Middle East - what's next

[Grammaticus]

Reporter's Notebook:Kidnapping the Hope for Peace
by Jennifer Griffin for FOX Fan Central

The Palestinian armed groups know that there is nothing that motivates the Israeli public and gets its attention as much as a kidnapped soldier or a hostage crisis. The release of Palestinian and Arab prisoners has been the quid pro quo for release or return of Israeli hostages for as long as Palestinian factions have been using this tactic. Even back during the 1970s during the notorious plane hijacking spree of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO): this was the first thing the hijackers always demanded.

VIDEO: Watch Jennifer Griffin's latest report

The turning point came in the 1980s. In 1985 the Israeli government did something it had not done on such a scale before: Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to swap 1,150 Palestinian and Arab prisoners held in Israeli jails for three Israeli POW's held for three years in Lebanon. The deal became known as the "Jibril deal" — named for Ahmed Jibril, the Palestinian guerrilla leader who was holding the Israeli prisoners. Among those released at the time was the founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin. 800 of the 1,150 returned to the West Bank and Gaza and resumed fighting Israel.

Since then, there have been several prominent prisoner exchanges. Two years ago Israel traded Hezbollah 400 Palestinian and Arab prisoners for a kidnapped businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. All of this challenged the perceived notion that Israel "doesn't negotiate with terrorists.” It has and will continue to do so, if it means bringing home an Israeli held hostage or the body of a soldier killed in combat. That is the highest principle for the government and army here, stemming from their code of honor that you never leave the dead or wounded on the battlefield.

The Palestinians and others know this and take advantage of it. The principle has become, some Israelis argue, their nation's Achilles heal, leaving them vulnerable to kidnappers and their demands. Israelis would argue that they do do this, but never at the time that the captors issue their demands, but rather usually years later quietly when the hostage takers are no longer in the headlines.

The Palestinians for their part feel they are justified in kidnapping Israeli citizens and soldiers because, they argue, Israel detains and arrests thousands of Palestinians and hold many of them without trial for years. Right now more than 9,000 Palestinians sit in Israeli jails. Nearly every Palestinian family has at least one member serving in an Israeli jail — much just on suspected militancy — not all have "blood on their hands."

No issue resonates more with Palestinians than the prisoners' issue. More than 80 percent of Palestinian society polled since the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped June 25 think the armed groups (Hamas and two allies) were justified in taking the soldier hostage and do not think the kidnappers should release him without getting something, namely a prisoner release in return, even if it means enduring another Israeli invasion.

This kidnapping occurred as Hamas and its rivals in Fatah (Arafat's party) were discussing a deal that would in essence recognize Israel within the 1967 borders (a deal prisoners for these two groups signed in jail just days after the soldier's kidnapping). The reason the kidnapping occurred is not everyone on the Palestinian side wanted to see that deal go through. There are many rejectionist groups, especially outside the country, who do not want to see the Israelis and the Palestinians make peace or achieve a way of living side-by-side. Those Arab groups and the Iranians, instead, want to see the Palestinians keep fighting Israel believing they can eventually destroy and replace Israel in what they call historic Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The Syrians host these groups and the Iranians, according to the Israelis, finance them. Even Hamas has a more hardline wing sitting in Damascus, which did not want to see the Hamas and Fatah compromise go through.

So the kidnapping had two goals: to achieve the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the provocation of Israel, so that the groups that had come up with the compromise — in essence recognizing Israel within certain borders — would be forgotten and overtaken. It may also have been a way to unite ALL Palestinians and the different armed factions which were on the verge of civil war two weeks ago. Those who carried out the kidnapping knew Israel's response would be harsh and now all the armed groups, Hamas and Fatah, are fighting side by side against an external enemy and not between themselves.

This is a great article on the focus of the kidnappings and the terrorist’s motives.

I would say, Iran not only encouraged this action for the reasons stated in the article, but also they are on the verge of losing the global tilt for nuclear arms. They know a UN intervention or supported intervention is closing in and now after the Arab terrorists actions, the focus is off Iran’s Nukes for a while.

I believe the next step is that Iran will try to trump the west by stepping forward and trying to offer their services in brokering peace. This would be their attempt to try and look like regional leaders and more moderate at that.

Only a fool would fall for that. Iran playing the puppet master’s hand in starting the mess and then pretending to broker peace, which we all know they do not want.

If course the leadership in Iran may not be stable enough to try this. I guess we will see. As Biggles noted, I don’t think Iran will be able to actually step into the fray. They have no route for troops to take. Also, both Israel and the US would make short work of Iran in any kind of direct confrontation. That is why Iran must work through terror groups, while trying to pretend they are not terrorists anymore.

[MrBigglesworth]

A good blog post from the American Prospect that takes the wind out of the sails of those that reflexively support Israel no matter what:

I was really hoping that my claim that Israel's targeting of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and Hezbollah's use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli cities were "equally indefensible" would bring forth an outraged condemnation of my "moral equivalence." It seems I'll have to settle for Jon Chait saying he doesn't "see how [i] could morally equate the actions of the two sides."

I think it's pretty easy. Jon says Israel has been "attacking the parts of Lebanon's infrastructure that could be used to spirit the kidnapped soldiers out of the country, and followed it up by trying to destroy Hezbollah's artillery." No objection to destroying Hezbollah's artillery from me. It's the civilian infrastructure part that bothers me. Jon wants to say this is justified because Israel needs to prevent the captured soldiers from being moved out of the country. I don't think this holds any water -- surely Hezbollah can transport two guys across the Syrian border even if the roads, ports, and airstrips are destroyed. It only takes one off-road vehicle. Nor does this theory really explain why Israel hit Beirut's power plant.

Israel's anti-infrastructure campaign is aimed at the exact same objective as Hezbollah's rocket attacks -- they're trying to inflict pain on the Lebanese population in order to extract concessions from the Lebanese government. The situations are asymmetrical in two main ways. First, the Israeli government is actually capable of meeting Hezbollah's demands -- the release of captive Hezbollah guerillas and a cessation to Israeli military action, whereas all indications are that the Lebanese government actually can't make Hezbollah release the captive Israelis or disarm it. Second, as Jon says, Israel's strikes are targeted while Hezbollah's are random. This deserves some weight, but not very much. Many, many, many more Lebanese than Israeli civilians have been killed in the fighting so far. What's more, I'm sure Hezbollah would be thrilled to have more accurate missiles that let them target key elements of Israeli infrastructure -- the ports, Ben-Gurion airport, power plants, etc. -- rather than spraying rockets at random. Such attacks would inflict far more pain on the Israeli population writ large than these untargeted rocket strikes do.

The author, Matthew Yglesias, is Jewish, and as far as I know has no Arab cultural ties.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

A good blog post from the American Prospect that takes the wind out of the sails of those that reflexively support Israel no matter what:

How does this take the wind out of the sails of those who support Israel?

[Edward64]

Jon says Israel has been "attacking the parts of Lebanon's infrastructure that could be used to spirit the kidnapped soldiers out of the country, and followed it up by trying to destroy Hezbollah's artillery." No objection to destroying Hezbollah's artillery from me. It's the civilian infrastructure part that bothers me. Jon wants to say this is justified because Israel needs to prevent the captured soldiers from being moved out of the country. I don't think this holds any water -- surely Hezbollah can transport two guys across the Syrian border even if the roads, ports, and airstrips are destroyed. It only takes one off-road vehicle. Nor does this theory really explain why Israel hit Beirut's power plant.

I agree with this, never made sense to me about Lebanon airport. Roads leading into southern Lebanon for military reasons maybe. Power plant in Beirut, how does that help? IMO, there seems to be indescriminate pain handed out to the civilian population.

Second, as Jon says, Israel's strikes are targeted while Hezbollah's are random. This deserves some weight, but not very much. Many, many, many more Lebanese than Israeli civilians have been killed in the fighting so far. What's more, I'm sure Hezbollah would be thrilled to have more accurate missiles that let them target key elements of Israeli infrastructure -- the ports, Ben-Gurion airport, power plants, etc. -- rather than spraying rockets at random. Such attacks would inflict far more pain on the Israeli population writ large than these untargeted rocket strikes do.

Under the assumption that what we've been reading about Hezbollah originating their rocket/artillery fire from civilian areas, this argument of more Lebanese civilians killed is probably explainable and somewhat justifiable.

I've not read of civilians killed at the airport runway shelling or the Beirut powerplant. I assume most killed are due to collateral damage in responding to Hezbollah troop movements, rocket fire etc.

[Edward64]

On a side note, I just saw the replay of Bush/Blair Sh*t event. Three things that stuck out.

• Its refreshing to see a world leader express himself so plainly, no doublespeak, hints etc.
  
• GWB should not talk with food in his mouth.
  
• Most importantly, he seemed to think Syria and not Iran is the key to muzzling Hezbollah. I take this to mean that Hezbollah takes its marching orders from Syria first (regardless of what wiki says).

[JPhillips]

From what I've read Hezbollah was setup by Iran and is much closer to Iran than Syria. They are radical Shia so it makes much more sense for them to be aligned with Iran. Hamas is close to Syria because they share a Sunni background. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have ties with both Syria and Iran, but Iran is more of the dominant player I believe.

As to the video, what a fucking waste of news time. That being said, I saw a President completely detached from what's going on. In the transcript he says he thinks Rice is going to Lebanon next week. He thinks? Shouldn't he know what his Sec/State is doing regarding the world's biggest crisis? He's also naive in the extreme in his thinking on Hezbollah/Syria.

And yes, he should swallow and then talk.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is a good blog from a couple of Lebanese supporters of the Cedar Revolution that are anti-Hezbollah:

http://lebop.blogspot.com/2006/07/becoming-refugee.html

Israel made its statement. We cannot tolerate any more. We understood what they were doing. We understood why they needed to do it. But now, there is no sympathy left. Hezbollah is not a mortal danger to you. It has the potential to be, but we Lebanese have been trying to change that internally, through UN resolutions and peacefully.

The bombing has gone on for too long. It's too fierce. Hezbollah has lost morale. The Shia have lost morale. The Lebanese have lost their country.

This is a fight Israel cannot win. Everyone in Lebanon knows that Hezbollah cannot win, including Hezbollah. There is nothing Israel can do to get the soldiers back through force. But this isn't about soldiers or Israeli defense any more.

You've made this country unliveable for the people fighting to disarm Hezbollah.

Guess what? I'm leaving. Yep. Me.

Where am I going? Syria. Didn't want to, but I have to. The people we marched against are the ones you sent us begging to. The people who assassinated our leaders, kept us from having an operating democracy, and who armed Hezbollah are laughing it up because they've won the game because of you.

Does Israel have a right to attack after the kidnapping? Yes.

Does Hezbollah have the hostages in a place Israel will never find them? Yes.

Can Lebanese - people who can't agree on anything else and see themselves in perpetual competition with each other - militantly rise up against Hezbollah? And would they want to restart a civil war after they finally got their country back for the first time in 30 years? No.

Would Syria and other regional actors immediately take advantage of the internal Lebanese conflict? Most definitely.

What does Israel hope to accomplish? The return of the soldiers? The disarmament of Hezbollah?

Neither of those things will happen with further military aggression.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As to the video, what a fucking waste of news time. That being said, I saw a President completely detached from what's going on. In the transcript he says he thinks Rice is going to Lebanon next week. He thinks? Shouldn't he know what his Sec/State is doing regarding the world's biggest crisis? He's also naive in the extreme in his thinking on Hezbollah/Syria.

And yes, he should swallow and then talk.

Explained about as well as anyone who truly hates Bush could explain it.

[JPhillips]

Okay Dutch, put the positive spin on Bush not knowing whether his Sec/State is going to Lebanon.

I don't truly hate Bush, in fact I admire his political skills, but I think he's truly out of touch in the Middle East. He has no plan and no real idea of the forces at work. His lack of intellectual curiousity is coming back to haut him now that the neocon dreams are crumbling.

Personally I think this is the time to go deep and try to find a regional allaince that can move towards changing the Middle East. I would love to see Bush call for a meeting with the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as the President of Egypt. It may not work, but I don't think there has ever been a time when the potential for change was as great. The Sunni Arab world is fed up with the Shias in Iran.

Of course this won't happen because Bush is totally averse to discussion and unable to change course. In the end that's what most separates him from Reagan.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Of course this won't happen because Bush is totally averse to discussion and unable to change course. In the end that's what most separates him from Reagan.

I think you've put your finger on exactly why Bush makes such a mess while Reagan guided us through the cold war period very well.

I agree with neither, philisophically, but Reagan had a knack for knowing when he wasn't going to get 100% of what he wanted, and just shutting up about it. He also surrounded himself with good people, and actually listened.

From what I've read, life around Bush is almost comical. He has a short attention span, and doesn't like to listen to people who don't share his philosophy anyway.

That said, I think Bush is changing. There are some positive signs - the administration took a good tack through the latest North Korea saga, and the message Condi Rice is bringing to this latest crisis in the ME is getting good feedback from the moderates among the Arabs.

[King of New York]

Does anyone else have the impression that the President has decided to call it a day, and has simply told Condi Rice to do whatever she thinks best, because, for whatever reason, he does not want to deal with running things any longer?

[JPhillips]

Jim: I also disagree with much of the Reagan ideology. I give him credit, though, for being able to see the critical moment and being willing to take a risk at that moment. The meetings with Gorbachev, especially in Iceland, were counter to his early rhetoric. In Gorbachev he saw a man willing to change the course of history and Reagan seized the moment.

Bush seems to have no ability to change course and seize the moment. There is a possibility for change here, but Bush won't be able to grasp it.

[st.cronin]

Haven't seen any mention of this in the thread yet, but I'm pretty sure there has been a UN force IN LEBANON for several years now, with orders to disarm hezbollah, which they have not even remotely attempted. It's never easy to think along with Israel, but I wonder if that's not what they're up to, trying to instigate the UN to actually do what they say they're going to do.

[rexallllsc]

Don't let people tell you that the Pali's and others are the only ones who indoctrinate their young.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/1756/im:/060717/481/c8723701e8f644f0b5befd7df750e8ea

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Don't let people tell you that the Pali's and others are the only ones who indoctrinate their young.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/1756/im:/060717/481/c8723701e8f644f0b5befd7df750e8ea

I would imagine that every culture in recorded history (and probably pre-history) has indoctrinated its young. Indeed, I wonder if a culture could exist, as we define the term, that does not pass cultural mores onto successive generations.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I would imagine that every culture in recorded history (and probably pre-history) has indoctrinated its young. Indeed, I wonder if a culture could exist, as we define the term, that does not pass cultural mores onto successive generations.

There seems to be a serious sentiment that Israel has played little part in this, and that only other peoples are taught hate at a young age.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

There seems to be a serious sentiment that Israel has played little part in this, and that only other peoples are taught hate at a young age.

Yes, Arabs in Israel have and still do suffer discrimination, but the Israeli government has begun to rectify this situation via extensive affirmative action and preference programs.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

There seems to be a serious sentiment that Israel has played little part in this, and that only other peoples are taught hate at a young age.

If you want to really make this about which culture is more worthy of our support, be it financial, military, or strictly psychological, I don't think anybody would side against the Israelis.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you want to really make this about which culture is more worthy of our support, be it financial, military, or strictly psychological, I don't think anybody would side against the Israelis.

I'm having a hard time even responding to that.

To me, it's not a matter of picking sides. It's about realizing there are wrongs on both sides, and that Israel isn't some poor, picked upon country, like some would like you to believe.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I'm having a hard time even responding to that.

To me, it's not a matter of picking sides. It's about realizing there are wrongs on both sides, and that Israel isn't some poor, picked upon country, like some would like you to believe.

No, that's not the message some "would like you to believe." The message is: Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself against aggressors, same as Kuwait, or Tibet, or whomever.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No, that's not the message some "would like you to believe." The message is: Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself against aggressors, same as Kuwait, or Tibet, or whomever.

Yes, and some pretend that Israel has never done a wrong.

This is kind of like the, "They hate our freedom!" argument.

PS - Kinda funny you mention Tibet.

[Flasch186]

both sides have done wrong throughout history but neither side will admit it. Nothing frustrates me more than when a reporter asks, the leader of Hezbollah or The Syrian Ambassador a question like, "Wasn't it wrong for Hezbollah to go kidnap those soldiers and kill two?" (which we all know it's wrong) but they answer the question (and all like it) by saying, "Larry, what is wrong is that the Zionist regime has persecuted the Palestinians and now is attacking the Lebanese people."

The correct answer is, "Yes, Larry it is wrong. It is also wrong for Israel to hold Palestinians in their jails for political reasons. It is wrong for Israel to your military might in their desire for justice." but they wont admit the first part which makes me, and other people who are open minded, scoff at the second half. The minute one of them, either side, answers the question with empathy towards the other side, they will get my first bouquet. Right now, they both get brickbats....my opinion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

To me, it's not a matter of picking sides. It's about realizing there are wrongs on both sides...

Originally Posted by Flasch186

both sides have done wrong throughout history but neither side will admit it...The correct answer is, "Yes, Larry it is wrong. It is also wrong for Israel to hold Palestinians in their jails for political reasons. It is wrong for Israel to your military might in their desire for justice."...Right now, they both get brickbats....my opinion.

Guys better watch out, according to some you're heading into crazy loonyville right now

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Haven't seen any mention of this in the thread yet, but I'm pretty sure there has been a UN force IN LEBANON for several years now, with orders to disarm hezbollah, which they have not even remotely attempted. It's never easy to think along with Israel, but I wonder if that's not what they're up to, trying to instigate the UN to actually do what they say they're going to do.

I don't know about the actual force, but I know that the UN did pass a resolution for Hezbollah to disarm (the UN has also passed several other resolutions that Israel is ignoring). I would say that it would be very difficult or perhaps impossible for the UN to forcibly disarm Hezbollah.

[Flasch186]

keep in mind bigs, if they released the captured soldiers now the fighting would stop....if Israel let out all of the prisoners, Hezbollah and ?Hamas would continue to fight....it is not 2 sides of the same plate, unfortunately.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

keep in mind bigs, if they released the captured soldiers now the fighting would stop....if Israel let out all of the prisoners, Hezbollah and ?Hamas would continue to fight....it is not 2 sides of the same plate, unfortunately.

What 'fighting' to you mean? The recent attacks or all fighting in the middle east?

Israel has exchanged prisoners with H/H on several occasions, that wouldn't be a novel thing. I don't that there is any evidence that the recent rockets being fired by Hezbollah into northern Israel would still be happening if Israel had released the prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped soldiers, instead of starting a bombing campaign against Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO/Lebanese civilian ifrastructure. I don't think anyone is suggesting though that there would be peace in the Middle East if only Israel would release the prisoners. So I'm not sure what you mean.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What 'fighting' to you mean? The recent attacks or all fighting in the middle east?

Israel has exchanged prisoners with H/H on several occasions, that wouldn't be a novel thing. I don't that there is any evidence that the recent rockets being fired by Hezbollah into northern Israel would still be happening if Israel had released the prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped soldiers, instead of starting a bombing campaign against Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO/Lebanese civilian ifrastructure. I don't think anyone is suggesting though that there would be peace in the Middle East if only Israel would release the prisoners. So I'm not sure what you mean.

because they shouldnt have....becuase H/H want to wipe ISrael off the map.

they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers...you cant get mad at a country because their status quo has been to allow for kidnappings and then one day decide, "you know, Kidnappings and the killing of our soldiers on our land, isnt something we're going to allow anymore." because no other country would stand for such things either. They shouldnt have kidnapped them PERIOD.

NO....I do not want to start the cyclical arguments that take us all the way back to the dawn of man as to who started it. IT wont solve shit. They shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers. The Lebanese gov't. should have made headway in disarming hezbollah. Israel should grant lots of affirmative action style things to people other than jews in Israel. FINE.....they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers.

If Hez. wants peace they can EASILY achieve it. Same with Hamas. Israel does NOT wantt o wipe every Arab off the earth....H/H do. Its in their charter...if you want to say their most recent platform didnt mention that during the election, well Many politicians say what they want you to hear during an election....If they mean business, let them recognize Israel and ammend their charter.

It is not 2 sides of the same coin.....

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

because they shouldnt have....becuase H/H want to wipe ISrael off the map.

they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers...you cant get mad at a country because their status quo has been to allow for kidnappings and then one day decide, "you know, Kidnappings and the killing of our soldiers on our land, isnt something we're going to allow anymore." because no other country would stand for such things either. They shouldnt have kidnapped them PERIOD.

NO....I do not want to start the cyclical arguments that take us all the way back to the dawn of man as to who started it. IT wont solve shit. They shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers. The Lebanese gov't. should have made headway in disarming hezbollah. Israel should grant lots of affirmative action style things to people other than jews in Israel. FINE.....they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers.

If Hez. wants peace they can EASILY achieve it. Same with Hamas. Israel does NOT wantt o wipe every Arab off the earth....H/H do. Its in their charter...if you want to say their most recent platform didnt mention that during the election, well Many politicians say what they want you to hear during an election....If they mean business, let them recognize Israel and ammend their charter.

It is not 2 sides of the same coin.....

Again, you are taking the extremist rhetoric from one side and the moderate rhetoric from the other and trying to contrast them. A great majority of the Palestinians would welcome peace if some of their demands were met. Same with the majority of Israelis, they would be in favor of some type of land for peace deal. But the extremists on both sides are what are driving the violence. Neither side really wants peace enough yet for it to happen. Israel hasn't met any of their objectives from the 2000 peace accords, and neither have the Palestinians.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Again, you are taking the extremist rhetoric from one side and the moderate rhetoric from the other and trying to contrast them. A great majority of the Palestinians would welcome peace if some of their demands were met. Same with the majority of Israelis, they would be in favor of some type of land for peace deal. But the extremists on both sides are what are driving the violence. Neither side really wants peace enough yet for it to happen. Israel hasn't met any of their objectives from the 2000 peace accords, and neither have the Palestinians.

I disagree with this analysis. (OH and it isnt the extremist rhetoric - It is their MANTRA written in their constitution....having that in there makes almost any discussion moot) I think the moderate Israeli's have been driven to support this action because of this particular incident. The people they are targeting are Hezbollah infrastructure (which is intertwined with the LEbanese infrastructure - which is the fault of the Lebanese to allow such a thing) and Hezbollah militants AND the easy means of transporting the kidnapped outside of the country. Yes, there is collateral damage...on both sides. But in this case, the moderate Israeli's are motivated and the extremists in Lebanon also feel emboldened. There really isn't much middle on either side after the last few weeks.

This particular incident, no matter the standard reaction is/was the driving force behind what we see today....if H/H want to say it goes further back than that, then it falls into the category of argument I will not listen to anymore. That olf cyclical argument of which came first will not solve today and will only facilitate the anger and I wont be a part of it.

Let the kidnapped soldiers go, lay down Hez. arms....then Israel stops, rather immediately, then they sit the fuck down and talk about how the next 100 years could see peace and prosperity for all. You cant kidnap and kill on foreign soil and get away with it and Hez. is intertwined with S. Lebanon's infratructure, so seperating the 2 is impossible.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I disagree with this analysis. (OH and it isnt the extremist rhetoric - It is their MANTRA written in their constitution....having that in there makes almost any discussion moot)

Your error lies in seeing Hezbollah as the other side in the conflict, and not as the extremist elements of the conflict.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The people they are targeting are Hezbollah infrastructure (which is intertwined with the LEbanese infrastructure - which is the fault of the Lebanese to allow such a thing) and Hezbollah militants AND the easy means of transporting the kidnapped outside of the country.

The attacking of the Beirut Airport and the power plants and fuel depots around Beirut are clearly not attacks on Hezbollah infrastructure, nor do they make it so that the kidnapped soldiers can't make it out of the country. They are attacks to punish the civilian population of Lebanon.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers...you cant get mad at a country because their status quo has been to allow for kidnappings and then one day decide, "you know, Kidnappings and the killing of our soldiers on our land, isnt something we're going to allow anymore." because no other country would stand for such things either. They shouldnt have kidnapped them PERIOD.

Look, this is a low intensity war. The Israeli's were assasinating Hamas leaders. IMO, this was fair game. H/H kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, this too is fair game. When Israel goes in and imprisons (ex. kidnaps) Hamas leaders (ex. Bargouti (sp?)) and countless more that's okay.

Please don't misunderstand me. Until there is a negotiate peace, soldiers/leaders are okay, civilians in pizza parlors and buses are not.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your error lies in seeing Hezbollah as the other side in the conflict, and not as the extremist elements of the conflict.

HEzbollah is the other side of the conflict

Originally Posted by bigs

The attacking of the Beirut Airport and the power plants and fuel depots around Beirut are clearly not attacks on Hezbollah infrastructure, nor do they make it so that the kidnapped soldiers can't make it out of the country. They are attacks to punish the civilian population of Lebanon.

Like I pointed out, Hezbollah is soo intertwined and some would say, hijacked, the ebanese infrastructure that those attacks we're attacks on Hezbollah. To say that the Israeli's want to punish anyone, thus simply stoking fires to have MORE conflict is silly and spun.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Hezbollah is soo intertwined and some would say, hijacked, the ebanese infrastructure that those attacks we're attacks on Hezbollah.

Any proof of this or are you talking out of your ass again? Power plants and fuel depots around Beirut, to be controlled by Hezbollah, means the entire country, at the very least the capital, and not just the Southern part are controlled by Hezbollah which is entirely silly and spun.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Look, this is a low intensity war. The Israeli's were assasinating Hamas leaders. IMO, this was fair game. H/H kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, this too is fair game. When Israel goes in and imprisons (ex. kidnaps) Hamas leaders (ex. Bargouti (sp?)) and countless more that's okay.

Please don't misunderstand me. Until there is a negotiate peace, soldiers/leaders are okay, civilians in pizza parlors and buses are not.

So be it, if Hamas says its war then why are they complaining now? I say it is NOT a war but simply the trying to "smoke out" of extremist elements in otherwise fine areas that IMO have relied on said extremist elements because they have no alternatives, that they see as being succesful because H/H take that Iranian money and build an infrastructure thus subverting the gov't. of those areas. H/H could have had their own country by now right next to Israel and Lebanon would be fine right now if H/H would be ok with Israel having the right to exist in peace too.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Any proof of this or are you talking out of your ass again? Power plants and fuel depots around Beirut, to be controlled by Hezbollah, means the entire country and not just the Southern part are controlled by Hezbollah which is entirely silly and spun.

Only the HUNDREDS of statements on every channel and news source that H/H have used millions of dollars to provide schools, hospitals, security, etc. This is just one of a billion articles of prrof I can find:

Originally Posted by article

As everyone knows by now, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, and in retaliation the Israelis have been on a bombing spree in Lebanon - hitting the main airport in Beiruit, and hitting bridges, a TV station, and various other infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

Leaving aside the ethical issues for the time being, let's examine how this plays out.

Facts on the ground:

1) Palestinians and Arab Israelis are outbreeding Israeli Jews.

2) Lebanon is not capable of disarming Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the actual government of southern Lebanon, whether it is recognized as such or not - it provides law, civil defense and most of the social welfare services.

3) Hamas has fractured under the pressure Israel put it under. The civilian leadership and the military leadership do not see eye to eye, and the civilian leadership cannot, at this time, control the military leadership, even if it wanted to. If it re-coalesces under this pressure it will likely do so because the civilian leadership moves over the military position, rather than vice versa (ie. I believe that as tens of thousands of Palestinians die due to infected drinking water, drought and very probably plague, the natural reaction will not to be to give in to Israel.)

4) While in the US and parts of the West this is viewed as having been started by the capture of an Israeli soldier, in the Muslim world this is viewed as starting when the Israelis shelled a beach party.

5) Hezbollah is capable of standing up to the Israeli army indefinitely. They did it before, they can do it again, so long as Syria and Iran (and, possibly, certain Saudi interests) are willing to supply them with arms and aid.

6) Iran and Syria, with the eager cooperation of Israeli hawks, have just opened up another theater against the US. Israel is seen as a US proxy (it's more the other way around, but whatever) and this ties Israel down in a war they cannot win.

7) What Israel is doing, especially in Gaza, is seen by most Muslims as a war crime. The result will be even further hatred, not of Israel, but of the US. As a practical matter, donations in mosques for the Palestinian cause, will increase substantially. While much of that money will go to humanitarian aid, other parts of it will go to military aid for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. If the Palestinians ever get their hands on significant numbers of shoulder SAMs, the Israelis will be in a world of hurt.

8) The US is in full military and fiscal overstretch and bleeding red ink and relative industrial capacity. It is tied down in far east by North Korea, and in the Middle East in Iraq and by Iran.

...and so on, and so on



Needless to say, as everyone already knows, Hezbollah WAS running the show in Southern Lebanon, the airport was an obvious possible transport spot for the kidnapped soldiers OR Hezbollah leadership to leave the theatre. The rest falls under the Hezbollah infrastructure.


Beirut is not devoid of Hezbollah's influence...as if their is some demarcation line they cant cross. We are allowed to have differeing opinions....I feel like yours falls in line and is consistent with your's and Big's opinions on similar things.....so be it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So be it, if Hamas says its war then why are they complaining now? I say it is NOT a war but simply the trying to "smoke out" of extremist elements in otherwise fine areas that IMO have relied on said extremist elements because they have no alternatives, that they see as being succesful because H/H take that Iranian money and build an infrastructure thus subverting the gov't. of those areas. H/H could have had their own country by now right next to Israel and Lebanon would be fine right now if H/H would be ok with Israel having the right to exist in peace too.

I saw the CNN special where the Hezbollah guy was complaining to the CNN guy about the attacks in southern Lebanon. He was whining and asking why etc.

I agree that this guy was full of it. No doubt Hezbollah started the latest confrontation and no doubt alot of the collateral damage was due to Hezbollah being embedded into civilian areas in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah should NOT be complaining.

Don't let me put words into ISiddiqui or MrBigglesworth but I think we are saying go ahead and attach Hezbollah, go ahead and do a mano-a-mano ...

... but we believe there is indisciminate pain to the Lebanese civilians.

You're argument is the Lebanese civilians are intertwined with Hezbollah and this 'kinda' justifies the attacks on power plants, runways etc.

We disagree with this assessment. Lets agree to disagree here.


Just heard on Fox (Hannity) that former CIA director Woolsley (sp?) thinks its a good idea to bomb Syria.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Only the HUNDREDS of statements on every channel and news source that H/H have used millions of dollars to provide schools, hospitals, security, etc. This is just one of a billion articles of prrof I can find:



...and so on, and so on



Needless to say, as everyone already knows, Hezbollah WAS running the show in Southern Lebanon, the airport was an obvious possible transport spot for the kidnapped soldiers OR Hezbollah leadership to leave the theatre. The rest falls under the Hezbollah infrastructure.

And this has whatall to do with bombing of power plants and fuel depots in Beirut? Did someone move it to South Lebanon (which was never mentioned in my post, but nice try at changing the topic) when we weren't paying attention? We aren't just talking about power plants and fuel depots that affect pro-Hezbollah areas, but also in northern Beirut, added to targets north of Beirut that Hezbollah have no access to.

And yes, I've heard the excuse that the airport was a 'transport spot', but can you tell me why after the airport was shut down after the first runway was bombed, Isreal bombed the rest of them? And then when Lebanese workers were repairing one, they bombed that too? Then the fuel depot? Does Hezbollah work the ticket counters there? To say Isreal is not doing this just to punish Lebanon after pulling crap like that, it's utterly absurd!

[Flasch186]

BTW on Larry King right now the HEzbollah guy AGAIN said that it is ALL the Israeli's fault and lied about a quote from Bush saying that Bush said the Lebanon's civilian deaths were garbage. THAT would be all over the news so I dont respect that crap from either side.....and neither should you.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And yes, I've heard the excuse that the airport was a 'transport spot', but can you tell me why after the airport was shut down after the first runway was bombed, Isreal bombed the rest of them? And then when Lebanese workers were repairing one, they bombed that too? Then the fuel depot? Does Hezbollah work the ticket counters there?

1 of 3

repairing

fuel



you answered your own questions


we can disagree. Fine.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

1 of 3

repairing

fuel



you answered your own questions


we can disagree. Fine.

Yeah, they were repairing the airport because eventually they'd have to reopen it! It's the only international airport in the country and people kind of wanted to go home! Not like the airport was in any shape to open after the first runway was bombed... and then Isreal goes ahead and bombs the rest of them.

And yes, airlines need fuel. They also need an air control guy to tell them where to go (there may, you know, be Isreali planes in the area), which requires the airport to be open. If that ain't just punishing a people then I don't know what is.

We can disagree, but I think Isreal's reasons for going after Beirut Airport again and again are total bunch of bullshit with no shread of truth behind it. If they bombed the one runway and watched the airport stay closed then perhaps I can buy into the explination. But the utter devestation they did to that airport? Nah..

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, they were repairing the airport because eventually they'd have to reopen it! It's the only international airport in the country and people kind of wanted to go home! Not like the airport was in any shape to open after the first runway was bombed... and then Isreal goes ahead and bombs the rest of them.

And yes, airlines need fuel. They also need an air control guy to tell them where to go (there may, you know, be Isreali planes in the area), which requires the airport to be open. If that ain't just punishing a people then I don't know what is.

We can disagree, but I think Isreal's reasons for going after Beirut Airport again and again are total bunch of bullshit with no shread of truth behind it. If they bombed the one runway and watched the airport stay closed then perhaps I can buy into the explination. But the utter devestation they did to that airport? Nah..

You're right. Why try to keep pressure on your enemies while a war is going on?

We're not talking about a handful of people that have no power in Lebanon. This group runs a significant portion of the country politically. These are extremists who are given enough power to be dangerous and need to be put down and put down quickly and firmly. These animals need to be removed from any kind of power.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I saw the CNN special where the Hezbollah guy was complaining to the CNN guy about the attacks in southern Lebanon. He was whining and asking why etc.

I agree that this guy was full of it. No doubt Hezbollah started the latest confrontation and no doubt alot of the collateral damage was due to Hezbollah being embedded into civilian areas in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah should NOT be complaining.

Don't let me put words into ISiddiqui or MrBigglesworth but I think we are saying go ahead and attach Hezbollah, go ahead and do a mano-a-mano ...

... but we believe there is indisciminate pain to the Lebanese civilians.

You're argument is the Lebanese civilians are intertwined with Hezbollah and this 'kinda' justifies the attacks on power plants, runways etc.

We disagree with this assessment. Lets agree to disagree here.


Just heard on Fox (Hannity) that former CIA director Woolsley (sp?) thinks its a good idea to bomb Syria.

But the Lebanesee civilians are "interwind" with Hezbollah. They allow them to exist, don't they? If not, then why has the Lebanese government not accepted international pressure to remove them? The government has around 25% of the seats taken by Hezbollah. Also, why don't the citizens move out of the area?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

We can disagree, but I think Isreal's reasons for going after Beirut Airport again and again are total bunch of bullshit with no shread of truth behind it. If they bombed the one runway and watched the airport stay closed then perhaps I can buy into the explination. But the utter devestation they did to that airport? Nah..

Whattya mean man? Didn't you see all of those Hezbollah and Lebanese fighter jets taking off from there?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't know about the actual force, but I know that the UN did pass a resolution for Hezbollah to disarm (the UN has also passed several other resolutions that Israel is ignoring). I would say that it would be very difficult or perhaps impossible for the UN to forcibly disarm Hezbollah.

And a resolution does what? Nothing. They can pass all they want, but it doesn't mean anything until force is applied to make it happen. It's like a stock. You could have $100 in stock, but it's worthless until you actuallly sell it.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Whattya mean man? Didn't you see all of those Hezbollah and Lebanese fighter jets taking off from there?

Weapons and supplies are transported through the airport.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But the Lebanesee civilians are "interwind" with Hezbollah. They allow them to exist, don't they? If not, then why has the Lebanese government not accepted international pressure to remove them? The government has around 25% of the seats taken by Hezbollah. Also, why don't the citizens move out of the area?

Galaxy. Sorry, still don't agree with your assertion. We can debate and parse the definition of 'intertwine' and it won't get anywhere. Using your definition of 'intertwine' you can justify that civilians being hurt anywhere (ex. most if not all adult Israelis in the pizza parlor probably served in the IDF).

However, I do agree with you about leaving southern Lebanon. If I was a civilian in Southern Lebanon, I would have boogied out of there by now. I understand not wanting to leave your house/apartment and most of your belongings to face uncertainty, but anything has got to be better than putting my wife/son/daughter through the risk of being senselessly hurt/killed.

I understand maybe not having any options 'now' (ex. don't hear about Lebanese government opening up refugee camps) but I would have left the area to find a job (ex. northern Lebanon) and relocated my family years ago.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Galaxy. Sorry, still don't agree with your assertion. We can debate and parse the definition of 'intertwine' and it won't get anywhere. Using your definition of 'intertwine' you can justify that civilians being hurt anywhere (ex. most if not all adult Israelis in the pizza parlor probably served in the IDF).

However, I do agree with you about leaving southern Lebanon. If I was a civilian in Southern Lebanon, I would have boogied out of there by now. I understand not wanting to leave your house/apartment and most of your belongings to face uncertainty, but anything has got to be better than putting my wife/son/daughter through the risk of being senselessly hurt/killed.

I understand maybe not having any options 'now' (ex. don't hear about Lebanese government opening up refugee camps) but I would have left the area to find a job (ex. northern Lebanon) and relocated my family years ago.

Well, we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

As for citizens, I do know some are crossing over into Syria.

[Glengoyne]

As for the bombing of the Airport or the other infrastructure, I'm torn. I think it is a bad way to get the people of Lebanon to support the cause for peace and the break from Hezbollah and Syria. Then again the government of Lebanon allows Hezbollah to exist, no to thrive within its borders. They know that they are attacking Israel, and they do nothing about it. I feel the same way about them as I do the Palestinians. If you are a sovereign nation you need to be responsible for controlling the criminal elements of your society. If you have a group within your borders that wages war against one of your neighboring countries, and you do nothing about it, then you deserve to face the consequences of your inaction.

So yes I believe the Lebanese are reaping what they've sowed, but I think it is a bad ploy by Israel.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

If you are a sovereign nation you need to be responsible for controlling the criminal elements of your society. If you have a group within your borders that wages war against one of your neighboring countries, and you do nothing about it, then you deserve to face the consequences of your inaction.

So yes I believe the Lebanese are reaping what they've sowed, but I think it is a bad ploy by Israel.

Let's keep in mind that Lebanon as a sovereign country basically has been in place for about a year. I'm not sure whether or not they would disarm Hezbollah if they could, but they can't. And what is going on isn't really helping to stabilize the country, like you said.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But the Lebanesee civilians are "interwind" with Hezbollah. They allow them to exist, don't they? If not, then why has the Lebanese government not accepted international pressure to remove them? The government has around 25% of the seats taken by Hezbollah. Also, why don't the citizens move out of the area?

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for the bombing of the Airport or the other infrastructure, I'm torn. I think it is a bad way to get the people of Lebanon to support the cause for peace and the break from Hezbollah and Syria. Then again the government of Lebanon allows Hezbollah to exist, no to thrive within its borders. They know that they are attacking Israel, and they do nothing about it. I feel the same way about them as I do the Palestinians. If you are a sovereign nation you need to be responsible for controlling the criminal elements of your society. If you have a group within your borders that wages war against one of your neighboring countries, and you do nothing about it, then you deserve to face the consequences of your inaction.

So yes I believe the Lebanese are reaping what they've sowed, but I think it is a bad ploy by Israel.

Not every country is as powerful as Western European countries within its borders (and Hell, in the case of the US at the Southern border, we don't seem to be all that powerful). Lebanon, which just cast out Syria a year ago, does not have the power to remove Hezbollah! What do you expect them to do, throw themselves against the wall again and again, hoping one day Hezbollah breaks? I don't think any country would decide on perpetual Civil War (ya know, the thing that really killed Lebanon back in the day?) because they aren't strong enough to take out a force.

Realistically, the Lebanese Parliament is pro-US and anti-Syria. Hezbollah is... anti-US and pro-Syria. See the contrast? And if you do, don't you think Lebanon would have tossed Hezbollah if they could?! So blaming a country for not throwing out a rebel force that they don't have the power to throw out is utter absurd!

Hell, the government had its hands full with not being overtaken by Syria again, let alone beginning a new Civil War which it may not have won (not like anyone was volunteering to help the new government with cleaning out Hezbollah... which has control of Southern Lebanon only because of the haphazard way Isreal moved out of the area in 2002 [they never informed the Lebanese militia working under Isreal that they were doing so, and thus were taken by surprised and slaughted by Hezbollah]).