How could both sides have blundered so badly?

[spindrifter]

Jonathan Steele in Beirut
Friday July 21, 2006
The Guardian

<snip>

Some analysts wonder whether Hizbullah thought the US would never allow Israel to strike so heavily across Lebanon. After last spring's so-called Cedar revolution, which impelled the departure of Syrian troops, Lebanon seemed to be the Bush administration's favourite Arab country, a showcase for the process of democracy that Washington hoped to export across the region.

Others suggest Hizbullah may have calculated that Israel was too busy in Gaza to handle a second front on its northern borders. There was little evidence for such an argument, however. The militarily inexperienced Olmert-Peretz team was already overreacting to the Palestinian raid, which killed two soldiers and captured one. Rather than negotiate a prisoner swap, they were lashing out all over Gaza. Why would they not also overreact to a bigger military setback up north?

On the Israeli side, lack of logic is equally striking. The strangest element is the decision to mount air strikes against the Lebanese army. How can Israel demand that the Lebanese army move down to the border to disarm and replace Hizbullah while hitting the very people it hopes to encourage to implement that strategy? It has killed at least 11 officers and men in a series of raids.

<snip>

The key questions for Lebanon are whether Hizbullah will emerge from the crisis stronger or weaker, and whether the sectarian divisions that sparked its last civil war will re-emerge deeply enough to launch a new one. In the first hours of the Israeli bombing, many Lebanese politicians criticised the militia for provoking it. But as Israel continues to destroy the country's infrastructure, killing more than 300 civilians and putting half a million people to flight, anger has forged Lebanon-wide unity. In the Middle East at large Hizbullah is likely to have won support for fighting back against Israel even as Arab states once again did nothing.

<more>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1825623,00.html

[whistle]

1. Maybe they were both lied to by BushCo

[DELUSIONAL]

2. This is a war about water --

The objective is the Hasbani River -- once that is secured -- and the civilians either driven out or pacified into camps (like the West Bank and Gaza) and a puppet Government installed -- Israel will pull back -- exchange a few prisoners etc.

This is a war about water resources -- and as Israel's water hungry population increases -- there will be more wars.

Hizbolla is a ready made villain -- ironically created to fill a power vacuum make my Israel's last invasion and occupation of Lebanon.

This is a WATER WAR --

This time it is about the Hasbani River -- next time it will be about Syria's water resources. Perhaps the next time it will be about Iraq's water resources??

A whole lot of people will die -- over water -- who owns it and who controls it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1686692&mesg_id=1686692

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1698430&mesg_id=1698430

[spindrifter]

4. That is very interesting thesis.

[bemildred]

3. The premise here is wrong.

There is no reason to think that Hizbullah expected anything different from the actual course of events so far. This is all entirely in character with history, and as has been pointed out, Israeli domestic politics required some "firm" response. Nasrallah has every reason to expect to come out of this smelling like a rose, if he manages to stay alive. Meanwhile, Israel is destroying his domestic opponents and uniting Lebanon around him.

[spindrifter]

5. Nasrallah plays two zero-sum games here...

Survive v. die in some sort of attack

Emerge the charismatic hero of the people, admired by militants from far and wide v. earn the opprobrium of the Lebanese people who thought they were on the way to building a vibrant country with loads of tourist appeal thereby putting vast quantities of money into every pocket but who ended up dying, losing family members, losing infrastructure with no one out there signed on to replace it as well as p*ssing off the Saudis and the Sunnis.

[bemildred]

6. The people that are losing money were not his friends in the first place.

Generally speaking, of course. I'm not saying he is a swell guy, he's an asshole politician, but it is absolutely wrong to say that this is bad for him, he expected it, he has played the situation like a flute so far, this is his way of making his move, and he is wallowing in it right now.