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

Mick86

Hobbes wrote:

and the only people winning in this is Hezbollah. They have more support now then they did four weeks ago.

The increase in the level of support won't last once the war is over. Hezbollah will be left with it's usual supporters.

Kaiser_Sma

Lebanon was a comparitivly liberal and advanced middle eastern culture, it's rebuilt succesfully before it will do so again, people will be angry no doubht, but they will return to their jobs or their reparations without having to resort to suicide bombing or swelling the ranks of militias, and hezbollah will still have to rely on foreign recruits and quite possibly a reduced public image due to the punishing attacks preformed by isreal that they continue to aggrivate.

Diogenes

Mick86 wrote:

The increase in the level of support won't last once the war is over. Hezbollah will be left with it's usual supporters.

Yeah because thats the way things went in northern Ireland, oh no wait er....

Incidents like Qana are political capitial and money in the bank one needs only to look at bloody sunday the greatests propaganda coup the IRA were ever handed it, they were still spending that capitial years one.

You kill children you give your enemy a recruiting tool they will use for decades.

Finally you need only to look at how effective Hellazbollah was in the past five years, No one in southern Lebannon stopped supporting Hezbollah after the withdrawl.

Jimboo_Jones

Mick86 wrote:

The increase in the level of support won't last once the war is over. Hezbollah will be left with it's usual supporters.

Yes the relatives of the 1'000 or so people killed will forget about their deaths, the 10’s of 1'000's of people injured and maimed will forget about their pain and their injuries and the hundreds of thousands who have had to leave their homes and have had their homes and lively hoods ruined will forget their hardship and of course the millions effected by the blockade and stress and strain caused by the bombings will forget about that as well.

Of course the same also applies to the other side of the border as I imagine the people living in Isreal will not forget the hardship they have had to endure either. The only side who profit from this will be the more extreme elements either side of the border, and again, I think that is bad for both countries.

Sgt. Sensible

Deleted User wrote:

I don't really see what your issues with the warnings is. Would you prefer if they didn't do any of it at all? Perhaps the death toll would be higher, if they hadn't.

bbc wrote:

Leaflets dropped in Tyre, the biggest Lebanese city south of the Litani river, said operations against what they described as terrorist elements would be escalated with extreme force.

Any vehicles of any sort moving on the road south of the Litani, they say, will now be attacked on suspicion of carrying rockets, material or terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5255042.stm

How decent of them to issue such clear warnings. But everyone in south Lebanon is a terrorist anyway according to the Israeli justice minister.

Mick86

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah because thats the way things went in northern Ireland, oh no wait er....

Incidents like Qana are political capitial and money in the bank one needs only to look at bloody sunday the greatests propaganda coup the IRA were ever handed it, they were still spending that capitial years one.

You kill children you give your enemy a recruiting tool they will use for decades.

Finally you need only to look at how effective Hellazbollah was in the past five years, No one in southern Lebannon stopped supporting Hezbollah after the withdrawl.

30 odd years after bloody Sunday, SF support stands at about 10%. Five years after successfully driving the Israelis out of Lebanon Hezbollah managed to get 14 people elected to a 128 member parliament. Hardly earth shattering success for either group of terrorists.
The Israelis killed thousands of Lebanese before. Once the war is over the majority will move onto the next problem and the Sunnis, Druze and Christians will not continue their support of Hezbollah.

There is also the fact that Lebanon fought a Civil War in the 70s and the very people who are now shouting for Hezbollah were killing the Shia back then. There is a great danger that Lebanon will descend into civil war again in my opinion, particularly if the Lebanese army should try to disarm Hezbollah.

Morlar

Mick86 wrote:

The Israelis killed thousands of Lebanese before. Once the war is over the majority will move onto the next problem and the Sunnis, Druze and Christians will not continue their support of Hezbollah.

You seem to be ignoring the cumulative effect of israeli atrocities.

Not to mention the fact that the regional status quo has changed significantly in the period since (as an example) Sabra and chatila to now.

Also the fact that media access is a lot different today than it was 20 years ago. I think your opinion on this is probably a close match to the most optimistic assessment of the idf on this situation and they have been consistently wrong so far.

Mick86

Morlar wrote:

You seem to be ignoring the cumulative effect of israeli atrocities.

Not to mention the fact that the regional status quo has changed significantly in the period since (as an example) Sabra and chatila to now.

There is no cumulative effect. Only the Shia have been the victims of sustained Israeli attack. The Christians were Israel's allies in the past and I suspect that they are not suffering the same level of assault as the Shias are now. Given the way the PLO's warlords treated the Lebanese population-Shia and Christian during the 70s, very few in Lebanon were put out about Sabra and Chatila. Certainly the Shia in the south were glad to see the PLO being driven out in 1982.

Morlar wrote:

Also the fact that media access is a lot different today than it was 20 years ago.

Irrelevant

Morlar wrote:

I think your opinion on this is probably a close match to the most optimistic assessment of the idf on this situation and they have been consistently wrong so far.

The IDF has the leader of Hezbollah offering a ceasefire if the Israelis withdraw and the Hezbollah members of cabinet voting for the Lebanese Army to occupy the south. This indicates that Hezbollah might be under a bit of pressure. The IDF might be brutal, it isn't stupid.

Tyrone

kaiser1 wrote:

Hey guys

Iv been listening to reps. on the radio from different world organisations calling for Isreal to show restraint in thier military actions into Gaza.

Now correct me if im wrong but didnt the Palestinian people vote the terrorist group Hamas into goverment,so shouldnt they take some of the responsibility for the actions of thier Goverment??

I think Isreal is dead right in thier choice of dealing with the kidnapping of one of thier soldiers.With fanatical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad there is no reasoning with them.....there for Isreal needs to show that when you mess with them the consequences are going to be devestating. Its this show of force and a strong will by Isreal thats needed.I have alot of respect for Isreal...they know thier own mind and is a country that will not under any circumstances be intimidated or terrorised into accecpting suituations that will endanger its people and its standard of living.

kaiser1, Your logic is quite logical and in one word you are "CORRECT".

These rat turd terrorists need a good lession and if that means leveling Lebanon so be it. War is a nasty bussiness and no one wants to to be in one, Israel included.

When someone smacks you in the head, do you turn tail and run? If so, I will guarantee you he will be back to smack you again.

When you fight back, your enemy soon learns not to mess with the Bull because he gets the Horn.

Like I said, war is a nasty bussiness and playing tit for tat is not the way to fight one. You crush your enemy till his will to fight is gone or he is destroyed.

Zulu

Tyrone wrote:

These rat turd terrorists need a good lession and if that means leveling Lebanon so be it. War is a nasty bussiness and no one wants to to be in one, Israel included.

...yes, indeed! If only the English applied this logic in the north of ireland. :rolleyes:

When someone smacks you in the head, do you turn tail and run? If so, I will guarantee you he will be back to smack you again.

School yard tactics generally don't apply to international politics.

When you fight back, your enemy soon learns not to mess with the Bull because he gets the Horn.

...well that all depends on wheither you can beat your enemy or not. I'd suggest a quick review of other conflicts through out history before considering to give any bull your horn.

Like I said, war is a nasty bussiness and playing tit for tat is not the way to fight one. You crush your enemy till his will to fight is gone or he is destroyed.

...because that's worked SO well in the past. :rolleyes:

Tyrone

Zulu wrote:

School yard tactics generally don't apply to international politics.

International politics? Has anyone ever informed you that when Politics end, Wars Begins.

Don't you wish your country stood up like the Jews do. Oh thats right you stood up to the British but you fought amongst yourselves.
I recall reading about the Catholic and Protestant harmony you enjoyed for so many years. OUTSTANDING my Good man.

gandalf

Get back on Topic.

Zulu banned for a week for calling someone a troll.

DublinWriter

Mick86 wrote:

The increase in the level of support won't last once the war is over. Hezbollah will be left with it's usual supporters.

Oh really.

I terms of support and recruitment, think Bloody Sunday X 100 and you'll only start to get the picture.

banaman

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.
This is a section lifted from an aricle on Znet.org by George Monbiot. there's also one on the proposed peace resolution that claims it is a "stitch-up" designed to back Hezbollah into a corner and leave Israel free to "punish" them as appropriate.

Rock Climber

banaman wrote:

told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

They're no good then.
3 weeks in and all the carnage and hezbollah are sending more rockets into Israel not less.

hmmm

I have no doubt that Israel has contingency plans for taking on Hizbollah, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, the Palestinians and anyone else who they consider a threat. This talk about "Israel had a plan ready to go" is a non-issue. I'm sure the Irish army has a few plans lying around for dealing with any external threats they think we might face, doesn't mean we're planning on implementing them in the morning.

esquier

BTW, did anybody hear of this story, 2 Palestineans kidnapped the day before
the Israeli soldier Shalit was taken, there does`nt seem to have been much of
a hue and cry about this so in my view, shame on the media or perhaps
someone here can put a perspective on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm?ls

Manic Moran

banaman wrote:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail".

What Hmmm said. Si vic pacem, para bellum. The job of an army at peace is to prepare for war. If the Israeli military was not coming up with various plans to be put into place for various likely contingencies, they would have been failing in their duties. The existance of a plan does not contribute anything towards evidence that Israel was chomping at the bit to go into Lebanon.

NTM

Morlar

Originally Posted by banaman
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail".

Manic Moran wrote:

If the Israeli military was not coming up with various plans to be put into place for various likely contingencies, they would have been failing in their duties.

Thats just not the point here imo.

Manic Moran wrote:

The existance of a plan does not contribute anything towards evidence that Israel was chomping at the bit to go into Lebanon.

I disagree with you there - for what your saying to be true and there to have been nothing out of the ordinary about this story then israeli military personnell would have had to be giving powerpoint demonstrations on EVERY scenario in their bag of tricks to select 'US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, ' - which doesnt appear to have been the case.

So your point that the above story

"does not contribute anything towards evidence that Israel was chomping at the bit to go into Lebanon."

Doesnt really stand up imo - first of all the story didnt say that they were chomping at the bit - the story said that this was planned out in detail longin advance and for some reason this scenario was presented to 'US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, '.

hmmm

Morlar wrote:

Thats just not the point here imo.
I disagree with you there - for what your saying to be true and there to have been nothing out of the ordinary about this story then israeli military personnell would have had to be giving powerpoint demonstrations on EVERY scenario in their bag of tricks to select 'US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, '

Hizbollah, Iran & Syria, in that order, are probably the three biggest military threats Israel faces right now, so I wouldn't find it surprising if at some random meeting in the past year with their main military supporter they set out their plan for addressing one of those threats.

This is just another conspiracy theory dreamt up by those who think everything is a conspiracy theory. Next thing we'll be hearing that Hizbollah didn't actually kidnap the soldiers, it was the CIA. After all, the CIA and Mossad attacked the WTC, what's a few soldiers.

Morlar

Morlar wrote:

I disagree with you there - for what your saying to be true and there to have been nothing out of the ordinary about this story then israeli military personnell would have had to be giving powerpoint demonstrations on EVERY scenario in their bag of tricks to select 'US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, ' - which doesnt appear to have been the case.

So your point that the above story

"does not contribute anything towards evidence that Israel was chomping at the bit to go into Lebanon."

Doesnt really stand up imo - first of all the story didnt say that they were chomping at the bit - the story said that this was planned out in detail longin advance and for some reason this scenario was presented to 'US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, '.

But it doesn't prove anything beyond Israel having a plan prepared for the day that Lebanon would be used as a launching site for attacks on Israel once more. This isn't the first time that Lebanon has been used in this manner, so its understandable that the IDF would have plans available, especially since they were aware of the buildup of Hizbollah forces within Lebanon, and were unable to do anything.

The purpose of the military is to prepare for war. Any war. They would have been remiss not to have a plan prepared. They probably have plans ready if Iran got nuclear weapons. It doesn't mean anything until its actually approved.

Over the last few years there's been leaks of US plans of attack against countries like N.Korea (not sure if it was N.Korea, but it was a country like that). The reason these leaks haven't caused war is because governments understand that this is normal procedure. N.Korea probably has hundreds of plans for if the US attacked them. They're there should the occasion arise, and such a plan be needed. It might not be the best plan considering the change in enemy strengths, logistics, political changes etc. But it provides a framework (which can be modified at a later stage) to give a required response.

I wouldn't be suprised if the Irish Army have a plan in some dusty archives for the reunification of Ireland, by expelling the British from N.Ireland...

Sgt. Sensible

You have to laugh.

Voipjunkie

Tyrone wrote:

kaiser1, Your logic is quite logical and in one word you are "CORRECT".

These rat turd terrorists need a good lession and if that means leveling Lebanon so be it. War is a nasty bussiness and no one wants to to be in one, Israel included.

When someone smacks you in the head, do you turn tail and run? If so, I will guarantee you he will be back to smack you again.

When you fight back, your enemy soon learns not to mess with the Bull because he gets the Horn.

Like I said, war is a nasty bussiness and playing tit for tat is not the way to fight one. You crush your enemy till his will to fight is gone or he is destroyed.

Your logic could just as easily be turned the other way

Israel attacked lebanon and occuppied part of the country for nearly 20 years till they were forced to withdraw so should hizbollah wait to be attacked again or should they continue to try and crush Israel
Should Israel be allowed to decide when the war is over because they have been forced to withdraw

To use your analogy Israel smacked lebanon in the head should lebanon have turned tail and ran.

And if someone smacks you in the head tomorrow and then says ok thats it its over should you accept that it is over or wait for him to smack you again.

And perhaps you are right unlike 1982 when Israel marched into the lebanon this time they are getting the horn perhaps they will not be so quick to tackle the Bull the next time.

The simple fact is that Israel cannot defeat Hezbollah they could not do it 6 years ago and they can not do it now.
It is time for talking as this will settle nothing time to talk to hamas and hezbollah in the end that is the only way that there will be any settlement

sovtek

hmmm wrote:

Hizbollah, Iran & Syria, in that order, are probably the three biggest military threats Israel faces right now,

...to it's proposed expansion yes...to it's peaceful existence as a nation...no

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

...to it's peaceful existence as a nation...no

But even in recent years as Israel withdrew from the Lebanon, pulled settlements out of Gaza etc. Hizbollah fired their rockets away, the Iranians were talking about wiping Israel off the map, Syria was going around assasinating activists and a former Lebanese prime minister who wanted to reduce their influence over Israel's neighbour etc. My take is that Israel will never have a peaceful existence as a nation unless and until it deals with Syria and the Hezbollah.

Ping Chow Chi

Deleted User wrote:

But even in recent years as Israel withdrew from the Lebanon, pulled settlements out of Gaza etc. Hizbollah fired their rockets away, the Iranians were talking about wiping Israel off the map, Syria was going around assasinating activists and a former Lebanese prime minister who wanted to reduce their influence over Israel's neighbour etc. My take is that Israel will never have a peaceful existence as a nation unless and until it deals with Syria and the Hezbollah.

by 'deals with' I assume you mean talk as their equal and to and give back the land that they have stolen off both, in that I agree with you. It's just a shame that Isreal will not talk to them

Its also a shame that Isreal also partakes in assasinating its neighnours activists, but hey, no one is perfect.

dathi1

the Iranians were talking about wiping Israel off the map,

Apparently the Persian translation doesn’t support this statement. Something about wiping the Zionist regime off the map. Watch the CBS news 60mins interview on Sunday with Amadinijad. www.cbsnews.com

On a side note..Hizbollah would put Satchi and Satchi on the back burner with this promo video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRWqx0VAq9w
ps...Hizbollah with Bagpipes?????

Ping Chow Chi

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

by 'deals with' I assume you mean talk as their equal and to and give back the land that they have stolen off both, in that I agree with you. It's just a shame that Isreal will not talk to them

Its also a shame that Isreal also partakes in assasinating its neighnours activists, but hey, no one is perfect.

Its also a shame that Syria refuses to make a decision on the area called the Sheeba Farms, which Lebanon claims is their territory and yet the UN & Israel claims as being Syrian lands. As long as Syria refuses to make that official position on that territory, it provides Hezbollah with an excuse to wage war on Israel.

This is the reason that israel and Lebanon haven't made a peace that holds. This is the reason that Hezbollah continues its war with Israel, not acknowledging the Blue Line border, designated by the UN. Syria provides a reason for Hezbollah, and prevents a peaceful settlement in the region and has for years.

Unless you're talking about the Golan heights which were siezed during the 6 day war when Syria was at war with Israel. Either way, hardly stolen.

Cardinal

This whole military campaign has gone horribly wrong from the Isrealis. They naively hoped they could wipe out Hizbullah in a short campaign. However, their tactics have been those used when fighting an enemy army, not an insurgency. The longer this debacle goes on the worse it gets for them. They're not garnering any support from other countries by killing over 1000 Lebanese civilians, while at the same time their failure to bring about a swift end to Hizbullah is only fueling Hizbullahs ambitions.
Isreals only real hope at this stage is that the replacement of Gen. Adam by Major Gen. Kaplinsky will bring about a swift end to the campaign. Otherwise the UN will eventually come to an agreement and the Isrealis will be forced to leave. This will weaken the support the Isreali people gives its military, will weaken the support the international community gives to Isreal and will strengthen Hizbullahs belief that it can defeat an Isreali army.

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

Its also a shame that Syria refuses to make a decision on the area called the Sheeba Farms, which Lebanon claims is their territory and yet the UN & Israel claims as being Syrian lands. As long as Syria refuses to make that official position on that territory, it provides Hezbollah with an excuse to wage war on Israel.

Syria has offically said resently that the land is Lebanon, at least according to a report I saw the other night on CNN and Lebanon have said that it is there land, Isreal still refuses to give it back though.

having difficulty finding any linkage on that though

ahh it seems that the Syrian goverment has said plenty of times that the farms are a part of lebanon, but will not provide the relivent documentation, probably for the reasons that you said, it gives Hezbollah an excuse to wage war.... So why wont Isreal give it back to Lebanon? Get rid of the excuse of Hezbollah.

Unless you're talking about the Golan heights which were siezed during the 6 day war when Syria was at war with Israel. Either way, hardly stolen.

Well land taken in war is still stolen. I am pretty sure that is how most of the old British empire felt....