Israel fears Hezbollah anti-aircraft missiles could spark war

[Alamuti Lotus]

Israel fears Hezbollah anti-aircraft missiles could spark war
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

The defense establishment is concerned that Hezbollah will try to smuggle advanced anti-aircraft missiles into Lebanon in the near future - yet another reason for the rising tension on the Israel-Lebanon border. Israel has made it clear in past statements that it will consider such a development as crossing a red line, which might necessitate preventative measures.

It is believed that Hezbollah would like to deploy SA-8 batteries in Lebanon. Such weapons could pose a threat to Israel Air Force jets flying over the country. In recent years, the IAF has conducted regular flights over Lebanon, part of reconnaissance and intelligence missions linked to assessing Hezbollah's military capabilities. In threatening the IAF, the Shi'ite group is hoping to alter Lebanon's military balance of power vis-a-vis Israel.

In the past year, the Arab press has reported several times that Hezbollah would like to deploy anti-aircraft missiles on Lebanon's mountaintops, thereby checking the IAF's freedom of operations.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088178.html


Chutzpuh boldly redefined... how dare those vile fiends try to defend themselves against the enemy aircraft invading their space on a daily basis!

[Arctic Dave]

1. How dare they not allow us to indiscriminately bomb them.

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. It is indeed most nefarious

Potentially disrupting the aggressor's (self-proclaimed) right to fly warplanes over neighboring countries whenever it pleases? Unconscionable.

[oberliner]

3. The Lebanese Army is supposed to defend Lebanon - not an illegal militia group

Hezbollah continues to stand in defiance of the UN Resolution that ended the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

There are supposed to disband as a militia and/or be incorporated into the Lebanese army.

They have done neither and their continued actions are illegal under international law.

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. You'd think, yet instead it serves tea to the enemy

And from another scene of the recital, a right sudden concern for 'international laws' now appears.. rather suspiciously and quite narrowly so, I must say. What is this "international law", and why does it only matter sometimes?

[proteus_lives]

5. "Chutzpuh boldly redefined..."

How dare those war-mongering Israelis defend themselves against a terrorist group sworn to destroy their nation! I mean why would those mean, mean Israelis keep an eye on Hezbollah? Everyone knows Hezbollah is made up of the kindest, sweetest fanatics on Earth! Certainly non-violent!
:sarcasm:

[shaayecanaan]

8. Actually, ground-based anti-air missiles are a defensive weapon...

their use is essentially predicated on another country invading your airspace, as Israel does in the case of Lebanon.

Lebanon is as much entitled to defend its airspace as any other country. I imagine if Mexican fighter planes continually invaded American airspace the US would not hesitate to knock them out of the sky.

[proteus_lives]

9. The government of Lebanon is entitled to defend it's airspace

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and entitled to nothing.

[shaayecanaan]

14. Most governments do not define Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

Only 5 countries have recognised Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. The EU has refused to do so.

In Australia, the Hezbollah ESO is recognised as a terrorist organisation. This is an organisation mainly connected with Iran and which has no working relationship with Hezbollah proper. As such, Hezbollah itself is not recognised as a terrorist organisation.

The difficulty of defining Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation is that it has spent most of its history fighting to evict the Israelis out of Lebanon, which is a perfectly legitimate enterprise as long as one is being illegally occupied by Israeli troops.

[proteus_lives]

15. Really?

Suicide attacks, kidnappings, and control from Damascus say terrorist to me.

[Sezu]

17. Welcome to Newspeak. They is freedom fighters dontcha know.

Fighting for their freedom to annihilate Jews.

[shaayecanaan]

18. A suicide bombing against a military target is terrorism?

So dropping anonymous death on civilians from a brand new Boeing bomber is not terrorism, but suicide attacks on military targets are?

Do you define terrorism as the weak fighting against the strong?

[proteus_lives]

19. So anything Jewish is a military target?

The bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires is a just use of force?

[Alamuti Lotus]

21. The refugee center in Qana was a military target?

Bearing in the back of my mind, I have had discussions in the past with kooks who tried to convince of this point..

Relating to the Buenos Aires event, I have seen compelling evidence suggesting that it not a work of Hizbu'llah was rather the work of a rogue faction that surrounded the sidelined former Hizbu'llah leader and renegade commander Sheikh Subhi Tufayli (this man hates Sayyid Nasrallah with almost as much a burning passion as the usurping entity itself), at the very least it is agreed that it was plainly in revenge for the criminal aggression in Lebanon that led to the murder of Sheikh Abbas Musawi.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Not a proven allegation...

Hezbollah denies carrying out the attack. The attack has been variously blamed on members of Iran's republican guard, the Hezbollah ESA (an Iranian group not under the control of Hezbollah proper) as well as Hezbollah.

As such, the allegation remains an allegation. The CIA has been accused of the 1985 Beirut bombing, does that mean that the US is a terrorist state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombing

[oberliner]

10. This isn't Lebanon defending its airspace - it's an illegal militia doing it

Let us not forget to make that distinction.

[shaayecanaan]

13. It was a militia that fought the American revolution...

and it was militias that fought the Americans out of Vietnam, that established the Spanish state and that founded the Israeli state. There is nothing inherently wrong about militias defending territory if a regular army is unable to do the job.

As far as Security Council resolutions go, if Israel wants to illegally invade Lebanese airspace in addition to its illegal annexation of the Golan and the West Bank then it only seems appropriate that they be shot down by the illegal missiles of an illegal militia.

[Shaktimaan]

43. So then...

you support Hezbollah violating key aspects of the cease fire between Lebanon and Israel in 2006?

I don't understand this thinking. Why wouldn't you support the Lebanese military defending their country instead of a non-democratic, terrorist militia. All of your examples are from the very beginning of their states' establishment. Once a country has a real government they do away with militias that aren't under its control; for obvious reasons. Hezbollah has nothing in common with the minutemen. For one thing, the minutemen didn't refuse to disband after the war was over.

As far as Security Council resolutions go, if Israel wants to illegally invade Lebanese airspace in addition to its illegal annexation of the Golan and the West Bank then it only seems appropriate that they be shot down by the illegal missiles of an illegal militia.

Uh huh. And when Hezbollah decides to initiate a war with Israel again, then would you also deem it appropriate that Israel re-invade?

[bemildred]

44. LOL.

If the law is not enforced and obeyed, then there is a state of lawlessness.
:thumbsup:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. The passive tence here is deeply misleading.

What it actually says is "Israel may start war if Hezbollah gets anti-aircraft missiles".

[Alamuti Lotus]

7. Yes, I was mildly insulted by the apologist tone of the piece, but I let that go

The basic message is hilarious -- if they gain the ability to defend themselves from the criminal regular invasions of enemy warplanes, then that's grounds for another war. But, overflights of warplanes on neighboring states is ok and opposing them is terror.

[oberliner]

11. You also "let go" the fact that Hezbollah is not the Lebanese army and is an illegal militia

Odd how you continue to ignore that pertinent detail.

[Alamuti Lotus]

12. It is not ignored, the matter simply does not interest me..

I have already addressed the main points here -- but alas, it was falling upon deaf ears, or rather blind eyes? I do not mind briefly rehashing, though I have seen that these rounds (on principle I refuse to use the term 'discussions') seem to be scenes plagiarized from Groundhog Day, in that I have watched the same very conversations over and over as if nothing happened:--this doesn't interest me and will not be entertained.

First, my most pressing question -- in your opinion (and bear in mind, by this I require divergence from the script -- I have indeed already read the talking points chambered and was not impressed with the initial readings, a replay is not necessary), precisely what is this "international law" and why does it only matter sometimes?

Seemingly, it does not seem to matter at all when it is against one's side (at this point, it is obviously the ploys of biased and hateful people, secret or blatent anti-semites who are clearly not relevant), but suddenly gains in importance when it rules in favor (presumably those plotting against you briefly left the room as these rulings were passed?). Personally I find the institutions and declarations of hypocrites as something I can really not take seriously at all, so I am at peace to more or less will throw out the matter altogether.

[Howardx]

20. beautiful!

well said!

[oberliner]

23. UN Security Council Resolution 1559

Operant Clauses:

“1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

“2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

“3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

“4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

“5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

“6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

“7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of this matter.”

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm

See clauses 3 and 4.

[Alamuti Lotus]

39. somehow didn't read a word I said there..

this is why I don't bring my "A-game" most times, nobody cares to actually read anything. Miraculously I have read 1559 a time or two before. Basic reiteration of a seemingly basic question -- why does that matter, but none of these ever did?

Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 279: " ... 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 313: " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon".
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

[oberliner]

46. Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with Security Council resolution 425

In resolution 425 (1978), the Council called upon Israel to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory. The resolution also established the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to confirm the Israeli withdrawal, restore international peace and security, and assist the Government of Lebanon in establishing its effective authority in the area. Resolution 426 (1978) established UNIFIL for an initial period of six months.]

In the report, the Secretary-General advises that Israel has met the requirements established in his 22 May report for the implementation of resolution 425.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000618.sc6878.doc.html

[bemildred]

16. It is not illegal, it is part of the Lebanese government.

It is in violation of certain UN resolutions, but that is a state that it shares with numerous other parties that one could mention here, and one other party in particular.

[Kurska]

25. So if the republican party started buying up illegal weapons such as fully automatic rifles

and surface to air missiles and started arming their own extramilitary forces with them, it would be alright because they are "Part of the government". A political organization that is part of a government does not automatically get all the powers of the official government of the land, I would have though you'd understand that, I guess not.

[bemildred]

26. The question was whether it was "legal", not whether it was "alright".

The distinction is important.

[Kurska]

27. Excuse me, it would be ILLEGAL for the republican party to do that.

Just as It is ILLEGAL for hezbollah to do it both under international law and Lebanon's domestic law.

When not working THROUGH the government, even members of the current government are restricted to the same laws as the average citizen. It is the government made up of political parties that has the right to buy such weapons, not the political parties themselves.

This is basic civics, just because I have a seat in the senate wouldn't give me the right to start smuggling in anti-aircraft missles and set them up on mountain tops.

[bemildred]

28. The laws in Lebanon are quite differenct from the laws here.

International law says diddle about whether countries can have militias or not. What the fuck do you think the National Guard is?

[Kurska]

29. First off "smuggle"

The article clearly states "Smuggle", which means they already clearly intend to violate the import laws of Lebanon. Next, Hezbollah is not the National Guard of Lebanon and has no more legal authority to purchase these weapons then does the average lebanese citizen. The reason our national guard is legally allowed to purchase and deploy such weapons is because it is specifically empowered to do so by the government of the land; Hezbollah is not. If Hezbollah as PART of the government was to pass a law that says "Hezbollah is a agent of the government and is allowed to buy any weapons it wants to further it's government approved activities" this would be legal, until then it is not.
Please reference the specific law that allows Hezbollah to buy equipment that is illegal for anyone else but the army to buy.

Next, read the previous UN resolution, Hezbollah is directly referenced and ordered to disarm.


There is no way to spin this action as legal, you can say it's morally right or whatever floats your boat, but it is not legal.

Go take a civics class to learn about governmental sovereignty works, please!


P.S I am well aware that Hezbollah is legally allowed to "Recover and liberate occupied land" by the government of lebanon. That however does not extend to defending the airspace or to purchasing these weapons unless specifically stated.

[bemildred]

30. I have already mentioned the UN resolutions.

YOU specify the law that says Hezbollah is illegal. I did not say they never break the law. The question was whether Hezbollah was an "illegal militia".

[Kurska]

34. When did I say Hezbollah is illegal? I said what they are doing is illegal.

I never said Hezbollah is a "illegal miltia", I said they are doing things that violate the law of the country they are active in. If some backwater "Good ole boy defense league" tried to buy Russian made Anti-Aircraft missles it would be just as illegal as what Hezbollah is doing now.

[bemildred]

36. Then why are you bothering me? I never said they don't do illegal things.

I was responding to a statement that they are an "illegal militia", as anyone who reads well can easily see for themselves. Criminality is pretty much ubiquitous, anywhere you go, it's not something unique to Hezbollah

[Kurska]

37. Well that was much Ado about nothing wasn't it?

You never actually used the term "illegal militia" in your first post and I was just responding to that.

You then seemed to be arguing that what they were doing was infact not illegal, I apologize for the confusion.

[bemildred]

38. OK. nt

[sabbat hunter]

40. there is a difference

the national guard is run by the government. Hizbollah is not run by the government of Lebanon.

[bemildred]

41. There is no "the government", there are various governments.

They have differing relations with each other. Hezbollah is "a government", and it is part of, and has relations with, the national government of Lebanon. Sort of like California and the federal government in the USA. The real point is that it is the business of the Lebanese, and nobody else, generally speaking. Hezbollah will kick the Syrians ass just like it kicked the USA's ass and the Israeli's ass if they meddle too much in Lebanon. Wiser heads would leave Lebanon alone to work out it's own affairs.

[Kurska]

24. Hezbollah can't see the forest or the trees in this matter

If the syrian army can't counter the IDF (I.E the recent reactor bombing their), what hope do the same weapons in the hands of a even less organized and sophisticated group stand?

[azurnoir]

31. I seriously doubt it was the IDF Syria was worried about

you blithely ignore or hope we will the fact that the US under Bush who had pre-approved the attack was sitting in force and most likely with bombers at the ready on Syria's eastern border, and that the then American government had just been internationally "embarrassed" by the recently released report that Syria had been taking in 1,000,000+ Iraqi refugee's created America's mess in Iraq, while America had done squat except create more refugees

[Alamuti Lotus]

33. Please look into the importance of the dates of 5/25/2000 and 8/14/2006

And then repeat the question on what hope the twice-successful force might have against the IDF.

[Kurska]

35. What specifically are you referencing?

No force has ever successfully one upped the IAF, That may not apply to the IDF, but the Israeli Airforce is the supreme Air power of the region and so far has been able to circumvent all Anti Air Systems thrown against it in time.

It isn't invincible and it of course takes causalities, but the IAF has always figured out a way to do what they need to. If Israel wants to do fly overs of Lebanon the only forces capable of stopping them would probably be the Chinese, the Russians or us. I don't think it would take long for Israel to respond with overwhelming force against what Anti-aircraft systems Hezbollah gets their hands on if they start shooting down Israeli planes.

[sabbat hunter]

32. Hizbullah

is not army of Lebanon. They are an illegally armed illegal milita/terror group which was supposed to have been disarmed by the Lebanese government and the UN, but that did not happen.

Now if the Lebanese army wanted to do so, I would have no issues with such actions, but I do with an illegally armed illegal milita.

[Shaktimaan]

42. Your comment is misleading.

Don't forget that the disarming of Hezbollah was a key provision in the ceasefire agreed to in 2006, which effectively ended the war. It was far from an unreasonable request as well.

The 2006 war began following unprovoked attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. Now one of the main criticisms of Israel's response was that since it was not attacked by Lebanon but by a militia, Israel had no right to take extensive actions commensurate with a declared war between two nations. As Hezbollah never disarmed, failing to fulfill their end of the agreement, (while Israel did fulfill their side), I wouldn't consider it unreasonable that Israel began making reconnaissance flights over Lebanon to determine the extent to which Hezbollah was rearming. Especially since the information gathered would ultimately benefit most Lebanese should war break out again, allowing Israel to more precisely bomb Hezbollah's rocket sites, resulting in significantly less collateral damage. After all, it isn't possible for Israel to attack Hezbollah without also attacking Lebanon, even if their war is not against the Lebanese.

Hezbollah poses a genuine threat to Israel and according to agreements signed by the Lebanese government itself, has no right to arm itself. Now you used the word "defend" to describe their actions, though unless they actually attack Israel, provoking a response, I can't see why they would need to "defend" themselves anyway. Especially from simple reconnaissance flights. Israel has never attacked Lebanon without provocation.

Quite simply, Hezbollah does not have the right to arm themselves at all, and especially not with weapons such as these which clearly threaten Israel's ability to defend itself. Now I have no problem at all with Lebanon arming itself with weapons like these, in fact I would consider it entirely appropriate. The argument here is NOT about whether Lebanon has the right to defend itself. It clearly does. The issue is whether Hezbollah has the right to do so and whether doing so even offers greater security to Lebanon in the first place.

The government of Lebanon has a clear responsibility to its citizens; seeing to their protection and well being is its central function. Hezbollah however, has its own motives and goals, which may or may not coincide with the majority of Lebanon's. They do not have the right to unilaterally make decisions about Lebanon's role in international conflicts and should never have the ability to involve Lebanon in a war of Hezbollah's choosing, for reasons of Hezbollah's own. It undermines both the stability of Lebanon and, more obviously, the fundamentals of democracy itself within Lebanon. Whether or not Israel is breaking international law, UNSC Resolution 1701, the ceasefire between their nations, or anything else is truly none of Hezbollah's concern. It should be up to the government of Lebanon alone to decide if and how to appropriately respond to any provocation.

Frankly, I fail to see how anyone could possibly defend the actions of a shadow government arming itself with weapons that should only be available to national governments. Had Hezbollah never attacked Israel then the war of 2006 could have been entirely avoided. Ultimately, the stronger that Hezbollah becomes the bloodier any potential conflict between it and Israel would be. I would think it was obvious that the best thing Hezbollah could do for Lebanon's security would be to abide by the cease fire agreement they signed, not provoking Israel by violating it. They are incapable of offering any real level of security for the people of Lebanon, only the increased likelihood of chaos. Their actions are so much more than merely illegal... they represent the abandonment of the rule of law and a rejection of governmental authority altogether. They represent a dangerous step backwards, away from the collective responsibility offered by governments and nations, towards the primitive tribalism of yesteryear and the breakdown of core tenets of democracy.

[Sezu]

45. The only wads who support Hezb are the same

tools who see the murderous Che as some kind of hero; their ideology nevers extends beyond a college t-shirt level.

[azurnoir]

48. Not unlike some who rarely go beyond soundbytes

and name calling

[Richard01]

47. Israel fears Hezbollah anti-aircraft missiles could spark war

It's about time that someone clipped the IAF's wings.
I lived in Beirut in 1974-5. Israeli jets would come streaking in low, directly over my top floor apartment, on their way to rocket the Palestinian camps in South Beirut. The truly frightening thing was that they looserd their rockets before they passed overhead.
I also witnessed regular sonic booms over Beirut, buzzing of the new airport runway in Amman, and buzzing a Jordanian airliner over Lebanon.
A deterrent would do them good. Hizbollah should cultivate the same kind of ambiguity that Israel uses for its nuclear arsenal, and use them only on the occasion of the next Israeli invasion.
Perhaps Hamas could use some, too, to deter the next Gaza massacre.