Right Wing Nut House

It appears that Prime Minister Olmert is going to shoot for an outright victory against Hizbullah (if that is possible) by authorizing the IDF to begin a massive incursion into southern Lebanon:

Israel’s Security Cabinet approved early Tuesday widening the ground offensive in Lebanon and rejected a cease-fire until an international force is in place, a participant in the meeting said.

Airstrikes in Lebanon would resume “in full force” after the 48-hour suspension expires in another day, said the participant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters. He said there was no deadline for the offensive, though the United Nations Security Council is expected to debate a resolution this week about a cease-fire.

Thousands of army reserves have been called up in recent days in advance of the decision, which is expected to lead to sending more troops into the border area. Israeli leaders have said they want to carve out a zone about 1 mile wide that would be free of Hezbollah emplacements.

Israeli forces have been operating in two segments of south Lebanon, sweeping through villages, fighting Hezbollah gunmen and leaving considerable destruction behind.

The participant said the international force must have the ability to intervene with force if necessary to keep Hezbollah guerrillas from returning to the border area.

And there is a definite outline of what it will take before the Israelis are willing to agree to a cease fire:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday told British Prime Minister Tony Blair that as soon as an international force deploys along the Israel-Lebanon and Lebanon-Syria borders, “it will be possible to implement a cease-fire.”

Also Monday, government and defense officials said that Israel will release two Lebanese prisoners in return for the two soldiers abducted by Hezbollah as part of a cease-fire agreement.

The sources added that the UN Security Council would call for a cease-fire in Lebanon on Friday, and it could take effect as early as Saturday.

Alternatively, the fighting might continue for a few more days.

In essence, here are Israel’s terms:

* No immediate cease fire.

* Israel will carry out offensive operations until an international force is in place to act as a buffer between Israel and both Hizbullah and Syria.

* Israel will exchange two Lebanese for the two IDF men being held by Hizbullah. No mass release of Lebanese prisoners thus denying Nasrallah a propaganda victory.

* The international force must be able to fire back if Hizbullah resists being disarmed or if they try to infiltrate back into southern Lebanon.

* No wide ranging political settlement with Lebanon that takes into account the “return” of the Shebaa Farms. No discussion of war compensation to Lebanon prior to the cease fire.

In short, Olmert and his cabinet are rejecting every single point made by Hassan Nasrallah who has demanded an immediate cease fire by Israel, a release of thousands of Lebanese being held in Israeli prisons, no international force (only an augment to UNIFIL), and the Lebanese government will be in charge of disarming Hizbullah only after a complete settlement between Israel and Lebanon is reached including the return of Shebaa.

The two sides couldn’t be farther apart.

Never fear. France is coming to the rescue of the Iranians, Syrians, and Hizbullah. If it wasn’t so goddamned predictable and serious, it might be fodder for a stand up comedy routine. France wants no part of any international force that has the slightest chance of incurring any casualties whatsoever. In fact, like Nasrallah, the French want all the “i’s” crossed and “t’s” dotted before they step foot one in Lebanon:

Yet as her plane made its way across the Atlantic, the fissures between the United States and its allies widened at the United Nations, where a meeting to craft plans for the international force was postponed after France declared it pointless without a political settlement between Israel and Lebanon.

“You know, France is in favor of setting up an international force to implement . . . a political settlement,” Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sablière said at the United Nations on Monday. “So it is important to have this political settlement before having the force deployed. And it is very difficult, we think — premature at least — to have such a meeting.”

And Rice may have scored something of a coup as she apparently has bypassed the French and forged a shaky consensus on the outlines of a cease fire with other Security Council members:

The United States will move for a resolution centered on three parts. The first is a cease-fire. The second is a set of political principles or framework for a long-term settlement to ensure that the flashpoints are eliminated so that fighting does not erupt in the weeks, months or years ahead, Rice said. The third will outline the sensitive mandate for the new “international stabilization force,” which will back up the Lebanese army as it spreads government authority throughout Lebanon, prevents the import of any new weapons to rearm Hezbollah, and keeps the peace.

The emerging consensus includes agreement on several points, Rice said. All armed groups would be prohibited in the zone where the international force is deployed. An international arms embargo, she said, must ensure that the only weapons allowed into Lebanon must be for the Lebanese government or the stabilization force.

No foreign troops except the stabilization force would be allowed in Lebanon. The Lebanese government and army would assume responsibility for disarming militias, with the “appropriate” assistance by the stabilization force, Rice said. Israel and Lebanon would fully accept the border as defined by the so-called Blue Line — a potentially contentious issue that involves the disputed Shebaa Farms area.

Meanwhile, Olmert gets another chance. The bombing pause may turn out to have been a godsend for the Israelis in that it has allowed international tempers to cool slightly while giving civilians in the south a chance to flee - something Hizbullah was preventing by setting up roadblocks:

Taking advantage of the abatement in bombing, Lebanese fled north Monday, and U.N. and other relief organizations accelerated the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the south Lebanon hills, where an estimated 750,000 people have been displaced by Israeli bombing over the last three weeks.

Fewer civilians means fewer propaganda points scored by Hizbullah once the Israelis begin to move. Those civilians are being evacuated by UN agencies and the Red Cross so Hizbullah can’t interfere:

Intense clashes continued well into Tuesday afternoon between IDF troops and Hizbullah guerrillas in the southern Lebanese town of Ayta a-Shab.

A total of five brigades were operating in the region and heavy gunfights were reported involving light machine guns and rockets.

The IDF said that the guerrillas fired anti-tank rockets at troops from a house in the town.

Meanwhile, the IDF distributed flyers, urging residents in the region north of the Litani River to leave their homes and head northward.

It is uncertain how far this incursion will go. If the IAF is dropping leaflets telling residents north of the Litani River to flee, that would mean a penetration of at least 15 miles - a good start but hardly what is needed.

If, as expected, Hizbullah’s crack military cadres stand and fight, there is every reason to believe that the Israelis will kill anyone who doesn’t run. Indeed, at this point, the “legend” of Hizbullah that has been advanced in this country regarding their “fighting abilities” would mean that any retreat by the terrorists would diminish their standing in the eyes of the world. For when you think about it, the “heroic” nature of Hizbullah is pretty pathetic. They are being lionized not because they are defeating the Israelis on the battlefield (in fact, they are getting slaughtered) but because they are not wetting their pants and running or immediately surrendering as other Arab armies have done.

Truly nauseating. The Israelis believe they have killed at least 200 of these crack Hizbullah troops while losing 25 soldiers themselves. Some estimates place the number closer to 400 Hizbullah fighters killed. If so, there is at least an 8-1 and perhaps as much as a 16-1 Israeli advantage - hardly the stuff of legend except for those desperate to build up the terrorists into something they aren’t; a match for the IDF on the battlefield.

This piece in today’s Haaretz sums up Olmert’s second chance at getting it right and committing more ground troops to do the job:

Olmert wants to take another stab at a decisive conclusion before the UN Security Council blows the final whistle. That’s why he convened the cabinet on Monday to approve a wide-scale ground operation targeting villages used by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Olmert is fighting the battle over public opinion, both at home and abroad. He wants people to see the war as a victory, not a draw. It was this attitude that led Olmert to tell a conference of mayors on Monday that the operation is continuing despite the unfortunate deaths of dozens of Lebanese civilians in Qana Sunday.

“Israel is continuing to fight,” the prime minister said. One can imagine the slogan as part of a commercial for a bank, on billboards or car bumpers. “There is no cease-fire, and there will be no cease-fire in the upcoming days,” Olmert promised to the cheers of mayors in attendance. Conference participants made it clear they want the operation to continue.

With the people behind him for the moment, Olmert is rolling the dice once again, hoping he can roll up Hizbullah and punish them enough before the international community moves forcefully to stop him.

It is imperative that he succeed. Any other outcome is unthinkable.

UPDATE:

LFG reports that in Qana, they have pulled 28 bodies from the rubble of the building. The Lebanese government said 57 were killed, 36 children. Some published reports had the number as high as 60.

Even if it is “only” 28, that is still a tragic and significant loss of life. But I’m sure you’d agree it doesn’t sound as awful as 57 nor does has there been any explanation yet from anyone why the building collapsed 8 hours after the bomb hit.

Maybe instead of swallowing all the Hizbullah propaganda, our media could like, you know, confirm the facts before publishing?

Fat chance…

“There is something fundamentally wrong with a war where there are more dead children than armed men.”
(Jan Egeland, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs)

Mr. Egeland is commenting on the fact that out of the more than 700 Lebanese civilians who have been killed in the Israeli-Islamist War, half have been children. The Qana tragedy, where Hizbullah terrorists deliberately sighted their rocket launchers next to a building bursting with Lebanese children and oldsters knowing that Israeli retaliation would in all likelihood result in massive civilian casualties, cost the lives of more than 3 dozen youngsters alone. And Hizbullah’s actions are at the heart of what has become the number one question for armies that fight terrorist groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, or al-Qaeda.

Who bears responsibility for a civilian’s death when one side puts a bullseye on an innocents back simply to gain a propaganda advantage by his death?

There seems to be no interest by the international community to discuss this question. The reason is simple. Since it is western armies faced with this paradox and most of the world is made up of non-western states, it is to everyone else’s advantage to pretend, as this gentleman does, that there is an absolutist position on the death of civilians; it is always wrong:

It’s been awhile so it seems again it’s time for a helpful reminder that noncombatant immunity isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law.

In other words: You’re not allowed to kill civilians.

Killing civilians is against the law. Killing civilians makes you a criminal.

Yes, but …

No buts about it. You’re not allowed to kill civilians.

And, also: You’re not allowed to kill civilians.

This is neither new nor controversial, yet putting the matter in such stark terms always seems to upset people.

On the one hand, this isn’t surprising since the killing of civilians has become a scarcely remarkable, dog-bites-man commonplace. Yet it’s still surprising that anyone could find this elementary notion upsetting: You’re not allowed to kill civilians. If you’re one of those people who finds this upsetting, bear in mind what it is that you’re upset about. Apparently someone you feel ought to be immune from criticism has been killing civilians and you feel I’m criticizing them by pointing out — in the most abstract terms, without any mention of particulars — that this is something that no one is allowed to do.

To be fair, the writer does mention that there may be extenuating circumstances where the killing of civilians is unavoidable. But that doesn’t address his moral condemnation for violating his simplistic mantra. The fact of the matter is, that there is a clear moral mandate to condemn the cynical use of civilians by Hizbullah and what’s more, place the blame for civilian deaths squarely and confidently in the bloody hands of the terrorists.

James Lewis brilliantly explains:

We have lost elementary moral distinctions over the last century. As a culture, we pretend we cannot tell the difference between accidental shootings by police in pursuit of killers, and deliberate killing by those intent on destroying innocents. This is not, as the Left likes to boast, a reflection of our higher morality. It is a loss of elementary moral discrimination. We are much less moral than our ancestors of a hundred or two hundred years ago.

One role of the New Media must be to restore that common sense morality which says that hiding behind women and children in war is murder, plain and simple. The onus for murder is on the terrorist, not the cop.

There is a solution: It is for the media and the United Nations to rediscover the elementary moral distinctions of the original Geneva Conventions. Killing innocents is murder. Drawing enemy fire on children is evil. It’s not hard.

Why then is there no outrage against Hizbullah except in the narrow ideological confines of conservative western thought and a few liberal outriders going against the grain of the lockstep left?

It is more comfortable to pretend that the old verities regarding war are somehow still operational in a real world sense. An unarmed 10 year old boy leaning out a window in Anbar directing fire against American positions in Iraq presents a wrenching moral choice for the officer in command of the action. What guides that American officer is usually contained in the Rules of Engagement. Sometimes it’s how he was trained. But it is always what is inside the officer himself - his own personal code of morality and honor. Whether the boy is targeted or not, whether his death can be justified or not is really not the point. The child is a civilian in a combat zone and according to a strict reading of the laws of war and dictates of humanity, killing him is wrong.

Or is it? This situation, hypothetical as it is, brings us all into a new moral country as do the actions of Hizbullah with their brazen use of civilians as a combination human shield and fodder for press releases. Have you heard of any gathering of the great philosophical and ethical minds of our time to address these questions? Has there been any Security Council meetings to examine the implications of not only what Hizbullah is doing but what Israel (and to a lesser degree the United States) is forced to do in response?

Has there been any effort whatsoever on the part of the naysayers, the carpers, the condemners, to look beyond their spiteful, absolutist moral positions and delve into these dilemmas? I am not looking for an ethical or moral justification for dead civilians as much as I’m seeking a moral framework that takes these tactics into account. There is none. The American officer in Iraq or the Israeli Air Force Chief of Staff targeting Qana are all alone with their agony. And I firmly believe that this need not be the case.

Again, James Lewis:

European warfare came out of a tradition of chivalry. The military uniform marks combatants from bystanders. The British Redcoats were brilliantly visible, as were Napoleon’s armies. The idea of disguising oneself in the face of musket and even cannot fire was treated with contempt. Far more, the idea of drawing enemy fire while hiding among women and children was simply criminal. The British Navy would have hung its own sailors for such crimes. European soldiers were ready to die rather than be contemptible.

The Geneva Conventions came out of this tradition. Wars were terrible, and became much worse as they become industrialized. But they still reflected some of the values of chivalry.

[snip]

For the Nazis, savagery and murder became a matter of ideology and policy. SS men sent to murder Jews and other civilians were told to reject any feelings of compassion. The Nazis explicitly rejected Christian values, a point that is constantly lost to the Left. On the hard-hearted Left, during the Lenin-Stalin period, explicit orders were constantly given to kill peasants who resisted Moscow’s orders to give up their land and huddle in communal farms.

Thus the Roman and later Christian doctrine of Just War was steadily diluted as the 20th century wore on. Israel has a similar doctrine of “purity of arms,” and has recently revised its ethics code for the protection of civilians in guerilla warfare—- war in which civilians are used to shield the warriors, and innocent deaths are desired for their propaganda value. The media, consisting of nostalgic Lefties and old Mao-worshippers, fall for the double standards every day.

I would disagree slightly with James in that the media doesn’t so much “fall” for Hizbullah’s ruse as much as they and the left pretend, as do Islamists the world over, that the outrage is solely confined to “civilian deaths” and not to those who cause them.

Michelle Malkin:

The truth about Muslim outrage over Qana is that it’s not really about the tragic deaths at Qana–just like the cartoon jihad was not really about the cartoons.

Remember: Muslim outrage over the Danish cartoons was stoked and manufactured amid attempts to bully Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. Iran blamed Israel for the cartoons:

[snip]

What better way to distract from Hezbollah’s atrocities and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s annihilation plans than to start screaming about Israel’s “war crimes” and Western crimes against humanity. John Hinderaker at Power Line points to prefab jihadi banners demonizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. EU Referendum looks at morbid photo posing. Bob Owens wonders where all the men were.

But never mind all that, right? The Muslim world is united again. And some short-sighted Westerners are allowing themselves to be duped.

With everyone pretending together - the media, the left, the enemies of Israel and the United States - it becomes relatively easy to gin up outrage not only in the streets of Arabia but also the salons of the Upper East Side and the offices of network news executives. Hence is opinion manufactured and liberal outrage assuaged.

All of this fails to take in Lewis’ main point - that the traditions in the west of wrestling with moral questions regarding war has been deliberately abandoned. Any new moral truths or clarity that would emerge from such a debate or discussion would threaten the left’s ability to use civilian deaths exactly as Hizbullah does; to beat their political opponents over the head.

It’s a shame, really. The very people who would ordinarily be at the center of helping the west in creating any new moral paradigms for fighting and winning the War on Terror are letting her down in her hour of greatest need. The 500 year old liberal intellectual traditions of moral and ethical debate have been tossed into the gutter and replaced with an unyielding, anti-intellectual absolutism that will brook no opposition to its cherished tenets and comfortable, old shoe verities.

We may yet pay dearly for their prideful ignorance before all is said and done.

UPDATE

Allah comes through with a round up of the growing pushback against the out of control condemnation by most of the non western world against Israel for Qana. Will it matter? Hard to tell from just reading the internet but my guess would be we definitely have not heard the last of Qana and that the purveyors of the storyline that says Israel is at fault will be hardpressed to defend themselves over the next few days.

Following the tragic loss of 60 civilians in Qana as a result of an Israeli air strike on Hizbullah rocket launching positions, Prime Minister Olmert has declared a 48 hour halt to “aerial activity” over Lebanon:

Israel agreed to a 48-hour suspension of aerial activity over southern Lebanon after it bombed a Lebanese village on Sunday and a number of children died, a US official said.

The attack marred US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s weeklong mission to halt the fighting between Israel and Hizbullah.

The suspension of over-flights was announced by US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli. He said Israel has reserved the right to attack targets if it learns that attacks are being prepared against them.

It’s probable that the Israeli government announced this de facto bombing halt at the urging of US Secretary of State Condi Rice who just completed a round of talks with Olmert. Her trip back to Lebanon, however, has been cancelled by Prime Minister Siniora:

Saniora said Lebanon would be open only to an immediate cease-fire. “There is no place at this sad moment for any discussions other than an immediate and unconditional cease-fire as well as international investigation of the Israeli massacres in Lebanon now,” he told reporters Sunday.

The halt will be a godsend to Hizbullah who brought the bombing of Qana - the ancient city where it is said Christ performed the miracle of turning water into wine - on the civilians of that tragic town by using the streets and buildings as cover for their rocket launchers:

This morning, July 30, 2006, the IAF attacked missile launch sites in the area of the village of Qana, an area from which hundreds of missiles were launched towards the city of Nahariya and the communities in the western Galilee.

The IDF will defend the citizens of Israel from attacks by the Hizbullah and the responsibility for any civilian casualties rests with the Hizbullah who have turned the suburbs of Lebanon into a war front by firing missiles from within civilian areas.

Residents in this region and specifically the residents of Qana were warned several days in advance to leave the village. Eighteen Israeli civilians have been killed and over 400 have been wounded by these rocket attacks which have disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of Israeli citizens.

The IDF regrets any harm to uninvolved civilians, but this is the result of Hizbullah terrorist organization’s contemptible use of Lebanese civilians as human shields.

In addition to the statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has some eye opening video that clearly shows rockets being launched from between buildings in Qana.

In other words, the malicious bastards in Hizbullah, knowing that the rocket launches would draw immediate retaliation by the IAF, positioned their equipment so that maximum damage to civilian structures would ensue.

And it appears that this kind of cynicism is going to be rewarded as the nation’s of the world (including the United States) as well as the world press, and most of the left (who have been cheering on Hizbullah anyway) have gotten their way and Israel will now stop short of their stated goals of altering the situation on their northern border and trying to disarm Hizbullah.

For Hizbullah, it is a second Miracle at Qana.

The Hizbullah Hallelujah Chorus in the media and on the left has spent the last 24 hours ecstatically rolling in the blood of the civilians killed in Qana, dropping condemnatory bombs on the Israelis while being unable to display one iota of moral discrimination about the conflict. James Lewis at The American Thinker brilliantly elucidates this point:

We have lost elementary moral distinctions over the last century. As a culture, we pretend we cannot tell the difference between accidental shootings by police in pursuit of killers, and deliberate killing by those intent on destroying innocents. This is not, as the Left likes to boast, a reflection of our higher morality. It is a loss of elementary moral discrimination. We are much less moral than our ancestors of a hundred or two hundred years ago.

One role of the New Media must be to restore that common sense morality which says that hiding behind women and children in war is murder, plain and simple. The onus for murder is on the terrorist, not the cop.

There is a solution: It is for the media and the United Nations to rediscover the elementary moral distinctions of the original Geneva Conventions. Killing innocents is murder. Drawing enemy fire on children is evil. It’s not hard.

Any recognition of Mr. Lewis’ argument will come too late for Israel who will be enjoined from restarting the bombing probably by the United States who sees the diplomatic writing on the wall. It is simply unsustainable to furnish any more support for Israel’s bombing campaign against Hizbullah and their rocket launching sites. Indeed, judging by the reaction by the world community, it would be a dead certainty that Hizbullah would move their military activities even closer to residences in order to maximize civilian casualties.

I hope otherwise but world public opinion is so outraged at this point that it appears that unless Israel is willing to go it alone, the war may be over. Does George Bush have it within himself to continue to commit the US to standing with Israel against Hizbullah? I would hope that he would but at this point, I wouldn’t be too harsh on him if he urged Olmert to fold his cards and trust that the international community can summon the strength to force Hizbullah to accede to UN Resolution 1559 that mandates their disarming.

One final point: The unexplained gap of 8 hours between the time the building where 56 civilians lost their lives and its collapse will go mostly unnoticed in the media. It doesn’t fit the narrative of bloodthirsty Jews killing innocent babies for no reason. Also unnoticed will be the definitive proof that shows Hizbullah carrying out combat operations smack in the middle of suburban Beirut, giving the lie to idiotic imbeciles like Mitch Prothero of Slate.com who said that Hizbullah using civilians as human shields was a “myth.”

Israel is in a box. If they stop now, Hizbullah is a clear winner despite being pulverized by both the Israeli army and air force. Their simple survival will be spun by the media and the left as a great victory against those horrid Jews. But if they continue the war following this 48 hour bombing halt, they may have to do it without the support of the United States as Bush is coming under increasing domestic and international pressure to rein in the Israelis and force them agree to a cease fire while they are still short of their military goals.

Bush is going to earn his salary this week.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey believes Hizbullah will honor the unilateral cease fire by the Israelis in the breach:

A suspension puts more pressure on Hezbollah than it does Israel. The world has screamed for a cease-fire, and Israel has conditionally agreed, at least for a short period. If Hezbollah quits firing over the border, the Israelis may extend it, allowing the conflict to settle. However, no one really believes that Hezbollah will honor this — after all, they started the war, and they obviously believe this plays to their benefit. Once they launch another rocket, all bets are off, and Israel will get at least another two weeks before the ADD-addled global diplomats again forget that Hezbollah started the war.

I predict that the suspension will not last; Hezbollah will continue its operations, providing yet another point of clarity in this conflict.

Okay, Captain, pass me some of that kool aid. I’ll take a sip…

Any rockets launched by Hizbullah in this cease fire period will be blamed on Israel because, although it wasn’t specifically mentioned, the cessation of air attacks will not preclude the IDF from attacking Hez positions in southern Lebanon on the ground.

But let’s explore your thesis further. Any “point in clarity” with regards to this conflict will not be recognized by the overwhelming majority of nations (including the EU) as well as most of the media and certainly the left in this country. For them, there is no moral clarity to be gleaned. Israel is at fault. Israel is using “disproportionate” force to protect themselves. Israel is bombing Lebanese civilians deliberately (”Hizbullah? Hiding among civilians?” It’s a myth.)

In short, those most in need of moral clarity are wearing blinders in the first place. It is left to you and me and those of us who recognize that Israel’s fight is our fight to delineate any moral distinctions to be had in this war.

TUNE INTO THE RICK MORAN SHOW FROM 7:00 AM - 9: AM CENTRAL TIME TODAYM 7/31 BY CLICKING THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN THE LEFT SIDEBAR

Give me an H!
Give me an I!
Give me a Z!
Give me a B!
Give me a U!
Give me an L!
Give me an L!
Give me an A!
Give me an H!

Wuzzat spell? HIZBULLAH! Louder! HIZBULLAH! I Can’t Hear You! HIZZZZZZBULLAH!
(Billmon of Whiskey Bar)

The Hizbullah cheerleading competition on the left has become a fierce battle between those who have become doe-eyed worshippers of the terrorist leader Nasty Nasrallah (currently in hiding from his rabid and overly demonstrative fans in the IDF) and his cadre of happy-go-lucky rocketeers and those who simply want to see Israel destroyed.

For the judges of the contest, this presents something of a dilemma. Do they deduct points for virulent hatred directed against Jews that blinds contestants to the finer points of cheerleading? Or do they penalize participants for their utter stupidity in cheering on their own potential beheaders thus demonstrating a third grader’s understanding of Pep Squad etiquette and self preservation instincts?

A close call, that. In desperation, the judges were forced to go to the videotape.

Billmon:

It seems more likely that the Israeli cabinet’s decision not to endorse the IDF’s plan for a major invasion was the proverbial blink in this eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. I don’t even know if Olmert still has hopes of carving out a notional two-kilometer-wide DMZ along the border. I mean, it’s easy enough to say such a buffer zone exists, but if the Israelis really want one they’re going to have to fight Hizbullah for every inch of it. And as I said, it’s pretty clear the Israelis don’t have much of an appetite for that kind of fighting.

At this point, and until they show me otherwise, I have to assume the Israelis now would be very happy just to get back to the status quo ante.

There remains, however, the little problem of the steady steam (100 a day, give or take) of rockets falling on northern Israel, plus Hizbullah’s still-unused long-range “Tel Aviv” rockets. Yesterday’s strike on Afula (east and about 30 miles south of Haifa) was a reminder from Sheikh Nasrallah that he still has a few rungs left on his escalation ladder, and that the IDF hasn’t been any more successful at missile “plinking” than the U.S. Air Force was in Gulf War I.

The judges deducted 5 points immediately for Billmon’s disconnect from reality. One judge protested that in this kind of competition, the deduction was unfair because the same could be said for every single contestant, the competition being confined to leftist twits with no more grasp of strategy than a marmoset. However this judge summed it up nicely:

Only a true fool like this dolt (who is worshipped by the ‘progressive’ left) could look at a military operation and say that, because in less than three weeks Hezbollah can still fire off some completely ineffective rocket barrages that have no military impact whatsoever, and because they managed to kill a couple of dozen Israeli soldiers, that the action has been a ‘debacle’ for Israel. Last time I checked, Olmert was still in Israel, and Nasrallah was hiding behind his puppetmasters in Damascus. I guess the fact that he hasn’t been scared all the way to Tehran means that’s a defeat for Israel, too.

On the other hand, Billmon scored well in “Anti-Israeli Fundamentals” and in “Overall Appeal” to Hizbullah sympathizers. And while the judges felt his laughable ignorance of what was actually happening on the battlefield should be cause for a major deduction, Billmon made up for that negative by projecting typical leftist admiration for the tactics of terrorists. Slight deduction for not smiling enough and for the inadvertent showing his panties on the “basket toss.”

Next up, The Next Hurrah:

Hezbollah right now is operating in bunkers. All the news that comes out comes when one or another IDF soldier admits that they’re discovering Hezbollah to have well-disciplined, courageous fighters–which sends a more powerful message than all the Shock and Awe! you can muster. Meanwhile, Israel is very publicly bombing the sh*t out of Lebanon, yet it’s winning no apparent advantage from the bombing. The same, I suspect, will happen with this. Oh, I’m sure there’s pro-Hezbollah astroturf out there. But mostly, there’s just effective propaganda, winning the hearts and minds of other Arabs. Whereas Israel is conducting a very public campaign, but it appears to be dropping nothing but duds.

There was an immediate uproar from the judges following the viewing of this segment of the videotape. One judge asked if he could award a score lower than “zero” just for having to view such a nauseating routine. Another said it wasn’t so bad if you pretended “emptywheel,” the Captain of the squad, was mentally challenged and unable to differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong, friend and foe.

In the end, the judges awarded hefty style points for the way that the contestants marched in lockstep with other lefties as well as extra credit for adding inadvertent humor to the routine. Minor deduction for poorly disguising their obvious anti-semtism as well as turning too many handsprings in logic.

Finally, Cecilia Lucas (Common Dreams):

But I am making progress, seeking and finding new information, clearing some of the smoke. I am coming to terms with something that I’ve tried to deny, something I’ve been taught to deny. And so I have written a love poem. For Hizbullah. Like love that inspires poems often is, this love is not all rosy and sweet. It is complicated, tortured, frustrated, somewhat inappropriate, certainly scandalous, sometimes hesitant. It is irrational and overly rational. But still, it is love. A dear friend told me today, “Nobody ever really learns something without feeling something.” So, to Hizbullah, I offer this poem.

I Don’t Want to Love You, But I Do

You were born out of death to a life in a cage
Where bombs are not the only reason people die
Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness
Raised by colonialism
Your heart and your will still grew strong

You scare me
Not just because they tell me to be scared
Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of 1983
Begging me to understand
Americans are worth more than Lebanese

Why do they never tell me about Jihad al Bina
That you have created so much
Saved so many lives
Improved so many more…

After picking their jaws up off the floor, the judges went to work. Two judges wanted the contestant thrown out of the competition for making a mockery of the event. It simply wasn’t possible that Cecilia’s rank anti-Semitism and spectacularly ignorant views on Hizbullah could be taken seriously. It had to be parody. Or at the very least, a sick attempt to win the judges favor by being “too creative.”

Another judge pointed out that the contestant’s not disguising her disgusting Jew hatred was also cause for her being dismissed from the competition. It went against the tactics of the other contestants on the left who chose to hide their anti-Semitism by wishing for a Hizbullah victory all the while claiming they supported the existence of the Jewish state (most of the time).

But the majority of the judges decided to rate her team’s performance anyway. She actually got excellent marks for some of the routine, like when she performed her “Deadman” and the way in which she “attacked the crowd.”

But Cecelia received major deductions for sloppy thinking and a disconcerting lack of moral clarity. She received her biggest deduction for writing bad poetry, an unforgivable faux pas common among the left but largely absent from this particular competition. Slight deductions for a horrible costume (difficult to do jumps and splits in a burkha) and for rhetorically stumbling all over the place like a drunken sailor.

Who won? Perhaps I should open the comments up and let my readers vote. Have at it! And may the best leftist loon win…

On the surface, it looks like an important breakthrough in the diplomatic dance going on to stop the war between the Israelis and Hizbullah. The terrorists have apparently agreed to disarm and allow an international force into southern Lebanon:

Hezbollah politicians, while expressing reservations, have joined their critics in the government in agreeing to a peace package that includes strengthening an international force in south Lebanon and disarming the guerrillas, the government said.

The agreement — reached after a heated six-hour Cabinet meeting — was the first time that Hezbollah has signed onto a proposal for ending the crisis that includes the deploying of international forces.

Ah yes! Those all important “reservations.”

Hezbollah signed on to the joint proposal “in principle” on the understanding that more discussions will be held between it and other political factions after the U.N. Security Council decides on the composition and mandate of an international force on the border, according to Hezbollah and government officials. The radical Shiite Muslim movement would maintain its heavily armed militia in the south during the talks.

[snip]

After a prisoner exchange, “we will discuss between us Lebanese how to proceed toward a reinforced international presence along the border,” Hamadeh said. He acknowledged that disarming Hezbollah would have to be part of the discussion, saying: “We would discuss that as part of the system of national defense, but between us Lebanese.”

The proposal also demands a Security Council commitment to place the disputed Shebaa Farms area under U.N. supervision until Syria, Israel and Lebanon can work out a settlement on whose territory it should be. Ghaleb Abu-Zeinab of Hezbollah’s political bureau said this was key because the tiny pocket of orchards — where the Israeli and Lebanese borders meet the occupied Golan Heights — is the militia’s only territorial dispute with Israel.

With that issue settled, he suggested, Hezbollah could consider some form of disarmament and cooperation with the Lebanese army and international peacekeepers.

To sum up, Hizbullah will “discuss” the issue of disarming if:

1. Israel agrees to an immediate cease fire.

2. Israel agrees to a prisoner exchange involving terrorists who have murdered Israeli citizens including cold blooded killer Samir Qantar.

3, The UN internationalizes the Shebaa Farms and then hands the disputed territory to Lebanon.

4. The Lebanese government discusses “reinforcing the international presence” (UNIFIL) in the south while allowing Hizbullah back into positions they have abandoned during the war.

5. Pigs can fly.

Watch now as diplomats the world over praise Hizbullah’s “flexibility” when in reality, the terrorists want to return to a status quo ante-bellum; everything exactly as it was before the war with the bonus of the disputed Shebaa Farms falling into Hizbullah’s hands like a ripe plum. They will still have their guns going into “negotiations” with the Lebanese government to disarm - presumably the same negotiations that have been going on for more than a year. The big difference being that Nasty Nasrallah and his thugs will have garnered enormous prestige as a result of their standing toe to toe with Israel on the battlefield and besting them at the conference table.

Also, recall that Hizbullah has yet to abide by UN Resolution 1559 which called for their forces to pull back from the southern border as well as disarming. Why in God’s name should anyone with half a brain trust these brutes to abide by any agreement put into place following their latest aggression against Israel?

I disagree with Ed Morrissey’s take on this:

First, Hassan Nasrallah has retreated to the shelter of his patrons, first in Damascus and then rumored to be hiding in the Iranian embassy. Second, his admission of setbacks to his troops indicate that he was already in some serious trouble with his fellow terrorists. This new offer makes it appear that a leadership change has occurred in Hezbollah — and Nasrallah may wind up fleeing Lebanon altogether.

I don’t think that Nasrallah’s popularity depends very much on any gains or losses by the military wing of Hizbullah. The fact that they have stood up in open combat with the Israelis is, pathetically speaking, enough to make him a hero on the Arab street and raise his prestige even further amongst the Lebanese Shia population. And the Lebanese government, caught between an ascendant Hizbullah and the punishing attacks by the Israelis, have pretty much been forced to give Nasrallah a veto over any peace proposals anyway.

As Ed rightly points out, it is unlikely that the Israelis will accept the cease fire proposal anyway which means that Nasrallah has lost nothing domestically and gained enormously on the international stage as he will now be touted as something of a statesman. And in the end, unless something unforeseen occurs, Hizbullah will still have its guns, still be the most organized and effective fighting force in Lebanon, and still hold the upper hand over the government in any peace negotiations with Israel or the international community.

Well, it’s a start anyway.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have bowed to international pressure and called for a mutual cease fire between Israel and Hizbullah. I’m sure if both men had their druthers, they would have continued commiserating on the sidelines with the suffering of Lebanese civilians all the while urging the Israelis to move faster in their campaign to systematically take the terrorists apart. But the time has arrived where the law of diminishing returns for this strategy has been reached and at least the appearance of peace overtures be given.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced agreement today to seek a United Nations resolution next week that would send a multinational force to southern Lebanon and end hostilities between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with Blair at the White House, Bush said he is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice back to the Middle East from a conference in Malaysia to try to obtain agreement from the governments of Lebanon and Israel on the U.S.-British plan.

Blair, appearing with Bush at the news conference, said a meeting at the United Nations is being moved forward to Monday to work on the “international stabilization force” for southern Lebanon.

Bush and Blair said their plan, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah in accordance with a 2004 U.N. Security Council resolution, will ensure a durable peace, rather than a temporary cease-fire.

And the way the two men have carefully crafted their appeal, they are still giving Israel some time to further the destruction of Hizbullah - although it is apparent that there is also a clock at work now that will tick down to a point where Israel must stop.

Bush said the United States and Britain seek a new Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which deals with threats to international peace and provides for the use of military force under U.N. auspices. He said the resolution would set out “a clear framework for cessation of hostilities on an urgent basis” and would mandate the multinational force.

He declined to specify which countries should be included in the multinational force or who should lead it, saying these issues would be addressed at the meeting Monday. Bush also would not say whether Hezbollah’s agreement to accept the force should be a “precondition” for deploying it. But he noted that “Hezbollah is not a state,” and he said the key is to get the governments of Lebanon and Israel to agree to the force, which he said would “serve as a complement” to the Lebanese army and would “help the Lebanese army succeed.”

Bush said the approach he and Blair agreed upon would make possible “the end of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, the return of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by the terrorists, the suspension of Israel’s operations in Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.”

All of this will take time to organize - especially the multinational force. My own estimate, based on Israel’s timetable for destroying Hizbullah, is 3-4 weeks. I can’t believe the President would have agreed to this move unless it allowed Israel the freedom to carry out their military plans to their completion.

And then there will be the insoluble problem of what countries will send troops that will make up the MNF. Unless Hizbullah agrees to give up its guns peaceably, the MNF will be engaged in combat and suffer casualties. There are only a handful of nations that would be willing to send its troops into harms way under an international command structure where the rules of engagement are bound to be extraordinarily restrictive.

No numbers were mentioned at the press conference for the MNF but if Hizbullah has at least 20,000 fighters, one would think that any UN force would have to at least be double that number in order to carry out the additional mandates planned under the cease fire proposal:

Bush said the top priorities of the U.S.-British plan for Lebanon are “providing immediate humanitarian relief, achieving an end to the violence, ensuring the return of displaced persons and assisting with reconstruction.” He added, “Our goal is to achieve a lasting peace, which requires that a free, democratic and independent Lebanese government be empowered to exercise full authority over its territory. We want a Lebanon free of militias and foreign interference, and a Lebanon that governs its own destiny” as called for in U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

“We agree that a multinational force must be dispatched to Lebanon quickly to augment a Lebanese army as it moves to the south of that country,” Bush said. He said the multinational force would “help speed delivery of humanitarian relief, facilitate the return of displaced persons, and support the Lebanese government as it asserts full sovereignty over its territory and guards its borders.”

That’s a heavy load for a group that will be expected to “augment” the Lebanese army. In reality, it will be the MNF that will do most of the heavy lifting in any combat situation with Hizbullah. The Lebanese army could not be counted on to fight the terrorists given their questionable loyalties as well as fitness for combat.

The real question is will Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora be able to get Hizbullah to accept any deal that involves their disarmament. Conventional wisdom says no, that Siniora is not in charge anyway. If that is the case, there is little any international force can do to make them give up their guns and the MNF would be operating in a combat zone.

Then there is the question if there would be any international force at all if Hizbullah refuses to disarm. If that happens, Israel would have little choice but to occupy their buffer zone in Lebanon and endure years of guerrilla attacks at the hands of Hizbullah terrorists. There just isn’t the international will to take on Hizbullah except in the United States and perhaps Great Britain. And it is doubtful that either of those two countries would contribute the numbers of men to an MNF that would make the force viable.

The key here is that Hizbullah would have to agree to give up there guns before there is a cease fire. I expect the UN to water down that part of the proposal since Hizbullah will not agree in advance to such a deal. This means that the US will probably be placed in a position of having to pressure Israel to accept a cease fire without that very important goal being reached. Will Olmert go along? He will probably have little choice.

The MNF won’t be there forever. And once they leave, a fully armed Hizbullah will be free to move back into the positions they had to abandon. So in the end, everyone will ask, “What was it we were fighting about?”

To my mind, it is one of the most amazing transformations in recent political history. After working tirelessly in the post World War II environment to assist in the establishment of the state of Israel, many on the left have forgotten the original noble impulses that spurred their advocacy for a Jewish homeland and, in some cases, replaced it with a virulent, nauseating anti-semitism.

The dichotomy has its roots in the transformation of the old left to the new. While it is true the old left embraced Soviet Stalinism, it nevertheless rejected the Soviet state’s overt anti-Semitism the same way it ignored other human rights obscenities under Uncle Joe’s regime - such things just didn’t happen in the “worker’s paradise.” But it was the refugee crisis in post war Europe that galvanized the left and spurred their support for United Nations action on establishing the State of Israel.

The war ended with millions of displaced persons including 1.5 million Jews who refused repatriation or were denied re-entry to the countries of their birth. This was due in large part to a vicious anti-Semitism, especially in Eastern Europe. It was especially true in Poland where there were several pogroms carried out against returning Jews including a massacre of 42 Holocaust survivors in Kielce. The US and Britain also failed these unfortunate refugees in American restrictions on immigration and the British refusal to allow unrestricted immigration to Palestine. The UN had put the British in charge in Palestine and the local Arab population was not keen on having hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring into what they claimed were their ancestral lands.

By 1947, the situation in the camps was getting desperate. This led to the formation of several Jewish quasi-military units who began spiriting the more than 250,000 displaced persons out of camps and onto ships bound for the Holy Land. Intercepting most of these ships filled with Holocaust survivors, the British set up detention camps on the island of Cyprus to deal with this crush of humanity. These camps were administered by the British Army, not the United Nations and the conditions - little shelter, horrible food, inadequate medical care - were a disgrace.

Led by socialist groups in Europe and America (a large and vocal segment of which were Jews), the resulting international outcry spurred the United Nations into action. The British pawned the problem off to the UN at the urging of President Truman and a special session of the UN General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to partition Palestine into two new states, one Jewish and the other Arab. The solution was embraced by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs. On May 14, 1947, the State of Israel was born.

On May 15, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded.

Fighting for their lives, outnumbered 10-1, the Israelis nevertheless prevailed. Over a nine month period, they pushed the Arab armies out of Israel while forcibly displacing some 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. This was a solution backed by the western left at the time because the armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria allowed for the formation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River. The problem was that it was not the Palestinians who would be administering that state. The UN-brokered accord called for Jordan and Egypt to share in governing the Palestinian territory.

For the first 25 years of its existence, the State of Israel’s greatest champions in the west were on the left. Through the wars in 1967 and 1973, liberals in America lobbied for strong American support for Israel against its enemies who were seeking to destroy it.

But something happened that transitioned the left’s strong support for Israel into opposition to Israeli policies and even tipping over into anti-Semitism. And the answer can be found in the transition from the tolerance, coherence, and nobility of thought of the old left into the intolerant, riot of conceits and unabashed hatred spouted by the new left.

It wasn’t just the radicalization of politics during the 1960’s that gave the new left traction. More than anything, it was their bold forays into political advocacy that gave them real power and caused a sea change in American liberalism that booted the old left to the sidelines. Immersing themselves in Democratic party politics, the new left’s anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, statist (later anti-globalist) message that became ascendant saw the state of Israel as just one more rich state oppressing poorer ones. Forgotten was the reason for the formation of the State of Israel. Instead, the grievance culture of the new left identified with the Palestinian cause (as they identified with the bloodthirsty North Vietnamese during the war) and saw Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine a travesty of justice.

This is how the new left can look at Hizbullah and rather than seeing a terrorist group wishing to kill every living Jew in Israel they see instead a “resistance” to Zionist neo-colonialism. The Ward Churchills and Cindy Sheehans of the new left are only the most incoherent examples of a kind of virulent anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to capitalism and “racism” (as if Arabs and Jews are of a different race) that is now accepted on the new left as gospel. In fact, it is now perfectly acceptable to daydream about ridding the world of the Jewish state while making the jaw-dropping denial that this is in any way anti-Semitic.

This diary at Daily Kos sums it up perfectly: Does Israel Have a “Right to Exist?:

Might doesn’t make right, but it does determine who acts as they please.

The problem is the nations that get no respect and get anti-social as a result. It won’t help Israel to become a giant of bombers and tanks, because they cannot use their nukes.

We hope. What happens if Goliath strikes first, before David winds up his slingshot?

My answer? Evacuate Israel. Take everything that ain’t screwed down. Buy Baja, or some other available property. If it can’t be done anywhere in the world, change the culture to one of assimilation.

He is not alone. As this excellent article in The Weekly Standard by Dean Barnett points out, Daily Kos (which is the largest meeting place for the new left on the web) reveals much more of a casual, obscene anti-Semitism in its numerous diarists and commenters:

Perhaps sensing that this issue could highlight just how far removed the Kos community is from the American mainstream, Moulitsas and his other front-page bloggers have opted to ignore Israel’s war. Combined, the half dozen front-pagers have written exactly one post on the subject. And that post, authored by Moulitsas, simply declared that he wouldn’t write anything further on the subject. So while the most important story of the year develops, the nation’s leading progressive blog has chosen to focus on the Indiana second district House race between Chris Chocola and Joe Donnelly. Nothing wrong with that; it’s their prerogative to blog about whatever they like.

But inside the Kos diaries, it’s been a different story. The conversation in the diaries has been overwhelmingly anti-Israel–and potentially disastrous for the Democratic party.

One diarist labeled Israel “a destabilizing force in the region” and saw “no difference between Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas in the form of finances and even arms and The United States’ financial support of Israel.” Before modifying this diary into a more moderate form, the author opened his essay with the declaration, “Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is.”

Echoing the themes of moral equivalence and hostility towards the Jewish state, another diarist observed that, “War is nothing but terrorist attacks. Call it what you will, whatever rhetoric you want to use . . . when it comes down to it, that’s all it is. Israel committed terrorism today. And we helped to fund that terrorism.” [Ellipsis in original.]

It must be stressed that there is a difference between opposing the policies of the American and Israeli governments and anti-Semitism. But try as one might, it becomes virtually impossible to take such critiques as simple political disagreements when the very same rhetoric used by the anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying Arabs to call for the destruction of the State of Israel is used by the new left in their hateful rants against the Jewish state.

Clearly this metamorphosis by the left from strong support to hateful opposition towards the State of Israel can have a disastrous political effect if exploited by Republicans. However, since no prominent Democratic politician has actually come out and condemned Israels actions in the latest conflict (even though 8 House Democrats including ranking members Conyers, Dingell, Rahall, Stark and Abercrombie - all in line for Committee chairmanships if the Democrats take control - voted no on the House Resolution supporting Israel) it seems unlikely that the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic mouthings of the Democratic base will play any role at all in the November elections.

As Sir Thomas More said in Robert Bolton’s play A Man for All Seasons regarding the switching between Protestantism and Romanism by Will Roper, “Let us pray that when your head stops spinning, it ends up facing the right way.”

One can only hope that the left in America once again will face the “right way” and come home to its original lofty and noble support for one of its truly decent impulses of the 20th century - giving a battered and oppressed people a place that they could call home and where the words “Never Again” would have real as well as symbolic meaning.

There is a growing realization that the Israeli-Islamist War now well into its second week will not alter the basic realities in the Middle East that led to the conflict in the first place.

After the guns fall silent in Gaza and Lebanon, Hamas will still be leading the Palestinian Authority and far from being chastised, may in fact become more radicalized. President Abbas, trying desperately to broker a cease fire, is finding that his authority does not extend throughout the territories as several armed groups seem hell bent on continuing the fight with Israel:

The Egyptian-initiated plan consists of freeing abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire and the cessation of IDF assassinations in the Gaza Strip. The release of Palestinian prisoners would be part of the deal, but come at a later stage.

It is not clear, however, whether the Hamas political leader in Damascus, Khaled Meshal, would agree to such a deal.

Representatives of several military factions in Gaza denied Saturday reports of a unilateral cease-fire. Palestinian sources stated that they are only willing to accept a joint truce that would include an end to Qassam fire in return for a halt in IDF actions in Gaza.

While continued resistance will result in a further weakening of Hamas in its ability to inflict damage on the Jewish state, the fact is that any respite Israel achieves in its war with the Palestinian terrorists of Hamas will be relatively brief. The Palestinian people have shown no desire to kick Hamas out of power and given time, the terrorists will have the opportunity to regroup and rearm until they once again, pose a grave threat to the security of the Israeli people.

But the Israelis never expected to do anything to Hamas except degrade their ability to harm civilians. Did they expect anything different when going to war against Hizbullah?

Clearly, the Israelis realized that by not only attacking Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut where much of Hizbullah’s infrastructure is located but also by destroying much of the tiny nation’s infrastructure that they would be scrambling Lebanese politics in hopes of getting a political solution to the problem of disarming the terrorists. Under United Nations Resolution 1559, Hizbullah was to be disarmed and the Lebanese government was to reestablish sovereignty over all of Lebanon, including the south where Hizbullah had established a state within a state.

The Israelis believed that by making the war extremely painful for other Lebanese factions - Christian, Druze, Sunnis - that the Lebanese government and their majority of anti-Syrian reform minded politicians would finally take the bull by the horns and take the initiative in disarming the terrorists while sending the Lebanese army to occupy positions in the south formerly held by Hizbullah.

But while little is clear at this point (Lebanese politics being an obtuse study to say the least) the chances of the Lebanese government attempting to disarm Hizbullah after the war appear to be somewhere between slim and none. As I pointed out yesterday, the war has placed Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah in a clearly ascendant position in government - so much so that the terrorists have maneuvered successfully to co-opt the government on everything save negotiating prisoner exchanges. The reason for this is simple; the Lebanese government is just too weak to stand against a determined armed group whose power and popularity grows daily. In fact, Prime Minister Siniora has said that if Israel invades southern Lebanon, he will send the army to fight side by side with Hizbullah, thus further legitimizing Hizbullah “resistance.”

If the Lebanese government will be unable or unwilling to disarm Hizbullah, will the Israelis be able to do it for them? Not hardly. While the IDF will be able to weaken their striking power by substantially reducing the number of rockets and missiles in Hizbullah’s possession as well as making it much more difficult for the terrorists to hit civilian targets by creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon that would put most of the remaining missiles out of range, the major problem for both Israel and the Lebanese government will remain; who is going to disarm Hizbullah?

For in the end, when the shooting stops and the negotiators are sitting around the table, the fact of the matter is that Hizbullah will still have several thousand armed men whose allegiance to the Lebanese government will be an open question. And believing that Nasrallah can be convinced to give up his guns is a chimera. He will fight before he disarms. His power and the political juice of Hizbullah comes not in their ideas as a political party but out of the barrel of a gun. Without arms, Hizbullah is just a minority party representing a minority faction in Lebanese politics. Those who have watched Hassan Nasrallah since the end of Syrian occupation last year realize that this is something he (and his patrons in Iran and Syria) will never settle for.

Would the United Nations force Hizbullah to give up its arms? Forget for a moment that the UN would have no desire to get into a shooting war with anybody. The sad fact is that the United Nations doesn’t have the capability to force anyone to do anything.

What if an international force was constituted to occupy southern Lebanon as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon? Could they force Hizbullah to give up their arms? On the surface, this may be a promising solution. It may, in fact, be one of the calculi used by Israel as it denudes Lebanon of its infrastructure, making them an international basket case and forcing Europe and the United States to do what the Lebanese government is incapable of doing with regards to Hizbullah’s weapons.

But it is highly unlikely that the French, the Germans, or any NATO country would shed blood in the Middle East for this or any other reason. There doesn’t seem to be the international will to fight a continuous guerrilla war with Hizbullah in order to disarm them.

So the question of who will disarm Hizbullah doesn’t have an answer. Israel can only weaken, not destroy them. And the Israelis will not repeat their occupation of southern Lebanon that cost them so dearly in the 1980’s and 19990’s. The Lebanese government can only deal with Nasrallah in a political sense not as an enemy to be destroyed. That road leads to civil war, something no sane Lebanese wants. The UN is helpless. The international community paralyzed. And the United States does not have the political will at home to fight a never ending war against Hizbullah while we are already struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan with insurgencies.

So Hizbullah will keep its guns. Some deal will be brokered that will please none of the parties. And a few years from now after both Hamas and Hizbullah have had a chance to rest, refit, and rearm, we will probably go through this entire exercise again.

I guess that’s why they call it a “cycle of violence.”

Almost 5 years after 9/11, the Israeli-Islamist War has revealed the shocking fact that the CIA is still getting “surprised” by events in a part of the world where the life and death of the United States can be effectively decided:

The power and sophistication of the missile and rocket arsenal that Hezbollah has used in recent days has caught the United States and Israel off guard, and officials in both countries are just now learning the extent to which the militant group has succeeded in getting weapons from Iran and Syria.

While the Bush administration has stated that cracking down on weapons proliferation is one of its top priorities, the arming of Hezbollah shows the blind spots of American and other Western intelligence services in assessing the threat, officials from across those governments said.

American and Israeli officials said the successful attack last Friday on an Israeli naval vessel was the strongest evidence to date of direct support by Iran to Hezbollah. The attack was carried out with a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, an American intelligence official said.

At the same time, American and Israeli officials cautioned that they had found no evidence that Iranian operatives working in Lebanon launched the antiship missile themselves.

But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.

The list of “surprises” handed to the CIA just since the end of the Cold War is astonishing. Pierre Legrand:

Man I tell you I was shocked, shocked I tell you when I read that our intelligence agencies were caught “off guard” by the sophistication of the missiles being fired into Israel. After all they have had such a sterling record of prognostication these last few years, being caught “off guard” by India’s test of a Nuclear weapon, being caught off “guard by Pakistans test of the same, etc…guess super sleuth Joe Wilson was busy.

With people like Valerie Plame working for them I would be surprised if the agency could predict which part of the horizon the sun would rise on. Ooh sorry I “outed” a supersecret agent…”outed” hehe…love that word makes me feel so like an insider. We need to “out” a few hundred/thousand more incompetents in the CIA before we can hope to get our money’s worth.

Since 9/11, the CIA has been so busy leaking to cover its bureaucratic ass for the massive number of mistakes they’ve made and playing partisan politics against an Administration whose policies and people it despises, that it has failed in its primary duty of giving our policy makers a heads up about the kinds of threats posed by our enemies. Suppose for the sake of argument (and I do not support this supposition) that a situation arose where our navy would have to engage in combat with Hizballah. While I don’t think any of our ship captains would make the same mistake as the Israeli skipper who sailed into a war zone with a de-activated missile defense system, not knowing the offensive capabilities of the enemy could still lead to big trouble. And the blithe manner that it appears the CIA approaches analyzing these capabilities calls into question the competence of the career bureaucrats who are running the various desks and departments at the agency.

Consider that the CIA National Intelligence Estimate (leaked last summer) estimated that Iran was at least a decade away from being able to build a nuclear weapon. This is the estimate from a group who has been wrong about every nation that has gone nuclear since the 1960’s when they were surprised by the Chinese bomb in 1964. They were surprised when India first exploded a nuke in 1974. They were surprised when Pakistan detonated their own nuclear device in 1998. They have been surprised, astonished, puzzled, perplexed, ignorant, and clueless about America’s enemies for decades.

Well, it doesn’t surprise me that they’re clueless about Hizballah. And their confident assertion that no Iranians helped Hizballah with launching the anti-ship missile doesn’t make me feel any better. Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been reported in the Bekaa Valley for years, facilitating Iranian aid and helping to train Hizballah terrorists. How they can make such a confident assertion when they missed the overall picture of Hizballah weaponry and capabilities is beyond me.

The agency is still dysfunctional 5 years after the towers fell. Somebody somewhere at some point has to change the “corporate culture” at the CIA or we will wake up one morning and all of us will be “surprised” as we were that horrible September day.

UPDATE

The Commissar has renditioned me to Bulgaria. My only complaint is that they’re still not giving me any sour cream with my borscht.

It isn’t pretty.

Watching as the Israelis systematically denude Hizballah of its capability to harm the Jewish state is both a painful and sorrowful experience. We feel for the Lebanese civilians caught between the terrorists and Israeli warplanes. We sympathize with the Lebanese government who, like their counterparts in Iraq, have found it impossible so far to disarm the angry men with guns in their midst.

It’s no accident that those angry men with guns in both countries have the same patrone: The Iranian mullacracy. And while it is doubtful that Iran specifically ordered the aggression against Israel that has precipitated this latest round of Middle Eastern violence, everyone agrees with the notion that the mullahs are supporting it. President Ahmadinejad has made at least that much clear. They will take action against Israel if the IDF goes too far:

“We hope the Zionist regime does not make the mistake of attacking Syria, because extending the front would definitely make the Zionist regime face unimaginable losses,” foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

“Iran is standing by the Syrian people,” he said of the Islamic republic’s sole regional ally.

Civilians in Lebanon are suffering not only from being bombed thanks to their proximity to Hizballah targets but also because the Israelis insist on “putting pressure” on the struggling government to rein in the terrorists by bombing Lebanese infrastructure and even the army. This is an extraordinarily risky strategy. Putting pressure on an already weak and fragile government may cause it to collapse if taken to an extreme. But the Israelis have evidently decided that they must change the situation on their northern border completely:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the fighting in the north would have “far-reaching implications” on how Israel would relate in the future to the northern border and the entire region.

“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he said. “We have no interest in harming the Lebanese or Palestinian people. We want to live our lives quietly and as good neighbors. But unfortunately, there are those who interpreted our desire for peace in the wrong manner.”

It should be interesting to watch how Olmert changes how he “relates” to Syria who also sits on his northern border and who also supports Hizballah. Bashir Assad, reportedly already in trouble with some of his military and political elites for being kicked out of Lebanon, could find himself being measured for concrete galoshes if his fellow gangsters feel that they have absorbed a couple too many well aimed blows by the IDF. This is what is apparently staying Olmerts hand - for the present. The prospect of who would follow in his footsteps if Assad should fall has policy makers in both Israel and America lying awake at night. The prospect of someone smarter, tougher, more experienced, and bolder makes that nightmare scenario too horrible to contemplate for some.

The call by Arab countries for Hizballah to stop its “adventurism” was certainly a welcome addition to the dialogue. Now if we can only get them to be as united on helping Iraq with their difficulties, they may gain a measure of respect from the west. And how about helping the United States in their confrontation with the mullahs in Iran? Just think if a united Middle East could confront the bully boys in Tehran over their aspirations to dominate the region not to mention their nuclear program, the Iranians would be in a much weaker position. This could affect the negotiations over their drive for atomic weapons, although I’m doubting it. But when push comes to shove with the Ayatollahs, it would help immensely if the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians could be as united as they are now against Hizballah.

The way out of the present morass is clear; move Hizballah so far away from the border that their rockets would be useless. The Israelis have now set more reasonable conditions to stop their offensive:

Israel would agree to a cease-fire in its six-day-old offensive against Hezbollah if the Lebanese guerrillas withdraw from the border area with Israel and release two captured Israeli soldiers, a senior official said Monday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had conveyed Israel’s position to Italy’s prime minister, who is trying to broker a cease-fire deal.

Israel had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities.

(HT: STACLU)

Some kind of UN force on the border would give Prime Minister Siniora of Lebanon the cover he needs to move the Lebanese army into areas once occupied by Hizballah. It is doubtful the terrorists would give up those positions without a fight - unless they were blocked from doing so by UN troops. All depends on how badly Hizballah wants to start another Lebanese civil war. The people - all sects and factions - would be dead set against it. But the prospect of Hizballah fighting the Lebanese army for control of the south could cause the disintegration of the armed forces leaving Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizballah leader, in the drivers seat. This would be a catastrophe, of course, and would probably lead to another Israeli intervention in Lebanon. I’ll be Olmert loses sleep over that scenario.

In the meantime, the Jewish state keeps up the attack. Another couple of days and Nasrallah will have to either ask openly for Iranian/Syrian support or give in and accept a reduced role in the south as well as the probable disarming of his supporters. At the very least, he will lose his missiles. And Israel will be sure not to give him too much to crow about.

The Israelis are breaking a lot of eggs right now. We can only hope whatever emerges is appetizing enough for all parties to stop the violence.