Iranian clerics call on Muslims to arm Hizbullah in its fight with Israel. That's not really nice of them. You'd think that the Iranians were trying to destroy Israel from the sound of things. Oh wait. That's exactly what they keep saying.
Is it a surprise that the fighting is affecting the diplomatic efforts? It shouldn't. Hizbullah started this fight in Lebanon and Israel has to finish it. The EU still thinks that an immediate ceasefire is the route to go. Never mind that a ceasefire with Hizbullah still in place and still in possession of weapons is a recipe for disaster for Israel. There can be no return to the status quo ante, which means Israel will continue fighting until Hizbullah's capabilities are severely diminished. The EU also says that Israel is unlikely to dent Hizbullah's capabilities. Well, when Israel is essentially fighting with both hands tied behind its back against an enemy that regularly uses civilians as human shields, what do you expect. If Israel fought this war as many of the sanctimonious Europeans would if they were in the same position, Hizbullah would be routed.
Israeli FM Lipni says that France's position on the conflict is problematic. That's the understatement of the day. When you say that Iran is a stabilizing element in the region, you've not only been drinking too much of that French wine, but you've gone beyond wishful thinking into fantasyland.
Fatah is preparing just in case there's an escalation. Are you kidding me? Fatah has been at the forefront of the terrorism against Israel and its preparations include equipping more kids with bomb vests and having its leaders hiding in and among civilian populations. Oh, and the Palestinians have been firing and preparing rocket positions stocked with kids. The IDF waited until those kids left the area before engaging the rocket site. Palestinians and other Islamic terrorists using kids and civilians as cannon fodder? Who would have thought such a thing?
Meanwhile, there's now a proposal being floated that would see Gilad Shalit transferred to Egypt.
In the framework of negotiations over the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, "we are looking into the possibility of handing him over to Egypt until Israel fulfills the Palestinians and the abductors' demand to free Palestinian prisoners," a senior Palestinian official told Ynet Tuesday.Why Israel would agree to these terms makes no sense. Shalit's release should be unrestricted by any prisoner releases by Israel, and Fatah and Hamas know, or should know, that they have a losing hand in this as Israel has shown itself to be willing to attack Palestinian terrorist weapons caches, jihadis in action, and destroy the terrorists' infrastructure in Gaza. If Israel backs down here, Fatah will take this as a major victory as would Hamas, despite their losses. If the terrorists are able to gain prisoner releases, then Israel is in no better position than it was before Israel began its operation in Gaza to deal with the ongoing terror threat. Perception is everything, and by agreeing to a swap, will lose strategically what it has gained in the tactical actions thus far.
(snip)
According to the agreement that is being formulated by both sides, whose basic principles were agreed upon by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin, Shalit is to be transferred either to Egypt or to Abbas' hands. In exchange, Israel will cease military operations, primarily in the Strip, suspend all targeted killings and work to release Palestinian prisoners. Once the prisoners are freed, Shalit will be returned to Israel.
Bloggers to check in with for daily updates are Blue Crab Boulevard, Carl in Jerusalem, Israellycool, Dave Bender, Meryl Yourish, Euphoric Reality, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, Jameel at the Muqata, Greetings from the French Hill, R'Lazer, and Live from an Israeli Bunker. Check back with them regularly for updates.
UPDATE:
Via Cattt at LGF, comes word that Hizbullah may have been behind the reason that so many women and children were present in the facility hit in the Israeli airstrike. This is based, in part, on an anti-Syrian Lebanese website reporting that Hizbullah set in motion a plan that would maximize civilian casualties in Qana, which had been hit years earlier by an Israeli airstrike killing civilians.
The site's editors also claimed that not only did Hizbullah stage the event, but that it also chose Qana for a specific reason: "They used Qana because the village had already turned into a symbol for massacring innocent civilians, and so they set up 'Qana 2'." Notably, the incident has indeed been dubbed "The second Qana massacre" by the Arab media.Well, it looks like Hizbullah succeeded in fooling the media, but the incident should be raising serious questions about the timing of the casualties, the numbers, and who was in the structure hit.
UPDATE:
The Qana incident's casualty list keeps shrinking. Aren't you the least bit curious how that happens. When the incident is examined more closely, the inconsistencies by Hizbullah continue to jump out. Inflating the body count for example.
Nasrallah, meanwhile, calls for bombing Tel Aviv.
Via Ha'aretz, U.K. and Germany reject EU draft calling for immediate cease-fire in Lebanon conflict. I guess some countries recognize that Israel is the only one who can severely degrade Hizbullah so that international forces can eventually take over peacemaking operations in South Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Israel is saying that they're willing to swap two Lebanese prisoners they're holding for the two Israeli soldiers taken by Hizbullah. I think this is still a bad idea, despite the fact that this is a one for one release, because it continues to set bad precedent for future acts by Hizbullah against Israel.
This article weighs the costs of continued military action versus what can be achieved and preserved politically.
UPDATE:
Israeli soldiers have killed a number of Hizbullah in their latest efforts in South Lebanon as they push towards the Litani River. Israel believes that more than 400 Hizbullah have been eliminated thus far. Shimon Peres doesn't think that Syria will go to war, but I'd still be wary of their actions covertly assisting Hizbullah inside Lebanon.
Add the Czechs to the list of those countries rejecting the EU formulation for a ceasefire.
And guess who has come out of the woodwork to offer his empty rhetoric. Jimmy Carter. Banging pots and pans. And folks are jumping all over Chuck Hagel's comments that appear to break with President Bush's position on the conflict. Hagel is taking an extremely shortsighted view of the conflict, as any ceasefire that lets Hizbullah maintain a presence in South Lebanon and/or possess its weapons caches not only lets Hizbullah declare victory, but spells a tactical and strategic loss for Israel and the West at large.
Bret Stephens thinks Israel is losing this war. By what measures?
So far, Israel has nothing to show for its efforts: no enemy territory gained, no enemy leaders killed, no abatement in the missile barrage that has sent a million Israelis from their homes and workplaces.Claims that Israel has not captured territory are meaningless considering that Israel never sought to capture territory, though it now appears that Israel is going to stake out the area South of the Litani River. We simply don't know how many Hizbullah leaders were killed and Israel estimates that more than 400 Hizbullah have been killed, and it's not for lack of trying (recall the massive raid in South Beirut (23 tons of explosives dropped on Hizbullah bunkers).
Generally speaking, wars are lost either militarily or politically. Israel is losing both ways. Two weeks ago, Israeli officials boasted they had destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's military capabilities and needed just 10 to 14 days to finish the job. Two days ago, after a record 140 Katyushas landed on Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he needed another 10 to 14 days. When the war began, Israeli officials spoke of "breaking" Hezbollah; next of evicting Hezbollah from the border area; then of "degrading" Hezbollah's capabilities; now of establishing an effective multinational force that can police the border. Israel's goals are becoming less ambitious while the time it needs to accomplish them is growing longer.
Israel has been constrained by world opinion from unleashing the full effect of its military on South Lebanon, especially because of the possibility of civilian casualties, and Stephens now complains that Israel is losing because it has nothing to show thus far? Are you kidding me?
Stephens appears to think that Hizbullah is not being adversely affected by the bombing campaign or that Israel isn't willing to stay in Lebanon for the long term. It has shown that willingess in the past (being there for more than 17 years. That isn't to say that Israel shouldn't be using even more force than it currently is displaying, or using even more ground forces to deal with the situation. Israel's shifting goals and aims keep shifting, which is a cause for concern. However, Stephens also appears to be considering this conflict through a short-term lens, while Hizbullah has a long view, and perhaps so does Israel. Cold Fury also comments on Stephens' bleak assessment, and notes that this is what happens when half of a country is against taking full measures to defend oneself against existential threats. Scott at Powerline is also concerned about the shifting goals by the Israeli leadership. The Israelis really do have to draw a line and determine what their strategic and tactical objectives are and stick to them. Making announcements and then changing them hours or days later smacks of flip flopping and that sends a bad message. I think it's unintentional that the changes in plans are to keep Hizbullah off-balance.
The Real Ugly American wonders when are the Arabs ever wrong. Good question. Better question is when are the Islamists ever wrong.
UPDATE:
More on the Qana fallout can be found at Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Thomas Lifeson at American Thinker, and Confederate Yankee.
The Jawa Report notes that the IDF has clarified some of its statements on the Qana incident. Expect the Left to pounce on this as proof that Israel purposefully attacked the site to kill civilians. Never mind that Israel was targeting the location because of its use and usefulness to Hizbullah. The world simply focuses on the Lebanese women and children who might have been killed in the incident, even as the body count strangely keeps getting reduced (though the big media isn't exactly rushing to highlight the discrepancies).
Ed Morrissey's thought provoking article on the soft nihlism of low expectations is an excellent read on the moral equivalency and silence on the horrors committed by Hizbullah on an ongoing basis since this conflict began in earnest nearly three weeks ago:
Those who argue that Israel has occasionally violated the Geneva Conventions in its attacks casually ignore the blatant violations of Hezbollah, whose combatants wear no uniform, deliberately hide in civilian populations and fire weapons from residential areas. Hezbollah conducts none of its operations within the rules of war — and yet world leaders and the media never mention it.Where is world pressure to make Hizbullah heel to world opinion? It is lacking but for the US, Israel and a few other countries that are unwilling to go down the road set up by the UN and EU among others. Islamic countries rally to Hizbullah's side, instead of condemning the ongoing atrocities committed by Hizbullah. Firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel is a war crime, and yet human rights groups focus on Israel's conduct, and on airstrikes that are not targeting civilians but rather Hizbullah that hides among civilians on purpose (another war crime).
Three more Israeli soldiers were killed in heavy fighting today. The IAF has also attacked Hizbullah bunkers in South Lebanon. Meanwhile, Hamas and Fatah are busy slugging it out among each other in Gaza.
This is infuriating: Olmert says that they never promised to eliminate the rocket threat.
“We will agree to a ceasefire when we know for certain that the conditions on the ground will be different from those which led to this war,”Excuse me? What did you intend to do? Let the rocket threat continue but only at acceptable levels? Of course, this is also a political and diplomatic way of saying that they're going to destroy Hizbullah, because the destruction of Hizbullah happily coincides with conditions on the ground being different from those that led to this war (which Hizbullah started by attacking Israel three weeks ago). Oh, and the rockets keep coming.
Pot. Meet kettle. Iran says that the US and UK are accomplices to Israel. Well, the same is said about your backing of Hizbullah and using Hizbullah as your proxy to attack Israel and the West. Ahmadinejad thinks that he's going to dominate the region, and appears more than willing to destroy Israel by any means necessary (just don't call it genocide or anti-Semitic [ed: that would be sarcasm folks]).
Speaking of Iran and Jimmy Carter, It Shines For All, thinks that Carter should know better than to speak about the Middle East and what the US should do in the region as far as diplomatic actions are concerned given Carter's failure to deal with the Islamists in Tehran. And Carter spreads lies and misinformation to boot. Others noticing: Partisan Times, Soccer Dad, and QandO.
UPDATE:
Israel apparently tried to take out or snatch a senior Hizbullah leader in Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley.
Lebanese army and security officials said early Wednesday that special IDF forces attempted to kidnap Sheikh Muhammad Yazbek, a member of Hizbullah’s High Council and one of 12 senior organization members, near Baalbek in the west Bekaa Valley.Additional airstrikes were made against Hermel in the Bekaa Valley. Meanwhile, Hizbullah's mouthpiece shows some of the items Israeli forces left behind after their campaign.
According to reports, the operation began with at least six rapid air strikes, after which IAF choppers attempted to land ground forces in the city’s western sector.
A Lebanese army outpost in the town of Shlifa, west of Baalbek, was also attacked.
The Lebanese officials estimated that the IDF forces planned to kidnap the sheikh from the Dar el-Hichma hospital, located north of Baalbek; Yazbek was reportedly surrounded by other senior Hizbullah members.
Current reports say the kidnapping attempt failed and gun battles are taking place at the scene.
Meanwhile, Al-Manar aired images of what it said was “booty” left behind by IDF forces near Kila in south Lebanon. The photos released were of two-way radios, shoes, canteens, and other military equipment. It is not clear when the photos were taken.I guess Israel will be billed for littering in addition to the war crimes Hizbullah and many in the media keep yammering about.
The Jersualem Post considers the number of IAF jets flying over Baalbek "unprecedented."
The fighting today has resulted in 25 Israeli casualties, but no word on Hizbullah terrorists eliminated. Rockets continue to be fired into Israel.
And the Palestinian terrorists are using kids to fire their rockets into Israel. Where's the UN denouncing the use of child soldiers? *crickets*
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Let's see what the Palestinians have accomplished in that time: destroyed infrastructure, including greenhouses left by Israel and paid for by wealthy donors in the US, launched terrorist attacks and threatened to carry out plans to destroy Israel, invaded Israel and started a war against Israel. Such a smashing success for the Palestinians, who found themselves with Hamas leaders even more nihlistic than Fatah.
Meanwhile, Israeli Chief of General Staff Halutz continues to undergo further medical tests to deal with an stomach pains. It's not a good thing when one of your top military planners is sitting in hospitals being checked out for a variety of ailments, although the doctors have given him a clean bill of health. One has to believe that the stress of this situation is getting to him. Knowing that the fate of your nation's security rests on your decisions is a heavy burden indeed.
UPDATE:
Israel announced that three more Israeli soldiers were killed fighting Hizbullah in Lebanon. The fighting at Baalbek hospital appears to be continuing, though the Israelis are mum on what is going on.
This is a return to day one; Shimon Peres says that if Hizbullah stops firing its rockets, we'd have a ceasefire. Well, isn't that the truth, except that Israel would still be owed two Israeli soldiers being held in Lebanon and one being held by Hamas in Gaza.
The UN daily briefings are a good source of information and every now and then, some journalists get it:
Question: Two questions. First, is the board of inquiry also looking into why four Observers, whose job it was to observe a ceasefire line that was created in 1949, were left in the middle of a war zone without any protection? And secondly, you highlighted, when you said “and besides the humanitarian situation in Lebanon, we are also monitoring…” I thought you were going to say there’s another side to this, but you said “we’re also monitoring the humanitarian situation in Gaza”. Any interest in the humanitarian situation in Israel during a time of war?Isn't it enlightening that the UN considers the situation in Israel, where the rockets keep falling after being launched by the Islamic terrorist group Hizbullah not worth a proper briefing, and instead the focus is on the groups that launched the terror attacks in the first place in Gaza and West Bank? Does not the fact that a million Israelis living in bunkers and shelters suggest that Israel has been harmed?
Mr. Fawzi: Yes there is great interest Benniy, and I’m glad you asked that question. We are very concerned with casualties on all sides. And the death of a Palestinian child is equally tragic as the death of an Israeli child, as is the death of a Lebanese child. I’m sorry I don’t have figures for the Israeli side for the past 24 hours or the past 48 hours, but I will certainly look into it. If those figures are available, I will make them known immediately. Your insinuation is rejected out of hand. There is concern for human life, wherever it is.
On your first question, you asked that question yesterday to Mr. Guéhenno, and again, there are several responses. Yes, UNTSO was created back in 1949, but its mandate has evolved over the years and it is there to observe activities along the Blue Line at the moment. Of course, the inquiry will look into why these unarmed Observers were kept where they were. However, let me just repeat again, for probably the third or fourth time: we were given assurances by the combatants that they would not be touched. This is, after all, an observation point that has been there for a very long time and its coordinates are well known to the combatants, so we believed the assurances were given. I’ll leave it at that at the moment.
UPDATE:
Canada isn't going to be treated well by the in-crowd in Tehran, when it calls Hizbullah a cancer. Yet, the EU has no intention of placing Hizbullah on the list of terror groups.
Even the Jerusalem Post is getting into the act of relying on the bloggers who have been questioning the Qana incident. That follows a similar piece in YNetNews earlier today.
Meanwhile, Jon Anderson wonders if Israel has strengthened Hizbullah, and parrots the Hizbullah line:
If that really was Hezbollah’s plan, it went wrong from the beginning. Tensions were already high, because of the Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier in Gaza, two weeks earlier, and Israel responded with bombing raids, including one, the next day, on Beirut’s airport. That night, a rocket fired from Hezbollah territory hit Haifa, and more missiles, in both directions, soon followed, resulting in casualties and the threat of regional war.Hizbullah had no problem firing on Haifa and other cities, expanding their rocket fire deeper into Israel, knowing that those rockets being fired were not fireworks, but designed to kill folks unlucky enough to be in their path.
Fayyad seemed both surprised and offended by the scale of the Israeli attack, which he said Hezbollah never expected. Although Hezbollah’s rockets were landing in Haifa, Nahariya, Safed, and Nazareth, he also claimed that it had been reluctant to target civilians. “First, for humanitarian and moral reasons, and, second, because when civilians are killed we come out as the losers,” he said. “Far more of our people get killed than Israel’s.” Still, for Fayyad, the events had the logic of reprisal: Israel had hit “civilian infrastructure,” and so Hezbollah fired rockets into “occupied Palestine,” by which he meant all of Israel.
These are unguided rockets, and when fired in a barrage, they're designed to deny an area of land to the defender. Israeli civilians were purposefully targeted. These rockets weren't being fired at Israeli military positions, but civilian areas.
The central question is whether Anderson, and his ilk, think Israel supposed to give in to terrorists who seek the annihilation of Israel? To Anderson and other like-minded folks, the answer would be yes. Anderson reverses the facts, forgetting that Hizbullah launched the initial attacks, then expanded their attacks when Israel began targeting Hizbullah in a massive way - as is its right as a nation to defend its citizens from attack.
Decision 08 reminds folks of Israel's inalienable right to exist.
Technorati: terrorism, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, Eliyahu, Asheri, Ashri, Abbas, Rains, Summer, cavaliers, wrath, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment