Israel admits air war has failed to end the Hizbollah rocket threat

[bigtree]

August 3, 2006 4:39 PM

McClatchy Newspapers

TEL AVIV, Israel - The Israeli military began preparing to reoccupy southern Lebanon on Thursday, and Israeli officials conceded that their three-week bombing campaign has had no significant impact on Hezbollah's ability to fire short-range rockets into northern Israel.

The dispatch of thousands of Israeli soldiers to retake as much as one-fifth of Lebanon - the operation must still be approved by the Israeli Cabinet - would mark a major expansion in Israel's Lebanon campaign and would reverse Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon six years ago after a troubled 18-year occupation.

It also would complicate efforts in the United Nations to arrange a cease-fire and the creation of an international peacekeeping force to police southern Lebanon.

Senior military officials suggest that Israel may have little choice, however. On Thursday, one official admitted that the air war had failed to cripple Hezbollah's ability to fire the short-range Katyusha rockets, which form the bulk of the militant Islamic group's aerial arsenal.

''They are still in full capacity to attack our villages,'' said the official, who briefed a small group of reporters about the military campaign against Hezbollah on the condition of anonymity. ''In order to stop the firing, we need a major ground offensive against the short-range rockets.''


http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Sectio...

[uppityperson]

1. well, ain't that a pisser

^#(*@^@#!(*!!!!!

[DRoseDARs]

2. Hundreds dead and we've accomplished nothing. Opps, our bad. ^_^

Absolutely sickening.

[paparush]

46. Hmmmm...sounds vaguely familiar...where else have I heard that..

oh yeah..Iraqnam.

[scarletwoman]

3. Gee. Ya think maybe it's because Israel has been bombing the wrong

places? Maybe killing hundreds of children isn't the best way to take out an enemy's military capabilities...

sw

[uppityperson]

4. hard to win a guerilla war by bombing towns

hard to win a guerilla war any way.

[RagAss]

9. good point..in a lot of ways the guerilla war hasn't even started yet...

The tactics are best used against an occupying army...Israel is still an attacking army at this point......

[uppityperson]

16. I hesitated to use "guerilla" war, but it is the best that I can think of

not right, but the best I could do. Now, a hard lemonade later, can think of less better terminology even.

[The Magistrate]

6. There Is More To It, Ma'am, Than That

The target is a hard one to hit. The short-range rockets are readily portable. There is no real physical preparation needed for their firing. Locations are doubtless pre-surveyed, so that people know they only have to go to position A, point to compass bearing B at degree of elevation C, and they can then complete the firing circuit in reasonable confidence the thing will land moments later in the vicinity of a selected town. The crew really should not be exposed for more than a few minutes, providing suitable care is taken in camouflaging their approach to the firing position. Nor would the instances of success in killing a crew really achieve too much, as there is no great skill involved, and there will certainly be other men up to the task in a few hours somewhere else.

Military people the world over, however, are cursed with a "can-do!" attitude, and modern implements of observation and aiming seem to be reacting badly with this native inclination. Every soldier worth his salt thinks he really can do the impossible, that for him, everything will go just right when he takes up a mission. The promise of perfect vision, immediate communication, and perfect accuracy, greatly aggrevates this, producing an over-confidence that leads to convincing assurances to political leadership a thing will be easily achieved, and a good deal of ghastly mess when the attempt is made, and the impossible shows itself, after all, to be something that really cannot readily be done.

The Israeli miltary doubtless thought it would be able to take out a number of launching crews in the act; that it would be able to detect their approach to their launch sites; that at the very least its reaction would be quick enough to kill them as they sought to clear the position after firing. It is pretty evident that was a poor calculation, though it was probably a mistake made in good faith.

A good deal of the Israeli aerial assault has certainly been aimed at points the Israelis believed sheltered groups of fighters or caches of rockets. Doubtless they have on occassion been successful in hitting such points; doubtless on others the intelligence they were operating on was incorrect, and on occassion the point of aim taken by a pilot or gunner was not that he was directed to assail. The intention of spotting fighters moving to a launch point, or fleeing one, has certainly led to instances of ghastly error, in which a spotter or pilot was convinced he had just what he was looking for in his sights, and instead blew a frightened family seeking only to get safely away into smoking fragments. Perfection does not exist in human endeavor, and probably there is no human endeavor with a smaller admixture of it than warfare.

[scarletwoman]

7. Well, at the risk of oversimplifying things - if what you're doing isn't

achieving its stated aims -- not to mention that it's creating an inordinate amount of human suffering -- shouldn't you step back and consider a different course?

sw

[The Magistrate]

8. Indeed They Should, Ma'am

To some degree, it seems they are doing that. Infantry is going in to the hills, and will advance up to the limit of the predominant rocket's range. Hezbollah men are resisting this advance openly, and there is something of a straight up fight going on. Some caches of rockets in position for ready use, and other munitions, will doubtless be uncovered. The Israelis will gain by this mostly some sense among the people of Israel that something has been done, a number of Hezbollah men killed, that will be sufficient for their government to stand down and accept a cease-fire. Everybody has to be able to say with a straight face "We won!" if this thing is going to be stopped.

[scarletwoman]

11. Still, the Israeli government has announced its intent to re-bomb Beirut.

Part of the problem is that Israel seems to be much more casualty-averse than Hizballah. Yes, they are sending in more ground troops -- but they're also stepping up the air war.

Has a guerrilla force fighting on its own ground ever been defeated through arial bombardment? I'm no war historian, so I really don't know.

sw

[bigtree]

12. most observers don't believe Hizbollah can be defanged by force

Annan said it, and the Israelis have said that there will need to be negotiations.

What I don't understand is why they can't see how transparent their approach is. Whatever the reason for the numbers of civilians killed, their deaths don't seem to have had an effect on the ability or actions of Hizbollah. They've actually played into Hizbollah's plan to draw Lebanese closer to their resistance against Israel.

So, what was the point in all of the casualties? These collateral effects are supposed to be balanced against the value of the target. Israel; seems to have gone whole-hog with their campaign, hitting every target they could conjure. The raid on the hospital is a good example of their flawed intelligence. I think their entire strategy has been exposed as a barbaric folly.

But, those who support their campaign will no doubt say the effects were incidental and necessary. I think that's the attitude that drives resistance, that keeps the Lebanese from trusting their Israeli neighbors, that will almost certainly spark yet another wave of resentment and reprisals. That wasn't inevitable. Without the heavy hand of Israel's reprisals, there may have been an opportunity to forge a solid alliance with the lebanese government that the citizens would feel comfortable with. I fear that the assaults will greatly complicate that.

[Selatius]

17. Most guerrilla groups are undeterred by heavy airpower

Guerrilla groups do not have massive base complexes, military facilities, bunkers, etc. that are readily identifiable and targetable.

You need troops on the ground to root out the opponent as a result. Bombing simply doesn't deny the opponent ground to roam, but putting troops in the way does. Unfortunately, you're asking for a bloody confrontation by putting troops into guerrilla territory. America had its own bloody experience in Viet Nam and now Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

69. To Answer Your Question First, Ma'am: No

There is no instance of anything being defeated solely by air power, at least not after people who were its object got used to seeing the fact of flight. The success enjoyed shortly after the First World War by England's "Air Control" policy in Iraq against tribesman unfamiliar with modernity entirely cannot really be said to apply to anything beyond itself. But the devotees of air power are pretty stubborn people, and have long flaunted the battle cry that "This time, it's going to be different!" Unfortunately, as any casino operator can attest, there is no shortage of people who can be impressed by that cry, and so the thing is continually attempted.

Air power can be of great use in operation against guerrilla forces, but only in a close-support role assisting soldiers directy at grips with the guerrillas, and to a lesser extent, depending on the character of the landscape, in an observation role. As Mr. Selatius observed, guerrilla forces have little or nothing by way of a strategic rear that air power can effectively assail. But the whole doctrine of air power is rooted in the idea that such "strategic" targets are its proper object, and close support action an improper subordination of the new to the old, and so the tempation to find something to regard as a "strategic rear" will be very strong among air force planners.

The Israeli air attacks beyond the border regions seem to be aimed at several things that could be viewed, correctly or no, as approximating a "rear" of Hezbollah. One element relates to the Israeli assumption, probably correct in some degree, that Hezbollah was anticipating some fresh supply of weaponry as the confronation commenced and continued, and to the end of hobbling this, the standard communication facilities were attacked. One element relates to the Israeli assumption, again probably correct to some degree, that Hezbollah maintained a goodly portion of its stock-pile of weaponry north of the border area beyond ready reach of a ground assault, and to the end of destroying this places where such stores might be securely held were attacked, and to the end of preventing the movement of the stores into range for use, internal lines of communication were attacked. In this portion, it is quite likely that, whatever the Israelis thought they knew regarding location of stores, they were firing blind in fact, and also that they were nowhere near as good as they thought they were at discerning what was a Hezbollah transport effort rather than ordinary people on the move in fear, or even about their routine business. Another element relates to the standard military doctrine of disabling command and control and incapacitating central leadership, and to this end certain civil facilities were bombed in hopes of disrupting communication, and official Hezbollah sites bombed in hopes of catching officials and generally putting the organization to difficulties. This element of the campaign, standard as it is, probably brought no measureable benefit, as only particularly dim fellows would be near official sites, and the organization will have had numerous alternative and clandestine means of internal communication. It is quite certain the Israelis have not the slightest idea where the Hezbollah leadership is actually located: it would be dead if they did.

[QuestionAll...]

100. human beings think like that, scarlet.

the rational ones that consider human suffering.
We are dealing with something quite different here, reptiles with big bullets.

[chibi]

28. Problem: "The target is a hard one to hit"

Modern Solution: More Bombs Needed

'FUCK PROPORTIONALITY' seems to be our modern war cry

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

71. It's not quite that simple, sir.

Setting up a mobile launch platform of the Katyusha kind requires about 5-10 minutes for an experienced crew. This includes setting stabilizing legs and leveling the launch bed. Very slight errors in elevation and direction can make the launch useless, so care must be taken. The greater challenge comes with the "bug out" after launching. The only reason for being close to a town would be the nexus of escape routes available. They're very well-aware that the launch would be observed and triangulated. They're very well aware that the IDF has road maps and that those maps identify the most probable routes of the mobile launch vehicle away from the site of launch. Their goal would be to find (temporary) cover in about 3-5 minutes, and that would be somewhere in a circle with a 3-5 km radius, assuming a 60 kph speed. "Cover" could be a barn, grove of trees, defile (with camouflage), or cave not too far off the road.

The IDF knows there ain't no target there within about 15-30 seconds of launch. That's about how long it'd take an experienced crew to bug out after launching at a rate of 40 rockets in 20 seconds. It's fucking laughable that an airstrike could be called in on such locations with any expectation of getting the mobile launcher. It would've been a war crime on Viet Nam and it's a war crime now to target a civilian town or village when the enemy is known to have bugged out.

Regarding the "can do" attitude of troops "worth their salt" ... that's pretty much mythical except for newbies, zealots, and REMFs. It's always easy if you're not the one pounding the ground. An open 'secret' about 'Nam was that guys on patrols typically tried to avoid the "enemy." If intel said "they're over there" then guys would say "then we'll go this way." Combat gets old. Fast. Sane people don't seek it.

That's not to say the assholes with stand-off weaponry on the muscular side of an asymmetrical conflict don't get bravado and fall in love with their toys. They do. It's easy to spout bluster when you're firing the long guns from a 'safe' place.

I'd be willing to bet that the IDF is firing at targets by guess and by bad intel. It's more important to have a target than be sure it's a good one. "Those" people don't count. Period. That's the way of warfare. If combatants worried about "their" safety they wouldn't be in the military.

[The Magistrate]

92. Thank You For These Comments, Sir

My knowledge of these matters is theoretical, and your's is practical.

We do seem to be in agreement on some points, most particularly that a lot of the shooting is based on guess and poor intelligence, and that a good part of the problem is the romance of the high-tech gear, which promises a good deal more than it can actually deliver.

[bunyip]

120. The Magistrate and Tahitinut

Thank you for your informative posts. One reason DU is such a good place to go for news...

[Swamp Rat]

108. Great post

What are "REMFs?"

[TahitiNut]

111. Rear Echelon Mother F___ers

Also, POG = People Other than Grunts (that was me, most of the time)

[Swamp Rat]

115. Ahh, someone like Donald Rumsferatu

REMF



Thanks for the info.

[JackNewtown]

5. Occupation, occupation, occupation

When will Israel ever learn?

[EVDebs]

31. Preoccupation, preoccupation, preoccupation

when will the Arabs ever learn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nonie-darwish/the-muslim-...

Leave Israel alone and maybe those failed states could thrive. Also, it's beyond me why Israel hasn't destroyed Lebanon's water infrastructure yet. You can fast for 40 days but you'll only last about a week without water...

[chimpymustgo]

33. Maybe, cause they want that water for themselves.

Murderous bastards.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[sangfroid]

41. Very interesting point...

in the course of "mistakenly" bombing a UN observation post, Israel killed military observers from countries like Canada (and this after repeated warnings to the Israelis from the observation post that the bombing was getting too close). According to Israel's usage of the laws of war, this means Canada can bomb Tel Aviv. Silly, of course, yet Israel likes to pretend they are above such considerations.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[EVDebs]

42. Obviously Israel HASN'T destroyed those water infrastructures

...since it's survival isn't at stake yet. But now that you mention it, once those Iranian-supplied missles to Hezbollah start ending up in Tel Aviv, don't you think retaliation for THAT particular war crime would take various forms ?

[funnymanpants]

59. Israel already commited war crimes

Israel has already been acused of Human Rights Watch of committing war crimes. See my post below in which I show how Israel is "deliberately" targeting civillians.

Israel's existence has never been at risk. Two soldiers were kidnapped. This is reprehensible, but Israel holds 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, most without charges, a practice condemned by human rights groups. Many--if not most--of these prisoners are kidnapped. Are you advocating that Irael also be destroyed because of its actions, or do you have a double standard? If Israel had not started the war, then it would have lost around ten soldiers. This doesn't mean its existence is threatened. The US lost 200 Marines in the 80's by Hezbollah. Did we suddenly cease to exist?

Even now that Israel is in a full scale war its existence is hardly at stake. Hezbollah has killed less than 50 people. Life goes on as normal in most of Israel.

If Israel destroys Lebanon's water supply, then it will be a heinous war crime, regardless of what Hezbollah does. Destroying the water supply would kill tons of innocent civillians and would not be considered a valid military attack. In warfare you are supposed to fight the enemy and not punish the civillians; otherwise you are committing war crimes.

By the way, the missile that hit Quana was USA-made. So if we are going to start saying that Iran is evil for supplying the missiles to Lebanon, is the US evil for supplying Israel? During the second Intifadah, Amnesty International begged the US not to supply Israel with more hellicopters because Israel was using them to mow down Palestinians. The US supplied double its normal amount.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Is HRW filing or just like Jennin they will eat

humble pie after the fact? When is HRW filing?

[funnymanpants]

64. Doubt it

HRW is Human Rights Watch. They have already done the report and you can read it. (It should be easy to find.)

As far as Jenin goes, I don't know what you mean. The human rights groups did find human rights violations in Jenin, and all over the occupied territories. One thing the Israeli soldiers did is use Palestinians as human shields. Security Council Resolution 1405 called for Israel to allow the UN to come in and inspect Jenin. The resolution is legally binding but Israel ignored it.

[The Magistrate]

65. What She Means, Sir

Is are they actually going to attempt to bring this matter before the International Court of Justice, and thus subject the matter to real legal review, in which all parties have an opportunity to present evidence, and arguments over the actual applicability of the various laws.

Human Rights Watch does pretty decent reports, in my view, but they are far from final authority on whether crimes have occured in every instance they believe it possible a crime has occured. The organization has, in course of a fairly hurried effort, identified a number of cases in which its investigators are unable to find any military object to an attack. But its investigators have not had any opportunity to interview Israelis involved, or any access to the Israeli orders and communications surrounding these actions, and therefore can have no idea what was the actual intent, or possible misapprehension in good faith, the persons who made them were acting in accord with, and these are very important items in determining if a crime has actually been committed. In describing its investigation, the organization commendably states that it identified a number of instances that were clearly legitimate attacks, and acknowledges that there were a number of instances in which it was prevented by Hezbollah authorities from pressing any inquiry into whether Hezbollah fighters or munitions were present at points the Israelis attacked. There have been literally thousands of aerial sorties and artillery bombardments, and the identification of even several dozen incidents that may well have been violations of the law is hardly so damning as some would prefer to present it as. The organization has also stated that Hezbollah bombardment of towns by rocket, and taking up positions where non-combatants will be endanged by enemy fire at the fighters, constitute violations of the law, an element of its report ommitted from many citations of it.

The organization itself has a certain bias, not against any one side of any conflict, but against the use of force itself, which is perfectly natural and even commendable from certain angles. But it is accordingly inclined to take the most stringent view of the applications of the regulations in the relevant treaties, and accord the employers of force very little lee-way in assessing their actions against this view of the questions. The text is often open to different and more lenient interpertation, and a great deal of it has never been applied in any court to the actual facts of a case at trial, which introduces a degree of uncertainty into anyone's view of what it actually means. A panel of judges hearing a case might agree with the view of Human Rights Watch, and they might not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Which is EXACTLY what happened at Jennin

and many other cases where HRW has issued reports... widely cited, but later found to be not quite what happened.

In fact, when the Jennin investigation was opened Israel was pressured to allow the ICRC investigators into the ground. Once they were done, they found that the story was closer to what the Israelis had reported (regarding human shield use and use and abuse of protected vehicles, read ambulances)... they were smacked for other things, that were rather technical.

[funnymanpants]

72. No they weren't

You are not being specific at all and are just repeating vague generalizations. Human Rights watch was never smacked in the face--you are absolutely wrong there.

The UN demanded an investigation, and they were not let in. This is a matter of fact. Israel violated UN Security Council 1405. So in fact a deinitive UN report, in which Israel would have cooperated, was never issued. Israel defied international law. That is just a matter of fact.

So I don't know who you mean when you say they got smacked. And yes, Israel did use human shields in Jenin.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/05/03/isrlpa3899.htm

In its forty-eight page report, "Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories: Jenin: IDF Military Operations," Human Rights Watch identified fifty-two Palestinians who were killed during the operation, of whom twenty-two were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed willfully or unlawfully. Human Rights Watch also found that the IDF used Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. HRW was not smacked

Israel was, and the Palestinian Red Cross was... the ininial report by HRW was taken into evidence and soon found its way into what really happened... Never said HRW was smacked.. read please

[funnymanpants]

76. Makes no sense

This doesn't even make sense.

So then who was smacked? And I don't think it is fair to tell me to "read please." Your posts are very vague as to who was smaked and how and when. Sorry if I misunderstood them, but I don't think I can be blamed (right??).

Could you please be more specific? I don't know if HRW even did two reports (it is possible, of course).

Edit: As my link shows, it is not true that Irael was cricized only for minor things. HRW criticized it for willfully killing human beings, one of the worst offenses possible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. When are tehy filng?

last time they did was over Jennin and the ICRC did not find that HRW was correct... in their very general charges.

is this too general for you?

[funnymanpants]

83. C'mon, be specific--Israel found guilty in Jenin, right?

Of course it is too general. What report? Can you provide me with a link to show that the ICRC found HRW wrong? I followed this very closely at the time and I don't remember what you claim.

What I remember is that there were rumors of a massacre in Jenin, and in fact Amnesty International stated that the evidence so far (from what they had seen) pointed to a massacre. In fact, 55 people were killed, which seems like a massacre to me. Some rumors were claiming hundreds and hudreds were dead, and of course it was only 55. But that is a matter of rumors versus reprort; you can't blame the human rights reports for rumors. In any case, this matter concerns Amnesty, not HRW.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Wrong go on do some research on your own

I am not going to do it for you.

Israel was warned on some technical points, the Palestinian Red Cross was censured for allowing its vehicles and personnel to carry weapons, bombs and fighters... and the charge that human Shields were used was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By the way, when the ICRC went on the ground NOBODY expected this result, let alone the Israelis.

But you NEED to do some research, if you can't not my problem and I am done with discusion. Once again when is Human Rights Watch filing these very serious charges with the ICRC? I want them investigated. For that to happen they need to file

[funnymanpants]

90. In other words, you have absolutely no proof! Israel is guilty as I said

This is pretty funny. You make an allegation and then expect me to find proof for your allegation. Of course I can't find it because it doesn't exist! How am I supposed to find a report that doesn't exist?

I further linked you to the UN report itself, quoting from it to show that the ICRC was not let into Jenin. So I did do proof.

So your allegation are completely unfounded. If you want to play this game, I can say "It was shown that the earth is in fact flat. I am NOT doing the research. Prove it yourself."

Again, the UN was not allowed into Jenin, so you are blowing smoke, and I think you know it.

[funnymanpants]

75. False logic

>>There have been literally thousands of aerial sorties and artillery bombardments, and the identification of even several dozen incidents that may well have been violations of the law is hardly so damning as some would prefer to present it as.

That is false logic. Human Rights Watch cannot investigate every incident. Your post makes it sound like they investigated thousands of sorties and only came up with a few violations. What if found is a pattern of violations in the cases it investigated.

As far as interviewing the Israelis, the Israelis won't let it happen if history is an indication. As I posted below, Israeli refused to do allow an investigation into Jenin. Likewise, Israel refuses to follow the Hague's ruling that the wall it is building is illegal and should be torn down.

I don't know why you think Human Rights Watch is biased against the use of force. In your own post you state "the organization commendably states that it identified a number of instances that were clearly legitimate attacks." Human Rights Watch knows international law a bit better than you do, sir, and they know that force is allowed in war, but not force that targets civilians.

Beyond this, your post is full of vague generalities. I am going to trust Human Rights Watch over generalizations, obviously, especially since every human rights group in the world that has looked at Israel's behavior--Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Human Rights Commission, Doctors without borders, B'Tsleem (based in Israel) and a Palestinian human rights organization have found Israel guilty of grave breaches in human rights. For example, in 2000 the UN Human Rights Commission found Israel guilty of "deliberate killing" and "torture." The report was approved by over 140 nations, with only the US and Israel voting not to approve. I really don't think 140 nations are wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Yet Jennin WAS investigated by the ICRC

As to the wall, you are corect, and hopefully cooler heads will soon prevail and solve this to everybody's satisfaction and within the boundaries of International law

[funnymanpants]

81. Sorry, you are wrong

As I said before, the UN was not allowed to investigate. It could not investigate Jenin because Israel refused to let it investigate.

http://www.un.org/peace/jenin /

The report was written without a visit to Jenin or the other Palestinian cities in question...

...

In the light of yesterday's announcement by the Government of Israel, it seems evident that the team will not be able to proceed to the area and begin its mission in the near future

...

The occupying forces, even after the end of the Israeli military actions in the Jenin camp, continued to prevent international humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and UNRWA, from entering the camp

...

I don't know what you mean by the ICRC report.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. ICRC stands for International Committtee of the Red Cross

they are based in Geneva and yes THEY DID do an invenstigation

ICRC is NOT the UN

[funnymanpants]

85. Oh please! Israel guilty in Jenin, did not let UN investigate

Then show me a link with proof and what the report said. I showed you a link that showed that Israel did not let the ICRC in after the conflict.

Proof, please, instead of your vague assertions. Now I have been factual. I claimed all along that the UN was not let in, and I am 100 percent correct. The ICRC works with the UN (in fact, are they part of it?) so I don't see why Israel would have let the ICRC in when they didn't let the UN in.

And further, I didn't know that the ICRC does human rights reports. If what you claim is true, show some proof.

On edit: it seems I am 100 pecent right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,688959,00...

The allegations came as the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, named a fact-finding team to look into the 10 days of fighting in Jenin between the Israeli military and Palestinian militants. It will be led by the former Finnish president, Martti Ahtisaari, who will be joined by Sadako Ogata, former UN high commissioner for refugees, and Cornelio Sommaruga, the ICRC's former head.

Here's the timeline:

The ICRC plans going to team up with the UN. Koffi Annan called for an investigaion. (According to the article above.)

Resolution 1405 is passed, calling Israel to let the UN in (and also the ICRC, which was teaming up with the UN.)

Israel refuses.

The UN issues its report, clearly showing that both the UN *and* the ICRC (see post above where I quoted the report) were not let in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. They were there, I am done

google jenin and ICRC

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList393/A6B...

From their official website, they were there... but I am sure you will claim otherwise, welcome to my ignore list

[funnymanpants]

93. Wow! Your link does not show what you claim

Your own link only shows that the ICRC was at times in Jenin. And exactly as I quoted above, they were also denied at times.

But where is the report you are talking about? You made a big claim that the ICRC proved HRW wrong. Your link only shows that the ICRC was in Jenin at times--not that they issued a report.

Your claim is completely unfactual.

[The Magistrate]

101. Here, Ma'am, Is A Link To The U.N. Report

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/jenin.ht...

It contains some interesting comments worth highlighting....

32. Of particular concern is the use, by combatants on both sides, of violence that placed civilians in harm's way. Much of the fighting during Operation Defensive Shield occurred in areas heavily populated by civilians, in large part because the armed Palestinian groups sought by IDF placed their combatants and installations among civilians. Palestinian groups are alleged to have widely booby-trapped civilian homes, acts targeted at IDF personnel but also putting civilians in danger. IDF is reported to have used bulldozers, tank shelling and rocket firing, at times from helicopters, in populated areas.

53. That the Israeli Defence Forces encountered heavy Palestinian resistance is not in question. Nor is the fact that Palestinian militants in the camp, as elsewhere, adopted methods which constitute breaches of international law that have been and continue to be condemned by the United Nations. Clarity and certainty remain elusive, however, on the policy and facts of the IDF response to that resistance. The Government of Israel maintains that IDF "clearly took all possible measures not to hurt civilian life" but were confronted with "armed terrorists who purposely concealed themselves among the civilian population". However, some human rights groups and Palestinian eyewitnesses assert that IDF soldiers did not take all possible measures to avoid hurting civilians, and even used some as human shields.

57. It is impossible to determine with precision how many civilians were among the Palestinian dead. The Government of Israel estimated during the incursion that there were "only dozens killed in Jenin … and the vast majority of them bore arms and fired upon forces". Israeli officials informed United Nations personnel that they believed that, of the 52 dead, 38 were armed men and 14 were civilians. The Palestinian Authority has acknowledged that combatants were among the dead, and has named some of them, but has placed no precise estimates on the breakdown. Human rights organizations put the civilian toll closer to 20 — Human Rights Watch documented 22 civilians among the 52 dead, while Physicians for Human Rights noted that "children under the age of 15 years, women and men over the age of 50 years accounted for nearly 38 per cent of all reported fatalities".

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Thank you I read it a while back

and I knew that they were smacked, the Israelis but also the Palestinians. By the by the Israelis were PLEASANTLY surprised by the report for they expected something far more damming and they found something far less damming

This does not excuse either side.

[funnymanpants]

109. I already linked to it

And as I said above, Israel did not let the UN in. Here's from the very top of the link:

>>The report was written without a visit to Jenin or the other Palestinian cities in question and it therefore relies completely on available resources and information,

Point 53 has absolutely no validity. It is simply a quote from the IDF. Do you really think the IDF is going to say something else? In fact, the same goes for point 32. No defnitive conclusions were able to be drawn; the UN had to rely on claims from both sides.

Once again, Israel did not let the UN into Jenin, in violation of 1405.

[The Magistrate]

114. Do You Seriously Think, Sir, That Carries The Slightest Weight?

There is nothing magic about treading on the ground. Most historical work and much investigation is based solely, and quite reliably, on "available sources and information". There is generally quite a lot of it about, and persons interested in what actually happened, rather than in what it would be convenient for their predisposition to have occured, consult it all and attempt to synthesize the various accounts into an accurately weighted whole.

The two points you have some difficulty accepting are statements of what the United Nations investigators concluded were facts. You may have noted that in the second of these paragraphs, the U.N. investigators state it as fact beyond question that "Palestinian militants in the camp, as elsewhere, adopted methods which constitute breaches of international law that have been and continue to be condemned by the United Nations." You may well find that fact, as well as some others, inconvenient to your view of the matter, but reality is not required to shape itself to your convenience. Persons who insist on holding one party in a conflict to a standard they do not hold the other party to cannot really expect anyone to take the charges they make seriously.

"When confronted by conflicting versions of events, choose the one that shows people at their worst."

[breakaleg]

107. wikipedia says Israel refused to let the UN investigate as follows:

UN fact finding mission
To settle the contradictory claims, a fact finding mission was proposed by the United Nations on April 19 2002. Israel initially agreed to co-operate with the inquiry, but demanded a set of conditions to do so. Among the conditions, Israel demanded that the mission should include anti-terrorism experts (this was supported by one Amnesty International advisor<37>), that the UN agree not to prosecute Israeli soldiers for potential violations of international law, and that it limit its scope exclusively to events in Jenin.

The UN refused to accept the last two conditions and were forced to ultimately disband their mission. Israel argued that the conditions under which the UN proposed the mission were unfair, as the UN did not agree to give the anti-terrorism expert full membership, would not give the mission a strict mandate, nor declare the mission solely investigatory (as opposed to having a judicial purpose). According to Israel, all three positions violate of the UN's own principles (as stated in the "Declaration on Fact-finding by the United Nations", A/RES/46/59 of December 9, 1991).

On May 7, 2002 the UN General Assembly condemned both the "assaults against Palestinians by Israeli occupying forces, particularly in the Jenin refugee camp" and the refusal to cooperate with fact-finding team <38[br />-----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin_2002#Human...

[The Magistrate]

89. The Organization, Sir

Stated that it made every attempt to investigate every instance involving civilian casualties. It acknowledged that many were wholly legitimate, and that many others it was prevented from investigating on the ground by Hezbollah. It found a number of instances it was allowed to investigate that it felt had no military justification, and feels that this indicates Israeli procedures do not incorporate sufficient safe-guards against doing harm to civilians.

No state is under any obligation to allow a private body access to its records of military operations. No state ever does this, save in the form of release of official histories and the like, and archival research long after the events by historians. The ruling by the I.C.J. regarding the security barrier was not legally binding on Israel or anyone else: it was an advisory ruling solicited by the United Nations, on whether the matter came properly under the Geneva Accords, which the court, correctly in my view, ruled that it did. There the matter rests, and will rest until some body successfully pursues a binding remedy, which none has to date.

No real point would be served by digressing into the question of Jenin, but the Human Rights Watch report on the matter, actually read all the way through, is quite different in its import from your sketchy characterization of it. It reports, for example, that a decided majority of the Arab Palestinians killed in the fighting there were indeed combatants, or killed legitimately incidental to engagement with combatants. To anyone with knowledge of the historical record concerning house to house fighting in populatede areas, that is evidence not of callous disregard for non-combatant casualties, but of unusually scrupulous care to avoid them, for in such actions the civilians generally comprise a majority, and often a great preponderance, of the dead and injured.

My characterization of the group as being somewhat biased against the use of force in general is hardly a disparragement of it, but simply an acknowledgement of what sort of person an organization dedicated to the miigation and reduction of harm to persons by violent actors will attract: would you consider it a disparragement to observe that a guild of chefs had a bias towards gourmet dining in commenting on what people should or should not eat? The organization has always struck me as a good one, doing valuable work, but holding it in high regard does not require me to agree with everything it says or take my views undigested from its publications. The A.C.L.U. is similarly a fine organization doing valuable work, but there are times it seems most regretable to me that it has taken a case or provided a lawyer.

On a final note, while some organizations have expressed their opinion on this matter, only a court can find anyone guilty of anything, whether of failing to pay parking fines or of grave breaches of the laws of war. There have certainly been charges made, and that is all.

[funnymanpants]

94. You are trying to apologize for Irael human rights violations

Your first paragraph just supports what I said.

Your second paragraph is just an apolgy for Israel's illegal actions. Let me translate for everyone else the magistrate's bombast: Yes, the Hague found Israel guilty, but Irael chooses not to follow the ruling, and since it is powerful and has the backing of the US, the rest of the world can go suck eggs. Or, if you want a shorter translation, might makes right.

Your third paragraph simply states that Israel didn't violate international law for every single attack. No kidding. I never said they did.

Your third paragraph is full of a lot of words, but doesn't even address my point. I said that HRW is not biased against force. You then try to say that you didn't try to disparage HRW. I never said you did. You have avoided my contention, namely that HRW does not seem biased against force (as your own post showed) and it knows international law better than the magistrate.

As to your last point, yes organizations can find other organizations guilty. You need to look up the word. You are confused. What you mean is that some guilt may not be legally binding.

You might also want to read Orwell's "History of the English Language," in which the author shows that when we want to justify crimes, we resort to non-concrete vague language, such as you use in your post. Or maybe you should just look up the word bombast in a literary reference guide. You might be surprised that being vauge and making your point with more words than necessary is not only boring but considered bad style.

[The Magistrate]

97. My Comments, Sir, Express My View Of The Matter At Hand

No one is under any more obligation to agree with you than with me. Anyone who ventures to comment publicly on this matter is going to find people who disagree with them, and find further that they cannot be made to go away, but will continue to press their views as it suits them to do.

Once the Sage wrote: "The King has his executioner, but you are not that man. If you try and be him, it would be like trying to cut wood like a master carpenter. If you try and cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand."

[funnymanpants]

98. In other words, you have no response

You can't refute my points except with cliches. Yes, no kidding people are going to disagree. But maybe if they read this thread they would want to know why they should believe your posts that Israel is not guilty of "deliberately" targeting civilians. Their conclusion might be to doubt you and believe HRW, since HRW was very specific and an expert, and you are simply vague and evasive.

I don't know what your quote is trying to show. And who the heck is the sage?

I have an advanced degree in literature, by the way, so I'm not very impressed when someone just drops a quote that has no context and is attributed to some person called the "Sage."

[The Magistrate]

102. In Other Words, Sir

It is nearly time for dinner, and my policy remains to say a thing once and leave it to the reader to compare and contrast and draw his or her own conclusions....

"I'm going home now. Somebody get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[sushi]

86. Some time ago

I read, right here on DU, that it would probably be best if Israel moves to somewhere in the US. After all, Israel does seem, to the world, to be a part of the US. In the past, in the UN, isn't Israel supported by only the US and two countries under its (US) influence, the Marshall Islands and one more bunch of islands? Why is that?

Doesn't Israel get tired of forever having to fight its neighbors? For starters, on the path to peace, how about releasing those thousands of prisoners, especially the women and children? Are the US and Israel always right, and the rest of the world always wrong?

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. That is part of the antisemism of the left

by the way you truly think that if Isreal went away the ME woudl fall into kumbaya?

[ShortnFiery]

104. The point is that you can NOT fight an ideology with military might ...

That's why we lost in Vietnam and why we will be driven from Iraq.

The ONLY way to get people who HATE you to change and seek peaceful solutions is to grant them political power.

Israel should have the opportunity to grant citizenship to anyone who is peaceful and has a genuine desire to be a part of an INTEGRATED STATE.

When the state of Israel is truly democratic and integrated with peaceful Arab FULL citizens, with a FREE Palestine, THEN and only then will they have peace.

The answers are Public Relations, Works Projects, Political Clout and most important - INTEGRATION.

If you lift up the people of Palestine and recognize the POLITICAL side of Hamas and Hezbollah, they won't feel oppressed. Then like the IRA they will give up their weapons for political power.

War only breeds hate and increasing number of enemies for GENERATIONS to come.

[sushi]

112. I so agree with you

I don't understand why Israel doesn't want to deal with Hamas, which has been democratically elected. Call Hezbollah a terrorist organization, the reality is that it is part of the Lebanese government. Seems to me that Israel, backed by the US, wants to dictate to the countries in the area. The West must stop bullying and patronizing other countries. Why is Ms Rice talking about a "new Middle East?" The ME should not be what the West wants it to be but what the people in the Middle East want it to be!

[sushi]

110. No, I don't

I think they (Sunnis and Shiites) will fight each other, but outsiders must not get involved. I think the West should stop meddling in the ME (trying to force democracy on them). Let them live their lives the way they want, .......but of course we're there because we need their oil! Instead of alienating them we should become their friends! I do think many people in the West can't accept that the world is changing. There are other countries coming up and wanting a leading role. People don't want to be dominated by the West (read: the US). Flame me, but I think it's only natural that Iran wants to become a leader in the ME.

I was thinking that the West is lucky the Muslims are divided (Sunnis and Shiites) and I heard the pundits on on TV are already discussing how to take advantage of that fact (divide & conquer), but earlier I saw on TV that in Iraq the Sunnis & Shiites are demonstrating TOGETHER against Israel and the US! Lebanon's suffering is driving them to unite!

[ShortnFiery]

113. But don't you see? Their plan is working PERFECTLY

We erroneously assume that The Executive Branch wants peace and democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth!

There's a multitude of Defense BIG BUCKS to be made by blowing shit up and then building it back again.

Think about PROFIT? The Large Corporations that support Bush-Co. are making a killing (in more ways than one!) and will continue as long as there is PERPETUAL WAR.

Then, Georgie wants to send KBR in to help build back the infrastructure. Our troops will come in to train the Lebanese, give them weapons ... SO ... there can be endless waring.

The huge Corporations that are making record profits in addition to The Oil Companies - will continue to rake in MEGA-PROFITS.

They don't care if this country goes broke. Can't you see, this Administration is all for War and War Profiteering. After all, it's GOOD for big business.

[treestar]

43. Oh bull. Then you'll just have the "settlements."

[EVDebs]

47. So Israel should adopt Hezbollah's tactics of indiscriminate rocket

attacks on foreign soil ? This should satisfy all moral concerns then using your logic.

[Ms. Clio]

48. self-delete dupe

[Ms. Clio]

49. It is simply loathesome to see the name of a great man who was imprisoned

for his anti-war protests attached to barbarities such as this: "it's beyond me why Israel hasn't destroyed Lebanon's water infrastructure yet. You can fast for 40 days but you'll only last about a week without water..."

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[EVDebs]

54. "Yet" was the operative word. Keep lobbing missles into Israel

and that might be viewed as the least of the barbarities ! What weapons does Israel have in its stockpile ? Let's kick that dog and see if we get bitten.

BTW, I think I know which side Debs was on during Matewan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan

[Ms. Clio]

55. Keep bombing the crap out of Lebanon

see what barbarities blowback onto our own shores.

[EVDebs]

56. Wake up calls

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nonie-darwish/the-muslim-...

[Ms. Clio]

60. I find it too disturbing to see the name of one of our greatest pacifists

used to promote such evil rhetoric.

Ciao.

[funnymanpants]

62. Please answer the posts

You are advocating brutal killing and are doing so because many Arabs are racist against Jews.

In post 37 I document just a few instances of Israeli racism.

Instead of answering my post, you keep linking to the same article. As I state below, Arab racism does not excuse Israeli brutatality. Remember, human rights groups have found Israel guilty of "deliberate killing." Israel is also building new settlments in the occupied territories, pushing the Native Palestinians off. So I think Irael's actions speak louder than Arab rhetoric.

[EVDebs]

118. If someone attacks Israel only a fool wouldn't expect a response.

I can document Arab racism toward Jews, does that make both any better ? I kept posting that article hoping you'd read it. Apparently you haven't and think the 'stay the course' route in the Arab world is somehow working for the Arab people; it isn't.

[ShortnFiery]

105. I have lost all respect for Huffingtonpost ... there is NO balance :( eom

[EVDebs]

119. Nonie Darwish not 'fair and balanced' ?

""Nonie Darwish, who was raised in the Gaza Strip, moved to Egypt after her father, who lead the fedayeen guerilla operations against Israel, was assassinated by the Israel Defense Forces in 1956 and then moved to United States, is a freelance writer, public speaker and interpreter.""

Maybe she, like Sadat--who lost his brother in fighting the Israelis--knows more about fair and balanced than you do.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[The Stranger]

67. Your post sounds as if you want it to get worse.

[EVDebs]

116. You know better.

Israel has atomic weapons and worse. Arab military strategy is a state of 'perpetual war'. You know where that leads.

Since 1948 armed confrontations with Israel have gotten Arabs where ? I've seen the 1948 boundaries of Israel and I've seen the 1967 boundaries including occupied territories. Arabs, at this rate will never settle with Israel. There's always an armed confrontation/provocation.

I don't want it to 'get worse'. There's an Arab saying, 'he who shows the sword must use it'. Hezbollah has its version on its flag, kind of like the Saudi flag only updated.

I want Israel to be at peace. I don't think some of these other posters here at DU want Israel to exist at all. In fact, lets get them on record regarding that.

[bunyip]

121. You know better.

The United States has cannons and worse. Native American strategy is a state of 'perpetual war'. You know where that leads.

Since 1492 armed confrontations with Europeans have gotten Native Americans where ? I've seen the 1492 boundaries of European countries and I've seen the 1900 boundaries including occupied territories. Native Americans, at this rate will never settle with the United States. There's always an armed confrontation/provocation.

[EVDebs]

122. As sovereign nations Native Americans are getting rich: Casinos

The Foxwoods with the Pequot tribe, the Cabazon tribe's Indio casino, etc. etc. etc.

Armed with dollar bills I guess. What country do you live in, bunyip ? It sure isn't the US.

I'm suspecting Iranian and/or GOP shills are monitoring DU since postings like yours re 'armed confrontation' with Native Americans who will 'never settle' with the US...Eh, you ever hear of the Code Talkers during WWII ?

Democrats and most Americans support Israel's right to self defense and its right to exist in peace. Anyone challenging those facts is merely supporting the GOP and/or Iranian goals since both lead consistently to war.

[bunyip]

123. Colonialism was the Zionism of the 19th c.

Manifest destiny, peopling the West with a great race etc.

The American people have largely abandoned the ideals of supremicism and ethnocultural exclusivity, and now the Native Americans have civil rights and citizenship.

I hope America's example can someday inspire Israel to embrace post-Zionism.

[EVDebs]

124. Wow, you support Israel's continuing existence. This is a breakthrough

I suspect a 'caliphate'

"...everal pan-Islamic congresses attempted to establish a rightful caliph. A number of Islamist political parties and Islamist guerrilla groups have called for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting, either through peaceful political action or through force, Islamic nations in a transnational state"

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c/caliphat.asp

radical Islam's version of 'manifest destiny', a new caliphate, would largely abandon the ideals of supremicism and ethnocultural exclusivity (with an Iranian chauvinism) too ?

[EVDebs]

117. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the Arab world is sooooo

hyped over blaming Israel for all its problems. You've got environmental and overpopulation issues coming soon (see Plan B 2.0 by Lester Brown) and the leadership in these failed states is all 'look over there at those mean nasty Israelis, they're the cause of all your troubles'.

Maybe it's because of the Jews merciful and compassionate nature to let those foolish enough to attack it be cut some slack. Remember the Egyptian 3rd Army trapped during the '73 war which was allowed to escape with their lives ? Of course you do.

I was merely pointing out the possibilities. Did you ever see the movie Matewan ? Debs would have been on the miners side even when the shooting started. I think he'd be appalled at the statements of Ahmadi-nejahd: he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. A Kalashnikov is on the Hezbollah flag, and you think I'm a warmonger. Go figure.

[tuvor]

10. Therefore, bombing will continue.

[Recursion]

13. What? Air power is not effective in counterinsurgency?

You're kidding!

I mean, it's not like experienced counterinsurgency officers, you know, the ones who have actually done it successfully, have been saying that for about 70 years now.

It's not like there's a shortage of examples of airpower defeating an enemy engaging in asymmetrical warfare with the support of the local populace.

Oh, wait... they have been saying that! and there are no examples of that!

You lose in counterinsurgency when you forget that the people are the military objective, and succumb to the temptation to treat them like the battlefield. And the other rule of thumb: if there's any question whether you've won against an insurgency, you've lost.

[LSK]

14. when will anyone figure out that War does not stop terrorism

It only breeds it.

[EVDebs]

15. But the air war has destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure

meaning that a failed state on Israel's border is assured. Whoever lives there will have to spend most of their time struggling to get the bare essentials and have little time left for mischief against Israel in the future.

[w4rma]

18. Or nothing to live for, no job occupying their time & nothing but revenge

on the folks that killed their family, destroyed their homes and buisnesses and their nations bridges and power plants and spilt 10 times as much oil onto the beaches as the Exxon Valdez.

No, they will definitely be occupied with revenge, unfortunately.

And the more damage the right-wing neo-cons running Israel do, the more dangerous Israel will become. Tens of thousands of people with nothing to live for on the border of their country is very dangerous.

Also, the more damage Israel does to Lebanon, the more power that other (btw, Lebanon is the only other democracy in the middle east) despoticly run Arab states will have over Lebanon and the more likely they will succumb to their militaristic influence.

[EVDebs]

22. So I guess another wrong choice for the Arabs is in store

reviewing their past history

The Muslim Majority Must Break Its Silence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nonie-darwish/the-muslim-...

""We Arabs must abandon this obsession to destroy Israel and tend to more important issues, such as honor killing of Muslim girls, stoning of Muslim women, killing and torturing of gays, amputation of limbs of criminals, female genital mutilation, the murder of apostates who leave Islam, polygamy and its devastating effects on family relations, and the imprisonment of Arab reformists and writers and cutting the tongues of those who speak out. We must speak out against the self-anointed and hateful Ayatollahs and Sheikhs who incite violence, rage and anger from the pulpits of mosques. They are condemning the beautiful Middle East society to a permanent condition of war, terror and jihad.

No longer do we want to hear our religious leaders proudly curse non-Muslim infidels and Jews in Friday prayer sermons, calling them "apes and pigs" and "enemies of God." We are all God's creation. The Arab street must not sympathize with Hezbollah. The silent Muslim majority must abandon its silence and "dark-age mentality." We must join the 21 st century's civilization.""

[funnymanpants]

37. and what about Israeli racism against Arabs?

I am so sick of this line of reasoning, if you can call it that, that because there is racism in the Arab world, anything Israel does is okay. This response has become a knee-jerk reaction for the pro-Israel-no-matter-what crowd. Using this logic we should also cheer on the war in Iraq and any other war the US launches, because "the whole world hates us and wants to destroy us."

What especially infuriates me is that there is also racism amongst Israelis too:

Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/990901...

Hatred of Arabs rising among teens in Israel

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystor...

Top Israeli rabbi incites ethnic hatred against Arabs


http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/13890.shtml

And Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians because he thought them inferior human beings. israeli settlers put flowers on his grave and consider him a hero.

At Goldstein's eulogy Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba, another of his close friends in the Kach group, stated, "Goldstein could not continue to bear the humiliations and shame nowadays inflicted upon us; this was why he took action for no other reason than to
sanctify the holy name of God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein#Cave_of_t...

There is a party in Isarel called the Nationalist party that advocates transferring the Palestinians off their land. And right now, as we post, Israel is building more settlements, thus destroying the Palestinians. Olmert has announced he will build a new settlment bloc in the Jordan Valley so he can annex it for "security purposes." So while the Arabs talk about destroying Israel, Israel itself is actually doing the destruction right now.

[bigtree]

20. Most of the folks there voted for the Lebanese government

not Hizbollah, so it's a falsehood to associate the majority of the Lebanese citizens with Hizbollah. There are two members of Hizbollah in the Parliament. Labor and Energy posts. Hardly the influence that some would like to portray in their defense of Israel's assault on Lebanon, its unarmed citizens, and its infrastructure.

The notion that the Lebanese people spend their time scheming and plotting to attack Israel is nonsense. The Lebanese government already gets over a billion dollars in US aid for their military. Yesterday the State Dept. signaled their intention to provide even more aid and training to the Lebanese forces to provide for the expected disarming and neutralizing of the Hizbollah combatants. That's why the attacks which have killed so many Lebanese innocents is antithetical to Israel's stated goal of peaceful neighbors. It's not the Lebanese people who need intimidating, its Hizbollah. There will be a need to enlist the Lebanese in any effort that hopes to succeed in the defanging and disbanding of the combatants. Even Israel has acknowledged that there will need to be a negotiated settlement in the end.

It seems that the Lebanese are to be cowed, humiliated, and their lives devastated in vengeance for Hizbollah's attacks from their soil. But, there doesn't seem to have been any groundswell of support for any strike on Israel from the citizens. Rather, these acts are being carried out without mandate or direction from the Lebanese proper. 'Misdirected' seems such a slight word for the way Israel has carried out their bloody reprisals; and they are continuing, without any noticeable effect on Hizbollah's ability to launch rockets into Israel.

The demise that you are cheering for the Lebanese may just happen to be the undoing of any real hope for the cooperation Israel seeks with Lebanon for their safety and security. A weakened Lebanon will abandon the country to the very outside forces that have destabilized southern Lebanon and threaten Israel. A devastated Lebanese citizenry will not hasten to Israel's defense so long as the preservation of their own lives and livelihoods are ignored and made subservient to any others in the equation.

[EVDebs]

23. As a client state of Hezbollah, like the Taliban in Afganistan

Lebanon should have disarmed this group knowing they were acting as a surrogate for Lebanese government 'in absentia' so to speak. A power vacuum is soon filled.

[bigtree]

24. sad how the citizens are paying for this

more than sad . . . criminal.

[funnymanpants]

36. Wrong

If Lebanon tried to disarm Hezbollah, a civil war would have broken out. Just about every commentator I saw on TV in the first week of the war noted this.

[sangfroid]

44. Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda

Perhaps the Lebanese government shoulda disarmed the Hezballah, but could they have? The Hezballah are well-trained, well-armed and are ready to fight. The Lebanese army, on the other hand,looks cool in the white spats they wear when they march.

I mean, just how successful has the American govt been in rooting out the insurgents in Iraq? Sometimes I think the expectation that the Lebanese government could successfully take out Hezballah was an idea that was planned to fail, inviting further Israeli intervention...

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. Oh yeah...

that worked so well for the Palestinians -- no jobs, no infrastructure, no time for "mischief" time on their hands....yup, that worked REAL well.

[daydreamer]

19. The more wars, the more land for Israel.

[EFerrari]

21. Or better, water. n/t

[chibi]

25. When will they concede they LOST the political war as well?

that being the most important goal of war as well.

unless they plan on killing them all, they lose, cause right now they are only effectively serving to increase their enemies ranks

[ProfessorGAC]

26. File This Under "Well, Duh!"

The whole point of MOBILE rocket systems is to be able to move them around easily and quickly. Hence, they become extremely difficult targets to destroy.

One would think the military folks would have know this BEFORE they started an air assault.

I guess not.
The Professor

[bigtree]

29. I think it's a memory lapse, or the function of an ignorant generation

that doesn't concern themselves with the demonstrated realities of human interaction, who don't concern themselves with the cautions of history. The believe that by exercising just a little more force, the opposition will crumble. They believe they were held back before, this time they'll do it right and permanent. Such vagaries of life as cause and effect, or action/reaction aren't so apparent or of any concern to the arrogant and the zealous.

But, then, it's ludicrous to expect the military to sort all of that out. They're set to kill and devastate. It's the job of the leaders to effectively direct and restrain the forces.


"Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won’t work either."


Ground to a Halt

By ROBERT PAPE
Published: August 3, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03pape.html?e...

ISRAEL has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hezbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won’t work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.

Thus the new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy weapons, but it has little chance of destroying the Hezbollah movement. In fact, in the wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid Hezbollah’s recruiting.

Equally important, Israel’s incursion is also squandering the good will it had initially earned from so-called moderate Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia . . .

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Well, I Agree, However. . .

. . .i think the military should know which targets will be be "destroyable" though air power, and which won't. They may be "set to kill and devastate" but they are the experts in tactics and capability. I would think it patently obvious that the smaller and more mobile a target is, the more difficult it becomes to hit at distance.

Geez, i'm no military expert, but i know it's harder to make a putt from 50 feet than from 5. The hole is, on a relative basis to distance, "smaller". So, the smaller a target is, the more difficult it is to hit from far away. I can't fly a fighter or a bomber. I can't fire long range artillery. But even i know that.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Dupe

.

[shadowknows69]

30. All they needed to do was read DU

many of us without formal training of any kind in military matters past watching a couple History channel docs. knew this.

[manic expression]

38. And they don't care, they only want to punish Lebanon

that was the whole point. It never was about the rockets, it was always about killing and oppressing the Lebanese people as much as possible.

[Xenotime]

39. Israel just needs to stop the violence...

and stop killing innocent people

[dogday]

45. As I said in another thread... Killing of all those innocent people

and they are no better off than when they started... The only thing that anyone has managed to do is kill and destroy.

There are two sides to this war.... One side is nobody wins, the other side is everyone loses....

[Doctor_J]

50. But did it make its leaders' approval ratings shoot up?

that's the real reason for bombings, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. No and it shows your lack of understanding

of Israeli politics. This will weaken Olmert and strengthen the hand of the RIGHT WING... who WANTED to go up to the Litani River from the git go

What is has proven once again is that Air wars are strategic but you still need boots on the ground. That truism hasn't changed, and will also strengthen the ground arms in israel

And no Olmert did not run on the Likkud ticket but Kadima, a more moderate version since Biby Netanyahu has become down right shrill about this or anything else

[Doctor_J]

68. Sorry, I forgot this

at the end of my post.

[comtec]

58. None of this makes sense to me...

Israel's response from the get go has been illogical, or at the very least in proportionate!

So a soldier was kidnapped, 1)so what. 2)isn't the Musaad the most capable spook agency in the WORLD! having infiltrated the kgb AND the us cia many times?

It seems to me if they wanted this guy back.. I mean REALLY wanted him back they would have been able to get him.

Next... It also seems to me the very fragile government of the Palestinian people would have given this guy back post haste! assuming this kid even exists! I am starting to wonder if he ever did!

Now.. Lebanon... wtf, as i understand it Lebanon has had peace with Israel for a rather long time now. This makes no sense WHY they would provoke Israel like this, knowing how trigger happy the Israeli gov is.

I truly feel pity for the Israeli people, and of course those who are being pointlessly and ruthlessly slaughtered on all sides, because this will only make them even more disliked in the arab world. This never would have been allowed under Clinton, or even bush 1!

There's more that I think but i am afraid I would be thought a conspiracy kook! (or as marc marron would say independent speculative investigator - SEDITION FOREVER)

But the more evidence that comes out about this criminal busche group, the more justified such paranoia is, and worse.. proved.

[sushi]

77. They will end up talking anyway

so why not just quit the fighting (and killing innocents and destroying property) and go to the negotiating table now? ASAP?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Becuase that is not the way wars have

ever worked, you need to establish a condition on the ground that benefits you, post conflict, and that is what they are right now fighting over

And yes, civies are caught in the middle... that is the tragedy of EVERY WAR anywhere.

[sushi]

91. Israel has done more damage

to Lebanon than Hezbollah has done to Israel. Israel will win the fight, but I'm not sure about the post conflict benefit for Israel. I imagine it must be horrible to live in an area where the neighbors don't like you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. It is not a matter of damage but de facto control

of areas, when the whistle goes off

[bigtree]

84. both sides still see gains to be made by further militarism

Neither of the leaders of either party are making any personal sacrifice. Both sides are disregarding the innocents slaughtered by their attacks in their positioning. Hizbollah is emboldened by their mere survival in the face of Israel, thinking they are now dealing on the same level as the larger powers. Israel still believes they can eliminate the threat by force. They want to have inflicted as much devastation as they can before the international community steps in and gives Hizbollah a political way out.

In the middle are the civilians, on both sides of the border.

[ShortnFiery]

106. The ONLY people making money and cheering with glee

are the "WAR PROFITEERING CORPORATIONS."

Both sides are being played.

War is NOT the answer.

WE ALL KNOW THAT ... FEEL THE TRUTH IN OUR GUT ---> but the Mega-Wealthy Military Industrial Machine in the USA and Israel are stoking all the underpinnings of hate.

Can't we see that we are being PLAYED?

When the DRAFT is implemented, will you gladly send your sons and daughters to Lebanon? I will NOT send my children to the middle east ONLY to FEED the bloated corporate WAR MACHINE.

[QuestionAll...]

99. but the stockholders in death machines are happy! nt