News Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[Yonoz]

If anyone requires further proof that Israel has done its best to avoid this conflict: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/25/world/main1075642.shtml":

The return of the bodies comes as the U.N. Security Council accused Hezbollah of starting this week's attacks. In a statement on Wednesday, the council appealed for restraint.

But Lebanon's government, of which Hezbollah is a coalition partner, backed the guerrillas despite the international pressure.

 

[Cyrus]

Perhaps my history is lacking. Didn't Israel completely pull out of southern Lebanon in accordance with UNSC425?

The resolution was passed in 1978, they withdrew in 2000 only because the occupation was not going so well.

 

[Cyrus]

What's your point? kyleb asked me to present the Israeli appeals to the UN to avoid this crisis. Now you're criticizing that too? Do you think Israel should have sat quietly while Hizbullah arms itself and attacks it?
Whatever path Israel takes, it will always be blamed, even when it is being attacked. Perhaps you should ask yourself what are the real reasons for your criticism.

My point is that Israel too, has not played by the rules. You complain about Hezbollah launching rockets into Israel, and rightly so, as a reason for your actions.

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again without UN support? Of course they are going to arm themselves.

I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.

 

[Yonoz]

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

Hizbullah is not the Lebanese defence force. In its current form it has no place in a sovereign country. The Israeli occupation ended 6 years ago. Hizbullah has initiated attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets on Israeli soil countless times since then. By your logic no conflict can ever end. You're also forgetting there's one more country that has occupied Lebanon and was removed after assasinating an elected Lebanese head of state. I don't see anyone firing rockets on their civilians. I think you should take Hizbullah's declarations with a grain, or perhaps even an entire bag of salt.

Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again with UN support? Of course they are going to arm themselves.

It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task. Israel is actually demanding that the Lebanese military be deployed across the border.

I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.

That's good but I think you should examine every party's motives with a little more scrutiny. Astronuc has posted some insightful interviews a few pages back, I suggest you listen to them and do some research.

 

[fargoth]

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again without UN support?

so you think it's still Hizbullah's right to launch rockets on israel civilians and capture israeli soldiers even after israel has withdrawn from lebanon? (which they occupide only to stop the fire in the first place by the way...)

can you explain to me, why does a militia group has a right to exist inside a country and attack another country's civilians?
don't you think the use of "defend themeselves" is a little misleading here?
and don't you think lebanon's army should defend lebanon, and not some aggressive organization which took over southern lebanon?

 

[kyleb]

Oh please. Why don't you bear the burden of proof this time and show me one instance where UNIFIL has stopped aggression.

You are the one who claimed they failed, which puts a huge burdon of proof on you to show their guard doesn't stop any majorty of illegal boarder crossing.

I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.

And in doing so you have effectively admitted that Isarel did not pursue reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack. What you showed was Israel signing on to statements that the job wasn't getting done rather than presenting a plan for the job to get done.

You can refer to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1043650&postcount=344" for elaboration. If both sides made fair offers at the start there would be no need for need for negotiations, no?

Fair offers are needed to start negotiations, from there good negotiations can lead to both sides coming to an agreement that they find more than fair. The contentious lowballing with no displayed intent to ever make a fair offer is what is keeping such an agreement from being reached.

 

[kyleb]

It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task.

As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060303-lebanon-military.htm

 

[Hurkyl]

I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.

What sort of perspective were you going for? Were you just trying to remind us of the militants' attitudes, or arguing that this really is part of the bigger picture?

 

[Hurkyl]

It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task.

As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:

Are you responding to "it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task", or "It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon ... it is the Lebanese government that should do this"?

 

[Yonoz]

You are the one who claimed they failed, which puts a huge burdon of proof on you to show their guard doesn't stop any majorty of illegal boarder crossing.

I've shown that they failed to prevent at least 3 major escalations. That's 3/3, which is pretty much a failure in my book. If you wish to contend that, all I ask is that you find one single instance in which UNIFIL has done anything short of failure. Just one. Should prove an easy task.

And in doing so you have effectively admitted that Isarel did not pursue reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack. What you showed was Israel signing on to statements that the job wasn't getting done rather than presenting a plan for the job to get done.

Perhaps Israel should also supply the troops with uniforms, weapons and training?
Please do some research before making silly claims like that, Israel is not the executive branch of the United Nations, and has no authority nor responsibility for planning multinational forces - there's plenty of overpaid UN personnel that are meant to come up with a plan. Since you expect me to spoon-feed you with basic research to support each and every sentence, here it is straight from the horse's mouth (0.5 seconds on google):
From the http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/"

Article 37
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Fair offers are needed to start negotiations, from there good negotiations can lead to both sides coming to an agreement that they find more than fair. The contentious lowballing with no displayed intent to ever make a fair offer is what is keeping such an agreement from being reached.

That's been covered already, and you seem to conveniently ignore the facts that Israel has made some widely recognised genuinely generous offers, as well as unilateral withdrawls and acts of good faith and in return the other parties never ceased to undermine Israel's right to exist in peace by actively pursuing terrorism against its civilians.

 

[Yonoz]

As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060303-lebanon-military.htm

I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion from the article. Have you even read it?
FYI the Lebanese military commanders have attended the finest military schools in Europe.

 

[Cyrus]

Hizbullah is not the Lebanese defence force. In its current form it has no place in a sovereign country. The Israeli occupation ended 6 years ago. Hizbullah has initiated attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets on Israeli soil countless times since then. By your logic no conflict can ever end. You're also forgetting there's one more country that has occupied Lebanon and was removed after assasinating an elected Lebanese head of state. I don't see anyone firing rockets on their civilians. I think you should take Hizbullah's declarations with a grain, or perhaps even an entire bag of salt. It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task. Israel is actually demanding that the Lebanese military be deployed across the border.

Sure, I agree that Hezbollah is not their defense force and that the Lebanese government should play that role. But the Lebanese military simply does not have that capability. So without Hezbollah, who is going to stand up to defend the country? There in lies one of the problems with Israel's solution, they want to leave Lebanon practically defenseless.

That's good but I think you should examine every party's motives with a little more scrutiny. Astronuc has posted some insightful interviews a few pages back, I suggest you listen to them and do some research.

Trust me, I do. I am not for support of Hezbollah, but at the same time I won't stand here before you and say that Israel has always done it's best to find peace. It has not.

What sort of perspective were you going for? Were you just trying to remind us of the militants' attitudes, or arguing that this really is part of the bigger picture?

Eh?

 

[Yonoz]

Sure, I agree that Hezbollah is not their defense force and that the Lebanese government should play that role. But the Lebanese military simply does not have that capability. So without Hezbollah, who is going to stand up to defend the country? There in lies one of the problems with Israel's solution, they want to leave Lebanon practically defenseless.

That's highly flawed reasoning. If I decide my military isn't strong enough, can I buy rockets and launch them at civilian targets without provocation? No, that's my government's role. Israel shouldn't pay the price for the Lebanese government's internal affairs. Furthermore, Israel has no interest to attack Lebanon out of the blue - I'm not sure you're in on this little secret so I'm letting you know now.

Trust me, I do.

It certainly doesn't seem so.

I am not for support of Hezbollah, but at the same time I won't stand here before you and say that Israel has always done it's best to find peace. It has not.

You're pretty much legitimizing Hizbullah's terrorist attack. I never said Israel has always done it's best to find peace, but as far as this conflict is concerned, I'm convinced it has.

 

[Cyrus]

That's highly flawed reasoning. If I decide my military isn't strong enough, can I buy rockets and launch them at civilian targets without provocation? No, that's my government's role. Israel shouldn't pay the price for the Lebanese government's internal affairs. Furthermore, Israel has no interest to attack Lebanon out of the blue - I'm not sure you're in on this little secret so I'm letting you know now.

What!? No, I never said they could buy rockets and launch them at civilan targets! Far from it, they have no right to do that. And for that reason, as I said before, I have no problem with Israel acting in response. I just do not like the method they chose to use.

It certainly doesn't seem so.
You're pretty much legitimizing Hizbullah's terrorist attack. I never said Israel has always done it's best to find peace, but as far as this conflict is concerned, I'm convinced it has.

Again, when did I ever say their attacks were acceptable? I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth.

As for this conflict, bombing civilian buildings is not the best way to achieve peace, no?

Edit: Perhaps I was not clear. I was saying that Hezbollah is the only real force to defend Lebanon. Their military can do some, but not a whole heck of a lot. That's not the same thing as saying Hezbollah can launch offensive attacks.

 

[kyleb]

I've shown that they failed to prevent at least 3 major escalations. That's 3/3, which is pretty much a failure in my book. If you wish to contend that, all I ask is that you find one single instance in which UNIFIL has done anything short of failure. Just one. Should prove an easy task.

Sure, a quick Google search makes it an easy task; old examples they are are, but 150 strong in showing that the UNIFIL's job involves much more than the 3 instances you criticize them for:

...UNIFIL stopped some 40 major infiltration attempts, involving 140 terrorists. By contrast, paragraph 36 of the Secretary-General's report for the period from June to December 1979, document S/13691 of 14 December 1979, mentions 110 infiltration attempts involving almost 800 terrorists...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/HomePage2...C12-4C5A-8B40-5732F02635A0}&NRCACHEHINT=Guest

Perhaps Israel should also supply the troops with uniforms, weapons and training?
Please do some research before making silly claims like that, Israel is not the executive branch of the United Nations, and has no authority nor responsibility for planning multinational forces - there's plenty of overpaid UN personnel that are meant to come up with a plan. Since you expect me to spoon-feed you with basic research to support each and every sentence, here it is straight from the horse's mouth (0.5 seconds on google):
From the http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/"

I said a plan. The UN charter doesn't restrict you from presenting a plan, and a plan is what could have went towards preventing this current conflict.

That's been covered already, and you seem to conveniently ignore the facts that Israel has made some widely recognised genuinely generous offers, as well as unilateral withdrawls and acts of good faith...

I'm standing by the fact that the widely reported "generous offers" are less that what you claimed and I agreed is fair.

...and in return the other parties never ceased to undermine Israel's right to exist in peace by actively pursuing terrorism against its civilians.

Not just the other parties, your continuing occupation and expansion undermines the Palestinian right to exist and you have some extremists on your side who engage in terrorism on Palestinian civilians as well.

 

[kyleb]

I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion from the article. Have you even read it?

Ahem:

"The larger question is: Who is their enemy? Are they looking at Israel? Al-Qaida? Syria? ... In our minds, this is the army that sooner or later will have to stand up to the armed branch of Hezbollah. ... And right now, it's a military (whose equipment) may be too large and too heavily armored for the threats around them," Kimmitt said.

As I said, they weren't in the postion to deal with the problem.

 

[Yonoz]

What!? No, I never said they could buy rockets and launch them at civilan targets! Far from it, they have no right to do that. And for that reason, as I said before, I have no problem with Israel acting in response. I just do not like the method they chose to use.

Again, when did I ever say their attacks were acceptable? I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth.

Then what did you mean by this:

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

As for this conflict, bombing civilian buildings is not the best way to achieve peace, no?

It is if there are weapons hidden inside those buildings that will be used to attack civilians.

Edit: Perhaps I was not clear. I was saying that Hezbollah is the only real force to defend Lebanon. Their military can do some, but not a whole heck of a lot. That's not the same thing as saying Hezbollah can launch offensive attacks.

The only thing needed to disarm Hizbullah is a decision by the Lebanese government that it will not allow anyone to hijack its decision making. The world will be more than happy to help them.

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, perhaps that is not clear.

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

They have the same right to stand up and defend their homeland. Note, I said to defend, not to go out and start wars.

It is if there are weapons hidden inside those buildings that will be used to attack civilians.

Well, I for one would like to see these weapons. So far, I have only seen peoples houses being destroyed.

The only thing needed to disarm Hizbullah is a decision by the Lebanese government that it will not allow anyone to hijack its decision making. The world will be more than happy to help them.

Sure, I agree with you on that.

 

[Gokul43201]

The resolution was passed in 1978, they withdrew in 2000 only because the occupation was not going so well.

Oh, I agree - and I've said this before - that the UN has been way lax in holding Israel's feet to the fire. But they've been way lax with holding anyone's feet to the fire.

 

[Yonoz]

Sure, a quick Google search makes it an easy task; old examples they are are, but 150 strong in showing that the UNIFIL's job involves much more than the 3 instances you criticize them for

Perhaps they were relevant back in 1980, the year that document saw light. Hizbullah was 2 years old back then. I still contend that they're irrelevant today.

I said a plan. The UN charter doesn't restrict you from presenting a plan, and a plan is what could have went towards preventing this current conflict.

You fail to see the point. UN peacekeeping forces are formed de-facto. How can Israel come up with a plan without the authority to divert budgets, provide supplies and most of all - when it hasn't been decided where the troops will come from? Should Israel provide those as well?
Have you ever written an operational plan? It's difficult enough when you don't control the resources, impossible when you don't even know what resources are available, and plain imaginary when those resources don't even exist.

I'm standing by the fact that the widely reported "generous offers" are less that what you claimed and I agreed is fair.

You can keep standing there. I'll be right here with all the others that have achieved the amazing feat of grasping the difficult concept of N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.

Not just the other parties, your continuing occupation and expansion undermines the Palestinian right to exist and you have some extremists on your side who engage in terrorism on Palestinian civilians as well.

I don't know how much more proof you need that Israel recognises the Palestinian's right for an independent state alongside Israel, but that doesn't matter since apparently you know better than I the inner workings of the Israeli borg-like conscience.
Regarding the handful of Israeli extremists that have committed acts of terror, let me remind you of the word of the day - "proportions".

 

[Bystander]

Around and around and around we go --- "same ol' sh*t" over and over and over. The UN cannot be a guarantor of peace in the ME. The U. S. cannot be a guarantor of peace in the ME. Who can be?

Arab culture and concepts of "negotiation, agreement, bargain(ing), contract, and treaty" are different than in "the west." Islamic spin on same is even more different. Solomon's gone (if he ever existed), and the limits of involvement by the U. S., UN, NATO, Arab League, and other denizens of the alphabet soup bowl is defined by limits of the congruence of the meanings of "negotiation, agreement, bargain(ing), contract, and treaty" in all these various cultures --- that, the congruence, at the moment, is zero, same as for the last 5-6 ka.

"Shall 'the west' adopt Arab and Islamic definitions for the terms?" Don't think the Arabs and Islamic world would like that, but, who knows. We certainly have had no luck getting the Arab and Islamic worlds to adopt western usage.

 

[Yonoz]

Ah, perhaps that is not clear.
They have the same right to stand up and defend their homeland. Note, I said to defend, not to go out and start wars.

Do you believe an array of ground to ground rockets that are too inaccurate to fire at anything short of a population center to be a defensive weapon?

Well, I for one would like to see these weapons. So far, I have only seen peoples houses being destroyed.

I've already posted a link to one movie showing a vehicle used to launch rockets hidden in a mosque. Here's another http://video.nrg.co.il/lib/wmv/558/082.wmv" . About 8m 45s into the video you can see an example of some of the tedious intelligence work needed for this campaign. It shows a room in several stages of construction, used to hide a medium range rocket. It's hard for anyone with no experience in analyzing aerial photographs to identify the rocket and the picture quality isn't great (it's a live recording of a projected image) but it only serves as an example. Pardon me if I can't show you more specific details of intelligence work. If anything else shows up on the media I'll be sure to post it here.

 

[Cyrus]

Do you believe an array of ground to ground rockets that are too inaccurate to fire at anything short of a population center to be a defensive weapon?

For them, that's all they have. It's that or a rock. Do you consider Israel's atomic bombs a defensive weapon? Those atomic bombs would turn Lebanon into a parking lot. It's a deterrent.

I've already posted a link to one movie showing a vehicle used to launch rockets hidden in a mosque. Here's another http://video.nrg.co.il/lib/wmv/558/082.wmv" . About 8m 45s into the video you can see an example of some of the tedious intelligence work needed for this campaign. It shows a room in several stages of construction, used to hide a medium range rocket. It's hard for anyone with no experience in analyzing aerial photographs to identify the rocket and the picture quality isn't great (it's a live recording of a projected image) but it only serves as an example. Pardon me if I can't show you more specific details of intelligence work. If anything else shows up on the media I'll be sure to post it here.

Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?

Well, let's think it through.

First off, remember that the IDF is not the Lebanese police force. They are not responsible for prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were weapons there.

The risks of bombing are clear -- collateral damage, and the possibility of anti-aircraft fire. What are the risks of sending in ground forces?

I would think that sending in ground forces would lead to urban warfare with Hezbollah militants, which I would think would lead to heavy casualties for all parties involved. (Israeli, Hezbollah, and civilian) The scale of the operation seems, to me, to require a full scale invasion, though I suppose we're getting that anyways.

It is not clear to me that sending in ground troops is a preferable option.

Incidentally, I don't know what sort of damage a tactical strike does these days. Do you know where I could find info on that?

 

[Cyrus]

Incidentally, I don't know what sort of damage a tactical strike does these days. Do you know where I could find info on that?

I don't have that kind of information, what do you think I am, a terrorist!?

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps they were relevant back in 1980, the year that document saw light. Hizbullah was 2 years old back then. I still contend that they're irrelevant today.

So the 3 examples you mention are all boarder crossings they had prevent sense then but but failed at? Surely not.

You fail to see the point. UN peacekeeping forces are formed de-facto. How can Israel come up with a plan without the authority to divert budgets, provide supplies and most of all - when it hasn't been decided where the troops will come from? Should Israel provide those as well?
Have you ever written an operational plan? It's difficult enough when you don't control the resources, impossible when you don't even know what resources are available, and plain imaginary when those resources don't even exist.

It's what you are working with them on now, rather late obviously:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the...ni+meets+with+special+UN+team+18-Jul-2006.htm

You can keep standing there. I'll be right here with all the others that have achieved the amazing feat of grasping the difficult concept of N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.

L-O-W-B-A-L-L-I-N-G, I grasp that, and I thumb my nose at it. You have hard liners controlling your government that refuse to even consider giving up East Jerusalem areas and sections of the West Bank, until you can overcome those extremes that insist on denying Palestinians their land then you aren't negotiating, you are strongarming.

I don't know how much more proof you need that Israel recognises the Palestinian's right for an independent state alongside Israel, but that doesn't matter since apparently you know better than I the inner workings of the Israeli borg-like conscience.
Regarding the handful of Israeli extremists that have committed acts of terror, let me remind you of the word of the day - "proportions".

You want to talk proportions here then let us count bodies between their terrorist acts and your terrorist acts and resistance to the occupation along with the civilian causalities from your IDF's occupation. Yeah, your argument here isn't going to win you anything.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't have that kind of information, what do you think I am, a terrorist!?

In another thread, you seemed to know a lot about aircraft. I figured I'd take a stab and see if you knew about the sorts of bombs they drop these days.

 

[Cyrus]

The Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון, Milkhemet Levanon), also known as the Operation Peace of the Galilee (מבצע שלום הגליל, Mivtsa Shalom HaGalil in Hebrew), began June 6, 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon. The Government of Israel gave a green light for the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov by Fatah - Revolutionary Council and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel. See also Operation Litani.

After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon. Surrounded in West Beirut and subject to heavy bombardment, the PLO and the Syrian forces negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of international peacekeepers.

History has a tendency of repeating itself, no?

 

[Cyrus]

In another thread, you seemed to know a lot about aircraft. I figured I'd take a stab and see if you knew about the sorts of bombs they drop these days.

The kind that you don't want to be anywhere near when they come down.

 

[mbrmbrg]

Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?

Well, I don't know about Yonoz, but I can't provide a clear threat for every single target hit by the Israelis. For the simple reason that not every single intelligence report is made public. Remember: intelligence is usually classified information.

As for your second point: these people's houses are, most unfortunately (not sarcasm in this paragraph!), housing Hizbollah arsenals/personnel. Yonoz's convincing clip was in Hebrew, so allow me to translate 9:40-9:48 for you: "He who goes to sleep at night next to rockets aimed at Israel may wake up in the morning to find the room next to his house destroyed." Me: or his whole beautiful building destroyed. Aren't rockets explosive?
Do you really think it's so simple to send some soldiers to stroll into an enemy's arsenal, confirm and supplement intelligence reports, deal with it, and stroll out? Frankly, yes, I think it does make a bit more sense to level the whole building and be done with it.