The New Catastrophe in Gaza

Remove all ads!

"Eleven Lebanese soldiers died in an Israeli airstrike on an army barracks, and one Israeli was killed by Hezbollah rockets fired into northern Israel, sources said.
...
Eleven Lebanese soldiers were killed when the Jahour barracks east of Beirut was hit by Israeli airstrikes early Tuesday. (Watch a dangerous tour of the damage in Lebanon -- 4:46)

The deaths came a day after six Lebanese troops were killed in a similar strike on a post in Abdeh, north of Beirut"

CNN article, http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/mideast/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

"Israel ignored urgent international appeals for restraint today and bombed two Lebanese air bases as it waged its largest military offensive in Lebanon since the 1982 invasion.

The attacks were the first against Lebanese military targets, and risked drawing the Lebanese army into the conflict. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2268201,00.html (From June 13th)

It's a bit of a stalemate. If Israel occupies southern Lebanon directly, Hezbollah can still be on the border - and have a lot of supporters inside. Basically, it can do a lot of damage, since it won't need rockets to reach the Israeli, and urban fighting can reduce somewhat the overwhelming Israeli military advantage. It will take more casualties, too. It is a matter of whether the influx of recruits is big enough to offset the losses (taking into account that some of them will be veterans). Still, Israeli casualties will mount, and pressure will increase, so that's probably not an optimal scenario.

The Lebanese government could crack down on Hezbollah, although that will be very difficult. First of all, Hezbollah political wing and their allies are over a 1/4th of the parliament itself, and they have a fair bit of political clout (including two ministers). Most importantly, the other politicians and many people see no reason whatsoever to rein in the group. It has been doing much less to Israel than it has done to Lebanon, and it has also sponsored various institutions and infrastructure project. Israel has, more often than not, blowing stuff up. It's obvious who receives more sympathies. The official Lebanese stance is that until Israel holds a disputed region known as the Shebaa Farms (which, actually, most sources consider Syrian), and threatens Lebanon, Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance group. To put it bluntly: what incentive does Lebanon have to go after Hezbollah, and risk another civil war? Chances are that if this happens, there will be more damage than from opposing Israel (unless it goes for the nukes, but that is unlikely). And right now, very few countries would put serious pressure on Lebanon to implement resolution 1559, especially in light of the death count.

Of course, the third option is that Israel backs down and goes for negotiations, but they have little incentive to do that either. First, they have unambiguous US support, on many levels. Talking about the UN - every time there is a resolution that even criticizes Israel, the US vetoes it. The Arabs must have a lot of jokes about that. Second, their military is way stronger, so they have little to risk. Third, if the crisis continues, the positions of the military itself and the hardliners (currently in power) in society will improve. Israel has already mentioned that any diplomatic move that reins in its army is unacceptable.

Frankly, I would love to see Israeli ministers and top brass behind bars, and half the Hezbollah leadership in the next cell. They have earned it.

[ July 21, 2006, 10:49: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

This is not about the current events in Gaza, but I still think its relevant:

source

John Hagee says 40 million Americans back his views Reminds me of 2 generals serving in Irak that claimed they were "hunting a guy named Satan, he lives in Baghdad".

Bush claims that God talks to him, and Ronnie Reagan believed he would witness the apocolypse


Here is a nice piece on John 'Charles Bronson' Bolton

[ July 21, 2006, 15:34: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

So, since a lot of nuts support Israel, it means that everybody who does is crazy I am sure one can find a lot of unsavory characters speaking for the arab cause.

Shaman: now I think you are contradicting yourself. Some time ago you were arguing that it is not fair for Israel to punish all Lebanon for the actions of only a group; now you are saying that Hezbollah enjoys the support of the majority of Lebanese.

I think that if Lebanon wants to be able to live in peace with Israel, it must rein in Hezbollah. You can't have it both ways; supporting a terrorist group within your borders, and then complaining when you are attacked in response to terrorist provocations.

 

Well I don't see the Catholics Worker Party talking about Satan, dispite their support of the Palestanians.

If the British couldn't get rid of terrorism in Ireland the the Americans cannot get rid of terrorism in the countries they occupy, how do you expect the Lebanese to get rid of theirs? Even if this was not the case, it still does not justify Israel attacking apartment blocks full of people (including children) and hospitals. Or maybe you believe that some of the 2 yearolds that had died were terrorists?

 

Well, maybe they cannot get rid of them completely, but they could at least clamp down on them. IIRC, before the current fighting started, Hezbollah had an arsenal of about 11,000 rockets (!). A terrorist group cannot become this powerful without the acknowledgement of the government/army. (Of course, it was kind of a forced acknowledgement, because I think the Lebanese army was not strong enough to take on Hezbollah by itself).

And note also that Israel can live with some attacks (it is not like every time some terrorist act happen, the Israeli bomb the neighbouring countries; in fact, Hezbollah routinely lobbed rockets into Iraeli territory over the past years with impunity). So I think a show of good faith from Lebanon would help, even if they are not completely succesful in stopping all the terrorist attacks.

 

I guess the British should have destroyed every town and village in Ireland as terrorists lived amongst the civillians?

Of course back in the 80's the US was always critical of how terrorists were treated by British soldiers. Its amazing how things change with time.

 

Of course not, but I think its strange that you can justify killing scores of civillians to kill one suspected terrorist.

Israel has the best military in the world yet they appear to be so careless in Lebennon.

I would think there would be nothing left of my small provence if the British used the RAF in the same way that Israel uses its airforce.

 

It wants sorting out that place. I don't see the point in the UN if they don't even get involved in situations such as this.

 

Dude the UN lost it's purpose the minute GWB said "you're either with us, or you're against us". With that statement he overruled all previous made agreements.

 

Sad but somewhat true... With one of the SC countries doing whatever it wants and another being its lapdog, the UN will have to try its darnedest to get something done. The whole idea behind is that it requires unison and cooperation.

Edit: I wonder if the Britons aren't angry at the role their country plays to the US. Does anyone have some personal observations?


Blackthorne, the point is that it is not Hezbollah's infrastructure Israel targets, it is Lebanese infrastructure. Beirut airport is definitely not only used for Hezbollah purposes. Businesses don't feed only Hezbollah, but the entire country. If Israel does go for Hezbollah only, or even primarily, it is so woefully inefficient that it is unbelievable (given Israel's state-of-the-art military equipment, and their highly trained army - oh yeah, and their intelligence services). It's very strange, really... out of 34 Israeli casualties 15 are civilians. Every day there are more than 15 casualties in Lebanon. Are the rockets fired onto Haifa so weak, or are Israeli bombs so powerful?

Just as in the World Wars it was reprehensible to torpedo neutral shipping because it may carry suplies to the other side, it is reprehensible to attack targets throughout the country because of the actions of a few extremists. The excuse that they are integrated with the civilian population doesn't hold for all targets - specific targets were hit that have very little to do with Hezbollah. What it does now, including the blockade it has imposed on the country, paves the way for a humanitarian crisis, and in such a crisis, it's not the people wanting world peace and happiness that prevail.

So yes, Hezbollah is at fault for starting the crisis. That does not remove the blame on Israel for escalating it past any proportion, for what it inflicts on so many innocent people, and for intentionally destabilizing the Lebanese government (through the pressure, humiliation, and strikes on army infrastructure). I wonder what they want for that country, honestly... It was civil war that brought them Hezbollah, why'd they want to push for another?

I am worried about the massing of troops on the Lebanese border. If they cross it, it will involve the Lebanese army, at the cost of even more lives. I have a few Lebanese friends, and they are quite seriously worried about their family and acquaintances back home.

[ July 22, 2006, 10:14: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

I know an Isreali fella who has been called up by the Army, and I (sort of) know a Lebanese lad who is worried stiff. He can hear missiles dropping near his house and he daren't sleep unless one drops a bit 'too' close. He says it's like being a prisoner in your own country. It really brings home how horrific this is. Sitting at home, you feel so safe and unaffected, but hearing personally from people who are caught up in it, it really brings home what a bloody mess it is and how it affects normal peoples every day lifes.

I understand that very few of the 'normal' Lebanese people support the actions of Hezbollah and are just desperate for this to end before their family and friends start... well, dying. It's such a shame, such a waste of human life when innocent people get caught up and suffer because of the actions of some lunatics .

 

what the hell are you talking about!??!!

the damage caused to shipping was extreme, the wolfpacks destroyed any ships attempting to reach britain. the amercans devised a method of building ships at such a quick rate that it took only 2 or 3 weeks to make up for the losses (although the method didnt work and the ships broke in half)

 

WARNING: LONG POST FOLLOWS

"I understand that, but as I said that is what becomes necessary when you are fighting guerrillas integrated into the general population and are supplied by other countries and cannot be stopped by the country they are operating from."

Some of the targets, as I have said, have only a tenuous, at best, connection to Hezbollah. Again, the airport. Sure, they probably use it for some arms purchases - just as thousands of other people use it for completely peaceful business transactions or just to travel. The point is just as valid when companies or government institutions are fired, intentionally or not. Guerillas are almost always integrated within the population, imo that doesn't mean one should break every convention established against a regular enemy army. Again, I can't believe Israel doesn't have better information and can't find more adequate targets - if they are only interested in Hezbollah.

"Both, and the Israeilis have bomb shelters since they've been shelled with rockets for years."

Shelters aren't much good when the attack comes by surprise. The fact that there are so much less Israeli casualties, and reports of rocket strikes usually mention only wounded (no dead) seem to indicate that the rockets are very crudely built, with low yield, or both. Anyway, this isn't exactly the most important point - I am not saying Hezbollah militias are saints and should be freed from all blame. I talk about "few extremists" because not all of their constituents would probably support taunting Israel, or kidnapping soldiers. Heck, maybe not even other parts of the group knew about or approved the plan. But since one of their guys started the operation, moronic as it may be, they may feel they have to play suit. Quite certainly, though, very few of the people who were killed, displaced, or lost friends or family knew of or supported the kidnapping.


I can't quite agree with the point that if there are targets of military significance in a densely populated area, some civilian casualties are perfectly ok. First, you could simply give higher priority to places that are outside the most densely populated areas, or limit strikes to the most important targets. Second, you could delay the strikes with one day and use it to collect more accurate intelligence, and try to avoid every car that looks like it may carry warriors, or every cafe that they may gather at, not to mention bridges or power plants. The Lebanese state and army may need those to function, but for a militia like Hezbollah, mostly working on foot and with light weapons, these are much less effective. With their current policy the IDF and Hezbollah can both be considered in violation of the Geneva convention, and involved in war crimes due to ill-will or negligence to preserve civilians.

"the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." Protocol I, Article 48.

What does Israel want? If it is the release of the two soldiers, it should either negotiate or prepare a rescue using intelligence and special forces. The current crisis is not conducive to either. If they hit the building where Hezbollah keeps the prisoners, I wouldn't say the death of the two soldiers is the Arabs' fault. If it is total disarmament of Hezbollah, that is also next to impossible without diplomacy. There are probably enough caches with AKs and explosives to cause skirmishes, create car bombs, and the like. The rockets are not the only thing Hezbollah can use to kill people. The option it favors - destroying enough weapons and personnel to render the group powerless (for a time, if it has both funds and recruits) will cause extensive civilian casualties and has the least enduring effect. Of course, there is the chance that the group may fold and surrender, but with an extremist group like that it may be quite hard. So far, ordinary Lebanese are the majority of the casualties, both in terms of death and damages. Trying to intimidate a fanatic with another's suffering... Well, it probably won't be so effective. The overwhelming force scenario has been tried on the Palestinians for decades, and the situation is still far from defused.

So what is Israel to do? First, try to make sure that diplomacy and not force is the first option. Now Israel can negotiate from a position of force (not that it was weak in the first place); the liberation of prisoners and limits on Hezbollah are diplomatic moves that can not take place during combat. Even for a proper surrender you need a ceasefire. Second, if this fails or is currently unacceptable, try to use intelligence to locate the prisoners and rescue them instead of bombing everywhere; even an outright assassination of movement leaders is way more acceptable than that. Third, if even that is impossible and unfeasible, limit their strikes to objects with key importance to Hezbollah, and less relevant to the state of Lebanon. So to say, bringing the pain where it's due.

And as for destabilizing Lebanon, that may not be the prime objective, but it is obvious enough. A politician should be concerned not only with the objectives of their policies, but of their consequences as well, right? First, the state infrastructure, both in terms of providing service and security, is seriously damaged. Many companies are out of business or have their base destroyed, and services such as power and water supply, health and education are disrupted. In New Orleans, this caused looting and chaos - and if the situation deteriorated further, why would Lebanon be any different? Now, if looting and chaos isn't a mark of total impotence of the state, I don't know what is. Related to this is the incredible strain of reconstruction, both in terms of manpower and money. Psychologically, the authority of the state is undermined: a state not able to protect its territory loses legitimacy. If the secular state of Lebanon can't protect its citizens, they are within their rights to look for other alternatives. Not to mention that there is an opportunity for Hezbollah to show off and display force, which can further improve its positions against the already weakened government. In a nutshell, the government will come out as incapable of handling a crisis and preserving its citizens (its 1st responsibility), and Hezbollah will probably win some points in both of these areas (showing backbone and retaliating - if ineffectively - against an aggressor). This would significantly destabilize the government, and improve the group's political support and hence clout.

At least, that's how I see it. I might be wrong in some of these predictions, but I can't imagine how any government that lets its territory be attacked and citizens - killed could not be destabilized and lose their trust.

On the torpedo argument: what I meant was, despite the great differences, there is an underlying assumption: everyone in contact (commercial or social, direct or indirect) with an enemy is presumed to be aiding them, and directly and without warning can be targeted. Basically, if you even frequent a neighborhood where there are Hezbollah militants, you can be killed. Given some of the attacked buildings and vehicles, and the families killed, I am skeptical if even the "neighborhood" filter was applied there.

[ July 23, 2006, 02:51: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Israel is trying to destabilize Lebanon and IIRC one Israeli minister said that they will put Lebanon 20 years back. So this means that Hejbollah is an excuse and not the real target. I can't see how you destroy an organization infrastructure by dismantling every civilian infrastructure.

Now i seem to recall frequent air strikes by Israels airforce to Hejbollah camps numerous times in the past. So does this mean they did nothing? I am not a supporter for Hejbollah but i am not very fond of Israles tactics either. Both are criminals and should be disarmed.

And enough of that need to defend itself nonsense. The only dispute that Arabian states have with the Israel is the treatment of the Palestinians and the fact that so many years have passed and still no resolution is viable due to the fact the Israel wants an isolated state, no Muslims in the state no outsiders. All Arabians want this situation end, and (except the raving Zealots) they don't say root Israelis out. On the other hand in Israel the zealots do have roots in the goverment and are a considerable power. Making a compromising solution there impossible.
As for the president of Iran he knows that the attack on Israel is not going to be accepted by anyone on this world so he is just barking nonsense.

After all Israel was founded there with none of the citizens of this god forsaken place asked. And has established its rule through force and blood. It is about time the politicians of Israel to step back and at least try to have a discussion with an open ended mind.
The problem of accepting the coexistence does not lie within the Arabs only, it lies within the Israelis too.

I see the Palestinians are being treated like animals and now the the Great Wall of Israel will finish, DESPITE the fact that UN has stated the illegality of this, we will be able to say we have a modern day human farm in this world.
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than the rest. I guess that the fact that Israel is among the countries that follows the UN sanctions only if it fits them is not a matter of concern.

BTW Hejbollah has captured 2 soldiers and a whole war has broke up literally. The fact that Israel has kidnapped and is still holding members of the elected goverment of Palestine has been met only with mutterings like what are you doing this is not right. Is this a way for the rest of the world to demonstrate a willingness to bring peace to this area?
Hamas is the goverment of Palestine like it or not and fact is that allthough they have issued many threats against the Israel in the past and deny to recognise it as a valid state have kept their part of the ceasefire better than Israel did.

Is it fair to be a Palestinian or someone living in Lebanon/Syria/Iran/Iran/you name it and seeing that the other side keeps doing what they wish and still get no penalty for doing so, other than some empty words?

 

This applies even more to the governments of said countries, especially the ones funding terrorism such as Syria and Iran.

Hamas might be the democratically elected government (for as far as that's even possible in stinkholes like that), but that does't mean that Israel has to sit down and negotiate with them like nothing ever happened in the past. Just as the Palestinians have sworn an oath to kill every single Jew in the region, Israel has vowed to completely root out group such as Hamas en Hezbollah. '

You're turning this thing around and blame the international community for not giving peace a chance in that region, but that of course is bullcrap. the only ones to blame here are the leaders of Hamas, hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and all those other so called freedomfighters. I have never seen Israel use unprovoked force, it was always an answer to violence from the others side. The Palestinians reap what they sow.

Oh...and Hamas didn't stop once they were elected, they simply stopped proudly claiming any of the attacks made on Israeli civilians, and suddenly the missiles fired from gaza weren't theirs anymore, as if anybody is daft enough to believe anything they say.

[ July 23, 2006, 10:28: Message edited by: Pac man ]