|
Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War? (pg. 52)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Dear World:
I understand that you are upset by us, here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. (Outraged?)
Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset by us. Today, it is the "brutal repression of the Palestinians"; yesterday it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War and the Sinai campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most extraordinarily.
Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we the Jewish people -- upset you.
We upset a German people who elected Hitler and upset an Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations - Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians and Romanians. And we go back a long, long way in the history of world upset.
We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us.
For centuries, we upset a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions, and we upset the archenemy of the church, Martin Luther, who, in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit.
And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you in a manner of speaking and establish a Jewish State. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you and disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you (and thus love you)- and have you love us and so, we decided to come home - home to the same land we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.
Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please.
Having left you and your pogroms and inquisitions and crusades and holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state, we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The "radical" Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset.
Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel.
In 1920 and 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron in 1929.
Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936-39? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967?
And when you, dear world, proposed a UN Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a "Palestinian State" alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried "no" and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that "upset" caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of "upset" then?
The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state , attempted to drive the Jewish State into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "itbach-al-yahud" (Massacre the Jew!) that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream -- destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today, but we should not "repress" them.
Dear world, you stood by during the holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres.
You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction.
And since we know that the Arabs-Palestinians dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world, well think of how many times in the past you bothered us.
In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Senator John McCain's brother on The Jews & Israel.
There is a lot of worry popping up in the media just now -- "Can Israel Survive?" Don't worry about it. It relates to something that Palestinians, the Arabs, and perhaps most Americans don't realize --
the Jews are never going quietly again. Never. And if the world
doesn't come to understand that, then millions of Arabs are going to
die. It's as simple as that.
Throughout the history of the world, the most abused, kicked-around
race of people have been the Jews. Not just during the holocaust of
World War II, but for thousands of years. They have truly been "The
Chosen People" in a terrible and tragic sense.
The Bible story of Egypt's enslavement of the Jews is not just a
story, it is history, if festooned with theological legend and
heroic epics. In 70 A.D. the Romans, which had for a long time
tolerated the Jews -- even admired them as 'superior' to other
vassals -- tired of their truculent demands for independence and
decided on an early "Solution" to the Jewish problem. Jerusalem was
sacked and reduced to near rubble, Jewish resistance was pursued and
crushed by the implacable Roman War Machine -- see 'Masada'. And
thus began The Diaspora, the dispersal of Jews throughout the rest
of the world.
Their homeland destroyed, their culture crushed, they looked
desperately for the few niches in a hostile world where they could
be safe. That safety was fragile, and often subject to the whims of
moody hosts. The words 'pogrom', 'ghetto', and 'anti-Semitism' come
from this treatment of the first mono-theistic people. Throughout
Europe, changing times meant sometimes tolerance, sometimes even
warmth for the Jews, but eventually it meant hostility, then
malevolence. There is not a country in Europe or Western Asia that
at one time or another has not decided to lash out against the
children of Moses, sometimes by whim, sometimes by manipulation.
Winston Churchill calls Edward I one of England's very greatest
kings. It was under his rule in the late 1200's that Wales and
Cornwall were hammered into the British crown, and Scotland and
Ireland were invaded and occupied. He was also the first European
monarch to set up a really effective administrative bureaucracy,
surveyed and censured his kingdom, established laws and political
divisions. But he also embraced the Jews.
Actually Edward didn't embrace Jews so much as he embraced their
money. For the English Jews had acquired wealth -- understandable,
because this people that could not own land or office, could not
join most of the trades and professions, soon found out that money
was a very good thing to accumulate. Much harder to take away than
land or a store, was a hidden sock of gold and silver coins. Ever
resourceful, Edward found a way -- he borrowed money from the Jews
to finance imperial ambitions in Europe, especially France. The
loans were almost certainly not made gladly, but how do you refuse
your King? Especially when he is 'Edward the Hammer'. Then, rather
than pay back the debt, Edward simply expelled the Jews. Edward was
especially inventive -- he did this twice. After a time, he invited
the Jews back to their English homeland, borrowed more money, then
expelled them again.
Most people do not know that Spain was one of the early entrants
into The Renaissance. People from all over the world came to Spain
in the late medieval period. All were welcome -- Arabs, Jews, other
Europeans. The University of Salamanca was one of the great centers
of learning in the world -- scholars of all nations, all fields came
to Salamanca to share their knowledge and their ideas. But in 1492,
Ferdinand and Isabella, having driven the last of Moors from the
Spanish Shield, were persuaded by the righteous fundamentalists of
the time to announce "The Act of Purification". A series of steps
were taken in which all Jews and Arabs and other non-Christians were
expelled from the country, or would face the tools and the torches
of The Inquisition. From this 'cleansing' come the Sephardic Jews -
as opposed to the Ashkenazi’s of Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe,
the sporadic violence and brutality against Jews are common
knowledge. 'Fiddler' without the music and the folksy humor. At
times of fury, no accommodation by the Jew was good enough, no
profile low enough, no village poor enough or distant enough.
From these come the near-steady flow of Jews to the United States.
And despite the disdain of the Jews by most 'American' Americans,
they came to grab the American Dream with both hands, and
contributed everything from new ideas of enterprise in retail and
entertainment to becoming some of our finest physicians and lawyers.
The modern United States, in spite of itself, IS The United States
in part because of its Jewish blood.
Then the Nazi Holocaust -- the corralling, sorting, orderly
eradication of millions of the people of Moses. Not something that
other realms in other times didn't try to do, by the way, the
Germans were just more organized and had better murder technology.
I stood in the center of Dacau for an entire day, about 15 years
ago, trying to comprehend how this could have happened. I had gone
there on a side trip from Munich, vaguely curious about this Dachau.
I soon became engulfed in the enormity of what had occurred there
nestled in this middle and working class neighborhood.
How could human beings do this to other human beings, hear their
cries, their pleas, their terror, their pain, and continue without
apparently even wincing? I no longer wonder. At some times, some
places, ANY sect of the human race is capable of horrors against
their fellow man, whether a member of the Waffen SS, a Serbian
sniper, a Turkish policeman in 1920's Armenia, a Mississippi
Klansman. Because even in the United States not all was a Rose
Garden. For a long time Jews had quotas in our universities and
graduate schools. Only so many Jews could be in a medical or law
school at one time. Jews were disparaged widely. I remember as a kid
Jewish jokes told without a wince - "Why do Jews have such big noses?"
Well, now the Jews have a homeland again. A place that is theirs
And that's the point. It doesn't matter how many times the United
States and European powers try to rein in Israel, if it comes down
to survival of its nation, its people, they will fight like no
lioness has ever fought to save her cubs. They will fight with a
ferocity, a determination, and a skill, that will astound us.
And many will die, mostly their attackers, I believe. If there were
a macabre historical betting parlor, my money would be on the
Israelis to be standing at the end. As we killed the kamikazes and
the Wehrmacht soldaten of World War II, so will the Israelis kill
their suicidal attackers, until there are not enough to torment
them.
The irony goes unnoticed -- while we are hammering away to punish
those who brought the horrors of last September here, we restrain
the Israelis from the same retaliation. Not the same thing, of
course -- We are We, They are They. While we mourn and seethe at
September 11th, we don't notice that Israel has a September 11th
sometimes every day.
We may not notice, but it doesn't make any difference. And it
doesn't make any difference whether you are pro-Israeli or you think
Israel is the bully of the Middle East. If it comes to where a new
holocaust looms -- with or without the concurrence of the United
States and Europe -- Israel will lash out without pause or restraint
at those who would try to annihilate their country.
The Jews will not go quietly again.
Joe McCain
|
|
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
Body count is 327 : 29, tho a BBC report said Lebonese officials have recieved 91 bodies.
And one Israeli minister is talking Axis of Evil. How about we just start calling everyone we don't like part of that axis then.
How does Israel justify the bombing of appartment buildings away from the border? Even if hizbollah members are inside what about the other civilians. Send in the groundtroops, and knock on the door. The only reason not to do that is because of the risk of casualties, but if Israel wants to continue fighting this battle, then that is a risk she should take. |
Right, because the Hezbullah refuses to keep its military seperated form the civilians (fire from civilian areas, hide in civilian areas, use civilian apartments to store rockets, missles, ammo, and supplies) Israel, and not the Hezbullah are to blame when something happens in those civilian areas, right, is this your train of thinking?
:conf: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Epicurus, I wanted to address some of your complaints with Israel's military action just to bring you in the Israeli persepctive on its behaviour:
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
I speak of course of the massive damage done to Lebanon's infrastructure and the complete disregard for civilian lives. Israel's pretext for bombing bridges, roads, the airport (etc) is to avoid the kidnapped soldiers from being transferred to Syria and Iran. As I elaborated here, this is bullocks: |
Firstly, one must understand, kidnapping a soldier is Israel' societies sacred cow. You simply do not view it, its hard to elaborat why Israeli society views this as such (I can if you like), but the moral social equivalent for any other society would be the rage coming from terrorist kidnapping intentionally two babies from their parents.
Second, there is precedent for bombing bridges roads and airports to avoid the soldier being transferred to Syria and Iran. Reference Ron Arad, an Israeli pilot who went down in Lebanon and was most likely bough and transfered to Iran which tried to use him as a blackmail/chip against Israel.
In Israel mind, having a kidnapped soldier holled up either in Gaza or Lebanon or dead, is much better than the fate that would await him if he would be transported to either Syria and Iran. Israel puts a great deal of emphasis on each and every life, and a life stolen from the society enrages and grieves it entirely, especially when there is the hope, the improbably hope but hope none the less of reversing the situation.
Third and lastly, Israel has strategic reasons to bomb Lebanese infastructre. The primary or secondary reason (according to how you chose propritize them) the bombing of Souther/Northern bridge was designed to cut of South Lebanon from North and limit reinforcements from trickling in with new arms and supplies to Hezbullah. Same with the Damascus highway, the airport (also designed as a retaliation for the years Israel turned a blind eye to the fact that the airport was the main conduit which Lebanon received its arms through Iran with no interference from the Lebanese government. Perhaps there army could not reconquer the south, but surely they were capable of customs duty , no?), and seaport.
Targeting the basic infastrucutre of road and trade networks disables the supply chain of yes both the civilian population, but for what Israeli is concerned, it stops the supply chain of Hezbullah, preventing them from tranfering troops, rockets, and large stocks of ammunition freely and easily and also preventing key targets from easily escaping within the first few days. Israel does not intentionally target civilian targets and attempts not to be excessive (for instance when bombing the power stations, firstly they did not bomb all the power stations, and seconldy the avoided targeting the expensive and hard to rebuilt generators and simply targeted the fuel stocks).
Now, admittedly the strike on the infastructure was designed for a short war that would last no more than a week. Israel over estimated the effectiveness of its air and sea forces in destorying the Hezbullah threat, therefore this crisis looks like it will take much longer than the initial planners surely envisioned. Israel was also unable to damage the infastructure quickly to the extent it wanted (which explains why Lebanon Airways was able to evacuate their planes to Jordan after the runways were initially hit).
The trouble now comes from disconnecting the society from all its supply routes which will result in a humanitarian crisis which will be counter to Israel's operations. Israel wants/prefers the will of the Lebanese people on its side, wants its government to take action against Hezbullah, and also wants/prefers international praise and legitimacy. Conducting a war against Hezbullah in the south while the Lebanese people begin straving will not be good for Israel and so they enter a conundrum in this next phase of war.
| quote: |
They've already blamed the Lebanese government for not reigning Hizballah in (though of course they know that they are powerless to do anything about it), which gives them the pretext to do so. |
Thats convient, but Lebanese government could have prevent the enlargement and supply of Hezbullah. Also it could have denied Iranian Republican forces entry into the nation.
| quote: |
- 30 Lebanese soldiers have died. Though they are soldiers, they are innocent in this case simply because there was a stand-down order given by the Lebanese government to the army to not engage in any fighting whatsoever, thus making them neutral observers. Israel has acknowledged their neutral status observer multiple times already, yet direct hits on Lebanese army bases such as this have occured far too frequently. |
Israel has and is trying to honor the Lebanese military's neautrality. However they have and will continue to target any Lebanese forces that continue to aid Hezbullah. Israel's desire to appease this component allowed the tragic mistake of allowing Lebanon's sea-looking radars to exist as they were on Lebanese military installations during the first days of the war which resulted in the tragic death of 4 Israeli sailors. These radars were used in the targeting of that shape and were quickly removed after the incident.
Anyway I think that should be enough for now ;) |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Epicurus, I wanted to address some of your complaints with Israel's military action just to bring you in the Israeli persepctive on its behaviour:
Firstly, one must understand, kidnapping a soldier is Israel' societies sacred cow. You simply do not view it, its hard to elaborat why Israeli society views this as such (I can if you like), but the moral social equivalent for any other society would be the rage coming from terrorist kidnapping intentionally two babies from their parents.
Second, there is precedent for bombing bridges roads and airports to avoid the soldier being transferred to Syria and Iran. Reference Ron Arad, an Israeli pilot who went down in Lebanon and was most likely bough and transfered to Iran which tried to use him as a blackmail/chip against Israel.
In Israel mind, having a kidnapped soldier holled up either in Gaza or Lebanon or dead, is much better than the fate that would await him if he would be transported to either Syria and Iran. Israel puts a great deal of emphasis on each and every life, and a life stolen from the society enrages and grieves it entirely, especially when there is the hope, the improbably hope but hope none the less of reversing the situation. |
So let me get this straight Yoepus. The entire transportation infrastructure of a country, including bridges and highways that may serve as escape routs for the innocents, has to be destroyed, along with dozens of civilians that happen to be fleeing the shelling and who become categorized as collateral damage, so that kidnapped soldiers, who's duty it is to die, and who will either die a horrendous death at the hands of Hizballah or who will be used as future exchange chips by Hizballah, will not be transferred to Syria or Iran where they will die a horrendous death at the hands of the latter or will be used as future exchange chips by the latter. Makes a lot of sense to me.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Third and lastly, Israel has strategic reasons to bomb Lebanese infastructre. The primary or secondary reason (according to how you chose propritize them) the bombing of Souther/Northern bridge was designed to cut of South Lebanon from North and limit reinforcements from trickling in with new arms and supplies to Hezbullah. Same with the Damascus highway, the airport (also designed as a retaliation for the years Israel turned a blind eye to the fact that the airport was the main conduit which Lebanon received its arms through Iran with no interference from the Lebanese government. Perhaps there army could not reconquer the south, but surely they were capable of customs duty , no?), and seaport. |
Bombing the Beirut, Jbail and Jounieh ports as well as the Beirut airport serves absolutely, positively nothing if the intent is to limit weapon reinforcements. Israel has an aerial and naval blockade on the country. How exactly do you expect anything at all to make it through at this point?
Your other reason provided, that of "revenge" is an absolutely monstrous justification and simply points to my claim of Israel engaging in acts of collective punishment. Let's punish an entire population by bombing their only way out of the country because we want to exact revenge on a powerless Lebanese government. Thanks.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Targeting the basic infastrucutre of road and trade networks disables the supply chain of yes both the civilian population, but for what Israeli is concerned, it stops the supply chain of Hezbullah, preventing them from tranfering troops, rockets, and large stocks of ammunition freely and easily and also preventing key targets from easily escaping within the first few days. Israel does not intentionally target civilian targets and attempts not to be excessive (for instance when bombing the power stations, firstly they did not bomb all the power stations, and seconldy the avoided targeting the expensive and hard to rebuilt generators and simply targeted the fuel stocks).
Now, admittedly the strike on the infastructure was designed for a short war that would last no more than a week. Israel over estimated the effectiveness of its air and sea forces in destorying the Hezbullah threat, therefore this crisis looks like it will take much longer than the initial planners surely envisioned. Israel was also unable to damage the infastructure quickly to the extent it wanted (which explains why Lebanon Airways was able to evacuate their planes to Jordan after the runways were initially hit).
The trouble now comes from disconnecting the society from all its supply routes which will result in a humanitarian crisis which will be counter to Israel's operations. Israel wants/prefers the will of the Lebanese people on its side, wants its government to take action against Hezbullah, and also wants/prefers international praise and legitimacy. Conducting a war against Hezbullah in the south while the Lebanese people begin straving will not be good for Israel and so they enter a conundrum in this next phase of war. |
I can understand the "strategic benefits" of disabling the supply chain of Hizballah, and isolating them from re-stocking. I can also understand the "strategic benefits" of dropping a nuclear bomb on the South of Lebanon. The point of this example is to highlight the fact that actions leading to strategic benefits need to be weighed very carefully against the detriments of doing so, including, and most importantly, the loss of innocent lives.
I alluded to this in my last post, when I mentioned the fact that tens of thousands of civilians are stuck in the Southern part of Lebanon facing Israeli fire without any escape routs at their disposal, precisely because Israel decided that strategic benefits outweighed potential loss of lives. Now you may claim that they "miscalculated", and that the strike on the infrastructure was designed for a short war, and perhaps that is true, but the point remains the same. Though not intentional, this -up is inexcusable, particularly if it becomes compounded by the imminent humanitarian crisis that is obvious to anyone who's been following the news and that you mentioned because Israel "miscalculated". This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention a careless and callous disregard for innocent civilian lives. What kind of military strategy doesn't take this into account?
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Thats convient, but Lebanese government could have prevent the enlargement and supply of Hezbullah. Also it could have denied Iranian Republican forces entry into the nation. |
Really? How? How is the Lebanese government going to prevent Hizballah's actions or their enlargement, without plunging the entire country into a civil war. Please enlighten me because apparently, you know something that no one else does after 2 years of debate in Lebanon.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Israel has and is trying to honor the Lebanese military's neautrality. However they have and will continue to target any Lebanese forces that continue to aid Hezbullah. Israel's desire to appease this component allowed the tragic mistake of allowing Lebanon's sea-looking radars to exist as they were on Lebanese military installations during the first days of the war which resulted in the tragic death of 4 Israeli sailors. These radars were used in the targeting of that shape and were quickly removed after the incident.
Anyway I think that should be enough for now ;) |
30 Lebanese soldiers most certainly did not die because of that one hit on the radar station. That was in Tripoli. The link I provided has nothing to do with Tripoli since the base is in Kfar Chima, and I would be more than happy to provide other links that have nothing to do with Tripoli where Lebanese soldiers took direct hits to their bases. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
^^^^ I agree, Israel's response has not been focused to the threat they faced or attack (if you will) they suffered. This is what I was elluding to by stating Israel has taken this as an opportunity to attck Lebanon as a whole. Personally, I think it is an unacceptable action on the part of Israel, however, given their foreign policy and their security concerns I do understand why they have taken the route they have (note, this is not to say I approve it, I don't, but I do understand it).
With regard to Lebanon's inability to control Hizballah. While I understand there are very real reasons for Lebanon to be impotent in the situation that does not excuse their impotency. If a faction of one state threatens another then either the host state must do something about it or if unwilling or incapable they must expect the threatened state will respond. Since Hizballah is part of the government in Lebanon this argument becomes even stronger as Hizballah does have a measure of legitimacy in Lebanon (at least from foreign eyes).
While this would certainly never fly in Lebanon, the best solution for the state as a whole would be to consider seeking outside assistance in dealing with Hizballah.... maybe even Israel's:eek: |
Moral, like I said earlier in my post, and I don't know if you missed it or not, but here it is again:
| quote: | | This finally brings us to Israel's response to an admittedly unresolved problem. Was Hizballah a threat to Israel's northern border? Yes. Were they launching rockets across the border? Yes. Did they kidnap the soldiers? Yes. Did Israel have a right to finally retaliate? Believe it or not, and I say this as a Lebanese, they did. However, and this is key, the anger and fury over Israel's actions are not because they retaliated, but because of the excessive measures used during this retaliation. |
Israel did indeed have the right to retaliate. I clearly stated that. It's the measures they took, which I went over in detail in my last post, that I had issues with. I think you understood that, but I just wanted to make it clear once again. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Epicurus, I wanted to address some of your complaints with Israel's military action just to bring you in the Israeli persepctive on its behaviour:
Firstly, one must understand, kidnapping a soldier is Israel' societies sacred cow. You simply do not view it, its hard to elaborat why Israeli society views this as such (I can if you like), but the moral social equivalent for any other society would be the rage coming from terrorist kidnapping intentionally two babies from their parents.
Second, there is precedent for bombing bridges roads and airports to avoid the soldier being transferred to Syria and Iran. Reference Ron Arad, an Israeli pilot who went down in Lebanon and was most likely bough and transfered to Iran which tried to use him as a blackmail/chip against Israel.
In Israel mind, having a kidnapped soldier holled up either in Gaza or Lebanon or dead, is much better than the fate that would await him if he would be transported to either Syria and Iran. Israel puts a great deal of emphasis on each and every life, and a life stolen from the society enrages and grieves it entirely, especially when there is the hope, the improbably hope but hope none the less of reversing the situation.
Third and lastly, Israel has strategic reasons to bomb Lebanese infastructre. The primary or secondary reason (according to how you chose propritize them) the bombing of Souther/Northern bridge was designed to cut of South Lebanon from North and limit reinforcements from trickling in with new arms and supplies to Hezbullah. Same with the Damascus highway, the airport (also designed as a retaliation for the years Israel turned a blind eye to the fact that the airport was the main conduit which Lebanon received its arms through Iran with no interference from the Lebanese government. Perhaps there army could not reconquer the south, but surely they were capable of customs duty , no?), and seaport.
Targeting the basic infastrucutre of road and trade networks disables the supply chain of yes both the civilian population, but for what Israeli is concerned, it stops the supply chain of Hezbullah, preventing them from tranfering troops, rockets, and large stocks of ammunition freely and easily and also preventing key targets from easily escaping within the first few days. Israel does not intentionally target civilian targets and attempts not to be excessive (for instance when bombing the power stations, firstly they did not bomb all the power stations, and seconldy the avoided targeting the expensive and hard to rebuilt generators and simply targeted the fuel stocks).
Now, admittedly the strike on the infastructure was designed for a short war that would last no more than a week. Israel over estimated the effectiveness of its air and sea forces in destorying the Hezbullah threat, therefore this crisis looks like it will take much longer than the initial planners surely envisioned. Israel was also unable to damage the infastructure quickly to the extent it wanted (which explains why Lebanon Airways was able to evacuate their planes to Jordan after the runways were initially hit).
The trouble now comes from disconnecting the society from all its supply routes which will result in a humanitarian crisis which will be counter to Israel's operations. Israel wants/prefers the will of the Lebanese people on its side, wants its government to take action against Hezbullah, and also wants/prefers international praise and legitimacy. Conducting a war against Hezbullah in the south while the Lebanese people begin straving will not be good for Israel and so they enter a conundrum in this next phase of war.
Thats convient, but Lebanese government could have prevent the enlargement and supply of Hezbullah. Also it could have denied Iranian Republican forces entry into the nation.
Israel has and is trying to honor the Lebanese military's neautrality. However they have and will continue to target any Lebanese forces that continue to aid Hezbullah. Israel's desire to appease this component allowed the tragic mistake of allowing Lebanon's sea-looking radars to exist as they were on Lebanese military installations during the first days of the war which resulted in the tragic death of 4 Israeli sailors. These radars were used in the targeting of that shape and were quickly removed after the incident.
Anyway I think that should be enough for now ;) |
Nice summary Yoepus. |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | | Originally posted by skot_e (Abu Grahib, the murders/rape etc) |
There is murders 'and' rape of Iraqi citizens. Not murders/rape.
'/' means either of one, if I am not wrong. |
|
|
| KrazyDJs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
Really? How? How is the Lebanese government going to prevent Hizballah's actions or their enlargement, without plunging the entire country into a civil war. Please enlighten me because apparently, you know something that no one else does after 2 years of debate in Lebanon.
|
So if the Lebanese government don't want a civil war (no one does, imo), Israel should just what, take the Hezbolla's arming as something that is obvious and unchangeable? I don't think this specific argument holds anything, but maybe I'm wrong and just can't see the whole picture from my point view.
I agree with you partly about the forces the IDF use, but still, I think both of us (well, both sides anyway) just can't agree with each others point of view, so it'll be hard to agree on it. or something :wtf: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Let me preface this Epicurus by saying I am just representing my opinion and view on the matter and just presenting it as that, and Israeli view point on the issue. There is a lot of emotion in this debate after all are two peoples are at war, but please try and refrain from getting (no way really to put this lightly) “too emotional” on the matter. I don’t want this to divulge into a debate a kin to our colleagues Hardcore Trancer, Cyrus, and Ronk.
Having said that, moving on…
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
So let me get this straight Yoepus. The entire transportation infrastructure of a country, including bridges and highways that may serve as escape routs for the innocents, has to be destroyed, along with dozens of civilians that happen to be fleeing the shelling and who become categorized as collateral damage, so that kidnapped soldiers, who's duty it is to die, and who will either die a horrendous death at the hands of Hizballah or who will be used as future exchange chips by Hizballah, will not be transferred to Syria or Iran where they will die a horrendous death at the hands of the latter or will be used as future exchange chips by the latter. Makes a lot of sense to me.
|
The short answer: Yes.
The longer answer: Israel considers its soldiers as its children. Would you go to great lengths, even incomprehensible lengths to return your children and spare them torture and horrendous death? Most certainly yes. Israel does the same for its children. If you doubt this claim, how else can one socially justify the prisoner exchanges Israel was willing to undertake just to return a couple of its children?
Israeli soldiers are not volunteer, they are drafted, and their life is on pause until they fill their duty to the state. No one wants to do this. But everyone understand this is a duty, they have to do it, because of groups and people like Hezbullah and Hamas, these citizen understand many Arabs that surround the state of Israel do not subscribe to the “live and let live” doctrine.
| quote: |
Bombing the Beirut, Jbail and Jounieh ports as well as the Beirut airport serves absolutely, positively nothing if the intent is to limit weapon reinforcements. Israel has an aerial and naval blockade on the country. How exactly do you expect anything at all to make it through at this point?
|
Listen lets not be ridiculous just because you don’t like the reason. Israel might have air superiority over Lebanon, but its not going to knock out a passenger plane out of the sky full of civilians even if there are a great deal of terrorist on board. So instead of someone trying a daring act like taking off in a commercial jet in defiance of an Israeli air blockade, Israel went for lesser of the politically damaging move of destroying the airport’s runways.
A case and point of this can be again with the example I cited earlier, Lebanese evacuated its commercial jets to Jordan after Israel’s first strike on Beirut Airport’s runways. It did not shoot down these planes even though they were caring no passengers.
The same goes for the ship ports incase a ship attempts to defy Israeli’s blockade they have nowhere to load and unload. Its not like Israel destroyed all of Lebanon’s sea ports, otherwise the evacuation you see now of foreign nationals would have been impossible.
There is also the strategic consideration that if a ceasefire etc. was imposed by the outside world quickly after Israel’s strike Israel would have created lasting damage on Hezbullah’s abilities to rearm, or as you term it, “revenge”.
| quote: |
I can understand the "strategic benefits" of disabling the supply chain of Hizballah, and isolating them from re-stocking. I can also understand the "strategic benefits" of dropping a nuclear bomb on the South of Lebanon. The point of this example is to highlight the fact that actions leading to strategic benefits need to be weighed very carefully against the detriments of doing so, including, and most importantly, the loss of innocent lives.
|
And I understand your concern for your countrymen’s well being. Israel is very concerned with determining its strategic decision with the loss of innocent lives. Israel just values the loss of its innocent lives much more highly than the loss of other innocent lives. Israel determined that not acting against the terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon (which is highly intermingled with the civilian infrastructure and that is a broad understatement as you know) would result in the loss of more innocent lives on the Israeli side either in the short or long term.
Now you obviously disagree with that assessment, but that was the assessment made by the Israeli government. A decision made with the consent of all its intelligence, military, and cabinet level officials who have the facts. Israel did weigh very carefully its proposed actions, it just came up with a different conclusion than you.
| quote: |
Really? How? How is the Lebanese government going to prevent Hizballah's actions or their enlargement, without plunging the entire country into a civil war. Please enlighten me because apparently, you know something that no one else does after 2 years of debate in Lebanon.
|
This seems a bit naïve. Right, there is not one thing. Not one thing large nor small that all the power and all the treasure of the Lebanese government could do to prevent Hezbullah’s enlargement. So you want to tell me and everyone else on this board that there was not even one act, one thing the Lebanese government could have done to prevent the rise and strength of Hizbullah!!??
Sorry if I find that hard to believe. They might have lacked the will, but there certainly was a way. Now in retrospect had the Lebanese understood what would happen to their country if they failed to act, they might have acted differently but as they say, "hindsight is 20/20".
Regardless, the two suggestion I made about seizing shipments and spies of foreign nations could have been done with no great political backlash and deterioration into civil war. Those are just two “Hows” that I propose, imagine what the Lebanese could come up with if they would have really put their minds to it.
| quote: |
30 Lebanese soldiers most certainly did not die because of that one hit on the radar station. That was in Tripoli. The link I provided has nothing to do with Tripoli since the base is in Kfar Chima, and I would be more than happy to provide other links that have nothing to do with Tripoli where Lebanese soldiers took direct hits to their bases.
|
You missed the mark here, the radars that Israel destroyed after the ship attack was an example. And to correct you, Israel struck all Lebanese radar stations not just one. Lebanese army has been reported to help Hezbollah in several cases, Israel at its discretion decides this. This isn’t fair and they aren’t always war, but that’s war for you.
Further know that it is in Israel's interest to keep the Lebanese military as strong as possible and to weaken Hezbullah as much a possible. What you are uncovering, as most of us already know, is that this is not an easy task. And there is a very great likelihood that Israel could fail at it too. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by KrazyDJs
So if the Lebanese government don't want a civil war (no one does, imo), Israel should just what, take the Hezbolla's arming as something that is obvious and unchangeable? I don't think this specific argument holds anything, but maybe I'm wrong and just can't see the whole picture from my point view.
I agree with you partly about the forces the IDF use, but still, I think both of us (well, both sides anyway) just can't agree with each others point of view, so it'll be hard to agree on it. or something :wtf: |
My God man. I don't know how many times I've repeated myself on this issue. Israel shouldn't take it. They have the right to retaliate. I've said it at least 3 times already if you actually bothered to read my posts carefully. I even dedicated a single post to highlighting that exact issue to Moral Hazard. It's the way they're going about solving this problem, as detailed in my posts.
Believe me, and maybe this is something the Israelis are failing to comprehend, you had a golden opportunity to cash in, for the first time in the history of the Arab Israeli conflict, on an Arab nation that, in its majority, tacitly supported an Israeli decision (that of eradicating Hizballah). I say in its majority because other than the Shia, who constitute 40% of the population, no one wants Hizballah to hold the country hostage anymore. Do you realize what this could have meant if the IDF didn't tackle this issue the way that it did? Instead, we now have public support from all the citizenry, including the Sunnis and the Christians, for Hizballah. I could post about 50 links supporting this claim, but I don't think it takes rocket science to figure that out. |
|
|
| KrazyDJs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
My God man. I don't know how many times I've repeated myself on this issue. Israel shouldn't take it. They have the right to retaliate. I've said it at least 3 times already if you actually bothered to read my posts carefully. I even dedicated a single post to highlighting that exact issue to Moral Hazard. It's the way they're going about solving this problem, as detailed in my posts.
Believe me, and maybe this is something the Israelis are failing to comprehend, you had a golden opportunity to cash in, for the first time in the history of the Arab Israeli conflict, on an Arab nation that, in its majority, tacitly supported an Israeli decision (that of eradicating Hizballah). I say in its majority because other than the Shia, who constitute 40% of the population, no one wants Hizballah to hold the country hostage anymore. Do you realize what this could have meant if the IDF didn't tackle this issue the way that it did? Instead, we now have public support from all the citizenry, including the Sunnis and the Christians, for Hizballah. I could post about 50 links supporting this claim, but I don't think it takes rocket science to figure that out. |
:(
Gotcha, my bad. |
|
|
|
|
