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

The Saint

bonkey wrote:

Its hardly fair to compare current Hezbollah practices to practices which were once legal but are now illegal in Israel, unless there's reason to believe the practices are still being used.

Its effectively saying "Israel used to do this, so they can't complain that someone else does it now they have ruled its illegal".

I'm just trying to point out for the people that think that everything the IDF does is justifiable and above reproach that they are not and have commited the same acts up until recently that the terrorists are as well as continuing to practise. But as I have pointed out with regard to the human shields, Israel has done this in the last few days. What was banned by the Isreali supreme court is effectively the same as doing what the IDF did the other day. The practise of using human shields has been carried out even after the Supreme court banned it. The use of the 'neighbour procedure' where soldiers use civilians to order militants out of houses was also used. A number of Palestinians have been killed by doing this.

Not being combat soldiers makes little difference. Mr. Fisk appears to be suggesting that not only should one limit oneself to military targets, but one should further limit oneself to only a subset of same*.

But Israel is not supposed to be at war with Lebanon. They've stated many times that this is just a war against Hezbollah. There was then no need to attack the Lebanese army. Surely that would be an act of war against the state.

blorg

bonkey wrote:

Not being combat soldiers makes little difference. Mr. Fisk appears to be suggesting that not only should one limit oneself to military targets, but one should further limit oneself to only a subset of same*.

Well there _was_ also that other idea promulgated by Israel that they were fighting Hezbollah and _not_ Lebanon or the Lebanese army. Not that you had to believe it of course, I'm just saying.

bonkey

The Saint wrote:

I'm just trying to point out for the people that think that everything the IDF does is justifiable and above reproach

I know. I'm just being a stickler for tense....which is why I'll point out that your "does" should be "has ever done" as these practices are no longer current.

But as I have pointed out with regard to the human shields, Israel has done this in the last few days.

Fair enough...I missed that it was so recent.

What was banned by the Isreali supreme court is effectively the same as doing what the IDF did the other day.

Then one would hope that there is a proper investigation, that the soldiers are dealt with appropriately if found guilty of acting in an illegal manner, and that the IDF takes steps to make sure that this practice is properly stamped out.

The practise of using human shields has been carried out even after the Supreme court banned it.

Much to my chagrin, I've had to recognise the impossibility of expecting complete change overnight in pretty much anything. While I agree the acts are not tolerable, the real litmus test will be how they are dealt with. Should they be ignored, justified, or somehow whitewashed away...I'll be the first to join you in condemnation of the hypocracy at that point.

But Israel is not supposed to be at war with Lebanon. They've stated many times that this is just a war against Hezbollah. There was then no need to attack the Lebanese army. Surely that would be an act of war against the state.

Indeed it would. Then again, by not intervening militarily, the Lebanese government and thus its military have tacitly approved the use of their land for military actions against Israel, so while it may be an act of war on the Israeli's part it is arguably at least partially-justifiable.

Again, I must reiterate accept the point made elsewhere that the area was most likely not bombed because of the military presence and that they are effectively "collateral damage". I'm just pointing out that its not entirely a cut-and-dry issue either which way.

None of the parties involved thus far are behaving particularly noteworthily, except in the bad sense.

Slainte70

sovtek wrote:

I think Fisk was trying to suggest that they were bombed to hide the downing of an Israeli jet.

He got his facts wrong there too as it wasn't a downed F-16 but rather the IDf targetting a lorry carrying a Hezbollah Iranian Zelzal missile...which consequently partially detonated and flew into the air and landed on a bunch of tyres.

DEBKAfile: An Israeli F15 fighter bomber intercepted a Hizballah Zelzal ground-ground missile of 160km range east of Beirut Monday, July 17

July 19, 2006, 12:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

According to the rough estimate of Israeli military intelligence, this loss leaves Hizballah with another 11 of these heavy weapons, although its stockpile may prove to be somewhat larger. The descent of the Zelzal shown on Lebanese TV gave rise to the false report that an Israeli warplane had been shot down.

DEBKAfile’s military and aviation sources report: Israeli fighter jets do not patrol Lebanese byways on the hunt for missiles to shoot down. They certainly do not dive-bomb buildings. They fly at an altitude of 20,000 feet over the Mediterranean Sea and from that height they survey the ground below and drop bombs. Neither Hizballah nor any armed or terrorist force as far north as Turkey is in possession of anti-air weapons capable of downing a jet from that altitude. Therefore, the description of the mysterious object seen on Lebanese TV as a downed Israeli warplane was not credited.

Equally, the Israeli helicopters fighting Hizballah in South Lebanon keep a safe distance from their targets. To stay out of range of anti-air fire, the helicopters do not cross the border but locate and bomb their targets from the Israeli side of the border. When Israeli aircraft spotted the Zelzal launcher truck moving on a road east of Beirut near Baabdeh, the crew waited for the right angle of fire. It halted at the gates of al Ghawar Lebanese army training camp and then an Israeli F15 fighter bomber aimed at and hit the missile. It hit the vehicle, but then the unexpected occurred: the truck exploded but the missile detonated partially and flew up to the sky. It then dropped to the ground like a stone bursting into flames but landing practically intact.

It is not known if Hizballah had planned to fire the Zelzal, which would have been a major escalation, Monday, July 17, or was transferring it to a forward launching site. Neither is it clear why they should have consigned it to Beirut. Firing this missile from Beirut would have brought it to a point between Haifa and Hadera, whereas launched from the border, the missile could reach northern Tel Aviv. DEBKAfile’s military sources report a second so far unused missile in the Hizballah arsenal, the Fajr-5 whose range covers Hadera.

Flukey

Synopsis: Hezbollah took 2 soldiers as prisoners. Israel responded by blowing hell out of the place. A sort of sledgehammer to crack a nut scenario, or a more accurate description would be a missile to crack a nut situation.

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote:

You must have missed where I said 'a matter of degree.' Unless defined as a protected item, such as a hospital, anything could be a viable target if the situation deems it so. The Geneva Convention describes the definer not in terms of the nature of the target in itself, but if it makes "An effective contribution to military action"

Thanks for clarifying your position - so anything other than a hospital can be a legitimate target for bombing. Lets hope no one from hizbollah is taking notes here - because going by what you have just said unless they accidentally hit a hospital whatever they hit could be called a legitimate target.

Manic Moran wrote:

When the dust from all this is settled in three or four years time, do you think that Hebullah will remain in its present form with large stocks of short and intermediate range rockets, and cruise missiles? This little spat is certainly calling attention to the fact that Hezbullah is slightly better armed than a private militia has any reasonable need to be in a country with a central government and army, and I believe this situation will be rectified.

My honest opinion ? Neither hisbollah's military capability nor israels international standing will resemble their recent form. Israel will be even more of a pariah state outside of israel and the united states. Next time americans ask 'why do the rest of the world hate us' - this (americas approval and therefore complicity - in that israel needed americas approval to start these attacks) will be one more reason to add to the list.

Coming out of this I think hisbollah will have much wider and deeper regional support than it already has. For each lebaneese civilian they kill everyone in that persons circle of family and friends has just become a life long hater of israel - inevitably (imo) somewhere there will be some people who will go on to seek their revenge like for like.

Manic Moran wrote:

The region is already unstable, and there are already civilian deaths. This is a swift kick up the arse to the rest of the world who have become blind to the usual tit-for-tat cycle of 'bombing here, assasination there' which has become business as usual and a footnote in the newspapers. The only difference is that this is all happening in a two-week period, and people are paying attention all of a sudden, instead of the same casualty level over, oh, say a one-year period that nobody would have batted an eyelid over.

If thats your justification for killing 300 innocent people - we are not going to agree on what 300 innocent peoples' lives are worth.

Manic Moran wrote:

It seems to Israel that the Rest of World has seen Israel pull out of Lebanon, Lebanon's economy generally improves and RoW decided "OK, all looks good on the surface. We'll not dig deeper and look for trouble" Cut back to five years ago, and Irish troops pulled out of UNIFIL because all was now rosy and happy in Lebanon after the Israeli pullout, even though Hezbullah was still known to advocate the destruction of Israel. It's analagous to not keeping a firewatch on an area that had recently been in flames.

Do you have an issue with lebannons economy being given a chance to improve ? Seems to me that israel certainly does. Also lets not forget the 40+ Irish peacekeepers killed (many by israel or israel supported militia) keeping israelis from killing innocent lebaneese people. Though admittedly usually they apologised afterwards.

Manic Moran wrote:

Its justifications are the disarming of Hizbullah and the return of the two soldiers, yes? I have no doubt that that's the desired end-state, so no, I don't think it's lying.

Didnt you give a different reasoning up above ? ie to drag the international community into providing a human buffer zone for the jewish state ? And no they are not the same thing.

Manic Moran wrote:

I think it's more a case that Israel and Hezbullah together have contributed to the deaths of over 300 civilians . . .

I lay the blame for the deaths of people at israels hands on israel - you can apportion blame elsewhere but I would blame israel for the deaths of people who die at israeli hands. How would you like to hear that the responsibility for the deaths of people who are killed by hizbollah rests equally with israel ? Does that sound reasonable to you ?

Manic Moran wrote:

because nobody else seemed interested in implementing a less drastic solution which could have been done some time ago. You will note that even the UN is attributing partial blame to Hezbullah for the Lebanese civilian casualties. See remarks by Jan Egeland, UN Relief Co-ordinator about Hezbullah's joint responsibility for civilian casualties for deliberately hiding in civilian areas.

You can note also that the un has said israels response is disproportionate and that they could face war crimes trials at the other end of this.

Slainte70

Flukey wrote:

Synopsis: Hezbollah took 2 soldiers as prisoners. Israel responded by blowing hell out of the place. A sort of sledgehammer to crack a nut scenario, or a more accurate description would be a missile to crack a nut situation.

Just to clarify your synopsis, Hezbollah first launched rocket attacks on July 13, Wednesday morning at approx. 8:30 on the Israeli town Kiryat Shmona and surrounding moshaveen and kibbutzeem. In the meantime Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated into Israel and bombed 2 IDF hummers, killing 6 soldiers and kidnapping two soldiers...and have since bombarded Israel with 1800 katyusha and Iranian fadr missiles to date.....not exactly what one would call "a little hillside set up" terrorist organization by any means...

blorg

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As I am sure you are aware, the annihilation of Israel is their stated goal. But (although currently _part_ of a coalition government) they are not the state of Lebanon. And I don't think anyone here is an apologist for Hezbollah, we just think that Israel's reaction has been a _little_ on the extreme side. The analogy of Britain bombing Dublin in response to an IRA attack was raised; you would not have to be an IRA supporter to oppose such an action (as you would not have to be an IRA supporter to oppose Bloody Sunday, internment or the killings in Gibraltar for example.)

Flukey

Another example of how totally and absolutely warped the thinking of the Israel is: Yesterday we had the democratic government of Israel's cabinet announcing that they would defer all diplomatic efforts to sort this in favour of a military strategy. What are these guys on? Of course there was not a peep out of Washington over this. If Saddam's government had said something like that a few years ago or if the current governments of Iran or North Korea were to do so, there would be screaming condemnations of it coming from Pennsylvania Avenue and its environs.

Flukey

Israel's ambassador to Ireland was being interviewed about all of this on the radio yesterday morning. It was unbelievable what he was coming out with. We had all the usual about how they are doing their best not to kill civilians. He even mentioned how they were dropping leaflets from planes to advise people to leave the area. Of course he had no answer when it was pointed out that they were dropping bombs knocking out roads, bridges, ports and airports thus preventing the people from doing so.

If you had missed the introduction of who was being interviewed at the beginning of it, you'd just have easily believed it if you were told that the spokesman for an unmerciful terrorist organisation was being interviewed.

Flukey

In case people think otherwise, I am not defending Hezbollah. Of course they are killing innocent civilians too and it is 100% wrong, but then they are "terrorists". We expect that from them. However we do not expect it from democratic governments, who, in theory at least, should be the responsible party in these situations. Apart from the fact that far more people are being killed in Lebanon than in Israel, there is no real difference between these two groups and their terrorist activities.

Manic Moran

Flukey wrote:

Synopsis: Hezbollah took 2 soldiers as prisoners. Israel responded by blowing hell out of the place. A sort of sledgehammer to crack a nut scenario, or a more accurate description would be a missile to crack a nut situation.

Or it could have been a case of the straw breaking the Israeli camel's back. A little more has gone on at the Lebanese border over the past six years than just the kidnapping of two soldiers. This is a reaction as much to the previous six years as that one event.

Thanks for clarifying your position - so anything other than a hospital can be a legitimate target for bombing. Lets hope no one from hizbollah is taking notes here - because going by what you have just said unless they accidentally hit a hospital whatever they hit could be called a legitimate target.

Nope, you seem to have missed another rather important qualifier: I said "a protected item, such as a hospital". Not "exclusive to hospital". Civilian populations are such a protected item, the question at hand is if Israel is trying to hit civilians, or at least not taking the levels of civilian casualties into account when targetting.

Coming out of this I think hisbollah will have much wider and deeper regional support than it already has.

This may well be the case. Hezbullah may well end up with a larger portion of the Lebanese vote, for example. I do not believe it will retain its stocks of arms to include the cruise and intermediate-range ballistic missiles which it currently has: I don't think that now it has been brought to the forefront that the world will allow that situation to continue. (Speaking of IRBMs, thanks for the clarification Slainte. I was wondering what it was, it didn't look like a 'plane.)

Do you have an issue with lebannons economy being given a chance to improve ? Seems to me that israel certainly does.

It was given a chance to improve, and was doing so. Unfortunately, people (Lebanese and International) were too pre-occupied by the fact that the average Lebanese lot in life was improving to notice that down in the South of the country, there was still a smouldering volcano waiting to erupt.

Also lets not forget the 40+ Irish peacekeepers killed (many by israel or israel supported militia) keeping israelis from killing innocent lebaneese people

That was only part of the UNIFIL mandate. The other part, oddly enough, was to stop people using Lebanon as a launching ground for attacks on Israel. "Assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area." It all kicked off in March 1973 when the PLO used Lebanon as a jump point for an attack into Israel. (And the first person they killed was an American tourist, which didn't help their American relations much), and Israel counter-struck with an invasion. Things kindof went downhill from there.

Didnt you give a different reasoning up above ? ie to drag the international community into providing a human buffer zone for the jewish state ?

No, I said getting the International community to disarm Hezbullah. They have a much better chance of success than Israel does.

How would you like to hear that the responsibility for the deaths of people who are killed by hizbollah rests equally with israel ? Does that sound reasonable to you ?

Not particularly. Israel isn't trying to merge its armed forces in with the Israeli populace.

NTM

Sand

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.

Actually, thats not my position - its the position of international standards in warfare. The GC does not condemn accidental deaths of civillians in military operations, it condemns the deliberate targeting of civillians. Can you point out a war where no civillians died? Its a given that civillians will die in war, and the GC accepts that. All it demands is that armies do not target civillians.

The ironic thing is, the tendency to condemn legitimate armies for even accidental, unintended civillian deaths might lead to the view amongst cynical commanders that "why bother planning to avoid civillian casualties?" since theyll be condemned as "worse than the nazis" anyway.

Afterall, the IDF is condemned far more than Hizbollah is, despite not using human shields to protect itself like Hamas does. If theyre going to be labelled as terrorists, why not tie lebanese civillians to their vehicles? Theyre going to be condemned as terrorists anyway so why not claim the benefits? Why not? Sure, its wrong, and only a monster would do it. But Hizbollah gets zero criticism for using human shields, IDF gets immense criticism for accidental civillian deaths - so what do the IDF lose from the point of view of those who condemn as state sponsored terrorists?

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

Admirable, but the warped opinions of the Israelis appear to be a stumbling block with regard to expressions of your horror at the continued Hizbollah attacks on Israeli civillians from Lebanon. Civillians who dont deserve the right to life I assume, given you believe Israeli civillians dont have the right to demand their army defend them from those attacking them? 700 rockets fired on Israel in a few days, and Id doubt if in a lenthy thread youve put 700 words condemning Hizbollah into it.

Jesus. Not using your military to wreck a country is "going on a hearts and minds campaign"!

Oh, and Israel defending itself from Hizbollah rocket attacks on its towns is "using your military to wreak a country". Jesus...

I think it was accurate.

No, you wish it was so you could argue along the lines "Sand is X, X is wrong, hence Sand is wrong". The harsh reality is less comforting for you. Personally I think Israels a ****ing pain in the arse, and a real liability for "the west" given its associated with us and pisses off the main suppliers of our energy. It needs to evacuate its settlements and withdraw to normal borders. For its own good as much as anything.

Unlike you, I recognise that is not an idea the Israelis are going to embrace when they look at the experience of the Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals....the enemy simply advances and starts attacking Israel proper. If you want to provide a solution to the problem in the middle east that has existed ever since the UNs formation of Israel was rejected by its Arab neighbours then you need something that works in reality, not just in some hippy trip where everyone loves each other, deep down.

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.

It sends a message, certainly it sends a stronger message to Iran than if Israel had simply pretended the rocket attacks and kidnappings of its soldiers never happened.

Even a more aggressive, belligerent stance by the UK and France (and indeed the US) back in the 30s could have dissuaded a weak Germany from chancing its arm. As it was, every message sent to the Nazis was one of weak, divided and non-confrontational democracy and the world suffered badly for it. Peace through superiour firepower is the most secure peace.

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.

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.

So say, you wouldnt consider the SS to be any different to any other military unit - they were after all paid by a state to kill en masse? You wouldnt concisider a commemoration to the SS to be anymore objectionable than say each nations "unknown soldier" commemoration?

My point about my tasteless Nazi analogy was that by the time they started their war more or less on their own timetable they were in a very powerful position. So much so that they had deluded themselves into thinking they could take on the rest of the world in a war to acheive their aims and win.

Actually, they were left to decide when the war would be fought by the desire by more reasonable, peaceable governments to avoid war. Sometimes conflict cannot be avoided. In those cases, it is better to fight it on your timetable rather than the enemies. Given the rhetoric and actions of the Nazis, war was inevitable. The Germans were treated abominably in the post-WW1 peace talks, but despite sympathy for the suffering of the German people, this does not excuse support for national socialism, either directly by nazi sympathisers, or indirectly by those who considered cruel captialist Britain and France to be the real villains reaping the storm they sowed in 1919.

Food for thought...

Guess I need to change my sig.

Well, a definition of madness is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. And we know what didnt work when facing totalarian hatred last time around...

I'm sure your just as capable of finding out what they are fighting for as are the "apologists".

Well, the obvious answer might be that Hizbollah wants to drive the Israelis back into the sea...

Maybe Israel can negotiate good terms for their utter destruction?

Manic Moran

Sand wrote:

Can you point out a war where no civillians died?

As near as I can tell, UK vs Zanzibar, 1896.
UK vs Argentina, 1982 was close, with only one civilian killed, that was a Falklander killed by a British weapon right at the very end of the war.

NTM

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

Actually, thats not my position - its the position of international standards in warfare. The GC does not condemn accidental deaths of civillians in military operations, it condemns the deliberate targeting of civillians.

Hmmm, have you seen any pics of the devastation and the choice of targets? You would need some cheek to claim that Israel was making any attempt to avoid civilian casualties. Anyway, Article 51 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention states "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack." While Article 52 states: "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives." But Israel is not a signatory to the First Protocol so anything goes really.

Israel and Hezbollah have traded hostages many times before so I don't see what's so special about this case. It looks to me as if Israel has used the captured soldiers as a pretext to create a wider war involving Syria and/or Iran. I don't know, they must have some sort of gameplan, but it just looks like lunacy.

Manic Moran

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Israel and Hezbollah have traded hostages many times before so I don't see what's so special about this case.

Perhaps they're fed up with trading hostages, as it seems to only lead to more hostage-trading.

NTM

spanner

Isreal are crazy if they start to reoccupie southern lebennon, they have all ready tried this for 20 years and got no were. Now Hizbollah have had 5 years with southern lebennon to itself to build a guerilla network and infrasture. Hizbollah are well dug in and well equipped (from their shia brothers in Iran).
If I was in command of Israel the very last thing I would do is fall into Hizbollahs trap. Hizbollah have planned all of this and Isreal is doing everything they want. As Isreal bombs innocent people trying to get on with their lives they reingite hatred for Israel swelling the ranks of Hizbollah. If Israel had the sense to pull back from the brink and try find another solution. This will not be an easily won war as in the Sinah desert as in 1967. It is shaping up to be Israels vietnam war

Manic Moran

Radio is reporting that Israel is creating a 20 mile buffer zone, and telling locals to move out.

I honestly have no idea as to the legality of such a move, but I initially think it's a bit questionable. It certainly seems unsustainable.

NTM

New_Departure06

Manic Moran wrote:

Radio is reporting that Israel is creating a 20 mile buffer zone, and telling locals to move out.

I honestly have no idea as to the legality of such a move, but I initially think it's a bit questionable. It certainly seems unsustainable.

NTM

Here we go again. It's just a rehash of what they did from 82-2000 which led to the deaths of 1,000 Israeli soldiers. The only way to get Israeli security is to return to the negotiating table and in good faith this time. Issues to be resolved should include: Return of prisoners, liberation of Golan, Sheeba Farms, Gaza and the West Bank. The talks should include Hamas, Abbas, Syria, Iran, and possibly Hezbollah.

A Dub in Glasgo

Manic Moran wrote:

Radio is reporting that Israel is creating a 20 mile buffer zone, and telling locals to move out.

I honestly have no idea as to the legality of such a move, but I initially think it's a bit questionable. It certainly seems unsustainable.

NTM

Try this one then, soldiers from a neighbouring country surround San Jose and tell the locals to get out, is the legality still vague?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Actually, thats not my position - its the position of international standards in warfare. The GC does not condemn accidental deaths of civillians in military operations, it condemns the deliberate targeting of civillians. Can you point out a war where no civillians died? Its a given that civillians will die in war, and the GC accepts that. All it demands is that armies do not target civillians.?

....SNIP....

Justifying the slaughter of innocent civilians including women & children with the classic apologist line of

'**** happens'
'Tell me where a party to a conflict did not inflict civilian death and destruction'
'They were defending themselves... honest guv'
'They dropped that bomb on the children as they had toy guns and you can never be too careful especially when the toy may be able to hit our US supplied warplanes miles up in the sky'

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Perhaps they're fed up with trading hostages, as it seems to only lead to more hostage-trading.

NTM

then maybe they should quit illegally detaining people.

jank

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Are you telling me there is?

Id love to hear this.

oscarBravo

I'm assuming he's lining up ADiG for an accusation of inconsistency, given ADiG's support for the Republican cause. Don't go there, Dave - it's off-topic.

redspider

I havent the time to follow all the debate on this thread, but I will add a few points to ponder.

What is clear is that Israel seems to have had this assault planned for a long while. They certainly didnt do it without the US knowing, although whether Bush knew or not is another story. The 'recovery' operation for the 2 kidnapped soldiers is only an excuse, a pre-text for which is now clearly a planned war, not against the Lebanese per se, but against Hezbollah. Mind you the two are inextricably linked and Israel have no problems in 'collaterally' damaging Lebanon. The bombing of Beruit Airport was a clear indication of that.

Overall, its a crazy situation and if Israel did not have the backing of the US, they would not have done it.

The ground work for this though was carried out in the last year or so. Whether planned or not, the prime minister of Lebanon was assasinated. Then we had Lebanon demanding more independence from Syria, with people were demonstrating on the streets, etc, there was a Lebanese government change I think, less pro-Syrian perhaps, and international pressure supporting that. The US were big supporters, I recall as they see Syria and Iran as 'rogue' states.

I dont recall all the details, but the Syrian army had many soldiers based in South Lebanon, with close ties to Hezbollah, etc. They withdrew them voluntarily from the area. I dont know the strength of the Lebanese army, but the Syrian army were the de facto army in many areas. They had something like 20,000 troops or was it 50,000. (apologies for not looking up all the details, etc, out of time today). And they left.

Now, we have the Israeli's attacking like crazy, not from the get-go, but in a scaled escalation every day. It made front page news at the start all over the world, with Iraq 'relegated', but bit by bit they can ratchet it up until 50 deaths a day becomes 'normal' or more. The Israeli army, secret forces, political leaders, etc know this. As does the US military, intelligence and Government. Note the lack of arrival of Condaleeza Rice, even if it would have been purely for cosmetic reasons. This is spiralling out of control and Israel are betting that they will have inflicted major damage on Hezbollah before the pressure will come on them from the US to stop.

There is panic among many. For example, even the Britsh Navy were on red alert when docking to pick up civilians. They dont feel safe with the Israeli's. Also diplomats had to get agreement from Israel not to bomb escaping buses on the route from Beruit to Damascus, the Irish buses included. Israel showed they had control by selectivly bombing a truck on that route the other day whilst the evacuation process was in progress.

With Westerners going, Israel can raise the stakes further and kill more and more. Civilians and Hezbollah. Hezbllah feel as if Israel are trying tio crush them. They have only one option in their eyes, and that is to fight to the death. With both sides taking a military stance and it escalating, the situation can only get worse. Lebanon's army will be drawn into it, whether officially or with supplies. Syria/Iran will be asked to supply and will do so.

The World is in a weak position as it currently is not structured to prevent wars and to protect the weak, not only civilians but also Governments that lack resources (Lebanon) and the pawns that are the Israeli soldiers and the Hezbollah (freedom fighters/terrorists, pick your preferred adjective) organisation.

This could have been avoided if Israel didnt do what they have done. They probably did so with US approval, not instigation, although that can never be ruled out from the secret forces and intelligece agencies.

The situation is a mess. Yet another mess in this world.

Redspider

ps: can a Mod edit the title of this thread to change the spelling to the correct version, ie: Israel? Thanks.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Afterall, the IDF is condemned far more than Hizbollah is, despite not using human shields to protect itself like Hamas does.

I guess you aren't aware of the documented use of human shields by the IDF. It was even refered to earlier in this thread.
Was the IDF condemned for it's actions that provoked Hizbollah's (sorry i still don't know how to spell that) attack on the IDF and "kidnapping" of two soldiers?

professore

Deleted User wrote:

I think Israel is right. And so far, on this particular matter, they have shown some restraint. If there is no real attempt to find and hand back the soldier, they should escalate military action.

So the next time the RIRA plants a bomb somewhere, Tony Blair should nuke Ireland.

sovtek

Flukey wrote:

there is no real difference between these two groups and their terrorist activities.

Except that Hizbollah didn't invade and occupy Israel for 20 odd years.

oscarBravo

redspider wrote:

can a mode edit the title of this thread to change the spelling to the correct version, ie: Israel? Ta.

Done (I'd been meaning to anyway), but the Spell Czech in me had a giggle...