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

tallus

I gather they meant not targetting civillian areas or civillians.
I do agree with the sentiment of your post though Frederico.

Sgt. Sensible

tallus wrote:

Most of the dead seem to be on the Lebanese side, and non combatants.

I phrased that rather badly. And most of israel's dead are troops.

Sgt. Sensible

tallus wrote:

I gather they meant not targetting civillian areas or civillians.
I do agree with the sentiment of your post though Frederico.

Well you're incorrect.

The UN wrote:

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, ...

Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

tallus

I stand corrected

Mick86

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5265934.stmLooks like the ceasefire is broken and Israel is trying to provoke Hezbollah into retaliating.

I'm surprised it has lasted this long.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Question for those who agreed with the war: What exactly has been achieved apart from an enormous amount of damage to Lebanon and over a thousand innocent men women and children dead on each side.

Israel has demonstrated it's willingness and ability to inflict massive damage on any country that attacks it. The Lebanese have more to concentrate on for the next while than attacking Israel.
It has inflicted damage and casualties on Hezbollah. The damage and casualties are difficult to confirm. Isreal claims it killed 530 Hezbollah while Hezbollah puts the figure at 80. I suspect the actual figure is about half way between the two at somewhere from 250 to 300.

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

I suspect the actual figure is about half way between the two at somewhere from 250 to 300.

I suspect you're just making stuff up for the heck of it.

Mick86

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I suspect you're just making stuff up for the heck of it.

Seems a logical conclusion to me. Hezbollah will logically understate it's losses, Israel will equally logically exagerrate the casualties they have inflicted on the enemy. Split the difference and you have a reasonable estimate in my opinion. Do you have some information with which to refute my opinion?

Frederico

Little bit of side news for you..

from the BBC..

"Israeli forces have seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister" (hamas)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5265792.stm

"Israel has detained about 30 MPs and a third of the cabinet since the capture of an Israeli soldier in June."

Does this make any logical sense to anyone? I don't think its going to achieve anything, but then again when you have Nukes and US backing you can do what you want.

edanto

Well I guess it means that when you have a war on one side of your country that everybody is looking at, you can get away with doing crazy sh1t on the other. Well, get away with it, in that some people notice, but there's not really going to be a fuss made.

Can you imagine the reaction if the story was 'Hamas have seized the deputy Prime Minster of Israel in response to the continued imprisonment without trial of thousands of Palestinians in Israel.'?

There would be all out condemnation from the Sh1te House, they'd be saying things like 'Kidnapping elected members of a government is a heinous terrorist act that must be answered by swift military action'.

Instead, they're rewriting history and saying things like:

"You've got to remember how this all began. Hezbollah declared war on Israel, in effect; it fired rockets, it crossed over a border, it kidnapped soldiers. That's an act of war. Israel responded, in terms of its self-defense."

Self defense my arse. I'm sure that Hezbollah would say that this conflict started some other time, that there was some Israeli act that the rockets were in retaliation for. But there's no two ways about it, Israel's actions escalated the conflict and caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of refugees.

Using the peculiar brand of logic displayed in the White House quote above, Israel have committed an 'act of war' against Palestine by crossing borders and kidnapping people, so Palestine would be justified in launching an all-out assault on Israel, with air strikes and 30,000 troops. You could say the same about the post-ceasefire Israeli incursion into Lebanon. How did such war hungry fruitcakes ever get into power?

Ping Chow Chi

Mick86 wrote:

Seems a logical conclusion to me. Hezbollah will logically understate it's losses, Israel will equally logically exagerrate the casualties they have inflicted on the enemy. Split the difference and you have a reasonable estimate in my opinion. Do you have some information with which to refute my opinion?

Remember that Isreal declared a couple of weeks ago that anyone in the south is a terrorist, I guess this helped them jack up their ratio. I doubt Hezbollah would distort their figure to much, as the families of a Hezbollah fighter would want them to be rememberd as a 'martyr'

freddyfreeload

After WW2, I believe the US wanted to see the end of colonial powers like the British had across the world. They encouraged Britain to release those colonies for benefits closer to home. As for the US interaction with Israel, that was far from pure support until the 1967 war.

Yes, they encouraged Britain's colonial engagement, for which Britain had already lost interest, and effectively took over management of the economic structures left behind by Britain. The US supported the Zionist project for an Israeli state from day one. You'll find it hard to find any logical reason for this support outside of the strategic economic foothold it has provided them in the region. This persists to today.

I agree, however, I don't look to the US to cause this. I look to Israel and Palestine to achieve this themselves. Once I see Palestinians no longer supporting attacks on Israel, and Israel sticking to ceasefires, then I'll believe that peace in that region is possible.

Yet every time the prospect of peace has seemed possible in the past, Israel has moved the goalpost, illegal settlements, more illegal settlements, evictions, the "security" wall, etc. Blatant and uneccesary provocations supported sometimes tacitly, sometimes implicitly by the US.

All of which could occur regardless of a conflict with Israel.

For me, this isn't about Israel as such. If the Arab nations wanted to be a power like your points above, they would do it. However, they've got their own agendas, and that is what separates them. Not Israel or the US.

I don't know you very well, but what I've read of your previous posts suggests you're not really this naive.

Don't they supply Egypt with 2 Billion in support each year?

Yep, but they're currently giving Israel about 3 trillion a year, according to Thomas R. Stauffer, June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Even the most conservative estimates show that Israel gets about 30% of US foreign aid.

However israel would still be able to continue as they are without US backing. It makes it easier, and decreases the deaths of their own people, but without that aid they managed to defeat two Arab armies. That ability is still there.

According to the CIA world factbook, Israel's Budget shows, revenues: $43.82 billion expenditures: $58.04 billion.

Remove US support and Israel's economy would clearly collapse.

We're talking about Lebanon here.

No, I'm talking about Israel's propensity for ignoring, flouting & breeching UN resolutions, they have in their time ignored, flouted and/or breeched (to my recollection) 66 UN resolutions.

Israel has... shown more faith than Hizbollah since the current ceasefire has been agreed.

Not according to the UN.

Israel has the right to defend itself.

But Israel is merely adopting the US policy of preventative retaliation here, it is the attacker, the aggressor. The plan was clearly hatched well before the kidnapping affair, and to date it's still hard to be sure the kidnapped soldiers were even on Israeli soil. The whole thing screams pretext. To be certain otherwise is the height of naivety.

Dismayed that they chose to goad Britain into attacking civilian areas, as a way of gaining support.

Goad? It is as weak for one side to claim they were goaded into attacking civilian targets as it is for a terrorist group to plant a bomb that kills civilians then calim they were only aiming for soldiers. If you plant the bomb, fire the rocket, pull the trigger, you have to be responsible for the outcome, intended or not.

I would point you to the quote you use at the end of your post. All violence is wrong. Israel did not attempt to negotiate; did not try diplomacy with Hizbollah or the Lebanese govt; did not even warn the Lebanese, they just went all out to destroy Lebanese infrastructure (which the UN defines as a war crime) and Lebanese lives.

You can use the IRA as an example if you want, however, I don't think its a similiar case.

The point is it must be wrong for a sovereign nationa state to attack another country based on the behaviour of its terrorists. By your arguement Britain could have attacked Ireland during the troubles, Spain could have attacked France during the ETA troubles, Yugoslavia had the right to attack Kosovans and Australia would be justified in bombing Malaysia. None of this makes moral or logical sense!

But Israel gets away with it for one reason: America.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? - Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

Exactly. The US, Britain and Israel are the perpetrators of today's holy crusade in the name of so-called liberty and democracy. They are adding fual to the fire, and lowering themselves to the denegrated level of the people they claim to be fighting. And they're doing it in our name!

ff

wrote most the reply and lost it. I'll post again when I lose a bit of my frustration.

freddyfreeload

Lets try this again.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Yes, they encouraged Britain's colonial engagement, for which Britain had already lost interest, and effectively took over management of the economic structures left behind by Britain.

After WW2 Britain found itself with a vastly shrinking military and political power base. As such they needed to cut off the colonies that weren't productive, however there were still colonies that were worth keeping desite the cost of manpower & investment. For the most part Britain gave up their colonies to gain political and economic concessions from the US, who saw any colonial empire as being a threat to their influence.

The US supported the Zionist project for an Israeli state from day one. You'll find it hard to find any logical reason for this support outside of the strategic economic foothold it has provided them in the region. This persists to today.

I disagree. With the exception of recognising the state of Israel, the US did very little to help them right until the late 60's. It was only at that state did they see the value of having a potential ally in the M.East, since their Arab allies weren't quite reliable. The Jewish lobby in the US also helped for this to come about.

Yet every time the prospect of peace has seemed possible in the past, Israel has moved the goalpost, illegal settlements, more illegal settlements, evictions, the "security" wall, etc. Blatant and uneccesary provocations supported sometimes tacitly, sometimes implicitly by the US.

Funny how you don't mention the attacks that continued throughout most peace processes by Hamas or other paramilitary groups. I'm not exempting Israel from its actions, spefically the resettlement prgrammes which are clearly wrong, however you fail to recognise that these factions within Palestine have done as much as Israel to block peace.

I don't know you very well, but what I've read of your previous posts suggests you're not really this naive.

You comments on naivity doesn't change anything. The Arab nations keep themselves apart due to their own history, and political intrigues. If anything israel provide them with a focus to target and to combine against, which have been the only times in the last century that they combined to do anything. The Arab nations and their respective leaders haven't made the steps to create an stronger Arab power. Blaming it on Israel and the US doesn't stop their involvement in this, and they could have done this at any stage since the British left the M.East.

Remove US support and Israel's economy would clearly collapse.

Removed immediately surely. Removed with notice, unlikely. They just wouldn't be able to operate such a level of military, and the Arab countries would be, once more, likely to combine for an attack on them.

No, I'm talking about Israel's propensity for ignoring, flouting & breeching UN resolutions, they have in their time ignored, flouted and/or breeched (to my recollection) 66 UN resolutions.

And again I'm saying its irrevelent. This is about Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah. Not about all the resolutions that Israel has ignored over the decades. During the history between Israel, Lebanon, & Hezbollah, Israel has obeyed the UN alot more often than Hezbollah has. Afterall Hezbollah never once disbanded, or even attempted to do so. At least Israel actually withdrew from lebanon per the UN requirements.

Not according to the UN.

Strange that the UN don't find Hezbollah not disarming (per the ceasefire requirements, or perhaps I was dreaming when i read that bit), or stopping the movement of arms over the borders worrying. Since you like conspiracy theories, perhaps chew on that one for a bit.

But Israel is merely adopting the US policy of preventative retaliation here, it is the attacker, the aggressor. The plan was clearly hatched well before the kidnapping affair, and to date it's still hard to be sure the kidnapped soldiers were even on Israeli soil. The whole thing screams pretext. To be certain otherwise is the height of naivety.

Pure speculation. Also nice attempt to label anyone that disagrees with you as being naive.

As I've said before plans are made for any likely possibility of threat. Thats reasonable, and any country that doesn't prepare for the worst is foolish. Especially since Hezbollah haven't stopped their attacks on Israel, and have made a number of attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers in the past few months.

For someone who talks about naivity, you jump at the conspiracy Ideas rather quickly.

Goad? It is as weak for one side to claim they were goaded into attacking civilian targets as it is for a terrorist group to plant a bomb that kills civilians then calim they were only aiming for soldiers. If you plant the bomb, fire the rocket, pull the trigger, you have to be responsible for the outcome, intended or not.

I'd agree with you. If you leveled the same accusations at Hezbollah. After all they are members of the Lebanese government. Surely that gives them some responsibility for placing their attacks in civilian areas?

But I don't & haven't supported the air campaign. It was the wrong response from the beginning.

I would point you to the quote you use at the end of your post. All violence is wrong.

Actually I use the quote in regards to enforced democracy. I must change that signature.

Israel did not attempt to negotiate; did not try diplomacy with Hizbollah or the Lebanese govt;

Lol. I find this interesting. Negotiate with Hezbollah? How? With what? How do you negotiate with an organisation that refuses to stop their war, despite leaving their lands?

As for the Lebanese government, I would have been interested if they had proposed a UN force to expell Hezbollah from their country, since their own army was unable/unwilling to do so. And yet their government allowed this group to join their government, and to build bunkers in their towns. I don't have alot of sympathy for the Lebanese government (I have alot for the Lebanese people themselves) since they let Hezbollah gain a foothold in Lebanon, let them exploit their country to make attacks on Israel, and have done very little to stop Hezbollah in any meaningful way. Even to the point of claiming that Hezbollah are the best people to fight Israel....

did not even warn the Lebanese, they just went all out to destroy Lebanese infrastructure (which the UN defines as a war crime) and Lebanese lives.

We've gone through this before, but I'll say it again. The leaflets and radio transmissions warning of attacks was an effort. Not much of one, but more than they had to do. I don't approve of the use of air power against cities, since there's too many chances for civilians to die, as shown.

As for the infrastructure, pretty standard procedure prior to invading a country, which oddly enough never occured. Haven't really figured that part out yet.

The point is it must be wrong for a sovereign nationa state to attack another country based on the behaviour of its terrorists. By your arguement Britain could have attacked Ireland during the troubles, Spain could have attacked France during the ETA troubles, Yugoslavia had the right to attack Kosovans and Australia would be justified in bombing Malaysia. None of this makes moral or logical sense!

Lets take the IRA as an example. In the Republic the Gardai operated in hand with British intelligence to limit the effectiveness of the IRA. Members were arrested, and weapon caches were siezed over the decades. Irish troops on the borders aided the British and there was a great deal of co-operation against IRA activities. After IRA attacks condemnation came from our government, and in many cases from the Irish people ourselves. Same with each of the examples you made above. The respective countries governments have operated to block the terrorists from making attacks, and interrupted their plans on numerous occasions.

However in Lebanon, Hezbollah run scot free. They're able to build bunkers in their towns, walk around the streets armed, set up fixed emplacements etc. We haven't seen co-operation between the Israeli & Lebanese military or police to block Hezbollah. We haven't seen the Lebanese government releasing intelligence to israel. And we haven't seen the Lebanese government publicly condemning Hezbollah and their actions both in Lebanon and Israel.

It makes no moral or logical sense?

But Israel gets away with it for one reason: America.

In part, America, yes. Also history shows that Israel is capable of defeating invading armies against the odds. It also shows that Israel retalitates heavily against anyone that attacks it. Israel isn't a nation many countries want to tackle.

Exactly. The US, Britain and Israel are the perpetrators of today's holy crusade in the name of so-called liberty and democracy. They are adding fual to the fire, and lowering themselves to the denegrated level of the people they claim to be fighting. And they're doing it in our name!
ff

We're not exactly objecting very strongly. Our government supports the US in Iraq, and we allow them to do so. If people felt strongly about it, the government wouldn't be able to do it.

We complain about our government, maybe a few people go on a march, but very little actually is changed. The same parties represent us each election, and the same decisions are made. If people were really bothered the system would have been shaken up by now. You talk about the Arab nations not coming together to form a power force, whats stopping the Irish people from doing the same?

The UN made a forceful decision in regards to Israel & Lebanon pushing for a ceasefire. What did the UN do when they got their ceasefire? 50 French engineers, with 150? french troops to follow (Under a separate command I think). Where has the huge support for this ceasefire gone to? When thousands are needed to separate two warring groups, roughly 200 are sent. (From what I gather without proper rules of engagement, either)

The truth is that countries and people are happy to complain about actions in the Middle East and other places, just like in the UN or here on boards, but when it actually comes to do anything, its quite halfhearted.

Fuel to the fire? Do you think this half-hearted response will do anything to make Israel trust that the UN are capable of maintining a ceasefire or preventing Hezbollah from attacking>? We've seen them cross the border and skirmish with Hezbollah over weapons apparently crossing the border. Would Israel be sending its troops if it believed that the UN were willing or even capable of stopping Hezbollah when they failed to do so before?

As for Hezbollah do you think they believe that the UN has the dedication to prevent their attacks on Israel, while preventing Israel was responding>?

Both parties will only respect strength. Military strength, and the dedication to follow it through. So far the UN hasn't shown this, and its likely the fires will be fanned quite a bit because of this failure to act.

Mick86

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

Remember that Isreal declared a couple of weeks ago that anyone in the south is a terrorist, I guess this helped them jack up their ratio.

I don't accept the Israeli figure of 530. Nor do I accept the Hezbollah figure which seems ridiculously low. As I said I halved the difference between the Hezbollah and Israeli figures.

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

I doubt Hezbollah would distort their figure to much, as the families of a Hezbollah fighter would want them to be rememberd as a 'martyr'

And somebody is going to go around counting the number of martyrs?

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Lets take the IRA as an example...

IRA isn't really a good example as at one time the Irish government turned a blind eye to what was going on. Sure wasn't Haughey himself charged with gunrunning for the IRA one time?

Lebanon also said they would open a can of whupass on anyone who tried to break the ceasefire after Israels raid (Israel excluded).

To me it looks like Israel is clearly trying to provoke the region into an all out war so that the US can come in.

Frederico

Israel sent in a special forces unit dressed up in Lebanese uniforms to apparently snatch a Hezbollah leader.

Israel have kidnapped another democratically elected hamas minister.

Does anyone here actually believe this will somehow STOP the circle of hate and violence in this region?

This is not defense, this is sticking your thumb into Arab eye over and over again, saying "what you gonna do, huh huh?". Simple as that really.

freddyfreeload

[The US supported the Zionist project for an Israeli state from day one].

I disagree. With the exception of recognising the state of Israel, the US did very little to help them right until the late 60's.

Well... Wilson helped draft and then endorsed the Balfour declaration in 1917. Then President Truman gave the Zionist project as his full support in 1945, putting pressure the British to allow their entrance into Palestine. In 1947, the US lobbied for partition, handing over half of Palestine so a few hundred thousand illegal Jewish immigrants could displaced around 3 mill Palestinians. And when Israel was declared in '48, the US was the first to offcially recognise the new state. It took them a full eleven minutes I believe.

... but perhaps that doesn't constitute support.

Oh, and then there's the small matter of US$134trillion since 1949.

Funny how you don't mention the attacks that continued throughout most peace processes by Hamas or other paramilitary groups.

Yes, terrorists are bad guys, agreed. And I do recognise the destabalising role they've played. But history has shown, on repeated occasions, that peace deals have been knocked off course by Israel's ethnic cleansing policies and Hamas's subsequent responses. And when frankly, the immoral behaviour of terrirists should not immediately cause a democratic govt to abandon its comittments to peace. The "they started it" line, means they lower themselves to the same level.

Removed with notice, unlikely. They just wouldn't be able to operate such a level of military

Nor an ecomomy. Military and economic aid are broadly on a par.

This is about Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah. Not about all the resolutions that Israel has ignored over the decades.

True - but what goes around comes around, and this incident is not taking place in a vacuum.

Israel has obeyed the UN alot more often than Hezbollah has.

You could be right, though I doubt it - hate to do this, but can you provide some figures?

Afterall Hezbollah never once disbanded, or even attempted to do so. At least Israel actually withdrew from lebanon per the UN requirements.

True, but both the US and Israel got to view and amend the text of the res. Lebanon didn't. Hence the problems of "when is a withdrawal not a withdrawl?" Answer, when one of the parties to a bilateral process feels it's been excluded from the process and the withdrawl has taken place on terms defined by the other side.

Strange that the UN don't find Hezbollah not disarming or stopping the movement of arms over the borders worrying.

I believe they do find it worrying. I think they have expressed their concerns. It's just hard to disband an organisation that is helping to prop up a fragile democracy.

Since you like conspiracy theories, perhaps chew on that one for a bit.

I don't like conspiracy theories. Not one bit.

Pure speculation. Also nice attempt to label anyone that disagrees with you as being naive.

It's not my speculation. I'm talking about the reports of numerous journalists who've written about this likelihood, Seymour Hersh in particular. And I didn't say anyone who disagrees with me is naive. I said anyone who is certain that it was not pre-planned, is being naive. At best it's a moot point, and I think we should all keep an open mind, after all, it's not as if the US doesn't have a history of leaping on/creating a pretext for war.

For someone who talks about naivity, you jump at the conspiracy Ideas rather quickly.

Again, I loath conspiracy theories/theorists, and I haven't mentioned one.

I'd agree with you. If you leveled the same accusations at Hezbollah

.

I do.

Actually I use the quote in regards to enforced democracy. I must change that signature.

No need. It's a great quote. I agree with it completely, I'm just not sure if you do.

Negotiate with Hezbollah? How? With what?

I said they didn't even try.

As for the Lebanese government, I would have been interested if they had proposed a UN force to expell Hezbollah from their country, since their own army was unable/unwilling to do so.

Realpolitik 101 - expelling Hizbollah from Lebanon (and govt)! Yeah, great stabalising idea!

Again, they could/should have tried, instead of shooting first.

And yet their government allowed this group to join their government

Did they have a choice? Perhaps chaos would have been better?

Build bunkers in their towns.

Do you actually have any evidence of this or are you simply swallowing the rhetoric unquestioned?

I don't have alot of sympathy for the Lebanese government ... Even to the point of claiming that Hezbollah are the best people to fight Israel....

Sadly, since Israel's attack has backfired so spectacularly, this is exactly the case. Hizbollah defeated an army with a vastly superior firepower. They are now seen as heroes by people who would probably not have had any time for them before.

The leaflets and radio transmissions warning of attacks was an effort. Not much of one, but more than they had to do.

US-style lip service. How long before they dish out messages like... "Good morning people of [insert muslim country here] the carpet bombing you're about to experience is brought to you by [insert burger franchise here]. Oh yes, we're lovin' it!"

As for the infrastructure, pretty standard procedure prior to invading a country.

Standard proceedure now, since Iraq wars I and II, but still illegal.

which oddly enough never occured. Haven't really figured that part out yet

Tried, but got their asses kicked, didn't they.

Lets take the IRA as an example. In the Republic the Gardai operated in hand with British intelligence to limit the effectiveness of the IRA.

Hand in hand? Pull the other one! While the Garda may have had no time for the IRA, the RUC and RIR were constantly berating the Garda during the troubles for hindering security. Just like the Isrealis berate the Lebanese.

Members were arrested, and weapon caches were siezed over the decades.

Not very many. Blind eyes were also turned.

Irish troops on the borders aided the British and there was a great deal of co-operation against IRA activities.

Aided the British? Were worried about being invaded by the British at one point, considered invading the North at another, ran reception camps for refugees from the North, and were implicated in trying to smuggle arms to the IRA. Yep, they were paragons of co-operation.

After IRA attacks condemnation came from our government, and in many cases from the Irish people ourselves. Same with each of the examples you made above. The respective countries governments have operated to block the terrorists from making attacks, and interrupted their plans on numerous occasions.

These are points of degree, not principle. The point is the principle. The US have set a precedent, Israel have followed, now it's open season. One man's liberator is always another's terrorist. But now, with government's claiming carte blanche to attack foreign nations based on the behaviour of a handful of terrorists, the world is hardly a safer place as a result.

However in Lebanon, Hezbollah run scot free.

They're not a prescribed organisation. They are paramilitaries. Like the Israeli Militia. Who build and occupy illegal settlements, military garrisons in civilian areas, walk around the streets armed, set up road blocks etc...

Israel isn't a nation many countries want to tackle.

Perhaps this should read "wasn't". They've hardly done themselves any favours here. I can imagine the whispers circulating round the Arab world: "Perhaps they can be defeated after all..."

We're not exactly objecting very strongly.

Doing my best!

Our government supports the US in Iraq, and we allow them to do so. If people felt strongly about it, the government wouldn't be able to do it.

I think most people do, but their too busy working, paying off mortgages and eating takeout to fly all the way to the Leb / Iraq / Iran and become human sheilds.

maybe a few people go on a march, but very little actually is changed.

Again, people doing their best. What do you suggest instead?

...TBC

freddyfreeload

What did the UN do when they got their ceasefire? 50 French engineers, with 150? french troops to follow? When thousands are needed to separate two warring groups, roughly 200 are sent.

Yeah, it's a shambles. What's the alternative. No UN and a free-for-all for power economies?

Fuel to the fire? Do you think this half-hearted response will do anything to make Israel trust that the UN are capable of maintining a ceasefire or preventing Hezbollah from attacking>? We've seen them cross the border and skirmish with Hezbollah over weapons apparently crossing the border. Would Israel be sending its troops if it believed that the UN were willing or even capable of stopping Hezbollah when they failed to do so before?

I think the process that is now taking place is preferable to violence. It would have been better had Israel not attacked. Even the majority of Israelis now accept (recent Ha'Aretz poll) that Israel is less secure than it was 5 weeks ago.

As for Hezbollah do you think they believe that the UN has the dedication to prevent their attacks on Israel, while preventing Israel was responding>?

I suspect that under the ceasefire, Hizbollah will not attack unless attacked first, and possibly not even then.

Both parties will only respect strength. Military strength, and the dedication to follow it through. So far the UN hasn't shown this, and its likely the fires will be fanned quite a bit because of this failure to act.

Your appetite for military strength and follow-through seems at odds with the quotes you like to round off with...

War is not its own end, except in some catastrophic slide into absolute damnation. It's peace that's wanted. Some better peace than the one you started with.

Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Vor Game", 1990

Which is not achievable via force, something that's been understood by the wise for centuries.

[PHP]To rape, to murder, to pillage: these thing they misname empire, and where they create a wasteland, they call it peace.." Tacitus, of the Roman Legions [/PHP]

...though he could easily be talking about Operation Enduring Freedom.

Frederico

This makes some sobering reading

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5270118.stm

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

IRA isn't really a good example as at one time the Irish government turned a blind eye to what was going on. Sure wasn't Haughey himself charged with gunrunning for the IRA one time?

Actually, I didn't introduce the IRA as an example. The other poster did.

And the Irish government didn't ignore co-operating with the British government to the point that they hindered British efforts to combat paramilitary actions. Nor did the Irish government claim that they were too weak to deal with the IRA within our own borders.

The other poster introduced the IRA and a number of other paramilitary groups as examples, and yet in each case the respective governments of the nations attempted to combat their presence. We haven't seen any of that in Lebanon. At least I haven't been able to find any condemnations, siezures, or attacks by Lebanon on them.

Lebanon also said they would open a can of whupass on anyone who tried to break the ceasefire after Israels raid (Israel excluded).

Glad to hear it. If only I believed they were capable of following up on it. But I'm curious to see if they'll disarm Hezbollah per the ceasefire requirements.

To me it looks like Israel is clearly trying to provoke the region into an all out war so that the US can come in.

To me, it looks like people have focused on Israel as once again being the bad country, closing out the actions by lebanon and Hezbollah that have lead to this point. So much so that they're willing to ignore Hezbollahs continued presence in the area, and possibly its rearming process.

If Israel wanted to provoke the region, they could do it alot quicker than sending in a single raid. I admit that this raid should have been avoided (since I don't believe even if it was successful, it would have mattered much in the broad scheme of things).

Its strange that you don't consider (or rather mention) Hezbolloh's refusal to disarm, which is a clear violation of the ceasefire..... Its almost as if this ceasefire should only be enforced on Israel, and doesn't have any impact on Hezbollah.

Actually I would consider the UN's lacklustre response to be the biggest factor towards provoking the conflict to restart. The lack of commitment only encourages the belief for both Israel and Hezbollah that the only ones that can end this conflict are they themselves. Also the draining of support from the international community & the UN for the disarnament of Hezbollah only places Israel in the position of going back to the old way of things (being repeatedly attacked across the border), or going back to war again with a "better" plan.

Frederico wrote:

Israel sent in a special forces unit dressed up in Lebanese uniforms to apparently snatch a Hezbollah leader.

Interesting that you prefer the Hezbollah opinion on the raid, than what Israel has released, since they claim it was against weapons being transfered across the border (which is fully possible).

Israel have kidnapped another democratically elected hamas minister.

Irrelevent. This is about Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah.

Does anyone here actually believe this will somehow STOP the circle of hate and violence in this region?

Nope. I don't. However I don't think anything will stop the circle of hate and violence in the region, except time & progressive ceasefires.

This is not defense, this is sticking your thumb into Arab eye over and over again, saying "what you gonna do, huh huh?". Simple as that really.

Really? Simple as that? Interesting. So the cycle of violence that continues in the M.East solely rests on the shoulders of Israel, without the involvement of Hezbollah or any of the other participants?

this is sticking your thumb into Arab eye over and over again, saying "what you gonna do, huh huh?". - I find this interesting because when Hezbollah made its kidnapping attempts, and the rockets started being launched, there was a reaction by many posters here that Israel should sit back and take it.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Actually, I didn't introduce the IRA as an example. The other poster did.

Regardless of who introduced it your observations where wrong.

And the Irish government didn't ignore co-operating with the British government to the point that they hindered British efforts to combat paramilitary actions.

Yes they did on numerous occasions. One such easy example was if the IRA where told they were about to be picked up they would commit a simple crime in Ireland. Once arrested they wouldn't be extridited to England.

Of course that law has changed since but just an example of the Irish government throwing a spanner into the British works as it where.

Glad to hear it. If only I believed they were capable of following up on it. But I'm curious to see if they'll disarm Hezbollah per the ceasefire requirements.

Look they aren't the ones who have broken the ceasefire. Its a bit rich to ask them to disarm when the other side is still attacking.

To me, it looks like people have focused on Israel as once again being the bad country, closing out the actions by lebanon and Hezbollah that have lead to this point.

Meh, here we go again with timeline ignoring.

If Israel wanted to provoke the region, they could do it alot quicker than sending in a single raid.

The point is to provoke the region to the point where you look like the injured party.

Hezbolloh's refusal to disarm, which is a clear violation of the ceasefire.....

Actually if you bothered to read the resolution you would see the Disarming of Hezbollah is point 8 on the steps of a 19 step plan. We aren't even at step 2 yet. Israel have already broken the first point of the resolution.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

Well... Wilson helped draft and then endorsed the Balfour declaration in 1917. Then President Truman gave the Zionist project as his full support in 1945, putting pressure the British to allow their entrance into Palestine. In 1947, the US lobbied for partition, handing over half of Palestine so a few hundred thousand illegal Jewish immigrants could displaced around 3 mill Palestinians. And when Israel was declared in '48, the US was the first to offcially recognise the new state. It took them a full eleven minutes I believe.... but perhaps that doesn't constitute support.

You're provided nothing that I didn't acknowledge. The US recognised the state of Israel. Oddly enough I'm pretty sure they also acknowledged the state of Palestine aswell.

Oh, and then there's the small matter of US$134trillion since 1949.

Can I have some details of this?

Yes, terrorists are bad guys, agreed. And I do recognise the destabalising role they've played. But history has shown, on repeated occasions, that peace deals have been knocked off course by Israel's ethnic cleansing policies and Hamas's subsequent responses. And when frankly, the immoral behaviour of terrirists should not immediately cause a democratic govt to abandon its comittments to peace. The "they started it" line, means they lower themselves to the same level.

hah. So its never hamas attacks and Israel responds? Strange that. History has shown that Israel retalitates heavily against any attack made on their soil. Any attacker knows that Israel will respond if attacked, and that's used quite well. But then i doubt there's any other real option, since the attacks aren't going to stop anyway. If Israel was to lower themselves to the same level as Hamas then we'd see even less support for them than we already do.

Nor an ecomomy. Military and economic aid are broadly on a par.

I disagree that their economy would collapse. I didn't say that they wouldn't have difficult times ahead. Its your suggestion that if the US withdrew support they would crumble.

True - but what goes around comes around, and this incident is not taking place in a vacuum.

Unfortuently none of them are. Thats part of the problem. Both sides can refer back over decades of trouble.

You could be right, though I doubt it - hate to do this, but can you provide some figures?

Actually I'll provide one VERY clear example. Resolution 1559. Israel was confirmed as having withdrawn behind the Blue line authorised by the UN. Per this resolution Hezzbollah was to disband along with all other militia's. It didn't.

I'll spend some time later looking at the total number of resolutions about Lebanon & israel, and I'll see if I can get a specific number for you.

True, but both the US and Israel got to view and amend the text of the res. Lebanon didn't. Hence the problems of "when is a withdrawal not a withdrawl?" Answer, when one of the parties to a bilateral process feels it's been excluded from the process and the withdrawl has taken place on terms defined by the other side.

True, but? But nothing. The requirement was there for Hezzbollah to disarm. It was one of the core areas of the resolutions. Hezzbollah didn't disarm, however israel is held accountable for it. They didn't start the process, and regroup once Israel broke the treaty. They didn't even give the resolution a chance.

I believe they do find it worrying. I think they have expressed their concerns. It's just hard to disband an organisation that is helping to prop up a fragile democracy.

A paramilitary group that encourages its neighbour to launch an invasion is propping up a fragile democracy? You've got to be joking. The biggest threat to Lebanon is hezbollah simply because they won't allow peace to occur. Israel hasn't been launching attacks on Lebanese troops or lebanese bases over the last few years. they've been either attacking Hezbollah or responding to Hezzbollah attacks. How the hell is Hezbollah proping up the country?

It's not my speculation. I'm talking about the reports of numerous journalists who've written about this likelihood, Seymour Hersh in particular. And I didn't say anyone who disagrees with me is naive. I said anyone who is certain that it was not pre-planned, is being naive. At best it's a moot point, and I think we should all keep an open mind, after all, it's not as if the US doesn't have a history of leaping on/creating a pretext for war.

Its still speculation. But based upon previous attacks on Israeli forces, its reasonable that they would have a plan in place for this eventuality.

Klaz wrote:

I'd agree with you. If you leveled the same accusations at Hezbollah

I do.

Do you? I haven't seen much sign of it so far, except in response to my comments, and even then a but or however follows. Don't get me wrong, I do the same. I focus on Hezbollah or Lebanon in this conflict, making very little reference to israeli actions (because they're so well documentated here by other posters).

No need. It's a great quote. I agree with it completely, I'm just not sure if you do.

As with everything its open to intrepretation. I agree with parts of it. Originally I agreed with all of it, when I started using it over a year and a bit ago. however my opinions have been altered with time quite a bit.

I said they didn't even try.

And I'm asking you... How? With what?

Realpolitik 101 - expelling Hizbollah from Lebanon (and govt)! Yeah, great stabalising idea!

Well you believe that Hezbollah are a stabilizing influence. Personally I think they jepordize the Lebanese more than any other factor. They've instigated this most current of conflicts, and while they themselves have increased in power as a result of it, it hasn't helped Lebanon all that much.

Again, they could/should have tried, instead of shooting first.

Or Hezbollah could have tried negotiating before kidnapping and launching rockets....

klaz wrote:

And yet their government allowed this group to join their government

Did they have a choice? Perhaps chaos would have been better?

Maybe not. But bear some responsibility for your actions. If you're going to allow them to join the legal government, you bear some responsibility for their actions that follow. Why is it that the UN is only considered after a conflict has started? Why didn't the Lebanese government request UN aid to help carry out Resolution 1559?

Do you actually have any evidence of this or are you simply swallowing the rhetoric unquestioned?

Well, do you deny that bunkers were built in their towns?

The fighting, they said, showed the guerrillas had used the six years since Israel withdrew from Lebanon to build bunkers, stockpile weapons and study tactics. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E913629-D294-4639-B36E-CCAFA282D82A.htm

Could they have built reinforced bunkers in quantity without the knowledge of the local people, and the government? I doubt it.

Sadly, since Israel's attack has backfired so spectacularly, this is exactly the case. Hizbollah defeated an army with a vastly superior firepower. They are now seen as heroes by people who would probably not have had any time for them before.

They survived. I wouldn't say they defeated the IDF in any major way. Israel lost due to its focus on the air campaign, and the number of civilian casualties.

US-style lip service. How long before they dish out messages like... "Good morning people of [insert muslim country here] the carpet bombing you're about to experience is brought to you by [insert burger franchise here]. Oh yes, we're lovin' it!"

Show me one example of carpet bombing of a Lebanese town by Israel.

Standard proceedure now, since Iraq wars I and II, but still illegal.

Fine, Illegal. I think purposely fighting from civilian areas is also illegal.

Tried, but got their asses kicked, didn't they.

Really? Strange cause they didn't launch a fully prepared invasion. More of a half-arsed big raid.

Hand in hand? Pull the other one! While the Garda may have had no time for the IRA, the RUC and RIR were constantly berating the Garda during the troubles for hindering security. Just like the Isrealis berate the Lebanese.

Maybe so but steps were made to capture both members of the IRA (members of an illegal organisation), and prevent the movement of weapons across the border. This was achieved through cooperation between the Irish and British governments.

Not very many. Blind eyes were also turned.

Indeed they were. However it doesn't change the fact that the IRA weren't allowed free reign in Ireland, whereas Hezzbollah do have such in Lebanon.

Aided the British? Were worried about being invaded by the British at one point, considered invading the North at another, ran reception camps for refugees from the North, and were implicated in trying to smuggle arms to the IRA. Yep, they were paragons of co-operation.

At what time in the history of the republic? Are you spreading yourself across 5 or 6 decades of history?

These are points of degree, not principle. The point is the principle. The US have set a precedent, Israel have followed, now it's open season. One man's liberator is always another's terrorist. But now, with government's claiming carte blanche to attack foreign nations based on the behaviour of a handful of terrorists, the world is hardly a safer place as a result.

Lebanon has allowed a terrorist group carte blanche to operate within their country, without deploying their military to stop them. You really believe that Israel should sit on its arse, and allow itself to be attacked repeatedly? This isn't about the US setting precedent, since thats a different situation entirely. Lebanon was being used for a base of attacks on Israeli troops, and it was one of those attacks that launched this current conflict.

They're not a prescribed organisation. They are paramilitaries. Like the Israeli Militia. Who build and occupy illegal settlements, military garrisons in civilian areas, walk around the streets armed, set up road blocks etc...

Yes, but Hezzbolah also take on the security of lebanon, crossing the border to attack Israeli targets. This is a job for the legal entity of the Army, should the government of Lebanon decide. Not some council external of the elected government.

Perhaps this should read "wasn't". They've hardly done themselves any favours here. I can imagine the whispers circulating round the Arab world: "Perhaps they can be defeated after all..."

perhaps so, but I doubt it. they'll continue to kick ass in a conventional war. Only this guerilla style warfare is effective.

** I'll reply more once I'm finished work.

Mick86

Hobbes wrote:

Look they aren't the ones who have broken the ceasefire. Its a bit rich to ask them to disarm when the other side is still attacking.....

Actually if you bothered to read the resolution you would see the Disarming of Hezbollah is point 8 on the steps of a 19 step plan....

You are treating Hezbollah as a legitimate military force which it isn't and ignoring Resolution 1559 which was passed two years ago and called for the disbandment of all Lebanese militias. Had Lebanon complied with 1559 the current situation would not have been arrived at.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Regardless of who introduced it your observations where wrong.

Prove it rather than just saying it. So no IRA were ever arrested and given sentencing by Irish courts?

Yes they did on numerous occasions. One such easy example was if the IRA where told they were about to be picked up they would commit a simple crime in Ireland. Once arrested they wouldn't be extridited to England.

Of course that law has changed since but just an example of the Irish government throwing a spanner into the British works as it where.

Fair enough, and I'm not denying it. I'll ask you has there been any cooperation between the Irish Military, the Gardai, the British military, and teh British intelligence communities at any time over the last 20 years, which lead to the siezure of either members of the IRA or weapons?

Look they aren't the ones who have broken the ceasefire. Its a bit rich to ask them to disarm when the other side is still attacking.

Read the requirements of the ceasefire. It stipluates that Hezbollah would disarm. This was agreed before the ceasefire was approved. Only after the ceasefire was made, and Israel started obeying in good faith, did Hezbollah refuse to disarm....

Meh, here we go again with timeline ignoring.

The kidnapping did not occur before israel launched its retalitation? Prove it.

The point is to provoke the region to the point where you look like the injured party.

Well, hezbollah have achieved quite well there.

Actually if you bothered to read the resolution you would see the Disarming of Hezbollah is point 8 on the steps of a 19 step plan. We aren't even at step 2 yet. Israel have already broken the first point of the resolution.

Ah. So you have read the resolution.

And Hezbollah have publicly stated that they would not disarm or disband (which was said before the Israeli raid). Hardly peaceful talk.

Frederico

I think now people are viewing the Israeli's as bad guys and the Hezbollah as the good guys, more so than ever.. Hezbollah resistance fighters, instead of terrorists, successful ones at that. Plus Hezbollah are providing help to the citizens in the south. I think to the average Lebanese person their pride would obviously be dented by Israel invading their homeland again (regardless if Hezbollah is to blame) however Hezbollah stood and fought, alot of these fighters are Lebanese.. they didn't seem to be acting like cowardly terrorists(tm).

I feel so much US and Israeli propaganda has backfired in this war.

Regardless of history and events, I think many will see this as a David and Goliath story, plays very well into Hezbollah propaganda and I only see them expanding and ranks swelling much bigger than before, unless they are disarmed which I doubt will ever happen, not when they have the backing of alot of Lebanese civilians (not all I know, esp. in the North) I think they have benefitted much from this and have become a huge source of Arab pride.

Sgt. Sensible

AFP said the men [israeli commandos] were dressed in Lebanese army uniforms. The unit was said to have been intercepted by Hezbollah guerrillas who questioned the men briefly. But when they responded in Arabic, the guerrillas were said to have become suspicious of their identity because of the men's accents.

Dressing up as the enemy is naughty.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

I'll ask you has there been any cooperation between the Irish Military, the Gardai, the British military, and teh British intelligence communities at any time over the last 20 years, which lead to the siezure of either members of the IRA or weapons?

Not up to me to find that information. Thats up to you (as its your claim).

And Hezbollah have publicly stated that they would not disarm or disband (which was said before the Israeli raid). Hardly peaceful talk.

Can you link to the actual public statement? I have problems finding it. While your at it can you find the part in the resolution that clearly states that Hezbollah had to disarm before any of the other points? Having trouble finding that too.

The kidnapping did not occur before israel launched its retalitation? Prove it.
...
Well, hezbollah have achieved quite well there.

There is already numerous posts in this thread explaining why you are wrong. This didn't all just start from the kidnapping.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

To me, it looks like people have focused on Israel as once again being the bad country

So being a warmonger nation armed to the teeth and spoiling for a scrap is now a "good country" thing?

How is it not as much of a danger to peace in the region as Iran or Syria are?

The govt. can be voted out but that won't help if we have a situation where the Israeli populace want to see their various Arab enemies wiped out, will it?