Hezbollah plays by the rules

[bemildred]

More heresy.

On April 27, 2000, about a month before the Israel
Defense Forces withdrew from Lebanon, the heads of
Military Intelligence told the cabinet that it was highly
probable that terror would continue even after the
withdrawal. This was because Syria and Iran had an
interest in continuing the fighting and preventing
peace along the northern border. Ten days before the
withdrawal, Amos Gilad, then head of the IDF
research branch, warned against the possibility that
Hezbollah activity would lead in the end to a war with
Syria. The MI position was that "Syria would do
everything to heat up Lebanon and ignite the entire
sector." Senior IDF officers who opposed then-prime
minister Ehud Barak's intention to get out of Lebanon
warned that life in the north would become hell.

More than four years have passed since then.
Hezbollah has not fired Katushya rockets at the
north, life in Kiryat Shmona has gone on, the lives of
dozens of IDF soldiers have been saved, and war with
Syria is further away than ever.

---

The subversive activities of Hezbollah in the
Palestinian arena should not be ignored, of course,
nor should the fact that it has armed itself with 13,000
rockets. These are a danger to the stability of the
north, and therefore, Sobelman writes, "keeping the
peace ... requires Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah to
continue acting in a reasonable and measured way,
avoiding disproportionate responses."

Apparently, as difficult as it is, Israel's policy makers
must come to terms with the creation of a balance of
fear and deterrence with regard to Hezbollah. It is not
easy to admit that an organization numbering only a
few hundred fighters can deter the country with "the
strongest army in the Middle East," but it should
always be remembered that Hezbollah is Israel's
creation, and the daily occurences in the north are,
among other things, the result of myopia on the part
of Israel's senior defense officials. This is especially
important these days as we recall that Hamas was
also established under Israel's aegis and with its
encouragement.

Haaretz

[Gimel]

1. Hmmm

I've heard the IAF overhead today. I wonder what that means.

More non-existent Katushas? They say they have Katuchas with a range to reach Haifa now.

[bemildred]

2. Didn't say "no katushas"

Said they pursue a rational policy aimed at preserving the status quo, tit-for-tat,
i.e. they want to hold onto what they see as their gains. This is actually what one
would expect if one does not buy into the "they are all nuts and want to
drive us into the sea" line.

Edit spelling

[Gimel]

3. Their gains?

The "right" to shoot rockets at civilian populations? Is that supposed to encourage immigration?

[Aidoneus]

5. That is the right they deny to you

And indeed, that is a great gain on the past.

I saw this article earlier, it makes many good points.

[bemildred]

6. If you don't want to understand what he said, nobody can make you.

But don't annoy me about it, argue with the guy that wrote it.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. There is no indication they are shooting at civilian populations

More likely they are shooting at idf, and occasionally miss.

[Gimel]

13. joke of the week

:bounce: :bounce:

[Aidoneus]

15. "it's funny because it's true"

Now, as for when munitions fly in the other direction..

[Djinn]

16. personally I find the old favourite

"the idf doesn't target civilians" more of a side splitter

[Aidoneus]

4. Response

a) probably that they're on another spy/noise run, if true. Either to keep tabs on the average sheep count in Nabatiyah province, or to make the scary bomb-noise over the capital. A criminal act, either way.
b) the IR doesn't fire katyushas at the invading aircraft, but rather anti-aircraft mortars. To the best of my knowledge, katyushas haven't been sent across the border since the 05/2000 retreat.
c) they can hit Haifa, and a lot more.

[Gimel]

8. I live in Haifa

BTW that's in Israel. Not Lebanon.

As for the Katyushas, that's the claim of the posted article. In paragraph two of the posted sections it says:

More than four years have passed since then.
Hezbollah has not fired Katushya rockets at the
north, life in Kiryat Shmona has gone on, the lives of
dozens of IDF soldiers have been saved, and war with
Syria is further away than ever.

I think it is quite false, because about a year ago, the residents of Kiryat Shemona were sent to their bomb shelters again, and Katyushas did fall. Also there were rocket attacks across border in the western sectors.

That is, I've found out, anti-aircraft projectiles across border, in Nov, of '02. One teen-age boy was killed, as I recall. Then there was the Har Dov incident two years ago, when 3 Israeli soldiers were captured, tortured and killed. (Not terrorism, however, according to the US Ambassador however war crimes were committed.)

On Oct 21, 2002, Hizbullah along with IJ took credit for a bus bombing which killed a border guardsman (in Israeli territory - an act of war). St.-Sgt. Aiman Sharuf, 20, of Ussfiyeh as well as 16 others.


From the Ministry of Foreign affairs website:

In all, 13 Israeli soldiers were killed and 53 wounded; 6 civilians were killed and 14 wounded.

Since May 2000 the following attacks against Israeli targets have taken place:

105 anti-aircraft attacks
42 anti-tank missile attacks
5 Katyusha rocket attacks
7 shooting attacks
10 explosive device attacks
14 infiltration attempts.
More..

[bemildred]

9. Better response.

Still nit-picking.

Your own site lists a total of five Katyusha attacks since 2000.
So maybe they missed one, or the writer did.

He does mention the dead boy. He does not claim either
that there are no attacks or that the border is quiet;
rather the opposite, he discusses the pattern of actions
on the border, he says the catalog of attacks and responses
from both sides shows a pattern of measured retaliation and what
he considers rational adaptation. He draws the conclusions that
there is an effective system of deterrence in operation, and that
the top-level blowhards in the IDF were, ummm, incorrect about the
consequences of the withdrawal from Lebanon. He supports his
argument reasonably well, whether one chooses to agree or not.

Edit grammar.

[Gimel]

10. Hope detente continues

There is still a real threat, and the continued build-up on the part of Hizbullah is evident. They respond, and that is unreliable. For one of their leaders killed they might go on claiming retaliation for years, such as Hamas do.

I still don't see Katushyas mentioned in the article, other than saying that there have been none. I don't know what *my* site you are referring to, except perhaps the Israel mfa site.

There are always extremists, and while Syria is being pinned sown more by the US admin and by international measures, the threats are not so easily dismissed. A less prepared Israel might increase threats.

[bemildred]

11. Dum de dum de dum dum, boop ...

There is still a real threat ...

Indeed, it is hard to do deterrence without one.

I still don't see Katushyas mentioned in the article,
other than saying that there have been none. I don't know
what *my* site you are referring to, except
perhaps the Israel mfa site.

Tsk, the site that you cited, then. Seemed clear to me, but
I often overestimate people's grasp of things that seem obvious
to me.

A less prepared Israel might increase threats.

And a less aggressive Israel might reduce them. But it is too
easy to speculate, and this fellow does not suggest that Israel
become less prepared. Rather he is pointing out the limits of
what may be accomplished with military force, and the virtues of
restraint in applying what force one might have handy.

[Gimel]

12. I don't disagree with him.

I think that he has overlooked one facet of the interaction, that of US putting pressure on Syria. It was in the news again today. In fact, Syria withdrew forces in a widely publicized action a couple of years ago.

I am just going from memory on that, as I did with the katushya attacks and the rest that I cited in my post. Then I copied some statistics from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which I documented with a link.

The pressure on Syria from the US has been pretty strong. The UN could have done more, instead of hiding evidence on the kidnapped soldiers for three years.


Here is a news item which documents what I have said about the US working of Syria:

But the Bush administration and leading members of Congress have called this a distinction without a difference, and Israel argues that Syria's support for violent Palestinian groups goes far deeper that Mr. Assad will admit.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, in an interview with The Washington Times last month, said Israeli intelligence had learned that a deadly restaurant bombing in Haifa in October had been ordered by the Damascus office of Islamic Jihad, an incident that led to an Israeli bombing mission on a suspected terrorist training camp 12 miles from the Syrian capital.
Israeli pilots buzzed Mr. Assad's presidential residence during the mission, Mr. Mofaz revealed.
No bill-signing date has been made public, but a National Security Council official yesterday said President Bush still intends to sign the "Syria Accountability Act" in the near future.
Citing Syrian support for terrorism and its military domination of Lebanon, the legislation would ban the export to Syria of commercial goods that could have military uses and calls on President Bush to impose at least two sanctions from a lengthy list contained in the measure.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031201-091329-2258r.htm

The Syrian inovlement in support of terrorism is not apparent in attacks accross the border, but through terrorist groups like IJ.

[bemildred]

14. Excellent.

Syria is a larger and murkier subject.
I am not saying that these other things are not relevant,
but I suspect that the writer, who had a somewhat subtle point
to make, and was supporting it with somewhat abstract evidence,
was being careful to keep things as simple as he could.

That aside, I think the US is attempting to apply strong pressure
on Syria, but is not having a great deal of success; and I would
speculate that that is because the US has little leverage to apply.
This comes back to the issue of declining US influence I have
brought up in the past.