Israel bombs The Lebanon

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 17 Jul 2006 23:46

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on what's occurred in Lebanon over the last week or so.
Personally I'm not as fully informed as I'd like to be before forming any sort of final judgement, but I doubt I'll find a reason to support Israel's actions.
I don't think Syria will get involved as many people fear. It is possible though unlikely Israel will once again occupy southern Lebanon though.
It strikes me as a silly way to hurt Hesbolah (sp?) - surely by destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and setting back its development at least a decade they are promoting the type of extremeism that poverty fuels. That infrustructure was not primarily aiding terrorism, it was primarily aiding the majority of the Lebonese population, who have no intention of perpetrating any violence against Israel. By destroying it they are giving the Lebonese people a reason to oppose Israel - they are cultivating an environment of fear and violence that is not easly controled. Israel's new leader has never served, perhaps he feels the need to flex the military's muscles to prove himself to his electorate? The last leader to send Israel's troops into Lebanon was also not a soildier. Interesting irony.
It also shows the power the USA wields over international politics, as long as they support Israel in this, no matter how much anyone else - the EU the UN etc - kicks and screams Israel will continue on its path. If the USA had said no, there is no way it would have happened - to what extent does this make them culpable? Alot to discuss.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 18 Jul 2006 08:40

That infrustructure was not primarily aiding terrorism, it was primarily aiding the majority of the Lebonese population, who have no intention of perpetrating any violence against Israel. By destroying it they are giving the Lebonese people a reason to oppose Israel - they are cultivating an environment of fear and violence that is not easly controled.

Hezbollah uses the same infrastructure as the rest of the Lebonese people to fuel the trucks that transport the hostages they take and the rockets that they fire at kibbutzim (collective farms) in Israel. Destorying roads and fuel depots and gas stations and airports is one way for the Israeli military to make it harder for Hezbollah to transport their arms and footsoldiers around and to receive re-supply from allies. It is unfortunate that the Hezbollah uses the same infrastructure as the civilian population of Lebanon. Maybe you should ask Hezbollah not to do that.

Israel's new leader has never served

Incorrect. Olmert served his time, much like the rest of young Israeli men. Israel has mandatory military service of three years for most men starting at age 18, plus regular reservist duties required till the age of about 45. Olmert simply was not a carreer soldier like some of Israel's other leaders.

perhaps he feels the need to flex the military's muscles to prove himself to his electorate?

Perhaps he feels the need to demonstrate to terrorist organizations that this recent trend of taking Israeli soldiers hostage is not a trend they should continue.

It also shows the power the USA wields over international politics, as long as they support Israel in this, no matter how much anyone else - the EU the UN etc - kicks and screams Israel will continue on its path. If the USA had said no, there is no way it would have happened - to what extent does this make them culpable?

The USA is not the only nation to back Israel. Even Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have declared that Hezbollah is to blame for provoking this situation.

If the USA had said no, there is no way it would have happened

Israel does not make moves only with the approval of the USA. 25,000 US citizens are now stuck in Lebanon because there are no regular flights out of the country. Another example: in 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactors. Then vice president George Bush (senior) publicly denounced Israel for this, an "unprovoked" attack on a then US ally. Of course, ten years later when Bush senior went toe-to-toe with his former buddy Saddam I doubt he was still upset with the Israelis for depriving Iraq of "peaceful" nuclear capabilities.

Alot to discuss.

Some theorize that Syria and Iran are responsible for this situation. Syria, some say, likes to cause trouble in the region when they are feeling marginalized, as a way of saying "don't discount us, we can cause trouble that the whole world feels without having to risk our own necks." Likewise, Iran has been put under alot of international pressure for the various aspects of its nuclear "energy" program. Some feel that this is Iran trying to distract the world from that issue. A related theory is that they (Iran) are simply demonstrating that if the rest of the world can put pressure on them than they can also put pressure on the rest of the world too. Most info I have does more than suggest that Iran arms and bankrolls Hezbollah. Hezbollah may just be following Iran's direct orders.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jul 2006 09:52

Outsider is the new pwner of this thread.

Dylander raises an interesting point though, about the new Israeli leader having to prove himself.

Perhaps he is trying to look tough, in order to cover up the disasterous land-for-peace(ha) giveaways recently that contributes to the current situation.

I mean, since Olmert took office, everything he did was focused on surrendering land.

Though not in-exorably linked, it was bungling and weakness up to this point that brings us to where we are today.

Oslo, Wye river, special envoys, road-map to peace...all are to blame for putting the region, and the world perhaps, in a lose-lose situation.

The cost of eliminating Hezbollah, if possible, will now be much higher for Israel and the West, then what it would have been earlier.

Pick your outcome: terrible or horrible.

-n

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 18 Jul 2006 11:07

Don't know much about the circumstances.. but I think its fucked up to hurt civilians either way.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 18 Jul 2006 12:49

Don't know much about the circumstances.. but I think its fucked up to hurt civilians either way.

Yes, it certainly is, but that is part of the circumstances of this conflict, circumstances dictated by Hezbollah. The Israelis have to go after those who attack them, but their enemy deliberately hides amongst civilians. They do that for several reasons. Number one, they KNOW that the Israelis will hesitate to strike at civilian targets, so they are basically using civilians as a human shield. Number two, they know that the Israelis will attack their positions sooner or later, with the resulting civilian casualties, and this plays into their hands as well in the court of public opinion; they sway world opinion against Israel when civilians are hurt. This is deliberate, otherwise they would not hide amongst, and store their weapons in civilian locations. This is the terrorist strategy in Lebanon and in Gaza.

Civilians are killed on both sides. The main difference is that Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties while targeting their enemies. Hezbollah and Hamas, on the other hand, well, they mostly deliberately target civilians and try for maximum casualties. Thats basic terrorism.

Keep in mind also that many of the civilians killed in Lebanon are those providing shelter to Hezbollah "soldiers" and their missiles. As I already mentioned, Hezbollah deliberately stores their missiles in civilian locations such as homes and small factories. This is according to Hezbollah experts from Israel, from Lebanon, and from the Hezbollah themselves, as reported in such publications as the Wall Street Journal (yes, Hezbollah speaks to the media; in Lebanon they actually have their own TV station where they broadcast propaganda about how they are the national heroes of Lebanon). Are those who act as quartermaster to the footsoldiers really still civilians themselves?

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 18 Jul 2006 13:06

Well that all depends. Circumstances: Man agrees to hide in missle in home. The man has 5 children under the age of 12, and a wife. His children have no knowledge of this whole thing, and one day theyre blown to shit, a bomb was dropped on them in their sleep. If the circumstance was: Big bad dude supporting the terrorist cause, lives by himself, i wouldnt mind as much. I really hate terrorist cowards.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 18 Jul 2006 16:33

dyalander wrote:That infrustructure was not primarily aiding terrorism, it was primarily aiding the majority of the Lebonese population, who have no intention of perpetrating any violence against Israel. By destroying it they are giving the Lebonese people a reason to oppose Israel - they are cultivating an environment of fear and violence that is not easly controled.

Israel moved out of S. Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank as an act of peace toward Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians. They forced their own Israeli citizens to vacate their settlements. In the process the Lebonese government promised to dismantle Hezzbollah, a necessary agreement because Israel was giving up control of land that created a strategic advantage to militant groups who would seek to attack Israel. Lebanon did not and could not follow up with their promise because many of the cabinet mambers of their parliment is made up of Hezzbollah members.

What do you know?! Israel was attacked by a militant terrorist group (Hezzbollah) after they made a huge leap of faith toward Peace. Lebanon wants a "cease fire" because they're fucked now. They have no real control over their own government because it's a dummy democracy. The surrounding countries to Israel have truly proven that they are not dedicated to the peace process and if Israel occupies those lands again then it can only be blamed on the Lebanese government who should have asked the international community for help in securing their system of government before they had missles falling on their heads.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 18 Jul 2006 18:10

I still don't see how this attack or any subsequent invasion will destroy Hezzbollah, or perhaps more importantly ill feeling towards Israel in the region. It will obviously weaken its immediate capabalities, but at some point they will leave, and when they do they'll be back to square one.
I agree that a better solution would have been for Lebanon to accept aid - in the form of troops / expertise to hunt down the kidnappers and other key terrorists, but like I said at the beginning, I'm not well informed enought to know the specifics about what offers/requests of this nature were made.
WHen J.I. bombed Bali, the Australian federal police sent personel into Indonesia to aid in the investigation and capture the perpetrators, this was fascilitated by what was then a cordial, though perhaps not entirely friendly, relationship between the two countries, given the current relationship I wouldn't be so sure the Indonesians would make the same requests they did back then. My point is that such assistance is only possible within an environment of trust, such an environment is not possible between Israel and Lebenon given their recent history. Giving back land doesn't fascilitate such an environment alone.
I'm not saying Lebanon is free from blame but I don't think that Israel is free from blame either.
Moreover I just don't see how it was the best solution to the problem, and feel that it has done far more harm than good.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 18 Jul 2006 18:21

Sorry bout dbl post. I might be wrong and obviously I expect to be corrected, but wasn't this immediate situation started by Hezzbollah kidnapping two Israel soldiers. I'm not sure that the response can be justified in relation to this action - i.e someone posted that Hezzbollah knows that Israel will hesitate to boimb civilians - they should hesitate - it should be the absolute last resort - in this case they didn't seem to hesitate. - Like I've said repeatedly - I dont know enough to confidently assert these views - if anyone has a more complete timeline of events between the kidnappings and the Israel retaliation I'd like to know what other avenues were attempted. This said I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that the attack was the best way forward for Israel in their fight against Hezzbollah.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 Jul 2006 21:21

The problem with discussing this issue is that you always get the same rhetoric from Jewish defenders of the Israel state.

There is no question that Hezzbollah are an organisation that commits serious crimes against humanity. However I think it is entirely possible to criticise both sides of the conflict.

Israel's actions are disgusting. I refuse to accept that it is ok to kill children in any circumstances and I refuse to accept that Israel don't know that they will definitely (and have) kill children with their actions. The actions of the Israel goverment and army are just as bad as the actions of Hezzbolla - both sides are treating the civillian people of those nations as expendable and I cannot accept that notion. I think both positions are indefensible and attempting to defend the action of bombing children and innocent people makes the defender look inhumane.

I think one of the points Dyalan brought up was very good - Olmert clearly has much less military experience than his predecessors and I've heard a number of analysts saying that he's really trying to prove his military credentials and strength. Peretz (Israeli defence minister) is also much less experienced than his predecessors and I think that's definitely something to take into account.

I think it's also important to note that there are reports that the Israeli governement believes that they can carry on the attacks until the weekend - by which time they thing international pressure for them to stop will be too great.

I also very much agree that the actions by Israel are completely counter productive to achieving peace and protecting their people. I have no doubt that this action is creating more hate and anger against Israel and there will be an increase against attacks in Israel. The Israeli governement can attempt to take the moral high ground and defend their actions as self defence as much as they want, but the fact remains that their because of their actions more of their people are going to be blown to pieces and brutally maimed. It's nice to be idealistic but I think it's more important to look at the consequences of your actions and in this situation the consequences of Israel's actions are the direct death of civillians and innocent people and the indirect deaths of their own people.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 18 Jul 2006 23:04

k I'm drunk right now lol

But fucking they asked for they're asses to be attacked. Israel will do anything to retreive a soldier.
They knew that when they fucked with israel. If I were to serve under any
fucking country it would be israel becvause I know they would try and get me bgaack no matterwhat dshit happeneed. . SS

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 19 Jul 2006 07:23

Look it ll thos typo. Has there been a period of at least 1 year when the middle east DIDN'T have a war, I really can't remember a single peaceful time in the last 50 years.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 19 Jul 2006 08:14

Jeremy said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with discussing this issue is that you always get the same rhetoric from Jewish defenders of the Israel state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While this may true to a degree, it can also be said of Israeli's critics.

I want to question, and perhaps agree (to a degree, lol) with Jeremy's last paragraph. The logic there can be applied to prove that Israel's actions are ALWAYS wrong, and ALWAYS bring more death upon their own people.

I could easily say that land-for-rockets, and other gestures of weakness, lead directly, and indirectly,to more deaths and wounds to it's own people.

It seems to me, that every inch Israel gives to it's adversaries, is another inch closer to rocket fire, bombings and kidnappings it's people are exposed to.

And it seems more true when their adversaries say, in public, that they will launch more rockets, when given the opportunity.

I heard an a quick interview yesterday with a Hezbollah spokesman,who in response to a question about Lebanese civilians, in effect said, "They are expendable in the struggle....blah..blah.....their deaths are glorious for ...blah...blah"

I have heard no such spokesman for Israel, or the IDF saying that the Lebanese civilians are expendable.

I have not heard them saying that their own civilians are expendable, in the conflict with Hezbollah.

Actions ARE more important that words.

I want to dive into what Hezbollah and Hamas say, and what they do, to illustrate a point........

But this post is long so I 'll do that next time.

BUT I also want to question the ethicacy , of using human shields, and/or fortifying positions around civilians, especially children.

The human shield thing may need it's own thread.

-n

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Jul 2006 10:52

I have heard no such spokesman for Israel, or the IDF saying that the Lebanese civilians are expendable.

What point are you trying to make? The Israeli's clearly don't give any more of a shit about the Lebonese than Hezbollah does.

Spawn · Post by **Spawn** » 19 Jul 2006 12:12

I have a classmate over there; but her dad said that they are about 20 minutes from where every the bombings are happening. But from what i know they are trying to get her on a plane out of there.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 19 Jul 2006 18:32

Quote:
I have heard no such spokesman for Israel, or the IDF saying that the Lebanese civilians are expendable.

What point are you trying to make? The Israeli's clearly don't give any more of a shit about the Lebonese than Hezbollah does.

This is one of the things that interests me - and one of the things I'd like to know more about - I've heard alot of Lebanese people complaining that their country is once again being used as a site for a war that hey have no part in other than being victims. My understanding is that Hezbollah has some representation in the Lebanese government, what exactly is the connection between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people beyond the former using the latter as a sheild? I need to look for information on domestic Lebenese politics.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 Jul 2006 19:45

Jeremy said

you always get the same rhetoric from Jewish defenders of the Israel state.

Shit, Jeremy, if Jews waited for someone else to defend Israel, well, thank god they didn't wait for help from Australia...

Rhetoric? Maybe. Doesn't make anything I said false...

I also very much agree that the actions by Israel are completely counter productive to achieving peace and protecting their people. I have no doubt that this action is creating more hate and anger against Israel and there will be an increase against attacks in Israel.

Yes, clearly you must be right. Next time Hezbollah invades Israel, the Israelis should drop large sacks of flowers and marshmellows on their enemies instead. Maybe if they are really really nice to Hezbollah, then Hezbollah will love them instead of hating them. If that doesn't work, they could try asking Hezbollah to step away from all the civilian infrastructure and innocent bystanders so that they can be bombed without all that collateral damage. I suppose if neither of those work, then Israel can simply let Hezbollah shoot rockets and take hostages and do nothing in response. Every time I do nothing to stand up for myself I gain all sorts of respect and admiration from my foes. It works every time. Yeah, I don't think I'll leave those decisions up to the Israeli strategist anymore. They've single-handedly repelled numerous invasions so far, usually from several foreign armies at the same time, captured land equal to many times the size of their own country only to trade it back in exchange for peace, beaten all the odds just by staying alive, all this while builing the most free, open, and technically advanced society in the region (even the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs typically enjoy a higher standard of living than in much of the rest of the mid-east, and in polls of the Palestinian people they have indicated that they would prefer an Israeli-style system of government for themselves), etc. etc., but obviously they've had it wrong all along. If only they'd listen to Jeremy from Tasmania they'd all live happily ever after.

It's nice to be idealistic but I think it's more important to look at the consequences of your actions and in this situation the consequences of Israel's actions are the direct death of civillians and innocent people and the indirect deaths of their own people.

Come on now, Jer, who's really being the idealist here? Do you even think about what you're saying or is it just a reflexive idealist response?

Ever heard of blaming the victim?

the consequences of Israel's actions are... the indirect deaths of their own people

"Stop standing up for yourself, Israel, you're only making it worse!"

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 19 Jul 2006 20:35

Israel has been enduring terrorist attacks for decades. They've attempted peaceful solutions for years. They've given up land time for peace time and time again only to be attacked again. It's a fucking racket. If they keep peacefully giving up land without a fight, pretty soon they'll be so small a strong enough army come in invade, or Israel could just fade away all together.

They're not like the US who has been going bat-shit-bonkers for 5 years in retaliation to one terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks in Israel are practically a way of life over there. They should not be! Sooner or later they have to fight back. Violence is a last resort here.

Yes civilians live in Lebanon. Hezbollah is part of their government. Hezbollah routinely cowardly attacks Israel with suicide bombings etc. That's a declaration of war. IMNSHO Israel is not the aggressor, they are defending themselves.

==================

On a less serious note, it's time to break into song...

Israel... Israel... Israel, FUCK YEAH!
Comin' again to save the motherfuckin day yeah
ISRAEL, FUCK YEAH
Terrorists your game is through
Cuz now you gotta answer to... ISRAEL, fuck yeah!
Whatcha do when we come for you yeah?
It's the dream that we all share
It's the hope for tomorrow...

Tel Aviv, Fuck yeah!
Latkes, Fuck yeah!
Matisyahu, fuck yeah!
Kibbutzim, Fuck yeah!
The Shekel, Fuck yeah!
Camels, Fuck yeah!
Matzah, Fuck yeah!
Jerusalem, Fuck yeah!
Lunar Calendar, Fuck yeah!
The Negev, Fuck yeah!
Chanukah, Fuck Yeah!
The Dead Sea, Fuck YEAH!

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 19 Jul 2006 21:02

I don't think anyone is suggesting Israel drop flowers aand marshmellows but theres alot between that and dropping bombs.
Also its true Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese goverment but only part. Why doesn't Israel work with their opponents in Lebanon?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 Jul 2006 21:31

bainbridgeshred

What point are you trying to make? The Israeli's clearly don't give any more of a shit about the Lebonese than Hezbollah does.

Israel has dropped leaflets and made radio broadcasts advising the Lebanese what locations would be least safe, hours in advance of their bombings. Lebanon has not returned the favor. Rather, they denied hitting the city of Haifa with rockets for a day or two until they had scored enough hits to brag about it instead.

dyalander

I've heard alot of Lebanese people complaining that their country is once again being used as a site for a war that hey have no part in other than being victims. My understanding is that Hezbollah has some representation in the Lebanese government, what exactly is the connection between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people beyond the former using the latter as a sheild? I need to look for information on domestic Lebenese politics.

Hezbollah makes up about 1/5 of Lebanon's parliament and holds two important cabinet positions (Ministry of Energy and I can't remember exactly what else). Hezbollah is not a distinct entity from Lebanon's government, they are a large part of Lebanon's government. It is a pretty wacky government, I must admit, as it would have to be after all those years of civil war. The government is a result of a shaky settlement of the war, and has all kinds of strange quatas and strictures to keep peace amongst Lebanon's various formerly-warring factions (so many seats of parliament are reserved for this group, so many for that group, the position of President is reserved only for the Christians, the Chairman of Parliament MUST come from the Druze group, etc. Something like that. Strictly enforced power-sharing). Anyway, Hezbollah uses Lebanon's gov't to its advantage. For example: UN resolutions 1559 AND 1580 call on the Lebanese gov't to disarm all its MILITIA groups, Hezbollah being considered one. The Lebanese parliament voted to re-designate Hezbollah a "Resistance group", and thus provide a charade of a legal loophole to allow Hezbollah to avoid disarming. All the other militias disarmed.

And speaking of the UN...

I agree that a better solution would have been for Lebanon to accept aid - in the form of troops / expertise to hunt down the kidnappers and other key terrorists, but like I said at the beginning, I'm not well informed enought to know the specifics about what offers/requests of this nature were made.

I guess you didn't know that THERE ALREADY IS a UN peacekeeping force of 2000 soldiers in southern Lebanon. They've been there for a long time, and since Israel withdrew from S. Lebanon in 2000 they've been charged with supressing cross-boarder hostilities. Fat lot of good they've done. Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israeli towns and farms all along. And the last time Hezbollah raided Israel and successfully captured soldiers to ransom, Israel actually exchanged Hezbollah prisoners just to get back THE BODIES of those soldiers. Thanks for nothing, UN. Of course, thats not the first time the UN has competely let Israel down. After Israel went to war with Egypt in 1956, and captured the Sinai penninsula (Egypt had seized the Sinai from British control, and Britain and France convinced Israel to aid them in re-taking it), international political pressure forced them to withdraw, and a UN force was put in place on the Egypt-Israel boarder to enforce a demilitarized zone as part of that deal. The UN withdrew that force AT EGYPT'S REQUEST in 1967 (THANKS FOR NOTHING, AGAIN, UN), after which Egypt quickly amassed troops and tanks on the boarder and closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping (the Straits of Tiran give access from the Gulf of Aquaba to the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean). Two months later Israel was again at war with Egypt, as well as Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, who were directly assisted with troops and other support from Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, and Algeria. Israel beat them all in six days and again captured the Sanai penninsula, which they traded back to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty in 1978. Egypt had a more reasonable leader at that time, Anwar Sadat. He was murdered by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad a few years later.

and finally, dyalander...

I might be wrong and obviously I expect to be corrected, but wasn't this immediate situation started by Hezzbollah kidnapping two Israel soldiers. I'm not sure that the response can be justified in relation to this action

Its true that Hezbollah attacked a military boarder patrol, killing some and capturing others. I guess you didn't know that the raid was directly preceded by a rocket attack on Israeli civilian positions. The rocket attack on civilians was used as a diversion before the attack on the boarder patrol.

I hope this has been informative.