Israel is 'preparing for more fighting'

[ECH1969]

Any chance of long-term peace between Lebanon and Israel all but vanished last night after Amir Peretz, the Israeli defence minister, said his country was preparing for another round of fighting.

Mr Peretz spoke only hours after Israeli commandos mounted a raid deep inside Lebanon. Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said it was a violation of the week-old UN ceasefire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

[AusGail]

1. Israel is obviously being provocative.

The fact that they kidnapped the Deputy Prime Minister of Palestine shows what "peace loving" people they are. Even though the Hamas government was democratically elected, the Israeli government is saying that because Hamas is a terrorist organization they are well within their rights to arrest the DPM.

I bet "London to a brick on" that the Israeli army fire the first shot again in Lebanon.

Their popularity is dropping faster than Bush's; and thats saying something.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[toopers]

25. Only problem with Hamas . . .

is that one of their stated objectives is to get rid of Israel.

Israel should be the first to fire because they should never have stopped firing.

[Occulus]

33. .

dupe

[Occulus]

34. Editing like MAD today...

"Only problem with Hamas Al Qaeda is that one of their stated objectives is to get rid of Israel The Great Satan.

Israel The US should be the first to fire because they should have never stopped firing."

This shit is getting awfully fucking stale.

[hack89]

35. I don't understand your post..

is it your point that Hamas is willing to accept the existance of Israel and have removed the offending language from the charter?

[Occulus]

39. No

My point is, we've all heard the exact same before. The only difference is the nouns being used.

BOTH sides have so much blood on their hands that neither side is worthy of anything but contempt. But that's secondary to the fact that we've all heard this before, only a few years ago, and it was all propaganda then. Obviously, other nations have learned from the success of Bushco's propaganda machine.

I'm not fooled. I'm taking the third position: Both Israel and Lebanon are equally responsible for all of the violence, and neither deserves any praise from any of us.

Now, we need to stop spending money on them so our own kids can see a doctor and go to schools that don't leak.

Oh, and to clarify one other point that people seem to be forgetting in all this:

The US should be more important to all of us than Israel will ever be. We should all be screaming from the rooftops about how much money we're sending them. It's obscene, immoral, and plain wrong to do so while (as one, lone example out of hundreds of possibles) we scatter residents of New Orleans to the four winds while failing to repair the Katrina damage.

All that aside, both sides- Israel and Lebanon- should be getting our condemnation here.

[hack89]

40. Thanks - I understand now. nt

[Taxloss]

44. When has anyone said that about al-Qaeda?

Hamas and Hezbollah have both said that they would like to see the elimination of Israel, they said so for years before a-Q even appeared, and they will continue to say so for the foreseeable future, no matter how "stale" you might think it is becoming.

[Occulus]

47. The specifics of the conflict are not important to my point

My point is, the tone and manner of the statements are identical.

I'm saying we've seen this all before, elsewhere. We've all heard the same exact justifications in conflict after conflict after conflict, across multiple borders and involving multiple ethnic groups. The same thing, over and over, and for some strange reason, many people keep buying it all, every time.

I'm not buying what's being sold anymore. All these conflicts should have ended long ago, and it's looking more and more like the only reason this or that nation gets invaded or drops a bomb is because it wants to, for some foolish, imflammatory tit-for-tat, eye-for-eye reason or other. That's all it is, that's all it has been for generations, and at this rate, that is how it will remain.

[theanarch]

55. no, the only problem Israel has with Hamas...

...is that they still exist; hence the illegal kidnapping of as many top Hamas government and party officials as Shin Biet/IDF can get their hands on. Israel was blindsided when Hamas accepted Israel's terms for "legitamcy": unilaterally stop the "terrorist" attacks, and participate in the political process, both of which Hamas did. That's when Israel tightened the screws on the West Bank/Gaza, to provoke Hamas into retaliating for Israel's continued kidnappings, forced exiles, assassinations, bombing of PA (civilian and administrative) infrastructure, arbitrary trade/travel restrictions, withholding the monthly remitance of PA tax revenue, etc., etc...with Israel ratcheting up the provocations the longer Hamas observed the cease fire, and especially after winning the national elections. When, after a full year of not responding, Hamas finally did, Israel screamed 'foul' and cranked up their propaganda machine(s) to accuse Hamas of starting it all...none of which is anything new for Israel.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

15. I used to be the same way.

I lost respect for them when Sharon said that Israelis' lives are worth more than Palestinians'. And then he provoked the Palestinians into the latest Intifada.

[cali]

17. While I heartily disagree

with Israel's actions, comparing it to the SS, demonstrates nothing so much as ignorance.

[RCinBrooklyn]

3. Bush needs them to keep the raids up and continue provoking Iran. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

4. And well they should prepare!

[The Stranger]

5. No, Israel needs to stop launching wars and start the way to peace.

You need to stop the killing and conquest, and start making peace with your neighbors.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. preparing is not launching...

...and the same damn thing needs to happen in reverse!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

22. According to Machiavelli -- it is the same.

Judging from Israel's preemptive attacks in the past, it is also the same.

[Joe Bacon]

7. The nuts running Israel are only going what Hagee wants!

Hagee wants war, and the Insane Clown Posse running Israel will give Rev. Armageddon what he wants.

They will live to regret it!

[dionysus]

9. these guys aren't Juggalos

don't diss the Cowns man

[leesa]

11. I guess Israel's Plan B for provoking Syria and Iran into war is the same

as Plan A. I knew Israel would refuse to maintain the ceasefire.

[msmcghee]

13. Right, Israel should wait until Iran gets a nuke.

That would be a lot smarter and the world would be much better off that way.

[HongKonger]

16. Iran

Iran has not invaded another country in over two centuries.

Mutually assured destruction works for small nations too.

Look at Pakistan and North Korea.

I bet you are rah rahing for the US to nuke Iran.

[msmcghee]

27. MAD worked between the Soviet Union and . .

. . the west for one reason. Neither side was ruled by religious fanatics por mentally unstable autocrats. That and a lot of luck.

With Iran, all bets are off.

[HongKonger]

56. Hahh

Now both sides are...

"ruled by religious fanatics por mentally unstable autocrats."

[Occulus]

29. Just let me edit that a bit...

"Right, Israel's Iraq's neighbors should wait until Iran Al Qaeda gets a nuke."

*YAWN*. We've heard this all before. I didn't buy it then.... and I'm not buying it now.

The packaging is new and improved, but the product inside is as rank and vile as ever.

[Taoschick]

14. The UN dropped the ball

France led the charge to get a cease fire agreement and now they're going to commit what...200 troops? No one is planning on disarming Hezbollah (which the UN demanded years ago) and Europe doesn't want to send any troops to the area because they don't have a clue what their mandate is going to be. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is going to be rearmed and resupplied out of Syria.

Of course Israel is going to prepare for more fighting. They'd be stupid and suicidal not to.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. The UN did not drop the ball.

There is exactly one party that is not abiding by the terms of the ceasefire.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/465/03/PDF/N...

"1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the
immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by
Israel of all offensive military operations;"

Your point about disarming Hezbollah is stated in less categorical terms:
"3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the
Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the
provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant
provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there
will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no
authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;"

The language here matters. Disarming Hezbollah is emphasized as important but is not called for explicitly by this resolution. Attempting to place implementation of 1559 and 1680 above (1) is dishonest to say the least. (3) is simply not a prerequisite for (1). In fact as (1) calls for immediate cessation of hostilities, it is the prerequisite for all other points in this agreement.

Israel has blocked this agreement at step one: immediate cessation of hostilities. You can invent all sorts of rationals for why Israel is doing this, but the facts here are really quite simple: Israel, for whatever reason, has no interest in pursuing peace. Israel has demonstrated that here and now they are a bellicose nation determined to have war.

[Igel]

30. It does explicitly call for not re-arming Hezb.

On the other hand, it does so explicitly: It calls on precisely no one to re-arm Hezbollah, so I guess it has the same problem. It doesn't specify an agent.

Did the Israeli raid seek to disarm or prevent re-arming?

Not to defend Israel, but in this case the terminology seems to be crucial. Or do we say that once the weapons are on Lebanese soil they're "arms" and not "re-arming", so only interdiction of arms in Syria--i.e., a raid on Syrian soil--can qualify as justified peacekeeping? Surely we don't want that particular reductio.

[bemildred]

37. The wording is curious.

It assumes Hezbollah is disarmed, for one thing; and it leaves the issue of supplying ammunition for existing arms hanging.

The question as to what it means in any practical sense to "disarm Hezbullah" is left hanging too. Is one really to expect an examination of every cellar and tunnel and bunker in S. Lebanon to verify that no slingshot or beebee gun remains in the hands of card-carrying Hezbullah members? How is that to be carried out? How is that weapon free situation, once one has attained it, to be maintained without some sort of massive police state surveillance?

But then one assumes the diplomats were so consumed by their haggling over finding verbiage acceptable to all that they had little time for consideration of the practical sense of the result.

[The Magistrate]

46. Diplomatic Language Is Rum Fun, My Friend

"Frankly, Sir, this statement could be taken to mean...nothing...."

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Sorry but it certainly and clearly states that all offensive operations

must stop and it certainly does not exempt this situation nor authorize Israel to enforce any terms of the agreement. The IDF raid was a clear blatant and deliberate violation of the very first term, the very explicit and clear demand for an immediate ceasation of hostilities, the prerequisite for all subsequent terms of the agreement.

Arguments that use the varyingly ambiguous subsequent terms following (1) are sophistry when used to justify the gross violation of the ceasefire by the IDF and the arrogant assertion of more violations to come from the Olmert regime.

Where this a rocket attack by Hezbollah the arguments made in this thread applied equivalently to that hypothetical would be rightly dismissed as absurd dishonest and ludicrous. The fact that we take arguments supporting the insupportable at all seriously when the agent is the state of Israel just goes to show how deep our biases pervade our thought processes and how difficult it is to see through the endless stream of directed bullshit.

[Taoschick]

31. Hezbollah

Led an offensive military operation against Israel when they attacked first.

Israel is no precluded from launching defensive operations. Nothing in the UN cease fire agreement states that Israel must allow Hezbollah to rearm. You are right, the language does matter and since Europe is not doing anything to assist Lebanon in securing the southern part of Lebanon from Hezbollah, Israel is allowedd to take defensive measures.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spazito]

19. So, if Hezbollah were to fire rockets back into Israel, does anyone

think Israel wouldn't cry foul, say THEY have broken the cease-fire yet it seems Israel can breach the cease-fire at will and NO ONE is to say or do anything about it.

It is appalling, not surprising, but appalling.

[0007]

20. ....it is appalling for sure. What did one expect? Soundness of mind?

[plasticsundance]

21. Israel is preparing for a second round

of getting its ass kicked. Looks like the Merkava tank is no match against RPG-29s. RPG-29's cost $500 and the rockets cost $250. How much does a Merkava tank cost? Looks like Israel can't get use to having its ass handed back on a silver platter.

[hack89]

26. This time they will do it right ..

no half-ass ground effort - this time they will put 40,000 ground troops into Lebanon instead of depending on precision bombing. They won't under estimate Hezbollah a second time.

[plasticsundance]

28. Whatta ya mean ... percision bombing?

Israel going to indiscriminately bomb more civilians? You didn't even respond to the specifics in my post. Israel lost 31 troops the weekend prior to the cease fire. They've lost a number of Merkava tanks. This wasn't due to an air assault. This was due to its troops getting an ass kicking.

[hack89]

32. How many deaths per bomb?

If they wanted wanton slaughter they could have killed 10,000 per day - it is very easy when the civilian population lives in high rise apartment buildings. I simply think you and others have no appreciation for the killing potential of modern weapons.

As to the deaths and tanks - you need to look at 67 and 73 to understand what real wars are like and what casualty rates the winning side has to suffer to win. A fundamental tenant of modern war is that the attacking side needs at least a 3 to 1 advantage over the defending force. The Israelis disregarded this rule of thumb because they did not appreciate Hezebollah's training, weapons and defenses. My post simply pointed out that they will not make that mistake again - I have no doubt that they are completely revising their tactics to take in to account the new information they just learned the hard way. They will overwhelm Hezbollah with numbers, fire power and maneuver - if it is true that Hezbollah only has 2 to 3 thousand troops trained to near western standards then Israel will win through attrition alone.

This is just the first battle - all that matters is the final one.

[plasticsundance]

41. Ah ... they didn't appreciate Hezbollah's training ...

That's why Israel is 0 - 2 against Hezbollah. And don't tell me about history. 67 and 73 are no comparisons to the guerilla warfare of today. Hezbollah has plenty of RPG-29s. The RPG-29 launcher cost $500 and each rocket is $250 - $300 dollars, and it can take out a Merkava tank. How much does a Merkava tank cost? 17 - 20 million each?

The Death of a Legend: IDF

[hack89]

45. War is bloody math ...

30,000 trained troops with armor, artillery and air support will defeat a much smaller force without those things.

It won't be a guerrilla war initially- it will be a conventional war of position, firepower and maneuver. By definition a guerrilla doesn't stand and fight against a stronger opponent - if Hezbollah melts away to fight another day then all they have done is given Israel the time they need to find and destroy all the weapons caches and fortifications. If they stand and fight then they will be worn down and destroyed.

If Israel is stupid enough to hang around in Lebanon for months instead of weeks then Hezbollah will be able to wage a guerrilla war - but you then have to ask yourself how many Lebanese citizens will still be in the war zone. How could they survive with no power or water? And without a civilian population to hide among, how can Hezbollah wage a true guerrilla war?

War is not about weapons as much as it is about tactics - for every move there is a counter-move. There are tactics to counter RPG crews - remember that they are short range weapons so an obvious counter would be to detect and engage with long range weapons. Remember that Hezbollah will be fighting from static positions - they are protecting immobile sites such as bunkers and weapon depots. Israel has the long range firepower to neutralize them, especially if Israel takes the kid gloves off and apply the full range of their firepower.

[plasticsundance]

49. Israel is 0 - 2 against Hezbollah

Obviously, Israel is lacking in tactical skills. Israel has yet to neutralize Hezbollah. You keep me apprised when they do.

[hack89]

50. You really think that Israel ..

has fought a no holds barred conventional fight with Hezbollah? Keep believing if you must. Have a nice day.

[theanarch]

53. well, as i tote up the damage to Lebanon...

...over 1,000 (mostly civilians) dead, 10-15,000 wounded (mostly women and children), and a totally devestated infrastructure and economy, that pretty much looks like a "no holds barred" blitzkreig to me...obviously, your standard for such is exponentially higher. Except, i presume, when Hezbollah fires the occasional Katusha into Israel, which, i gather, is 'beyond the pale' of civilized behavior.

[hack89]

57. You have missed the point of my post ...

which was that as violent as the Israeli assault has been, it can get much, much worst. That's all I wanted to say.

I had no intention of minimizing the number of dead and wounded - I simply know that if they wanted to, the Israelis could have killed a thousand per hour instead of a thousand per month. That, to me, is truly "no holds barred."

[Javaman]

23. Honestly, do any of us really thing this is going to end anytime soon?

come on.

that "cease fire" bullshit was just another way for Israel to reorganize it's front and prepare for another round of attacks.

If they were really sincere, they wouldn't have violated the cease fire AND they wouldn't put stupid stipulations upon the UN security force.

More bullshit and mirrors.

They are the water carriers for the U.S.


moron* and his room full of dopes would get a colossal shit storm upon them if they attacked Iran, so they are letting Israel do it's bidding.

Don't have any illusions about this.

[Taxloss]

24. I don't blame them.

They weren't able to win a decisiv victory over Hezbollah, and that's a serious problem for Israel's security. It's entirely sensible to re-equip.

[springhill]

38. It is really depressing sometimes.........

to hear the cheering for Israel to go in and finish the job of destruction which they have alread begun. A lot of warmongers. Very disheartening.

[Taxloss]

42. Where am I cheering?

I'm not mongering any war. Israel needs to be able to defend itself; Hezbollah is the most immediate armed threat it faces in the region; the IDF must be capable of fighting Hezbollah. That doesn't mean I'm rooting for Israel to breach the ceasefire or attack Lebanon in any way, I'm not. It seems like a lot of people here can't hear the word "Israel" without indulging in a kneejerk resort of antipathy that they would avoid when dealing with any other country. "Blame Israel first", right?

[theanarch]

54. pre-emptive/offensive wars of choice...

...are not, and have never been, as a matter of legal or moral "right", considered legitimate self-defense. Period. I don't have a problem with Israel re-arming; but then, i don't have a problem with Hezbollah re-arming either.

[IndianaGreen]

36. America should ditch Israel if we hope to win the war on terror

Israel's occupation of Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian lands is what feeds terrorism. As long as Israel hangs on to lands taken in June 1967, America doesn't stand a fighting chance of dealing with global terrorism.

Israel always wanted to be accepted as a member of the family of nations. Israel's behaviour in Lebanon, however, puts her in the same company as other aggressor states that have been condemned by the global community.

If Israel does not change her behaviour, if she persists in keeping land that does not belong to her, if she continues to oppress the Palestinians, then it is in the American national interest for America to ditch Israel if we hope to win the war on terror.

[Taxloss]

43. What does "ditch" mean in practical terms?

Break off diplomatic relations? Impose sanctions?

[IndianaGreen]

48. Treat Israel as we would any other nation.. no "special relationship"

and no preferential treatment in terms of loans, credits, armaments, etc.