Setanta wrote:I think the Isrealis intend now what they intended with their invasion of the Lebanon in 1975. Then, they wanted to neutralize the PLO. I'd say that now, they have invaded and continue to attack Gaza on the pretext conveniently provided by the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier, and that their object is the destruction of Hamas as an effective military force.
I suspect they intend the same for Hezbollah in the Lebanon. Note that this means that i don't see any deep-laid conspiracies here--the Israelis can hardly be reasonably accused of engineering these two incidents of kidnapping. But i think they are opportunistically using these incidents to justify attacks on first Hamas, and then Hezbollah. Attacking civilian areas will never get nut-case terrorists to release hostages, and i have every reason to assume that the Isrealis do know this. But this situation provides them a causus belli for attacking Hezbollah, just as the earlier incident was an excuse to attack Hamas in Gaza (the area of their largest support).
One of the things that leads me to believe this was their immediate response that the nation of Lebanon is responsible for the kidnapped soldiers, and that they considered this "an act of war." The Lebanon was not responsible, and i think it is being held responsible by Isreal as a pretext to justify eventual invasion. The stronghold of Hezbollah is the southern neighborhoods and suburbs of Beirut. The Isrealis will need eventually to attack those areas more effectively than they have done with air strikes and naval shelling if they are to neutralize Hesbollah. It is significant that they have attacked those areas, and i suspect they may eventually attempt to invade and drive on southern Beirut--if they think the people of Isreal will accept the contention that it is necessary.
Since it is extremely difficult for me to believe that two incidents involving the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was the work of rogue terrorists within Hamas and Hesbollah, then I am left with two possible explanations:
1) The leaders of Hamas and Hesbollah (and their masters in Syria and Iran ) are stupider than I ever would have imagined. Even if there was some expectation that Israel might capitulate in some way to secure the release of their soldier from Hamas, it would have been readily apparent to Hezbollah that this tactic wasn't working and repeating it would be idiocy. I don't see this explanation being credible
2) The leaders of Hamas and Hesbollah (and their masters in Syria and Iran) want to draw Israel into a war, and they are confident that they can not only survive any military efforts (opportunistic or otherwise) by Israel to crush them once and for all, but can actually somehow profit from them.
It makes perfect sense for Israel to hold Lebanon responsible for the Hesbollah attacks, just as it makes perfect sense for them to hold the PLA responsible for the Hamas attacks.
If a well organized and powerful political organization located in the US repeatedly fired rockets into towns and cities in Canada or Mexico, and their members made cross border raids to kill and kidnap Canadian and Mexican soldiers, the world would hold the US government responsible, and rightly so.
If members of such organizations held seats in congress, the argument for US responsibility would be that much louder and justified, and if one organization actually held a majority in congress and held the executive branch, the argument would be unassailable.
Be that as it may, it makes strategic sense to hold Lebanon responsible. For years, the government has done nothing to wrest control of the South from Hezbollah nor to see them disarmed. True that there is a
new Lebanon since the withdrawal of Syria, but they continued to tolerate Hezbollah. They may not have been in a position of enough strength to take Hezbollah on, but given the history of the region I cannot fault Israel for refusing to rely on a fledgling, quasi-democratic Lebanese government to ever rid the country of Hezbollah.
Presumably they are supposed to endure the attacks of Hezbollah without putting any stress on the Lebanese government so that government can survive and mature into one which can take care of Hezbollah for them. Not a money play.
It's interesting that so many of the people who are now calling for restraint by Israel for the very reason of allowing the Lebanese government to gain strength are so pessimistic about the chances of a nascent democracy in Iraq surviving and growing despite the direct and massive support of the most powerful nation on earth.
If Iraq's chances are so poor, why should Israel count on Lebanon's, when the latter hasn't a fraction of the support Iraq has?
It is far too coincidental that the Hezbollah attacks came precisely when Iran was called upon to respond to the West's proposal for resolving the Iranian nuclear issues to suggest that there is not deliberate linkage.
The question remains, is this the primary reason for Iran setting loose the Hezbollah hounds on Israel, or are they trying to spark a much great conflagration in the region? Are the mullahs hoping that Israel will do more than simply buzz Assad's house?
Are they competing with North Korea for our attention and the attention of the world?
All of the crisis in this region steady escalate before they come close to anything approaching resolution, and I have an unsettling feeling that this one is going to get much much worse before it gets better.
