Should we be sending troops to Lebanon?

mike65

It would help if the country that spent the most energy aggitating for this force (France) was willing to commit itself.

Mike.

The Corinthian

Tags: Lebanon Israel murder

LOL. Murder. Who picks these keyword tags for threads?

Moriarty

The Corinthian wrote:

LOL. Murder. Who picks these keyword tags for threads?

The thread creator. Go figure eh?

mike65 wrote:

It would help if the country that spent the most energy aggitating for this force (France) was willing to commit itself.

Mike.

I only caught bits and pieces of the whole UN-troops-reinforcing-UNIFIL last week, but wasn't frances objection to sending more troops due to the nebulous rules of engagement?

The Corinthian

Moriarty wrote:

The thread creator. Go figure eh?

Sorry, I saw the initial post after.

So military personnel on active duty who are lost in action are murdered now. Very touchy-feely. I wonder how long before the defence forces start a class action against the government because people shot at them.

mike65

but wasn't frances objection to sending more troops due to the nebulous rules of engagement?

Yep but thats not stopping me from making a cheap point! (more seriously its not stopping the Italians either). The fuzzy rules of engagement are clearly a classic political fudge which troops will proberly end up dying over.

Mike.

Moriarty

mike65 wrote:

Yep but thats not stopping me from making a cheap point! (more seriously its not stopping the Italians either). The fuzzy rules of engagement are clearly a classic polictical fudge which troops will properly end up dying over.

Mike.

Why would France want to lead a contingent of international troops into hostile territory, putting many of their own troops lives aswell as other nations at serious risk.. and all due to a convenient political fudge as you say. I wouldn't be too hot at all at sending Irish troops to lebanon under the current rules of engagement from what little I've heard of them - and we wouldn't even be the ones in command.

mike65

I agree its nuts, but its a concoction the French spent many hours working on and convincing the US to back. Talk is cheap.

Mike.

Diaspora

Evidently so,

I remember seeing a Late Late show themed on Lebanon about 5 or 6 years ago when it was reletively queit there and the Irish Contingent pulled out and the scene went something along the lines of Mary McAlleece waxing lyrical about the wonderful cultural ties between the two nations and how Ireland had been happy to help and would do so again if necessary.

Were those empty sentiments or will the Irish military who have detailed experience of this volatile buffer zone step up to the plate and be counted?

lostexpectation

the french are still going to go though arn't they, a large force, they must be still be argueing about things behind the scene?

are they like ireland think it wil kick off again and their soldiers will be flattened...

MiddleE

fly_agaric wrote:

I seem to recall some ex-Irish soldier on the radio recently saying that the Hezbollah and the Israelis and proxies (Christian militias) were responsible for equal numbers of deaths of UN troops.

Yes. Complicated. Reminds me of the random missiles via precision missiles now. Then it was the heavy artillery of the SLA directed by IDF.

Learning from Its Mistakes ...by Charles Glass ...3 August 2006

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes. That is why it might be a good idea to try and stabilise the situation somewhat before the Israelis decide to start bombing again, showing even less respect for civilian life than they have shown thus far. After all, this war and how they are carrying on in Gaza has made it quite clear that they can get away with anything while the current US admin. is in power. I wonder if they will try to send the rest of those pesky Palestinians fleeing into Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon in the next 2 years?

It is hard to know with this particular bully as to the best course. It's easy at this remove to suggest standing up to the bully like Hezbollah just did, but it's not my life on the line.

Death and Destruction are Hezbollah's Goals
Last May, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader stated on Al-Manar TV that that their advantage over Israel was that they were willing to die, whereas Israel valued life. He also said that he was willing to sacrifice the people of his nation in order to destroy Israel.

from ISRAEL HASBARA COMMITTEE. I'm not all all sure if the Nasrallah quote is true but the Israelis chose to believe it now. A case of out bullying the bully and how. The IDF is certainly a very worried 'force' now. LONE ISRAELI SOLDIER

part 1

MiddleE

part 2

fly_agaric wrote:

I know it is easy for me to say - I don't have anyone I know in the Irish Army or anything - but if the UN thinks we can help keep the peace by contributing troops to a force we should IMO.

No. What we stand to lose is too much. We could only supply a nominal number. Ireland's relationship with Lebanon is unique and should not be jeopardised. I have no problem with Irish troops monitoring a ceasefire but not enforcing. Israel flaunts its breaches of the ceasefire daily. It's not normal. Stay clear.

I've very much reminded of the USSR just before the end. It is so similar and for similar reasons. It's just waiting to blow apart all by itself now.

Thinking in terms of the other side
H A A R E T Z ...By Yitzhak Laor ...Aug 08, 2006
The Israel Defense Forces is not only the biggest local player in the economy and the economy of images, but it also has learned over the years how to become the Israeli "ego ideal."

From this perspective, military thinking is Israel's real trap. Everything moves within it in a circle. There is no way out, except in a fantasy of total destruction and killing all around. "After all, they want to annihilate us."

MiddleE

MiddleE
Our natural abilities means we will always be best as peacekeepers

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Explain

Already have. #28 MiddleE

Any fool can pull a trigger. It requires real courage not to fire when firing might be the natural reaction of a fool/coward. Our natural abilities means we will always be best as peacekeepers and not peace enforcers. Iraq would be a good example of how NOT to do peace. Some talk a good 'hearts and minds'. We do it.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Now this is a reasonable argument. But other factors are also present. If Israel feels it's back is against the wall constantly it will not make concessions, there is this constant feeling in their government that if they show weakness in the face of their Muslim neighbours they will never recover. Attacks like Hezbollah and other organisations only heighten this state of fear.

When has Israel ever made concessions or shown weakness. The problem with being a bully is that he must win every time.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Also the Israeli public seem to now suffer from an almost American state of war fatigue. At the moment their is almost no support in the general public for a sustained war in Lebanon. While a democratic government cannot sustainably act with out the faith of the people a none representative militia can.

"At the moment their is almost no support" if so then there has been a remarkable change in the general public's attitude towards war. On the other hand...
Learning from Its Mistakes by Charles Glass

Israel's massive destruction of Lebanon has had the effect of improving Hezbollah's standing in the country. Its popularity had been low since last year, when it alone refused to demand the evacuation of the Syrian army after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Now, Israel has rescued Hezbollah and made its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, not only the most popular man in Lebanon – but in the whole Arab world.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

You're proposing mercenaries? What a horrible idea.

Ha, ha, I know your not serious. I never suggested or mentioned mercenaries.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

I know you're not serious, but they already have plenty of bases in Europe, America has as much intent to invade Ireland as it does Israel.

So they land at Shannon as its...closer...greener...smaller ...bigger ...Irish. Anyway think of all the US business heading our way now that Israel is getting too hot for comfort.

MiddleE

A supposed former Irish UNIFIL had memories of service that do not at all gel with my recollections of back then. So then the official record.

Seanad Éireann - Volume 122 - 10 May, 1989
MOTION 1532 : That Seanad Éireann offers its congratulations to the UNIFIL Forces on receiving the Nobel Peace Price and particularly notes the contribution of the Irish Defence Forces towards maintaining that peace in many parts of the world for the last 30 years.

The big question arises not so much with the dangers or the accidents that happen. Soldiering is a dangerous occupation. Soldiers, being the professional people they are, accept the difficulties of their occupation. We cannot accept the situation in certain areas, particularly in Lebanon, where there are forces backed by the Israeli Government and Israeli forces themselves causing more trouble for our soldiers in particular and for the UNIFIL soldiers in general. This is not acceptable at all and definitely not acceptable to a country such as ours. We have diplomatic relations with Israel.

There is a President of Israel who is from Dublin. Yet, despite the special relationship there, despite the fact that we have diplomatic relations with that country and therefore should be on a very friendly basis with them, they are and continue to be helping forces who are bombing our troops, who are firing at our troops, who are casualties and who are causing death among our troops. Even the conduct of the Israeli army towards the members of our troops is very very questionable and something we cannot accept. It is incumbent on the Government to make it known to the Israeli Government that this is not at all accepted and not at all tolerated and will not be tolerated by us. The deaths we have suffered are bad enough but to think they have been added to by the unfriendly acts of what should be a friendly government is just intolerable.

I would not trust the IDF even if they swore that we were on the same side.

Levon Affair? The USS Liberty? Jonathan Pollard?
Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?
Defense Analyst Guilty in Israeli Espionage Case

Kaiser_Sma

MiddleE wrote:

Ha, ha, I know your not serious. I never suggested or mentioned mercenaries.

MiddleE wrote:

If the US had paid Muslin troops to do its dirty work in Iraq after the invasion, there would be peace there now.

If not mercenaries then what exactly do you mean?

So they land at Shannon as its...closer...greener...smaller ...bigger ...Irish. Anyway think of all the US business heading our way now that Israel is getting too hot for comfort.

Even less reason to invade, while the british empire used to bring stability and gaurentees to investors when it invaded, the american hegemon does not, well at least not in the short term.

Any fool can pull a trigger. It requires real courage not to fire when firing might be the natural reaction of a fool/coward. Our natural abilities means we will always be best as peacekeepers and not peace enforcers. Iraq would be a good example of how NOT to do peace. Some talk a good 'hearts and minds'. We do it.

So the irish natural ability is restraint? Thats a bit of generalisation isn't it? I know many irish people without a shred of restraint, if i have the ability not to fire a gun i would have hoped it was something aquired not some hibernian genetic trait that i inherited from generations of pushovers.

Now, Israel has rescued Hezbollah and made its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, not only the most popular man in Lebanon – but in the whole Arab world.

Recent reports from the Arab league say other wise. Except for syria that is. But your right in the case of the lebonese. While PR might be up, hezbollah were delt a heavy blow before the ceasefire. If UNIFIL can disarm them or even just stop them from rearming, then current popularity may not be enough. With out the military presence hezbollah will no doubht weaken in the political end, maintaining a strong army for defence against lebenons enemies was after all one of it's major policies.
All the while isreal can recooperate and upgrade their tanks to make them impervious to iranian antitank missles.

SkepticOne

A strong UN force with a clear mandate will allow Israel to leave Lebanon and allow the Lebanese to reconstruct their country. Ireland should therefore contribute to this force.

MiddleE

SkepticOne wrote:

A strong UN force with a clear mandate will allow Israel to leave Lebanon and allow the Lebanese to reconstruct their country. Ireland should therefore contribute to this force.

Not a STRONG force NOR a Clear mandate so should Ireland contribute to this force.

The current rules of engagement represent an ill-conceived request for an international force of "human shields'" to be inserted between two bitter adversaries who are simply in the process of taking stock, regrouping and rearming for the next phase of the war.

• Dr Tom Clonan is The Irish Times Security Analyst.
© The Irish Times ...Thursday, August 24, 2006

No!

The conduct of the Israeli army towards the members of our troops is very very questionable and something we cannot accept. It is incumbent on the Government to make it known to the Israeli Government that this is not at all accepted and not at all tolerated and will not be tolerated by us. The deaths we have suffered are bad enough but to think they have been added to by the unfriendly acts of what should be a friendly government is just intolerable.

It is important to emphasise that the UN soldiers are going out on a peace mission and that our soldiers are involved in keeping the peace on a temporary basis between warring factions and, hopefully, creating the atmosphere that in time full peace will come to these areas such as Lebanon, Cyprus and the very many other areas in which the UN troops are engaged and in which to their credit our own troops were engaged as well.

Seanad Éireann - Volume 122 - 10 May, 1989

Dr. O'Connell: Their role in Lebanon is a very dubious role because they are in South Lebanon with the approval of Israel to keep the peace, to keep warring factions apart, but Israel has not respected the Irish Army. Israel has a militia there who have constantly attacked the Irish Army and Israel has disgraced itself in the process. Israel's terrorist tactics at present are the cause of the tragedies among Irish soldiers and the Irish families who are mourning their lost ones.

Would you trust your brothers/sisters sons/daughters lives to the IDF who killed Lenanese civilians by the score!

Moriarty

MiddleE wrote:

Not a STRONG force NOR a Clear mandate so should Ireland contribute to this force.

It's not a strong force or equipped with a sufficently clear mandate or rules of engagement yet, but it may very well be shortly. Negotiations are still ongoing last I heard. If/when these two issues are sorted out I'd fully support as large a deployment of Irish troops as we can manage.

MiddleE wrote:

Would you trust your brothers/sisters sons/daughters lives to the IDF who killed Lenanese civilians by the score!

If it's a properly mandated force, with proper rules of engagement, then yes I would. People are less likely to use UN troops for target practice when they're likely to get heavy return fire.

You've yet to explain your underlying reasons for not wanting a UN force in the border regions of Israel and lebanon. Would you care to explain &/ expand on them?

MiddleE

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

If not mercenaries then what exactly do you mean?

Are you serious? Is this meant to be a trick question.

Just like any other member of the "Coalition of the 'Willing'" but not Christian nor white. So Indian, Indonesian, Pakistani etc. Just the same as UN troops but no blue beret. So, the willing or the unwilling - like the Japanese - of the 'Coalition'.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

So the Irish natural ability is restraint? That's a bit of generalisation isn't it? I know many Irish people without a shred of restraint, if i have the ability not to fire a gun i would have hoped it was something acquired not some Hibernian genetic trait that i inherited from generations of pushovers.

I never mentioned restraint. I suggest smart and courageous from my words.

Any fool can pull a trigger. It requires real courage not to fire when firing might be the natural reaction of a fool/coward. Our natural abilities means we will always be best as peacekeepers and not peace enforcers.

But yes Irish UN record does show remarkable restraint. Exceptional, as shown in the Niemba ambush.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

...
if i have the ability not to fire a gun i would have hoped it was something ...

Most unusual phraseology. Deliberate misunderstanding or inability to understand my attempts?

Morlar

MiddleE wrote:

No! Send no Irish troops.

Send no German, Turkish, Chinese, Indian, NATO or where ever troops.

Send no troops at all. Not one UN soldier. Let the US or the UK put troops on Israel's border, but not UN.

Why should the world guard Israeli borders. The fact that it has been 28 years with no return, is proof enough that UN troops are a waste on Israeli borders. See how long the Israeli economy can continue on a war footing. The Lebanon's economy is crushed so they have no more to lose except innocent lives. Other Arab countries will sustain them. The sacrifice now would be worth the real peace in the future. So no UN troops.


Then the b___ had the nerve to say...
So, even Gillerman agrees that 28 years is too long.

Couldnt agree more - I dont see why their terror tactics should be rewarded by putting western people/ cannon fodder in the firing line to guard their borders.

They are basically demanding this at the point of a gun - ie guard our borders or we will kill another thousand lebaneese civilians - I dont think they should be rewarded for this, and thats also a good point about who gets to pay the bill for this. It will cost hundreds of millions to put 15000 soldiers in place for a number of years - israel should pay its own bills I dont see why european taxpayers should have to.

Moriarty

Don't the UN reimburse nations for expenses incurred in deploying troops with UN missions?

MiddleE

Moriarty wrote:

It's not a strong force or equipped with a sufficiently clear mandate or rules of engagement yet, but it may very well be shortly. Negotiations are still ongoing last I heard. If/when these two issues are sorted out I'd fully support as large a deployment of Irish troops as we can manage.

How short or long is shortly? Heck of a long breath to hold!

Unifil guidelines a recipe for inaction
Today by the Irish Times Security Analyst.

The UN's 21-page document purporting to outline the "rules of engagement" for the proposed reinforced Unifil mission to Lebanon gives little comfort or explicit direction to potential military commanders who might be deployed there, writes Tom Clonan.

Extracts from the leaked "UN-Restricted" document that is currently being examined by military staffs from potential troop-donating countries worldwide - including Ireland - suggest a document that is as vague as UN Security Council Resolution 1701 on the specific issues of use of force, mission statement and command and control of forces.

Nothing vague about this expert opinion! Then...Group opposes sending Irish troops. {also today}

Moriarty wrote:

If it's a properly mandated force, with proper rules of engagement, then yes I would. People are less likely to use UN troops for target practice when they're likely to get heavy return fire.

Is there a presumption here as to which side would fire on the UN? Irish troops have far less to fear from Lebanese than the all mighty IDF - until recent all mighty IDF. So who will supply air support to the UN or heavy artillery as used so well by SLA under IDF direction to dictate events on the ground. Who will enforce a 'no fly zone' over southern Lebanon? There is no way the UN can outgun the IDF so it will always be intimidated as in the past. Read the historical records.

Moriarty wrote:

You've yet to explain your underlying reasons for not wanting a UN force in the border regions of Israel and Lebanon. Would you care to explain &/ expand on them?

How long have you got!

Let me first say that I am in favour of sending Irish troops ANYWHERE EXCEPT to Israel's borders. Anywhere. I'm immensely proud of our troops contribution to world peace. 28 years guarding the same border is too long.

Why should the world guard Israeli borders.
Only one country has ever invaded Lebanon. Three times!
[url="http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0817/breaking55.htm[/url]
Safety of troops in Lebanon a major issue, says Ahern
The IDF tried to bully the UN troops continuously.
Why should the UN provide border security for another 28 years for a corrupt, non-constitutional, sectarian, racist, militarist, warmongering state.
As long as the UN provides security on its borders there will not be the need for Israel to have meaningful peace talks with it's neighbours.
It is hard to know with this particular bully as to the best course.
I've very much reminded of the USSR just before the end.
When has Israel ever made concessions or shown weakness.
I would not trust the IDF even if they swore that we were on the same side.

I believe that I have adequately explained with reason why I'm against UN or Irish troops guarding Israel's borders. "You've yet to explain your underlying reasons for wanting a UN force in the border regions of Israel and Lebanon." I have only see emotional reasons advanced from the advocates in favour. Past history and the recent spat support not sending UN troops. There is a lot more evidence that I could put forward. I'd like to hear from you first. I'm still not sure that you are not just pulling my leg?

Any country that would willingly cause WW3 to start for short term gain can never be trusted. LBJ, Israel & the USS Liberty Massacre

At pp. 267-268, Hounam said, "Sinking the Liberty and blaming Egypt and the Soviets would have freed Johnson's hand to do almost anything - even to drop an atomic bomb on Cairo. Trouble only arose when the Israel operation failed - and the damned ship stayed afloat."

MiddleE

Moriarty wrote:

Don't the UN reimburse nations for expenses incurred in deploying troops with UN missions?

Eventually, yes. Only after bully Bolton decides that the US pays its share, years late. But this does not answer the point.

Morlar
It will cost hundreds of millions to put 15000 soldiers in place for a number of years - Israel should pay its own bills I don't see why European taxpayers should have to.

Is the question.

Israel has got away with not paying for its on security for 28 years.

Worse, this has allowed them not to have talk peace with their neighbours.

Morlar
They are basically demanding this at the point of a gun - ie guard our borders or we will kill another thousand Lebanese civilians - I don't think they should be rewarded for this

Yes. Well put.

MiddleE

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

MiddleE #43
Now, Israel has rescued Hezbollah and made its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, not only the most popular man in Lebanon – but in the whole Arab world.

Recent reports from the Arab league say other wise. Except for Syria that is. But your right in the case of the Lebanese. While PR might be up, Hezbollah were dealt a heavy blow before the ceasefire. If UNIFIL can disarm them or even just stop them from rearming, then current popularity may not be enough. With out the military presence Hezbollah will no doubt weaken in the political end, maintaining a strong army for defence against Lebanon's enemies was after all one of it's major policies. All the while Israel can recreate and upgrade their tanks to make them impervious to Iranian antitank missiles.

Do you not accept Charles Glass's bone fide? Did you offer any sources?

Israeli source

Is that an Islamo-Nazi under the bed, or is it a Zio-Nazi?
H A A R E T Z ...By Bradley Burston ...Wed., August 23, 2006
"'If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.'" (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises."

The pitfalls of machismo
H A A R E T Z ...By Dan Rabinowitz ...Thu., August 17, 2006
As always in the Arab world, the party at which Israel directed the most force was the one that ultimately emerged the most strengthened. The enormous quantity of bombs that Israel dropped on Hezbollah turned its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and his deceptive ideology into icons of Arab unity and righteous resistance, and gave Iran important achievements in its struggle to undermine the legitimacy of moderate Arab regimes.

Lebanon source Caught with its pants down
HAARETZ ...By Yoel Marcus
Moshe Arens used to say that you don't need military intelligence to find out things the enemy has let you know in advance. Nasrallah has said over and over again that Hezbollah was planning to seize hostages.

Lebanon, a warning against the use of brute force
DAILY STAR ...Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Conventional thinking in the Middle East has largely been built on Israel's overwhelming military strength, together with the disunity and lack of purpose of Arab leaders. But, in less than two months, the almost mythic power of the region's most powerful army has been dented, and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, has come across as a determined leader, in sharp contrast to the usual behavior of Arab leaders.

Europe source

EU rejects U.S. call to label Hezbollah 'terrorist' group
UPI ...Published Aug/2/2006

American source

Mideast fighting: Who won, who lost
SEATTLE TIMES WP ...By Robin Wright ...Monday, August 14, 2006
In waging the longest Arab war against Israel, the big winner might be Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah — for now. One surprise has been the strong leadership of neophyte Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora.

Middle East source

Enhanced Hezbollah status worries Arab leaders
Arab rulers drew deep breaths when Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed that the Lebanese Shia movement now leads the world-wide community of Muslims, the Umma. His words, uttered on Sunday during a televised address, amounted to a direct Shia minority challenge to the 90 per cent Sunni majority and to Saudi Arabia's Sunni ruler who, as custodian of Mecca and Medina, is considered head of the Umma.

mike65

Jacques Chirac pledges 1600 troops and volenteers to lead the UN force.

Mike.

New_Departure06

I have some concerns about the lack of clarity in the mandate. It appears to be under Chapter VI rather than VII of the UN mandate. As such according to RTE Radio 1 reports it seems that it will only be able to act with the permission of the Lebanese army. The latter are hardly going to want to disarm Hezbollah considering that up to 50% of the former are Shia like Hezbollah. So the question is what role would the UN troops serve in this context? As some kind of human-shield for Lebanon against Israel? Personally I respect Hezbollah's successful defence of their country against the Israeli aggressors, but they shouldn't have captured the IDF POWs either. That was unprovoked. Should Irish troops take part? I don't know.

Mick86

SkepticOne wrote:

A strong UN force with a clear mandate will allow Israel to leave Lebanon and allow the Lebanese to reconstruct their country. Ireland should therefore contribute to this force.

It won't be strong enough nor will it's mandate be clear enough. UN forces are put in place to make Europe and the US feel good about doing something. UNIFIL isn't taken seriously as evidenced by the suggested contributors. Bangladesh and Malaysia joining the Ghanians. And the return of the Nepalese. I'll bet the Israelis are sweating that combination.

The locals like the UN because they're making money from the troops. Hezbollah and the Isrealis don't like the UN because it's a hindrance in their efforts to kill each other. Any UN troops that try to disarm or take on Hezbollah will find itself in the same position as the US in Fallujah. Likewise attempting to take on the Israelis.

If the world wants to fight a war in Lebanon then real war-fighting troops have to be deployed. Unfortunately NATO and the US are either unwilling or committed elsewhere and to be honest Lebanon has nothing the west needs. Like oil.

We could of course let Hezbollah and Israel fight it out as they inevitably will anyway and the UN could concentrate on real problems like preventing Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons.

MiddleE

MiddleE wrote:

#28
I think he was called the 'Bull' Callaghan by his men.

An Irish general, Lieutenant General Bill O'Callaghan, was Commander in Chief of UNIFIL in the 1980s. All of this inevitably led to a degree of sympathy by the Irish for the people of the region, and also, to a degree, towards a perception of Israel as a quasi-colonial power.

Miller treats of the influence of all of these factors on the development of Irish policy on the Palestine question. However, he is not uncritical of what he sees as the emergence of a pro-PLO position by Ireland at the beginning of the 21st century, and the degree to which that is unhelpful to what he declares to be the "…central objective of Ireland's Middle East policy for over three decades", viz. the emergence of a viable, sovereign, Palestine state alongside Israel.

Three Monkeys Online

Ireland and the Palestine Question 1948 – 2004 by Dr. Rory Miller is Published by Irish Academic Press

bonkey

Mick86 wrote:

to be honest Lebanon has nothing the west needs.

I beg to differ. The West seriously needs Chateau Musar. What a wine.

SkepticOne

Some people here have the point of view that the UN should stand aside and let the conflict continue with further destruction of Southern Lebanon and a massive humanitarian disaster developing.

What surprises me is that these same people seem to also take an anti-Israel stance rather than an anti-Lebanese people stance. The people that really suffer from continued conflict are the ordinary non-terrorist Lebanese people.

Mick86

bonkey wrote:

I beg to differ. The West seriously needs Chateau Musar. What a wine.

I'm a Carlsberg man myself.:D However the local brew Almaza is quite nice. That said, if hezbollah start running the show, there won't be any Lebanese wine or beer.

SkepticOne wrote:

....What surprises me is that these same people seem to also take an anti-Israel stance rather than an anti-Lebanese people stance. The people that really suffer from continued conflict are the ordinary non-terrorist Lebanese people.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest.