The Middle East Continues...

[Lodi]

And that is why Israel targets Lebanese children.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Since when is deception a war crime?

Feel free to search the entire 4th Geneva Convention to show the rest of us how that is a war crime:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

Cause I could find nothing saying that wearing your enemy's uniform in any way counts as a "war crime".

Tru dat. Simply means tho' the IDF gets to line them up and shoot them as they aren't covered as regular forces.

IIRC we got to do that to the Germans circa battle of the bulge.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Eli
Ding-ding-ding. The IDF claims that a Hizballah guy opened fire on Israeli soldiers in the western sector. It's been less than 3 hours.

Actually the report on the BBC was that an armed hezb approached some Israelis who 'felt threatened' and shot him dead...

[MOBIUS]

Israel's verdict: we lost the war
By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel
Published: 15 August 2006
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.

The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border.

But, facing his first major political crisis since winning the election five months ago, he acknowledged "the overall responsibility for this operation lies with me, the Prime Minister. I am not asking to share this with anyone." A number of Knesset members including the Israeli Arab Ahmed Tibi, a furious opponent of the war, were ejected from the chamber.

The opening of what is likely to prove a bitter post-mortem came as the two sides began an uneasy truce. The conflict is estimated to have cost well over 1,000 Lebanese lives as well as those of 156 Israelis - civilians and soldiers.

The fragility of the ceasefire was underlined by four incidents in which Israeli troops shot dead six Hizbollah fighters after the ceasefire began at 8am yesterday. The Israeli military insisted the incidents were within guidelines permitting troops to open fire when threatened and did not jeopardise the truce.

Promising that the government "will have to examine ourselves at all levels," Mr Olmert fought to pre-empt a probable campaign by the political right by declaring that Hizbollah had been dealt a "harsh blow". He added that the guerrilla group was no longer "a state within a state" or a "terrorist organisation that is allowed to act inside a state as an arm of the axis of evil", referring to Syria and Iran.

While refraining from a direct personal attack on Mr Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right- wing Likud opposition, lost little time in declaring "there were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front."

Critics from right and left were fortified by a Globes Smith poll showing, remarkably given the degree to which the army is embedded in Israeli society, that 52 per cent of electors believed the Israel Defence Forces had been unsuccessful in its Lebanon offensive as opposed to 44 per cent who believed it did well.

Mr Netanyahu also pointedly chose to attack unilateral withdrawals - the issue on which Mr Olmert fought his election in March. Mr Netanyahu said: "We left Lebanon to the last centimetre and they are firing. We left Gaza to the last centimetre and they are firing."

Meanwhile, the Hizbollah leader said he believes the Lebanese army and international troops are "incapable of protecting Lebanon". He also said it was the "wrong time" for a public discussion on disarming the guerrilla group.

At the eastern end of the northern border, heavy artillery barrages and repeated tank machine-gun fire continued yesterday up to the ceasefire deadline.

But as the artillery batteries fell silent and firing stopped, there was a final single explosion at about 8.05pm, sending a plume of grey smoke upwards before the uneasy calm began.

Amid a wave of angry civilian reactions in Israel after more than a month in which an estimated 3,500 rockets were fired into northern Israel, Sam Echahid, the manager of a local supermarket, was asked whether he thought the ceasefire would hold. He said: "I hope not. We haven't done anything yet."

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.

The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border.

But, facing his first major political crisis since winning the election five months ago, he acknowledged "the overall responsibility for this operation lies with me, the Prime Minister. I am not asking to share this with anyone." A number of Knesset members including the Israeli Arab Ahmed Tibi, a furious opponent of the war, were ejected from the chamber.

The opening of what is likely to prove a bitter post-mortem came as the two sides began an uneasy truce. The conflict is estimated to have cost well over 1,000 Lebanese lives as well as those of 156 Israelis - civilians and soldiers.

The fragility of the ceasefire was underlined by four incidents in which Israeli troops shot dead six Hizbollah fighters after the ceasefire began at 8am yesterday. The Israeli military insisted the incidents were within guidelines permitting troops to open fire when threatened and did not jeopardise the truce.

Promising that the government "will have to examine ourselves at all levels," Mr Olmert fought to pre-empt a probable campaign by the political right by declaring that Hizbollah had been dealt a "harsh blow". He added that the guerrilla group was no longer "a state within a state" or a "terrorist organisation that is allowed to act inside a state as an arm of the axis of evil", referring to Syria and Iran.
While refraining from a direct personal attack on Mr Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right- wing Likud opposition, lost little time in declaring "there were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front."

Critics from right and left were fortified by a Globes Smith poll showing, remarkably given the degree to which the army is embedded in Israeli society, that 52 per cent of electors believed the Israel Defence Forces had been unsuccessful in its Lebanon offensive as opposed to 44 per cent who believed it did well.

Mr Netanyahu also pointedly chose to attack unilateral withdrawals - the issue on which Mr Olmert fought his election in March. Mr Netanyahu said: "We left Lebanon to the last centimetre and they are firing. We left Gaza to the last centimetre and they are firing."

Meanwhile, the Hizbollah leader said he believes the Lebanese army and international troops are "incapable of protecting Lebanon". He also said it was the "wrong time" for a public discussion on disarming the guerrilla group.

At the eastern end of the northern border, heavy artillery barrages and repeated tank machine-gun fire continued yesterday up to the ceasefire deadline.

But as the artillery batteries fell silent and firing stopped, there was a final single explosion at about 8.05pm, sending a plume of grey smoke upwards before the uneasy calm began.

Amid a wave of angry civilian reactions in Israel after more than a month in which an estimated 3,500 rockets were fired into northern Israel, Sam Echahid, the manager of a local supermarket, was asked whether he thought the ceasefire would hold. He said: "I hope not. We haven't done anything yet."

Hmm, it seems even the Israeli's admit they ****ed up...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well, I hope the two Fox News guys who were reportedly kidnapped in Gaza are found soon.

Why?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
IIRC we got to do that to the Germans circa battle of the bulge.

That was not because of the rules of war, but because the SS had massacred a battalion which had surrendered. As I understand it, no more SS prisoners were taken once word got out.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why?

I don't have a tendency to directly give my money to terrorist organizations or cheer the murder of said civilians.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That was not because of the rules of war, but because the SS had massacred a battalion which had surrendered. As I understand it, no more SS prisoners were taken once word got out.

Not quite right. The Brandenburgers (the unit that dressed like American troops) were subject to summary execution if caught in American uniforms. The SS were certainly persona non-grata after Malmedy (where some of Peiper's SS men massacred over 100 U.S. POWs) to the American army, just as they were already likely to be shot by the British and Canadians (and of course the Russians) if they tried to surrender. But this wasn't official policy, just typical behavior of front line troops. Sometimes SS men were taken prisoner either because they surrendered en mass, or because the Americans didn't feel like killing them. Your chances of survival increased greatly if you surrendered immediately rather than after a firefight for instance.

[lord of the mark]

JA: 4,000 olim arrived during war
By JPOST.COM STAFF


Despite the war, over 4,000 new immigrants from all over the world will have arrived in Israel from the beginning of July until the end of August, the Jewish Agency announced late Monday.

Almost 550 new immigrants to arrive on Wednesday morning, on three special Nefesh B'Nefesh/Jewish Agency El-Al Flights, which will land simultaneously from New York, Toronto and London. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Jewish Agency Chairman, Ze'ev Bielski will greet the new arrivals.

According to Jewish Agency estimates, 24,000 people from countries around the world will immigrate to Israel in the course of 2006, up from the 22,657 people who made aliyah in 2005.

During the summer months, six EL AL flights will land in Israel carrying 1,500 new immigrants from North America. By the end of the year, it is estimated that there will be a total of 3,400 new immigrants from North America, up from 2,987 in 2005.

In parallel, two special ISRAIR flights - from Paris and Marseille - landed in Israel on July 25 bringing 650 new immigrants from France. This is the first time in decades that such a large number of new immigrants from France have landed in one day. The expectation is that there will be 3,500 new immigrants from France this year, as opposed to 3005 in 2005.

For the first time, there will be a special EL AL flight this summer from Great Britain bringing 150 new immigrants. Since the beginning of the year, there has been a marked rise in immigration from Great Britain.

By the end of July, the number of new immigrants from Britain was 328, up from 215 over the same period last year. By the end of the year 2006, 500 new immigrants are expected to have arrived from Britain.

[Flubber]

The newspapers here were interesting today. Many articles and opinion pieces are stating that Israel lost this war since they failed to "win" it. Apparently it is considered a failure to achieve what many see as a "draw".

I did read another opinion piece that essentially stated that the IDF did as well as any military could be expected to do . . . The argument was that the HIZB have amazing complexes of bunkers--w ell supplied with the latest armaments from Iran and Syria. The iopinion was that no army in the world would do much better although there were some criticisms of the level of fitness and training of the Israeli reservists

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber
The newspapers here were interesting today. Many articles and opinion pieces are stating that Israel lost this war since they failed to "win" it. Apparently it is considered a failure to achieve what many see as a "draw".

I did read another opinion piece that essentially stated that the IDF did as well as any military could be expected to do . . . The argument was that the HIZB have amazing complexes of bunkers--w ell supplied with the latest armaments from Iran and Syria. The iopinion was that no army in the world would do much better although there were some criticisms of the level of fitness and training of the Israeli reservists

I agree with that, but the problem is that the mythos of the ME has been that Arabs fight terribly and Israelis are supermen, so that each war is suposed to be an Israeli cakewalk. That myth allows the Israelis, at 5 million strong (I don;t count the 1 million Arabs in israel. Do they even serve in the IDF any any significant numbers?) to believe that solely through military strength they can cow their much more populous neighbors into submission.

If this mythos begins to errode, if the military balance is not as obscenely one sided as it is usuaslly portrayed, then Israel will feel more insecure. After all, if its enemies can wield modern weapons, use them competently, and fight well, what are they to do if these horrid A-rabs just want to kill them thought no fault of their own EVER....

[GePap]

I don;t think Olmert will last very long as PM. Not that I care, cause even if the wingnut Bibi takes over, Israel is constrained.

What is pathetic is watching Bush claim "victorty", when his credibility in the region is one of the biggest losers.

I would tally the results as follows:

Short term Israeli tactical victory: they damaged Hizbullah and took out rockets and infrastructure. The rocket threat for now should be diminished significantly for a few years again.

Medium term: indecisive. Lebanon will probably not disarm Hizbullah completely. The international forces will come in, and once they are in, while they will not disarm Hizbullah themselves, it will makeit hard for both sides to start up major military operations. The notion of Unilateralism on the part of the Israelis is dead in the water. (and good ridence too, all conflicts have two sides)

Long Term: Political victory for radical in the ME. Hizbullah becomes only more politically powerful in Lebanon, the Sunni regimes were chastised for looking weak against israel and kowtowing to the US. The Israelis themselves will feel vulnerable and that will mean they will probably lash out again at some point, trying to "regain deterrrence" yet again.

[Flubber]

I believe that if someone tried to invade Israel, they would find that the IDF would acquit itself much better.

BUt the lesson here is one the US learned in Iraq and Vietnam. While you may have the ability to defeat any army that your oponent can field, your enemies will often not face you openly. They strike and run and dig even more complex hiding places from which to strike again. You hold the ground on which you stand and little else.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
I don;t think Olmert will last very long as PM. Not that I care, cause even if the wingnut Bibi takes over, Israel is constrained.

What is pathetic is watching Bush claim "victorty", when his credibility in the region is one of the biggest losers.

I would tally the results as follows:

Short term Israeli tactical victory: they damaged Hizbullah and took out rockets and infrastructure. The rocket threat for now should be diminished significantly for a few years again.

Medium term: indecisive. Lebanon will probably not disarm Hizbullah completely. The international forces will come in, and once they are in, while they will not disarm Hizbullah themselves, it will makeit hard for both sides to start up major military operations. The notion of Unilateralism on the part of the Israelis is dead in the water. (and good ridence too, all conflicts have two sides)

Long Term: Political victory for radical in the ME. Hizbullah becomes only more politically powerful in Lebanon, the Sunni regimes were chastised for looking weak against israel and kowtowing to the US. The Israelis themselves will feel vulnerable and that will mean they will probably lash out again at some point, trying to "regain deterrrence" yet again.

I don't see Hizb. being disarmed at all, much less incompletely. There appears to be no will at all for this in the current government. If they manage to receive more new longer range missles the U.N. force could serve as a screen for them as they lob them into Israel at will.

Israel needs to develop their navy so that they can pose a credible threat to Iran's oil exports. They need some leverage against Iran short of nuclear weapons.

[Flip McWho]

Isn't ****ing with Iran's oil exports bad for the rest of the world as well though?