This stupid reaction by Israel will only increase the powers of fundamentalist jihadists. Most people I talk to (a wide cross section) see the overreaction of Israel as brutal and disproportionate. I imagine then that in the islamic world the hatred toward Israel and USA is growing now at a rapid pace as a result of Israels response.
Israel have been caught hook, line and sinker. They may destroy democratic Lebanon but only strengthen support for the the crazy jihadists. Idiots.
Yes, a wide cross section of people who agree with you. :rolleyes:
Anyway you can imagine what you will, but according to this overall very critical of Israel BBC bit and other news sources, Hezbollah is being held accountable at least as much as Israel is.
BTW, Would anyone like to get off their soapbox and address the op’s request for an analysis of how this looks just from a tactical POV? Not what will happen, not who is all good and who is all evil, but what each player’s perceptions of self-interest are (right or wrong) and assessments they have of each other, be they accurate or faulty.
My post *was *about the tactical aspect of the conflict. Israel fell for the trap laid by jihadist exremists.
And you must associate with people who think that the reaction by Israel was not disproportionate. I am afraid there are not many of those around.
There was a lot of colaboration between US and the Israeli military regarding the occupation of Iraq, most of Israels military projects are co-developed, mainly based on American designs that the Israelis have requested changes to, for their particular needs.
The military response and TO&E of Israel can be quantified , what can’t is going to be its political resolve, not to let off the pressure too soon and accept a poor resolution to the conflict.
More like as long as its logisitics chain holds out. Leg infantry is one thing,but most of the military consumables are based on a term length. Which is why you hear phrases about a 30 day emergency supply of oil on hand. Sidewinders , sparrows , hellfire atms, aim-120’s all get used up like shit through a goose, in general war and that really decides how adventerous Israel wishes to be , in regards to both syria and iran.
Basically they are going to build a battle space in southern lebannon and take on all comers, and win.
Declan
Actually I didn’t address that since it has been covered in other threads and is not the subject of this one. And i wouldn’t use my associations as an accurate measure of American public opinion anyway; if it was Bush would’ve lost in a landslide.
So you believe that the Jihadists planned on Israel reacting in this way as a means of garnering support?
IMO, Iran’s trap is what Israel fell into.
Just like us when we attacked Iraq.
Iran now has a very secure position, with no threats on any of its borders. I believe that it’s now, through Hizbullah, moving into offensive mode. I’m sure they’re delighted with how things have turned out so far. They’re playing the US and Israel like violins, and we’re reacting in both tactical and strategic ways as moronically as the Palestinians re Israel.
Do you mean politically? Because if you mean militarily, I’d be curious where you got your intel to make this claim.
First, I don’t understand what the Palestinians really have to do with the current conflict. My operating assumption is that Hizbollah has, in the past, hijacked the Palestinian cause in order to justify its attacks on Israel, that any movement towards resolution of the Palestinian question at this point would have little effect on the conflict. So how would “telling the Palestinians” anything have any positive impact on the current conflict?
Second, I keep hearing about the possibility of putting pressure on Syria to reign in Hizbollah. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that Lebanon is incapable of stopping Hizbollah in their own country; what makes Syria so much more capable? Is it thought that Syria is supporting Hizbollah in Lebanon, and that the reason Hizbollah isn’t operating from Syria itself is that Syria doesn’t want to look guilty? From Hizbollah’s perspective, wouldn’t launching rockets from southern Syria provide better range into Israel?
Third, if Lebanon is in fact incapable of stopping Hizbollah, why is Israel bombing the Lebanese infrastructure? What does the Beirut airport have to do with Hizbollah? I realize Hizbollah doesn’t provide a target-rich environment, buy why does Israel think a blockade and targets like airports and power plants have any effect? In fact, if there’s any hope of the Lebanese doing anything to stop Hizbollah, won’t it just be that much harder for them if the entire Lebanese infrastructure is destroyed? Won’t eradicating Hizbollah really require boots on the ground?
I mean if we all know it’s Syria and Iran and not Lebanon that’s behind Hizbollah, why isn’t Israel bombing them? If Iran makes the rockets and missles, why not bomb the factories in Iran?
I believe I read that Israel’s rationle for this was to isolate those who kidnapped the soldier, to prevent them from moving him out of the country.
I believe simply giving the soldiers back would quickly end a conflict that no one, especially Israel, wants.
While Syria isn’t uninvolved, Hezbollah is primarily a shadow arm of the Iranian government. They are a puppet and Tehran pulls the strings.
Sam and gum, well said. Pantom, I wish you had been around in 1938. I would love to read about how de Kristallnacht was all the fault of those damn uppity Jews, I like fantasy and other forms of fiction. It’s amazing, innit? There is always someone who is eager to defend genocide. shakes head in amazement
Hamas is doing the same thing Hezbollah is, operating from Palestinian areas. Hamas is part of the Palestinian government. Palestinians show absolutely zero sign of wanting to live in peace with Israel. It’s time they figured out how to do so instead of teaching their children that Israelis are monsters so that another generation of children can grow up to strap on suicide belts and throw themselves at Israeli citizens.
I lost the last shred of hope I had for the Palestinians when I watched them destroy all those valuable greenhouses Israel left behind as a parting gift to help kick-start the Palestinian economy. Greenhouses that were purchased from Israeli settlers mostly by American philanthropists hoping to help the Palestinians get on their feet. Their hatred of Israel was greater than their desire to build their own economy. As long as that attitude lasts, there can be no peace.
Syria wants no direct connection to this, because it doesn’t want to give Israel a casus belli to come after them. That’s what proxy wars are all about - you stand clear and fund your proxies so they do the dirty work and you reap the benefits while taking none of the risk.
That said, Iran is primary mover here. But Syria has influence in Lebanon and with Hezbollah, and this is clearly happening with Syrian approval.
Hezbollah is a military fighting force, and thus one of the ways to beat it is to cut off its logistics chain. That’s what Israel is doing. Hezbollah can no longer be supplied with arms by air. With major bridges cut, Israel has an easier time spotting and destroying the flow of arms and supplies into Hezbollah-controlled regions. And the attacks in Beirut have been aimed at Hezbollah offices, supply depots, and bunkers.
Possibly. But Israel is also sending a message here, which is that the old trick of throwing up your hands and saying, “Oh, we’re too weak to control the militants!” while nodding and winking at them as they do the dirty work isn’t going to fly any more. That’s what the Palestinian governments did forever - promise peace, make nice-sounding speeches in English which inciting violence in Arabic. Then when some radicals would get the message and blow up some Israelis, the Palestinian government would wring its hands and go, “Oh my! We’re awfully sorry about that. It’s out of our control, though.”
It’s really a clever dodge. If Israel attacks the government, the claim is made that it just weakens them further and makes them less likely to be able to control the militants. If they leave them alone, the government looks the other way while the militants and terrorists stockpile arms and prepare assaults.
So how do you break that logjam? By simply punishing the country that engages in it. Make it painful enough, and perhaps next time the government will think twice about only making half-hearted attempts to stop terrorists from doing what they do. Link the consequences together, treat them as the same entity, and force them to take responsibility.
And if that doesn’t work, at least Israel is laying the groundwork to be able to go into Lebanon and root out Hezbollah and destroy them, without having to worry about reinforcements and arms resupply.
They will if they have to. Israel is trying to send the message without the war escalating to a dangerous level. Also, Israel has to deal with the reality of world opinion. Right now, Israel has the undisputed moral high ground, which limits the ability of other countries to lean on Israel (primarily by leaning on the U.S. and forcing the U.S. to lean on Israel). But if they attack Syria or Iran, you can bet that that will get China’s panties in a knot, and Russia’s and France’s too. There will be calls for a security council resolution against Iran, which the U.S. would be forced to veto. There would be all kinds of diplomatic pressure on the U.S., probably including threats to undo the work the U.S. has been trying to do to get the Security Council to do something about Iran’s nuclear program.
Nonetheless, Israel is fighting for its survival. If it decides that the only way to stop this is to bomb Syria and Iran, it will do it. We’re in a very dangerous phase now, as Israel has essentially called Iran’s and Syria’s bluff. Either they’ll back down, or the situation will get much, much worse.
My guess is that they’ll back down, simply because that’s the smart thing to do. Iran will start making noises about Hezbollah being out of control, and Syria will offer to ‘help’ the Lebanese government in controlling the south, or something like that. That will put Israel in a bit of a box, because international pressure will start to mount almost immediately for Israel to cease-and-desist now that everyone is promising to play nice.
Then once the heat is off, it’ll all start over again. The big question right now is whether or not Israel has finally decided that the time is now to draw the final line in the sand, or whether they’ll decide that they’ve made enough of a point that they can go home and hope for a better outcome this time.
Israel. I’m pretty sure you mean Israel here.
This seems like a weird comment, even to me, but I am concerned about undermining the power of Syria, and actually wonder if propping them up a little is in both Israel’s and America’s interest. Syria leaving Lebanon only left a hole that Iran’s influence filled. Bluntly put, I see Syria as the only counterweight left to Iran. Syria is power mad but not insane; Iran is run by religious nut jobs.
Emasculate Syria too much and you leave Iran alone as the powerhouse. That’s scary.
I take it you meant ‘Israel’ here instead of ‘Iran’…
I guess that boils down to whether they hold to their line about the soldiers being returned, especially if the rocket attacks stop. Neither seems possible right now, but I would imagine the strikes will at some point yield results in terms of diminished attacks.
The soldier’s lives are really pivotal here. Certainly their ordeal has been horrible enough, but I wonder, had they been killed outright, would the situation have deteriorated this much?
Yeah, sorry. I meant Israel.
Had the soldiers been killed outright, the situation certainly wouldn’t have gotten this bad. Israeli soldiers are killed regularly in this conflict. But when they’re alive and being held captive, it is the country’s responsibility to do everything to get them back.
Weirddave, you clever person you. That was a really neat way of getting an ad hominem into GD without actually, like, using one. Kewl.
Of course, it was also a Godwin moment. You lose.
Also: you’ve been here slightly longer than myself. Perhaps you forgot that one of the first things I did as a member was defend Sharon? Perhaps you failed to read, or just don’t remember, which is fine, 'cause it was a while ago, my rather spirited defense of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount that started one of the interminable intifadas of those eternal idiots, the Palestinians?
Oh well. Whatever.
Anyway, I believe that abortion of a post referred - it’s a bit unclear, so forgive me if I’m making the wrong assumption - to my contention that Israel is overreacting to the nth degree to Hizbullah’s action in this case? I’ll make a real simple analogy for you, trivial but, I believe, telling:
Materazzi says nasty things to Zidane in the final game of the World Cup. Zidane headbutts him, gets his butt thrown out of the game, and his team winds up losing the world championship.
Bit of an overreaction to a provocation, and before you know it, you’re on the losing side.
Same deal here. Really a simple argument.
I see above that the fantasy is still being peddled that the Lebanese government can succeed in disarming Hizbullah even though the most powerful government in the region a) failed at this and was in fact defeated by them in the guerrilla war that ensued when they occupied southern Lebanon, and b) is even now making sure it, as it were, prepares the ground very well indeed before reattempting said occupation.
But the vastly weaker Lebanese government is supposed to be able to do this all by itself, defying Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran all in one swoop.
Must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Me, I’ve never tried it. Maybe I should, one day, just to be in with the cool crowd.
Maybe… Or maybe it forces the Arab world to ally with the United States and even Israel. Look what’s happened this time around - Saudi Arabia makes statements condemning not Israel, but Hezbollah. So does Egypt and Jordan. The rest of the Arab world is steering far clear of this one, and it seems to me that part of the reason is that they’re becoming as afraid of Iranian power as Israel is.
Perhaps the destabilization of the Iraq-Syria-Iran standoff was exactly what’s needed to force the Arab world to stop tolerating Iranian meddling and sponsorship of terror.
Another example of this - in Iraq, the Sunnis have been slowly changing their tone and moving toward the American camp, as they believe they have more to fear from an Iranian-backed Shiite majority than they do from Americans. The political sands are shifting. Now we have to hope that Iraqi moderates like al-Sistani remain friendly and cooperative, and there’s a real chance of bridging a peace. And it may once again pit the majority of Iraqis against Iran, this time with America on their side.
It’s very early in the game here. The Middle East is going to change dramatically in the next five years. It’s an open question where that change will be for the better or worse, but I can at least see a path to a better future.
Pantom,
Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post, on rereading it now I’m not so sure, but I take issue with your characterization of Israel’s actions in this matter as an overreaction. Israel’s only chance in the region is to stay strong and to meet violence directed against them with swift and sure retaliation. Hezbollah represents nothing less than an attempt by Iran to wage war against Israel with plausable deniability. I am willing to bet you dollars to doughnuts that Iran is stirring the pot right now for the sole purpose of taking the heat off of their nuclear aspirations. Israel HAS to respond strongly to that threat, or it will continue to get worse. They can not ignore rocket attacks on their towns and the kidnapping of their soldiers without starting down a road that leads to the end of their sovreignty. My hope here is that Syria will step up to the plate and offer to help Lebanon reign in Hezbollah terrorists. If that happens, Syria gains influence in Lebanon, which would not be something the Israelies would prefer given their druthers, but if that’s the price they pay to remove the military threat on their borders from Hezbollah and stop the attacks into their territory, then I believe they will count it as a small price to pay. If push comes to shove, Israel could crush both Syria and Lebanon like an elephant stepping on a grape.
First off, you misspelled “tactical.”
Secondly, you mean “strategic.”
I agree with you that Iran is probably at minimum helping here. The timing is certainly convenient for them.
However, Hizbullah is far more of a threat than Hamas or the PLO, precisely because of their backing by Syria and Iran. The idea has to be to both confront them militarily and isolate them diplomatically from the international community and politically from the other two constituencies in Lebanon, the Sunnis and the Christians.
The former is real tough but not at all impossible, or wouldn’t have been back on June 25, because at that time the EU was actually becoming friendlier to Israel, and Syria and Iran are both already pariah states, and the latter would have almost been a slam dunk had they not attacked targets north of the Litani River (with the exception of Nasrallah’s HQ in the southern suburbs of Beirut), and not blockaded the entire nation, because my impression from everything I’ve read is that the initial reaction of most non-Shia Lebanese towards the initial Hizbullah attack was revulsion, fear and loathing. That’s still true for a lot of these people, but at this point they are at least equally angry at Israel (my impression only, obviously) for the extent of the destruction they’ve visited on the rest of Lebanon, not to mention the privation caused by the blockade.