from the above link. i keep reading this part over and ober.

Al-Aridi hinted that Lebanon was expecting positive reactions to its decision.
He also added that, following the deployment of the army in the south of the country, Hezbollah would remain in the area “as a party that represents an entire segment of the population.”
Al-Aridi stressed that the organization would remain a partner to decision-making in the country and that the deployment of the army was designed “to reap the fruits of Lebanon’s military achievement.“

Posted by: annie | Aug 8 2006 5:30 utc | 3

Annie
My interpretation of the Lebanese government statement is that Hezbollah has agreed to become the Lebanese army. Since the “official” Lebanese army is only in name and anyway is mostly made up of Shia, why not get the “real” fighting force – the force that has held up the mighty IDF as the legitimate Lebanese army.

Posted by: ab initio | Aug 8 2006 5:56 utc | 5

The Israelis are “programmed” to consider the Arabs to be neolitihic Untermenschen. It was inconceivable to them that their enemy had gained parity — or even that it had outsmarted them. Therefore, such scenarios were not gamed, pre-invasion.
Israel made its move thinking it had the best pieces, the best position on the board and the best player. They probably thought they could beat Hezbollah blindfolded.
Right now, Israel and the Bush White House are staring open eyed at the debacle of a completely transformed Middle East. The Lebanese polity was in formation – and Hezbollah assumed the mantle of responsibility for keeping the South secure against Israel’s proven enemy. Having achieve evidence of its capabilities, it is only natural that Hezbollah will now become part of the greater defence of Lebanon. This is how armies are formed, out of pure self interest, on the basis of efficacy.
It is also how polities are fractured. We can begin looking at real estate listings in Israel – quite a few people are seeing the writing on the wall, so to speak. The cucoon of security that the Israelis lulled themselves into has been burst in a most disagreeable manner, by an idiot cabinet led by a psychotic IDF chief and a clueless head of state.

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 8 2006 6:18 utc | 7

Informative link annie.
Punching above their weight indeed.
The the war nerd has some interesting ideas along these lines as well.

Posted by: ran | Aug 8 2006 6:24 utc | 9

Asia Times gives us a rundown on the behind the scenes. Dangerously ugly stuff.
“The difference between the US and Europe on how to handle the Middle East is stark,” a Finnish diplomat said during a recent private meeting in Washington. “In the US your political parties worry about the Jewish vote – in Europe, political parties worry about the Muslim vote. It’s just that simple.”
…
The draft resolution finesses the divide between America’s call for the deployment of an international force and France’s call for a ceasefire – saying that there should be a “full cessation of hostilities” prior to the tabling of a second resolution, which will deal with the more difficult political issues posed by the Israeli-Hezbollah war.
In truth, a number of UN diplomats concede that the battle between the US and France inside the Security Council only diverted the attention of both countries from the conflict in the Middle East. Getting Arab nations to sign on to the resolution was postponed in order to get the resolution agreed to. Nor, it seems, were the Lebanese consulted at all during the process.
…
A spokesman for Hezbollah in Beirut was even blunter, saying that the resolution was “dead on arrival”. He added, “The French caved in to American and Israeli pressure. Israel gets to stay on our land. We are required to disarm. Why isn’t an international force deployed in northern Israel? Our arms get cut off and the US gets to fly cluster munitions into Ben Gurion [Airport in Tel Aviv]. Just who do they think is winning this war?”
….
For now, Condoleezza Rice is hailing the US-French draft as a symbol for US-European cooperation. But for many European diplomats, agreement on the draft resolution has only papered over a deepening rift between the United States and its European partners, with some European diplomats muttering that America’s real goal is to induce the Europeans to wade into Lebanon on the side of a defanged and humiliated Israel.
…
There are more difficult days ahead – particularly when the US and France square off in the coming week over the draft of a second resolution. With nearly everyone now wondering whether the US position in the Middle East is unraveling, one UN diplomat said the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict may spell the end of an era in which the US and Europe established a tradition of diplomatic cooperation: “We might as well face up to it. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important – its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel.”
No matter what the answer to that question might be, the very fact that it has been asked means that the real loser in the current Middle East conflict is the Atlantic alliance. The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance

Posted by: jj | Aug 8 2006 6:34 utc | 11

ran, war nerd/great site, i bookmarked it.
he talks about how the IDF is going to “expel Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon.” Christ, Hezbollah IS Southern Lebanon. You might as well try to expel ants.
b. quite late indeed

Posted by: annie | Aug 8 2006 7:03 utc | 13

The Arab nations are realizing their new found power. They have the U.S. by the balls in Iraq – unwisely, the WH has chosen to challenge the Shi’ites in Lebanon, while being at their mercy in Iraq. Even Sistani has declared his opposition to the action in Lebanon, stating that anyone supporting it is an enemy of Islam – and that’s hard phrasings from an otherwise cagey phrasemaker. His followers had no trouble understanding that they were supposed to begin diligently watching the occupiers in their midst (as if they haven’t been, over the last three years).
It could be that what is being gamed in military academies around the world will soon become actual fact:
The Retreat from Baghdad. Scenario definers: a popular uprising against the Coalition’s presence in Iraq boils over into armed opposition. The Coalition must withdraw towards Kuwait and Jordan. Outcomes?

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 8 2006 7:41 utc | 15

I should also point out that contrary to what Billmon believes, the US-French ceasefire offer isn’t even an acceptable ceasefire offer to Hezbollah or the Lebanese government. But you have to pay attention to details. In a Mercury News article, you’ll find this passage:

(All emphasis mine)

Posted by: DoDo | Aug 8 2006 12:53 utc | 17

“We might as well face up to it. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important – its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel.”
I might add: choose what is more important … “to the people of the United States” for a change.
The Coalition must withdraw towards Kuwait and Jordan. Outcomes?
I see King Abdullah waving goodbye to the mobs while boarding an American helicopter from the roof of his palace.

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 8 2006 14:30 utc | 19

More of this please:
Turkey scraps deal with Israel Aircraft Industries to upgrade aircraft in protest at Lebanon offensive

The war deals a severe blow to Israel Aircraft Industries: The Turkish government has canceled a deal to upgrade fighter jets worth USD 500 million because of the war in Lebanon.
The Israel Aircraft Industries fears that more deals could be canceled.
In 1997 Turkey signed an agreement with Israel for the upgrading of 54 Phantom aircraft at the cost of USD 1 billion.
The deal was concluded in 2003 and Turkey showed interest in upgrading another 50 Phantom jets for USD 500 million.
…
Turkey’s interest in Israeli military products has long been considered as a “goldmine” in Israel.
“Turkey was conceived as a replacement for South Africa and Iran, who were big customers of Israeli weapons,” he said.
Since the war in Lebanon opposition parties in Turkey have increased pressure on the government to cut military ties with Israel.

Posted by: b | Aug 8 2006 15:00 utc | 21

True Believers, Neo-Cons and Lukidites all have too much in common. They believe their own propaganda and love fighting wars on the cheap. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon are no longer cheap.
Has no own thought about the Shiites of Southern Lebanon who for six years dug tunnels, laid mines, trained and spent Western oil dollars on missiles? What kind of fanatic would prepare for a Jewish re-invasion of their land after kicking the invaders out? Fanatics who know their opponents very well.

Posted by: Jim S | Aug 8 2006 15:52 utc | 23

“Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”
Moshe Dayan

Eventually, mad dogs either weaken and die of their disease or get put down. As a long term survival strategy, this seems counter productive.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Aug 8 2006 16:24 utc | 25

about The looser of Lebanon – the Atlantic Alliance. posted by jj.
The atlantic alliance was strengthened by the Kosovo war. It was subsequently destroyed by the impetuous Bushian actions in Iraq. The coalition members from the EU in Iraq were all fooled, blackmailed, or paid. And the International community (meaning a loose collection of rich states all looking out for numbah one) refused to pay for it. They paid for other adventures, letting the US be in the front line, bad boy on the block, all that. Iraq they considered foolhardy, over the top, not in line with the commercial and strategic interests of the West. This is a point that the Democrats perpetually try to make in a feeble sub rosa coded way with their gurgling about alliances and diplomacy, trying to convince people that their wars (past ones) were – well just err better.
The Muslim vote in the EU doesn’t count – many would not call themselves Muslims in any case, what subsists is small and split between a variety of parties. If EU leaders are worried about the vote, it is about their core constituents, on the left and on the right.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2006 16:43 utc | 27

Dodo, the pictures are informative, no?

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2006 16:48 utc | 29

Noirette, yes, the pictures are informative (though in true Orientalist tradition, he seeked out what fit his ideas), but reading some of his captions gave me the creeps. Notably absent from the pictures is the war.

Posted by: DoDo | Aug 8 2006 16:54 utc | 31

Totten’s pictures are interesting, his interpretations on the other hand… OMG. His pictures are one-sided as well, in that they don’t show that large areas of the South used to look surprisingly wealthy.
Besides, I don’t see why posters of fallen heroes during a war are supposed to be “radical”. Oppressive yes, like all propaganda. But poorer Christian areas of East Beirut have the same oppressive atmosphere with their Bashir Gemayel shrines and posters of warlord Samir Geagea.
The Lebanese Christians can thank their lucky stars (or whoever else they want to) for the fact that among Maronites at least Michel Aoun has kept his marbles and allied himself with Nasrallah. Otherwise the spectre of outright ethnic cleansing would start to loom large.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 8 2006 17:01 utc | 33

IDF deputy chief named Halutz’s representative in the north

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz on Tuesday appointed his deputy, Moshe Kaplinsky, to serve as his representative in the Northern Command.
IDF sources said Kaplinsky’s appointment does not mean he will serve as the commander of the northern front as Israel battles with Hezbollah guerillas. They said his position would be to coordinate land, air and sea operations in case of a widescale offensive.
The sources also said his appointment would not affect the chain of command in terms of the relationship between the central command and the northern command.

The last paragraph is obvious bullshit. The put someone in to babysit the old northern commander. I regard that as a sign for a wider attack.

Posted by: b | Aug 8 2006 17:08 utc | 35

I think Galloway makes a good case, in that this crisis didn’t start four or five weeks ago, this has been going on since 1967. Chomsky even says no one is talking about the civilians kidnapped prior to the Israli soldiers. Lebanon Israel Facts the Media Isn’t Telling You 7/16/06

Noam Chomsky reveals facts like the abduction of the two Gaza civilians June 24, BEFORE the Israeli soldiers were captured. Learn the background that the mainstream media doesn’t report.
Help get the word out

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 8 2006 17:19 utc | 37

There is also question of whether the abduction of the Israelis actually took place on the Lebanese side of the border. Therefore the Israeli response isn’t defending its own borders but rather defending its right to cross into other nations’ territories with impunity.

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 8 2006 17:24 utc | 39