On Aug 5, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
> ===============================
> 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.
Thanks, Marvin. Straight back atcha.
>
> =================================
> 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.
Agree completely. The fact that the Israelis didn't though, and suffered repeated failures in the field - on numerous fronts - is indicative that the IDF is in some kind of crisis state. Yoel Marcus of Ha'aretz keeps on saying that the IDF has become "fat and lazy" etc. Folks I've spoken to about this tend to similarly focus on how the current military leadership are incompetent Sharon-era appointees. I wager the problem is much larger than that, and is indeed an ideological one.
> ==================================
>
> 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.
Sure, this is 100% on the mark. My only concern is that as far as the Israelis public goes, whether the 'demonstrated' superiority of diplomatic solutions will win out. I'm pessimistic, particularly given the popular support this war received. But I'd like to be proven wrong.
>
> 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.
The main issue is the role of the Americans, and how they encourage the "exact opposite" I was discussing. The Americans are feeling awfully weak right now because of the situation in Iraq. One of the main reasons they gave support to (some would even say pushed) for the current Israeli military operation in Lebanon was to help restore their regional deterrence (which of course has backfired) and open up another front to siphon off oppositional energies in Iraq. As long as the situation in Iraq remains as unstable as it is for the US, its going to mean that the Americans are going to continue to pressure the Israelis to impose military, not diplomatic solutions, to Israel's crises with the Arab world.
>
> 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.
Sure.
>
> 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.
I'm definitely not in the business of forecasting. I'm just not encouraged by the history of what such Israeli (and American) military conduct inspires regionally.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>