The mutual punishment continues between Israel and Hezbollah:
Waves of warplanes thundering through the darkness bombed Beirut’s southern suburbs for hours early Sunday, and Hezbollah rocket attacks killed at least nine people in Israel’s third largest city.
A barrage of rockets pounded the northern Israeli city of Haifa in the worst strike on Israel since violence broke out along the border with Lebanon last week. One of the rockets hit a storage room at the train station, killing nine people, Israeli police said. Many more people were wounded.
Some of the rockets landed near an oil refinery and gas storage tanks. Rockets also hit the northern towns of Acco and Nahariya, and residents were told to head to bomb shelters.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned there would be “far-reaching consequences” for the rocket attack.
Hezbollah said on its TV station that it fired dozens of rockets at Haifa and targeted the refinery “after the enemy continued all night their destructive shelling” of Beirut’s southern suburbs and other areas.
It was the second time Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa. Israel responded to the first strike Thursday by stepping up its airstrikes in Lebanon, which it began last week after Hezbollah militants captured two soldiers in a cross-border raid.
About 18 powerful explosions rocked southern Beirut _where Hezbollah is headquartered _ for more than two hours after midnight Sunday. A day earlier, the Israeli air force hit strongholds of the Hezbollah Shiite Muslim guerrilla group, bombed central Beirut for the first time, and pounded seaports and a key bridge.
Israeli jets could be heard over the city Sunday, much of it darkened because airstrikes have knocked out power stations and the fuel depots feeding them. Warplanes bombed the major Jiyeh power station about 12 miles south of Beirut on Sunday.
The Arab League has called for the UN to step in:
The Arab League said on Saturday after an emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo that the Middle East peace process had failed, and called on the United Nations Security Council to intervene to stop the escalating violence.
The Arab foreign ministers also adopted a resolution supporting Lebanon and the Palestinians, but also called on all parties to avoid actions that “may undermine peace and security in the region”.
“We all decided that the peace process has failed and that the mechanisms, proposals and committees were either deceptive or sedatives or contrary to the peace process, or handed the process over as a gift to Israeli diplomacy to do with as it wished,” Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said.
Intervene to what end? There is no peace to keep and UN forces have, understandly, been reluctant to act as peacemakers.
All that is required for a return to the status quo ante is for Hezbollah to return its two captive Israeli soldiers.
The mutually disagreeable solution recommended by some, i.e. Hezbollah disarms, Israel stops striking Lebanon, prisoner exchange, is, in practice, a capitulation to Hezbollah which would, in effect, achieve all its objectives under such a plan: it would secure its men that Israel has imprisoned, Lebanon would have been weakened and the prospects for real democracy there diminished, and, so long as it continues to be supplied by its Syrian and Iranian patrons, Hezbollah would retain its arms.
And Hezbollah is more than merely a terrorist organization. Following a Maoist strategy without any discernible Maoist political agenda, It’s a combination terrorist organization, political party, and social services agency. It receives millions from Western contributors (according to some accounts hundreds of millions) ostensibly for activities in the latter capacity. I find the notion that a “wall of separation†separates Hezbollah’s military activities from its social services activities strains credulity but, then, what do I know?
There’s some remarkably foolish advice going around. David Horowitz, for example, recommends that Israel immediately attack Iran:
So here is the issue: If you were Israel’s prime minister, could you afford to wait until Iran attains nuclear warheads for Hizbollah’s missiles? Or can you be sure it hasn’t already been supplied such warheads by Russia or China through Iran? Could you afford to wait to see if Syria will supply the chemical and biological weapons it has cached for Saddam Hussein to Hizbollah and Hamas? Or would you proceed to plan B and obliterate them now?
Powerline seconds. Dave Price concurs but calls for a demonstration:
Israel needs to demonstrate to Iran’s leaders, ungently, that killing Israelis is not in their interest. With sociopaths, you have to set boundaries.
This is to lose sight of logistics, strategy, and objectives.
Israel is a country of some 20,000 odd square km, smaller than New Jersey, with little in the way of resources other than its people. Iran is the regional superpower, with hundreds of times its area, many times its population, and vast oil revenues.
Israel’s objective is to survive. Not regional hegemony or absolute security. Those are beyond its reach.
You do not wound a king. Israel does not have the ability to reduce Iran’s threat, only to destroy it. It wouldn’t survive the exchange.
There’s at least a little good advice still left in the blogosphere. Steven Den Beste, whose email is quoted on Power Line, essentially agrees with me noting that the military option is no alternative for Israel at all against Iran:
A token strike by missiles with conventional warheads would just inflame the situation; it wouldn’t be sufficiently devastating to cause Iran to back off, but it could become a justification for Iranian escalation.
The fact that something is desirable doesn’t mean it is feasible. Even if there were really good reasons for Israel to militarily strike Iran, I don’t see how they could do it.
UPDATE
James Joyner continues to have his head screwed on straight:
Diplomacy hasn’t worked. Nor has war. The ultimate answer, in a purely theoretical universe, is the mass annihilation of their enemies–the quite literal wiping of regimes friendly to terrorists off the map. But, even aside from moral objections, this is quite impractical.
We are, of course, not living in a theoretical universe or a moral one, rational one, or even a just one. We are living in a political universe and the only solutions are those that are both physically and politically possible.
With sociopaths, you have to set boundaries.
If someone is in fact a sociopath they, by definition, are more than likely indifferent to punishments and boundary setting. The will not exhibit fear or caution in response to a show of resolve. So it would seem contradictory to say that because someone is a sociopath they must be punished in order to deter them. Either a leader is rational enough to be deterred–hence a show of resolve which should do the trick–or they are a sociopath, which requires removal in order to stop them. You can’t have it both ways
Removal of the sociopaths from South Lebanon will only take place by a sustained military operation which will cost Israel hundreds of military casualties. Sooner or later, Iran will have a nuclear bomb which they may spirit into South Lebanon. Israel had better strike sooner, and unimaginably hard, at Syria and Iran. Pencil-neck Boy Assad is trying to cover up his assassination of Rafiq Hariri and get Lebanon back under Syrian hegemony/control. Iran simply is fueled by fanaticism led by an ex-hostage taker who self-reportedly communes with the Hidden Imam!
Sounds like a job for Kofi Annan and the robin’s-egg blue boys—NOT!
Following a Maoist strategy without any discernible Maoist political agenda… I hadn’t really thought of it in those terms but that’s exactly right. Hezbollah represents a shadow government in the south. Isn’t this independent militia concept happening in Iraq, given its weak centralized government?
Not quite, kreiz, or, if so, it’s been done incompetently.
The key element that I’m pointing to in that sentence is the importance of an insurgent movement cultivating support with the local population by setting itself up as a government and providing social services.
That isn’t what the Iraqi insurgency has done. Whereever they’ve established even temporary control, they’ve been incredibly brutal and savage. This has resulted in Coalition and Iraqi government forces who’ve ousted the insurgents from an area being received fairly gracefully by local leaders. That’s the opposite of what an insurgency should be trying to achieve.
I don’t know whether the Iraqi insurgency are religious fanatics, incredibly disdainful of the people, or just plain stupid. Probably some of all three. But a different method operation would have provided a much stronger insurgency.
Had the Lebanese government been able to disarm Hizballah on its own, this action would not have become necessary. Israel knows this, as does the Lebanese government. It looks like Israel is softening up Hizballah so that there might be a move from Beirut into Southern Lebanon.
There are blogs and pundits wondering out loud why Israel doesn’t just go after Damascus (“they’re fighting the wrong people,” etc), but this ignores the realities. Syrian troops are amassed on the Golan, but is as of now not going to strike at the western flank. Striking at Syria without dealing with Hizballah first would just bring in Syrian allies.
In the meantime, we have transparent criticism that Israel is being “disproportionate.” This is a concept that goes back to Korea, wherein both sides threw people into the meat grinder and nobody won. I think that Olmert has decided that the standard way of Middle East war is not going to be accepted anymore. He has decided, probably, that to leave Hizballah able to regroup would just kick the barrel down the road.
It comes down, ironically, to Israel enforcing Resolution 1559 as Lebanon is unable and the UN and member states unwilling. This may also become an occasion that the US makes secret connections with Iran, offering some sort of rapprochement while telling the Mullahs that the US will not pull the reins on Israel until Tehran ends its support.
Israel is intent on destroying Hizballah and the US has no interest is stopping it (Bush has yet to make any public contact with Olmert, thereby signaling his tacit approval). I don’t really see how Syria and Iran can do much to stop Israel Until some UNSC vote (which will probably end up as some nonbinding resolution), Israel will continue to pound Lebanon. The government could move against the South, putting Hizballah in a pincer, but that might spark a new civil war.
err, Eastern flank. I’m out of practice.
Understand the distinction, Dave. Hezbollah has apparently garnered substantial local support- thus the Maoist “swimming among the fish” concept. I was thinking more in terms of the common theme of weakness of central authority which, by default, creates the possibility of this type of relationship.
By the way, hi there, Daniel!
Yo, kreiz!
Daniel, your analysis is correct in terms of Israel’s short-run strategy vis-a-vis Syria and Iran. It doesn’t appear that Israel wants to enlarge this into a regional war so it won’t push beyond Lebanon. Syria and Iran won’t move unless Syria’s directly attacked. I am confused by Israel’s attacks on Beirut, which alienate and displace many non-Hezbollah supporters. All of this strikes me as a continuation of relatively minor skimirshing that portends the inevitable big strike- either Iran’s nuke or Israel’s preemptive strike against it.
Forget my Big One theory. Assume a nuclear Iran that threatens, not throws. How would the instant conflict play out under those circumstances?
I think that Beirut is being bombed to take out communications and control. The airport was taken out, as well as the road to Damascus (hey! isn’t that a Hope-Crosby movie?) in order to keep Hizballah from getting into Syria, or Syria moving back in to Lebanon. If Israel had more time (I give it another 24-36 hours) this could be seen as a way of softening a move to Syria.
But I think that this might be a mistake. Israel could still be pounding the South while going to the UNSC with an ultimatum for Hizballah to be disarmed immediately, and for the soldiers to be returned. Then Syria could be struck under the claim that Israel was defending the Lebanese government, in a way.
re: Iran. If Tehran openly threatens the use of nukes, I can’t see ho the US isn’t drawn into the war. It doesn’t have to commit troops, an air attack might be sufficient. We would then have a new World War for all to enjoy.
Israel’s tactical calculation to hit Beirut will probably come back to haunt them. Michael Totten, who terms Lebanon his second home, has some very interesting thoughts at his site.
Well, I’m trying to get my mind around Michael’s post. I think that Israel has every right to clean out the hornet’s nest, but I do think that they might have gone too far, too fast. Not that I think that they are wrong, but that this has come maybe too soon.
Dan, I don’t quite see it that way. I think that the brutality and “lack of proportionality” are being exaggerated both through ignorance and through agenda.
The Israelis are claiming that the “civilians” being killed are mostly the dependents (or neighbors) of Hezbollah fighters. We have no way and I suspect we’ll never have a way of evaluating the truth of the claim but I think it’s at least a little true.
The non-Hezbollah Lebanese need to take sides one way or another. I think the Israelis are trying to force their hand. And Syria’s.
Totten’s piece gave me pause. Perhaps forcing the hands of the Lebanese in Beirut was the method in the Israeli madness. But undermining Beirut’s economic prosperity and stability hardly seems the most product way of convincing them to reject Hezbollah.
the most productive way…