The Middle East Continues...

[lord of the mark]

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

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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.

Jews and christians did not have civil equality under the law in the OE until the imperialist pressed it on the OE, and by 19th c standards that was a big deal.

[lord of the mark]

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

Im trying to explain the difference.

And yes, I too am saddened at the deaths of civilians.

[Arrian]

The roads/bridges are dual-use infrastructure. Yes, Hezbollah could use them to transport its men and weapons. On the other hand, the rest of the country uses them to get around. Food, medicine... basic necessities don't get around w/o those roads and bridges.

By destroying those roads and bridges, Israel has no doubt harmed Hezbollah's ability to resupply and move its soldiers. But it has also caused a lot of harm to civilians and that will have consequences.

-Arrian

[atawa]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
" 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)"

Houses used to store rockets and launchers are military targets, as are roads and bridges used by a military force.

Hezbollah fighters are also using things like hospitals, might as well start bombing them too then.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


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.

1. the peace with Egypt has been a cold peace. No, Egypt hasnt gone to war. Thats largely cause Egypt has nothing to gain from war, and much to lose. If you want to call Israels unwillingness to attack Egypt out of the blue restraint, than youre right, restraint has paid off. When i said less restraint, I meant policies that Bibi and the Likud might actually pursue, NOT an insane attempt to conquer and occupy neighbors several time Israels size.

2. Jordan - ditto, except that with Jordan Israel didnt even have to hand over miles of desert.

3. Improved the situation in South Lebanon - well er, thats a matter of considerable debate. The right says no, it did not, it led directly to Arafat rejecting the already too generous proposal by Barak, and to the 2nd intifada, and to the empowerment of Hezbollah. Yossi Beilin, of the left, said it did improve the situation - thered be no more occupation, which was materially costly to Israel, and alienated the population, and if there was ever aggression against Israel from Lebanon, Israel would have a free hand to respond. Which is why he supported the campaign in Lebanon. He didnt count on the world saying "youve got the right to go back into Lebanon, but must follow a set of rules that go beyond the laws of war, and make it difficult to win the war, cause youre not fundamentally legitimate anyway, and we dont care about you" People who thought Bibi wrong, and Beilin right, are looking at the world reaction now.

4. Gaza was not meant to be a state, but it was an end to the occupation of Gaza, an end to day to day humiliations associated with occupation, a chance for the Gazans to take economic assets like the greenhouses and to build their economy, and it was the traumatic destruction of settlements and expulsion of settlers by the Israeli army. AFAIK there are few people of any political stripe among Israeli Jews who didnt see the Gaza withdrawl as something huge.

5. Concession and withdrawl re the West Bank - I wont repeat the history of the Barak offers, or discuss the Olmert plan for further withdrawls. I will say that Sharon took much longer to respond to the terror of the second intifada with an invasion than Bibi wanted, and that he was much more willing to talk to Abbas than Bibi and the Likud wanted. Maybe those arent concessions in your opinion, but to many Israelis they were.

6. Arabs disagreeing with Hezb. Yes but - they gave words, until Israel actually began to take military measures against Hezb. Then it dropped.

Look I havent given up, and Im not becoming a bibi supporter - yet. I know there are still some folks, mainly the US, but also in Canada and the UK and Denmark and the Netherlands and OZ, who understand Israels restraint and support it. My arguments are getting thin, but theyre not gone.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The roads/bridges are dual-use infrastructure. Yes, Hezbollah could use them to transport its men and weapons. On the other hand, the rest of the country uses them to get around. Food, medicine... basic necessities don't get around w/o those roads and bridges.

By destroying those roads and bridges, Israel has no doubt harmed Hezbollah's ability to resupply and move its soldiers. But it has also caused a lot of harm to civilians and that will have consequences.

-Arrian

Yes, roads and bridges, which are targets in jsut about every war, are used by civilians and their loss is costly. It hurts civilians, hurts the leb state, and hurts Israeli relations with Leb.

Thats why its essential that this war defeat Hezbollah as soundly as possible, and that postwar arrangements are made that keep Hezb forces away from the border, so that another war is not necessary.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by atawa


Hezbollah fighters are also using things like hospitals, might as well start bombing them too then.

Hospitals, including military hospitals, are specifically protected by the geneva conventions, as roads and bridges are not.


Are you suggesting that roads and bridges be declared protected like hospitals in international law?

[atawa]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Hospitals, including military hospitals, are specifically protected by the geneva conventions, as roads and bridges are not.


Are you suggesting that roads and bridges be declared protected like hospitals in international law?

No, I would suggest for hezbollah to start firing missiles from hospitals

[Arrian]

The difficulty here, LotM, is that Israel is theoretically *not* at war with Lebanon, but rather only Hezbollah. That complicates matters beyond "bridges and roads are valid targets in war." They are. But again, the question of who Israel is fighting is revelant.

...

By the way, I heard an NPR story on the Lebanese-American community near Detroit on the drive home last night. Some scary stuff in there. The lawyer who sounds perfectly sane until he corrects "Israel" to "occupied Palestine." The young men chanting in support of Hezbollah, shouting that Nassrallah is their leader and "hey Jews, remember [some battle over a thousand years ago where Muslims slaughtered Jews]."

The man who found out his mom was dead because he was watching Al-Jazeera and saw his father interviewed. She died b/c her medicine ran out and they were cut off by the war. To the extent he wasn't Israel's enemy before, I'm thinking he is now.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The difficulty here, LotM, is that Israel is theoretically *not* at war with Lebanon, but rather only Hezbollah. That complicates matters beyond "bridges and roads are valid targets in war." They are. But again, the question of who Israel is fighting is revelant.

...

By the way, I heard an NPR story on the Lebanese-American community near Detroit on the drive home last night. Some scary stuff in there. The lawyer who sounds perfectly sane until he corrects "Israel" to "occupied Palestine." The young men chanting in support of Hezbollah, shouting that Nassrallah is their leader and "hey Jews, remember [some battle over a thousand years ago where Muslims slaughtered Jews]."

The man who found out his mom was dead because he was watching Al-Jazeera and saw his father interviewed. She died b/c her medicine ran out and they were cut off by the war. To the extent he wasn't Israel's enemy before, I'm thinking he is now.

-Arrian

Yup, and Hezbollah (and their Iranian backers) KNOWS that, and takes advantage of it. You think Im not aware of it?

But attacking Hezb with even more restraint, resulting in Hezb being more likely to survive, and a new war more likely later, doesnt sound like a good idea.

Now, do I know exactly what the payoff is to each and every air strike, and if its sufficient to offset the bad feeling - no, I dont, Im not privy to air damage reports, and said reports are notoriously unreliable anyway (remember when we destroyed the entire Serbian army from the air? OTOH remember when we failed to materially damage Iraqs army in Kuwait?) We wont know till after the war. But im hearing a lot of reflexive calls of "disproportionality" that dont even consider the military situation. Its a lot easier to be repelled and wash your hands of the matter, and cleanse ones conscience of dead Lebanese children, than it is to face the possible military and strategic realities. (by the way, we made a helluva lot of enemies in Afghanistan, and our strategic goals their have proven difficult of achievement) As long as the Hezb rockets mainly miss, at least. If and when they hit, one can be saddened about that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by atawa


No, I would suggest for hezbollah to start firing missiles from hospitals

they would then lose their protected status.

[atawa]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


they would then lose their protected status.

True, but the television cameras would only show dead women and children in a bombed hospital.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that you are wrong to think that Israel would think the government of Lebanon "neutral." Israel remembers that Lebanon is made up of many tribes. The thinking was that the Christians, Druze, and Sunni's in Lebanon who make the majority, even if each individually is smaller than the Shiites, would say "enough of Hizbullah", thinking that Hizbullah was a Syrian-Iranian puppet, and that it would be in their best interests to finally get rid of the last remaining militia.

Israel was counting on Lebanon's volitile Secterian make-up to work for them.

I stand corrected apparently one person is capable of thinking Israel that stupid.

2) Israel has today flatly refused or is at least extremely skeptical of Lebanon troops being used to secure southern Leb and keep Hezb in check.

Actually, that is what Israel demanded initially. IN the first few days, when they began the bombing, what the Israelis constantly said is that the war could end if only Lebanon took control of the south. With how the war has developed, and given that thier hoped for secterian divide didn't come up, but instead the government sides with Hizbullah for the most part, now they are wary.

Lets deal with the timing of this. Firstly Israel wants either Hezb destroyed or nuetered. Israel initially was stating as a matter of course that they wished UN resolutions to be enforced wherein Lebanon would actually disarm Hezb.

Now weeks after the battle started Israel realizes that Lebanaon is incapable of dealing with Hezb in a meaningful way. (both as a matter of political will to do so and men and materiel to back it up even were they willing to do so) The attacks on bridges etc. recognize this fact and in fact show that Israel really means to destroy Hezb as its only course of action. This is not in anyway a calculated strong arm/PR ploy to coerce support. To think so is ludicrous.

Hizbullah isn't escaping, and it has no need to, as it plans to fight in the south. As for "resupply", those roads supply the entire country. Missiles will still get thought to Hizbullah, but then oil, food, and medicine will not get to the people of the south, and with great difficulty to everyone else. That is collective punishment. NOt terrorism, but criminal behavior none the less.

Collective punishment or not Israel has resigned themselves to do whatever is required to eliminate Hezb. Talk of these actions as being a measured means to play Leabanese political games is idle (moonbat) speculation along the same lines of Thomas Ricks and teh validity of his assertions that Israel passed on Hezb rocket sites in order to ensure Israeli civilian casualties to ensure moral superiority/equivalence.

[lord of the mark]

"Nasrallah urges Arabs to leave Haifa By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago


BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah on Wednesday warned all Israeli Arabsto leave the port city of Haifa so the militant group could step up attacks without fear of shedding the blood of fellow Muslims.

Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, has been the frequent target of Hezbollah's rocket attacks.

"I have a special message to the Arabs of Haifa, to your martyrs and to your wounded. I call on you to leave this city. I hope you do this. ... Please leave so we don't shed your blood, which is our blood," Nasrallah said.

I dont think I really need to comment on this. It speaks for itself.

Kol anachnu Haifanikim.

[lord of the mark]

PM Olmert has said he IS interested in the deployment of Leb Army troops to the south, as per PM Sinoras proposal.

Now when Israel began the war they thought theyd destory Hezbollahs militia entirely, and so it would be a shadow Hezb for the Leb army to deal with. However it is becoming clear that the IDF will still be far from finishing off Hezb by the time a ceasefire takes place. Therefore it is more important that a strong force take over in S Leb, and its not clear that the Leb Army is up to it. Nonetheless Israel IS interested in the proposal - the main problem is the insistence on immediate Israeli withdrawl, before its assured that mechanisms are in place to stop Hezb from returning.