“Israel’s right to defend itself does not justify inflicting massive destruction.”
So said Kaja Kallas, Vice President of the European Commission and Europe’s top diplomat. To which the whole of Israeli society responded, “What?! Since when?!”
I’m kidding. That’s not “the whole of Israeli society,” but there’s certainly a society-wide inclination towards an expansive definition of the term “self-defense.”
I don’t blame Israel for that inclination, but I do fault them when it manifests as indiscriminate violence against populations with no defenses of their own, which is what’s happening in Lebanon.
The IDF’s efforts to destroy what’s left of Hezbollah following the near complete dismantling of what, until 2024, was the most powerful non-state military actor in the world, is the key point of contention in the two-day-old ceasefire with Iran.
On Wednesday alone, the IDF killed more than 200 people in Lebanon, pushing the death toll there since the renewal of the war in late February beyond 1,500. That’s nearly as high as the death toll in Iran, where the population’s 15 times larger. Among those killed Wednesday: Ali Yusuf, Naim Qassem’s “personal secretary.”
Qassem, you’re reminded, was officially Hezbollah’s number two when Hassan Nasrallah was killed in 2024, but the actual heir was Hashem Safieddine, Nasrallah’s cousin. When Israel killed Safieddine shortly after Nasrallah, Qassem became leader by default. He’ll be killed eventually too, and when he is, it’ll make a few headlines. But strategically it’ll be irrelevant. Qassem’s inept.
Anyway, Israel needs to give peace a chance or at least give peace talks a chance. As noted here on Wednesday, around-the-clock bombing in Lebanon violates the spirit of this whole endeavor, if perhaps not the word of anything Israel formally agreed to.
Israel claims the ceasefire with Iran doesn’t include Lebanon. In the version of Tehran’s 10-point peace proposal released to the public, Lebanon is included and Hezbollah’s mentioned by name: “Ending the regional war on all fronts, including against Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, in Lebanon.”
There’s no question who the aggressor is in Lebanon. It’s the IDF. Yes, Hezbollah — what’s left of it — was still firing rockets on Thursday, but the group offered to stop when the ceasefire was announced Tuesday. Israel kept bombing Beirut anyway. So, late Wednesday, Hezbollah started lobbing rockets again.
Israel reoccupied southern Lebanon last month when they blew up multiple bridges over the Litani River. The IDF says anything on Israel’s “side” of the Litani is a buffer zone that’ll be occupied until such a time as Israel decides it’s safe for troops to leave. Israel claims for itself the sole right to make that determination, and they’ve razed residential buildings (entire communities even) in the buffer zone. What does that tell you?
The underlying issue — and I’ll go into this at greater length at some point this month — is that the US and Israel have different goals. Israel wants the regime in Tehran completely gone, where that means they’d rather a failed state than they would a state that retains any elements inimical to Zionism.
The US hasn’t insisted on that, and although Trump’s done more for Israeli hardliners than any other US president in terms of bringing brute American military force to bear on the regime in Tehran, his short attention span and transactional style could ultimately be a liability for Israel if he comes to believe their strict definition of “regime change” is an impediment to a deal.
There’s a very real sense in which Benjamin Netanyahu embarrassed Trump this week. Wednesday was the deadliest day yet in Lebanon since fighting resumed. In addition to the 203 people killed, at least 1,000 were injured.
Whether or not Israel was “confused” or in any way unclear as to whether Trump’s ceasefire applied to Lebanon, any Israeli leader interested in advancing the talks wouldn’t have dialed up the intensity of strikes in the hours after an interim deal with Iran. Netanyahu did the same thing to Trump last year. Trump was livid.
France on Thursday called Israel’s actions “intolerable.” “Iran must stop terrorizing Israel through Hezbollah [but Lebanon] can’t be a scapegoat for an Israeli government frustrated because a ceasefire has been reached,” foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot remarked.
“Israel reoccupied southern Lebanon last month when they blew up multiple bridges over the Litani River” calls to mind “now youse can’t leave.”
When timid critiques become criticism The artists career is soon to fail.
Dated Brent (i.e. physical oil) at $22 premium.
This is not a US war; it is simply a continuation of an Israeli war designed to rid that country of what it views as its enemies. Israel will continually refuse to recognize the term “cease fire” in any of its conventional uses. What is happening now is the same thing that happened in Gaza. Israel will keep shooting as long as we pay the tab for the bullets. Trump is so attached to the imagined peace prize he didn’t get he will keep hitting between tackle and end until he realizes what this mess is costing him personally. Now we have an announcement that the draft is likely to return. It has to. As long as Pistol Pete and his dark lord keep on aimlessly wishing to wander in the killing fields of the Middle-East, young people who are smarter than most will stop following them. After all why should our smarter and more greedy children follow MAGA anywhere that will get them killed or maimed. The services are currently only attracting 70-80% of their volunteer targets, or less. Israel is committed to its sovereignty and safety and as long as we enable them they will keep blowing stuff up until a different leader is inserted. I personally find this whole situation somewhat surprising since I have always considered Trump to be a closet anti-Semite.
Mr. Lucky, I fear you may be losing a step if you sincerely think that the draft will be reinstated.
Every politician out there knows that the draft is politically as toxic as it gets. Democrats pulled a stunt at the start of the Iraq war calling for the draft, but that was pure theater to make a point. The one thing politicians like more than the sound of their own voices is getting reelected, and the Selective Service is antithetical to reelection. Outside of a full-blown WW III style land war in Asia blunder, there’s zero scenarios where the draft is “likely to return.”
While a traditional draft process may be nearly impossible, we now have detailed information on everybody, so a selective draft where selected recruits are “encouraged” to enlist could be possible though still unlikely. How many things have I thought were impossible that have happened over the last year.
Dude, reinstating the draft is unfortunately not out of the question. But first, a bigger question is whether we get free and fair elections this year. If things go badly, the draft may yet come back. “Toxic” politics aren’t so toxic once the elections can be rigged.
WMD – I wonder how strong that opposition varies state to state. Do the MAGA areas support the draft? Or do they mumble excuses?
obligatory reference:
https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/
“There’s a very real sense in which Benjamin Netanyahu embarrassed Trump this week. ”
I had nodded agreement with this. But upon returning from a tortuous exercise class today, I read a WSJ article which contends that the president alerted BiBi a few hours before announcing the ceasefire agreement. Apparently Netanyahu was pissed that he had not been invited to participate in the negotiations but, instead, insisted that Lebanon be excluded from the deal. So the IFDF could continue to emulate Curtis Lemay in Lebanon.
The story goes on to say that the president agreed to this, suggesting that he was a party to the escalated bombing campaign.
There will be a NYT article that contradicts that, then an Axios “scoop” that contradicts those two, then an FT report that tells a completely different story, then another NYT story that contains six different narratives, then a WSJ story that tells the Iranian side, then a NYT story that cites “three senior Iranian officials, two of whom were dead but still considered credible,” then an Axios story that cites “two former, one current and one future official,” and then……..
I guess that we all should simply rely on our gut feelings on this. We would not be alone.
This may be heresy to the rational analytical view of things, which is me comfortable to me than the alternative, but what are the chances that the situation is being jerked hither and tither by the impulses of a person in moderate-but-advancing dementia? Probably not referring to M. Ghalibaf.