The Middle East Continues...

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
GePap is mostly right in the first paragraph of the quoted bit, but... Then the second...

The Israelis want to re-establish the 'deterence factor.' Well, they've done that, at some cost to their support around the world.

The other thing he is... weak on... is just what would force the rest of the world to actually spend money, or lives, to help Lebanon with its situation re Hezbollah?

The Sunni regimes of Egypt and specially KSA would be happy to bakroll the Lebanese in taking down Hizbullah, because they see it as a tool of Iran. No one would ocntribute arms thought.

Finally, the Lebanese thought the cost of dealing with Hezbollah outweighed the costs. I doubt they think that calculation was well grounded now. It sucks, but the government of Israel has a responsibility to its own citizens and soldiers before any other.

1. A new civil war in Lebanon would always be the worst option. This Israeli campaign has been very costly economically, but a civil war would be more devastating and more destabalizing.

2. All states have more than one responsibility. Will israeli citizens be better off at the end of this campaign than before it? I doubt it. Israel thinks the "deterrence factor" is back, but note the "poor" performance of the IDF (or in reality, the OK performance of the IDF fighting a tought and seasoned opponent, which notheless wrecks the fiction that the IDF is invincible and that Arab forces can;t fight). Again, Hassan Nasrallah, unless the Israelis assasinate him soon, will come out and be the great new Hero of the ME, and radicals everywhere have been politically strengthened.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
For the claim of Isarael to be branded as a terrorist state one would have to prove Israel's intention to coerce a society or government. I see no arguement laid out for such an assertion, merely that Israel has been indiscrimanant in their use of military force.

Actually, Israel attempt to coherce the government of Lebanon and the non-Shiites in Lebanon to take on Hizbulloah themselves or continue to see their country devastated was pretty obvious to see. If the threat is Hizbullah rockets in the south, what is the military logic behind bombing all the major roads and bridges out of the Capital, miles away from the battlefield?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap

. Will israeli citizens be better off at the end of this campaign than before it?

My take--

very short term -- no --missiles rain down more during the active fighting

short term-- probably yes --- as the stock of available rockets is depeleted somewhat and it is tougher to transport them in

LOng term -- NO-- more people that have come to hate you across the border than ever before. While I also might also blame those that hide and shoot from among civilians, I believe a lot of people will only care that it was an Israeli bomb that killed their mother/brother/sister/baby

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, Israel attempt to coherce the government of Lebanon and the non-Shiites in Lebanon to take on Hizbulloah themselves or continue to see their country devastated was pretty obvious to see. If the threat is Hizbullah rockets in the south, what is the military logic behind bombing all the major roads and bridges out of the Capital, miles away from the battlefield?

This would be funny if it wasn't because it actually is sad.

You are blaming the isarelis for trying to coerce the lebanese government to do something that is their natural job, namely to disarm a private army. Further, this coertion is done by attacking military targets in hizb areas (admitted, there has been some outside, but the vast majority has been inside)

The military logic by going up to the outskirts of beirut is simple - it's hizb area, and in that way nessecary to prevent regroupment. No military organisation would restrict their actions to the frontline as you suggest - they would of course also go for the supply lines.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat


This would be funny if it wasn't because it actually is sad.

You are blaming the isarelis for trying to coerce the lebanese government to do something that is their natural job, namely to disarm a private army. Further, this coertion is done by attacking military targets in hizb areas (admitted, there has been some outside, but the vast majority has been inside)

1. Coersion is Coersion.
2. MOst targets have not been "military" unless you consider the houses of Hizbullah supporters to be "military targets" (hint, they are not), or if you consider roads and bridges "Hizbullah targets" (hint, they are not)

The military logic by going up to the outskirts of beirut is simple - it's hizb area, and in that way nessecary to prevent regroupment. No military organisation would restrict their actions to the frontline as you suggest - they would of course also go for the supply lines.

Let me give you some advice. Try to do some basic analysis of posts before you answer. I said the bridges and roads into the Capital. What part of that is difficult to understand?

[Arrian]

If Gentiles on the center dont see the difference between Israel and Hezbollah, to the point where they can say "pox on both your houses" or "id rather not care" the political benefits of restraint and concession look increasingly thin.

That may be. But doesn't it beg the question of why such "Gentiles on the center" have trouble seeing the difference between Israel and its enemies and want to throw up their hands in frustration? And perhaps - just maybe - it's not because we're blind.

-Arrian

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap


1. Coersion is Coersion.
2. MOst targets have not been "military" unless you consider the houses of Hizbullah supporters to be "military targets" (hint, they are not), or if you consider roads and bridges "Hizbullah targets" (hint, they are not)

1) of course you are right, but if the lebanese government gant/wont do what they are supposed to do despite the hint, they shouldn't be schocked when the israelis do their job.
2) When occupied by hizb army (hint), they become it or if they are tools that hizb can use for their movements.

Let me give you some advice. Try to do some basic analysis of posts before you answer. I said the bridges and roads into the Capital. What part of that is difficult to understand?

Wish you would use that good advice youself. Southern part of beirut are hizb territory.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Those Bloodthirsty Christians...!!!

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Also look at the history of Jews in the Ottoman empire during the 19th C.

Yes, but they weren't being oppressed because they were Jews, but because they weren't Turks, along with everyone else in the Empire who wasn't a Turk. That's substanially different from special persecution just for being Jewish, as certainly happened under Muslim rule from time to time, or under Christian rule for 1700 years.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
some of my friends would say that restraint, negotiation, concession and withdrawl havent worked to well.

Well obviously, as Egypt and Jordan continue to attack Israel every chance they can get.

I don't think Israel has all that often seriously negotiated with the Palestinians in good faith. Syria is another story, and I doubt Hizbollah can be negotiated with, but for the same of a few ****ing square miles of land, why not find out. It's not like the Israelis can use the area with all the fighting going on there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat
1) of course you are right, but if the lebanese government gant/wont do what they are supposed to do despite the hint, they shouldn't be schocked when the israelis do their job.

Last time I looked Israel is not able to disarm HIzbullah.

2) When occupied by hizb army (hint), they become it or if they are tools that hizb can use for their movements.

Sorry, but a political supporter does not a "fighter" become. You may need a cours eon what "military" means.

Wish you would use that good advice youself. Southern part of beirut are hizb territory.

Which is irrelevant to the issue of bridges and roads (like the highway leading NORTH and the bridges in Christian territories bombed). And the south is Hizbullah territory because it is Shiite. Israel has been bombing Shiite neighborhoods, ie. bombing people for their political support. That is coersion, and a policy of Terror.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arrian


That may be. But doesn't it beg the question of why such "Gentiles on the center" have trouble seeing the difference between Israel and its enemies and want to throw up their hands in frustration? And perhaps - just maybe - it's not because we're blind.

-Arrian

And perhaps it's because you are rightfully revulsed by the wages of war.

Incidently, where the outrage over the civilian casualties of the air campaign in Afghanistan?

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



some of my friends would say that restraint, negotiation, concession and withdrawl havent worked to well. I try to tell them that if they havent gotten Israel peace, theyve at least gotten Israel support in the world.

Negotiation and consession brought Israel peace with Egypt, no?

Negotiation brought Israel peace with Jordan, no?

Withdrawl vastly improved the situation in Lebanon, no?

Surely withdrawl from Gaza brought Israel nothing, but that should have come as no surprise. Gaza was not to be expected to become a viable 'state' by any stretch of imagination.

Restraint, consession and withdrawl are not part of the Israeli strategy with regard to an independent Palestine.
Human rights abuses are rampant in the occupied territories. There is no question of withdrawl: at best the Palestinians can get the land where no settlers are present give or take a few examptions.
Israel itself faces internal disruption if it does not cater to the extremists from within.


Also, the four qualities you describe are not the sole virtues of Israel in the region.
Egypt payed a price for it's courage.
Jordan has withdrawn in a sense they goes beyond 'they were kicked out anyway'
And hasn't the Arab world been hailed for restraint with their initial condemnation of Hezbollah's kidnapping?

LotM, don't give up yet.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

The Sunni regimes of Egypt and specially KSA would be happy to bakroll the Lebanese in taking down Hizbullah, because they see it as a tool of Iran. No one would ocntribute arms thought.

They are now. Where have they been the last six years?

1. A new civil war in Lebanon would always be the worst option. This Israeli campaign has been very costly economically, but a civil war would be more devastating and more destabalizing.

2. All states have more than one responsibility. Will israeli citizens be better off at the end of this campaign than before it? I doubt it. Israel thinks the "deterrence factor" is back, but note the "poor" performance of the IDF (or in reality, the OK performance of the IDF fighting a tought and seasoned opponent, which notheless wrecks the fiction that the IDF is invincible and that Arab forces can;t fight). Again, Hassan Nasrallah, unless the Israelis assasinate him soon, will come out and be the great new Hero of the ME, and radicals everywhere have been politically strengthened.

No state has a responsibility beyond what is in the best interests of its own citizens. It just so happens that peace and trade are usually in those interests, so states will promote peace and trade.

However, when faced with an intractable enemy on a frontier (Hezb does call for the destruction of Israel, not just leaving Lebanon which they already did 6 years ago) and their continued attacks, things that would ultimately be in the best interests of their citizens become impossible and a responsible government is left with a menu of bad choices.

Incidently, deterence does not mean invincible. Far from it. The IDF was knocked for six on at least one occassion. Deterence is the inflicting of pain until the neighbours decide it just isn't worth it anymore.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by germanos
Withdrawl vastly improved the situation in Lebanon, no?

Have you been paying attention to the news?

Originally posted by GePap

Originally posted by Lonestar
I disagree. If Hezbollah had the most accurate of cruise missiles and smart baombs I think they would still intentional hit stuff with the intent for alot of dead civilians.

You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong, but you can think whatever you want.

Out of curiosity what military purpose was served by the targeting of a Jewish center in Argentina?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity what military purpose was served by targeting of a Jewish center in Argentina?

Care to bring out an even bigger strawman? Cause this one is not yet visible from space.

(and to your question, none, that was done as political retaliation. )