Will IDF succeed in their mission?

[devil-fire]

IDF(Israeli defense force)'s mission in Lebanon is to A) free their servicemen B)render Hezbollah unable to attack Israel from Lebanon. how successful do you think IDF will be on these fronts by the time they withdraw from Lebanon?

by the looks of it, there seems to be no shortage of resolve in the IDF and it seems they have the capacity to identify surface to surface missile sites and attack them with impunity. however, i don't know how they plan to interdict supplies from Syria or Iran (i haven't read much about the involvement of these countries with Hezbollah so I'm just going by what i hear on the news here) to Hezbollah without occupying Lebanon. unless IDF can get some better info on the location of Hezbollah leadership I'm wondering how much IDF is doing here aside from attacking resources that are replenishable and personnel that is recruitible. with the destruction of roads and bridges, that should slow down the resupply of Hezbollah for now. the way i see it, everything done in the last 2 weeks is temporary damage in this conflict unless there is regime change in Lebanon (although ineffective when dealing with Hezbollah, is the current regime not pro-west and pro-Israel interests?), a devastating blow to Hezbollah leadership or a long term occupation by IDF in Lebanon.

as for the IDF servicemen held by Hezbollah, I'm quite pessimistic. Hezbollah is vary intent on preventing them from being freed by military force and a rescue operation in an environment like this could put the held service men's lives at extreme risk. i don't expect the servicemen to be freed without negotiation of some kind. this looks like a lost cause to me, unfortunately.

my uneducated guess of future events goes something like this. 1) IDF will make some large incursions in the next two weeks as air strikes and missile attacks continue 2) Hezbollah will run out of missiles because of a combination of destroyed/expended/captured caches 3) the servicemen held by Hezbollah will be killed tragically in a failed rescue attempt 4) IDF will withdraw.

 

[Yonoz]

IDF(Israeli defense force)'s mission in Lebanon is to A) free their servicemen B)render Hezbollah unable to attack Israel from Lebanon. how successful do you think IDF will be on these fronts by the time they withdraw from Lebanon?

One thing to be kept in mind is that the current campaign is part of an all-round effort that includes a lot of work by the http://www.mfa.gov.il/". There's a good FAQ on their site, I suggest you review it.

by the looks of it, there seems to be no shortage of resolve in the IDF and it seems they have the capacity to identify surface to surface missile sites and attack them with impunity. however, i don't know how they plan to interdict supplies from Syria or Iran (i haven't read much about the involvement of these countries with Hezbollah so I'm just going by what i hear on the news here) to Hezbollah without occupying Lebanon. unless IDF can get some better info on the location of Hezbollah leadership I'm wondering how much IDF is doing here aside from attacking resources that are replenishable and personnel that is recruitible. with the destruction of roads and bridges, that should slow down the resupply of Hezbollah for now. the way i see it, everything done in the last 2 weeks is temporary damage in this conflict unless there is regime change in Lebanon (although ineffective when dealing with Hezbollah, is the current regime not pro-west and pro-Israel interests?), a devastating blow to Hezbollah leadership or a long term occupation by IDF in Lebanon.

One of the aims of the current conflict is to have the Lebanese military deployed in south Lebanon. Then it is a matter of diplomatic coordination to uphold the UNSC resolution 1559.

as for the IDF servicemen held by Hezbollah, I'm quite pessimistic. Hezbollah is vary intent on preventing them from being freed by military force and a rescue operation in an environment like this could put the held service men's lives at extreme risk. i don't expect the servicemen to be freed without negotiation of some kind. this looks like a lost cause to me, unfortunately.

That is the sentiment here in Israel too. This, however, does not mean Israel should not attempt to recover them. It's quite clear that any negotiation for their return will strengthen Hizbullah and promote more abductions in the future. From the appearances of the soldiers' families in the media, it seems to me they realize this as well. The Israeli public embraces these families paying the ultimate price for our safety.

my uneducated guess of future events goes something like this. 1) IDF will make some large incursions in the next two weeks as air strikes and missile attacks continue 2) Hezbollah will run out of missiles because of a combination of destroyed/expended/captured caches 3) the servicemen held by Hezbollah will be killed tragically in a failed rescue attempt 4) IDF will withdraw.

That's a fair assessment IMO.

 

[kyleb]

Israel's Army Chief of Staff said that if the if the soldiers were not returned they would "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years"; they are quite clearly succeeding in that mission.

 

[Hurkyl]

Israel's Army Chief of Staff said that if the if the soldiers were not returned they would "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years"; they are quite clearly succeeding in that mission.

Do you have a source? Both for the statement, and that they are succeeding?

 

[kyleb]

http://news.google.com/news?client=...=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn". As for the success, 'turn back the clock by 20 years is' subjectively arguable so I can't rightly give you a "source" for that, but I hope you realize that General Halutz controls the means to succeed in whatever his concept of his goal is.

 

[Yonoz]

I thought it'd be a good idea to post a quick description of yesterday's battle in Bint Jbeil that claimed the lives of 8 IDF soldiers, 3 of them officers. This is the picture I put together from the media reports and interviews of injured soldiers.
It seems the IDF had taken the outer perimeter of the town sans a narrow corridor left for any remaining civilians' departure. Several forces were clearing specific houses intelligence showed were inhabited by Hizbullah activists. These searches revealed weapons and war rooms complete with maps and communication equipment. A vanguard force approaching a house across a section of open ground was the subject of a well planned manouver attack by dozens of Hizbullah guerillas. Another force operating nearby rushed to its aid, while the guerillas charged the force, prompting a charge by the aiding force. The ensuing battle in extremely close quarters and the initial volley claimed many casualties, though the charging Hizbullah force was stopped. The remaining soldiers fought while carrying their comrades to safety. The casualties were carried around 2km by foot to an area surrounded by smokescreens, where 3 blackhawk helicopters touched ground for less than a minute. They evacuated the injured to hospital while the fighting raged on for several hours.
The interviews with the injured present a picture of a difficult battle against a large well-trained force with heavy firepower. However, the heavy losses are overshadowed by the realisation it could have easily been a costly defeat. The general sentiment by the reporters and injured soldiers, as well as the regiments' second in command in an interview the same evening, is rather that of success - albeit some underheard criticism of the initial situation. The rescue effort was well-organised and the forces reacted well to the attack. It's clear, though, that small forces are in greater danger than thought, and I think the northern command will rethink its methods for the remainder of the operation. Such deathtolls are not acceptable.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/743534.html" . A company commander speaks to his men before entering Lebanon.

 

[Yonoz]

An interview with Hizbullah fighters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1832931,00.html" - Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, south of Tyre, Saturday July 29, 2006

 

[Yonoz]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LEBANON_ISRAEL?SITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT".

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not unless the UN/US is prepared to let this war drag on for months, no, there is a resolution about to be chaired, I assume it calls for a ceasefire, so assuming the US don't veto it, which is always a possibility, then if they can do what they set out to do they'll have to make it snappy, in all likelyhood though, they won't have time.

 

[Yonoz]

http://judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0429" .

 

[devil-fire]

Not unless the UN/US is prepared to let this war drag on for months, no, there is a resolution about to be chaired, I assume it calls for a ceasefire, so assuming the US don't veto it, which is always a possibility, then if they can do what they set out to do they'll have to make it snappy, in all likelyhood though, they won't have time.

i don't think israel would agree to a cease fire resolution from the U.N. because they wouldn't trust hezbollah to respect the resolution either. i don't expect this issue will come up though because the USA will veto the resolution in the UN anyway

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

i don't think israel would agree to a cease fire resolution from the U.N. because they wouldn't trust hezbollah to respect the resolution either. i don't expect this issue will come up though because the USA will veto the resolution in the UN anyway

However how long can the US get away with being the bad egg in the world, how often do you see people moaning about the US on forums, we blame them for everything that's wrong in the Middle East and there whole government stinks! But empashioned pleas aside, and reasoning it out sooner or later they have to understand that the world will not sit idly by while the US ruins the region with it's political shennanigans, if the US does this then we may rightly start comparing the US to Sharon in it's approach to the Middle East, it does not want peace it does not want progress all it wants is Israel to get whatever it feels it needs and to avoid any resolution against it's selfish desires.

This may sound like a clever course of action if your side of the argument is only Israel exists. But I'm afraid if the US continues excercising it's power of veto over the UN then sooner or later the world will act without it, and that would be disasterous to the relationship the dissenting world has in the UN.

There needs to be peace in the Middle East before progress can be made, even Condaleeza "magic wand" Rice must understand this? Although with the neo-con war machines propensity for violent confrontation I somehow doubt it, get these hard liners out of government is my advice before the Middle East is wrecked beyond all semblence of any real accord. Republican or Democrat, but not neo-con, please. Here ends the party political broadcast for the sanity party.

EDIT: and thinking realistically it does not matter what Hezbolah wants really, because a UN resolution is empowered to use force to keep the peace as ironic as that sounds What Israel wants is assurances that Hezbolah will be stopped from firing into it's territory, if it can see this being a likely outcome, then why would it risk it's own men in a long war with Lebanon?

 

[devil-fire]

if the US does this then we may rightly start comparing the US to Sharon in it's approach to the Middle East, it does not want peace it does not want progress all it wants is Israel to get whatever it feels it needs and to avoid any resolution against it's selfish desires.

(in context of usa vetoing a UN call for cease fire)

as long as the american people support administrations that act like this, i expect the usa will act independantly from world opinion. the bulk of this particular topic could use another thread but i expect the USA has at least a few more years of these kinds of actions. although, i do agree that a forign policy like this is a short term fix for long term problems

EDIT: and thinking realistically it does not matter what Hezbolah wants really, because a UN resolution is empowered to use force to keep the peace as ironic as that sounds What Israel wants is assurances that Hezbolah will be stopped from firing into it's territory, if it can see this being a likely outcome, then why would it risk it's own men in a long war with Lebanon?

i don't think the UN would be able to do a much better job then the IDF in stoping hezbollah attacks with force. they would be using similar weapons after all. if israel violates a UN cease fire, they would lose some international support and reafirm their image as an aggressive, unilateraly concern state. if hezbollah violates a cease fire then they might get bombed by the UN instead of israel (i highly doubt the UN would be as forcefull though) and they would be in the same situation, since they are not concern with their international image in the least.

if the UN calls for a cease fire, israel stands to lose something while hezbollah and the people of lebenon can only profit (hezbollah in the form of resupply from iran/syria and the lebenon people in the form of humanitarian aid)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

(in context of usa vetoing a UN call for cease fire)

as long as the american people support administrations that act like this, i expect the usa will act independantly from world opinion. the bulk of this particular topic could use another thread but i expect the USA has at least a few more years of these kinds of actions. although, i do agree that a forign policy like this is a short term fix for long term problems

Do we honestly think that the US supports it's government? And if they do do you honestly believe they are in a postion to make an impartial judgement seeing as US media is so biased? The man in the street does not know the half of it under Bush, IMHO; Media sells what you want to hear, not what reality dictates you should hear, it is the same reason I don't take my own media as gospel, nor should anyone, but they do anyway.

i don't think the UN would be able to do a much better job then the IDF in stoping hezbollah attacks with force. they would be using similar weapons after all. if israel violates a UN cease fire, they would lose some international support and reafirm their image as an aggressive, unilateraly concern state. if hezbollah violates a cease fire then they might get bombed by the UN instead of israel (i highly doubt the UN would be as forcefull though) and they would be in the same situation, since they are not concern with their international image in the least.

if the UN calls for a cease fire, israel stands to lose something while hezbollah and the people of lebenon can only profit (hezbollah in the form of resupply from iran/syria and the lebenon people in the form of humanitarian aid)

Israel stands to lose something only if the means to achieve their goals aren't in place, and believe me a protracted war has never resulted in a good situation in the Lebanon, so why would you assume it will now? Do you know something I don't?

If you believe only Hezbollah and the Lebanon would profit from peace then you have not understood how the situation played out the last time, war resulted in a widespread hatred of Israels policies that even Sharon could see were self defeating, could you explain how it's going to magically change now, and that hate will bring peaceful resolution? I'm all ears...

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2825_sharon_criminal.html

It's not entirely relevant and this website like most is biased, but it'll let you know the score. And also it will let you understand the comparissons with the US and Sharon, in a context.

When Israel occupied West Beirut, it became responsible for the safety of all civilians, as Goldstone defined it. But in 1982, the Israeli government hid behind the legalistic fraud that Israel was not responsible for killings by the Phalange. Sharon claimed, "Not for a moment did we imagine that they would do what they did." But "Panorama" interviewed Morris Draper, who, in 1982, was President Ronald Reagan's special envoy for the Lebanese war, asking him to comment on Sharon's "innocence through ignorance." He replied: "Complete and utter nonsense. . . . You'd have to be appallingly ignorant. I mean, I suppose if you came down from the Moon that day you might not have predicted it." When asked whether he had any doubts of Sharon's responsibility, Draper said, "No doubt whatsoever."

“I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”

“I am for lasting peace... United, I believe, we can win the battle for peace. But it must be a different peace, one with full recognition of the rights of the Jews in their one and only land: peace with security for generations and peace with a united Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish people in the state of Israel forever.”

Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them.”

“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care.”

Quotes by Sharon, not accusing the US(sheez the guy was a racist bigot) Of being like this but this is what lead to this situation in the first place, and yet still no one learns...

 

[Hurkyl]

and thinking realistically it does not matter what Hezbolah wants really, because a UN resolution is empowered to use force to keep the peace as ironic as that sounds

If you have optimistic expectations of UN peacekeepers, then could you go over and read & respond to the peacekeeper thread?

 

[devil-fire]

Do we honestly think that the US supports it's government? And if they do do you honestly believe they are in a postion to make an impartial judgement seeing as US media is so biased? The man in the street does not know the half of it under Bush, IMHO; Media sells what you want to hear, not what reality dictates you should hear, it is the same reason I don't take my own media as gospel, nor should anyone, but they do anyway.

the reason why i think the government has the support of the people in the usa is because bush was voted in a 2nd time with basicly the same forign policy used to invade iraq (i think so anyway, i havnt heard much to the contrary). as for the people being missled by the media, i wount contest that. however, if a population supports a government because of misleading information, that support can still be quite solid.

Israel stands to lose something only if the means to achieve their goals aren't in place, and believe me a protracted war has never resulted in a good situation in the Lebanon, so why would you assume it will now? Do you know something I don't?

If you believe only Hezbollah and the Lebanon would profit from peace then you have not understood how the situation played out the last time, war resulted in a widespread hatred of Israels policies that even Sharon could see were self defeating, could you explain how it's going to magically change now, and that hate will bring peaceful resolution? I'm all ears...

i would like to start by saying i think israel is going about their effort to forge a long lasting peace in the wrong way for the reasons you said, that using bombs to create peace is only a vary temporary soultion. just using bombs actualy amplifys the larger problem of anti-semitisium and anti-zionisum and increases support for groups like hezbollah. having said that, i would also like to say that i don't support actions by expecting them to happen. I am only trying to predict the future here, not including what i would like to see happen... if a cease fire is called and it holds, that would be fantastic, I am just saying i don't think it would hold by the looks of things now

ultimatly israel wants peace but they believe to do this they must first crush hezbollah. because of this, a cease fire would not help them in their goals because they believe it would not be a lasting peace (for this thread i don't think "cease fire" and "peace" are interchangable)

 

[Hurkyl]

Hey, I thought this was a thread on Israel, not the US... :tongue:



It's easy to look to the future and criticize Israel because it's actions (alledgedly) won't bring about a long term peace. But as far as I can tell, these critics never seem to consider the short term cost.

On the assumption that there will eventually be a long term peace, you still have to manage the period between now and then. 75 years of "bad" could easily be preferable to 50 years of "worse".

The point of the invasion is (alledgedly) to mitigate the possibility for "much worse" in the short-term, and it's not reasonable to completely ignore that when criticizing Israel.

(Of course, I realize that people debate over whether there are short-term merits to this conflict. My point is that it's not reasonable to completely ignore this aspect of the issue when delivering criticism)

even Sharon

"even"?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah Sharon or the butcher of Lebanon as he's sometimes known, he was a pretty controversial figure believe it or not, there was an attempt to have him brought up on war crimes for his actions that lead to the butcher of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the Lebanon, so even is apropriate.

I would say it's easier to look at the past and present and criticize Israels actions, the future is not set in stone, the past is a little more concrete I base my ideas on history, and try and project what will happen in the future, judging the ceaselss violence as an almost umitigated disaster, apart from occasional peace treaties that failed. I'm all for a solution that involves lasting peace, not some war riddled area with western concerns playing puppet games for there own agendas, but hey that's just me. The whole situation is positively machievellian now with the US just itching to make Iran out as the axis of all evil, try speaking to the Iranians if you really want to know the score, diplomacy is the last resort of the US governement, it's sad to see, because now Israel have decided it's also a last resort for them, they have the great examples of Iraq and Afghanistan to look at, one a warzone to this day the other on the brink of civil war, nice.

If you have optimistic expectations of UN peacekeepers, then could you go over and read & respond to the peacekeeper thread?

Already have think NATO would be better too, but then the UN needs to broker a deal first, then turn to NATO.

 

[Hurkyl]

and try and project what will happen in the future

That is what I meant -- criticizing actions based on future prospects, without regard to what the results will be in the short-term.

I'm all for a solution that involves lasting peace

Me too -- but not at any cost. Maybe an analogy will help explain what I mean.

Suppose you have a poor city riddled with gang violence. The long-term solution is (presumably) to invest in education and economic development so that people will stop joining the gangs. But you still need to invest in a police force to mitigate the damage in the meantime.

There are, of course, all kinds of reasons why this is not an analogy for the conflict in the Middle East -- I only intended it as a concrete example that, even when seeking for a long-term solution, you still need to invest in short-term patchwork.

Criticism that is simply based on the fact that this conflict (probably) is not a long term solution is, IMHO, too hyperopic to be considered reasonable.

Israel, of course, believes that this conflict is good short-term patchwork. All other things being equal, a temporary reprieve is better than no reprieve. Of course, all other things are not equal -- each path (presumably) has its pros and its cons, which makes the right path nonobvious.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You know what is happening now then? That's more than I know, all I hear is that more civillians are dying, Hezbollah are being punished but not quickly enough to make a difference, A UN settlement is at least 2 days away and that Israel claims to have killed 300 Hezbollah. Considering the last I heard about 2 days ago, the casualty count on the both sides 467 civillian 30 Hezbollah 14 Israelis soldiers, this is propaganda no doubt, Apparently Israel says it has completely destroyed Hezbollahs infrastructure, that's not beyond the realms of possibility but again there is some spin here, what does a guerilla army need with infrastructure, the most cliched example of geurilla fighting is appearing from a jungle skirmishing with a unit and then dissapearing into the jungle, all the while living off the land. Geurilla units are trained to survive in harsh terrain with no support whatsoever so what do they care if their are is no power or roads? In fact being dug in in huge bunkers means they don't even have to worry about food? Israelis say it won't be days before this conflict is resolved, again try months, obviously there's what the Israelis are telling us and what the UNRC and the BBC is telling us, which would you rather believe? And do you believe that the Israelis are winning this one so easily? The first casualty of war is the truth, I don't claim to know what that is, and I can't make plans based on such poor intelligence, all I can say is without a ground offensive by Israel this will not damage Hezbollah beyond it's means to recover, and since a land invasion would take weeks to resolve the problem and a UN/US backed resolution is pending, I doubt we will talking about this waste of human life for much longer, with any luck

EDIT: It seems France isn't keen for NATO to be brought in on this deal, instead they are preparing for a French lead force to do the ground work, I'm not sure of the politics behind this but as long as it isn't the US or UK doing the leading then I'm perfectly happy with that. Also note the Israelis claim to have captured 10 hezbollah so the death figures are not entirely revealing. I also read a report where Israel bombed a hospital because Hezbollah we're residing in it, unfortunately they killed a whole Lebanese familly that we're receiving treatement/ sheltering in the hospital too. I'm afraid the Geneva convention means nothing in this war. Hasn't the phrase we expect Israel to behave better than this been overused? But again we expect Israel to behave better than this. Is the game how badly can we taint our reputation before the world? I'm beginning to wonder.

 

[Hurkyl]

what does a guerilla army need with infrastructure

Lots.

Geurilla units are trained to survive in harsh terrain with no support whatsoever so what do they care if their are is no power or roads?

Mobility is of prime importance. You can't strike the enemy if you're where he's not. And mobility gives you more options for running away too.

being dug in in huge bunkers means they don't even have to worry about food?

That's infrastructure. And when the huge bunker is taken out by an air strike, without the other infrastructure, how will you get more food, water, and weaponry to carry on the fight?


And there are other sorts of infrastructure other than roads and power. For example, lines of communication help coordinate effective strikes.



And, of course, a major aspect of Hezbollah's strategy isn't even guerilla warfare -- it's firing those rockets.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Again what does a Guerilla need with infrastructure? since they are primarilly about having nothing whatsoever to work with, who needs roads? This is meat and potatoes for them, they have trained for this for 5-10 years, so all this is just what they want and are prepared for, I think the improtant point here is not what Israeli is doing to destroy Lebanese infrastructure, it's how many Hezbollah are they really killing? Because it seems to me that the PR doesn't match the truth, not by half?

Can you provide me with a list of all the sucesses of this war?

And then what can be considered failures, would you weigh the result as a winning situation given the intangibles to consider too? That's what you should be asking yourself, sounds to me like you've been taken in by the spin on the situation. Nice pictures of bunker bombs are interesting to watch but they tell us nothing at all about the real situation, which you have to guess about really.

 

[Hurkyl]

Again what does a Guerilla need with infrastructure? since they are primarilly about having nothing whatsoever to work with, who needs roads?

See post #22.

This is meat and potatoes for them, they have trained for this for 5-10 years, so all this is just what they want and are prepared for

Okay, so they've prepared for a conflict with their infrastructure destroyed. That doesn't change the fact they would be more effective with their infrastructure intact.

I think the improtant point here is not what Israeli is doing to destroy Lebanese infrastructure, it's how many Hezbollah are they really killing?

I thought it was about diminishing Hezbollah's ability to strike at Israel... not about killing Hezbollah personnel.

That's what you should be asking yourself, sounds to me like you've been taken in by the spin on the situation.

How so? There's a difference between saying "the possible short-term benefits of this conflict need to be considered", and saying "this conflict has short-term benefits".

 

[Office_Shredder]

Again what does a Guerilla need with infrastructure? since they are primarilly about having nothing whatsoever to work with, who needs roads? This is meat and potatoes for them, they have trained for this for 5-10 years, so all this is just what they want and are prepared for, I think the improtant point here is not what Israeli is doing to destroy Lebanese infrastructure, it's how many Hezbollah are they really killing? Because it seems to me that the PR doesn't match the truth, not by half?

I suppose the real question is which is the PR, and which is the truth?

You seem to automatically take the stance that the Lebanese numbers are true, when they're clearly http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060802/3/2nycw.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Those numbers were obtained from UN Red Cross figures, I trust their lack of bias more than I do Israels.

I don't know if you consider CNN as reliable but here are their figures.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/05/mideast.main/

The IDF say at least 78 Israelis have been killed during the conflict, including 45 soldiers, and more than 600 wounded.

In Lebanon, 683 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have been killed in the conflict, and more than 2,359 people have been wounded, Lebanese Internal Security Forces reported.

The fighting began on July 12 when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others in a cross-border raid.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Okay, so they've prepared for a conflict with their infrastructure destroyed. That doesn't change the fact they would be more effective with their infrastructure intact.

I know I'm just saying they're ready and waiting for everything Israel can throw at them.

I thought it was about diminishing Hezbollah's ability to strike at Israel... not about killing Hezbollah personnel.

Killing personel suposedly will achieve this, weapons are cheaper and more easilly replaced than soldiers for the cause. Particularly when you have wealthy backers. Which is why Israel appear to be emphasising Hezbollahs dead ATM, although their figures seem clearly over exaggerated.

How so? There's a difference between saying "the possible short-term benefits of this conflict need to be considered", and saying "this conflict has short-term benefits".

All I'm saying is short term benefits are meaningless when long term benefits are pretty much non-existent. I know we shouldn't speculate, but I do think this is enflaming terrorists, you now have a whole country full of potential recruits and a once loathed organisation waiting to train them, should Israel wipe Hezbollah off the map(not going to happen) There will be plenty of other organisations ready to take the willing recruits on. This war is politicising civillians, not smart.

 

[Yonoz]

I'm on short leave and would be happy to answer any questions (well, almost any). I've a pretty good picture mainly of the military aspect of the conflict. Unfortunately, I do not have time for a back-and-forth debate.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Hope you and your familly are safe.

I just heard on the news that Hezbollah will refuse any cease fire that does not involve prisoner negotiation, this strikes me as odd as that's not what a cease fire is about, it's about unconditional end to hostilities generally, then the resolutions can be discussed and either side can make demands of the UN's process, of course it's up to them to make the decisions. I just wondered what you thought of this, it seems Israel is ready to cease fire, but Hezbollah is not? Also I hear an apartment block in Haifa was hit and several people were killed, do you have any more detailed reports about this as the BBC news was a little thread bear as it has not long happened?

I think we're generally done debating now but if a cease fire happens I'm sure Antech and all are willing to oblige

EDIT: completely irrelevant to the situation but my home city is twinned with Haifa.

 

[Yonoz]

Hope you and your familly are safe.

Thankyou. I serve in a very deep bunker, and my parents live right around where the farthest rockets fell. I have a younger brother who's an infantryman on reserve service inside Lebanon, and my youngest brother is due to complete his training as a tank gunner this thursday. We tell my mother the middle one is guarding the border.

I just heard on the news that Hezbollah will refuse any cease fire that does not involve prisoner negotiation, this strikes me as odd as that's not what a cease fire is about, it's about unconditional end to hostilities generally, then the resolutions can be discussed and either side can make demands of the UN's process, of course it's up to them to make the decisions. I just wondered what you thought of this, it seems Israel is ready to cease fire, but Hezbollah is not?

Hizbullah are demanding a full withdrawal, prisoners exchange and return of the Sheeba farms to Lebanon. They have so far rejected any offer that does not include all of these, though the Hizbullah ministers are part of the Lebanese government that agreed to PM Siniora's 7-point plan. They are preparing for a long term conflict, but are counting on the international community to force Israel into a ceasefire. A ceasefire would be beneficial to Hizbullah as they mobilise their men and equipment under civilian guises, and they can rebuild the parts of their structure that were damaged. It's quite clear that it will only last until their next attack - after the international community has moved on and the international force is once again irrelevant.
Israel is ready for a ceasefire as part of a settlement that will include an international force that will disarm Hizbullah, prevent their re-armament and will help the Lebanese government take full control of south Lebanon. A bare ceasefire will only undo the IDF's gains and make it less atractive for nations to send in their troops as part of an international force, eventually leading to return to square one, with a more experienced and better supported Hizbullah.

Also I hear an apartment block in Haifa was hit and several people were killed, do you have any more detailed reports about this as the BBC news was a little thread bear as it has not long happened?

The apartment block was in one of Haifa's many mixed neighbourhoods where Jews and Arabs live side by side. Interestingly so far one third of the civilian dead were Arab Israelis. As always, this conflict bring some displays of ugliness to the surface, as some Israelis expect Arab Israelis to fully support Israel. IMO that's absurd, obviously they would feel more sentiment to the Lebanese, many are directly related and they consume mostly Arab media. Fortunately the call for unity is stronger and it does not look like we will see violence as we did in October 2000. The Arab owner of the Maxim restaurant in the entrance to Haifa where a female suicide bomber killed 21 people has opened his restaurant in such a display of unity, and I dined at my favourite restaurant the other day and did not notice a difference - the patrons were composed of the usual mix of Jews and Arabs.

I think we're generally done debating now but if a cease fire happens I'm sure Antech and all are willing to oblige

As long as it's a "prodless" discussion.

EDIT: completely irrelevant to the situation but my home city is twinned with Haifa.

Haifa is a wonderful city, a wholesome multicultural antithesis to the young, fast paced, exhibitionistic, alienating Tel-Aviv. I've made many friends from there in the army and at university, it's one of the few cities where I would feel comfortable raising a family. Where do you live?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Thanks for the answers. Hezbolah are walking a fine line atm, IMO it would pay them better to play the diplomacy game without cost to Lebanese lives. I think what you are suggesting is something that nearly everyone wants outside of the Middle East, we live in interesting times sadly.

As long as it's a "prodless" discussion.

I deserve that

Haifa is a wonderful city, a wholesome multicultural antithesis to the young, fast paced, exhibitionistic, alienating Tel-Aviv. I've made many friends from there in the army and at university, it's one of the few cities where I would feel comfortable raising a family. Where do you live?

Portsmouth or just outside, we're twinned with Duisburg, Haifa and Toulon. In the Southsea (the southern tip of Portsmouth) show of 2005 they had a a whole section devoted to Haifa and Middle East friendship between the city, some embassadors we're even invited to attend the city where they were greated by the Mayor and other dignitaries.

 

[Yonoz]

One thing to consider that brings some hope into this is that Hizbullah has a great opportunity to become a demilitarised political party. It would be wise for them because they can squeeze some major concessions from the Lebanese and other governments, to leverage their political stature. Of course that's up to the Ayatollahs in Iran, so there's a very slim chance.

 

[kyleb]

Putting hope in a very slim chance generally doesn't pay off well. Regardless, I am curious how you figure Iran has the final say on Hizballah?

 

[Yonoz]

Putting hope in a very slim chance generally doesn't pay off well. Regardless, I am curious how you figure Iran has the final say on Hizballah?

Hizbullah is in fact the baby of the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian security service responsible for such acts as the http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273898&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0" :

The Iranian foreign service provided much of the diplomatic cover for the operation. There was an unusual number of Iranian couriers coming in and out of the country before the bombing, with some staying longer than usual in Argentina, and there was a dramatic increase in telephone traffic between various Iranian elements in Argentina and Iran in the days leading up to the bombing.

Feel free to extrapolate Iran's involvement in the current situation in Lebanon from this. Hopefully when this is over some intelligence data will be disclosed to the foreign press. Unlike Iran, Israel does not attack embassies and diplomatic staff, not even by proxy.
Even if Hizbullah decided for some reason to disobey Iran, it would risk finding itself with a fraction of its funding (Iran funds it in dozens of millions of dollars annually) and material supplies. The Revolutionary Guard trains Hizbullah fighters, especially in the use of Iranian provided weapons, and it has been disclosed that the C-802 anti-ship missiles are fired by Iranian personnel - again, feel free to extrapolate to other types of weapons. There are still many Revolutionary Guard personnel in Lebanon, some of them married widows of Hizbullah KIAs. Most of Hizbullah's ground-ground rockets are Iranian supplied or made. BTW, we have yet to see the full capabilities of their rocket array. The Lebanese and other Arab press openly speak of Hizbullah as a proxy for Iran, it's quite clear who's pulling this puppet's strings.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Actually it did during the Lavon affair, agents working for Mossad, planted fire bombs in embassy/diplomatic buildings to try and derail Britains withdrawal from the Suez canal, FYI.

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

Aman decided to activate the network in the spring of 1954. On July 2, a post office in Alexandria was firebombed, and on July 14, the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo, and a British-owned theater were bombed. The bombs themselves were homemade, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine. The bombs were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths. Egyptian authorities arrested one suspect, Robert Dassa, when his bomb accidentally ignited prematurely in his pocket. Having searched his apartment, they found incriminating evidence and names of accomplices to the operation. Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis.