along the border: israel destroys infrastructure to discourage people from coming back and reserves the right to use any amount of force it deems necessary, but makes no active attempt to prevent people from moving back (which would be difficult).

The Hezbollah solution: longer-range rockets. Which is essentially why this strategy will not work for Israel in the longer term.

But nothing works for Israel even medium-term. If you believe in peak oil and peak water (and I do) Israel has no survivability as an industrial nation after peak (no natural resources). They would need good working trade relations with their neighbors in the area, something they have pissed away irretrevably.

In that scenario, it's really going to be nice to have friends, isn't it?

Are you talking about Egypt or Jordan? Egypt that is currently trying to broker deals to end the conflict? Or Jordan that has its own palestinian problems?

In terms of survivability, Israel was supposed to have extinguished before it was even formed. The barely attained UN vote for statehood was achieved by blackmailing the Nazi smuggling Rockefeller to bring in the Latin American nations, while the western world was balking in the face of arab oil. Western nations (including the US) have undermined it in every single major conflict, selling it off to the Arab nations with weapons and intelligence, and still Israel survived.

When I was in Egypt I met a Moslem egyptian woman that told me that there are really two countries she admires in the world, Israel and the US. The reason being that these are really the only two countries where people came together with a common goal/dream and built a nation. No wonder so many people hate both countries...

When I was in Egypt I met a Moslem egyptian woman that told me that there are really two countries she admires in the world, Israel and the US. The reason being that these are really the only two countries where people came together with a common goal/dream and built a nation. No wonder so many people hate both countries...

I just thought of another similarity. They're also two nations - along with my own country, Canada, and Australia - that displaced and disenfranchised indigenous populations to build their dream house on what they thought of as vacant land because real people didn't live there yet.

It wasn't my words, but what per chance was the common goal that united the Canadian or Australian people? To be as part of the commonwealth for as long as possible? Not even a close comparison to Israel or the US ... my experience of Canadians is the opposite: the lack of a history or identity is a problem the Canadians tend to complain and overcompensate about.

W.R.T. taking over lands, what other holy-than-thou country with a significant history has not done that?

People who hate Israel hate it because it stole their land, kills and opresses people.

Try and spin it as something noble all you like, people don't like countries who put their boot on other people's throats - especially when those people aren't even their citizens. Live your dream, but don't expect other people not to note that somehow it's a nightmare for everyone around you.

And remember the words of the bible - live by the sword, die by it. As you reap, so shall you sow.

At least you explicitly state that you are an Israel hater for whatever justifiable reasons feel good to you. There is no need to pretend to be doing any academic analysis of the political situation with that bias.

W.r.t. to your pious remarks, I would love to see these terrorist organization reap a little of what they are sowing.. oh! maybe they are right now.

He said, quote, "People who hate Israel hate it because it stole their land, kills and opresses people", unquote.

Whose land is it anyway? This question has been playing out for millennia. One could argue that the Jews have been there much longer than any Muslims, but let's not turn this into an archaeological debate: the only important conclusion is that there should be room for everybody.

Israel was willing to go along with partition from the beginning, and has actually given back land. The various Arab parties have responded by not accepting any partition and looking at the return of land as weakness on the Israeli side. Over the past 60 years Arab governments could have been working to improve the lives of Arabs in Palestine, but this hasn't happened either.

The discussion on what should be done next has been very interesting but you must remember: whatever Israel has done wrong, past and present, the fact remains that Israel's goal is not to destroy any of its neighbors. The goal of Hezbollah is to destroy Israel and every Jew living there. That sounds very dramatic but not to understand that is to be naive.

Perhaps this distaste for Israel is a deep-seated unease with Jews playing any other role besides that of the victim.

I don't recall introducing the idea of "common dream". I said "another similarity", ie a different one - "displacing indigenous peoples".

It feels a bit like I said "Jane and Sally are alike in that they are working class Republicans" and you said "What perchance is the similarity in their appearance? It's not even a close comparison - Jane is a 5'6" brunette and Sally is a 5'8" blonde; my experience is the opposite..."

How would having a common dream logically connect with what I said? Are you arguing that "because there is a common dream no displacement took place" or "because there is a common dream, displacement is moral"?

If I dream hard enough - if I get enough people to dream with me hard enough for long enough... can I have your house?

Probably not hers, either.

If the U.S. pissed off Mexico and Canada to the same degree we'd be toast too. We may even be toast anyway. It takes a lot of oil to maintain a large mechanized military. And if you lack energy resources you have to get them from your neighbors, who are not unreasonably going to want to keep them for themselves.

Canada needs nukes. I keep saying it. The US is a rogue nation sitting on our border. I recently wrote an article on a Canadian blog saying that we should slap the US with increased lumber prices instead of signing the lumber deal currently under negotiation.

The response was chilling - commenters were scared that if a general trade war ensued and we turned to oil warfare (whcih we'd have to, it's what we have over you) that the US would invade to get the oil.

My response was "they'd lose"

Can you imagine a guerilla war in a country the size of Canada?

Hahahahaha.

But seriously, if we're that scared of the US (and we are) let's just get nukes. We make the cruise missiles the US uses, so we have a delivery system and we have enough of a nuclear industry (and more than enough knowledge) that we could have a few in a six month crash.

But people are scared of getting nukes too.

Scared and scared and scared.

But mostly scared to stand up for themsleves.

But I don't believe a majority of Canadians wouldn't support a trade war under the right circumstances. And one day a politician with similiar beliefs will be in power, and the US will find out that Canada is tired of being pushed around.

Blowback's a bitch.

The U.S. would absolutely lose. Canada wouldn't even have to turn off the oil. Just turn off Quebec hydropower. Easier and cheaper than nukes.

And I for one, welcome our new Canadian overlords. But then I like Marie's in Port Dalhousie.

True, the US needs a great deal of Energy which is why it has coddled the oil supplying Arab nations for many years. The world will run out of oil anyway in a matter of decades. Alternative energy soruces are inevitably going to be high on the agenda when the oil comapnies realize that they can't make their money selling oil anymore and need to find other ways to keep their free money flowing.

The analogy with Canada and Mexico is ridiculous though. Israel has never had a peaceful relationship with Lebanon, Syria or Iran. In fact, they regularly say they want to destroy Israel. The Egyptian and Jordanian relationship will not change becasue of this.

You want Israel to play nice? With psychos that have the explicit goal of killing them? Why should it?

I do believe that Iran under the Shah had friendly relations with Israel. That changed when the ayatollahs came to power and Iran decided to stop being a client state of the United States. So, it would appear that things can change

True, the relationship with the Shah was different. It is unfortunate that that CIA appointed leader isn't with us anymore.

If Canada has a fundamentalist religious revolution then I agree that it might abrogate its relations with the US. Short of that its unlikely.

...all indications are that a fundamentalist religious revolution would lead to closer ties with the United States. We're considerably more secular.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

that it doesn't happpen and we have to test it. :-) I would hate to see Canada go that way. Its quiet a nice place in my opinion.

...foreign ministry used to be that they didn't know which country would be the first to establish peace with Israel, but they knew that Lebanon would be second (i.e., they didn't quite have the balls to be first). I guess the civil war and then '82 and after put paid to that...

I don't expect Israel to play nice with the psychos, but I didn't fall into this last Tuesday off a turnip truck - the Israeli propensity to choose the kinetic option over other alternatives keeps handing the psychos some pretty good cards, long-term strategy-wise.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. I expect Israel to make Hizballa's leaders pay for this, unlike the American escorted PLO situation of 82. In the aftermath we will see what the political map is like. I think Israel has learned from Arafat that there is no point in proping up or negotiating with messianic psychos. If in their absence someone/something reasonable comes up then there will be room for discussion.

I think Hezbollah fully expected an Israeli overreaction and were counting on it. As the graphic I posted elsewhere illustrates, Israel has given Hezbollah a currency that they could not have dreamed of before this. They played their hand and having watched the way Israel reacted in Gaza, knew full well the response.

Israel, despite its military successes, fully predictable as they are, has whittled away almost all its global support, and that is the game that the Hezbollah leaders are playing.

Olmert has reacted with almost suicidal stupidity.

And lets face it, neither side has the monopoly on either messianics or psychos here

...but they ain't that smart. They're absolutely going to make great hay out of this, and ultimately as an organization they will likely end up being even stronger after a few years, but the personalities at the top end of this thing wouldn't risk what they personally are risking as a growth strategem. There was a piece that went by about a week ago where one of the upper-mid people in the organization essentially said "WTF?!" to a reporter - he said that they had anticipated another prisoner exchange with limited reprisals, not this.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

but, Stratfor has an interesting twist on this, giving them more credit than you seem to:

Given all these forces, Hezbollah was in a position in which it had to take some significant action in Lebanon, Israel and the Islamic world or be bypassed by other, more effective, groups. Hezbollah chose to act. The decision it made was to go to war with Israel. It did not think it could win the war but it did think it could survive it. And if it fought and survived, it would have a seat at the Palestinian and Lebanese tables, and maintain and reconcile the patronage of Syria and Iran. The reasons were complex, the action was clear.

Hezbollah had prepared for war with Israel for years. It had received weapons and training from Iran and Syria. It had prepared systematic fortifications using these weapons in southern Lebanon after Israel's withdrawal, but also in the Bekaa Valley, where its main base of operations was and in the area south of Beirut, where its political center was. It had prepared for this war carefully, particularly studying the U.S. experience in Iraq.

In our view, Hezbollah has three military goals in this battle:

1. Fight the most effective defensive battle ever fought against Israel by an Arab army, surpassing the performance of Egypt and Syria in 1973.

2. Inflict direct and substantial damage on Israel proper using conventional weapons in order to demonstrate the limits of Israeli power.

3. Draw Israel into an invasion of Lebanon and, following resistance, move to an insurgency that does to the Israelis what the Sunnis in Iraq have done to the Americans.

Whether they intended these results or not, there is little doubt that Omert (and his less than politically astute mentor, GWB, who can add another fubar to his Foreign policies) have played into their hands. Stratfor also argue that certain elements in Hezbollah were unaware of this, but the new generation drove it, which explains your "wtf" response

Here's the reference that I was referring to re. the the WTF: here.

If, as Stratfor suggests, the break point was the launching of rockets at Haifa:

The capture of two Israeli soldiers was the first provocation, triggering Israeli attacks. But neither the capture nor the retaliation represented a break point. That happened when Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, several times, presenting Israel with a problem that forced it to take military steps -- steps for which Hezbollah thought it was ready and which it thought it could survive, and exploit. Hezbollah had to have known that attacking the third largest city in Israel would force a response. That is exactly what it wanted.

...and if this was pursued as a deliberate provocation on the part of Hizbullah, to draw in Israel, why did they initially deny that they launched the attack:

Hezbollah officials denied responsibility for firing on Haifa, a densely populated industrial hub of 270,000 people on the Mediterranean coast.

Seems a little odd as a deliberate provocation gambit thought out at the highest levels to me.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

we are all surmising right now, but I have trouble believing that, having watched Gaza in the precedding period, Hezbollah would not have known the result. It was just too orchestrated and timely, complete with press conference warning Israel about waht they have just done. Talk about waving a red flag....

Why or who denied it (we only have "officals"), I don't know, but I remain convinced Hezbollah have got exactly what they wanted and Israel has played into their hands.

...going to see erected is pretty much that - about a 25km deep DMZ along the southern border of Lebanon which will be extensively surveiled by a range of ground and air-based systems. Anything that moves in that zone that looks like a potential threat will eat ordnance, probably in the form of artillery fire. On the border itself, I think they'll put in about a 1 km deadzone, in that anything that moves in the zone, overtly hostile or not, will be engaged. No structures willl be permitted, etc. Outside those zones, the premise seems to be that the Lebanese Army and/or an international force will be used to keep Hizbullah from regenerating the rich infrastructure that it previously had, in terms of caches and pre-surveyed launch points.

I believe that they consider that this will knock Hizbullah back to the level of being an annoyance, rather than a major threat to their population. The vast majority of Hizbullah systems are short range - I think they're counting on international pressure to keep Hizbullah from re-equipping with more exotic systems. I'm pretty dubious that this will work for them in the long-term as well, and suspect that this is a time-buying strategy for them. I would give a buck to know what their thinking is on the prospects for regime change in Iran...

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.