israeli reaction to be proportional in the eyes of the world?

I can't speak for the world, only for myself. There are times in the past, though, when Israeli responses have been recognized as proportionate - for instance, the first targeted strikes in response to Qassam fire from Gaza - and I think there was initially a chance of gaining such recognition this time.

Keep in mind that, with the exception of the Che-worshipers and those Muslims who see Nasrallah as their proxy, the outrage in the West has been on behalf of the Lebanese civilians and not Hizbullah. I haven't seen very many European newspapers, and no European governments, dispute that HA is getting what it deserves and that it needs to be pushed back from the border. I believe, although I can never prove, that if the IDF had kept away from infrastructure targets (and if highly placed people hadn't made stupid remarks about putting pressure on the Lebanese to rise up against HA) then the world's initial approval might have continued.

And yes, I agree that international law is often cited hypocritically. As I argued above, though, I think the remedy is to increase scrutiny across the board. It would be nice if all armies were scrutinized as closely as the IDF.

In real political terms the EU has missed a golden opportunity to play a superpower and an honest broker, something they really want to be, by totally siding with the Hezbollah (let's face it, that's the bottom line).

If this were in fact the EU's position, then wouldn't it support an unconditional return to the status quo ante rather than an international force and buffer zone?

Diana:

Lastly, Jonathan, I have repeatedly disclaimed any and all military expertise, but the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force would have called for a massive ground invasion.

I wasn't thinking of the Powell Doctrine so much as "shock and awe," which seems to have taken over American military thinking about the time we bombed Serbia. Although Ze'ev Sternhell points to a more specifically Israeli doctrinal problem, arguing that the IDF has become primarily an occupation army.

As for Qana, it's been explained to me that when the drones lock onto a target, and the target is a mobile rocket launcher next to a civilian installation, and the reaction time is very short...things like this happen.

If this is indeed how Qana happened, then it would be a regrettable accident rather than a war crime. The question is whether there actually was a mobile rocket launcher next to the building at the time of the attack. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that rockets had been fired from the vicinity in the past but not at that particular time.

The explanation the IDF is giving now (that they thought the building was empty) also cuts against the "near miss" theory although, depending on the effort taken to confirm this belief, it might also put the attack in the "regrettable accident" category. But I'm also not really competent to make judgments about tactical operations, so I'll leave it at that.

That said, it seems we were all premature about the effect of Qana.

Yes, we were. Ron Ben-Yishai argues in Yediot that most of the EU outrage was for domestic consumption. I'm not so sure of that, but I think the 48-hour suspension of strategic bombing and the shift away from civilian targets has helped buy time.

At any rate, I agree with your bottom line of "criticizing... Israeli strategy, not the goal." Israel has a right and duty to neutralize the threat from Hizbullah. Force alone won't do it, though; the Israeli government will have to be a lot smarter diplomatically than it's currently being, and will need to bargain on the underlying Lebanese-Israeli issues.

"I wasn't thinking of the Powell Doctrine so much as "shock and awe," which seems to have taken over American military thinking about the time we bombed Serbia."

My understanding is that they are the same thing, but my understanding could be wrong.

"If this is indeed how Qana happened, then it would be a regrettable accident rather than a war crime. The question is whether there actually was a mobile rocket launcher next to the building at the time of the attack. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that rockets had been fired from the vicinity in the past but not at that particular time."

Correct. The IDF really screwed up badly in its responses to Qana. The latest is that there was no firing in from the vicinity. They seem to have dropped the time gap spin, and now some bloggers are claiming that the whole thing was staged. That is, the story has gone to the crazies.

"Yes, we were. Ron Ben-Yishai argues in Yediot that most of the EU outrage was for domestic consumption."

Who knows, but it seems that the whole thing has really gone back to Square one.

I saw the Deputy Secretary General of the UN interviewed by Margaret Warner earlier and he made an interesting Freudian slip. He said, "France and the other Arab countries." You could order a transcript. I stand by my quote.

It reminded me of the French pol who called for military action against Israel -- which you rather airily attributed to the fact that he repped a Muslim district. I didn't have time to respond then -- do you think this is something to dismiss so lightly? A mainstream French politician who is part of the governing coalition's party, calling for military action against Israel?

Warner questioned the diplomat as to who is the chief interlocutor for the warring parties. Obviously, said the diplomat, the US speaks for Israel. He didn't answer directly as to which major power spoke for the Arabs.

I think we all know what country that is.

"At any rate, I agree with your bottom line of "criticizing... Israeli strategy, not the goal." Israel has a right and duty to neutralize the threat from Hizbullah. Force alone won't do it, though; the Israeli government will have to be a lot smarter diplomatically than it's currently being, and will need to bargain on the underlying Lebanese-Israeli issues."

Well, one of the things bloggers are so proud of is that they find a point of view and Stick To It No Matter What. I can't do that, which is why I make a crappy blogger. I realized at a certain point that I don't know what Israel's strategy is. So I can't very well criticize it. And I think we should separate Israel's genuine diplomacy from the moonbats who purport to speak for it in bloggerdom.

"Israel has a right and duty to neutralize the threat from Hizbullah. Force alone won't do it, though;"

True, but only force can force the issue. Didn't you say that you became complacent about HA? What changed that complacency to alarm?

It reminded me of the French pol who called for military action against Israel -- which you rather airily attributed to the fact that he repped a Muslim district. I didn't have time to respond then -- do you think this is something to dismiss so lightly?

No, it isn't something to dismiss, and maybe I was too willing to dismiss it. My point was that this call wasn't supported by anyone else in the governing party, it didn't change government policy and it wasn't even discussed or debated in any policymaking forum. It isn't good when a mainstream politician panders to extremist voters, but it's much worse when the party follows along, and that didn't happen this time.

I agree that France has longstanding ties to the Arab world, particularly Lebanon and Syria, and that it's probably presenting the Lebanese case at the UNSC. But France has also denounced the more strident anti-Israeli rhetoric coming from the OIC summit in Malaysia, and French support of the March 14 faction has been critical in pushing through resolutions like 1559. I don't agree with every detail of the French position, but I'd much rather see the Lebanese case advocated by a country like France which is relatively moderate and has political influence within Lebanon than have the moonbats advocate it from outside.

True, but only force can force the issue.

I don't deny this. As one of the commenters stated on another thread (can't be bothered to look it up right now), a crisis forces the world to pay attention and start thinking up solutions. And obviously, given that HA is a military organization with an interest in remaining armed, diplomacy without force won't be any more effective in disarming it than force without diplomacy.

I've never said that Israel shouldn't use force, only that it should do so intelligently and in conjunction with diplomacy. And given that I've gone far beyond any military expertise I can claim (eight weeks of boot camp doesn't a strategist make), I'll leave matters there.