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

Mick86

fly_agaric wrote:

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?

When the warmongers are Lebanese, Iranian or Syrian they are heroic "resistance" fighters when they are Israeli they become bloody-minded baby killers.

When Iranians and Arabs call for the eradication of the Jews they are "misquoted" or mistranslated. No such problem when the "Israeli populace" makes genocidal remarks.

Double standards, you have to love them.

fly_agaric

Mick86 wrote:

Double standards, you have to love them.

No you don't.

By "Arab enemies" I was referring to Hezbollah, the Iranian [I know - not arabs...but Israel's enemy too;)] and Syrian regimes, and the increasingly - the Palestinians.

The Israeli populace seemed to be pretty gung ho for their govt.'s decision to try to finally solve their Hezbollah problem with this war - hence my reference to an Israeli populace wanting to see their army "wipe out" their enemies.

The last of these would involve more of an ethnic cleansing than a genocide I suppose.

Hobbes

Mick86 wrote:

When the warmongers are Lebanese, Iranian or Syrian they are heroic "resistance" fighters when they are Israeli they become bloody-minded baby killers.

When Iranians and Arabs call for the eradication of the Jews they are "misquoted" or mistranslated. No such problem when the "Israeli populace" makes genocidal remarks.

Double standards, you have to love them.

No one is saying that the other side are Angels. Although Lebanese != Hezbollah (Hezbolah == Lebanese).

However Israel supposedly prides itself on being a Western Culture type nation. Are they acting how you as a member of a Western Nation should act? TBH it would be easier if we just labelled them a crazy middle eastern country with the rest of them.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

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

Actually its you thats objecting to my points, so I would assume that you would need to disprove it. However, I'll humor you.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,,1015823,00.html - Regarding cooperation of the Gardai with British police forces against the Real IRA, with references to connections made ten years prior.

As for an example, weren't Kevin Walsh, Pearse McCauley, Jerry Sheehy, and Michael O'Neill all convicted of manslaughter within an Irish court for their involvement in an operation controlled by the IRA?

Can you link to the actual public statement? I have problems finding it.

Oddly enough I can't find a direct link stating what Hezbollah have said exactly. But the following are examples of the media reports on the subject (which I had no trouble finding at all):

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004530346
Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - As both Beirut and Jerusalem officially signed on to a UN-brokered ceasefire, Hezbollah signaled Sunday that it has no intention of honoring its obligation to disarm under the terms of Security Council Resolution 1701.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2312173,00.html
“Hezbollah changed its position, going back on what was agreed unanimously during Saturday’s Cabinet meeting to support the ceasefire proposals and immediately deploy the Lebanese Army,” the senior Lebanese official said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081500322.html
BEIRUT, Aug. 15 -- Hezbollah refused to disarm and withdraw its fighters from the battle-scarred hills along the border with Israel on Tuesday, threatening to delay deployment of the Lebanese army and endangering a fragile cease-fire.

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 Resolution calls for "full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701

3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution/1701

Hezbollah armed, and operating independently outside of the designated zone would consitute an authority other than the Lebanese government, unless you believe that their attacks on Israel to date have been in the full agreement of the Lebanese government, and that the Lebanese government have complete control over Hezbollah....?:rolleyes:

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

Strange. Even aljazeera agrees with me:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35772526-C1A8-4599-868C-E513C4F29C9B.htm
(scroll to the bottom)
July 12 - Hezbollah fighters seize two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. Three Israeli soldiers are also killed in the attack. It says it will release them if Israel frees Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict.

Or http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1835579,00.html
July 12
Hizbullah guerrillas capture two Israeli soldiers during fighting close to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

I could go on, since all the sites I viewed had this sort of timeline about the conflict.

Interesting that its been proven otherwise here, whereas all the media that you use to refer, pointing out Israel's crimes, don't have this proof.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

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

No, but this focus that many posters here on boards have about only commenting on Israel, and what it does wrong. Its very rare that those same people make any negative reference to Israel's opponents or post anything positive about Israel. Israel's opponents are painted in the best light always defending themselves, never ever starting any conflicts.

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

Never said that they aren't. They're a threat to peace by existing, simply because the nations & factions that seek to defeat/destroy Israel won't stop.

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?

Can't really see your reference. The Israeli government, the Lebanese government, our government? what are you refering to?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

However Israel supposedly prides itself on being a Western Culture type nation. Are they acting how you as a member of a Western Nation should act? TBH it would be easier if we just labelled them a crazy middle eastern country with the rest of them.

So why don't you?

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Never said that they aren't. They're a threat to peace by existing, simply because the nations & factions that seek to defeat/destroy Israel won't stop.

Israel has the right to exist so if that is the only thing making it a threat to peace in the region there is not much to be done, is there?
However Israel's actions would seem to me to play a big part in making them a threat to peace.
Anyway, I hope someday you are proved wrong about the "not stopping" part.

Deleted User wrote:

Can't really see your reference. The Israeli government, the Lebanese government, our government? what are you refering to?

Sorry - the Israeli govt.
In theory it should be less of a danger than a country where despots/mullahs can decide on their own bat to go start a war no matter what their people may feel about it - but if the public happen to be pro-war then a democracy can be just as dangerous [e.g. US public after Sep. 11th - generally happy to see their army go beat up a handy enemy Arab country].

Sgt. Sensible

Deleted User wrote:

Never said that they aren't. They're a threat to peace by existing, simply because the nations & factions that seek to defeat/destroy Israel won't stop.

The PLO? Oslo accords? :rolleyes:

The Saint

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The PLO? Oslo accords? :rolleyes:

The Arab Peace Initiative in 2002?

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

So why don't you?

I thought I did already.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Oddly enough I can't find a direct link stating what Hezbollah have said exactly. But the following are examples of the media reports on the subject (which I had no trouble finding at all):

Which is exactly what I found. As I said there has been no official announcement. Even the news stories do not give an official announcement details. I had asked you to find the official announcement.

The actual disarming is point 8. They have to agree to and hold the previous points to bare before they will disarm. Disarming during the ceasefire wasn't even on the cards.

Strange. Even aljazeera agrees with me:

No they don't. They point out the kidnapping. But you are kidding yourself that this all suddenly started at the kidnapping. It would be ignoring over 10 years of violence in relation to this incident. It would also be ignoring the fact that Israel gave the US its battle plan before the kidnapping. Which would imply that even if the kidnapping had not taken place Israel was prepared to go into Lebanon anyway on some other pretense.

Interesting that its been proven otherwise here, whereas all the media that you use to refer, pointing out Israel's crimes, don't have this proof.

Like what exactly? As I have said it has already been pointed out numerous times in this thread that this isn't something that just happened recently. It has been ongoing for over a decade.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

I really hope you are wrong about that [the not stopping part].

Me too. However I don't think I am. Hezbollah continued its war against Israel despite Israel obeying the UN resolution to withdraw from Lebanon. They had achieved their mission (The Sheeba farms being Syrian), and yet refused to disband/disarm afterwards. This is just an example of the way that Israel's enemies continue to fight, regardless of what Israel does. In other cases, its Israel that provokes a continuing of a state of violence. Israel isn't innocent in all of this, but I don't see its opponents rushing to the peace table.

fly_agaric wrote:

Sorry - the Israeli govt.
In theory it should be less of a threat to peace than a country where despots/mullahs can decide on their own to go start a war no matter what their people may feel about it - but if the public happen to be pro-war then a democracy is just as dangerous.

I don't see it as being pro-war, rather being pro for a possible answer. You forget that Israeli's have been living through these conflicts all their lives. They've seen the moves that Israel makes both towards peace, and away from it. They've seen the rockets that land in their towns, destroying their schools, railway stations etc. Sure, less loss of life, but they've been watching their country being attacked throughout their own lives, and the lives of their parents. To them Israel is a nation under siege, without a
finish in sight.

So I would assume that they would desire any possible plan to stop attacks on their country coming from any direction. Whether it be Hezbellah missiles launched from Lebanon, border skirmishes, suicide bombers from Palestine, etc. If you're backed up into a corner, you're going to fight. After all, isn't that also the reasoning from posters here that justifies the continuing violence that comes from Palestinian paramilitary groups?

The Saint

The Saint wrote:

The Arab Peace Initiative in 2002?

Which was fine, except that the PLO had already failed to live up to their side of the Olso accords, by ceasing the attacks made on Israel.

There are a number of PLO factions plus Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist groups that will continue to kill Israeli's regardless of what the PLO or Hamas promise. As I said, its these groups that in many cases that prevent peace from occuring, in other cases its Israel itself that blocks peace efforts.

Perhaps Israel would be more open to peace initiatives if the PLO and now Hamas could actually fullfill their side of agreements....

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed it and said: "... the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya," [1] referring to Netanya suicide attack perpetrated on previous evening which the Beirut Summit has failed to address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut_Summit

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

I thought I did already.

I didn't think so before, but i'll bear it in mind whenever i read your posts from now on.

Hobbes wrote:

Which is exactly what I found. As I said there has been no official announcement. Even the news stories do not give an official announcement details. I had asked you to find the official announcement.

Which doesn't negate that this is occuring. The reports started after a meeting between the Lebanese government & Hezbollah was cut short, and a number of leaks were made by Lebanese officials. A number of reports refer to members of Hezbollah also saying the same. While there is no exact extract of an announcement, its still a major factor that Hezbollah has not denied this at any stage over the last number of days.

Hezbollah, if interested in peace, would deny this idea, because they know that this is a major point for Israel to maintain a peace. An armed Hezbollah operating within the borders of Lebanon, will not satisfy Israel.

The actual disarming is point 8. They have to agree to and hold the previous points to bare before they will disarm. Disarming during the ceasefire wasn't even on the cards.

Really? The quotes I took from the agreement point to that direction. How does the Lebanese military being the only armed force, and the Lebanese government being the only authority not translate into Hezbollah disarming, since their armed presence would conflict with the Lebanese control?

No they don't. They point out the kidnapping. But you are kidding yourself that this all suddenly started at the kidnapping. It would be ignoring over 10 years of violence in relation to this incident.

If aljazeera felt that this conflict started well before the kidnapping they would have placed it on that page. They've never been shy about stating such in the past, so why would they start now.

10 years? You're going to go back over ten years? Why not go back 20, for that matter? I love this. Lebanon being used as a base for attacks on Israel in the past is no justification for Israel going in, but Israeli actions against Hezbollah or Lebanon in the past are? The crossing of Hezbollah fighters across the Blue line is no justification for Israel, but Israeli forces going across the border, is a justification for Hezbollah? Come on. I'm the one kidding myself?

This conflict started with an attack by Hezbollah forces. Israel chose to escalate the response and use it as a reason for a war. But the spark for this conflict was the attack on Israeli troops. Without that attack, Israel would have had no reason to invade or bomb on such a scale, and it would be a different situation entirely.

This is part of what I tried to point out earlier. Israel is seen as the dodgy country for its reaction to an attack. The attack would not have occured with Hezbollah making the decision to do so. Sure, you can point to the past and events months ago or years, but I can do the same. In this case, it was an act of violence by hezbollah that sparked this conflict of, and you're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

It would also be ignoring the fact that Israel gave the US its battle plan before the kidnapping. Which would imply that even if the kidnapping had not taken place Israel was prepared to go into Lebanon anyway on some other pretense.

I've addressed this before. It doesn't mean anything since they're allies. I daresay Israel has shared plans with the US for attacks on Iran also. Or attacks on Syria. Or attacks on either Egypt or Jordan. They have plans in place, and supply the US with those plans as close allies should.

Like what exactly? As I have said it has already been pointed out numerous times in this thread that this isn't something that just happened recently. It has been ongoing for over a decade.

Without the Hezbollah attack, Israel would have had no justification for such a response. And I wouldn't feel any desire to support them in this. However Hezbollah did launch the attack, and Israel responded. We can go back months, years, decades, and point out every piece of conflict between Israel & Lebanon, and justify it as a response for either side.

Its irrelevent. It was an Hezbollah plan to capture Israeli soldiers for blackmail, that caused this most current of conflicts to occur. You may disagree with me. It was Israel's holding of prisoners that caused this. Fine. I don't really mind. But your opinion and the opinions that support this viewpoint, doesn't make me incorrect.

The attack is what caused the most current of conflicts in the region, unless you can prove that Hezbollah didn't kidnap any soldiers at all, and this is a plot generated by the Israeli government. :rolleyes:

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

The attack is what caused the most current of conflicts in the region, unless you can prove that Hezbollah didn't kidnap any soldiers at all, and this is a plot generated by the Israeli government. :rolleyes:

I dont think hobbes ever implied that no Isreal soldiers where kidnapped, so I don't think that the sarcasm really is called for....

hummm, can you prove that Isreal didn't attack Lebanon\Hezbollah before Hezbollah attacked Isreal? ... as far as I am awear its an on going conflict between both sides, I am pretty sure that there are many incidents over the past year where Isreal have attacked targets within Lebanon.

If you think that the kidnap justifies over a 1,000 deaths or that this has brought Isreal closer to a lasting peace, well thats, like you say, your opinion.

freddyfreeload

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.

Except the clear evidence that the US has supported and funded Israel to it’s geo-political advantage (and the detriment of all people in the region) for five decades.

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

Can I have some details of this?

Grave apologies, I misread the figure in longhand! I should have said €134billion. Woops! See… http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

hah. So its never hamas attacks and Israel responds?

I said Israel “provokes” attack through policy: illegal settlements, security walls, etc. This is the historical pattern in the wake of peace deals.
History has shown that Israel retalitates heavily against any attack made on their soil.

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.
.

They have. We do. Globally, locally, and even in Israel

I disagree that their economy would collapse.

Check the maths:
Revenues: $43.82 billion
Expenditures: $58.04 billion
External debt: $75.55 billion
(source: CIA fact book, 2005)

Israel is living well beyond it’s means by c. €15 bill p.a.
Traceable US public and private funding currently runs in the order of €3 to 6 billion p.a. Israel’s huge foreign debt burden continues to be waived by the US. But were the US to withdraw its aid and demand repayment of those loans, even without the interest, Israel would be bust.

If they dropped the debt and simply withdrew their funding. Israel would still be looking at an overspend in the order of $18 to $21billion p.a. That’s 41% - 50% of revenues. A completely unsustainable position.

The requirement was there for Hezzbollah to disarm… They didn't even give the resolution a chance.

No, I guess they didn’t, probably because the res was drafted by the US in full party view of Israel. In other words it was a pro-Israel res, drafted with Israeli objectives in mind.

I would love to see Hizbollah disarm. But if we’re talking political reality here, their role/position in Southern Lebanese affairs is just to strong. It would have been suicidal of Lebanon to have attempted to disarm them, leading straight to civil war.

Don’t you think the US was aware of this when inserting the clause about disarmament?

The biggest threat to Lebanon is hezbollah simply because they won't allow peace to occur.

See above, and check out the facts. Ignoring Hizbollah’s electoral mandate in S. Leb would have led to civil war.

How the hell is Hezbollah proping up the country?

Was propping up - By participating in govt. The reality on the ground in Lebanon clearly requires their participation in the coalition. Had they refused, or had they been refused, civil war would have ensued. This is not a good thing.

Not propping up anymore, since Israel’s blundered attack. Now they command more respect and power than ever before.

Its still speculation.

No. It’s a report. Or rather, a growing number of reports. By some of the best investigative journalists the world has.

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).

Hmm. Okay, lets get it straight. I don’t like Hizbollah. I don’t like anyone who resorts to violence to promote their aims, to me it’s all terrorism, Hizbollah’s and Israel’s.

Sadly, this isn’t a level playing field. On one side we’ve got a small band of poorly equipped terrorists who scream Jihad as their goal. On the other is the most militarily powerful nation in the region, backed by the most powerful nation in the world, both of whom scream democracy and freedom as their goal.

I expect military Jihadists to practice what they preach. I also expect them to fail, because totalitarianism always fails. Ultimately, failure is built in. It needs the oxygen of conflict to burn.

However, I expect democrats to practice what they preach too. The problem is that the US and Israel are not living up to their stated goals. If you believe in liberty and democracy you don’t try blowing the civilian infrastructure of a sovereign nation to hell over the kidnapping of two soldiers by terrorists.


[I said they didn't even try.]
Quote:

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

By opening their mouths and making words come out. Words like, “Okay, you’ve taken two of our soldiers. We want them back. We’d like to sit down and talk to you about it.”

Might not have worked. But neither has military force.

Well you believe that Hezbollah are a stabilizing influence.

More stabilizing than civil war.

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

True, I wish Hezbollah had tried breaking this stupid cycle of violence by taking the more adult, democratic, freedom loving stance of opening negations instead of kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

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.

Again… Hizbollah were invited into the coalition to avoid civil war.

Why is it that the UN is only considered after a conflict has started?

What do you suggest, pre-emptive resolutions? Wouldn’t that be an oxymoron?

Why didn't the Lebanese government request UN aid to help carry out Resolution 1559?

Lebanon objected to large parts of the US/Israeli drafted 1559. Why would someone sentenced to death ask for his executioner to be given a bit of help?

freddyfreeload

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

I don’t know. Is there some evidence that bunkers were built in 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/exer...AFA282D82A.htm

This says, “…build bunkers.” It doesn’t mention towns.

From what I’ve read it seems evident that one of the keys to Hizbollah’s success in repelling Israel lay in it’s network of underground bunkers and tunnels - in open country.

If you’ve got some evidence of bunkers being intentionally built in residential areas, show me. My mind is genuinely open on this one. It’s just that all I’ve seen so far is the usual stock bull**** of military blunderers.

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.

No... Israel lost because they achieved none of their stated objectives. They didn’t crush Hizbollah, and they didn’t get their soldiers back. Plus, they were humiliated to boot and have failed to close off the threat of a second front opening up against them should the US move against Iran. Lost, lost & lost again.

Hizbollah have repelled a far superior force, and are now being hailed as heroes right across Lebanon. They call that a win/win situation.

This is sad, but true. Denial of this is, well… just that really... denial.

And that’s the way the Israeli people see it too. According to a recent poll, 52% of electors believe the IDF was unsuccessful, while 44 per cent say they “did well”.

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.

C’mon Klaz, you can spot a joke from this distance surely. Next you’ll be asking me to cite just one example of a burger chain sponsored war! Perhaps I should have used this fella!

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

Who’s been doing this? And how do you mean? Would an anti-aircraft battery in a city be wrong? Is it okay to defend a town/village against being taken over by opposing military forces? Or do you mean launching rocket attacks against your opponent from within city boundaries? If the latter - cite me some examples.

More of a half-arsed big raid.

Yeah, well those villages in southern Leb weren’t half flattened, and 1000 plus civilians weren’t half killed.

Israel still got their half-arses wholly kicked back home though, didn't they?

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.

Get a grip, weapons and IRA men moved across the border freely and frequently. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

The IRA weren't allowed free reign in Ireland

Had Ireland faced a British invasion, free reign would have followed. I guess all metaphors can be stretched to breaking point, but my point is that even Thatcher would never have dared to respond like Israel did. There are lines you just don’t cross. Unless of course, you enjoy Israel’s special standing in the world. And now I think almost everyone agrees that they went too far this time. They have inspired new levels of international disgust and failed their own people as well.

Lebanon has allowed a terrorist group carte blanche to operate within their country, without deploying their military to stop them.

Your grasp of political reality bemuses me! They didn't have a choice! Hezbollah (technically a paramilitary group) were widely considered instrumental in expelling Israel six years ago. What’s the deal, “thanks lads now drop your guns and get in jail?” This would have been suicide!

You really believe that Israel should sit on its arse, and allow itself to be attacked repeatedly?

No. I think they should try diplomacy instead of war crimes.

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.

Wow - you think everything is exactly how it looks on Fox!

Do you truly separate all these issues? Can you not see that they are all squares on the same geo-political chess board? If you don’t, Washington certainly does.

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.

I think history has now overtaken you here. Hezbollah is now Lebanon’s de facto army. And all because Israel attempted an immoral and disproportionate response to an incident they could have tackled diplomatically.

they'll [Israel] continue to kick ass in a conventional war. Only this guerilla style warfare is effective.

Quite so. The point is that the Arab world had believed Israel invulnerable. They don’t now. Another disservice dealt the people of Israel by their bombastic leadership. Do you think the people of Israel feel safer now than they did in June?

Let's go back to the crux: Was Israel right?
At home: They have failed the Israeli people & worsened their domestic security situation.

Regionally: They have worsened relations with their neighbours and exposed new vulnerabilities.

Internationally: It's been a PR disaster from beginning to end.

Militarily: They have failed to achieve their military objectives.

Morally: Well, I consider all war immoral. But Israel's blatant disregard for civilians during this escapade is truly abhorent.

No, Israel was not right.

P.S. And no, before you ask, I don't think Hizbollah were right to kidnap those two soldiers either, where ever they might have been. Having said that, it seems pretty likely Israel would have found some other pretext to have launched this attack anyway.

Sgt. Sensible

freddyfreeload wrote:

P.S. And no, before you ask, I don't think Hizbollah were right to kidnap those two soldiers either, where ever they might have been.

If the Israeli troops were on the Lebanese side of the border (as was originally reported) then hezbollah was justified in killing and capturing them, just as the IDF would be justified in killing and capturing hezbollah troops found in Israel. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the troops were ordered to cross into Lebanon and sacrificed to provide a handy pretext for the war. But unlike the apologists for the disgusting bloodbath, I don't claim to know what happened exactly.

Having said that, it seems pretty likely Israel would have found some other pretext to have launched this attack anyway.

True. Reports are suggesting that the 'war' was a prelude to an attack against Iran.

The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.

The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.

Quoting a US government consultant, Hersh said: "Earlier this summer ... several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear'."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1844021,00.html

Mick86

Hobbes wrote:

No one is saying that the other side are Angels. Although Lebanese != Hezbollah (Hezbolah == Lebanese).

Right. I noticed that.:rolleyes:

Hobbes wrote:

However Israel supposedly prides itself on being a Western Culture type nation. Are they acting how you as a member of a Western Nation should act? TBH it would be easier if we just labelled them a crazy middle eastern country with the rest of them.

Western culture type nations? Have you ever read a history book? We invented genocide and stealing people's countries. In the past century western European nations have started two world wars that killed millions. In the past 15 years Britain and the US have done exactly what Israel did to Lebanon to the Iraqis and the Serbs. Israel is doing just what European nations have been doing for centuries so we certainly have no business lecturing them on that score.

Mick86

fly_agaric wrote:

No you don't.

By "Arab enemies" I was referring to Hezbollah, the Iranian [I know - not arabs...but Israel's enemy too;)] and Syrian regimes, and the increasingly - the Palestinians.

The Israeli populace seemed to be pretty gung ho for their govt.'s decision to try to finally solve their Hezbollah problem with this war - hence my reference to an Israeli populace wanting to see their army "wipe out" their enemies.

The last of these would involve more of an ethnic cleansing than a genocide I suppose.

A lot of muslims are gung ho to see the Israelis wiped off the face of the earth. And they do mean genocide despite excuses of mistranslation and misquotation. And there are a lot of "cultured westerners" cheering on the Sonderkommando.

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

We invented genocide and stealing people's countries.

Ireland did no such thing in any history book I've read.

fly_agaric

Mick86 wrote:

Western culture type nations? Have you ever read a history book? We invented genocide and stealing people's countries.

These things are a part of the [extensive] dark side of human behaviour IMO.
Nobody invented them.

Mick86 wrote:

A lot of muslims are gung ho to see the Israelis wiped off the face of the earth. And they do mean genocide despite excuses of mistranslation and misquotation. And there are a lot of "cultured westerners" cheering on the Sonderkommando.

As I said to someone else [Sand I think] earlier, criticising Israel is not the same as embracing Islamic extremism or wanting to see Israel destroyed. What do I care if the extremists agree with that criticism? Why should I change my opinion because of them?

Jimboo_Jones

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I dont think hobbes ever implied that no Isreal soldiers where kidnapped, so I don't think that the sarcasm really is called for....

You're right I could have left the sarcasm out. Sorry Hobbes.

Nor has he implied that no Israeli's were kidnapped. I'm just getting tired of seeing people ignore that it was Hezbollahs choice to launch this attack, and Israel's choice to respond on this level. Regardless of what has gone before, Hezbollah launched this attack on Israeli troops, with the objective of gaining something to negotiate for prisoner releases. The originally prisoners being taken may be a cause if you want to use that, but it still doesn't change that Hezbollah launched this attack.

hummm, can you prove that Isreal didn't attack Lebanon\Hezbollah before Hezbollah attacked Isreal? ... as far as I am awear its an on going conflict between both sides, I am pretty sure that there are many incidents over the past year where Isreal have attacked targets within Lebanon.

And I haven't said otherwise. The conflict has been going on for over two decades, and both sides have traded shots on many occasions. I'm saying that it was this kidnapping event that sparked off this escalated conflict. Hobbes is saying that it wasn't and it goes back further than that. I'm not saying that this kidnapping event caused the whole tension between Israel & Hezbollah by any means. I'm talking about what sparked off Israel's heavy response. Hobbes disagrees.

If you think that the kidnap justifies over a 1,000 deaths or that this has brought Isreal closer to a lasting peace, well thats, like you say, your opinion.

Nor did I say that. I said it justified a response. I've said I don't approve of the response they made, believing that other methods would have been better. Read back a few pages, I mention that an initial ground invasion or use of commando style groups would have been a better respone.

Nor have I said that this conflict has brought Israel closer to peace. All I've said that sitting there doing nothing in face of Hezbollah attacks wouldn't have solved anything either, which was the alternative.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

Except the clear evidence that the US has supported and funded Israel to it’s geo-political advantage (and the detriment of all people in the region) for five decades.
[Oh, and then there's the small matter of US$134trillion since 1949]
Grave apologies, I misread the figure in longhand! I should have said €134billion. Woops! See… http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies…." from your report listed above. Also it doesn't mention what this aid came in the form of prior to 1967., whether it was military, economic, a form of charity etc. The above in italics was the only reference i could find in that report about prior to 1967....

My point still stands. Until 1967 America didn't support Israel beyond the recognition.

I said Israel “provokes” attack through policy: illegal settlements, security walls, etc. This is the historical pattern in the wake of peace deals.

Nor have I disagreed. I've acknowledged that they do all of that. I just highlighted the responses they receive from their opponents.

If they dropped the debt and simply withdrew their funding. Israel would still be looking at an overspend in the order of $18 to $21billion p.a. That’s 41% - 50% of revenues. A completely unsustainable position.

Again if dropped immediately, I would agree with you. If given notice Israel's economy would probably survive, but sacrifices to the military would be needed. However the US won't drop them in such a fashion unless Israel really gets out of hand.

No, I guess they didn’t, probably because the res was drafted by the US in full party view of Israel. In other words it was a pro-Israel res, drafted with Israeli objectives in mind.

And there have been plenty of resolutions in the past that have no favoured Israel in the slightest. Why do you believe that Israel should obey UN resolutions regardless of whether they're pro or not, and other nations, like lebanon, don't? Is the UN only balanced when addressing restrictions for Israel?

I would love to see Hizbollah disarm. But if we’re talking political reality here, their role/position in Southern Lebanese affairs is just to strong. It would have been suicidal of Lebanon to have attempted to disarm them, leading straight to civil war.

Reality? And you believe that Israel will fully withdraw once again without the assurance that Hezbollah haven't disarmed? They did it once (withdrawing to behind the Blue line) believing that the UN and Lebanon were capable of holding peace (who failed to do so), but this time Hezbollah is better armed and more powerful than before. They'll fully expect the conflict to continue if Hezbollah remains armed. Thats reality.

As for Civil War, they could have requested aid from the UN to disarm and restrict Hezbollahs ability to operate within their country. Instead of the civil war, they have Hezbollah fighting over the border with Israel (for the last few years), encouraging Israel to invade Lebanon once more (which they did). Yup, I can see they were better off.

Don’t you think the US was aware of this when inserting the clause about disarmament?

It doesn't matter. An agreement had been reached. Why is it so hard to accept? Its awful when Israel disregards resolutions it accepts, but perfectly understandable when its enemies do so?

See above, and check out the facts. Ignoring Hizbollah’s electoral mandate in S. Leb would have led to civil war.

Hezbollah were allowed to walk into the government, set itself up, without any resistance from the legal government. Am i Wrong? But even if they felt Hezbollah should have been allowed to be represented, there should have been a firm and dedicated movement to stop the Paramilitary wing of Hezbollah from operating within Lebanon.

Was propping up - By participating in govt. The reality on the ground in Lebanon clearly requires their participation in the coalition. Had they refused, or had they been refused, civil war would have ensued. This is not a good thing.

And fine. No real issues within operating within the Law. Within the legal procedure of Legal government. But allowing the paramilitary group free reign in Lebanon? Come on. Be realistic. They placed themselves in the situation where Israel would respond by attacking lebanon.

Not propping up anymore, since Israel’s blundered attack. Now they command more respect and power than ever before.

I think you're getting mixed up between Hezbollah & the Legal Government of Lebanon. Your first post refered to propping up the government, of which the paramilitary group is separate. Hezbollah have gained power and respect. The only thing Lebanon has received is the aid to rebuild the country, and sympathy from other nations. Hezbollah is the clear victor.

No. It’s a report. Or rather, a growing number of reports. By some of the best investigative journalists the world has.

And still speculation, until they can provide evidence that supports their theories.

Hmm. Okay, lets get it straight. I don’t like Hizbollah. I don’t like anyone who resorts to violence to promote their aims, to me it’s all terrorism, Hizbollah’s and Israel’s.

I don't belive I ever said you did like them. Its just that many posters here seem to focus entirely on commenting on Israel without mentioning the trouble that Hezbollah or other groups cause. Its like as if Israel is damned regardless of its interactions with the other players of these conflicts.

Sadly, this isn’t a level playing field. On one side we’ve got a small band of poorly equipped terrorists who scream Jihad as their goal. On the other is the most militarily powerful nation in the region, backed by the most powerful nation in the world, both of whom scream democracy and freedom as their goal.

Level playing field? If anything Israel is the one at a disadvantage. Their conventional weaponry & tactics while good for actual conventional warfare places them at risk against forces like Hezbollah. Small arms especially backed by armour piercing rockets, and mortors mean that Hezbollah can inflict heavy damage on them. Also israel wouldn't be allowed to operate in the same fashion using small indpendent groups to cause terror and confusion, because the US would never approve of it. Their airforce is mostly negated, and useless beyond causing civilian damage. Add to this is the use of civilian areas for launching attacks & the lack of a uniform for Hezbollah forces makes identifying enemy forces a nightmare at every stage. Also because Israel is held accountable for collateral/civilian damage, whereas Hezbollah isn't, they're also at another disadvantage on the political warground.

Level playing field? In this type of warfare, its Hezbollah that holds the advantage. And Hezbollah isn't as poorly equipped as you make out, considering the types of weapons they've shown so far in this conflict.

I expect military Jihadists to practice what they preach. I also expect them to fail, because totalitarianism always fails. Ultimately, failure is built in. It needs the oxygen of conflict to burn.
However, I expect democrats to practice what they preach too. The problem is that the US and Israel are not living up to their stated goals. If you believe in liberty and democracy you don’t try blowing the civilian infrastructure of a sovereign nation to hell over the kidnapping of two soldiers by terrorists.

I think part of the problem here is that people expect Israel to behave differently to their Arab neighbours. In spite of the decades of violence, and what Israel has repeatedly done wrong, posters continue to hold Israel as being higher than the Arabs, and then seek to criticise them for the whole lot. I suppose it gives them alot to complain about.

Try placing them on the same level. Works for me most of the time.

By opening their mouths and making words come out. Words like, “Okay, you’ve taken two of our soldiers. We want them back. We’d like to sit down and talk to you about it.” Might not have worked. But neither has military force.

Yup. Might have worked. All very reasonable. Except it didn't. Israel demanded that their troops be returned, and then threatened what would happen if they weren't returned. Hezbollah refused to return the troops in favour of holding out for concessions about the Lebanese prisoners.

Let me ask you this. Rather than continuing the war with israel 6 years ago (2000), why didn't Hezbollah lower their arms, and seek to negotiate for a full peace, and the return of the Lebanese prisoners? Seems quite reasonable, since Israel had shown good faith in withdrawing behind the UN designated Blue zone.

Nevermind I've just realised you pretty much answered the question, in the next quoted point.

True, I wish Hezbollah had tried breaking this stupid cycle of violence by taking the more adult, democratic, freedom loving stance of opening negations instead of kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

Ditto.

fly_agaric

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Ireland did no such thing in any history book I've read.

I suppose he was taking a very broad view of Europe - White people as responsible for the biggest wars, lots of colonial brutality around the world etc.

Many Irish played a big part in some of the genocides (Australia, N. American Indians) and in some of the wars (as soldiers in the British Empires' armies) even if "Ireland" collectively was one of the colonised countries.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

What do you suggest, pre-emptive resolutions? Wouldn’t that be an oxymoron?

A resolution was already in place. Hezbollah was to disarm per the resolution that saw Israel leave Lebanese terrirory. The Lebanon government could have requested the UN to aid them in having Hezbollah disarm, since the resolution called for the Lebanese government to be the only authority in the country, and the Lebanse military the only ones to bear arms (or rather the only one authorised by the government). Seems obvious enough to me.

Lebanon objected to large parts of the US/Israeli drafted 1559. Why would someone sentenced to death ask for his executioner to be given a bit of help?

References, pls. What parts did they object to? Also since you seem to consider that israel should always obey UN resolutions regardless of their content, why is Lebanon exempt?

Mick86

freddyfreeload wrote:

No... Israel lost because they achieved none of their stated objectives. They didn’t crush Hizbollah, and they didn’t get their soldiers back. Plus, they were humiliated to boot and have failed to close off the threat of a second front opening up against them should the US move against Iran. Lost, lost & lost again.

Hizbollah have repelled a far superior force, and are now being hailed as heroes right across Lebanon. They call that a win/win situation..

So if Hezbollah had laid waste to large areas of Israel, ruined the economy, killed 1000 Israelis and displaced a million refugees and had some of it's forces entrenched on Israeli soil that would be an Israeli victory by your logic.

Simply surviving is not a win even for Hezbollah. They started a war supposedly for the purpose of trading kidnapped Israelis for Lebanese terrorist prisoners in Israel. Didn't work.

Lebanon claims the Shebaa Farms despite the fact that it was Syrian until 1967 and the UN has said so. Hezbollah uses this excuse as raison d'etre. After "repelling" the Israeli invaders, Israel occupied even more Lebanese soil. Another Hezbollah failure.

Nasrallah wants to eradicate Jews world wide. He managed to kill about 200 for the expenditure of several thousand rockets. Failure.

Hezbollah is so popular with the Lebanese government that it's defence minister announced yesterday that the army had orders to attack them if they launched anymore attacks on Israel. Failure.

Hezbollah managed to unite practically all of Israel against Lebanon. The Israelis are angry because Olmert agreed to a ceasefire before they managed to sort out Hezbollah. Only the Islamic Fifth Column in the west believes that Hezbollah won. Hezbollah and every other Arab nation looking on, and that's exactly what they did, knows that Hezbollah lost.

freddyfreeload wrote:

And that’s the way the Israeli people see it too. According to a recent poll, 52% of electors believe the IDF was unsuccessful, while 44 per cent say they “did well”.

Of course they do. The UN stepped in to save Hezbollah when it was on the ropes.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Israel still got their half-arses wholly kicked back home though, didn't they?

Actually no they didn't. They withdrew after the ceasefire.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I think they should try diplomacy instead of war crimes.

Maybe the Arab terrorists could try diplomacy instead of terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Hezbollah is now Lebanon’s de facto army. And all because Israel attempted an immoral and disproportionate response to an incident they could have tackled diplomatically.

Self defence is not immoral and there is no rule that says war has to be proportionate. If you want to win you eradicate your enemies.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Quite so. The point is that the Arab world had believed Israel invulnerable. They don’t now...Do you think the people of Israel feel safer now than they did in June?

Yes the Arabs see that Israel is so weak that they were queueing up to defend Lebanon. Even the Lebanese army wouldn't fight back. The Arabs watched what was happening in Lebanon and saw what is waiting for them if they attack Israel.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Let's go back to the crux: Was Israel right??

Absolutely right until the moment they agreed to a premature ceasefire.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

I don’t know. Is there some evidence that bunkers were built in towns?

This says, “…build bunkers.” It doesn’t mention towns.

From what I’ve read it seems evident that one of the keys to Hizbollah’s success in repelling Israel lay in it’s network of underground bunkers and tunnels - in open country.

If you’ve got some evidence of bunkers being intentionally built in residential areas, show me. My mind is genuinely open on this one. It’s just that all I’ve seen so far is the usual stock bull**** of military blunderers.

So you don't believe that since Hezbollah placed a large portion of their positions in civilian areas, that they didn't build bunkers to protect their positions? Still, I'll dig further to find some better references.

No... Israel lost because they achieved none of their stated objectives. They didn’t crush Hizbollah, and they didn’t get their soldiers back. Plus, they were humiliated to boot and have failed to close off the threat of a second front opening up against them should the US move against Iran. Lost, lost & lost again.

I disagree. they lost the initiative by relying on their airforce to knock out Hezbollah (which was a foolish mistake), rather then invading the country in force to achieve their aims. As it is, Israel failed and Hezbollah are in a much stronger position than they were ever before. So I partially agree with you. Not sure about the Iran/US thing though.

Hizbollah have repelled a far superior force, and are now being hailed as heroes right across Lebanon. They call that a win/win situation.
This is sad, but true. Denial of this is, well… just that really... denial.

At what point did the IDF and Hezbollah meet on the ground whereby the IDf were soundly defeated, beyond little skirmishes?

And that’s the way the Israeli people see it too. According to a recent poll, 52% of electors believe the IDF was unsuccessful, while 44 per cent say they “did well”.

No disagreement there. The IDF didn't meet any of the objectives, and made things worse.

C’mon Klaz, you can spot a joke from this distance surely. Next you’ll be asking me to cite just one example of a burger chain sponsored war! Perhaps I should have used this fella!

Fine, it was a joke. Sometimes its hard to distinguish considering the last few weeks of the Israeli air campaign.

Who’s been doing this? And how do you mean? Would an anti-aircraft battery in a city be wrong? Is it okay to defend a town/village against being taken over by opposing military forces? Or do you mean launching rocket attacks against your opponent from within city boundaries? If the latter - cite me some examples.

In a rush, but I'll get references for you later tonight. (and I mean both points)

Yeah, well those villages in southern Leb weren’t half flattened, and 1000 plus civilians weren’t half killed.
Israel still got their half-arses wholly kicked back home though, didn't they?

Really? Where was this epic battle where the IDf were soundly thrashed? And I haven't disputed the deaths, or the damage caused.

Get a grip, weapons and IRA men moved across the border freely and frequently. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

Ok, I'll get references of siezures. I'm not talking about an iron curtain whereby nothing got through. I've suggested that the Irish Government and the British worked together on occasion to limit the IRA.

Had Ireland faced a British invasion, free reign would have followed. I guess all metaphors can be stretched to breaking point, but my point is that even Thatcher would never have dared to respond like Israel did. There are lines you just don’t cross. Unless of course, you enjoy Israel’s special standing in the world. And now I think almost everyone agrees that they went too far this time. They have inspired new levels of international disgust and failed their own people as well.

Hezbollah have had free reign in Lebanon since Israel obeyed the UN resolution. This isn't the case that israel invaded for no reason. Hezbollah have maintained a war with Israel using Lebanon (without any effort of the lebanese to stop them) for a launch site since day one. Believing thats not cause for invasion is foolish and unrealistic.

*** Running out the door. I'll reply later.

Mick86

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Ireland did no such thing in any history book I've read.

We, as in Europeans.

And Irishmen were part of the armies of Britain, the US and France that committed genocide against various indigenous people around the globe. If you do not believe the Irish capable of atrocity I suggest you do some research. Start with Ballyseedy and Scullabogue.

Sgt. Sensible

fly_agaric wrote:

I suppose he was taking a very broad view of Europe - White people as responsible for the biggest wars, lots of colonial brutality around the world etc.

Many Irish played a big part in some of the genocides (Australia, N. American Indians) and in some of the wars (as soldiers in the British Empires' armies) even if "Ireland" collectively was one of the colonised countries.

So what. Many Irish took part in slave rebellions, labour struggles and wars of independence too. It is ignorant to pretend that Ireland was a colonial power at any stage in history.