Middle East thread continued

[Spiffor]

Rockets fired by Hezbollah militants in Lebanon have killed at least eight people and wounded many others in the coastal Israeli city of Haifa.

Oh crap.
Siro? Az? Are you guys and your families all right?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ecthy
As for the discussion? I find it insane how Israel's actions are compared with Hizbollah (is there ANY standard spelling for this? I hate how Siro spells it ) actions on the same level, how Israel's actions are called "state terrorism" by evil lefties and how some people just don't want to see the restraint Israel has been taking for decades.

Several points have been argued here by pro-Israelis:
- The attacks are to force the Lebanese government to tackle Hezbollah
- The attacks are to turn the civilian population against Hezbollah
- In Gaza, the attacks (including the bombing of the power plant) is to scare the population off voting for Hamas next time.
I know there are other reasons for the attacks, but these ones I find fairly relevant:
Please remind me, how do you call is the act of instilling fear in a civilian population, through violent actions, in order to obtain a change in policies?

There are many who'll just do anything to bend reality in a way t oblame Israel for whatever goes on. Stealing land and water? These are security issues, what is land and water versus blood?

I can't say for land, but in that place, a shortage of water can lead to a humanitarian catastrophe where hundreds or even thousands may die. Granted, they won't die by rocket or bullet, but by more indirect means. It still is dire, and deaths provocated by man-made humanitarian catastrophes are as bad as deaths by weapons.

And I seriously wonder why some people are so keen on twisting it all to blame Israel. I hate generalizing and jumping to conclusion, but I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-Israel "criticism", come it from pacifists or whatever people, was founded on some much older sentiment in their western minds.

You already called me an antisemite in the previous thread, and I chose to let it slide.

I'll just say that my grandparents lost a lifetime worth of work to flee the nazis, because of their Jewishness. Their brothers and sisters weren't so lucky. As to che being an antisemite, I think you couldn't be further from the truth.

Personally, I find it hard to consider Israel as being anything but in the wrong here. And this comes from someone who supports Sharon-Olmert's "peace" plan (i.e withdrawing into a fortress pragmatically larger than the 1967 borders).
For years, Israel made a point of weakening the governments of Lebanon and Palestine. During Arafat, Israel made the Palestinian administration completely ineffective (it would already have been bad without Israel's involvement, what with all the corruption), which means that Hamas could dramatically grow in popularity, what with it being the prime charity in Palestine, and what with them being seen as morally clean.
When Hamas became the government, civil war started to threaten in Palestine. In effect, the Palestinians have taken the helm of a phantom institution (the "government" already meant little in a place as disorganized as Palestine), and this institution was further weakened.
But as soon as Hamas did something against Israel, Israel replied as if their role in the "government" was really meaningful. They bombed infrastructure, they bombed a ****ing private power plant, depriving half of Gaza of power.

In Lebanon, one of Israel's aims is to force the Lebanese to fight against the Hezbollah, one of the largest individual factions in the country, if not the largest. In effect, Israel's actions might well provoke a civil war, and we know how cool civil wars are in Lebanon.
Even if it doesn't trigger a civil war, Israel has killed more than 80 people in 3 days, including many children/women/elderly (as well as -most certainly- adult men who had nothing to do with Hezbollah). And they did this because of an excuse, i.e. Hezbollah capturing two soldiers and killing 8 others.
I know Israel doesn't deliberately target civilians (though they make no qualms about targetting vital infrastructure), and even pays some lip-service to further avoid civilian deaths, by lashing out leaflets. However, if you read the BBC article I posted earlier in this thread, you can see that Lebanon cannot cope with the huge amount of refugees these bombings would create if everybody fled. And you know that there are refugees on the roads as they are bombed by Israel.

It results in Israel having been far more murderous and fearsome than Hezbollah so far. And it shows that Israel made no qualms about targetting civilians (by targetting their infrastructure, not by deliberately targetting their bodies) to punish the military attack by Hezbollah. Hezbollah has turned back to its old terrorist self only after this gross overreaction.

Most pro-Israelis talk about Israeli "restraint". Well, duh. Israel has the strength to do a genocide if it so wants. However, this ignores two things:
- when you have a stronger military, it's much easier to show "restraint". In military conflicts, it is rare that the clear victor doesn't show "restraint".
Heck, even the nazis (not to godwinize: I'm not comparing Israel to nazi Germany, I'm just using an extreme example to show how absurd the argument is) showed restraint in occupied France: Sure, they locked up an entire village in a church, and then burned it down, but they did it only once! Thumbs up to the nazi restraint!

- Despite the fact that it has much less ability to show restraint (because it has much less military capability), the Hezbollah did show it: 1) they hadn't attacked Israel for years, and 2) their first attack was on military targets, instead of defenseless civilians. And when you're a guerilla, it's very ballsy to take on an organised and modern military, even more so when you capture enemy soldiers.

[Ecthy]

Spiff, to be fair to you and che and many others, that point was more from an outside of this place point of view. I fidn many people around me argue in unreflected manners and often seem to see a higher objective in placing blame on Israel. No personal direction intended there.

As far as the water issue goes, are you claiming Israel does that in order to kill as many civilians as possible? Because that is what the opposite side does, and what Israel is defending against.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Spiff, to be fair to you and che and many others, that point was more from an outside of this place point of view. I fidn many people around me argue in unreflected manners and often seem to see a higher objective in placing blame on Israel. No personal direction intended there.

Glad to see you've changed your mind

As far as the water issue goes, are you claiming Israel does that in order to kill as many civilians as possible? Because that is what the opposite side does, and what Israel is defending against.

I don't think Israel wants to kill as many civilians as possible. If it wanted to do so, it would have already done. I'm fully aware that there is no genocide going on in the Middle East.

However, it seems pretty clear to me that Israel doesn't care one zilch about the material well-being of the Palestinians. And considering how scarce water is in the area, Israel has no qualms claiming all the water it needs for itself.
There is actually a broad feeling of undairness in the West Bank over the issue. The Palestinians watch the Israelis seemingly swimming in water, while they have it tough. And the Israelis aren't gonna share, and the only reason for this unfairness comes from Israel's military power.

[Ecthy]

I was drinking beer and simplifying things that night. Not an excuse, just so you know I can do otherwise

Also it isn't Israel's job to care for the Palestinians' well-being.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Also it isn't Israel's job to care for the Palestinians' well-being.

Indeed.

But Israel does take by force a water that is already scarce to the Pals, destroys infrastructure, ruins the economy (a senior Palestinian economy official has warned that the Palestinian economy might shrink by 15% this year), ruins their businesses, prevents farmers from reaching their farmlands, etc.

And they think the resentment is due to fanaticism. And the EU's help to the Palestinian authority is viewed with suspicion. And they will consider it a "national humiliation" (Siro's words, to describe the state of the Israeli public opinion) to negociate with the radicals the Palestinians voted in.
Obviously the path to peace between the two people.

[DinoDoc]

And when you're a guerilla, it's very ballsy to take on an organised and modern military, even more so when you capture enemy soldiers.

Is it really all that ballsy when your patron orders you to do so?

[Eli]

Apparently the US is evacuating it's Beirut Embassy


From the Israeli TV I got the impression that Israel is going to escalate it's attacks during the coming hours.

[GePap]

Given that Hizbullah hit Haifa, an Israeli escallation would seem a given. The question is how long will they stick to long range attacks before they invade...

To clarify my position on this whole matter, if it has not been made clear already:

I don't care that Israel is taking military actions vs. Hizbullah in the sense that Hizbullah attacked an IDF patrol- it makes sense for the IDF to hit Hizbullah back. The problem lies in that Israel has decided that they will at this point do everything they can to totally remove Hizbullah as a military force. That is a rational aim, but their chosen tactics are unreasonable.

In blaming the Lebanese government and in hitting widely in Lebanon, specially the blockade and hitting civilian infrastructure they seek to force the Lebanese government into taking on Hizbullah without themselves having to repeat 1982. The problem is that by hitting civilian infrastructure, by blockading, they make it HARDER for the Lebanese government to do something that given Lebanon's ehtnic patchwork and its history was already a difficult thing to do. Israel has also not offered any significant change to the realities that have allowed Hizbullah to lay claim to still being "the resistance."

My prediction, for what its worth, is that in the end Israel will significantly degrade Hizbullah's military arm, but only AFTER they reoccupy southern Lebanon. BUt the threat from Hizbullah will only end once the Israelis actually negotiate for an end to the excuses Hizbullah has for claiming that it is still "the resistance", a claim they will have again once Israel re-occupies southern Lebanon.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't care that Israel is taking military actions vs. Hizbullah in the sense that Hizbullah attacked an IDF patrol- it makes sense for the IDF to hit Hizbullah back. The problem lies in that Israel has decided that they will at this point do everything they can to totally remove Hizbullah as a military force. That is a rational aim, but their chosen tactics are unreasonable.

Am I to understand that you would support a large scale Israeli Military move against Hizbullah if you considered the tactics reasonable?

[Eli]

I dont think there will be any major land operations in South Lebanon. Commando missions, yes. Quick incursions, yes. But I dont think the Israeli government is willing to pay the price in blood of a full scale military invasion. Hizballah is not Hamas. They are much more capable and prepared.

Even if the conflict expands to Syria, I think Israel will mostly utilize it's enormous advantage in airpower and artillery to destroy infrastructure and armies, avoiding land engagements.
The life of an Israeli soldier is extremely expensive for the government and the population, and that's IMO is the real reason behind the infrastructure attacks in Lebanon. Hizballah's positions are hidden pretty well, and using airpower on them alone will be both ineffective and too "low profile". The only high profile, non-ground actions that Israel can do is to attack Lebanon itself.

In themselves, the attacks are stupid. But they are the only thing drastic enough that can cause Syria and Lebanon to dismantle Hizballah.

[Kuciwalker]

In Lebanon, one of Israel's aims is to force the Lebanese to fight against the Hezbollah, one of the largest individual factions in the country, if not the largest. In effect, Israel's actions might well provoke a civil war, and we know how cool civil wars are in Lebanon.
Even if it doesn't trigger a civil war, Israel has killed more than 80 people in 3 days, including many children/women/elderly (as well as -most certainly- adult men who had nothing to do with Hezbollah). And they did this because of an excuse, i.e. Hezbollah capturing two soldiers and killing 8 others.

How many of those were necessarily innocent? I'll repeat my example from the other thread: about 10 of those were the family that was letting Hezbollah's leaders meet in their home. Can Israel be criticized for that at all?

(And I'm not saying it was only those 10, I was providing an example of how many of those casualties could be entirely blameless for Israel.)

[PLATO]

Reports now are that Hizbullah is now armed with Chinese made C-802 missles (purchased from China by Iran). This is really a quite capable missle that can carry a 360 lb warhead. I have to agree with Siro...this situation wrt Hizbullah is intolerable for the Israelis.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Reports now are that Hizbullah is now armed with Chinese made C-802 missles (purchased from China by Iran). This is really a quite capable missle that can carry a 360 lb warhead. I have to agree with Siro...this situation wrt Hizbullah is intolerable for the Israelis.

That is an anti-ship missile. What they used against the warship.

[Kuciwalker]

And that's what's intolerable. IDF warships are being attacked with Iranian-bought anti-ship missiles. That's not terrorism, it's war.