Theres so much going on here that its difficult to know where to start. As I mentioned in previous posts, the original pretext that Israel
has to take extreme measures in order to defend itself from Qassam rockets launched from the Gaza strip (ironically named, as the original Qassam was far more symbolic than he was effective), is exposed as exactly that when you look at the horrendous imbalance in the casualties on both sides. Once again this is all about Israel stamping its authority on the region and sending out a clear message that it will brook no resistance, regardless of whether it is directed at military or civilian targets, a postition seemingly supported by Bush as he calls for 'restraint on both sides' (echoing China's ambivilant attitude to N.Korea's missile tests), and for Hezbollah to 'lay down their arms'.
Hezbollah's attack in the North is far more problematic, as despite the apparant show of solidarity with Hamas, Hezbollah has in fact been attacking Israeli troops along the border for months now, in an attempt to gain a bargaining chip to secure the freedom of Lebanese hostages held by the Israelis since their withdrawal, and as part of their operations in the disputed Sheeba Farms area. But once again, the point should be made that this is business as usual in the North, and has been for over 20 years - arguably not the 'escalation' its painted as, and hardly a justification for the bombardment of an entire nation.
Now it goes without saying that Hezbollah's extremeist brand of Islam, its anti-semetism, homobhobia and attitudes to women are abbhorent, but it has to be said that they are widely supported by Lebanese Shi-ites for their role in ousting Israel from Southern Lebanon, and that most of their 'terrorist' attacks have been aimed squarely at the IDF operating on Lebanese soil - which hardly qualifies them as terrorism at all - not something that can be said about Katayusha rocket attacks against civilian targets. Nonetheless, I dont think there can be any serious debate about the disproportionate nature of Israel's response - would the British army be justified in bombing Dublin airport if the IRA captured some British soldiers and fired mortars from across the border? Would they be justified in launching airstrikes and naval bombardments which have killed over 100 civillians in just a few days? Lets not forget that Lebanon has no real army of note and is effectively defenceless other than the presence of Hezbollah Guerillas - so Israel's reponse only adds to Hezbollah's popularity in the long term.
The latest hint of the real motives behind this is Israel's announcement yesterday that the attack on its ship came from an 'Iranian'' made missile. Now apart from the fact that its hardly news that Hezbollah has Iranian made weapons, nor does it demonstrate that iran was 'behind' this, this statement does perhaps offer a glimpse of the logic behind Israel's actions - do they really want to draw Iran into the conflict by inventing a pretext for attack, and then provoking a response? (as David Horowitz suggests)
No mention of course that the missiles, bullets and shells pulverising the Gaza strip and Lebanon are all American made, and of course, no one asks the question - does this fact justify a future Syrian or Iranian attack on US cities?
Putting aside all moral concerns and talk of silly distractions like the UN charter or the Geneva Conventions (or the Universal declaration of Human Rights for that matter), this all just underpins the idea that Israel has no long term strategic plan other than to continue to crush anybody who offers the slightest sign of resistance, whilst consolidating territory in the west bank, extending their contol over water resources in Northern Israel, and enroaching on Palestinian enclaves through the construction of the Security 'fence'. All strategies which put them in direct conflict with an increasingly desperate Palestinain population and inflame opinion in neighbouring sates, leading to more attacks and further escaltion.
Meanwhile, the only power with any real influence sits on its hands and offers complicit approval whilst commentators worldwide ponder on the 'unsolvable paradox' of how the 3rd greatest miltary power in the world (9.45 billion in 2005) can hope to defend itself from unprovoked terrorist attacks.
A few articles:
Horowitz advocates attack on Iran
Jonathan Cook on Gaza
Irish Times - Battle of Beruit
Fisk on Lebanon
Fisk on hezbollah
Fox cant believe its own eyes