As Israel and Hezbollah inch toward war, Canada braces for a repeat of the 2006 evacuation
Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly had a stark warning Tuesday for Canadian citizens in Lebanon.
“If the armed conflict intensifies, it could impact your ability to leave the country and our ability to provide you with consular services,” she said. “Canada is not currently offering assisted departures or evacuations for Canadians in Lebanon, and these are not guaranteed.
“My message to Canadians has been clear since the beginning of the crisis in the Middle East: it is not the time to travel to Lebanon. And for Canadians currently in Lebanon, it is time to leave, while commercial flights remain available.”
Canadian officials are acutely aware of the fact that a large-scale Israeli air attack on Lebanon could force Canada to evacuate thousands of citizens under fire, as it did during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.
Canada spent $94 million and leased seven ships to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon to Cyprus and Turkey in 2006.
Three naval ships participated in the operation. Even the prime minister’s jet was roped into service.
The evacuation led to complaints in Canada about “citizens of convenience” after reports emerged that many evacuees returned to live in Lebanon as soon as it was safe to do so.
Canada ultimately evacuated about 15,000 people. Today, a similar number of Canadian citizens have registered with the embassy in Lebanon. Joly has said that is likely just a “fraction” of the true number of Canadians in the Middle Eastern country.
Canada doesn’t have many resources in the area right now. The frigate HMCS Charlottetown entered the Mediterranean Tuesday morning, steaming through the Strait of Gibraltar on its way to join NATO’s Maritime Group 2.
The utility of Cyprus as a base of operations has also been cast into some doubt after Hezbollah warned the island’s government that it could be a target if it assists Israel in an attack on Lebanon.
Cyprus is within range of the Zelzal-2 ballistic missiles Hezbollah acquired from Iran, and the M-600 missiles it got from Syria.
Stumbling toward a wider war
“What worries me most is the possibility of a war as a result of miscalculation rather than planning or by design,” former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas told CBC News. “Someone misinterprets the other side’s intention.”
For months, Israel and Hezbollah have been trading artillery and missile fire across the border, and Israel has also engaged in air and drone strikes as far north as Beirut.
Homes, fields and forests have burned in the farming communities that dot the hilly landscape. Close to 500 people have died, mostly in Lebanon.
“Israel has been saying for a few weeks now that the situation up in the north is untenable and unsustainable and that something needs to be done,” Pinkas said. Sixty thousand Israelis have been displaced for months and are demanding solutions. An even larger number of Lebanese civilians are also displaced.
As cross-border attacks between Israel and Lebanon increase, the threat of an all-out regional war with Hamas ally Hezbollah becomes a greater possibility.
“The problem is that Israel refuses or chooses not to see it the way the Americans do,” Pinkas added. “And that is that Gaza and Lebanon are communicating vessels, meaning that de-escalation in Lebanon can only happen as a result of a ceasefire in Gaza.
“So when Israel is reluctant to entertain any kind of hostage or ceasefire deal in Gaza, you cannot de-escalate the north, which then leads to this notion of the inevitability of war.”
But there are still signals coming from Lebanon suggesting that Hezbollah hopes to avoid escalation.
Rare regrets from Nasrallah
Hassan Nasrallah was surprisingly frank in an interview following the 2006 war with Israel. The Hezbollah chief said bluntly that the war wasn’t worth it.
The 2006 war began when a Hezbollah raiding party crossed the border to capture soldiers the group could trade for its own people in Israeli prisons.
The raiders captured two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and killed three more. Five more Israeli soldiers died inside Lebanon while in pursuit.
In subsequent days, Israeli planes flattened the mostly Shi’ite Dahiya neighbourhood of South Beirut, home to many Hezbollah supporters.
The interview Nasrallah gave in August 2006, shortly after the 34-day war ended, reveals how miscalculations about the other side’s intentions and reactions can lead to war. It also suggests that Nasrallah felt compelled to explain his actions, in light of the death and destruction the war brought to his own community.
“I would like to say this clearly, and I want people to listen to me, because there is still a controversy over this. We did not think that there was even a one per cent chance that the operation to capture [Israeli soldiers] would lead to a war of such a scale,” he told Lebanon’s Al-Jadeed Television.
“If you ask me whether — in case I thought on July 11 that there was even a one per cent chance that the capturing operation would lead to the kind of war that unfolded — would I still carry out the capturing operation, my answer is, absolutely not.”
Close observers of the group say that same caution can be seen in Hezbollah’s calibrated support for Hamas over the past months: it’s keen to be seen to be doing something, but not enough to start a war.
Israeli strategists were also unhappy with the inconclusive way the 2006 war ended. Although Israel had total superiority in the skies, it received unwelcome surprises on other fronts.
Hezbollah’s ability to launch missiles into Israel did not seem to diminish as the war went on. The group fired over 200 missiles into Israel on the last day of the war to show that its capabilities were intact.
Hezbollah also hit and disabled the Israeli navy’s flagship off the Lebanese coast, probably with a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile that Israel didn’t know it possessed.
Finally, when Israel launched its ground invasion across Lebanon’s hilly southern border, its tanks were met with a storm of Kornet anti-tank guided missiles, and the incursion fizzled before the IDF could penetrate any distance into the country.
The Dahiya doctrine
And yet, Israel knew that its infrastructure bombing campaign had hurt Hezbollah and caused many Lebanese — particularly non-Shia Lebanese — to question the group’s approach.
The bombing destroyed 640 kilometres of roads, 80 bridges, Beirut’s Rafic al-Hariri International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures such as factories and farms, up to 350 schools, two hospitals and 15,000 homes. A further 130,000 homes are believed to have been damaged.
After the war ended, Israel’s war planners gave the IDF a new strategic concept they called the Dahiya doctrine.
The doctrine holds that if Israel’s enemies know that any attack would be met with a hugely disproportionate response targeting the other side’s civilian infrastructure and homes, they would be more likely to show the restraint Nasrallah expressed after the 2006 war.
That doctrine of mass destruction is now being applied in Gaza.
The administrators of the Rafic al-Hariri International Airport clearly have not forgotten being targeted in the 2006 war.
Outraged by a report in the British Daily Telegraph that said Hezbollah was stockpiling weapons there, Lebanon’s ministers of transportation and information invited European and Arab ambassadors to tour the airport facilities yesterday.
The airport likely would be a target for Israel in any case, as it was in 2006.
Lebanon is in a poor state to face an Israeli air campaign. Beirut still has not recovered from the port explosion of 2020 and Lebanon’s economy is in shambles. A banking collapse, hyperinflation, a failing power grid and a liquidity crisis have forced the government to end fuel and food subsidies, and many Lebanese are struggling.
A vulnerable grid
Israel is in better shape economically, although the Gaza war has caused a downturn due to evacuations and the burden of calling up large numbers of reservists for extended service.
Shaul Goldstein, CEO of Israel’s national electrical grid management company, had to apologize last week for what he called “irresponsible” comments in which he suggested that few people in Israel understood how vulnerable the country is to Hezbollah’s missiles.
“Hezbollah could easily cripple Israel’s power grid,” he told a conference at the Institute for National Security Studies conference in Sderot.
“After five hours [without electricity] I have no phone to call. After 12 hours, you will arrive at the gas station, but there is no gasoline, and not a single gas station operates. At each station there is a queue of at least 30 kilometres, if not more.
“Check all our infrastructure, fibre optics and ports … We are in a bad situation. We are not ready for a real war. We live in an imaginary world, in my view … If the war is postponed for a year, five, or ten, our situation is better.”
Although Goldstein walked those remarks back in response to politicians’ outrage, the assessment of the Ministry of Defense’s own National Emergency Management Authority was not much more optimistic.
Drones and missiles create an air of menace
Hezbollah propaganda has sought to play on those vulnerabilities, posting video that it claimed was taken by a drone that penetrated some of Israel’s most sensitive sites, such as its naval base at Haifa, and returned to Lebanon with the images.
“Hezbollah has close to 100,000 rockets and missiles,” said Pinkas, “of which we believe 20 to 25,000 are precise missiles, meaning they could hit not just any random neighborhood, which is bad itself in and of itself, but infrastructure, power grids, oil refineries, Air Force bases and even the international airport right outside of Tel Aviv.”
Pinkas stressed that Hezbollah’s missiles bear little resemblance to the unguided and homemade Qassam rockets used by Hamas, which are propelled by fertilizer and sugar and have a range of less than 20 kilometres.
Prior to October 7, 2023, Hamas was thought to possess some smuggled Grad 122mm rockets and perhaps dozens of homemade R-160 rockets, which can theoretically travel over 150 kilometres but have no guidance systems.
Hezbollah’s arsenal includes arms from Iran, Syria and China, and could include ballistic missiles as large as a Scud-B.
“The idea that technology or military, defensive military systems like the Iron Dome could conceivably shoot down with a 80 to 90 per cent success rate incoming missiles from Lebanon, the same way that was done with Hamas from Gaza, that’s fantasy,” said Pinkas.
“We’re talking thousands, if not tens of thousands, of missiles and rockets, some of which are precise and some of which are long-range. And Israel just doesn’t have that capability.”
Re-occupation risks a quagmire
The U.S. has also warned Israel that Hezbollah could be bolstered in the event of war by an influx of Shi’ite militiamen from outside of Lebanon.
The emergence of Iraq as a Shi’ite power means that Lebanon now borders a vast area of Shi’ite-dominated territory stretching nearly 2,000 kilometres east through Syria, Iraq and Iran.
The U.S. believes fighters could filter into Lebanon in the event of a ground war with Israel, bringing more Iranian and Syrian weapons with them.
Some in the Israeli government have talked about re-occupying southern Lebanon to recreate the buffer zone that lasted from the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 until the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000.
But Pinkas said Israelis have bitter memories of that first occupation, which led to the creation of Hezbollah as a force dedicated to driving the Israelis out.
“If Israel does in fact go back and reoccupy the so-called security zone — if that’s the idea — then Israel must be prepared for another South Lebanon, which is another Afghanistan, which is another Vietnam, and which, on top of that, does not solve the missile issue.”
Published at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:00:00 +0000
Thursday’s presidential debate: A make-or-break moment in U.S. election?
It’s uncommon for a sitting U.S. president to hunker down for a full week’s worth of election planning in the wooded retreat at Camp David.
But that’s where Joe Biden’s been.
Then again, there’s never been a presidential debate quite like the one he’s been preparing for, scheduled for 9 p.m. ET Thursday night.
Two unusually unpopular candidates, Biden and Donald Trump, locked in a close race, will meet in an abnormally early debate, three months sooner than they’re typically held.
It is a unique chance for voters to assess them for long, unimpeded stretches — Biden requested, and Trump accepted, rules to limit heckling and interruptions.
Trailing slightly in most surveys, Biden appears keen on resetting the trajectory of the race by proposing a debate this early, under this format.
With polls having barely budged a point or two since last year, this is regarded as a rare scheduled event with the potential to shift the campaign.
“The most important 90 minutes of this election season,” is how longtime Republican strategist Karl Rove described Thursday’s Atlanta encounter in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
“This election may remain close until the end, but if something can put one candidate solidly ahead, it’s [this] debate. Get your popcorn. It’ll be a heck of a night.”
To be clear, debates don’t tend to be game-changers.
One reason history recalls the first-ever televised debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 is because they’re viewed as an exception.
What debates do — and don’t do
Kennedy entered those debates polling a touch behind, and exited a touch ahead. His rallies started drawing larger crowds, with previously tentative supporters enthused by his performance. After he squeaked out a narrow election win, he credited the new medium.
“It was TV more than anything else that turned the tide,” Kennedy said days after the election.
But even that assertion is in dispute; some researchers question whether that prime-time contrast between a telegenic Kennedy and a pasty-faced, recently hospitalized Nixon had a statistically meaningful effect at all.
Two researchers who have extensively studied the effect of presidential debates both shared a pair of identical assessments with CBC News about Biden v. Trump.
One: debates tend not to change a race. Two: this time could be different.
We’re sailing into unknown seas, they say, because it’s so early, because the race has been so static, and because voters have so many doubts about the candidates.
“In 2024, we’ll get to study something different — with less predictable consequences,” John Sides, a political scientist and author at Vanderbilt University, told readers in a recent newsletter.
WATCH | Loyalty at centre of Trump’s search for a running mate:
Donald Trump is currently vetting influential Republicans to become his vice presidential running mate, but some experts are describing the search as more of a fealty contest.
He told CBC News that there are conflicting unknowns at play. On one hand, the debate being early might augment its impact; on the other, it could do the opposite, with any post-debate bump potentially dissipating over the summer.
While debates tend to have small, uncertain, effects on polls, says Ben Warner of the University of Missouri, there are a couple of results he’s detected in his years analyzing them. They can, he said, lock in the support of unenthusiastic voters.
This is Biden’s chance to convince Democratic-leaners that he’s mentally up to the job. And Warner says Trump can try mollifying Republican-leaners concerned about his criminal cases and his role in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“This debate has the potential to be among the more influential,” said Warner.
But perhaps the most consistent outcome of debates, according to Warner: They improve voters’ confidence in their own knowledge of political issues, which makes them likelier to vote, donate to campaigns, attend events and talk to friends about politics.
About those unique rules
Trump is now grumbling about the rules. There will be no studio audience and microphones will be cut off when someone’s not speaking.
He accepted those rules, designed to avoid a repeat of the sloppy first encounter of 2020. But now Trump suggests he felt pressed; he’s made clear in public appearances that he’s not thrilled with the no-audience, no-interrupting guidelines.
“It’s a very sterile room. Nobody allowed in. … And they turn off your mic when you’re finished speaking. They’re trying to make this very exciting,” Trump said, sarcastically, in a recent Michigan speech.
“It’s like the mob. They gave me an offer I couldn’t accept. … They made an offer that was so ridiculous and they knew I was going to say no. And then they could go and they say, ‘Biden wanted to debate, but Trump refused to debate. He wouldn’t do it.’ But I said yes.”
Unlike Biden, Trump has not hunkered down for debate prep. He’s said to be getting debate briefings from aides, without doing mock debates.
One thing he is doing is trying to rebalance expectations. He has spent years fomenting doubts about Biden’s mental acuity, deriding him as a decrepit dodderer.
So what happens if Biden sounds better than expected — better than him? Voters will get to judge for themselves as they hear each candidate, without interruption.
Trump is now pre-emptively trying to slather doubt over the validity of a successful Biden evening.
Trump is attacking the CNN debate moderators as biased. More bizarrely, he and his team have insinuated the teetotalling president might be on drugs.
The spin wars
He’s doing it repeatedly: suggesting the president might get a shot of performance-enhancing substances, and making wildly false claims about cocaine found last year in the White House.
In Trump’s telling, it was hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cocaine and: “I think it was Joe[‘s].” In reality, it was a one-inch baggie, reportedly one-fifth of a gram, worth less than $100, and it was found in a staff entrance the president wouldn’t enter.
Trump’s motivation is obvious.
These debates still draw large audiences, including 73 million who tuned into the first such contest in 2020. But this represents a much smaller share of voters than the audiences of decades ago.
WATCH | Struggle between dictatorship and democracy is ‘unending,’ Biden says at D-Day event:
U.S. President Joe Biden, speaking at a D-Day commemorative event in France, said the ‘dark forces that these heroes fought against 80 years ago’ never fade, pointing to Ukraine’s ongoing fight against a Russian invasion.
Of those tuning in, fewer are undecided voters; most are committed partisans. Among the dwindling number of swing voters in the country, a disproportionate share are less interested in politics, and less likely to be watching.
They’ll hear about the debate later, second-hand. And that’s where the crafting of narratives is key: Trump is preparing a story for them.
Social media will be a critical battlefield in the post-debate spin wars. Each side will pump out clips meant to reinforce their inevitable claim of victory.
“The voters who are up for grabs here are the least engaged voters,” former Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said on CNN. “It’s not clear they’re going to watch the debate. More likely they’re going to get it from social media. So there has to be an awareness of creating moments that can go viral.”
In some ways, that speaks to one enduring fact of a presidential debate: their inherent subjectivity. This dates back to those very first TV debates.
Theodore White’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the 1960 election uses some boxing metaphors in its chapter on the debate, entrenching a habit to be abused by future generations of political writers.
Indeed, Kennedy scored knockouts, delivering uppercuts to Nixon in debates No. 1 and 4. Different polling firms found the young senator was overwhelmingly viewed as the winner in the first and last contest, while the second and third were closer.
But that was among TV viewers. In the polling of those who’d listened to the debates on radio, White wrote, the candidates came off nearly equal.
If those debates happened today, each party would be cherry-picking the most flattering excerpts and pumping them directly into the social media feeds of key voters.
One difference from 1960 is the parties now have Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok to share carefully selected clips, declare victory and keep working those referees: the more than 100 million Americans who will vote this year.
Published at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:54:14 +0000
