My take on Lebanon

[bendog]

Prisoner exchanges were nothing new. Hezbollah and Israel had done them in the past. Hamas won the Pale election, which caused angst in both the occupied territories and Israel. Then, in Israeli jails, the hamas prisoners agreed with the fatah prisoners that acceptance of Israel’s existence in exchange for an end to the occupation was agreeable, or at least something for debate. Then Hamas kidnapped the IDF soldier, hoping to force Israel to let some of the prisoners and administrative detainees (held w/o trial or access to court).

Meanwhile, in Israel, the weak Prime Minister Olmert was in trouble. He’d pulled out of Gaza, but hamas was still loosing rockets on Israeli settlements. His plan to pull out of “some but not all” of the WB was quickly losing support. First the neocons/Likud want to keep the land, despite peace treaty and UN resolutions to the contrary. Second, the vast maj of Israelis had logically concluded, just pulling out wouldn’t stop hamas or even parts of hamas from shooting at them.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, hezbollah upped the anty, by kinapping the two soldiers. Nazrallah figured another exchange would happen, and politically he could take some of the credit. He didn’t count on two things. First, Jordan, Saudis, Egypt were all pissed, cause they want a settlement to the Pale issue, and Nazrallah just inflames the arabs, esp when they see how the current admin of neocons simply ignore their concerns. They didn’t oppose a quick strike on hezbollah, nor of course did the neocons in Washington. Second, Olmert saw an opportunity to make political gains by showing both strength, and the Likud/neocons love nothing more than invading. He didn’t have much of a plan. Not unlike Bushii in Iraq. Bomb the **** out of civilians. Invade, take some territory ... not really wanting it .... and then .... well, they’d give hezbollah a quick pounding and run for home, I guess. But, maybe they wanted to keep the land all along.

What they didn’t count on was Hezbollah being up to the task. Hezbollah will give ground. It just wants the IDF to walk into one more killing zone / trap after another. Apparantly they didn’t count on Hezbollah being able to keep up the rocket attacks. Now the IDF thinks if it can keep going for another two weeks or so it can militarily defeat hezbollah. Maybe, but say the IDF’s killed 200 hezbollah as they claim. Hezbollah will gladly take 200 dead for 40-50 IDF soldiers dead.

However, the arab street is now even more pissed. The moderates are further marginalized. Bushii pissed off what prestige we had by invading Iraq and letting Sharon have anything he wanted. Even if a military defeat of hezbollah is possible, Nazralla will have more support/recruits than he needs to recoup.

The answer is supposted to be an intl force. French and Germans apparantly. But, hezbollah isn’t something that can be chased out. Hezbollah personnel are the docs, teachers, farmers that make up the local populace. Just cause the new occupiers aren’t Jews doesn’t mean hezbollah’s gonna like them.

The bottom line solution is that Israel has to go back to the 67 borders, roughly. The Arab states have to normalize trade with it. Either Jordan/Arab League or the US (God forbid) has got to take up security on the WB. The Arab states have to agree to punish individual terrorists, and isolate countries like Iran that do not. (Which btw was happening until Israel launched this clusterfikc that is nearly as bad as boy king george’s.) Both Gopers and Dems have agreed to this ... except incurious George.

The neocons say, "oh its failed." Well, they've failed worse, and every time we try to pursue a comprehensive peace to isolate those who want war, we get a little closer. But like the thread on Brezinski, it seems to me the US is now more on the side of those who want perpetual war than those who do not.

[defenseman]

The Arab states have to agree to punish individual terrorists, and isolate countries like Iran that do not.

Agreed.

Nazralla will have more support/recruits than he needs to recoup

Not necessarily. The US and others are going to make sure the Arab states have a hand in ensuring this doesn't happen hopefully.

One last thing, this is all counting on Hezbollah being in agreement anymore, as well as israel. Hezbollah, may not stand down, and Israel may not give up sheba farms, ergo this lasts alot longer than people want it to..dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bendog

Prisoner exchanges were nothing new. Hezbollah and Israel had done them in the past. Hamas won the Pale election, which caused angst in both the occupied territories and Israel. Then, in Israeli jails, the hamas prisoners agreed with the fatah prisoners that acceptance of Israel’s existence in exchange for an end to the occupation was agreeable, or at least something for debate. Then Hamas kidnapped the IDF soldier, hoping to force Israel to let some of the prisoners and administrative detainees (held w/o trial or access to court).

Meanwhile, in Israel, the weak Prime Minister Olmert was in trouble. He’d pulled out of Gaza, but hamas was still loosing rockets on Israeli settlements. His plan to pull out of “some but not all” of the WB was quickly losing support. First the neocons/Likud want to keep the land, despite peace treaty and UN resolutions to the contrary. Second, the vast maj of Israelis had logically concluded, just pulling out wouldn’t stop hamas or even parts of hamas from shooting at them.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, hezbollah upped the anty, by kinapping the two soldiers. Nazrallah figured another exchange would happen, and politically he could take some of the credit. He didn’t count on two things. First, Jordan, Saudis, Egypt were all pissed, cause they want a settlement to the Pale issue, and Nazrallah just inflames the arabs, esp when they see how the current admin of neocons simply ignore their concerns. They didn’t oppose a quick strike on hezbollah, nor of course did the neocons in Washington. Second, Olmert saw an opportunity to make political gains by showing both strength, and the Likud/neocons love nothing more than invading. He didn’t have much of a plan. Not unlike Bushii in Iraq. Bomb the **** out of civilians. Invade, take some territory ... not really wanting it .... and then .... well, they’d give hezbollah a quick pounding and run for home, I guess. But, maybe they wanted to keep the land all along.

What they didn’t count on was Hezbollah being up to the task. Hezbollah will give ground. It just wants the IDF to walk into one more killing zone / trap after another. Apparantly they didn’t count on Hezbollah being able to keep up the rocket attacks. Now the IDF thinks if it can keep going for another two weeks or so it can militarily defeat hezbollah. Maybe, but say the IDF’s killed 200 hezbollah as they claim. Hezbollah will gladly take 200 dead for 40-50 IDF soldiers dead.

However, the arab street is now even more pissed. The moderates are further marginalized. Bushii pissed off what prestige we had by invading Iraq and letting Sharon have anything he wanted. Even if a military defeat of hezbollah is possible, Nazralla will have more support/recruits than he needs to recoup.

The answer is supposted to be an intl force. French and Germans apparantly. But, hezbollah isn’t something that can be chased out. Hezbollah personnel are the docs, teachers, farmers that make up the local populace. Just cause the new occupiers aren’t Jews doesn’t mean hezbollah’s gonna like them.

The bottom line solution is that Israel has to go back to the 67 borders, roughly. The Arab states have to normalize trade with it. Either Jordan/Arab League or the US (God forbid) has got to take up security on the WB. The Arab states have to agree to punish individual terrorists, and isolate countries like Iran that do not. (Which btw was happening until Israel launched this clusterfikc that is nearly as bad as boy king george’s.) Both Gopers and Dems have agreed to this ... except incurious George.

The neocons say, "oh its failed." Well, they've failed worse, and every time we try to pursue a comprehensive peace to isolate those who want war, we get a little closer. But like the thread on Brezinski, it seems to me the US is now more on the side of those who want perpetual war than those who do not.

This take is right on the money.

Good work.