Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

fly_agaric

Sand wrote:

If the Lebanese attack or facilitate attacks on Israel, then it is perfectly morally correct and right for Israel to respond militarily. Israel has attacked transport infrastructure such as bridges, the airport, ports but they are all perfectly valid military targets.

NOT responding militarily for fear the Arab opinion would turn *more* against Israel? Thats bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted

Sand wrote:

You seem to consider only two options - A) never ever ever engaging in military action even if your soldiers are being held by enemies and rockets are landing on your towns or launching some final genocidal war of reckoning...

What targets do you think Israel should not bomb in Lebanon or is anything and everything fair game then (as an Israeli general has said I believe - "nothing is safe")? Give us a list?

As we've seen already - city suburbs could be warrens of Hizbollah sympathisers and supporters. Towns and villages in the south provide help to the fighters.
Schools could be dual-use for training of fanatics and future suicide bombers (all the Arabs hate all the Jews forever and will always want to see Israel destroyed after all). The Leb. army and govt. could be helping the Hizbollah. The hospitals could be ministering to Hizbollah fighters. Water supplies could be drunk by those Hizbollah men and I am sure they have to shít somewhere too don't they Sand?

As for A) - I think some limited attacks on rocket launching sites in S. Lebanon could have been justified. And yes - I do think they should have negotiated about the soldiers taken by Hizbollah while trying to discover exactly where their troops were being held...laugh all you want - it's what the wonderful coalition forces bringing Freedom to Iraq have had to do at times because they don't have the luxuries Israel has.

Instead, Israel goes for an immediate and drastic step up to an air-war on Lebanon's "transport infrastructure", blockading its ports etc - which then led to this Hizbollah crowd showing off their cojones by fighting back agaist Israel when the Lebanese govt. can't (attacking that Israeli ship and rocketing towns and cities all over N. Israel) which then leads to Israel needing to up the ante yet more from a very high start-level which leads - where?

I asked about how you feel about the genocidal war option because it seems to me that that is where Israels' policy of always being the "mad-dog" in the ME will lead at some point in the future. And you do agree with Israel's policy. You try to justify it.

You've excused the civilian casualties and damage it generates by saying that the Arabs hate the Jews no matter what so this additional death and destruction won't really affect Israel's relations with them too much. If the cause is so lost and the hatred so deep that more killing doesn't change anything, why wouldn't you approve of going to the end now? Alot more people will die of course but Israel may be secure. Even, the children who die can be rationalised away as potential suicide bombers or fanatics anyway, can't they Sand?

Of course, that argument is utterly nuts. It would be completely wrong to slaughter so many people for Israels future "security". Even you can see that.

Israel using their military as an instrument to keep the countries and people around them weak and poor (you disagree that that is the aim here and would class it as more "collateral damage"- as you would insist the civilians themselves are "collateral damage") is definitely wrong too and yet you think its is perfectly okay and justifiable in the name of security. Because Israel was attacked first and the Arabs hate the jews forever and the terrorists and states like Iran etc are really just "like the Nazis" so we must use massive force etc..

You don't have much of a sense of morals or what is justified do you?

Sand wrote:

Im sure though, with the power of google I could find statements by nations like France praising Hizbollah (a militia and resistance group apparently, despite deliberate attacks on civillians...and the IDF are war criminals if any civillian at all at all dies in their operations, regardless of whether it is accidental or not) and Hamas whilst criticising Israel, but cant be arsed really.

Good for you Sand. It's aswell you can't be ársed because you'd be a long time looking.
I'm sure I could find statements by Israelis that they want to drive the rest of the people living in Gaza and the West Bank into Egypt and Jordan + settle all the land of Eretz Israel. That they should attack Iran and Syria now. That if the Arabs ever do overrun and destroy Israel it'll be Holocaust Payback Time and the main European capital cities are going to need some factor 10^6 sunblock.

I won't find Israeli leaders or politicos saying these things and you won't find Chirac or probably any French politician (maybe Le Pen or someone - but he hates the Arabs as much as he hates the Jews) saying Israel has no right to exist, Hizbollah and Hamas are really the good guys in all this, and using suicide bombers on civilians is a good tactic to attain statehood.
Hizbollah is classified as a terrorist org. by the EU isn't it Sand? And so is Hamas.

Sand wrote:

Patent bollocks tbh.

Do you know exactly what the Israeli govt. and military plan and their goals etc?
You just parrot what they say. I think they started off with more force than was needed for their goals so I consider if there are any other possible aims.

Sand wrote:

Israel is best served by a strong, anti-syrian government in Lebanon. Chaos in Lebanon invites in the influence of Hizbollahs main backers, Syria and Iran.

Strange - but drop the "anti-Syrian" bit and replace with "anti-Syrian influence" and that's what I would have thought so too!

But its great you've explained to me how they are all either "Islamo-fascists" and "jihadists" or a best merely symapthisers and bystanders who don't help fight the former, and they hate Israel and the Jews anyway so there is no reason at all to spare the application of the military to the "problem"!
You can never ever trust those shifty Arabs and little Israel is fighting a war to death with'em you know and it fights on the side of the "Holy West" against the bane of "Islamo-Fascism". Maybe chaos and poverty and being lorded over by one armed faction or another - but weak, most important of all, very weak is for the best.
It's what those Arabs are used to anyway isn't Sand? They are not really "people" in the same way the citizens of that shining beacon of Democracy in the ME (excluding any 5th columnist Israeli-Arabs) are so if they suffer a bit before they die it is no more important really than the suifferings of a cow before it makes its way onto our plates as a tasty bit of steak.
And if we get to see some shiny military toys on display and whack off to gun-cam images as the Arab anthills are kicked over again its all good.

Sand wrote:

IDF does bad things, hence radical jihadist terrorism is no worse than valid military action.

You see Sand. I don't think this war on Lebanon, or the air-policing of Gaza are "valid military actions".
I think they are the disgusting excesses of a bully that's been allowed to do almost exactly what it likes for far, far too long. So I condemn them and I can safely do that without being a jihadist fellow traveller, or an appeaser or whatever.
From your words about appeasing "jihadism" etc no doubt you believe some bull armageddon-fantasy about how the current situation in the ME with Israel was always but a little part of a big "War on the West" either by "Reds" or now by Islamic fanatics and we all must stand by our "Israeli brothers" idealogically in their "hour-of-need" by not criticising them.

Anyway, lets play the tasteless analogies with Nazi Germany game. The Nazi state was so overweaningly powerful militarily, technologically, and scientifically that they calculated they could use war as the main plank of policy to secure their goals of Lebensraum, unifying all Germanic peoples in the Reich, wiping out the Jews etc. They ended up being destroyed and the war laid waste to most of Europe. The same is going to happen with Israel and its Arab neighbours at some point in the future if they don't cop on, only perhaps even more people will die this time. Now remind me - which is the country that approaches this situation from a position of military strength and technological superiority and uses war as a main policy tool (with the approval of people like you) again?

pleba

there are over 390 posts in this thread and I havent been able to read them all so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

In really simple terms, my understanding of this is as follows:

Hizbollah Terrorists abduct 2 Israeli soldiers
Israel responds by bombing, killing and displacing Lebanese citizens

Imagine if Britain had fired missiles into Dublin every time the IRA detonated a bomb in England?

Either way it's an absolute disgrace and what worries me most about it is the fact that there is no action whatsoever from the Internation community. Are all countries truly afraid of the US. Surely sanctions against Israel are a necessity

Pazaz 21

fly_agaric wrote:

Anyway, lets play the tasteless analogies with Nazi Germany game. The Nazi state was so overweaningly powerful militarily, technologically, and scientifically that they calculated they could use war as the main plank of policy to secure their goals of Lebensraum, unifying all Germanic peoples in the Reich, wiping out the Jews etc. They ended up being destroyed and the war laid waste to most of Europe. The same is going to happen with Israel and its Arab neighbours at some point in the future if they don't cop on, only perhaps even more people will die this time. Now remind me - which is the country that approaches this situation from a position of military strength and technological superiority and uses war as a main policy tool (with the approval of people like you) again?

You couldn't make this situation any more ironic if you tried. I always find it amazing how that which we hate and dispise we become, the only way to truly defeat your enemy is to become it.

I believe Israel has a right to protect itself and we might aswell deal with some realpolitik, it ain't going anywhere, so we have to deal with the situation as it is on the ground. This seams to be a repeat of the 1967, 1973, etc, wars, where Israel basically blew up as much stuff as it could before it was forced to declare a cease-fire. They reckon that the amount of "degrading" they can do to Hezbollah will outweight the damage done to their own country.

The main problem i have is that, while Hezbollah may be using the local water, electricity and probably waste facilities, its the local civilians that are being punished and whose lives are being made harder by the Israeli attacks on Lebanons infastructure. I have no problem with dealing with Hezbollah, but this is overkill. It also seems that this was going to happen anyway, like in Gaza the IDF just needed an excuse to go in and blow the sh*t out of as much stuff as possible, the same seems to be happening in the, what shall we call it "Conflict" in the middle east, or as fox news call it "Mid-East Turmoil":rolleyes:.

Lebanon has an obligation to disarm Hezbollah and secure their border with Israel, but couldn't Israel have mounted some sort of joint military action with Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, or destroy it, instead of just invading their country and bombing it back into the middle ages, looks like Israel just went Medieval on you A** !!!

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I hate to think what your idea of doing a good job is :rolleyes:

sovtek

pleba wrote:

Hizbollah Terrorists abduct 2 Israeli soldiers
Israel responds by bombing, killing and displacing Lebanese citizens

...and before the Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner the IDF had made incursions into Lebanon and they are also holding thousands of Lebanese prisoner in Israel.
Of course if it's Saddam Hussein, or someone we don't like, bombing the ****e out of a country we usually get more historical context no the news.

Manic Moran

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I hate to think what your idea of doing a good job is :rolleyes:

Dresden.

NTM

sovtek

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Lebanon has an obligation to disarm Hezbollah and secure their border with Israel, but couldn't Israel have mounted some sort of joint military action with Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, or destroy it, instead of just invading their country and bombing it back into the middle ages, looks like Israel just went Medieval on you A** !!!

If the IDF haven't been able to destroy Hezbollah after decades what makes you think the weak Lebanese government could disarm it?

Pazaz 21

sovtek wrote:

If the IDF haven't been able to destroy Hezbollah after decades what makes you think the weak Lebanese government could disarm it?

I was suggesting that they do it together, hence "Joint" Military Action !!!

IDF firepower with Lebanese backing could go a long way to sort this problem out, amicably. But then again, isn't Hezbollah part of the Lebanese government?

Sand

Are you saying that their behaviour is acceptable so long as it can be compared favourably (by using statistics that in my opinion give a skewed misleading impression of the numbers) to a terrorist organisation ?

No. The only person comparing Israel to terrorists is yourself. So long as Israel holds to acceptable warfare - i.e. not deliberately targeting civillians - then its lightyears ahead of terrorist organisations which deliberately target civillians.

You seem to be blaming Israel for building and employing bomb shelters to reduce casualties, which makes no sense whatsoever.

My vote would be that we should compare their behaviour to civilised countries in assessing whether their response is proportionate or not - and in this case it's clearly not.

Israel is being attacked consistently. Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel is exercising that right morally and lawfully - proportion has little to do with it.

I think that that depends on the morality and respect for human life of the persons being pissed off. And as displayed Israel has zero respect for non jewish civilians - they are way too busy painting themselves as the eternal victims to care about dead lebaneese civilians.

No its not, military forces are not to use civillians as human shields. You cant tie children to your tanks and then call the other side monsters for blowing up the tanks anyway. Well you probably could if you were Palestinian, but thats hardly the point. If a defender (Hizbollah) wants to fight from a civillian urban area, then its Hizbollahs responsibility to evacuate civillians from its deployments. After all, Hizbollah knows where its forces are, its knows its forces are valid military targets, it knows firepower will be directed against those valid targets - hence accidental civillian deaths caused by their failure to evacuate civillians are the fault of Hizbollah, not Israel.

Obviously attacking forces have to exercise restraint, but theyre perfectly free to operate and attempt to target enemy forces hiding amongst civillian populations.

What targets do you think Israel should not bomb in Lebanon or is anything and everything fair game then (as an Israeli general has said I believe - "nothing is safe")? Give us a list?

Yeah, Ill just sit here making a list...

As we've seen already - city suburbs could be warrens of Hizbollah sympathisers and supporters. Towns and villages in the south provide help to the fighters.
Schools could be dual-use for training of fanatics and future suicide bombers (all the Arabs hate all the Jews forever and will always want to see Israel destroyed after all). The Leb. army and govt. could be helping the Hizbollah. The hospitals could be ministering to Hizbollah fighters. Water supplies could be drunk by those Hizbollah men and I am sure they have to shít somewhere too don't they Sand?

None of those are military facilities, and none are any more valid than hitting a cinema or a childs birthday party. Apologists for Palestinian terrorism have arguments to support attacking that sort of target, but I dont agree with them tbh.

As for A) - I think some limited attacks on rocket launching sites in S. Lebanon could have been justified. And yes - I do think they should have negotiated about the soldiers taken by Hizbollah while trying to discover exactly where their troops were being held...laugh all you want - it's what the wonderful coalition forces bringing Freedom to Iraq have had to do at times because they don't have the luxuries Israel has.

Hizbollah has 13,000 Iranian supplied rockets and mobile launchers - they shoot and scoot. Any serious effort to prevent further attacks on Israeli towns would have to be open ended (find Hizbollah) and decisive(kill them). Limited responses, sending 10,000 dollar missles to blow up 10 dollar tents like Clinton did to Bin Laden in the mid 90s tend not to work. Nice photo ops for the politicians to show theyre "doing something", but hardly fair on soldiers who are asked to risk their lives to achieve...well, nothing really.

All warfare, even "limited" warfare, practically guarantees civillian casualties, so if war is to be employed it seems important to have a better objective than simply doing it for the sake of it. Why engage in war without an objective?

As for negotiation, Hizbollah has advanced with every step back Israel has taken. Unfortunately, Israel was dissuaded from confronting Hizbollah before now, and thus the inevitable conflict is all harder because Hizbollah believes it has Israel on the backfoot. You cannot negotiate with an enemy dedicated to destroying you, and Hizbollah is dedicated to destroying Israel. Any negotiation would be taken as a sign of weakness and encourage further hostage takings. As the article on the original 2000 talks noted, it was assured that Hizbollah would react positively to an IDF withdrawal from South Lebanon. That negotiation would work. Didnt quite pan out did it? Hizbollah took the IDF withdrawal as a sign of weakness and stepped up the pressure.

You've excused the civilian casualties and damage it generates by saying that the Arabs hate the Jews no matter what so this additional death and destruction won't really affect Israel's relations with them too much.

No I havent. I have never excused civillian casualties on the basis "oh, well theyre arabs, and arabs dont like Israelis so the Israelis are okay to kill them". Please dont assign me the arguments of apologists for Palestinian terrorism.

Ive said Israels neighbours, and Arab opinion in general hates Israel and Jews (for reasons that go far deeper than Israeli actions in the past few weeks or even the past few years). The concept that Israel could go on some hearts and minds campaign and having the Arab world eating out of their hand in a decade or so is laughable. In the real world, Israel has to consider its options within the facts - and the facts are Israel is hated and that hatred demands Israels utter destruction, so the price of being liked is a little steep.

Because Israel was attacked first and the Arabs hate the jews forever and the terrorists and states like Iran etc are really just "like the Nazis" so we must use massive force etc..

You don't have much of a sense of morals or what is justified do you?

Oh, Im wounded...

Israel is not using massive force. It has attacked Hizbollah targets and transport links. This is all perfectly valid response on the part of a legitimate, sovereign state that is being attacked.

It's what those Arabs are used to anyway isn't Sand? They are not really "people" in the same way the citizens of that shining beacon of Democracy in the ME (excluding any 5th columnist Israeli-Arabs) are so if they suffer a bit before they die it is no more important really than the suifferings of a cow before it makes its way onto our plates as a tasty bit of steak.

I wouldnt know. Id advocate that everyone deserves the same basic human rights and that developed powerful nations should support the expansion of those human rights - to the point of military action as is appropriate, but Im told thats cultural neo-imperialism.

And if we get to see some shiny military toys on display and whack off to gun-cam images as the Arab anthills are kicked over again its all good.

Whatever floats your boat I guess...

I think they are the disgusting excesses of a bully that's been allowed to do almost exactly what it likes for far, far too long. So I condemn them and I can safely do that without being a jihadist fellow traveller, or an appeaser or whatever.

So your demonisation of Israel, the painting of it as an evil, aggressive non-legitimate society is not useful to jihadist totalarianism? You basically reject that Israel has a right to defend itself because even a limited, directed Israeli attack on Hizbollah in reaction to Hizbollah attacks is "disproportionate"...

It is possible to say "a plague on both your houses". Unfortunately this is not your posistion.

From your words about appeasing "jihadism" etc no doubt you believe some bull armageddon-fantasy about how the current situation in the ME with Israel was always but a little part of a big "War on the West" either by "Reds" or now by Islamic fanatics and we all must stand by our "Israeli brothers" idealogically in their "hour-of-need" by not criticising them.

Your post started descending into a rant against imagined and stereotyped strawmen about a third of the way through and by this stage youre probably in full flow smacking the keys with froth hitting your screen...

Anyway, lets play the tasteless analogies with Nazi Germany game. The Nazi state was so overweaningly powerful militarily, technologically, and scientifically...

No, Nazi Germany was weak and unprepared for war, and certainly a two front war. It was emboldened by the constant retreat and negotiation of the democratic allied powers who were convinced they could reason with madmen, who allowed it to rearm and prepare for war thats was practically inevitable. If the Allies had acted swiftly and decisively in the early or mid 30s the Nazis would have been crushed and the full horrors of WW2 would have been averted or mitigated.

Hizbollah has 13,000 Iranian rockets today. Israel is not going to wait for them to get Iranian nukes.

Sand

Imagine if Britain had fired missiles into Dublin every time the IRA detonated a bomb in England?

Already been dealt with Pleba. Basically, analogy is bad because Ireland was an ally in fighting the IRA. Lebanon is not an Israeli ally in fighting Hizbollah.

oscarBravo

fly_agaric wrote:

You don't have much of a sense of morals or what is justified do you?

Over the line, Smokey.

homah_7ft

Is the Israeli army not breaking the conventions of war by attacking civilian installations such as electricity generating stations? For instance article 25 of the Convention With Respect To The Laws And Customs Of War On Land (HAGUE, II) - "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. "

A Dub in Glasgo

Apologists for Israeli terrorist acts seem quite easy to accept civilian deaths including the slaughter of children. Fancy that.....

A Dub in Glasgo

homah_7ft wrote:

Is the Israeli army not breaking the conventions of war by attacking civilian installations such as electricity generating stations? For instance article 25 of the Convention With Respect To The Laws And Customs Of War On Land (HAGUE, II) - "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. "

Apologists for Israeli terrorism will swipe that one away with the 'Israel is defending herself, there was an Arab looking guy holding an implement that looked like a gun in that building'.

Manic Moran

homah_7ft wrote:

Is the Israeli army not breaking the conventions of war by attacking civilian installations such as electricity generating stations? For instance article 25 of the Convention With Respect To The Laws And Customs Of War On Land (HAGUE, II) - "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. "

Not really. Infrastructure always has been a valid target because of the dual-use nature: Bridges, telecoms, electricity, railroads etc can all be used for military purposes just as easily as civil purposes. Otherwise you could say something like "We've removed all our guards from the Pentagon. It is now no longer a valid military target because it is an undefended building" which is patently ridiculous.

The other problem is that in 1899 when Hague II was signed, the concept of air strikes wasn't really thought up yet. In order to destroy a building, it needed to be done with troops on the ground. If you could get the troops on the ground to the location, there would be no military need to destroy it since you could just walk right in and take it over yourself if it was undefended.

Ideally today one would use carbon filament warheads such as the US used on Iraqi power stations the last couple of wars. It blows all the circuit breakers and probably melts a few things, but doesn't blow anything up and is easy to repair in a month or so. It's possible that Israel hasn't got any of these in service (I've not seen any reference to it being exported yet). The use of these warheads is 'considerate', but not required. High Explosives work just as well in the short term and are just as legitimate.

NTM

Pazaz 21

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=61067

Interesting articles by Robert Fisk here.

joebhoy1916

Good read amazing though some people dont believe a man that has seen it with his own eyes and he's a reporter?

I like the last bit giving there missiles and the fighter jet Israel use to blow the sh!t out of them! Supplied by who else the American's!

homah_7ft

Manic Moran wrote:

Not really. Infrastructure always has been a valid target because of the dual-use nature: Bridges, telecoms, electricity, railroads etc can all be used for military purposes just as easily as civil purposes. Otherwise you could say something like "We've removed all our guards from the Pentagon. It is now no longer a valid military target because it is an undefended building" which is patently ridiculous.

The other problem is that in 1899 when Hague II was signed, the concept of air strikes wasn't really thought up yet. In order to destroy a building, it needed to be done with troops on the ground. If you could get the troops on the ground to the location, there would be no military need to destroy it since you could just walk right in and take it over yourself if it was undefended.

Ideally today one would use carbon filament warheads such as the US used on Iraqi power stations the last couple of wars. It blows all the circuit breakers and probably melts a few things, but doesn't blow anything up and is easy to repair in a month or so. It's possible that Israel hasn't got any of these in service (I've not seen any reference to it being exported yet). The use of these warheads is 'considerate', but not required. High Explosives work just as well in the short term and are just as legitimate.

NTM

As it happens artillery was well developed at the end of the 1800's and the ranged destruction of buildings was indeed possible. I take your point as to the dual nature of infrastructure but I wouldn't really accept your analogy to an undefended pentagon. The civilian purpose of a power station is absolutely clear. Why do you think it's acceptable to deny civilians power even for a month?

Manic Moran

homah_7ft wrote:

The civilian purpose of a power station is absolutely clear. Why do you think it's acceptable to deny civilians power even for a month?

Because it also denies power for military use as well. This can be anything from using the national grid to power air defense radars through just having the streetlights on so that a force without thermal imagers is tactically disadvantaged compared to one with in a city fight. In extremis, for all we know, Hezbullah's email contact list was on a Dell computer which can no longer run unless they find a generator, their handheld radios can't be recharged...that sort of thing.

NTM

fly_agaric

Sand wrote:

None of those are military facilities, and none are any more valid than hitting a cinema or a childs birthday party. Apologists for Palestinian terrorism have arguments to support attacking that sort of target, but I dont agree with them tbh.

The first two are being targetted (not "collateral damage") by Israel (hence the "as we've seen already" bit). The others were provided as examples with possible justifications.
AFAICR they have kindly leafletted these areas telling people to get out so I'm sure it'll be possible to justify it anyways with either a rework of the "dual use" [dens of Hizbollah sympathisers/supporters] or the "noble warrior" [see people look - leaflets and forewarning - the islamic terrorists don't do that!] formulae.

Sand wrote:

No I havent. I have never excused civillian casualties on the basis "oh, well theyre arabs, and arabs dont like Israelis so the Israelis are okay to kill them". Please dont assign me the arguments of apologists for Palestinian terrorism.

You oversimplify.

You've said that these Arab civilian deaths provide no reason for Israel not to attack so strongly (obviously - the stronger Israel attacks Lebanon - the more civilians die) because the Arabs can't hate Israel or wish to destroy it any more than they do now anyway.
Going easier and perhaps not getting the job done would be "pandering to an Arab opinion that devours Mein Kamph" you said.

So long as the civilians aren't being targetted deliberately in a carpet-bombing type way you are perfectly okay with an increase in the probability that civilians die and think it is justified.

Sand wrote:

Ive said Israels neighbours, and Arab opinion in general hates Israel and Jews (for reasons that go far deeper than Israeli actions in the past few weeks or even the past few years). The concept that Israel could go on some hearts and minds campaign and having the Arab world eating out of their hand in a decade or so is laughable. In the real world, Israel has to consider its options within the facts - and the facts are Israel is hated and that hatred demands Israels utter destruction, so the price of being liked is a little steep.

Jesus. Not using your military to wreck a country is "going on a hearts and minds campaign"!
I know well Israel is hated. I know many arabs, maybe even most arabs right now want it to disappear and lap up the old European anti-semitism and Jew-conspiracies but the more actions like this attack on Lebanon that Israel commits, the more rockets that land in Israel, the further down the tracks towards that future war we go.

Sand wrote:

So your demonisation of Israel, the painting of it as an evil, aggressive non-legitimate society is not useful to jihadist totalarianism?

The Islamocrazies or their warped opinions won't stop me criticising Israel just because Israel happens to be at war with them.

So as I said, foam or no foam and excluding the bit about the Reds:

"no doubt you believe some bull armageddon-fantasy about how the current situation in the ME with Israel was always but a little part of a big "War on the West" ...... by Islamic fanatics and we all must stand by our "Israeli brothers" idealogically in their "hour-of-need" by not criticising them."

I think it was accurate.

Hizbollah has 13,000 Iranian rockets today. Israel is not going to wait for them to get Iranian nukes.

Even if it does somehow destroy rather than just maul Hizbollah (the air war + shelling has already not finished things off quick enough and Israel are committing ground forces to Lebanon now) - this war will do absolutely zip to stop Iran developing nukes or doing what it wants with them.

Anyway, I've wasted an absolutely pathetic and disturbing amount of time on this the last few days - so respond/criticise/rip apart as you will and I'll leave it there.

Macha

Manic Moran wrote:

Not really. Infrastructure always has been a valid target because of the dual-use nature: Bridges, telecoms, electricity, railroads etc can all be used for military purposes just as easily as civil purposes. Otherwise you could say something like "We've removed all our guards from the Pentagon. It is now no longer a valid military target because it is an undefended building" which is patently ridiculous.

Mmmm I think that there is also mention of prohibition of the deliberate targeting of services essential to the civilian population, like water and electricity, etc. Look at how Switzerland spoke out against Israel's campaign in the Gaza strip earlier this year on these humanitarian grounds.

I don't think Israel should have the right to target whatever they want and then just label it as a valid target (As they are wont to do).

Another point: so far 250 Lebanese civilians have been killed and 20 solders. Hizbollah have killed 12 Israeli civilians and 15 Israelis solders (approximates, of course in an on-going situation). It's like David versus Goliath. Why should Lebanese civilians suffer any more than Israeli civilians? Both sides are guilty but Israel always seems to make sure that the other side suffers more, and usual disproportionately to the suffering that they themselves have endured.

Fool 5000

Israel are wrong -end of story .For instance the Israeli bombing of the Lebanon would be like the British army bombing of Dublin after a attack by the IRA on the British army in the 70's or 80's.

dathi1

Big demo at the Central bank 2pm saturday probably heading for the Israeli embassy later. Measured response pics of Beruit (disturbing photos) The first 2 says it all. http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

Manic Moran

taconnol wrote:

Mmmm I think that there is also mention of prohibition of the deliberate targeting of services essential to the civilian population, like water and electricity, etc. Look at how Switzerland spoke out against Israel's campaign in the Gaza strip earlier this year on these humanitarian grounds.

Water I might agree with you on, but people can live without electricity indefinitely. Living without water is a lot more difficult. At any rate, I can't see any reference to Israel bombing water facilities either in Lebanon or Gaza, though I am open to correction.

I don't think Israel should have the right to target whatever they want and then just label it as a valid target (As they are wont to do).

I don't think they should either, though I evidently am willing to grant them a little more lattitude on definitions than you are. Not that either of our opinions matter very much.

Another point: so far 250 Lebanese civilians have been killed and 20 solders. Hizbollah have killed 12 Israeli civilians and 15 Israelis solders (approximates, of course in an on-going situation). It's like David versus Goliath. Why should Lebanese civilians suffer any more than Israeli civilians? Both sides are guilty but Israel always seems to make sure that the other side suffers more, and usual disproportionately to the suffering that they themselves have endured.

If you look at it from the Israeli point of view, the responsibility of the Israeli government lies solely to the Israeli people. Their question isn't "Why shouldn't anyone else suffer as much as us, if not more?", it's "Why should Israeli people be suffering at all? If the policies and leanings of other people indicate that they should suffer greatly compared to us as we fix our own situation, that's their lookout. Whilst we've no great objection to the Lebanese people, if they're going to look the other way while an organisation dedicated to our destruction lives and arms itself in their midst, they're going to have to look the other way as we destroy that organisation in their midst"
Or something to that effect.

The proportionality argument holds little weight with me. I have no doubt that if Hezbullah were capable of wreaking mass destruction on Israel (and if Israelis weren't spending a lot of time recently in bomb shelters), that they would do so. The intent is there. Israel is in a defacto state of war with Hezbullah, and obviously neither side is holding back too much. Neither would one expect them to. To quote First Sea Lord Fisher: "Moderation in war is imbecility." I don't know if this reaction was what Hezbullah was aiming for (Per Frisk) but as a Lebanese chap on BBC said, "If you tickle a sleeping tiger, you will get eaten." This has gone way beyond the punitive raids that Israel usually does. (And which have gotten very little press other than "Oh, business as usual...") This is gloves-off, old-fashioned warfare, not a police action. As I said earlier, the Israelis are pissed.

Personally, I think that Israel's point has been made. I'm not sure what another week of airstrikes is likely to accomplish that hasn't been done already and they are probably approaching a point of minimal return. I can sympathise with the Lebanese premier, wondering where the hell the International Community is during all this, and I'm kindof curious myself. Eight days is plenty long enough for countries to come up with a plan. What needs to happen now is a reason for Israel to declare success and stop. This will happen by itself in time, maybe a week or two. Otherwise, someone is going to have to do something. Either Hezbullah returns/is convinced to return the two soldiers, or the International Community says explicitly "Look, pull back, and we'll deal with disarming Hezbullah ourselves" or even a day or two without rocket attacks into Israel might be enough. John Bolton is quite correct on one point: The two sides aren't going to stop duking it out just because the International Community says "Stop"; the solution is going to have to be a bit more substantive, and the sooner something substantive is proposed (and I've not seen anything beyond suggestion level), the sooner the Israeli actions can stop.

NTM

Conar

Sand wrote:

Israel is being attacked consistently. Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel is exercising that right morally and lawfully - proportion has little to do with it.

I wonder if you would have held the same beliefs if the UK had bombarded Ireland and killed Irish civillians each time the IRA were up to no good?

Conar

Sorry, didn't realise I was rehashing other peoples points!
DOWN WITH ISRAEL!!!! BOOOOOO

Warning this thread may contain traces of nuts!

MooseJam

Humans are tribalistic, that is our nature, each tribe will hold their own views and persue them as they see fit, talk of international law and what is right or wrong is both pointless and ridiculous, talk away and watch each side ignore you and do as they see fit.

Talk of terrorism is also ridiculous, there is no such thing as a terrorist, each year we watch hoardes of mass killers wearing their medals parading past state leaders in all our "Civilised" western countries and then we have the gall to talk of Islamic terror.

Each side have their arguments and goals and you can side with whoever you feel is right. I side with the people who are from the region, and whose parents were from the region and whose grandparents were etc.
I side with them and whatever means they choose to pursue their goals.

Manic Moran

MooseJam wrote:

Talk of terrorism is also ridiculous, there is no such thing as a terrorist, each year we watch hoardes of mass killers wearing their medals parading past state leaders in all our "Civilised" western countries and then we have the gall to talk of Islamic terror.

I think you'll find most people draw a distinction between the legitimate armed forces of a state, and the common definition of 'Terrorist'. There are plenty of Islamic legitimate non-terrorist armed forces, who also wear medals. One of those is the Lebanese army, of which Hezbullah is not a part.

NTM

New_Departure06

Hizbollah - drive the Zionist aggressors from your land....again!

DublinWriter

Manic Moran wrote:

I think you'll find most people draw a distinction between the legitimate armed forces of a state, and the common definition of 'Terrorist'.

The distinction being the terrorists are usually the ones with the home-made weapons.