Israel Invades Lebanon

Yep.

But who created the state of siege, and under what justification?

Raimondo persuasively argues that Israel is agitating for a war with Iran and all its current actions are being made towards that end. The following was penned 2 months ago:

“War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the U.S. and/or Israel on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the first battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know perfectly well that Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile northern border, where their deadly enemies ? Hezbollah ? are an effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the Ba’athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change.”

Vroom, what Syrian/Lebanese propaganda are you speaking of?

There were political reasons behind Israel’s decision to withdraw. It was a strategic move on their part. There is no goodwill in the political arena.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Please claim we occupied Saudi Arabia so I can laugh at you.

You don’t even know what occupied means.

In the context of this debate, it is wholely irrelevant. People living under the rule of foreign invaders do not care to discuss the semantics of occupation. They know it when it enters their backyard and knocks on their door.
…[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about?

The US does not rule Saudi Arabia.

You live in fantasyland.

Holy crap, literally.

There is a lot of BS flying around in this thread.

I see some people here are sympathizing with the Muslim fundies, and I can understand that, because some folks have some inborn tendency to root for the underdog out of a sense of… devil-advocating “fairness”… maybe? Let’s just chalk it up to Hollywood and the melodramas which have taught us all how to detach from reality at times, shall we?

Anyway, you guys need to wake the flying fuck up. Syria/Iran/Palestine are terrorist-supporting regimes. These are the bad guys, not some wronged innocent factions. They are fundamentalist, ruthless, murdering assholes.

Honestly, it’s a miracle – or maybe a testament to US persuasiveness – that this kind of quasi-multilateral conflict hasn’t sprung up a hundred times by now in the ME.

Question: what player in this game has anything at all to gain from this kind of move? Is this latest development in the ME being underwritten by some politically savvy faction? Or is this just more retardation a la the Catholic vs. Protestant idiocy in Ireland not too long ago?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?

The US does not rule Saudi Arabia.

You live in fantasyland.[/quote]

No I don’t. There were troops stationed there in the 90’s. Their presence was what originally led OBL to call for jihad against America. The U.S. also supports and props up the unpopular government there.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Holy crap, literally.

There is a lot of BS flying around in this thread.

I see some people here are sympathizing with the Muslim fundies, and I can understand that, because some folks have some inborn tendency to root for the underdog out of a sense of… devil-advocating “fairness”… maybe? Let’s just chalk it up to Hollywood and the melodramas which have taught us all how to detach from reality at times, shall we?

Anyway, you guys need to wake the flying fuck up. Syria/Iran/Palestine are terrorist-supporting regimes. These are the bad guys, not some wronged innocent factions. They are fundamentalist, ruthless, murdering assholes.

Honestly, it’s a miracle – or maybe a testament to US persuasiveness – that this kind of quasi-multilateral conflict hasn’t sprung up a hundred times by now in the ME.

Question: what player in this game has anything at all to gain from this kind of move? Is this latest development in the ME being underwritten by some politically savvy faction? Or is this just more retardation a la the Catholic vs. Protestant idiocy in Ireland not too long ago?[/quote]

Israel stands to gain. Did you not read my last couple posts? Go take a look at them. This is not a question of sympathy for the underdog.

Terrorism is used in the Middle East because it WORKS. Legitimate governments have very little sway in that region since the balance of power was shifted away from them after the end of WWI. This is why terrorism has been and will continue to be used as a means of achieving Palestinian goals. It’s very easy for Israel to sit on it’s US-provided arms stockpile and criticize the Arabs for resorting to “terrorism,” i.e. unconventional warfare.

The playing field is NOT level, so why would you expect both sides to field the same tactics?

The bottom line is that western intervention is responsible for this mess -NOT muslim fundamentalism- and the Israeli state has no legal basis for its existence. That’s why the Arabs are fighting.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Holy crap, literally.

There is a lot of BS flying around in this thread.

I see some people here are sympathizing with the Muslim fundies, and I can understand that, because some folks have some inborn tendency to root for the underdog out of a sense of… devil-advocating “fairness”… maybe? Let’s just chalk it up to Hollywood and the melodramas which have taught us all how to detach from reality at times, shall we?

Anyway, you guys need to wake the flying fuck up. Syria/Iran/Palestine are terrorist-supporting regimes. These are the bad guys, not some wronged innocent factions. They are fundamentalist, ruthless, murdering assholes.

Honestly, it’s a miracle – or maybe a testament to US persuasiveness – that this kind of quasi-multilateral conflict hasn’t sprung up a hundred times by now in the ME.

Question: what player in this game has anything at all to gain from this kind of move? Is this latest development in the ME being underwritten by some politically savvy faction? Or is this just more retardation a la the Catholic vs. Protestant idiocy in Ireland not too long ago?[/quote]

I agree with you in the sense that most of the islamic fundamentalists are bad people…but is Israel really any better? I mean its horrible that 2 of their soldiers got kidnapped but is there attack really proportionate to the crime? I don’t mean to sum up this conflict with that satement alone because there is much more to it, but my point is just because a country has planes, ships, missles, etc. does mean that their actions are anymore justifiable than those of someone who blows himself up.

The conflict in Northern Ireland wasn’t really about religion per say. The british Invaded Northern ireland so they could use its ports then enslaved the Irish in their own country. Even up until the 1970’s Irish Catholics were treated like blacks here were in the 50’s and 60’s. All the Irish people did was stand up for themselves and because they didn’t have any organized army like the british they were “terrorists”
In my opinion the I.R.A. and Sinn Fein are heroes.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The bottom line is that western intervention is responsible for this mess -NOT muslim fundamentalism- and the Israeli state has no legal basis for its existence. That’s why the Arabs are fighting.[/quote]

Dude, no offense… but fuck this attitude of yours. Muslim “Do as I say or die” fundamentalism is exactly the reason there is violence in the ME. If the nations in the ME were secular, we would not be having these kinds of problems. There would be different problems than zealot suicide bombers strapping IED’s to themselves and exploding in busy marketplaces around innocent men, women, and children. Here’s the math:

Fanatical Religion + Military Power = Very Bad

So to neutralize this equation, we are faced with either limiting the religion or limiting the military power.

You want to see peace in the ME? Secularize and democratize every single nation there, and it will happen. They will find ways to solve their differences without resorting to screaming “Allah Achbar! Jihad!” and detonating TNT. Who knows? Maybe they will actually invest in some infrastructure and get themselves out of “third world nations” status. Wouldn’t that be nice to have your citizens productive somehow? I mean, here they are, sitting on what could be the most accessible and valuable commodity in the entire world, and your citizens are still dying of thirst every day. For shame.

And really, the phrase “for shame” doesn’t even come close to truly describing the degree of criminal violation of common sense and decency that has been going on in the ME for hundreds of years or more. It’s fun and trendy to blame the problems on our presidential cokehead, but he’s not to blame. Not at all. The entire culture of Muslim fundamentalism celebrates violence and hatred against all others. THAT, my friend, is the root of the problem right there.

What happens when we take the muslim fundies out of the equation above? What happens when the irrational hate is wiped from the leadership of the ME nations?

Nominal,

I do see and and I do understand your arguements, but I cannot agree with the conclusions you draw.

Sure, while it does take two to tango, I do believe fanatical Islam is only using such ideas as an excuse. While they would happy for a generation or two if all western influence left the Middle East, that would not be the end of it.

Then, down the road, as they emigrated to other countries, they would disagree with the way things are done and look for an introduction of Islamic ideals into these other regions.

It has happened in many countries in the world, and whenever they get a foothold they develop a fundamentalist viewpoint in that country.

While most religions are basically telling us to love our fellow man, or be good to one another, some asshat has twisted Islam into “kill everyone who is not Islam” and you get to go to heaven.

There can be no compromise with such a viewpoint, unless you yourself happen to be Islamic.

Islam either needs to be peaceful, as it claims to be, as modern Christianity is, or it is going to create conflict with cultures that it interacts with.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions, but it is visible as clear as day. Just open your eyes and look, there is no alternative without moderation on behalf of the followers of Islam.

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:

…but is there attack really proportionate to the crime? I don’t mean to sum up this conflict with that satement alone because there is much more to it, but my point is just because a country has planes, ships, missles, etc. does mean that their actions are anymore justifiable than those of someone who blows himself up.
[/quote]

Might makes right. They say that for a reason. It’s not just a bumper sticker or a short poem. Might makes right.

Having the might without the will to use it makes you a pussy and eventually a victim. Israel hasn’t come close to using the amount of force it will take to stop this bullshit once and for all. Until they cut loose and look like a rabid pitbull that has broken the leash that is American foreign aid, they will continue to be victims of this cowardly bullshit.

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
The conflict in Northern Ireland wasn’t really about religion per say. The british Invaded Northern ireland so they could use its ports then enslaved the Irish in their own country. Even up until the 1970’s Irish Catholics were treated like blacks here were in the 50’s and 60’s. All the Irish people did was stand up for themselves and because they didn’t have any organized army like the british they were “terrorists”
In my opinion the I.R.A. and Sinn Fein are heroes.
[/quote]

Hmmm. Didn’t know this.

BUT

Did the IRA use bombs on innocents to make their point? It’s a shame you guys didn’t have an Irish Martin Luther King, because that cat did it right. You want social change, and want to be taken seriously? Starting off with bombing folks who aren’t responsible for your problems is not a good start.

Or is this not just common sense? :slight_smile:

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?

The US does not rule Saudi Arabia.

You live in fantasyland.

No I don’t. There were troops stationed there in the 90’s. Their presence was what originally led OBL to call for jihad against America. The U.S. also supports and props up the unpopular government there.
[/quote]

Troops stationed does not wqual ruling Saudi Arabia.

Are you claiming that support for a dictatorship makes them hate us? How about when we don’t support a dictatorship and they still hate us?

You are listening to our enemies propaganda and spreading it.

It is obvious you don’t even understand it.

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:

I agree with you in the sense that most of the islamic fundamentalists are bad people…but is Israel really any better? I mean its horrible that 2 of their soldiers got kidnapped but is there attack really proportionate to the crime? …
[/quote]

The crime is much deeper than the kidnapping.

There were terrorist and missle attacks launched from Gaza everyday prior to the kidnapping.

The kidnapping was the straw that broke the camels back.

An interesting analysis of the Israeli strategy from Stratfor:

The Israeli strategy appears to be designed to do two things. First, the Israelis are trying to prevent any supplies from entering Lebanon, including reinforcements. That is why they are attacking all coastal maritime facilities. Second, they are degrading the roads in Lebanon. That will keep reinforcements from reaching Hezbollah fighters engaged in the south. As important, it will prevent the withdrawal and redeployment of heavy equipment deployed by Hezbollah in the south, particularly their rockets, missiles and launchers. The Israelis are preparing the battlefield to prevent a Hezbollah retreat or maneuver.

Hezbollah’s strategy has been imposed on it. It seems committed to standing and fighting. The rate of fire they are maintaining into Israel is clearly based on an expectation that Israel will be attacking. The rocketry guarantees the Israelis will attack. Hezbollah has been reported to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons. The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet been seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly. Whatever the truth of this, Hezbollah does not seem to think its situation is hopeless.

The uncertain question is Syria. No matter how effectively Israel seals the Lebanese coast, so long as the Syrian frontier is open, Hezbollah might get supplies from there, and might be able to retreat there. So far, there has been only one reported airstrike on a Syrian target. Both Israel and Syria were quick to deny this.

What is interesting is that it was the Syrians who insisted very publicly that no such attack took place. The Syrians are clearly trying to avoid a situation in which they are locked into a confrontation with Israel. Israel might well think this is the time to have it out with Syria as well, but Syria is trying very hard not to give Israel casus belli. In addition, Syria is facilitating the movement of Westerners out of Lebanon, allowing them free transit. They are trying to signal that they are being cooperative and nonaggressive.

The problem is this: While Syria does not want to get hit and will not make overt moves, so long as the Syrians cannot guarantee supplies will not reach Hezbollah or that Hezbollah won’t be given sanctuary in Syria, Israel cannot complete its mission of shattering Hezbollah and withdrawing. They could be drawn into an Iraq-like situation that they absolutely don’t want. Israel is torn. On the one hand, it wants to crush Hezbollah, and that requires total isolation. On the other hand, it does not want the Syrian regime to fall. What comes after would be much worse from Israel’s point of view.

This is the inherent problem built into Israel’s strategy, and what gives Hezbollah some hope. If Israel does not attack Syria, Hezbollah could well survive Israel’s attack by moving across the border. No matter how many roads are destroyed, Israel won’t be able to prevent major Hezbollah formations moving across the border. If they do attack Syria and crush al Assad’s government, Hezbollah could come out of this stronger than ever.

Judging from the airstrikes in the past 24 hours, it would appear Israel is trying to solve the problem tactically, by degrading Lebanese transport facilities. That could increase the effectiveness of the strategy, but in the end cannot be sufficient. We continue to think Israel will choose not to attack Syria directly and therefore, while the invasion will buy time, it will not solve the problem. Hezbollah certainly expects to be badly hurt, but it does not seem to expect to be completely annihilated. We are guessing, but our guess is that they are reading Israel’s views on Syria and are betting that, in the long run, they will come out stronger. Of course, Israel knows this and therefore may have a different plan for Syria. At any rate, this is the great unknown in this campaign.

I think Israel let the soldiers get captured to give them an excuse to escalate their conflict with Hezbollah.

Israel will bomb Iran’s nuclear sites just like they did to Iraq’s reactor that was under construction by the French at the time.

$5 a gallon here we come…

Good thing I have most of my money in oil company stock.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I think Israel let the soldiers get captured to give them an excuse to escalate their conflict with Hezbollah.
[/quote]

I think you’re a moron.

A prediction:

Very, very soon, the US will begin evacuating her nationals out of Beirut via helicopter.

One of those helicopters is not making it back to the ship.

Then we all get to find out exactly how bad the worst case scenario is.

(And by the way, when Bush told Blair that hezbollah needed to “knock this shit off,” it was the first time I cheeed the man on in a long time.)

Pretty astute article, NYT I think:

Behind the Crisis, A Push Toward War
By David Ignatius
Friday, July 14, 2006; Page A21

After Hezbollah guerrillas captured Israeli soldiers Wednesday, a
furious Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz warned that the Israeli army would “turn
back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years.” Unfortunately, that statement
was truer than he may have intended.

By pounding the Beirut airport and other civilian targets yesterday,
the Israelis have taken a step back in time – to tactics that have
been tried repeatedly in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories
without much success. Many Lebanese will be angry at Hezbollah leader
Hasan Nasrallah for provoking the crisis, but that won’t translate
into new control on the militia’s actions. Instead, the outcome is
likely to be similar to what has happened in Gaza over the past
several weeks: Israeli attacks to free a captured soldier further
weakened the Palestinian Authority without much damaging the
terrorists.

Watching the events of the past few days, you can’t help but feel that
this is the rerun of an old movie – one in which the guerrillas and
kidnappers end up as the winners. Israel’s fledgling prime minister,
Ehud Olmert, wants to emulate the toughness of his predecessor, Ariel
Sharon. But that shouldn’t include a replay of Sharon’s 1982 Lebanon
invasion, a strategic mistake that spawned Hezbollah in the first
place.

Hezbollah’s action in seizing the Israeli soldiers was utterly
reckless. That’s the new part of this crisis – that Iranian-backed
radicals deliberately opened another front in a war that, in their
minds, stretches from Gaza to Iraq. Watching Nasrallah’s cocky
performance at a news conference Wednesday, I thought that he seemed
almost to be inviting an Israeli counterattack – knowing that it
would destabilize the Lebanese government of Fuad Siniora, which is
one of the few solid achievements of U.S. policy in the region.

Israeli and American doctrine is premised on the idea that military
force will deter adversaries. But as more force has been used in
recent years, the deterrent value has inevitably gone down. That’s the
inner spring of this crisis: The Iranians (and their clients in
Hezbollah and Hamas) watch the American military mired in Iraq and see
weakness. They are emboldened rather than intimidated. The same is
true for the Israelis in Gaza. Rather than reinforcing the image of
strength, the use of force (short of outright, pulverizing invasion
and occupation) has encouraged contempt.

The danger of Iranian-backed adventurism is immense right now, but
that’s all the more reason for America and Israel to avoid past
mistakes in countering it. Reliable strategic lessons are hard to come
by in that part of the world, but here are a few:

The first is that in countering aggression, international solidarity
and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United
States should work closely with its allies at the Group of Eight
summit and the United Nations. Iran and its proxies would like nothing
more than to isolate America and Israel. They would like nothing less
than a strong, international coalition of opposition.

A second point – obvious from Gaza to Beirut to Baghdad – is that
the power of non-state actors is magnified when there is no strong
central government. That may sound like a truism, but responding
wisely can require some creative diplomacy. The way to blunt Hamas is
to build a strong Palestinian Authority that delivers benefits for the
Palestinian people. The way to curb Hezbollah is to build up the
Lebanese government and army. One way to boost the Lebanese government
(and deflate Hezbollah) would be to negotiate the return of the
Israeli-occupied territory known as Shebaa Farms. That chance is lost
for now, but the Bush administration should find other ways to enhance
Siniora’s authority.

A final obvious lesson is that in an open, interconnected world,
public opinion matters. This is a tricky battlefield for an unpopular
America and Israel, but not an impossible one. To fight the Long War,
America and Israel have to get out of the devil suit in global public
opinion. For a generation, America maintained a role as honest broker
between Israel and the Arabs. The Bush administration should work hard
to refurbish that role.

In the Lebanon crisis we have a terrifying glimpse of the future: Iran
and its radical allies are pushing toward war. That’s the chilling
reality behind this week’s events. On Tuesday the Iranians spurned an
American offer of talks on their nuclear program; on Wednesday their
Hezbollah proxy committed what Israel rightly called “an act of war.”
The radicals want to lure America and Israel deeper into the killing
ground, confident that they have the staying power to prevail. We
should not play their game.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
… but is there any reason, aside from the Israel lobby and media, that we are supporting an appartheid state against all of its neighbors?

Huh? Israel is an apartheid state?

You have any idea how many Arabs live in Israel?

Who is safer - a Muslim in Tel Aviv or a Jew in Damascas?

Many of these neighbors have vowed to burn Israel off the map. At least one is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

These neighbors support terrorism against Israeli civilians and have done everything possible to continue the trouble between the Israelis and the Palestinians thus leading to the condition you refer to as apartheid.

While Israel is sometimes heavy handed it is obvious that the true villians are the terrorists and their state supporters, not the Israelis.

I fail to see how any rational human being sees otherwise.

Sure, most Arab states don’t give a shit about the real condition of the Palestinians and cynically use them against the Israelis and to score points at home. That in no way discounts the justice and history of the Palestinian cause.

From the tone of your original post Israel practices apartheid and does not deserve our support and their neighbors are apparently innocent.

[/quote]

Way to put words in my mouth. I never said their neighbors are innocent at all. No one is going to pretend Israel’s appartheid state is worse than Syrian or Saudi or even Egyptian dictatorship, because it obviously isn’t. This doesn’t change the fact that the Palestinians had their land stolen and have lived in squalor, with no hope, since Israel’s founding (for some) and since 1967 (for the rest).

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
doogie wrote:

JTF, you know we wouldn’t allow Israel into the Coalition. We hold them back more than we enable them.

That’s a joke. Take a look at foreign aid, and especially military aid. We hardly hold them back.

We hold them back from doing what they have to do.

Imagine if Mexico was shooting rockets into American cities every day?

Would we fight back on a large scale or small scale.

Would we give them Texas back in hopes that they stop killing us?

Israel has shown restraint because America has told them to.[/quote]

That’s one of the dumber analogies I’ve heard in a while. What if we invaded Mexico, subjugated the entire population, and kept them at an economic level barely above subsistence. Then, forty years later, we “gave” them back the Yucatan because it was a drag fighting the insurgency there, and we wanted to withdraw into more defensible borders. Should we really be surprised they’re not thankful and are lobbing rockets at Cancun?

That’s still a pretty flawed analogy, but it’s miles better than what you threw out there.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Why do you have so much sympathy for the Israeli, returning to their traditional home where they lived 2500 years ago, but not for they Palestinian, wanting to returne to their home, where they lived 60 years ago?

When was there a country of Palestine?

What form of government did they have?

Were they members of the League of Nations?[/quote]

They were a League of Nations Mandate under British governance that was going to be turned into an independent state, just as the rest of the mandates (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.) were. Then Zionism, Zionist terrorism (there was an even bloodier Arab revolt in the Thirties, before you lump me in with the anti-Semite crowd), and Western Holocaust guilt changed the equation…