MG: >> It was easier to support Israel when it wasn't occupying Arab
>> territories
>> with a high-tech military and its political culture tended towards the
>> social democratic left rather than the conservative and even fascist
>> right.
>> Now your view of the society and what it stands for is much more
>> ambivalent,
>> and your response, in effect, is to cover your eyes and declare "a
>> plague on
>> both your houses."
>
JS: > I appreciate part of what you have to say above - but where you take
> it in the last line here is a little presumptive (ouch.) The conclusion
> is incorrect. A simple commitment to social justice in the region can
> lead one to rationally feel this way, without the clearly reactive
> behavior of disappointment you attempt to identify here.
===============================
You're right. I take that back. It's clear you're not the kind of person who
covers his eyes and avoids dealing with difficult issues.
===============================
MG: >> It is not an "utterly nihilistic conflict". Both sides have limited,
>> rational aims. One of them will be shown to have miscalculated, but each
>> has
>> acted in a calculated rather than irrational fashion.
>
JS: > I disagree. Its important to not take too seriously what each side
> has side stated to be their calculated aims. you're ascribing too much
> reason to their actions.
=================================
It was reasonable, but as it turns out wrong, for Israel to suppose it could
score a quick, easy, crushing victory over Hezbollah. Their generals
wouldn't have declared to the world that was their objective and set
themselves up for a humiliating climb down if they didn't "take it
seriously." I also think the Israelis had sound reasons to believe that if
they did inflict a devestating defeat on Hezbollah, it would reverberate
across the region and dispose the Arabs and Iranians to be more respectful
of US/Israeli power, and therefore more accomodating.
==================================
JS: what is important is to look at the
> fact that whatever constellation of aims might be invoked by each warring
> party, (and how these stated aims change over time), none ultimately
> guarantee safety, deterrence or an end of conflict. they guarantee their
> exact opposite, which in its own way might be the reason you're looking
> for.
> ...the cost in civilian lives has been too great to justify such a
> potential reading of the conflict. I also respectfully disagree on what
> this specific conflict has engendered - greater instability in the Middle
> East, not greater possibilities for a peace breakthrough
============================
The single greatest impediment to peace in the region, IMO, has been the
unshakeable conviction by the US and Americans that they didn't have to
yield an inch to Arab demands because they could beat them into submission.
This has been especially so since the Bush and Sharon administrations came
to power at roughly the same time to replace the Clinton and Barak
governments which they dismissed contemptuously in each case as "too soft".
They have since each painfully discovered the sin of hubris and the limits to US and Israeli military power in both Iraq and Palestine, and have been somewhat frantically trying to unilaterally extricate themselves without losing face. Lebanon is providing an even more dramatic illustration to the Israeli public and leadership that military solutions are beyond reach.
When a condition of military stalemate becomes more obvious, the chances of a negotiated settlement increase correspondingly. Edward Luttwak wryly alluded to this the other day when he stated in relation to US/Israeli aims in the Middle East: "... unlike the military option, which is simply impossible, the diplomatic option is merely humiliating." That's no guarantee of an end to the conflict, as you note, but it points more in that direction, IMO, than to the "exact opposite" one you forecasting.
While you're right to caution that the loss of lives and further instability enegendered by the conflict makes any postwar negotiation more uncertain, I think had the Israelis quickly prevailed as intended, it would have provided even less incentive for them and their US patrons to entertain one at all.
But while the military balance between Hezbollah and the Israelis has become more apparent, it's too early to speculate with any convinction what the political fallout will be.