Middle East Continued Again...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Indeed, that may have been hezb's objective all along in view of their increasing irrelevance in a country whose govt and self-determination were increasing with each and every day. And now Israel have fallen into the trap...

I think Israel's actions are downright murderous and counterproductive, but I don't think they've fallen into an Hebollah trap. Hezbollah called for negociations almost immediately after capturing the two soldiers. I think they expected some response, but I don't think they expected an all-out attack on Lebanon and on their assets.

Had the Hezbollah expected Israel to use the first excuse of a casus belli to launch a full-scale war, I they'd have created a pretty different casus belli, and wouldn't have called for talks nearly as quickly.

[Elok]

You folks misunderstand me. I'm saying that, as Israel's justification for invading was at least initially the two soldiers, claiming that their aggression killed said soldiers (who were otherwise more or less safe, although probably not comfortable) in addition to killing hundreds of civilians and provoking a continual retaliation of rockets--well, wouldn't that be a PR nightmare? I don't understand the crackheaded logic they employ in the ME, so I have to ask. It's not like the soldiers were any use to hzb. And with the chaos of the ongoing conflict, would it be all that difficult for them to abduct a couple more soldiers?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
It's not like the soldiers were any use to hzb.

The Hezb's public excuse for capturing the two soldiers was to have a prisoner exchange with Israel (there are still a few Hezbollites in Israeli prisons).

It's pretty obvious they had something else in mind. The precise nature of the "something else" is still debated. Some people believe they wanted Israel to start a full-fledged war, be it for their own interests (gaining a relevance that they was starting to wane), for Iran's interests (diverting the G8), or for Syria's interests (bringing Syria back in Lebanon).

[BeBMan]

Elok, I'm no expert in this, but I'd guess that now since the IDF is on full alert abducting soldiers would be much more difficult.

And while I agree with Spiff, I'd also say Hzb still would welcome a prisoner exchange as nice sideeffect if there would be such an exchange, so I don't think the soldiers are useless (from Hzb pov).

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The Hezb's public excuse for capturing the two soldiers was to have a prisoner exchange with Israel (there are still a few Hezbollites in Israeli prisons).

It's pretty obvious they had something else in mind.

Is it? With Israel going on a rampage in Gaza over one missing soldier, I'd say it's just as likely that Hezbollah were merely trying to get a piece of the action, flex some muscle and show some support for their Palestinian brothers in Gaza.
Israel was already raving mad about one missing soldier, so abducting two more was bound to get some attention.

Also, I guess they may have figured with 3 soldiers held by 2 different groups, they'd have better chances of achieving their goal since it would be harder for Israel to go after both groups at once.

But hey, I'm just a silly Norwegian, what do I know?

Also, I suppose it is quite possible that Syria or Iran had "something else" in mind, even if Hezbollah didn't...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think Israel's actions are downright murderous and counterproductive, but I don't think they've fallen into an Hebollah trap. Hezbollah called for negociations almost immediately after capturing the two soldiers. I think they expected some response, but I don't think they expected an all-out attack on Lebanon and on their assets.

Had the Hezbollah expected Israel to use the first excuse of a casus belli to launch a full-scale war, I they'd have created a pretty different casus belli, and wouldn't have called for talks nearly as quickly.

Maybe they weren't but the point is that hezb's raison d'etre was fighting the Israeli occupation - if they successfully lure Israel into Lebanon, surely they are again a 'legitimate' force?

Their biggest enemy is to fail to provoke Israel thus being less able to resist calls for disarmament.

Besides, this way they get to fire off their huge stockpile of rockets, instead of meekly handing them in at some point down the line...

Negotiation is the key to this thing, that and a stronger Lebanese govt.

The murderous destruction by Israel is utterly counterproductive to these goals - but then do they really care about a few hezb rockets and the odd civilian casualty at the end of the day when weighed up against the 'necessity' of occupying its neighbours territory and keeping them weak?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Guardian


Is it? With Israel going on a rampage in Gaza over one missing soldier, I'd say it's just as likely that Hezbollah were merely trying to get a piece of the action, flex some muscle and show some support for their Palestinian brothers in Gaza.
Israel was already raving mad about one missing soldier, so abducting two more was bound to get some attention.

Also, I guess they may have figured with 3 soldiers held by 2 different groups, they'd have better chances of achieving their goal since it would be harder for Israel to go after both groups at once.

But hey, I'm just a silly Norwegian, what do I know?

Also, I suppose it is quite possible that Syria or Iran had "something else" in mind, even if Hezbollah didn't...

Seconded!

Stuff like Iran's nuclear ambitions were forgotten at the G8 because of this. Apparently our leaders are dumb and can't multi-task...

[MOBIUS]

Israel seemed to be softening its opposition to an international force in Southern Lebanon, so long as it had a mandate and the necessary teeth to implement Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for disarming Hizbollah and the stationing of Lebanese army troops in the border zone.

Amir Peretz, the Defence Minister, said: " Israel's goal is to see the Lebanese army deployed along the border with Israel, but we understand that we are talking about a weak army and that in the mid-term period Israel will have to accept a multinational force." He added that such a force should also act to prevent the smuggling of weapons from Syria into Lebanon.

So if Israel understands what has to be done, then why isn't it seeing it gets done?

Its actions up until now have been entirely counter-productive WRT resolution 1559...

Israel should be made to pay compensation to the Lebanese govt for the destruction of every piece of civilian and infrastructure destruction that Lebanon has suffered, as well as compensation for the innocent lives lost.

Better still the US should hand the money straight to Lebanon out of the money it gives to Israel every year, as it is at least partly responsible by not reining in it's brutish rottweiler of an ally...

Then we can have some symbolically useless war crimes trials for Olmert and his war cabinet...

[Arrian]

And presumably Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera will pay for the damage they do... or is that unimportant in the MOBIVERSE? They're killing the people of the "brutish rottweiler" so that's ok. Or perhaps even good. Huzzah for Hezbollah, eh?

As it stands, both sides have done and will continue to do awful ****. I don't like it anymore than you do. But I do know that taking one side and one side alone won't do anything to end it, unless of course you're willing to wipe out the other side. One would think that, to be consistant, you would be against that sort of thinking.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Jews don't matter to Moby, Arrian.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
And presumably Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera will pay for the damage they do... or is that unimportant in the MOBIVERSE? They're killing the people of the "brutish rottweiler" so that's ok. Or perhaps even good. Huzzah for Hezbollah, eh?

As it stands, both sides have done and will continue to do awful ****. I don't like it anymore than you do. But I do know that taking one side and one side alone won't do anything to end it, unless of course you're willing to wipe out the other side. One would think that, to be consistant, you would be against that sort of thinking.

-Arrian

Oh I'm sorry, I just assumed you knew they were a terrorist organisation - might be difficult getting the money from them you know...

Whereas the other is a democratically elected sovereign state.

It didn't occur to me to mention hezb because they're not the ones attacking an innocent 3rd party (Lebanon).

Sure we should try to exact compensation from them as well (if we can) but that is only likely to happen down the line when 1559 can be enacted.

They are a political force in Lebanon, we could make it a stipulation that they pay compensation in order to continue in that role.

So I'm not taking sides at all, were that you would see past your own prejudices...

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Jews don't matter to Moby, Arrian.

HEY... Don't personalize this. Discuss the topic, not the posters!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Jews don't matter to Moby, Arrian.

They matter an awful lot more to me than you do.

[DinoDoc]

Hey, no fair! I'm banned from responding to you.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
It didn't occur to me to mention hezb because they're not the ones attacking an innocent 3rd party (Lebanon).

Does this mean that whoever Hezb does attack is not innocent? After all, if Hezb victims were not guilty it might have been worth mentioning.