Israel VS. Lebanon

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: A little more understanding with regards to the political situation in Lebanon from Israel might also be welcome (and it was rather amusing to see Bush in that press conference rather worried that his pet democracy in the Middle-East could be destabilised):

Amusing to some, downright disrespectful for others. A person of your stature should be well versed in how much "USAID" goes to that region for peace. Recall the mid 1990's peace accord? Recall the Camp David summit? Yeap, those are 'MY' tax dollars that just went up in sm0ke!

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: @Knightscape - by your (and Israel's) logic, Britain should have declared war against Ireland at the height of the IRA campaign - I'm fairly sure there were some Irish MPs involved.

If a foreign country (Soviet Union) for example had started supplying the IRA with rockets, missiles and other advanced weaponry which the IRA actively used to fire at English cities, and the IRA changed it philosophy to one of total destruction of England while Irish officials condoned these actions, then yes my logic would have had Britain declaring war on Ireland.

This kind of behaviour just wouldn't be acceptable anywhere outside of the Middle-East.

If North Korea started launching rockets at Japan over a span of several years and then decided to kidnap Japanese soldiers in Japan, war would be inevitable.

If Cuba started launching rockets at the U.S., and then kidnapped a couple U.S. soldiers, Cuba would be in a lot of trouble even if Cuba blamed it on a not-official group.

If a fringe group with the purpose of the total destruction of Russia (in the Ukraine or another former Soviet province) started rocket attacks on Russian cities, and the official Ukraine government did nothing, then the response from Russia would be severe.


So on the contrary the Israeli response would seem to be very much in line (probably even less severe) with what any other country that was fighting for it survival would do.

@Morg - Don't forget that Hizbollah did rustle up (belatedly!) a couple of hundred thousand demonstrators in its support last year - they're certainly not without support. We also shouldn't forget the main reason for that support - they were the group that kicked the occupying Israeli forces out of Lebanon. IIRC, the Israeli occupation of Lebanon was one of the (or the major?) reason(s) for the founding of Hezbollah. I would surmise that the international community is supportive of Lebanon for both this reason (as we like to believe that you reap what you sow) and the fact that we don't like bullies.

...or countries fighting for their very right to exist it would seem.

Israel is throwing a military temper tantrum which is killing innocent civilians at a fair rate (over 100 now?) There is no military justification for striking all over the country away from Hezbollah strongholds.

There is no military justification for targeting hezbollah members and installations?


It is looking more and more like the promise of land for peace was nothing more that a lie by the likes of hammas and hezballah designed to gain sympathy from the international community and make Israel a more vulnerable target. A lie that would seem to have worked.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Amusing to some, downright disrespectful for others. A person of your stature should be well versed in how much "USAID" goes to that region for peace. Recall the mid 1990's peace accord? Recall the Camp David summit? Yeap, those are 'MY' tax dollars that just went up in sm0ke!

My apologies Felix, it was petty.

It was a combination of frustration at our bumbling leaders who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery* and wry amusement at the fact that (probably for the first time) Bush was seeing first hand the flip-side of Israeli actions in the region and the fact that they may conflict with his own goals.

*I mean, what on earth is the point of deploying a UN army that only observes?! If Britain and the US had thrown their weight behind a proper mission there to disarm Hezbollah rather than chasing Saddam then we might be looking at a different set of headlines.

Originally posted by Knightscape: If a foreign country (Soviet Union) for example had started supplying the IRA with rockets, missiles and other advanced weaponry which the IRA actively used to fire at English cities, and the IRA changed it philosophy to one of total destruction of England while Irish officials condoned these actions, then yes my logic would have had Britain declaring war on Ireland.

Fair enough.

This kind of behaviour just wouldn't be acceptable anywhere outside of the Middle-East.

If North Korea started launching rockets at Japan over a span of several years and then decided to kidnap Japanese soldiers in Japan, war would be inevitable.

If Japan was occupying parts of North Korea, it might be more justifiable of course. (But lets not open that can of worms here!)

So on the contrary the Israeli response would seem to be very much in line (probably even less severe) with what any other country that was fighting for it survival would do.

Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. I would still utterly dispute the fact that Israel is fighting for its survival. It likes to claim it is of course, as justification, but the military reality is completely different.

Not only could Israel obliterate the entire surrounding population by conventional means, it also has the ability to vapourise the entire Middle-East with nuclear weapons if necessary. Finally, the United States would ensure that Israel is never truly threatened with destruction, contributing equipment and troops if necessary.

Their main enemies in the region are so cowed that they must fight by proxy, and that proxy is armed with thousands of crappy rockets with a range of ~16miles. So far after hundreds (thousands?) have been launched at Israel, 24 Israeli's have been killed. Wow, that's...erm...not really an impressive military capability.

Sure, Hezbollah is rumoured to have some nicer rockets from Iran with a range of over 100 miles, but we've yet to see them being launched.

I would surmise that the international community is supportive of Lebanon for both this reason (as we like to believe that you reap what you sow) and the fact that we don't like bullies.

...or countries fighting for their very right to exist it would seem.

Meh, see above [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Israel is throwing a military temper tantrum which is killing innocent civilians at a fair rate (over 100 now?) There is no military justification for striking all over the country away from Hezbollah strongholds.

There is no military justification for targeting hezbollah members and installations?

If you'll look at my first post, I approve of such targeting. If I didn't feel the need to at least maintain a facade of balance against Israel in the region, I would happily wipe Hezbollah out myself if it was within my capability.

I approve of killing terrorists.

I don't approve of bombing civilians - over 200 dead now - including a family of 3 adults, 6 children sheltering in their basement.

I don't approve of asking the population to flee and then bombing the main highways and petrol stations preventing them from doing so.

I don't like countries that, at a whim, can force many thousands of innocents to flee their homes and livelihoods.

I don't like countries that occupy others.

I don't like collective punishment - that a resurgent lively democratic (and genuinely multicultural) country with a population of 3.1 million people must have its economy ruined and the whole country plunged into poverty is abominable.

These are the actions of a terrorist state. It's just not fair! Watching interviews with refugees fleeing North (although Israel has been striking up there too, so where they are running to is not entirely clear) they are angry at Israel, furious even. Forced to flee with their families when they have done no wrong - as Morg pointed out, the majority of Lebanese after years of occupation and bloodshed thought it was all over and simply wanted to be left alone. Collective punishment (especially of this magnitude) is utterly reprehensible.

It is looking more and more like the promise of land for peace was nothing more that a lie by the likes of hammas and hezballah designed to gain sympathy from the international community and make Israel a more vulnerable target. A lie that would seem to have worked.

I wasn't aware of this? I thought the Shebaa farms area and others in the vicinity have always been violently disputed. Please do bring me up to speed though if I'm wrong please [img]smile.gif[/img] If you're referring to the usual UN resolutions - if Israel disregards them all, they cannot expect resolutions against their enemies to be enforced.

If you're referring to the withdrawal from Gaza, that was unilateral and not part of an agreement with Hamas to the best of my knowledge (although I do applaud it).

[ 07-18-2006, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: Just can see that Israeli actions are appropriate to acheive desired response, irrespective of whether they are proportionate. Would seem to be the Govt.'s effort to appear 'tough' has, as so often happens in such situations, wherever they occur, has had too much of an influence on policy.

Actions toward who? Lebanon? They were invaded, for frik's sake.

[pritchke]

Lebanon is not at fault here, this is not a war between Lebanon and Israel, the two countries would easily live in peace if it were not for other fringe factors such as terrorist groups who are basically supported by Iran, and Syria. Iran being the biggest culprit in supplying the terrorist (Hezbollah) with weapons to attack Israel from Lebanon. Syria is a problem not for supplying terrorist in the same extent as Iran but more a diplomatic thorn as its leadership continues to play the balancing act of trying not to provoke the U.S. yet undermining Mideast peace through any means. Israel was attacked first here and it does have a right to defend itself. Unfortunately for Lebanon the attack came from within its borders. We like to complain about Lebanon not getting rid of the terrorist but that is quite hard when the terrorist overmatch you militarily thanks to Iran and Syria. Once Israel frees Lebanon from its terrorist it should march on Iran and free it from the tyrants there. Did Israel use to much force against Lebanon? Quite possibly yes, as many citizens were killed as well as Canadians, there are about 40,000 Canadians in Lebanon many of which have dual citizenship whom we are attempting to rescue, I believe the Britis are planning a rescue for there citizens as well. Does it piss us off, that our citizens are being bombed? You bet, but we are saying Israel has the right to respond to attacks against it and isn't wrong in doing so though we may disagree with the amount of force and the high death of citizens. It is not really a black and white situation here and there is plenty of blame to go around but it should not all be directed at Israel or Lebanon as neither are the real culprits here. As for fleeing refugees who have done no wrong, well your right it is always the innocent who suffer most in war.

[ 07-18-2006, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. I would still utterly dispute the fact that Israel is fighting for its survival. It likes to claim it is of course, as justification, but the military reality is completely different.

I could not disagree more.
Since it's inception Israel has pretty much been attacked by every neighbouring country. The objective of these attacks has always been the destruction of Israel. If not for a lot of ingenuity, and the luck to have it's neighbouring states not trusting each other, Israel would not exist today.
Having failed at the direct attacks many enemies of the state of Israel changed their approach to one of terrorism (directly or indirectly). I guess with the philosophy that if they could not give Israel a quick death, a slow one would have to do. As these attacks have never ceased and Israel has to be continually on guard it becomes apparent that Israel is most definitely in a fight for their survival.

Not only could Israel obliterate the entire surrounding population by conventional means, it also has the ability to vapourise the entire Middle-East with nuclear weapons if necessary. Finally, the United States would ensure that Israel is never truly threatened with destruction, contributing equipment and troops if necessary.

I do not believe that there is any formal treaty between the U.S. and Israel guaranteeing the safety of Israel. If you have a link that says otherwise I would be interested in reading it. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Whenever Israel has been threatened with destruction in the past the general attitude from most of the international community would seem to one of meh. I would hope this attitude changes in the future, but I would not bet on it.

Their main enemies in the region are so cowed that they must fight by proxy, and that proxy is armed with thousands of crappy rockets with a range of ~16miles. So far after hundreds (thousands?) have been launched at Israel, 24 Israeli's have been killed. Wow, that's...erm...not really an impressive military capability.

Perhaps in a few years and with better weaponry many more Israeli's will be killed; making for a more impressive military capability.

Sure, Hezbollah is rumoured to have some nicer rockets from Iran with a range of over 100 miles, but we've yet to see them being launched.

I would surmise that the international community is supportive of Lebanon for both this reason (as we like to believe that you reap what you sow) and the fact that we don't like bullies.

...or countries fighting for their very right to exist it would seem.Meh, see above [img]tongue.gif[/img] quote: Israel is throwing a military temper tantrum which is killing innocent civilians at a fair rate (over 100 now?) There is no military justification for striking all over the country away from Hezbollah strongholds.

There is no military justification for targeting hezbollah members and installations?If you'll look at my first post, I approve of such targeting. If I didn't feel the need to at least maintain a facade of balance against Israel in the region, I would happily wipe Hezbollah out myself if it was within my capability. I approve of killing terrorists. I don't approve of bombing civilians - over 200 dead now - including a family of 3 adults, 6 children sheltering in their basement. I don't approve of asking the population to flee and then bombing the main highways and petrol stations preventing them from doing so. I don't like countries that, at a whim, can force many thousands of innocents to flee their homes and livelihoods. I don't like countries that occupy others. I don't like collective punishment - that a resurgent lively democratic (and genuinely multicultural) country with a population of 3.1 million people must have its economy ruined and the whole country plunged into poverty is abominable. [/qb]

[/QB][/QUOTE]I don't approve of hypocritical nations condemning Israel for actions that they, themselves, would undoubtedly take if they were in the same situation. The double standard that is applied to Israel is deplorable.

These are the actions of a terrorist state. It's just not fair! Watching interviews with refugees fleeing North (although Israel has been striking up there too, so where they are running to is not entirely clear) they are angry at Israel, furious even. Forced to flee with their families when they have done no wrong - as Morg pointed out, the majority of Lebanese after years of occupation and bloodshed thought it was all over and simply wanted to be left alone. Collective punishment (especially of this magnitude) is utterly reprehensible. quote: It is looking more and more like the promise of land for peace was nothing more that a lie by the likes of hammas and hezballah designed to gain sympathy from the international community and make Israel a more vulnerable target. A lie that would seem to have worked.

I wasn't aware of this? I thought the Shebaa farms area and others in the vicinity have always been violently disputed. Please do bring me up to speed though if I'm wrong please [img]smile.gif[/img] If you're referring to the usual UN resolutions - if Israel disregards them all, they cannot expect resolutions against their enemies to be enforced.
If you're referring to the withdrawal from Gaza, that was unilateral and not part of an agreement with Hamas to the best of my knowledge (although I do applaud it). [/QUOTE]I was referring to the general argument that if Israel wanted peace it would have to returned land seized because of aggression from neighbouring countries and groups. Pulling out of Lebanon, and Gaza would be examples of this.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I approve of killing terrorists.

agreed

I don't approve of bombing civilians - over 200 dead now - including a family of 3 adults, 6 children sheltering in their basement.

unfortunate, but it happens in every war

I don't like countries that occupy others.

so you're opposed to buffer zones? easy to say when you've got the english channel between you and mainland Europe, any invasion would have to cross that (not that it would take much, or much time, but it is at least a minor barrier against invasion) You also oppose the US "occupation" of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc (and the rebuilding of those countries which was done)

I don't like collective punishment - that a resurgent lively democratic (and genuinely multicultural) country with a population of 3.1 million people must have its economy ruined and the whole country plunged into poverty is abominable.

At the same time it provides a bit of incentive for the Lebanese to police their terrorists doesn't it.

These are the actions of a terrorist state. [qb]It's just not fair!

had to laugh at that, the world isn't fair, and we all know it.

Watching interviews with refugees fleeing North (although Israel has been striking up there too, so where they are running to is not entirely clear) they are angry at Israel, furious even. Forced to flee with their families when they have done no wrong - as Morg pointed out, the majority of Lebanese after years of occupation and bloodshed thought it was all over and simply wanted to be left alone. Collective punishment (especially of this magnitude) is utterly reprehensible.

I don't quite recall saying that...

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: quote: I don't approve of bombing civilians - over 200 dead now - including a family of 3 adults, 6 children sheltering in their basement.

unfortunate, but it happens in every war[/QUOTE]Doesn't mean we have to accept it though!

So you're opposed to buffer zones?

Not per se, a nice internationally-drawn line with international forces in it I could cope with. Hey, even the UK and the US on their own would be better than nothing, if we had any troops left to spare.

You also oppose the US "occupation" of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc (and the rebuilding of those countries which was done)

Interesting comparison. In the case of Japan and Germany, I have no problems at all - firstly because they had committed such acts of agression that they deserved to be occupied and secondly because the US was actively committed to their reconstruction and rebuilding. This isn't Israel's agenda. And I don't think anyone could argue that Hizbollah have committed atrocities on anything like the scale of the two countries above.

At the same time it provides a bit of incentive for the Lebanese to police their terrorists doesn't it.

Or makes a hard job practically impossible by weakening the government and encouraging division of the army among sectarian lines.

I'm amazed at Lebanon's restraint for insisting that their military stays neutral, even though at least 30 soldiers have been killed so far and army barracks are being bombed by Israel. You could be damned sure that if I was the Lebanese PM, I'd be throwing everything I had in Israel's face right now - if my country was being destroyed I'd at least take some of them with us.

His tearful plea to the UN was both moving and pitiful, as he appeals to world leaders who are content to watch all that Lebanon has built in the last few years be torn down again.

had to laugh at that, the world isn't fair, and we all know it.

Indeed, but somehow it just seemed the best way to express the frustration I was feeling after watching another depressing round of video footage.

The world would be fairer if we all aspired to make it so.

I don't quite recall saying that...

Apologies, that's what I get for not scrolling up again and quoting you properly. I was referring to:

They have two seats in the parliament, correct, but the majority of Lebanese citizens do not approve of having what amounts to Syrian militia running parts of their country

and drawing from this that they didn't support the military action. Sorry, a step too far perhaps, although I still think that's the case in most of the country.


This whole thing just seems like textbook failures though. Back when I was studying some international relations we covered some basic theory like inability of states to combat non-state actors using conventional military techniques. Israel has been trying to solve it this way for 50 years and doesn't look any closer to succeeding now than before. I guess America is finally learning the lessons they didn't learn from Vietnam so that's progress, but we still lack any reliable conventional method to deal with this kind of threat.

The current situation is like Israel is a person, standing amongst several colonies of vicious ants. It stomps and kicks and lays waste to the surrounding area to get at the tiny attackers but never seems to be able to squash them all. The more it stamps, the more the ground is disturbed and the more ants emerge. It's futile!

[ 07-19-2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[shamrock_uk]

Some good news at least, Israel claims to have hit a bunker in which senior Hezbollah figures were using. They deny it of course, but it looked quite bunker-like to me.

The bad news is that 500,000 Lebanese are estimated to have been displaced from their homes according to the Lebanese PM and the UN. That includes both those that have directly been shelled and those that followed Israeli leaflet advice to flee.

The death toll on the Israeli side is now 27, of which 15 have been killed by Hezbollah rockets.

Another 60 Lebanese were killed on Wednesday, taking the total to well over 300. A Christian district was bombed for the first time since the start of the conflict.

[shamrock_uk]

Ah-ha! Some more good news - Israel has taken the fight to Hezbollah on the ground in the South and is engaged in heavy fighting.

Unfortunately it's not at the expense of the airstrikes, but its a start in getting to grips with Hizbollah without flattening the rest of the country.

The UN Emergency Relief coordinator Jan Egeland has called for a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to get through. He has condemned both Israel and Hezbollah for not caring about civilian suffering, citing that a third of the dead so far have been children. He does criticise Hezbollah for attempting to blend in to the civilian population though.