Today, the NY Times published what was essentially an unexpurgated series of IDF intelligence reports claiming Hezbollah had taken over a southern Lebanese town and turned it into a fortress bristling with fortifications. The story, written by Isabel Kershner, features photos and descriptions of intelligence data received directly from the army intelligence unit, AMAN.
At no point in the story does Kershner offer any skepticism about the substance of the material or its origins. Nor does she entertain any thoughts about the ultimate purpose of releasing the material to her. As I read the story, the biggest nagging question was: how did she vet this before publication? Did she get someone to visit the village to confirm details? Did she ask a military analyst or consultant to authenticate the documents proffered her? In response to a tweet to bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, she says she thinks this happened but doesn’t know the details.
The only indication in the report that these issues may’ve been considered is a statement that none of the information “could be independently verified.” You’re damn straight they couldn’t be verified. But how hard did you try?
There is an interview conducted by the Times’ Lebanon correspondent Anne Barnard with a figure representing Hezbollah. He refuses to address the specifics of the intelligence information and only affirms the Islamist movement’s determination to protect Lebanese sovereignty from Israeli attack.
I tweeted these questions to Jodi Rudoren, the paper’s Israel bureau chief, and she replied that since it was not her story I should contact Kershner directly. Given that she’s Kershner’s boss, I found the response odd.
UPDATE: I sent a series of questions via e mail to Kershner using the address Rudoren gave me. Here was my e mail:
Given that it’s not often AMAN offers journalists a Powerpoint presentation with secret documents confirming alleged Hezbollah military activity, I wonder what you did to confirm their authenticity.
Did you attempt to have a Lebanese source visit the village? Or take any other steps to examine things on the ground than having Anne Barnard contact a Hezbollah representative? Did you engage a consultant or intelligence analyst to examine the photographs & other documentation to confirm their origin and authenticity? If so, why isn’t that noted in the article? If not, why not?
What exactly is the IDF claiming the pictures displayed represented?
How did AMAN approach you with this information? Did you approach them? Were any other media outlets approached? What conditions or limitations were placed upon you in exchange for giving the documents to you?
Why didn’t you connect this article to Yaalon’s speech last week (see below) in which he promised mass annihilation against Lebanese civilians and launched a pre-emptive strike against war crimes charges that would result? “Avoiding international censure” as you wrote, is one thing. But pre-empting war crimes charges is quite stronger language and precisely what the IDF is doing.
That message bounced. Rudoren gave me the correct address, before I could send it, Rudoren decided there would no further comment:
I saw the email, and I think we’re going to let the story speak for itself. attack as you wish. Jodi Rudoren
I responded by reminding her she’d asked me to contact Kershner. In the meantime, she’d changed her mind and closed off any response. Seemed unfair. Here’s her reply:
Yes, well, in the passage of time and upon seeing your Tweets and questions, that’s where we are.
I’ll make sure Isabel sees your email tomorrow, and if we change our minds will let you know,
Jodi Rudoren
She followed this tweet with another in which she explained she would not address my questions because:
…I do not believe you are seriously interested in our work other than fodder for your attacks. I don’t consider you fair assessor.
…I’m not hurt or angry. I’m uninterested and dismissive.
Imagine that, a NY Times bureau chief unnerved by skeptical, challenging questions. It makes you wonder what the standards are at the Times for getting the job. Ethan Bronner, her predecessor, was another one who displayed his thin-skinned nature when he moaned about the leftists who were so unfair to him. Excuse me, but I was under the impression that journalists both asked and answered tough, even uncomfortable questions. I guess not in the Times Israel bureau.
We should also remember that Kershner’s husband is former Jerusalem Post IDF correspondent Hirsh Goodman. He is a researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, a think tank deeply connected to the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus.
I should make clear that I’m not taking any position on the accuracy of the report or the IDF documents. Instead, I’m most disturbed by the process used in putting this story together. The IDF and Israeli intelligence in general is well-known for putting forth false or fraudulent claims. Any Israeli journalist who is half-way honest knows this and would freely concede it. It is incumbent on any self-respecting journalist to authenticate such data before accepting it at face value. I don’t see any indication from the story itself that any of this was done.
Another critical aspect of this story you won’t find mentioned by Kershner is that Hezbollah is a Lebanese resistance movement whose goal, at least concerning Israel, is to defend the nation’s sovereignty. Yes, we can argue about its involvement in Syria diverging from this agenda, but aside from a few skirmishes Hezbollah is not fighting Israel in the Syrian Golan. Not to mention, that the IDF is complaining about Hezbollah fortifying a Lebanese village from attack by Israel. In other words, Hezbollah’s purpose is to defend Lebanese territory. How it does this is not something Israel has a right to complain about.
As a reader noted in a comment below, Kershner quotes the AMAN source saying:
” ‘The civilians are living in a military compound,’ a senior Israeli military official said at military headquarters in Tel Aviv.”
IDF headquarters is located in the Kirya, the heart of Tel Aviv. It is surrounded by residential and office towers and a commercial district. In other words, he was speaking from a “military compound” in the heart of civilian Tel Aviv. If the IDF was truly concerned about its own civilians’ welfare, it would move the headquarters out of Tel Aviv. As the reader wrote, the IDF operates in an “irony-free zone.”
In the article itself, the IDF sources make crystal clear that their military strategy features an invasion of Lebanon. In other words, the Israeli army is conceding that it intends to violate Lebanese sovereignty. Yet on the other hand it denies Lebanese the right to defend against such an invasion. The army also makes clear Israel’s intent to kill civilians, as it has in numerous invasions and occupation over the decades. The difference this time around is that the IDF is warning beforehand that it intends to do this. It is telling the world that we will do to Lebanon what we did to Gaza. There will be no mercy. No punches pulled. It will unleash the full fury of its arsenal. Civilians will be treated no different than combatants.
In the midst of the massive civilian death toll it will trot out Kershner’s stenography and say: See, we told you so. We warned you that Hezbollah was using civilians as human shields. We warned you in no less a venue than the NY Times that we would have no choice but to decimate the militants along with the civilians. Now, you have no right to complain that we did precisely what we told you we would do.
The reporter quotes her intelligence source making yet another mendacious claim about the history of guerrilla warfare:
“Historically, armed forces have separated themselves from the population, in uniform,” the senior Israeli military official said. “This is not the case here or in Gaza.” He accused Hezbollah of cynically using civilians.
This is not only utterly false in general historical terms (remember the 250,000 dead in Leningrad or the two Warsaw Ghetto uprisings?), it’s false in terms of Israel’s own history. The Palmach and other Jewish resistance groups made extensive use of civilian infrastructure, including synagogues, to hide weapons caches. Military forces use whatever advantage they can muster which benefit their strategic position. If the IDF was in the position of Hezbollah it would do nothing different. In such a case, no one could argue Israel didn’t have the right to do so as long as it was defending its territory from invasion, as Hezbollah is doing.
Let’s also not forget the only way to stop this mayhem on both sides is for Israel to agree to return to 1967 borders, return the Golan and Shebaa Farms and any prisoners it holds, in return for peace and recognition from the Syrians and Lebanese. Anything short of this is utter failure.
Nor is this the only time recently such claims have been made. Just this past week, Asa Winstanley reported defense minister Bogie Yaalon’s truculent speech to the Israeli lawfare NGO, Shurat HaDin, in which he offered precisely the same argument: Hezbollah and Hamas hide among children, so don’t blame us for those we killed last summer or those we’ll kill the next time around–whether it be Gaza or Lebanon. Curiously, in his speech he offered no evidence to support his claims that residential homes were turned into rocket launching platforms with families still living inside them. Kershner’s story answers that question.
Further, Yaalon made another strange aside in answering an audience question. He implied that in certain strategic circumstances in which the IDF “did not have the answer through surgical operations” against an enemy (presumably Iran), it might use WMD (around 18:00). Though he added “we’re not there yet.” Lunatics like Sheldon Adelson, John Hagee, and even Benny Morris, have advocated nuking Iran, but I’ve never before heard this officially discussed by such a senior Israeli figure. It indicates another red-line has been crossed; and that this government is by far the most reckless and dangerous in Israeli history.
The general purpose of this hasbara offensive seems to be a pre-emptive strike in world media which seeks to permit Israel to set the agenda around questions of culpability for war crimes in the past or future. Israeli generals seem to believe that if they put out an aggressive defense that this will dent the initiative of the ICC and other human rights forces when their time comes to accuse Israel. Needless to say, this is a fraudulent enterprise.
There is no provision in international law allowing a state to justify deliberately killing civilians if they are in the vicinity of military personnel. Even if IDF claims are true (and I do not concede they are), there is no exemption saying militants who deliberately hide themselves within a civilian population may be attacked along with these civilians.
Haaretz published an interview with the ICC’s chief prosecutor in which she emphasized the importance of both Israeli and Palestinian sources cooperating with her investigation in providing evidence. She also warned that she might bring cases against officers from the highest to the lowest ranks in order to make her case:
Fatou Bensouda, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, told Haaretz that if she decides to open an investigation of war crimes committed in the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli soldiers of low- and middle-rank potentially could be investigated for the purpose of “bringing stronger cases against those most responsible.”
My first reaction when I read Asa’s report was, Yaalon ought to buy a condo in the Hague because he will be spending a great deal of time there. But he won’t be alone. He’ll have the company of all the IDF senior command and his prime minister as well.
I note that the ICC often fails in its prosecutions. Take the example of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta. By refusing to cooperate, he stared down the Court and won. No doubt, Israel will do the same. It may win too. But just seeing these murderers (and a few Palestinians will be among them too) in the dock facing justice will suffice, as the seder song says.
This would be one of the best ways to bring the Israeli public to its senses; since those in the world who can act to stop Israel, refuse to do so. Right now, Israel believes it can act with impunity. That no one will intervene on behalf of civilians Israel kills in its ceaseless attacks against frontline states. Someone finally must stand up and say: enough. Either it will be the UN recognizing Palestine, or half the world putting Israel in BDS quarantine, or hauling a few prime ministers and generals before the ICC. Drastic measures must be taken or the message will never get through.
In the meantime, expect thousands more dead in a certain upcoming war between Israel and Hezbollah.
” Hezbollah is a Lebanese resistance movement whose goal, at least concerning Israel, is to defend the nation’s sovereignty’
Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy that’s carries out the dictates of it’s Iranian master.
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, and a dozen innocent bystanders. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/the-hezbollah-connection.html?_r=0
I think it is very safe to say the Hezbollah does not have Lebanon’s best interests at heart.
@ Walter: I think it’s safe to say you don’t know squat about Hezbollah. Of course Hezbollah makes alliances with Assad & Iran. Israel has an alliance with a far more powerful master: the U.S. There is no law against a guerrilla movement making such alliances. Unless you want to retroactively declare Britain the winner of the Revolutionary War because we were a French “proxy.”
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri …”
Whoa Walter, last time I looked the U.N. Detlev Mehlis investigation was spoon-fed false evidence from western interlligence community (CIA, FBI, DGSE and Mossad) pointing directly to Assad in Syria. What has happened in the six years since then? There is a case being prosecuted before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in The Hague, specifically a special court for the Hariri case. No one has been convicted, so on what grounds do you put the blame squarely on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Could you even formulate a motive for the group to place the car bomb in Beirut to target PM Hariri? I can think of a few other parties who would have profited from a false flag attack in Beirut blaming it on the axis Iran-Syria-Hezbollah. See how the Levant has been shaped in the last 5 years for an indication.
“..you don’t know squat about Hezbollah”
‘The Iranians through Hezbollah really do wish to complete this encirclement from the north [of Israel] now that they have access to the Golan.… I think that is a key strategic move for them,” says Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland and author of the Hizballah Cavalcade blog, which focuses on Shiite militarism in the Middle East.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0306/Iran-backed-advance-in-southern-Syria-rattles-Israel
This story is old news.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38707834/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/israel-sees-battlefield-hidden-southern-lebanon/
@Walter: Hezbollah “encircling” Israel “from the north?” Anyone who would make such a ridiculous statement isn’t a serious analyst or academic. With what is Hezbollah going to “encircle” Israel? It’s a guerrilla army, not a conventional fighting force. It can’t even defeat ISIS & al Nusra. How will it lay siege to Israel?
Adding to your points, how can the NYT write a story on this without mentioning the Dahiya doctrine? And why the “he said, she said ” approach to Israel’s behavior? Human Rights Watch and others investigated the conduct of both sides in 2006–one doesn’t have to rely on competing propaganda claims of both sides to determine that Israel bombed civilians indiscriminately and dropped massive numbers of cluster munitions back then.
And supposing Hezbollah is fortifying towns? Israel is clearly using this to issue a blank check to itself to be able to hit civilians in southern Lebanon, whether or not there are military targets nearby. They will use indiscriminate firepower and claim that everything they do is justified. Hezbollah might be guilty for all I know of doing what Israel claims, but that doesn’t mean that Israel then gets to do whatever it wants and then blame everything on Hezbollah.
The whole article was written to rally Israel supporters in the U.S., in my opinion. Judging from the comments at the NYT website, it seems to be working. The Israelis wanted their pre-emptive justification for war crimes and the NYT happily went along.
Except that the NYT was very clear that all their information came from Israeli sources. “Israel says…” “Israeli military officials and experts are warning that…” “Maps and aerial photography provided to The New York Times by Israeli military officials this week illustrate, they say, that…” ” Israel says this amounts to…” “Effectively, the Israelis are warning that…” “…a senior Israeli military official said…” “The Israeli military says that…” and then of course “The Israeli claims could not be independently verified.” That’s not what “unexpurgated” means. The NYT was very clear that all they were reporting on were Israeli claims. They were not reporting facts.
@ pea: That’s hardly sufficient to indicate healthy skepticism or even review/examination of the material for authenticity. She devotes most of the article to AMAN claims without offering any proof that they’re real or accurate; and offers a small statement by an anonymous Hezbollah operative which defends its right to defend Lebanese soil. Making clear that you’re publishing IDF propaganda isn’t the same as providing a careful journalistic presentation.
If the NYT wants to give its readers facts, they wouldn’t play this game of citing Hezbollah vs. Israeli officials. The implied message there is that there is no objective third party view, so the reader has to choose which side appears more credible.
But there were journalists and human rights groups they could have quoted and facts, such as Israel’s massive use of cluster munitions that they could have cited.
I got an answer feom RS that Ilamppoobia is no permitted, Is Israelophobia prmitted????
‘llamppoobia’ is my favorite dish in Greece, but I am not sure if it is ‘kshr’ and therefore ‘prmitted’.
Excellent piece! What an appalling article in The NY Times, pure IDF hasbara, as if they had the interests of Lebanese civilians at heart!
I have to say that this sentence from Kershner’s fluff-piece had me laughing out loud: ” ‘The civilians are living in a military compound,’ a senior Israeli military official said at military headquarters in Tel Aviv,”
So this dude is complaining that Hezbollah putting its headquarters inside Lebanese villages turns those villages into “a military compound”? And he makes that claim while sitting in “military headquarters in Tel Aviv”?
Which must mean that the IDF has turned Tel Aviv into a military compound, correct, Isabel?
The IDF may be many things, but one thing we can be sure of: it operates within an irony-free zone.
So does the New York Times, apparently.
“There is no provision in international law allowing a state to justify deliberately killing civilians if they are in the vicinity of military personnel. ”
Richard. You are not addressing what the Israeli official said. He said that should there be another conflict with Hezbollah, the Israeli official said, Lebanese civilians would be allowed to evacuate, but not at the cost of Israel suffering unbridled rocket salvos.
‘..deliberately killing civilians if they are in the vicinity of military personnel’, and killing civilians who fail to evacuate and who remain in the vicinity of military personnel who are firing rocket salvos, are two different things.
@ Walter: You can’t attack or kill civilians under international law whether you’ve asked them to evacuate or not. You simply can’t do it, period.
‘Under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), the rules relating to collateral damage are fairly easy to state – but difficult to apply. LOAC permits expected incidental loss of civilian life and injury to civilians (collateral damage), provided that the collateral damage is not excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained from the attack.’
http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/09/guest-post-self-defence-collateral-damage-precautions-attack/
Walter: “LOAC permits expected incidental loss of civilian life and injury to civilians (collateral damage), provided that the collateral damage is not excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained from the attack.”
Pardon me? The “attack” on what, exactly?
You can’t attack a civilian target. Period. Even if attacking that civilian target provides an “anticipated military advantage”.
You can attack a military target, sure, and international humanitarian law does permit “expected incidental loss of civilian life and injury to civilians” as a result of that attack on a military target.
But it must be a military target, which is a consideration that you do not make clear.
Get it?
IHL has TWO components:
a) Principle of Distinction
b) Principle of Proportionality
You are only conceding the latter, while completely ignoring the former.
As in: you must FIRST assure yourself that what you are shooting at is, indeed, a military target i.e. you first determine that you are allowed to shoot. THEN and ONLY THEN do you consider how important it is to take out that military target, and that determines how much shooting you can do before the collateral damage becomes excessive.
But Israel is pre-emptively declaring that EVERYTHING in Lebanon will be considered to be a military target, and so it can flatten EVERYTHING inside Lebanon and, hey, if civvies die as a result then that’s not Ya’alon’s problem.
It is, indeed, an extraordinary claim.
So extraordinary that it is deserving of extraordinary due diligence on the part of Isabel Kershner.
A concept that, apparently, is completely alien to both Kershner and Jodi Rudoren.
And you too, it would appear….
@Oh yeah
You said; ‘ But it must be a military target, which is a consideration that you do not make clear’.
I did make the consideration crystal clear when I said to Richard, ” ‘.. killing civilians who fail to evacuate and who remain in the vicinity of military personnel who are firing rocket salvos..”.
“I did make the consideration crystal clear when I said to Richard”….
Not in the post that I was responding to, no, you did not.
….”‘killing civilians who fail to evacuate and who remain in the vicinity of military personnel who are firing rocket salvos..”
Again, you are using weasel-words.
How were those civilians killed? Simply “failing to evacuate” does not make a civilian into a legitimate target. Simply “remaining in the vicinity of military personnel” does not make a civilian into a legitimate target.
The converse is not true i.e. the presence of such civilians does not render the military personnel exempt from attack. Agreed.
But the iDF can not absolve itself of responsibility under the Principle of Distinction: simply shouting that All The Civvies Must Leave!!! does not allow the IDF to treat all who remain as “combatants”, nor does it absolve the IDF from the responsibility to ensure that it does not shoot at civilians.
Read what the IDF is saying: it is laying the groundwork for an abandonment of the Principle of Distinction e.g. we told the civvies to leave, so when we lay waste to the place it’ll be their fault for staying.
They won’t say that out loud (well, maybe Ya’alon, because he’s a moron), but that’s what they are going to claim once the shooting starts, and this NY Times article is simply a pre-emptive bit o’ groundwork that they are laying out.
@Walter: a highly subjective reading. International law only allows civilian casualties as incidental to an operation & certainly not if the invader knows civilians are there & In harm’s way. In this instance, Yaalon has promised the death of Lebanese civilians: a surefire invitation to the Hague.
Jodi Rudoren: “I do not believe you are seriously interested in our work other than fodder for your attacks. I don’t consider you fair assessor.”
Hmmm, I’ve looked over your questions, and not one of them constitutes an “attack” upon anyone.
You said what you said, and all that you said was to ask how and by what means Kershner verified the information that she had been spoon-fed.
That seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask of *any* reporter, and that Rudoren considers it to be an “attack” reveals far more about the lack of professionalism of both she and her bureau than it does about your “fairness”.
Jodi Rudoren: “…I’m not hurt or angry. I’m uninterested and dismissive.”
And a monumentally arrogant boor to boot.
But, hey, that’d be “unfair” I suppose.
@ Richard
You are against the Israeli lobbying in the States, never missing a chance to ridicule the ‘only democracy in the middle east’ – as you say with such disgust, slam ‘Habyit Hayehudi’ for being homophobes and extreme right religious lunatics, yet have no problem with Iranian (not so gay friendly) influence in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a religious political movement, HAVING IT’S OWN ARMY inside it’s state – basically dictating the lives of many civilians which didn’t chose them as their leaders. All in the name of some twisted sense of justice. The western left supporting the most extreme right in the middle east – how’s that for irony?
@ yeah,right
“How were those civilians killed? Simply “failing to evacuate” does not make a civilian into a legitimate target. Simply “remaining in the vicinity of military personnel” does not make a civilian into a legitimate target.”
That’s the entire point of using villages and civil areas for weapons caches and bases. The weaker side puts the stronger one in a dilemma – whether he shoots back or not. Either, he doesn’t retaliate and then encourage more attacks and risk he’s own civilians or he does and then risk killing innocent people and international condemnation. Welcome to the middle east.
There’s tones of evidence of Hamas firing rockets from civil areas in protective edge – do your own research since Richard refuses to confront this issue and moderates the links.
@ yonathan:
Wrong.
It’s a question of degrees. Hezbollah needs allies because Israel has the biggest ally on the planet. So I would prefer Hezbollah keep its nose in Lebanon, Assad to keep his nose in Syria & Iran keep it’s nose in Iran–as long as Israel kept its nose inside 1967 borders. As long as it doesn’t, it doesn’t seem like you are in any position to lecture anyone about countries exerting influence outside their borders.
With the new theocratic Israeli government you want to lecutre me about a religious movement having its own army??
Hezbollah has a lot more support in southern Lebanon than Israel’s elected prime minister has in all of Israel.
As for calling Hezbollah “extreme right,” I think you’re confusing it with Israel’s extreme right religious groups & parties. Where did you sense of spatial orientation? Hezbollah is on the “right?” In what sense?
No, there’s no dilemma. The stronger side may not slaughter the civilians of the weaker side on any account. That’s not a dilemma. It’s international law.
Interesting word choice, “retaliate.” Why would Israel be retaliating when it starts the war? Not to mention that the word retaliation conveys a sense that Israel isn’t just defending itself, but sending a message of vengeance, teaching the other side a lesson. This again show a complete lack or proportionality. Even if Hezbollah fires a missle, it more likely than not does little or not damage. But when Israel “retaliates” it kills hundreds and thousands. 1,400 died in the 2006 war. We can easily imagine 2,000 or 3,000 dead in the next one.
There’s that hasbarist moral nihilism: we’re damned if we do & damned if we don’t. No one cuts us a break. Therefore we have to go our own way and damn the results.
There’s tons of evidence of Israel ransacking entire civilian populations in the West Bank, killing 7 innocent people, arresting 500 people having nothing to do with the kidnapping & decimating thousands of homes–all out of vengeance. To which Hamas responded. So no Israeli provocation, no Hamas rockets. Blame lies with you once again…
Y: “That’s the entire point of using villages and civil areas for weapons caches and bases. ”
No, actually, the entire point of having an armed force is to defend against an attack.
There is nothing at all wrong with defending your cities, towns and villages, and there is absolutely no rule in international humanitarian law that says that an armed force must abandon its own population centres.
When there is an armed conflict then you **fight**, and that’s perfectly legitimate.
And if your opponents want to fight you in your own villages, towns and cities then you are, indeed, allowed to fight them there. You are not obliged to declare them to be “open cities” and you are under no obligation to abandon those population centres.
Reverse the situation, Yonaton, and ask if the IDF is obliged to vacate Haifa (where the Israeli navy is based) or withdraw from Tel Aviv (where IDF HQ is located) once a shooting war begins.
The answer is “no”, and nobody would expect an Israeli armed force to do so.
A simple question: would there be a single, solitary Israeli town that does not contain an IDF weapons cache?
I would bet that the answer is, again, “no, every single IDF village and settlement contain an IDF weapons cache for the reservists who are called up to fight”.
@ Richard
I’ve been watching the comments since I posted mine – why have you censored both of them a few minutes after they were posted, and returned only one of them only after you had an answer? In the ‘Israel’s Newest Form of Hasbara: Mommy-washing’ you haven’t even written something about a message being deleted. Weird…
About the Israeli lobbying – you are not against it? Well you had me fooled. Just search the words Lobby or AIPAC here in your blog. You are against Israeli lobbying when they represent Israel’s current agenda – you might want them to exist only if they represented something much closer to yours, but that’s not being pro Israeli lobbying, that being pro-you.
“Hezbollah needs allies because Israel has the biggest ally on the planet.”
Proving my point – Twisted justice. Hezbollah doesn’t need ANY allies. It should be a political party, just like the rest of them. Do you think that a militia answering to a party leader is good for democracy? What happens when you defy it? We know the answer to that already. You don’t like Israel’s meddling – great. The STATE of Lebanon should do something about it alongside her allies and/or stop the armament of the militia operating in her borders. You sell out your democratic principle really fast when it comes to allying against Israel.
“Hezbollah has a lot more support in southern Lebanon than Israel’s elected prime minister has in all of Israel.”
A prefect example of selling out democratic values. I didn’t know that the president of the US governs just the democratic states. A poor argument that only goes to show that democratic values are only important to you if you can bash Israel with it. Have you checked how many seats Hezbollah has in the parliament?
“With the new theocratic Israeli government you want to lecutre(sic) me about a religious movement having its own army??”
The IDF serves which ever party that wins the elections in Israel.
“Even if Hezbollah fires a missle(sic), it more likely than not does little or not damage. But when Israel “retaliates” it kills hundreds and thousands”
Then don’t launch that missile.
“So no Israeli provocation, no Hamas rockets”
Do you have a filter on you news reports? Just 2 weeks ago there was a missile lunched on Israel from Gaza. Hamas has its own set of interests for when to fire. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with Israel’s actions but some inner conflict, and sometimes they lose control of the subgroups operating in Gaza.
“There’s tons of evidence of Israel ransacking entire civilian populations in the West Bank, killing 7 innocent people”
How does this argument justify Hamas firing from dense civilian areas?
You’ve written much about the ‘ransacking’ (with over exaggeration and grandstanding – just like the sentence I’ve quoted). Why not write about Hamas’ doings? Why censor the proves?
@ Yeah
I won’t answer to all of the points that you made because this comment is already long enough and more importantly, you lack the fundamental understanding of warfare strategy (which is a good thing – just not when you are talking about warfare strategy). No army will ever willingly choose to fight in an urban area (village, city etc.) unless forced to do it by the enemy. There are several reasons for it, one of them being the amount of men power and risk – a platoon can control in the open areas an area covering 10s of km, in urban warfare it might be sucked into a building or a small compound. The only one gaining from urban fighting is a weaker enemy – it has more places to hide and doesn’t need that much fighters to defend and lunch attacks limiting the ability of the stronger side to use it’s superior weapon arsenal.
“the entire point of having an armed force is to defend against an attack”
Hiding missile and firing from the villages themselves doesn’t protect anyone (accept for the rockets themselves) – it just invites shelling of the area. This is not how you protect a civil area.
“every single IDF village (sic) and settlement contain an IDF weapons cache for the reservists who are called up to fight”.
Good to know – you saved me hours of driving in the next war.
I have seen numerous photos of the Maginot, Atlantic, and Siegfried lines. They all showed not only bunkers but also the powerful guns and machine guns sticking out from them towards the enemy. The four rat holes shown in the photos could well be backyard air-raid shelters of Lebanese who have had some earlier experience with Israel’s air force. Since I cannot detect any gun pointed towards an Israeli military advance line I conclude that this is not Hezbollah’s Maginot Line in Lebanon.
As. Mr. Silverstein has pointed out, Hezbollah is not a traditional armed force. A Maginot Line against the Air Force of Israel would be the most stupid defense strategy. Hence I hold that the NYT article is pure fabrication. We know that the NYT is capable of publishing fabrications: Judith Miller.