The US position on Isreal - About cold hard cash

egan007

2 articles from the indo today...

Rome meeting 'gave Israel permission to continue assault'

.......Foreign ministers meeting in Rome yesterday failed to seek an immediate halt to the Israeli assault.

They did call for a resolution of the crisis, but could not agree on a joint statement calling for a truce.

European officials say they want an immediate end to the violence, but the US says a ceasefire should only be imposed when it can be lasting and sustainable........

So the US Govenrnment have no problem with kids being blown up every day

Why?


Missile shipment causes rift in US-British relationship

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has slammed the United States for apparently transporting missiles to Israel via a Scottish airport without following the right procedures.

Media reports say two US aircraft bringing laser-guided bombs to Israel stopped at Prestwick Airport to refuel in recent days.

Opposition politicians and critics of Prime Minister Tony Blair have seized on the news to accuse the British Government of subservience to the United States.

Mrs Beckett said last night that she was "not happy" as the procedures for handling hazardous cargoes did not appear to have been followed.

She threatened to lodge a formal diplomatic protest over the matter after raising it with US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice yesterday.

Profit

banaman

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3387
This is why the US will never be seen as an honest unbiased peace broker

banaman

banaman wrote:

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3387
This is why the US will never be seen as an honest unbiased peace broker

Interesting way of subsidising your arms industry.

Hobbes

Heres what I think.

Bush is intent on hitting Iraq. He has tried to get a resolution from the UN to greenlight possible action and failed. After the whole WMD mess he has no easy way to start a fight with Iran unless Iran provoke one. Pre-emptive attacks aren't going to cut it.

So they do some sort of deal with Israel to help provoke a response from Iran/Syria (if Syria enter a war with the US Iran has said it would join them).

Syria has already publically warned Israel about encroching on its border so it can't just moosey up to Syria like it could of before this without being seen as an aggressor.

Apart from the arms shipment Bush has made it quite public that what is going on is part of US forigen policy.

Its just a ruse to hit Iran.

egan007

egan007 wrote:

2 articles from the indo today...

Rome meeting 'gave Israel permission to continue assault'

.......Foreign ministers meeting in Rome yesterday failed to seek an immediate halt to the Israeli assault.

They did call for a resolution of the crisis, but could not agree on a joint statement calling for a truce.

European officials say they want an immediate end to the violence, but the US says a ceasefire should only be imposed when it can be lasting and sustainable........

So the US Govenrnment have no problem with kids being blown up every day

Why?

Perhaps because they realise that a cease-fire is no guarantee that attacks will stop on Israel, nor that in 6 months time another large scale missile statck will start against Israel.

Apparently you have no problem with israeli's being attacked every day by Hizbolla rcokets. If Israel is forced to withdraw without dealing an significant damage to Hizbolla, all they've achieved is public opinion being turned against them, as opposed to the original objective of destroying Hizbolla.

America perhaps realises that the cease-fire proposals don't offer Israel anything, while leaving Hizbolla still in a position of power.

Missile shipment causes rift in US-British relationship

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has slammed the United States for apparently transporting missiles to Israel via a Scottish airport without following the right procedures.

Media reports say two US aircraft bringing laser-guided bombs to Israel stopped at Prestwick Airport to refuel in recent days.

Opposition politicians and critics of Prime Minister Tony Blair have seized on the news to accuse the British Government of subservience to the United States.

Mrs Beckett said last night that she was "not happy" as the procedures for handling hazardous cargoes did not appear to have been followed.

She threatened to lodge a formal diplomatic protest over the matter after raising it with US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice yesterday.

Profit

The British objection was because there wasn't adequate security and that they weren't notified of the transfer of weapons through their airports through the normal channels. This incident is nothing to do with disapproval about actually supplying Israel with weapons, which they've done for decades.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps because they realise that a cease-fire is no guarantee that attacks will stop on Israel, nor that in 6 months time another large scale missile statck will start against Israel.

So what you're saying is that the possibility of a failed cease-fire and a large-scale attack in 6 months time is worse then the reality of no cease-fire and a large-scale attack now.

Interesting way of looking at things.

Apparently you have no problem with israeli's being attacked every day by Hizbolla rcokets.

Last time I checked, supporting a cease-fire would not mean asking one side to stop whilst allowing the other side to continue firing.

Or did you interpret the word "kids" as "Lebanese children"?

If Israel is forced to withdraw

Who said anything about withdtrawal. The lack of a call for a ceasefire is what is being criticised, not a call for withdrawal. Its patently clear that while both sides aer shooting at each other, no resolution can be brokered. Anyone on either side who believes that bombing the hell out of a populace will elad to peace is kidding themselves.

Conclusion - both sides need to stop firing to start negotiating. Negotiations may fail, but a temporary ceasefire is still prefereable to a continuation of violence as it at least raises the possibility of a solution.

America perhaps realises that the cease-fire proposals don't offer Israel anything, while leaving Hizbolla still in a position of power.

Its more likely that the US is still hiding behnid its moronic "anything you do to fight a group we decide are terrorists is fine, other than seeking peaceful resolutions.

To criticise Israel would be the height of hypocracy for the Bush Administration. Israel has done nothing that the US hasn't already done under its current leaders.

There's no mystery why Israel is being supported - its because they are executing their policy pretty-much exactly how the US would in their shoes.

This incident is nothing to do with disapproval about actually supplying Israel with weapons, which they've done for decades.

There was, however, action taken by Congress (or was it Bush himself) since the invasion of Lebanon to rush additional precision-guided bombs to Israel. Again, though, this is entirely in keeping with Bush's "whatever it takes" line, by which he can be understood to mean "whatever you want to do, regardless of its chances of success, as long as it doesn't involve negotiation".

jc

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps because they realise that a cease-fire is no guarantee that attacks will stop on Israel, nor that in 6 months time another large scale missile statck will start against Israel.

Why can't they realise that this massive aerial assault does even less to guarantee long term security for the Israelis. There is nothing to stop Hezbollah from rearming themselves after Israel stop their bombardment, and this whole episode is going to leave the lebanese government in an even weaker position than before and even less able to control Hezbollah activities along the southern border.

Apparently you have no problem with israeli's being attacked every day by Hizbolla rcokets. If Israel is forced to withdraw without dealing an significant damage to Hizbolla, all they've achieved is public opinion being turned against them, as opposed to the original objective of destroying Hizbolla.

Their objective of destroying Hezbollah is an impossible one to achieve, especially given their chosen tactics of killing civilians and destroying cities.

America perhaps realises that the cease-fire proposals don't offer Israel anything, while leaving Hizbolla still in a position of power.

A ceasefire would offer Israel their two captured soldiers back, it would also offer temporary peace, a chance for sheltering civilians to secure food and water and fuel, and a chance for aid to get to hospitals and refugees and the chance for negotiations to take place, including the possibility of a properly resourced and mandated International peacekeeping force on the border.
If the war is escalated further, Israel has nothing to gain except the potential for a full scale war with Syria, Iran and the Lebanese army.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

So what you're saying is that the possibility of a failed cease-fire and a large-scale attack in 6 months time is worse then the reality of no cease-fire and a large-scale attack now.

Interesting way of looking at things.

Nice play on words. No, I'm saying that there is no guarantee that Hizbolla won't restart their attacks on Israel in 6 months time. I'm also saying that Israel gains nothing from this cease-fire. Not even the guarantee that the UN will stay until Hizbolla are purged from lebanons borders.

Last time I checked, supporting a cease-fire would not mean asking one side to stop whilst allowing the other side to continue firing.

Really, so you believe that Hizbolla would honour a cease-fire?

Or did you interpret the word "kids" as "Lebanese children"?

Yup, I did. The majority of posts on boards revolves around the Israeli attacks, with very little references to attacks made on Israel. If he meant the children of both Lebanon & Israel, then I was wrong, and I'm sorry.

Who said anything about withdtrawal. The lack of a call for a ceasefire is what is being criticised, not a call for withdrawal. Its patently clear that while both sides aer shooting at each other, no resolution can be brokered. Anyone on either side who believes that bombing the hell out of a populace will elad to peace is kidding themselves.

It could be argued that Israel is trying to bomb Hizbolla and the civilians are in the way, but even I'm not going to support that one. Israel occupying Lebanon won't stop the violence, even if a cease-fire is agreed. Hizbolla may claim its not making attacks but Irregulars from Palestine, or other arab countries are making attacks instead. It amounts to the same thing. israel need to deal a significant amount of damage to Hizbolla and leave Lebanon.

Conclusion - both sides need to stop firing to start negotiating. Negotiations may fail, but a temporary ceasefire is still prefereable to a continuation of violence as it at least raises the possibility of a solution.

If this was two countries I'd agree with you. However Hizbolla are not a rational government. Negotiation with Hizbolla won't resolve anything, since their mandate is still the destruction of Israel. Attacks would recommence even if Hizbolla managed to honor a cease-fire with I honestly doubt they would.

To criticise Israel would be the height of hypocracy for the Bush Administration. Israel has done nothing that the US hasn't already done under its current leaders.

Agreed.

There's no mystery why Israel is being supported - its because they are executing their policy pretty-much exactly how the US would in their shoes.

Perhaps. But thats an opinion, not a proven fact.

There was, however, action taken by Congress (or was it Bush himself) since the invasion of Lebanon to rush additional precision-guided bombs to Israel. Again, though, this is entirely in keeping with Bush's "whatever it takes" line, by which he can be understood to mean "whatever you want to do, regardless of its chances of success, as long as it doesn't involve negotiation".

jc

Fine. The US seeks to help their ally. I wonder were you aware of any armns rushed to support Hizbolla in this conflict?

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Nice play on words. No, I'm saying that there is no guarantee that Hizbolla won't restart their attacks on Israel in 6 months time. I'm also saying that Israel gains nothing from this cease-fire.

Nothnig except the possibility of reaching a settlement - a possibility that doesn't exist now. If you see this as nothing, then implicit within that is that a settlement is not the desired outcome.

The alternative is that we continue with the fighting in the belief that its possible to beat down a force like Hizbollah through superior firepower.

History is just choc-full of such situations showing how thats almost certainly going to succeed. Just look at how the US got rid of violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. and how Israel has removed any threat from Palestine...all by insisting that Peace Through Superior Firepower is the only option because negotiations offer nothing.

Not even the guarantee that the UN will stay until Hizbolla are purged from lebanons borders.

A guarantee they don't have now either.

Really, so you believe that Hizbolla would honour a cease-fire?

I would have thought my use of words like possibility should be a clear enough indication that I neither believe it to be a certainty nor an impossibility.

You apparently believe, however, that no possibility of a ceasefire is preferable to the possibility of one.

If the fighting stops and then restarts...what exactly has Israel lost? Nothing. So we weight the possibilty of a solution against....nothing. And you advocate the nothing.

Yup, I did. The majority of posts on boards revolves around the Israeli attacks, with very little references to attacks made on Israel.

Perhaps thats because the majority of the deaths are Lebanese, inflicted by the Israelis? Would it make you feel better if the majority concentrated on the lesser aggressor here? Given that the death-tolls are about 10-1 (with the Lebanese suffering more), is it really surprising that the weight of criticism lies on those who've killed 10 and not those who killed 1?

Israel occupying Lebanon won't stop the violence, even if a cease-fire is agreed.

Agreed. But what will stop the violence? Hizbollah came into benig as a result of Israeli occupancy of Lebanon. It effectively ceased its campaign when Israel withdrew.

THe current war seems to be either because two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, or were grabbed from Israel to use as leverage to free Lebanese prisoners. Neither case, nor the relative calm since then suggests that Hizbollah are not willing to negotiate, nor willing to reach a peaceful settlement.

israel need to deal a significant amount of damage to Hizbolla and leave Lebanon.

And that will help how? By fostering an entirely new generation of people who hate Israel? There is no historical precedent short of genocide which supports the idea that beating down a population will prevent them from rising up again.....and you already made it clear that a temporary cessation is not an acceptable solution.

It can't be that a negotiated temporary cessation is unacceptable, while one inflicted through brutality is ok. So why is reducing Lebanon to rubble the right path to take? What does it gain Israel, except for the very same things that have been already refused as unacceptable when achieved through other means? Its almost as if its not the end but the means which matter.

Is this anti-machiavellianism in action?

Negotiation with Hizbolla won't resolve anything, since their mandate is still the destruction of Israel.

My undestanding was that their declared intention has always been opposition to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. By extension, the presumed reason for allegedly kidnapping the soldiers would not be at odds with this.

Where have they announced that their aim was the destruction of Israel?

But thats an opinion, not a proven fact.

/me looks at his sig and nods.

Of course its an opinion. Its not an unfounded one, though. Look at the reason Bush has given for supporting Israel - a nation must have the freedom to do what it takes to defend itself. Thats effectively a carte blanche, and thats exactly how the US has justified its own actions in the past 6 years.

I wonder were you aware of any armns rushed to support Hizbolla in this conflict?

I know Hizbollah have been mostly armed by Iran and Syria. Whether or not the weapons were rushed to them during the conflict...I don't know.

What are you trying to say though...that the US is probably no worse than Iran or Syria? Thats hardly a stunning recommendation...I'd be terrified if it weren't true.

jc

Dg101

A point that doesn't seem to be being considered here is the proportionality of the Israeli response. We can probably all agree that having your loved ones killed will push you towards retaliation and extremism. So, is the Israeli policy of treating civilians as potential targets (admittedly if they stay in their homes after warnings to leave, but that's not possible for some and mildly off topic) going to do more damage to potential longterm peace than a failed ceasefire? I doubt it. A failed ceasefire would at least temporarily stop the carnage. Worst it could really do is give Hezbollah some time to regroup. But, that would surely be acceptable if it could save hundreds of lives and allow aid into the country? And after all, there's always some chance the ceasefire would work.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote:

Nice play on words. No, I'm saying that there is no guarantee that Hizbolla won't restart their attacks on Israel in 6 months time. I'm also saying that Israel gains nothing from this cease-fire. Not even the guarantee that the UN will stay until Hizbolla are purged from lebanons borders.

So wholesale destruction is preferred to the possibility of the opposite. That's _exactly_ what you're saying klaz.

Really, so you believe that Hizbolla would honour a cease-fire?

Interestingly enough, Israel has shown itself, on numerous occasions, quite happy to dishonour a cease-fire agreement as can be shown in the occupied territories time and time again.

Claiming one side is proverbially "evil" whilst the other is "good" when the reality is that both sides smell of the same fetid sh*t is stretching credibility to the limit klaz. Both the Israeli forces/government & Hezbollah have shown themselves time and again to be the flip-side of the exact same coin. No better, no worse.

It could be argued that Israel is trying to bomb Hizbolla and the civilians are in the way, but even I'm not going to support that one. Israel occupying Lebanon won't stop the violence, even if a cease-fire is agreed. Hizbolla may claim its not making attacks but Irregulars from Palestine, or other arab countries are making attacks instead. It amounts to the same thing. israel need to deal a significant amount of damage to Hizbolla and leave Lebanon.

Hang on a sec here ... irregulars in Palestine, and Hezbollah are essentially the same organisation? I. Think. Not. Much innuendo has been thrown about where Hezbollah, factions within the occupied territories, Syria & Iran are all somehow ruled by some evil genius and well orchestrated. That is complete b*llocks. They are all seperate entities, which may cross paths with regards their views at times, but each has their own agenda. To claim any different is to claim that the US & Israel are actually the same entity. They're not.

As for Israel occupying Lebanon "even" if a cease-fire is agreed will fail for one funny reason. Oddily enough called "History", where the creation of Hezbollah occured in the first place. Want to guess what it was? The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Gee Whizz whoi'd have thought it :rolleyes:

Tell me Klaz. How does one do "significant" damage to a terrorist organisation? How does one quantify "significant" damage to a terrorist organisation? Just a thought here. Call me crazy if you want ...... but eh I'll push the boat out here ... not through conventional military action

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Nothnig except the possibility of reaching a settlement - a possibility that doesn't exist now. If you see this as nothing, then implicit within that is that a settlement is not the desired outcome.

The alternative is that we continue with the fighting in the belief that its possible to beat down a force like Hizbollah through superior firepower.

History is just choc-full of such situations showing how thats almost certainly going to succeed. Just look at how the US got rid of violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. and how Israel has removed any threat from Palestine...all by insisting that Peace Through Superior Firepower is the only option because negotiations offer nothing.

exactly. What do Israel have to gain by a doing nothing except more attacks they can do nothing about. Their people demand that the attacks must stop, but the attacks can't be stopped through diplomatic means, so the only other option is through the use of the military. And while this is unlikely to stop the attacks, it at least gives the impression to the Israeli people that they are being helped.

This is no different than any other country faced with the same situation. There are no real options to resolve the problem, but a military response will at least satisfy the needs to the people for a while, until you can withdraw and continue as things were before.

A guarantee they don't have now either.

So, they're not losing anything by continuing the attacks.

I would have thought my use of words like possibility should be a clear enough indication that I neither believe it to be a certainty nor an impossibility.

But you believe that a cease-fire is the best option. And you also stated that both sides would honour a cease-fire for it to occur, but you don't have any real belief that they will honor one.

You apparently believe, however, that no possibility of a ceasefire is preferable to the possibility of one.

Yup. At least this way Israel has a chance. A cease-fire at this time only gives Hizbollah more time to dig in & resupply.

If the fighting stops and then restarts...what exactly has Israel lost? Nothing. So we weight the possibilty of a solution against....nothing. And you advocate the nothing.

They've lost the territory they've gained, and lose the momentum of their advance. They've lost the initaitive, and allow Hizbollah once more to rearm, and dig into the positions on the border they were pushed out of, which would have to be taken all over again, when Hizbollah once more started attacking israeli soil.

Perhaps thats because the majority of the deaths are Lebanese, inflicted by the Israelis? Would it make you feel better if the majority concentrated on the lesser aggressor here? Given that the death-tolls are about 10-1 (with the Lebanese suffering more), is it really surprising that the weight of criticism lies on those who've killed 10 and not those who killed 1?

Nope. I'm not suprised. Just as I'm not suprised at the lack of criticism aganst Hizbollah. Just as whenever I raise the lack of criticism about Hizbollah's actions, posters comment about Israel's killing of civilians. There's a mentality on boards to focus on Israel regardless of Hizbollah's involvement. I haven't once denied Israel's actions or the deaths involved. However, I have mentioned Hizbollah;s actions, and they're ignored so that posters can point out everything that Israel has done to date.

And I'm not saying that criticism of Israel shouldn't occur. Im saying that it would be interesting to see more posts that remark on the involvement of Hizbollah in this whole conflict, and how the conflict is unlikely to be resolved in part due to Hizbollah's desire for the destruction of Israel.

[quoteAgreed. But what will stop the violence? Hizbollah came into benig as a result of Israeli occupancy of Lebanon. It effectively ceased its campaign when Israel withdrew. [/quote]

I believe nothing will stop the violence. However it can be blunted by the destruction of Hizbollah's leadership, and major damage to Hizbollah's followers which would force them to reorganise & retrain before they can effectively become a threat again.

Other than that? Nope. Hizbollah will never cease until it can kill every Israeli in the Middle East.

THe current war seems to be either because two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, or were grabbed from Israel to use as leverage to free Lebanese prisoners. Neither case, nor the relative calm since then suggests that Hizbollah are not willing to negotiate, nor willing to reach a peaceful settlement.

Hizbollah's own mandate ensures that peace will not occur. The destruction of Israel. nothing has shown to date that they're capable of holding a cease-fire, nor that attacks made by irregulars aren't in fact supported/co-ordinated by Hizbollah themselves. [edit. I'm wrong. Their mandate doesn't say the destruction of Israel. They jsut support those that seek the destruction of Israel]

But hey I could be wrong. I actually hope I am.

And that will help how? By fostering an entirely new generation of people who hate Israel? There is no historical precedent short of genocide which supports the idea that beating down a population will prevent them from rising up again.....and you already made it clear that a temporary cessation is not an acceptable solution.

I've admitted above there is no answer. They can only look to limiting the damage of the existing danger. Look after future dangers as they arise. You seem to believe that if Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon, evrything would have been rosey. There would still be another generation of people that hate Israel regardless of what they did.

Its almost as if its not the end but the means which matter.

Perhaps it is all that matters. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. Israel has very little reason to believe that things would change by doing nothing, when they didn't change the last time they withdrew from Lebanon.

Either way the attacks on Israel would continue.

My undestanding was that their declared intention has always been opposition to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. By extension, the presumed reason for allegedly kidnapping the soldiers would not be at odds with this.

Really? So they don't support the destruction of the state of Israel?

Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[67]and has co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Hassan Nasrallah, October 22, 2002 wrote:

If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide."

*
- Same Wiki link.

Hassan Nasrallah, April 9, 2000 wrote:

"The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities...Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."

* - same wiki link.

Those statements by Hezbollah don't exactly suggest that Hezbollah would honor a peace, nor would they tolerate a jewish presence south of their borders, even if Israel did leave Lebanon again.

Of course its an opinion. Its not an unfounded one, though. Look at the reason Bush has given for supporting Israel - a nation must have the freedom to do what it takes to defend itself. Thats effectively a carte blanche, and thats exactly how the US has justified its own actions in the past 6 years.

Fair enough. I have no problem with what you've said. In the case of Israel, their opponents actions over the last 50 years through multiple forms of attacks have helped to shape Israel into this form. Personally, I count Israel's actions as being very little different to Hamas or Hezbollah.

The US on the other hand has had one attack, and even that I wonder was it done by they themselves rather than a terrorist group. One of the few conspiracy theories I've ever bothered to consider.

I know Hizbollah have been mostly armed by Iran and Syria. Whether or not the weapons were rushed to them during the conflict...I don't know.

I've seen references (in a number of blogs) to a massive shipment of small arms that was flown from Iran to Syria for Hezbollah. I haven't seen any news reports to support it as yet.

What are you trying to say though...that the US is probably no worse than Iran or Syria? Thats hardly a stunning recommendation...I'd be terrified if it weren't true.
jc

I didn't even suggest it, but now that you mention it, I'd be inclined to agree. Their present government isn't that far removed from them anyway. However I have more faith that the American people could control their government from disaster, than I have of the peoples of Iran or Syria doing the same.

Lemming

Lemming wrote:

So wholesale destruction is preferred to the possibility of the opposite. That's _exactly_ what you're saying klaz.

Possibility? So you believe that Hezbollah would honor a cease-fire?

Interestingly enough, Israel has shown itself, on numerous occasions, quite happy to dishonour a cease-fire agreement as can be shown in the occupied territories time and time again.

I've never said otherwise.

Claiming one side is proverbially "evil" whilst the other is "good" when the reality is that both sides smell of the same fetid sh*t is stretching credibility to the limit klaz. Both the Israeli forces/government & Hezbollah have shown themselves time and again to be the flip-side of the exact same coin. No better, no worse.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I've never placed the laurel of good on Israel.

Hang on a sec here ... irregulars in Palestine, and Hezbollah are essentially the same organisation?

Did I say the same organisation? I said that the attacks would continue regardless of Hezbollah declaring a cease-fire with no guarantee that it wasn't Hezbollah helping to orchestrate it.

I. Think. Not. Much innuendo has been thrown about where Hezbollah, factions within the occupied territories, Syria & Iran are all somehow ruled by some evil genius and well orchestrated. That is complete b*llocks. They are all seperate entities, which may cross paths with regards their views at times, but each has their own agenda. To claim any different is to claim that the US & Israel are actually the same entity. They're not.

Lovely that you know the inner workings of all these organisations, and any other opinion on the matter is complete b*llocks.... It stands to reason that there would be common ground for these organisations, since in many cases they share the same suppliers for their weapons, and share the many of the same training grounds.

As for Israel occupying Lebanon "even" if a cease-fire is agreed will fail for one funny reason. Oddily enough called "History", where the creation of Hezbollah occured in the first place. Want to guess what it was? The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Gee Whizz whoi'd have thought it :rolleyes:

WoW! Sarcasm. Don't choke on it. I've said before that I don't see any reason for Israel to occupy lebanon, since it doesn't bring any real benefit. Their only hope is to deal damage to Hezbollah's leadership.

Tell me Klaz. How does one do "significant" damage to a terrorist organisation? How does one quantify "significant" damage to a terrorist organisation? Just a thought here. Call me crazy if you want ...... but eh I'll push the boat out here ... not through conventional military action

Hey! You mean you don't know everything? Gosh!

I mention the answer above to Bonkeys post.

egan007

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps because they realise that a cease-fire is no guarantee that attacks will stop on Israel, nor that in 6 months time another large scale missile statck will start against Israel.

Yeah it's better that metal rips through childrens bodies every day - killing more people is a better alternative

Deleted User wrote:

Apparently you have no problem with israeli's being attacked every day by Hizbolla rcokets.

I don't see the difference in Lebanon children or Israel children dying. Don't make assumptions about what i have a problem with.

Deleted User wrote:

If Israel is forced to withdraw without dealing an significant damage to Hizbolla, all they've achieved is public opinion being turned against them, as opposed to the original objective of destroying Hizbolla.

Public opinion is already very against Isreal so they don't have to fear that.
You cannot destroy an organisation like Hizbolla by use of force- the british found this out in NI

Deleted User wrote:

America perhaps realises that the cease-fire proposals don't offer Israel anything, while leaving Hizbolla still in a position of power.

America realises that Lockheed Martin sales have gone through the roof
http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?symb=LMT&sid=14274&nx=&time=2mo&uf=0&x=22&y=12

Deleted User wrote:

The British objection was because there wasn't adequate security and that they weren't notified of the transfer of weapons through their airports through the normal channels. This incident is nothing to do with disapproval about actually supplying Israel with weapons, which they've done for decades.

The article was to point out that the US are supplying Isreal with the bombs that are -right now- killing, maming, blowing up, ripping limbs off, blinding and deafining kids.
Sales evidently are more important.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

exactly. What do Israel have to gain by a doing nothing

I've never once suggested that they do nothing, nor that teh alternative to bombnig Lebanon back to the stone age is to do nothing.

Why do proponents of war always assert that the only alternative is to do nothing?

the attacks can't be stopped through diplomatic means,

Where does this come from? Israel left Lebanon, and the attacks ceased.

The attacks restarted either because Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, or because they were captured to leverage the release of prisoners.

Neither of these situations, taken wih the previous cessation suggest negotiation and diplomacy will not nor cannot work.

So, they're not losing anything by continuing the attacks.

They're not losing a guarantee of anything. I've never said there was a guarantee of anything. I said that there was a possibility of something.

But you believe that a cease-fire is the best option.

I believe that you cannot achieve a solution for either side whilst you're shooting at them, so yes. I believe that in the long term it is in the interests of both sides to stop shooting at each other.

You yourself said that the best option is for the IDF to go kill some Lebanese to appease the locals and return to a temporary peace. I'm suggesting that killing fewer Lebanese and trying return to a temporary peace sooner should be a preferable option.

Who knows...if it works then people on both sides might learn that you get better results when you're not making people hate you by killing their friends and families and blowing up their nation. And if it fails...well gosh...the option to kill more Lebanese and achieve the temporary peace that way is till available.

And you also stated that both sides would honour a cease-fire for it to occur, but you don't have any real belief that they will honor one.

Klaz - go back and look at what you see as the best end result of bombing them to hell. Its a temporary ceasefire - a cessation in both sides firing at each other which wil not last. All we differ on is how this might be achieved.

I say that its preferable to try and achieve it without killing as many as possible, rather than making the killing of as many as possible the means by which it is achieved.

Its not about whether or not its honoured, lasting, or whatever. SOoner or later, the killing has to stop, and nothing short of genocide of one side or another will make that event occur by force of arms.

At least this way Israel has a chance. A cease-fire at this time only gives Hizbollah more time to dig in & resupply.

That makes no sense. stopping today rather than in 2 weeks or 20 years doesn't give Hizbollah more time to resupply unlses you assume the date of the next conflagration is set. If it takes 5 years to re-supply, then it takes 5 years to re-supply regardless of when they stop.

The only difference is the levels of stock when they stop. Sure, the ISraelis have had some success in destroying weapons before they've been used...but the cost of that has been ongoing rocket attacks as well.

So the price of not having a cease-fire is the use today of the rockets you're worried might be / will be used in the future. I don't see how thats a beneficial tradeoff.

They've lost the territory they've gained, and lose the momentum of their advance. They've lost the initaitive,

This was the argument for not leaving Lebanon for over 20 years. Then they left, enjoyed a period of peace as a result. Now that this peace has been destroyed - in part (at least) by their own heavy-handedness - we're supposed to believe that reoccupation and a return to the incessant violence of the past 2 decades is preferable to the uneasy peace since their previous withdarawl?

I don't buy it.

And now I must go. Good weekend to all.

jc

Zulu

Hobbes wrote:

Its just a ruse to hit Iran.

That's not going to cut it I'm afraid. The US are far too stretched to start another war. They simply can attack Iran unless they pull out of Afganistan and Iraq, and thats not likely to happen.

egan007

Zulu wrote:

That's not going to cut it I'm afraid. The US are far too stretched to start another war. They simply can attack Iran unless they pull out of Afganistan and Iraq, and thats not likely to happen.

True, the US are far too stretched.... but Isreal it's friend is not.
Israel could attack Iran for America....but how to do this without being provoked?

If Israel hits Lebanon enough and does enough to provoke Iran into helping Lebanon they have a hook. Then a US armed Isreal army could hit Iran.

But why would the US want this?

Iran are going to switch their Oil trading to Euro from Dollar this would be detremental to the US as all oil is bought in Dollars.

So maybe the poor Lebanon are meerly a pawn in a greater travesty.

Watch this space.
Of course this is purely theoretical buy definitely plausible.

Zulu

egan007 wrote:

True, the US are far too stretched.... but Isreal it's friend is not.
Israel could attack Iran for America....but how to do this without being provoked?
...
Watch this space.
Of course this is purely theoretical buy definitely plausible.

Nope that dosen't wash either - Iran is on the other side of Iraq. Israel can't risk sending troops that far. They need to protect them selves from Egypt, Syira et all. There is no way Israel would risk a war that far away.

Hobbes

Zulu wrote:

Nope that dosen't wash either - Iran is on the other side of Iraq. Israel can't risk sending troops that far. They need to protect them selves from Egypt, Syira et all. There is no way Israel would risk a war that far away.

They don't have to. They just need to draw Iran into the fight. By provoking Syria they can do this.

Once they have that Bush gets his chance to move in.

Zulu

....but Bush can't move in. He dosen't have the troops.

fly_agaric

Zulu wrote:

....but Bush can't move in. He dosen't have the troops.

They can bomb it - and either they or Israel will before it can get nukes.
Unless it stops trying, the only question is when.

Maybe Israel and the US are somewhat hoping Iran will be silly and get tempted to interfere with what is going on in Lebanon if Hzbollah looks like being destroyed or if the misery (which is an "opportunity" apparently <vomits a few times>) heaped on the country reaches some critical threshold (a famine, water shortage, disease).

That would give Israel and/or their big brother ("we are defending our ally Israel") a pretext to launch their preemptive attack now without any of that UN/multilateralism bull they generally have such contempt for*.


*Contempt shown by the fact that UN posts cannot be allowed to interfere with bombing Hizbollah and the UN must be rapped on the knuckles and told no-no-no by Big Brother when it wants to voice its anger over the deaths of its peacekeepers.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I've never once suggested that they do nothing, nor that teh alternative to bombnig Lebanon back to the stone age is to do nothing.

Why do proponents of war always assert that the only alternative is to do nothing?

Ok. What are the alternatives?

Where does this come from? Israel left Lebanon, and the attacks ceased.

Really? I'm sure they'll be suprised to hear that after the soldiers were kidnapped.

The attacks restarted either because Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, or because they were captured to leverage the release of prisoners.

So either they were in Lebanon (which hasn't been proven) or Hezbollah launched an attack on Israel, to get bargaining chips for prisoner exchange, which they've attempted before. So the attacks didn't suddenly restart just because of this kidnapping, but were occuring before.

Neither of these situations, taken wih the previous cessation suggest negotiation and diplomacy will not nor cannot work.

Really? I haven't seen Hezbollah brokering for peace before the kidnapping, while Israel was outside of Lebanon's borders....

They're not losing a guarantee of anything. I've never said there was a guarantee of anything. I said that there was a possibility of something.

There's a possibility that the moon will fall out of the sky and kill allof Hezbollah's followers. I just don't think its going to happen. Nor do I believe Hezbollah will maintain a cease-fire. But hey, don't let me stop you believing in the possibility.

I believe that you cannot achieve a solution for either side whilst you're shooting at them, so yes. I believe that in the long term it is in the interests of both sides to stop shooting at each other.

i agree. But the truth of the matter is that Hezbollah hasn't stopped attacking Israel despite Israel leaving Lebanon the last time. Why should this be any different now that they're stronger and better equipped?

You yourself said that the best option is for the IDF to go kill some Lebanese to appease the locals and return to a temporary peace. I'm suggesting that killing fewer Lebanese and trying return to a temporary peace sooner should be a preferable option.

No I said the best option for the IDF was to kill plenty of Hezbollah members, preferably the leadership, and then return to a temporary peace. I never said anything about killing Lebanese.

Klaz - go back and look at what you see as the best end result of bombing them to hell. Its a temporary ceasefire - a cessation in both sides firing at each other which wil not last. All we differ on is how this might be achieved.

Bonkey, consider for a moment the events that lead to this conflict. Now consider the history of factions like Hezbollah in keeping cease-fires. Then consider that the IDF always retalitates to attacks.

I don't believe a cease-fire is possible, because I don't belive that Hezbollah can resist attacking israel, and Israel won't not retalitate for those attacks.

I say that its preferable to try and achieve it without killing as many as possible, rather than making the killing of as many as possible the means by which it is achieved.

If the IDF wanted to kill as many as possible, they'd be able to kill alot more, if they didn't care about civilian casualties. The IDF are capable of doing alot more damageto lebanon, if they let themselves off that leash. I'm not saying they haven't killed many civilians, but they have the ability to increase the death toll per attack by alot.

I guess they figure that Hezbollah doesn't care who they hit, so why should they? But even then they do "try" to reduce the civilian casualties somewhat. A gesture perhaps, but more than they get from their enemies.

Its not about whether or not its honoured, lasting, or whatever. SOoner or later, the killing has to stop, and nothing short of genocide of one side or another will make that event occur by force of arms.

Agreed. But be realistic. Unless a cease-fire is honored its not worth squat.

That makes no sense. stopping today rather than in 2 weeks or 20 years doesn't give Hizbollah more time to resupply unlses you assume the date of the next conflagration is set. If it takes 5 years to re-supply, then it takes 5 years to re-supply regardless of when they stop.

Israel took out infrastructure to limit Hezbollah's ability to move troops, & to move weapons/rockets. A delay allows Hezbollah to move the arms that are safe further back in the territory forward towards the border, where the fighting occurs. Regardless of whether the next conflict is set or not, it provides Hezbollah time to resupply both troops & weapons. I can't see why you don't understand that.

[quoteThe only difference is the levels of stock when they stop. Sure, the ISraelis have had some success in destroying weapons before they've been used...but the cost of that has been ongoing rocket attacks as well. [/quote]

Which would have occured anyway, even if the Israeli's had sat behind their own border and done nothing...

This was the argument for not leaving Lebanon for over 20 years. Then they left, enjoyed a period of peace as a result. Now that this peace has been destroyed - in part (at least) by their own heavy-handedness - we're supposed to believe that reoccupation and a return to the incessant violence of the past 2 decades is preferable to the uneasy peace since their previous withdarawl?

I'm frankly amazed. Israel is attacked, responds, and is criticised because they didn't ignore it. Hezbollah broke the uneasy peace here, and you blame Israel? jesus. Regardless of Israel's over-reaction, Hezbollah broke the peace, and restarted this conflict.

Also there is no sign of re-occupation in all of this. If you have proof that there is, pass it on to me. But nothing I've seen has shown an Israeli desire to occupy Lebanon, which wouldn't be practical in any case, since Syria would never tolerate it.

egan007

egan007 wrote:

Yeah it's better that metal rips through childrens bodies every day - killing more people is a better alternative

Which wouldn't stop except it would just be israeli children dead.

I don't see the difference in Lebanon children or Israel children dying. Don't make assumptions about what i have a problem with.

My apologies. It didn't seem to clear to me that you were speaking generally.

Public opinion is already very against Isreal so they don't have to fear that.You cannot destroy an organisation like Hizbolla by use of force- the british found this out in NI

When Israel first responded a number of countries like canada, Russia etc came out and said that they approved of their reaction. However as the civilian deaths mounted, that support disappeared. Public opinion died for Israel when the civilians were killed in large numbers.

As for destroying Hizbolla, I know. I guess they felt the need to respond somehow, since tyhe attacks wouldn't stop, and Hizbolla wouldn't sue for peace, when israel weren't even in their country.

The article was to point out that the US are supplying Isreal with the bombs that are -right now- killing, maming, blowing up, ripping limbs off, blinding and deafining kids. Sales evidently are more important.

Sales always have been. I wonder how much the suppliers of Hizbolla gain for the rockets, and small arms that they sell to them.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Sales always have been. I wonder how much the suppliers of Hizbolla gain for the rockets, and small arms that they sell to them.

Yeah maybe Russia makes a bit, Syria, etc, but you know they don't get up and preach to the rest of the world about freedom peace and democracy. America fills our brains with this righteous crap, so when they rush their bunker busters and bombs down to Israel, they get the stick and rightly so.

One thing I noticed.. compare this War to either of the Gulf wars.. we know how many Lebanese are killed, we get footage, stats, interviews, while still swamped with pretty pro-west propaganda... think back to either of the Gulf wars.. nothing from the Iraqi side, just a few statistics.. shows how much "fair and balanced" bias we receive really.

New_Departure06

The pro-Israel lobby is able to buy votes in the US Congress.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Also there is no sign of re-occupation in all of this.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1153292011073&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Peretz said that the goal of the IDF's operations in southern Lebanon was to create a "special security zone" where a Hizbullah presence would not be tolerated.

"We will not allow a Hizbullah flag to fly along the Israeli border once again," he said. "Our goal is to create a Hizbullah-free zone for the crisis to come to an end... This security zone will provide protection for northern Israel."

How do you create a "special security zone" [see told yes "buffer" was very dodgy] without first driving out the civilians or killing them in unfortunate IDF accidents involving high-explosive shells and bombs and then sending in the IDF to occ.. er so sorry - police territory.

Perhaps the IDF can be replaced by an international force at some point but first the IDF have to get control (which they do not have right now and will, it seems, have to kill alot more people + destroy alot more to attain)...and occupy... the area.

I wonder, how many Lebanese will die for Israel's very short term "security" and so Israel and its Big Brother don't lose any more face than they have already by failing to defeat a bunch of guerillas in a fast/not-too-bloody pushover?

Frederico

Wow we are learning alot in this war..

1 Israeli life = 10 Lebanese
1 Israeli soldier kidnapped = half Palestinian cabinet kidnapped

And occupation is now called .. Super fun happy special security buffer zone.

Its as simple as this, England retakes a portion of Ireland after IRA activity, support for IRA would increase massively, problem continues and gets worse.

I think this isnt just about cold hard cash for America, I feel its a proxy war between US and Iran/Syria respectively using Israel and Hizbollah