NationStates Jolt Archive

I have tried posting this elsewhere but I have yet to receive any real answers and no actual debate.

I postulate that Israel is pursuing goals other than the return of its soldiers and an end to Hezbullah's attacks. My reasoning follows.

Attacking the targets it has hit in Lebanon will do very little to hinder Hezbollah. The fact that the movement was started and thrived in an environment of Israeli occupation indicates that lobbing bombs and shells over the border will achieve very little in terms of actually damaging it.
Conclusion: If several years of on the ground occupation by the IDF could not defeat Hezbollah then the current scale of campaign will fail as well.

Israel has asked that the Lebanese Government disband Hezbollah and occupy the southern region of Lebanon. Simultaneously Israel has targeted the Lebanese army, all routes the Lebanese army could use to attack Hezbollah and all mechanisms that could be used to mobilise the army.
Conclusion: Israel has no interest in the Lebanese Government disarming Hezbollah.

The IDF has continued to hit areas with notable civilian concentrations. These attacks have, more often then not, missed any Hezbollah and instead killed a number of innocent civilians. The civilian victims of Operation 'Just Reward' have no real influence over the militias that hold them, while the militias themselves are thrive on the media coverage those deaths receive. It is possible that acts such as the destruction of Beirut airport and yesterday's killing of yet more civilians might divide Hezbullah and its supporters from the rest of the country, but only at the risk of triggering another civil war and creating a vacuum that Israel's enemies in Syria and Iran will find easier to exploit.
Conclusion: Israel is seeking to achieve a goal other than a stable and peaceful region.

Operation Just Reward is clearly an 'off the shelf' plan which means that it has a very clear, very specific set of goals set a substantial period of time before the recent series of events. To me, the IDF strategy seems to be hinting towards a more strategic initiative.
Conclusion: Israel is either seeking to occupy parts of Lebanon once more or it is seeking an engagement with a different nation/nations and this is all a means to an end.

What do other people think?

Now now, you don't want a stable lebanon, that can grow and get rich (i.e., work to field a decent army), with a muslim majority right on your doorstep, now do you? Syria already has a huge influence in lebanon as it is. Imagine syria influencing a strong lebanon.

Besides, anything that can piss off the syrians is also cool to piss off the iranians. And wouldnt it be nice to see the iranians pissed off and doing something stupid? That would give an excelent excuse for israel (and the USA) to bomb the shit out of iran, and more importantly, their nuclear program.

Or do you think israeli's arent scared of a nuclear iran?

I agree with you that this is obviously a pre-conceived plan by Israel and that they were just waiting for a precipitating event that the public could swallow.

I believe Israel has two goals, first they want to further establish the legitimacy of their sovereignty, but that’s behind nearly everything they do.
Their second goal is the scarier one. I sincerely believe that they want to drag the United States into the conflict along with them. They want Iran to come to the aid of Syria, knowing full well that the US will not allow it. They want the US to cripple Iran now, before they come anywhere near nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran means MAD in the mideast, which means that Israel will no longer be able to stomp all over it’s neighbors.

Israel does not care how many Lebanese, Syrians, Americans, British, Iraqi and Iranian civilians and soldiers die. Israel does not care that billions of people worldwide would be affected by a war that could potentially halt shipping in the Gulf. All they care about is preserving their dominancy in the region.

two things:

one: the IDF were humiliated twice within a week and are regaining their 'invincible' status through brute force

two: olhmert has no military credibility, especially compared to his predecessor. he is flexing his muscles.

Besides, anything that can piss off the syrians is also cool to piss off the iranians. And wouldnt it be nice to see the iranians pissed off and doing something stupid? That would give an excelent excuse for israel (and the USA) to bomb the shit out of iran, and more importantly, their nuclear program.

Israel (like much of the rest of the world) is certainly worried about the concept of Iran gaining nuclear weapons but the Iranian are still a long way off that. It doesn't seem to fit the timing.
It could be argued that the timing was opportunistic but, realistcally, Israel could guarantee a Hizbollah attack whenever it needed to. I am not sure that drawing Iran into a significant breach of the Pox Americano would be more than an opportunistic outcome for Israel, certainly not the primary objective.

two things:

one: the IDF were humiliated twice within a week and are regaining their 'invincible' status through brute force

two: olhmert has no military credibility, especially compared to his predecessor. he is flexing his muscles.
both quite true

Also, keeping Lebanon down is a good thing for Israel, as it checks what could be a potential enemy if Lebanon was advanced in any manner

I believe I have an answer of sorts. Is it in any manner possible that Israel intends to porvoke Iran into war, and thus have the USA do its dirty work for it?

Reuters counts 14 dead militants in lebanon and 190 dead civilians.

International forces need to move in to end this despicable israeli mass-murder and israel should pay war reparations and face sanctions if it continues.


http://nytimes.com/ front page.

Israel (like much of the rest of the world) is certainly worried about the concept of Iran gaining nuclear weapons but the Iranian are still a long way off that. It doesn't seem to fit the timing.
It could be argued that the timing was opportunistic but, realistcally, Israel could guarantee a Hizbollah attack whenever it needed to.
Yes, but the US won't be in Iraq forever.

Reuters counts 14 dead militants in lebanon and 190 dead civilians.

International forces need to move in to end this despicable israeli mass-murder and israel should pay war reparations and face sanctions if it continues.


http://nytimes.com/ front page.

Why would International forces move in?

Not to question your intellect, but any coalition will be predominantly US and British....

Guess it won't be too far of a stretch to say Israel has gone 100% Kahanist.

one: the IDF were humiliated twice within a week and are regaining their 'invincible' status through brute force

two: olhmert has no military credibility, especially compared to his predecessor. he is flexing his muscles.

True. The IDF's role as a deterrent was not being pursued as strongly as it has been previously. This is certainly an excellent opportunity to step up and show their enemies that they are still a strong military force.

A BBC reporter in Tel Aviv commented that every Israeli he spoke to supported the actions and that is easily turned into support from Olhmert.

However, it does not feel quite right. The actions against Hamas could easily have filled the role of regaining the IDF's deterrent value and making Olhmert seem a strong military leader. However, Israel is, inevitably, going to fail to wipe out Hezbollah and that would make Olhmert seem like a failure (unless the fighting drags on long enough). Realistically it is not going to retrieve the soldiers either.

If Olhmert is an intelligent man surrounded by intelligent men (and with the US and their resources a phone call away) then I don't think he would back himself into a corner like this, not turn down the option of international aid unless he has a specific objective he is trying to reach and that needs to be reached by Israel alone.

"What are the motives behind Israel's present actions?"

It's called "suvival by divide and conquer."

Guess it won't be too far of a stretch to say Israel has gone 100% Kahanist.
No. Religion and racism has little to do with it. This is about power.

Yes, but the US won't be in Iraq forever.

Ah, the geographic opportunity presented by having a large number of US forces already in place in the region.

I'm not so sure. A military build up ready to invade would be difficult to hide and the US could kiss goodbye to any stability in a region where they desperately need it if they moved straight from Iraq to Iran.
However, they could certainly appear threatening enough with the right offensive posture.
I suspect that that would merely cause Iran to intensify the efforts of its allies in Iraq and I don't think the Bush government could take the hit to public opinion if the timescale is in the short term.

No. Religion and racism has little to do with it. This is about power.

But Kahanism is all about religious theocracy and racism fortified by occupation and expulsion, so it would fit right in.

But Kahanism is all about religious theocracy and racism fortified by occupation and expulsion, so it would fit right in.

I might be wrong but I suspect that Kahanism isn't behind this. I don't think the actions match what I would expect from a Kahanist agenda. Plus the Israeli government publicly moved against them in 1985. If the government followed that ideology then I don't think it would have any problems re-legalising it.

Why would International forces move in?

Not to question your intellect, but any coalition will be predominantly US and British....


UN troops on the ground would mean israel would have to halt its bombings.

Doesnt matter where they're from.

It would also mean an end to Hezbollah rocket attacks and more troops/ negotiators who could try to find the missing IDF soldiers.

So why is the Israeli government so against the idea?
It is this type of indicator that drives me to believe that the Israeli Government have a very specific goal in mind.

UN troops on the ground would mean israel would have to halt its bombings.

Doesnt matter where they're from.

Sort of like how they had to halt bombing the USS Liberty?

Sort of like how they had to halt bombing the USS Liberty?

What makes you believe that the IDF would repeat the USS Liberty fiasco? Or that the Israeli Government is 100% Kahanist?
I would appreciate it if you would post the reasoning behind any provocative statements. Just reeling off cliches does nothing to further the point of this thread.

What makes you believe that the IDF would repeat the USS Liberty fiasco? Or that the Israeli Government is 100% Kahanist?
I would appreciate it if you would post the reasoning behind any provocative statements. Just reeling off cliches does nothing to further the point of this thread.

http://www.ussliberty.org/index.html

Israel would stand to gain much from successfully pulling off a Liberty-esque backstab that they would then conveniently blame on Syria or Iran and thus have the U.S. involved in their private war with their neighbors.

Also, their lack of serious commitment in helping the Palestians achieve self-sufficient statehood and control of their extremist elements shows a flagrantly Kahanist attitude of indifference which makes the whole lip service that much more disgusting. They expect the Paletinian authorities to control Hamas and other rogue elements yet at the same time they cut off economic and financial support to the government, and undermine the government's authority by conducting assassinations and collateral damage as they please. All of which makes the Palestinian Authority even more impotent and untrustworthy in the eyes of the Palestinian people and incite them to support the cause of Hamas and their ilk.

On another thread on a post I did, I said, among other things the following:
“…the position of the major powers (USA, Europe, Russia and China) is rather comfortable and something of the kind: “Lets talk about diplomacy and let Israel do the dirty work for us, in case things go wrong Israel can always be blamed”.”
If we take as relevant the words exchanged today between Bush and Blair at lunch one could say that I am not far from the truth.
With all in perspective, Israel is aiming at destroying Hezbollah military capabilities, which in any case will be rather welcome by the major powers.
That would somehow force Syria to the negotiating table rather sooner than later, with a view to a wider peace settlement while isolating Iran further.

Ah, the geographic opportunity presented by having a large number of US forces already in place in the region.

I'm not so sure. A military build up ready to invade would be difficult to hide and the US could kiss goodbye to any stability in a region where they desperately need it if they moved straight from Iraq to Iran.
However, they could certainly appear threatening enough with the right offensive posture.
I suspect that that would merely cause Iran to intensify the efforts of its allies in Iraq and I don't think the Bush government could take the hit to public opinion if the timescale is in the short term.
The political ramifications of allowing Iran to attack Israel though Iraq (which it will have to do, missile or otherwise) would be perceived to be worse for the administration than expanding the conflict.
After this is all over, I suspect American politics and the way we as a country interact with the world could be fundementally altered.

Israel would stand to gain much from successfully pulling off a Liberty-esque backstab that they would then conveniently blame on Syria or Iran and thus have the U.S. involved in their private war with their neighbors.


It would have much to gain if it could successfully blame Syria or Lebanon and convince the US to go to war. But realistically it would be risking its existence if it did (the US does not like being made a fool of or being manipulated) and I also suspect that it would be much harder for the Israelies to ensure plausible deniability as the entire world is watching.
I do not think there is any evidence to support the idea that the IDFs strategic goal is to attack US military forces.


Also, their lack of serious commitment in helping the Palestians achieve self-sufficient statehood and control of their extremist elements shows a flagrantly Kahanist attitude of indifference which makes the whole lip service that much more disgusting.

My understanding of Kahanism indicates that the Israeli government would be actively attempting to expel the Arabs within its borders. I do not see that happening. I would also postulate that Israel's actions/ motives regarding Palestine were in place long before Kahanism was founded (although I may be wrong).

The political ramifications of allowing Iran to attack Israel though Iraq (which it will have to do, missile or otherwise) would be perceived to be worse for the administration than expanding the conflict.
After this is all over, I suspect American politics and the way we as a country interact with the world could be fundementally altered.

So, you suspect that forcing Iran's hand is the aim.
Interesting. I see where you are coming from now.
Do you think that the IDF's action in Lebanon are enough to sufficiently antagonise Iran into breaking US guaranteed air/land zones? Or do you think that the IDF's actions will escalate (and in what way)?

I have tried posting this elsewhere but I have yet to receive any real answers and no actual debate.

I postulate that Israel is pursuing goals other than the return of its soldiers and an end to Hezbullah's attacks. My reasoning follows.

Attacking the targets it has hit in Lebanon will do very little to hinder Hezbollah. The fact that the movement was started and thrived in an environment of Israeli occupation indicates that lobbing bombs and shells over the border will achieve very little in terms of actually damaging it.
Conclusion: If several years of on the ground occupation by the IDF could not defeat Hezbollah then the current scale of campaign will fail as well.

Israel has asked that the Lebanese Government disband Hezbollah and occupy the southern region of Lebanon. Simultaneously Israel has targeted the Lebanese army, all routes the Lebanese army could use to attack Hezbollah and all mechanisms that could be used to mobilise the army.
Conclusion: Israel has no interest in the Lebanese Government disarming Hezbollah.

The IDF has continued to hit areas with notable civilian concentrations. These attacks have, more often then not, missed any Hezbollah and instead killed a number of innocent civilians. The civilian victims of Operation 'Just Reward' have no real influence over the militias that hold them, while the militias themselves are thrive on the media coverage those deaths receive. It is possible that acts such as the destruction of Beirut airport and yesterday's killing of yet more civilians might divide Hezbullah and its supporters from the rest of the country, but only at the risk of triggering another civil war and creating a vacuum that Israel's enemies in Syria and Iran will find easier to exploit.
Conclusion: Israel is seeking to achieve a goal other than a stable and peaceful region.

Operation Just Reward is clearly an 'off the shelf' plan which means that it has a very clear, very specific set of goals set a substantial period of time before the recent series of events. To me, the IDF strategy seems to be hinting towards a more strategic initiative.
Conclusion: Israel is either seeking to occupy parts of Lebanon once more or it is seeking an engagement with a different nation/nations and this is all a means to an end.

What do other people think?


ONE... they want Lebenon to controll their southern border and disarm Hizbolla.

TWO...they want the kidnapped soldiers back .


Three....they want secure borders and no more rockets and missiles fired into Israeli cities.

THATS IT.

THE GOALS .

live up to the peace treaties and cease fire agreements already in place .
Or Israel will attack you and destroy you as fast as they can .

Its that SIMPLE .

Now ask what the goals of Iran and Syria are ...aside from the destruction of Israel .

With all in perspective, Israel is aiming at destroying Hezbollah military capabilities, which in any case will be rather welcome by the major powers.
That would somehow force Syria to the negotiating table rather sooner than later, with a view to a wider peace settlement while isolating Iran further.

So Israel is making a play to draw Syria's teeth by trying to force it into a 'stand up or shut up' position?
Possible, certainly having a substantial presence in Lebanon would provoke that response (and possibly from Iran too). So you would expect a ground invasion to follow the incursions we have so far seen?
If Hezbollah is to be seriously endangered the IDF will have to go in on the ground and try to rout them out. They did fail to do so in the several years of the occupation.

ONE... they want Lebenon to controll their southern border and disarm Hizbolla.
TWO...they want the kidnapped soldiers back .
Three....they want secure borders and no more rockets and missiles fired into Israeli cities.
THATS IT.
THE GOALS .


Have you actually read the initial post? Because either you haven't (which is discourteous to everyone here) or you are ignoring it (which could be taken as personally insulting).

Please state your counter arguments to my initial points so that your point of view can be debated.

Thank you.

So Israel is making a play to draw Syria's teeth by trying to force it into a 'stand up or shut up' position?
Possible, certainly having a substantial presence in Lebanon would provoke that response (and possibly from Iran too). So you would expect a ground invasion to follow the incursions we have so far seen?
If Hezbollah is to be seriously endangered the IDF will have to go in on the ground and try to rout them out. They did fail to do so in the several years of the occupation.
I would not be surprised in seeing a ground invasion of southern Lebanon if the crisis drags on.
Also I do not see a direct conflict with Syria. But once Hezbollah military capabilities gone, Syria will surely be more vulnarable to international pressure to seat and talk.

My understanding of Kahanism indicates that the Israeli government would be actively attempting to expel the Arabs within its borders. I do not see that happening. I would also postulate that Israel's actions/ motives regarding Palestine were in place long before Kahanism was founded (although I may be wrong).

Expulsion ideally, or relegation to third-class citizenry at best. Which is an appropriate description of how the Palestians are generally treated by Israel. And the man who was nicest to them was assassinated and his killer hailed as a hero.

So, you suspect that forcing Iran's hand is the aim.
Interesting. I see where you are coming from now.
Do you think that the IDF's action in Lebanon are enough to sufficiently antagonise Iran into breaking US guaranteed air/land zones? Or do you think that the IDF's actions will escalate (and in what way)?
I think Israel is counting on members of Hezbollah to seek refuge in Syria, as to extend the war to that arena, and bring Iran, Syria’s ally into the fray.

Ultimately it all comes down to how badly Israel wants this. If Hezbollah doesn’t, Israel can always lie with a very likely chance that the lie will be discovered later.
We’ll have to see how the next week goes.

Expulsion ideally, or relegation to third-class citizenry at best. Which is an appropriate description of how the Palestians are generally treated by Israel. And the man who was nicest to them was assassinated and his killer hailed as a hero.

Regardless. It is not relevant to this thread.

would not be surprised in seeing a ground invasion of southern Lebanon if the crisis drags on.
Also I do not see a direct conflict with Syria. But once Hezbollah military capabilities gone, Syria will surely be more vulnarable to international pressure to seat and talk.

Interesting. I think the IDF will struggle to completely crush Hezbollah as an invasion of Lebanon would mean that Hezbollah could cease using visible bases (e.g. rocket launchers) and fight an urban guerilla war. However, a rapid push before the UN become invovled would allow Israel to secure a large 'De-militarised Zone', probably patrolled by the UN, which would then secure its border to the north.
If I was really cynical I would suggest that a high body count would lend weight to their calls that the UN would have to remain and police the zone. the destruction of the Lebanese army (alreay well advanced) would also add weight as there would be no other force that could. The Un would be forced to provide the troops or accept that their inaction would hand the region back to Hezbollah thus placing the blood of any further actions firmly on their hands.

Is this what you were hinting towards?

Is this what you were hinting towards?[/QUOTE]
I am hinting at nothing, just analysing what might be the strategy of the parties involved.

UN troops on the ground would mean israel would have to halt its bombings.

Doesnt matter where they're from.

hahahaha UN troops on the ground would mean kidnapped Blueberrys on live internet begging not to be killed .

Now turn that around and say UN troops on the ground would secure Israels borders so they would not HAVE to bomb the crap out of Lebenon...even though the UN make nice hostages ...and you may have something to work with.

Of course the UN would have to have the authority to defend themselves and to disarm the local terrorist militia...but hold your breath while you wait..
And BTW...what are the UN troops "2000 of them " doing monitoring the southern border with Lebenon...watching the fireworks ?

I am hinting at nothing, just analysing what might be the strategy of the parties involved.

Cool. Do you agree with the analysis I posted or have I missed something (I tend to get a little carried away). :rolleyes:

And BTW...what are the UN troops "2000 of them " doing monitoring the southern border with Lebenon...watching the fireworks ?
No. Getting shot at by the IDF.

Cool. Do you agree with the analysis I posted or have I missed something (I tend to get a little carried away). :rolleyes:
I agree when you say it will be difficult to crush Hezbollah.
I don´t see however the UN agreeing on a peace keeping force. The UN forces that have been there for so long have managed nothing.

I must admit that my knowledge of the Peacekeepers currently in place is small. However, I assumed that they have had some success in keeping Hezbollah out and a measure of peace in their region?

Does anyone know where I could go to find out more on this?

I agree when you say it will be difficult to crush Hezbollah.
I don´t see however the UN agreeing on a peace keeping force. The UN forces that have been there for so long have managed nothing.
Bar the obvious reasons for the UN presence (at which they have failed), the other reasons they are there are:

allaying continuing low-level armed conflict, at which they have of course been remarkably successful. UNIFIL has also played an important role in clearing landmines, assisting displaced persons, and providing humanitarian assistance in this underdeveloped region.

No. Getting shot at by the IDF.


How can they when they are hiding so far down in their little burrows .

Maybe playing poker..or watching porn .

Israel has asked that the Lebanese Government disband Hezbollah and occupy the southern region of Lebanon. Simultaneously Israel has targeted the Lebanese army, all routes the Lebanese army could use to attack Hezbollah and all mechanisms that could be used to mobilise the army.
Conclusion: Israel has no interest in the Lebanese Government disarming Hezbollah.

Given that most lebanese politicians who speak out against syria either dissappear or mysteriously blow up, it is much more probable that the army, which is controlled by the government, would back hezbollah up.

I wonder if the fucked up terminology everyone is using these days will somehow begin to affect language as we know it...

Maybe in 50 years or so when someone at the bar says to you "I'm going to defend myself" he means "I'm going to stab you in the eye with a broken bottle for no reason". Then he'll drag your girlfriend by the hair to a dark alley and "install a democracy" in her.

I wonder if the fucked up terminology everyone is using these days will somehow begin to affect language as we know it...

Maybe in 50 years or so when someone at the bar says to you "I'm going to defend myself" he means "I'm going to stab you in the eye with a broken bottle for no reason". Then he'll drag your girlfriend by the hair to a dark alley and "install a democracy" in her.

Israel and the United States are distinctly noted for emphasizing the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine, where you can blow the shit out of anyone you like and get away with it as long as you claim it's self defense.

:eek: "LOOK OUT IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!"

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Israel and the United States are distinctly noted for emphasizing the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine, where you can blow the shit out of anyone you like and get away with it as long as you claim it's self defense.

:eek: "LOOK OUT IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!"

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I wonder when the US starts self-defense against Iran and the rest of those brownskins they so desperately need to liberate in self-defence.

to original poster: Nice conspiracy theories. I know you may think that they are true, but they are conspiracy theories because:
1. They are unproven theories.
2. They theorize a conspiracy.

If you have any proof, other than "If A is true, then B must be true", post it.

two things:

one: the IDF were humiliated twice within a week and are regaining their 'invincible' status through brute force

two: olhmert has no military credibility, especially compared to his predecessor. he is flexing his muscles.


If most of their victims are civilians they aren't invincilbe. Either cruel or have bad target range. Israel never does anything without an alterier motive. I don't know what their current motives are but its dsgraceful the G8 haven't even condemed Israel. The EU Foreign Ministers are meeting today and for once the Irish Minster Dermot Ahern is lobbying all to make a stand and call for an end to hostilities on both sides. Hopefully other institutions will follow.

to original poster: Nice conspiracy theories. I know you may think that they are true, but they are conspiracy theories because:
1. They are unproven theories.
2. They theorize a conspiracy.

If you have any proof, other than "If A is true, then B must be true", post it.


I think he just wanted the issue debated. The 'proof' as you request is in examing Israel's previous responses to anything. Brute force. Maybe thats the reason. You piss us off we go apocolypse on your ass.

Isreal is certainly going through the motions of an invasion. The tactic of bombing military (or, in this case, Hezebollah) targets and bridges is designed to make it easier to send a ground force in unopposed.

It is possible that they hope to somehow provoke Syrria into joining in the game, and therefore bring Iran and the US into the game. The problem is that that would put Isreal in the position of fighting against everybody but Egypt and Saudi Arabia with a partner whose military's hands were partially tied, and who would only serve to stir up more resistance. Isreal and the US would win in the preliminary stages of the war, but would lose in rebuilding and have to do it again in 2 decades. Isreal may be willing to risk that to see the end of the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, but I don't think they are that stupid.

It is also possible that Isreal is playing for attention in world politics. It certainly doesn't harm them to have their plight re-televised across the world on a regular basis. That said, it seems unlikely that the moderate party that has been elected for it's willingness to wage peace would willingly wage war for no good reason but attention.

What is most likely, by far, is that Isreal is making a point. They are saying "Hey, if you fuck with us, we'll give you more than a black eye". I certainly can't see Isreal complaining too much about a chance to root out Hezebollah in the Lebanese government and perhaps bring in negotiations like The Camp David Accords so that they had another border that had something equivalent to stability on it. Isreal has certainly got reason to be angry, and while I don't approve of their tactics, I want to point out that they have the unique problem of trying to fight a war against soft targets. They are following the textbook moves for weakening an area against invasion, and not just trying to kill civilians. I'm sure that "Eye for an eye" is certainly on their minds, but that doesn't mean that htey are creating unnecessary civilian deaths with only the target of killing people. They just aren't being as careful as they might.

I think that both the left and the right need to remove their heads from their collective ass and realize that Isreal is neither sinner nor saint, and that neither are their neighbors. Everybody has fucked up, and no one really wants to solve things. Until they do, this nonsense will continue.

Its that SIMPLE .

Now ask what the goals of Iran and Syria are ...aside from the destruction of Israel .

The only that is simple unfortunately, is your inability to utilize higher reasoning abilities, and utter naivety coupled with infallible faith in the powers you support.

An invasion for two soldiers do not make economic nor political sense. The scale of this event is beyond even the Beslan siege and there were more people at stake there.

Israel is playing a game and feeding feelgood bullshit to the unthinking masses. If ever you think any nation's actions, especially military actions, are purely for the benefit of humanitarian or "returning a handful of soldiers", you are sorely mistaken.

Nobody that simple minded could ever get to a position of power. Nobody.

Israel has something it wants, and it isn't a pair of luckless schmucks who got kidnapped nor is it that survival rubbish since neither Hezbollah nor Hamas is capable of actually destroying Israel. They want something bigger.

War has never, ever, been conducted for anything other than land/power/resource grabs.

The only that is simple unfortunately, is your inability to utilize higher reasoning abilities, and utter naivety coupled with infallible faith in the powers you support.

An invasion for two soldiers do not make economic nor political sense. The scale of this event is beyond even the Beslan siege and there were more people at stake there.

Israel is playing a game and feeding feelgood bullshit to the unthinking masses. If ever you think any nation's actions, especially military actions, are purely for the benefit of humanitarian or "returning a handful of soldiers", you are sorely mistaken.

Nobody that simple minded could ever get to a position of power. Nobody.

Israel has something it wants, and it isn't a pair of luckless schmucks who got kidnapped nor is it that survival rubbish since neither Hezbollah nor Hamas is capable of actually destroying Israel. They want something bigger.

War has never, ever, been conducted for anything other than land/power/resource grabs.
Yeah. The Islamofascists want Isreal's land and blood. Plus, Isreal has also been rocketed and Lebenon's armed forces and police are too patheticly weak to contain Hezbollah, let alone disarm and possibly destroy it.

I have tried posting this elsewhere but I have yet to receive any real answers and no actual debate.

SNIP


What do other people think?


My conclusion is that you are just another pro-Arab terrorist-enabler.

My other conclusion is that the Israeli's are once again broadcasting the proper message: any, and I repeat ANY country in the ME that does not fight Islamists with the proper ardour is a Valid Military Target.

what are israel motives?
first, we want to keep our survival. this mean we had to fight against the threat of the terror. it also explain why we probably had complete plans about actions against the terror organizations which we take into action when the terrorists "open the door".
second, we don't try to conquer any land. the operations take place in areas we pullout from them, and nobody here want to be there again. except the kahanist minority ovcourse. israel is yet to act with her land forces, and didn't conquered any territories as it happened.
third, israel support the decision of G8 about the situation:after the kidnappers will be returned and lebannese army wil take over southern lebanon and disarm the hizbulla, we will stop any operation we do. this is the israeli motives.

Yeah. The Islamofascists want Isreal's land and blood. Plus, Isreal has also been rocketed and Lebenon's armed forces and police are too patheticly weak to contain Hezbollah, let alone disarm and possibly destroy it.

So why strike at Lebanon's military then? Why hit the bridges which are textbook targets for a preparation for an invasion?

And as for Palestine, why strike at the ruling factions and limit their ability to control the extremists while calling for them to do so? It's been the case with almost, if not all cases of Palestinian authority.

The conclusion is that Israel isn't interested in allowing them to control them. What Israel wants is something else altogether.

The current campaign against Lebanon cannot be called retaliatory in any sense, not with the current scope and targets. It only has that label because it serves as a feelgood for the Israeli people and their supporters.

As for you Bogmarsh, I know your type, your mentality. That kind of mentality was strong during the communist scare, and was used to justify all manner of atrocities simply because people weren't ardent enough in their support for one side or another.

Your kind are nothing more than pro-Western terrorist-enablers.

Just like the Arabs you hate.

Making you a valid military target, nevermind if you're a civilian now.

So why strike at Lebanon's military then? Why hit the bridges which are textbook targets for a preparation for an invasion?

And as for Palestine, why strike at the ruling factions and limit their ability to control the extremists while calling for them to do so? It's been the case with almost, if not all cases of Palestinian authority.

The conclusion is that Israel isn't interested in allowing them to control them. What Israel wants is something else altogether.

The current campaign against Lebanon cannot be called retaliatory in any sense, not with the current scope and targets. It only has that label because it serves as a feelgood for the Israeli people and their supporters.

As for you Bogmarsh, I know your type, your mentality. That kind of mentality was strong during the communist scare, and was used to justify all manner of atrocities simply because people weren't ardent enough in their support for one side or another.

Your kind are nothing more than pro-Western terrorist-enablers.

Just like the Arabs you hate.

Making you a valid military target, nevermind if you're a civilian now.


I'm afraid that you are not exactly current with the definition of terrorism.
You seem to constitently forget that terrorism involves an element of anti-western sentiments.

Pro-West or anti-West. Choose wisely - your life depends on it.

OIC - you were not 100% pro-Western during the Cold War either, wot?

I'm afraid that you are not exactly current with the definition of terrorism.
You seem to constitently forget that terrorism involves an element of anti-western sentiments.

Pro-West or anti-West. Choose wisely - your life depends on it.

OIC - you were not 100% pro-Western during the Cold War either, wot?
*cookie for boggy*

:fluffle:

*cookie for boggy*

:fluffle:

:fluffle: YaY - I was getting hooongry!
BBL - about 1 hour from now

*munches* :banana:

I'm afraid that you are not exactly current with the definition of terrorism.
You seem to constitently forget that terrorism involves an element of anti-western sentiments.

Pro-West or anti-West. Choose wisely - your life depends on it.

OIC - you were not 100% pro-Western during the Cold War either, wot?

And when that mentality takes over the world, you either pick the winning side or you die. If you're lucky. You stand in the middle and BOTH sides want your ass.

The depressing thing is, that given the choice, most people WOULD stand in the middle but because it's convenient for those in power to have an enemy, however ficticious (and I'll be fully open to say that for Israel, those enemies are all too real) they are never given that choice.

Even more depressingly, those who go with their conciences tend to get the shittiest end of the stick.

:fluffle: YaY - I was getting hooongry!
BBL - about 1 hour from now

*munches* :banana:

:fluffle:

I'm nothing but adaptable to need :p
ok see you later - i might not be about - check the other site if i'm not here

:banana:

I'm afraid that you are not exactly current with the definition of terrorism.
You seem to constitently forget that terrorism involves an element of anti-western sentiments.

Pro-West or anti-West. Choose wisely - your life depends on it.

OIC - you were not 100% pro-Western during the Cold War either, wot?

Yes, the world loves the old "you're either with us or against us" yank wankery doesn't it?

I think it's a case of the military being let loose. Israel is no different to the States or any other country. Around the politicians you have a few generals, real hardliners, who want to fight and bomb and all the rest of it.

In a weak moment by Olmert and his mates (probably induced by the way Hamas and Hezbollah have destroyed the peace process), they gave the generals the green light. And they went ahead.

I don't think Olmert and his cabinet know themselves where to go from here. They know as well as everybody else that they won't destroy Hezbollah. Peres (now second man) was PM last time they tried, and he sorta got his arse kicked.

The only people who think they can win this by force are the military nuts on both sides. And they'll bomb the snot out of each other for some time to come.

I'm afraid that you are not exactly current with the definition of terrorism.

A definition that westerners seem to want to twist to say "actions that target only westerners". Anything else is fair game.


You seem to constitently forget that terrorism involves an element of anti-western sentiments.

Rubbish. This only proves my point. It's terrorism when it's done against western interest. If against anyone else, it's something to laugh at.

Your sentiments are exactly the same stepping stone that the KKK espouse.

It's only a crime when done against whites.

Or the nobles of old Europe.

It's only murder when done against the aristocracy. The aristocracy can kill whoever they like and nothing should be done against then.


Pro-West or anti-West. Choose wisely - your life depends on it.


With us or against us huh? The same kind of bullshit America tried to feed us during the cold war. The kind of bullshit we didn't stand for either. And in case you haven't noticed, I'm still here.

You're black and white vision should have died out with the dinosaurs.


OIC - you were not 100% pro-Western during the Cold War either, wot?

No, I hated what the Western powers were doing to countries that didn't agree with it. I hated what they did in the name of "demockracy". All they were interested in was projecting their power base and crushing anyone who didn't toe their line. They were as bad as the Soviets.

Colonialism, war, sanctions, funding terrorist groups, these were things that both the Soviets and NATO did to those that they treated as their pawns.

But then, I suppose that since I don't agree with you, you're idiotic sentiment now goes along the lines of "I'm fair game". If that's what you think, I'll say this beforehand. Stuff it.

You don't scare me little man. You and you're muscle flexing, Stalinistic, polar vision, totalitarian attitudes won't get you anywhere with me.

If anyone here cares about the fate of Lebanese civilians, please sign this petition http://epetitions.net/julywar///

Peace!

I'm afraid that you are not exactly current with the definition of terrorism.
You seem to constitently forget that terrorism involves an element of anti-western sentiments.

Pro-West or anti-West. Choose wisely - your life depends on it.

OIC - you were not 100% pro-Western during the Cold War either, wot?

Ehrm, NO

Terrorism do not involve an element of anti-western sentiment. What was the anti-western sentiment of the IRA or the ETA?

You try to simplify things too much, guess it is a signal of a too simple mind.

Ehrm, NO

Terrorism do not involve an element of anti-western sentiment. What was the anti-western sentiment of the IRA or the ETA?

You try to simplify things too much, guess it is a signal of a too simple mind.


Erm, YES! Marxism.

I think it's a case of the military being let loose. Israel is no different to the States or any other country. Around the politicians you have a few generals, real hardliners, who want to fight and bomb and all the rest of it.

In a weak moment by Olmert and his mates (probably induced by the way Hamas and Hezbollah have destroyed the peace process), they gave the generals the green light. And they went ahead.

I don't think Olmert and his cabinet know themselves where to go from here. They know as well as everybody else that they won't destroy Hezbollah. Peres (now second man) was PM last time they tried, and he sorta got his arse kicked.

The only people who think they can win this by force are the military nuts on both sides. And they'll bomb the snot out of each other for some time to come.
israel don't try to win the war, we try to end the war.
the problem is unless the other side is willing to peace and terrorists are taken care, we can't end that war alone. if the war continue, we have to fight it because surrounderment mean death.
we prove we that when we sign peace agreement with egypt (for sinai) and jordan, pullout from gaza strip and southern lebanon, and give jenerous proposals to the palastinians (which they refused to take). in barak cadency we were close to peace with sirya, but there were disagreements about few dozens of kilometrs from golan hight, and the second intifada make it unimportant and stop the negotiation.
the question is why they keep fighting with us, when it is obviois that they can get much more by negotiation. all the rest is excuses and justifications for terror.

Erm, YES! Marxism.

IRA Marxist?

*giggles uncontrollably*

israel don't try to win the war, we try to end the war.
Yes. Great.

No, to step away from the abstract and esoteric...what is the Israeli government trying to achieve with this campaign? Concrete, real world, attainable goals?

I'm saying that they're not even sure themselves right now. They're picking targets virtually at random now, and the generals want a ground offensive, just to keep something going - that's what military people do.

The fact is, Israel has only made the situation worse for itself.
If they truly wanted to free the captured soldiers, they would, or atleast should have exhausted all diplomatic methods first.
This attack will only make it harder to retrieve the captured soldiers.

I disagree with all the suggested motives in the OP. I agree with Neu L. that this is essentially military policy which is having its day in the sun due to the kidnappings.

Until a week ago, the world at large had no idea that Hezbollah had such accurate rockets. Perhaps the IDF did, and knowing that Israeli civilians were going to be killed by them eventually, prefers to have that happen in the context of a short, limited war in which the IDF is clearly predominant. Rather than nagging attacks at times of H's choosing.

The bridge bombing is perplexing. The airport made sense, the power-station might have been based on good intelligence. There isn't the sort of structural crippling which would presage a ground assault. This is about provoking Hezbollah to shoot all its best shots, and reducing the terrorist threat for a year or so. If it gets the hostages back, that's a jackpot, not the real reason.

It's a purgative. My 2c.

Erm, YES! Marxism.

Actually, the IRA were mutants from planet zx999z99 here to sow communist nazism amongst mankind.

Only a yank would link the IRA to "t3h evildoing communist nazi hippies".

IRA Marxist?

*giggles uncontrollably*


Yep. Try reading up on the IRA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Irish_Republican_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

Actually, the IRA were mutants from planet zx999z99 here to sow communist nazism amongst mankind.

Only a yank would link the IRA to "t3h evildoing communist nazi hippies".


And ditto:

Yep. Try reading up on the IRA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officia...epublican_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...epublican_Army

Yes. Great.

No, to step away from the abstract and esoteric...what is the Israeli government trying to achieve with this campaign? Concrete, real world, attainable goals?

I'm saying that they're not even sure themselves right now. They're picking targets virtually at random now, and the generals want a ground offensive, just to keep something going - that's what military people do.
read the post I ade before. israel side with the decision of G8.
all israel actions discussed over and over and their strategic need, explained over and over in other threads and posts by other posters too. I won't it repeat it again.
beside, this is thread about motives, not about actions. what prove their motives aren't destruction of israel and that israel don't operate by the motives I mention?
if you can't bring facts to the discussion your thoughts about motives are just another conspiracy theory. I prove we willing for peace, what about them?

The fact is, Israel has only made the situation worse for itself.
If they truly wanted to free the captured soldiers, they would, or atleast should have exhausted all diplomatic methods first.
This attack will only make it harder to retrieve the captured soldiers.


The fact is that Israel can increase the odds of getting her missing sons back by
A] taking lots of hezbollahis prisoner and
B] makin' it plain and simple that those laddies will not be eating anything but gruel until those IDF-members have been released.

The fact is, Israel has only made the situation worse for itself.
If they truly wanted to free the captured soldiers, they would, or atleast should have exhausted all diplomatic methods first.
This attack will only make it harder to retrieve the captured soldiers.
diplomatic methods were tried in the past. the operation was must, even if not because of the kidnapp.
we truly want to free the kidnappers, but not on the price the hizbulla ask: free terrorists which will make him stronger and make his legitmacy bigger by the eyes of lebanon citizens. it is double win for the terror, and it only harm the chance for peace.

Ehrm, NO

Terrorism do not involve an element of anti-western sentiment. What was the anti-western sentiment of the IRA or the ETA?

You try to simplify things too much, guess it is a signal of a too simple mind.

I don´t know enough about who backed IRA in the past.
As for ETA, it is known (at least here in the Iberian Peninsula) that they were being financed by such states as Libya, Czeckoslovakia and Cuba well into the 70´s.
That doesn´t make them necessarily anti-Western, they were just pragmaticaly accepting financing from anti-Western countrie THEN.
The situation has obviously changed since.

Erm, YES! Marxism.

Oh, I understand now. By West or Western you mean the United States of America. Wow, people like you are the ones that give united staters a bad name, usually with your head stick deep into the lower part of your back.

I'll stop now, I don't feel like feeding wild mythological creatures that live under bridges and so forth.

I don´t know enough about who backed IRA in the past.
As for ETA, it is known (at least here in the Iberian Peninsula) that they were being financed by such states as Libya, Czeckoslovakia and Cuba well into the 70´s.
That doesn´t make them necessarily anti-Western, they were just pragmaticaly accepting financing from anti-Western countrie THEN.
The situation has obviously changed since.

Where are you from exactly?

I am Basque

Where are you from exactly?

I am Basque
Portugal

...
beside, this is thread about motives, not about actions. what prove their motives aren't destruction of israel and that israel don't operate by the motives I mention?
if you can't bring facts to the discussion your thoughts about motives are just another conspiracy theory.
... Sir. Unless you are party to the secret deliberations of the Israeli cabinet, your own speculations about motive are no more factual than those of a casual Fox-news viewer.
Facts are good. Bring facts. But we were asked to speculate, not justify. Let's speculate as to the reasons for this specific campaign. Are you saying that this campaign, and all future ones, deserve no further examination than "Israel must defend itself?"

Oh, I understand now. By West or Western you mean the United States of America. Wow, people like you are the ones that give united staters a bad name, usually with your head stick deep into the lower part of your back.

I'll stop now, I don't feel like feeding wild mythological creatures that live under bridges and so forth.


By Western I mean basically NATO, including her political, philosophical and religious structures, organisations and institutions.

It does not matter substantially whether an attack is on, say, the ACLU, the CofE or the SPD. What matters is that we respond to those attacks with ferocity and ardour.

It does not matter whether an attack is made by the KKK, the ETA, or for that matter Al Qaeda. What does matter is that our response includes a high degree of severity.

Sir. Unless you are party to the secret deliberations of the Israeli cabinet, your own speculations about motive are no more factual than those of a casual Fox-news viewer.
Facts are good. Bring facts. But we were asked to speculate, not justify. Let's speculate as to the reasons for this specific campaign. Are you saying that this campaign, and all future ones, deserve no further examination than "Israel must defend itself?"

Yes, because he's Israeli, or israeli fan-wannabe. Let the man hold his position, its valid nevertheless, after all, he's trying to defend what he thinks is right, (even as I think he's wrong). He will keep saying that everything Israel does is justified and rightful, and he has the right of do so.

Yes, because he's Israeli, or israeli fan-wannabe. Let the man hold his position, its valid nevertheless, after all, he's trying to defend what he thinks is right, (even as I think he's wrong). He will keep saying that everything Israel does is justified and rightful, and he has the right of do so.

Indeed. The motives he suggests seem very credible to me. I want more of that, not a war of facts.

Indeed. The motives he suggests seem very credible to me. I want more of that, not a war of facts.

;)

read the post I ade before. israel side with the decision of G8.
Israel. Cannot. Defeat. Hezbollah.

Peres knows that already. Olmert will soon.

As for the kidnapped soldiers...let's just say I have my doubts. They're the excuse, not the motive. In the past Israel has just exchanged prisoners and let that be that. Something is different today, and I think it is the fact that IDF command has been able to impress a relatively new cabinet much better than it has been able to in the past with more seasoned politicians, or even ex-military people in charge.

beside, this is thread about motives, not about actions.
I know. I'm saying that their actions don't seem to indicate any motive at all.

what prove their motives aren't destruction of israel and that israel don't operate by the motives I mention?
That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you because you put up the hypothesis.

I prove we willing for peace, what about them?
Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas have any interest in peace whatsoever. Hezbollah had been at relative peace for almost a decade before this, and what did they get for it? Dwindling membership and support and a government holding big talks on how to manage their disarmament.

I'm quoting this post in full, because I think it's excellent, and on-topic.
what are israel motives?
first, we want to keep our survival. this mean we had to fight against the threat of the terror. it also explain why we probably had complete plans about actions against the terror organizations which we take into action when the terrorists "open the door".
second, we don't try to conquer any land. the operations take place in areas we pullout from them, and nobody here want to be there again. except the kahanist minority ovcourse. israel is yet to act with her land forces, and didn't conquered any territories as it happened.
third, israel support the decision of G8 about the situation:after the kidnappers will be returned and lebannese army wil take over southern lebanon and disarm the hizbulla, we will stop any operation we do. this is the israeli motives.
I just want to see more of that. Not name calling.
EDIT: Bad timing. Neu L. is doing it already.

Sir. Unless you are party to the secret deliberations of the Israeli cabinet, your own speculations about motive are no more factual than those of a casual Fox-news viewer.
Facts are good. Bring facts. But we were asked to speculate, not justify. Let's speculate as to the reasons for this specific campaign.as I said historical events prove over and over that israel willing for peace and negotiation, and that terrorists aren't. this prove enough that we had no conspracistic motives about conquerment or all the thing some said.
I expect anybody who launch conspiracy theory to the air, that they will give factual reasons. that all I said.
Are you saying that this campaign, and all future ones, deserve no further examination than "Israel must defend itself?"[/QUOTE]militarilly yes, this is the only reason there are armies in the world (except the countries which want to conquer or destroy other countries, and make the armies must).
oppose to that, if you talk diplomatically or politically then no- we must find the ways to avoid further harm to both side and try and get peace agreements. this is what happened in the past when we found in the other side leadership which are willing and can negotiate and stop agressions against us. if that leadership isn't exist militarilly self-defence acts are must.

Israel. Cannot. Defeat. Hezbollah.

Peres knows that already. Olmert will soon.

As for the kidnapped soldiers...let's just say I have my doubts. They're the excuse, not the motive. In the past Israel has just exchanged prisoners and let that be that. Something is different today, and I think it is the fact that IDF command has been able to impress a relatively new cabinet much better than it has been able to in the past with more seasoned politicians, or even ex-military people in charge.probably you quite right here. if our leaders were still ex-generals, the terrorists were more carefull and they won't try to check if our leadership can dealt with them.
this is much like "acknowledgement test" and if you fail in that test and seen as weak leader you can't survive much as leader in the middle east. sharon didn't had to prove anything because he were feared and respectful in the area.
as much as I know, the kidnapp may be just excuse but it is something that must've happend. better now, than latter when iran will had nukes and her support of terror organization will make it harder to act against them.
the defeat of hizbulla probably won't be happen by force but it will harm them, and the support of G8 and their upcoming solution will finish the work by diplomacy. if the operation won't happen, israel were probably failed to get support for disarm the hizbulla and destroy his rockets launchers (we try it in the past years but can't take the global attention for that problem).

I know. I'm saying that their actions don't seem to indicate any motive at all.maybe some actions would be taken differentilly, but the sum conclusion show that we get most of our goals, which mean the motives are exist and take int thought.


That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you because you put up the hypothesis.I prove the israeli willing for peace, and the actions and speaches of the terrorists prove they want the destruction of israel.
you launched unexplained theory about secret motives of israel. that is what I want you answer me.

Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas have any interest in peace whatsoever. Hezbollah had been at relative peace for almost a decade before this, and what did they get for it? Dwindling membership and support and a government holding big talks on how to manage their disarmament.
both the palastinian and the lebannese people (as wellas israel and her citizens) will benefit from peace agreements, especially when we willing to give them much of their demands. statistics show that in periods of ceasefire the economy is better as well as the life quality of regular people.
if the terror organizations claims to represent their people and not syria, iran or themselves were true and right, they were disarm themselves and negotiate about peace. israel isn't try to make them fight with us.

My conclusion is that you are just another pro-Arab terrorist-enabler.

Excuse me.
Where did this come from? Which part of my post suggests that I am a 'pro-Arab terrorist-enabler'?
It seems that you are both unable to present a cogent arguement nor take part in a debate without insulting people. :mad:
I find that kind of attitude utterly repugnant on a board that genuinely has an opportunity to gather intelligent minds of different view points and upbringings together so we examine issues.
It is posts like yours that turn the internet from a serious opportunity to expand people's understanding and knowledge to just a way for people who live thousands of miles away to insult each other safe behind the anonymity and distance of the internet. If this is truly your style of posting I would respectfully ask you to take your posts elsewhere and leave the rest of us to get on with it.




Now this is the sort of post I like. :D

this is much like "acknowledgement test" and if you fail in that test and seen as weak leader you can't survive much as leader in the middle east. sharon didn't had to prove anything because he were feared and respectful in the area.
So you are suggesting that this is an opportunity for Israel to show it military muscle thus reinforcing the image of effective deterrence?
The timing is auspicous with the US still heavily involved in the region and a lot of pressure for Iran and Syria to keep out of things. They both know they are skating on thin ice and can't afford to get caught doing something wrong, nor actively supporting a military attack on Israel.

the defeat of hizbulla probably won't be happen by force but it will harm them, and the support of G8 and their upcoming solution will finish the work by diplomacy.

So do you think that Israel is hoping to hit key Hezbollah targets first, without a costly ground invasion, and then allow the UN to step in a shoulder the burden of disarming Hezbollah and guarding the northern border? It would make a lot of sense.
Also, if Israel truly expected that they would only get the soldiers back through negotiations (which they may well have decided are too high priced) then a lack of direct action to free them would also make sense.

I prove the israeli willing for peace, and the actions and speaches of the terrorists prove they want the destruction of israel.
I was hoping that the long term peace process and which sides did/ didn't want peace could be explored in another thread. If people think it is relevant here then, by all means we can post a proposal by proposal breakdown. I would suggest that we do use a seperate thread as it would overshadow the more current concerns that I tried to limit this thread to; the IDFs current actions.

you launched unexplained theory about secret motives of israel. that is what I want you answer me.
I hoped that I had explained the reasoning behind my belief that the Israeli government had a different agenda to just rescuing the two missing soldiers and dismantling Hezbollah. If I hadn't then please indicate which parts aren't clear and I will try and post more on them.

both the palastinian and the lebannese people (as wellas israel and her citizens) will benefit from peace agreements, especially when we willing to give them much of their demands. statistics show that in periods of ceasefire the economy is better as well as the life quality of regular people.
if the terror organizations claims to represent their people and not syria, iran or themselves were true and right, they were disarm themselves and negotiate about peace. israel isn't try to make them fight with us.
I thoroughly agree. I do not think that Hezbollah or the militant wing of Hamas have any true interest in a peace that would rob them of their power and influence. However, this thread is not about them.
I was merely enquiring what the Israeli government's objectives were as I did not think their public objectives matched the actions of the IDF.

I would do the same for Hezbollah but I felt that their motives were clear (and despicable).

So you are suggesting that this is an opportunity for Israel to show it military muscle thus reinforcing the image of effective deterrence?
The timing is auspicous with the US still heavily involved in the region and a lot of pressure for Iran and Syria to keep out of things. They both know they are skating on thin ice and can't afford to get caught doing something wrong, nor actively supporting a military attack on Israel.the involvement of USA in the area maybe make it harder to iran and syria to support militarilly the terrorist, but they won't be here forever nor they help us with the local terror organizations.
anyway, the fact that these countries can't be involved directly, make it easier for us to achieve our goals which mean the timing is perfect.

So do you think that Israel is hoping to hit key Hezbollah targets first, without a costly ground invasion, and then allow the UN to step in a shoulder the burden of disarming Hezbollah and guarding the northern border? It would make a lot of sense.
Also, if Israel truly expected that they would only get the soldiers back through negotiations (which they may well have decided are too high priced) then a lack of direct action to free them would also make sense.[/quote[
this is the large idea. we also hoping that the soldier will be free as part of the UN involvement which disarm the hizbulla.

[quote]I was hoping that the long term peace process and which sides did/ didn't want peace could be explored in another thread. If people think it is relevant here then, by all means we can post a proposal by proposal breakdown. I would suggest that we do use a seperate thread as it would overshadow the more current concerns that I tried to limit this thread to; the IDFs current actions.

I thoroughly agree. I do not think that Hezbollah or the militant wing of Hamas have any true interest in a peace that would rob them of their power and influence. However, this thread is not about them.
I was merely enquiring what the Israeli government's objectives were as I did not think their public objectives matched the actions of the IDF.

I would do the same for Hezbollah but I felt that their motives were clear (and despicable).
I tried to to make a point about the motives of the terrorists, but since we had no disagreement here, I will leave that to the other threads.


I hoped that I had explained the reasoning behind my belief that the Israeli government had a different agenda to just rescuing the two missing soldiers and dismantling Hezbollah. If I hadn't then please indicate which parts aren't clear and I will try and post more on them.I think this part was aim on other poster, but I will try to talk about your explained theory.
I don't had much disagreement with you on the 1st and the 4th points, although my conclusions are quite different.
your other points are quite similar and talk about the places we targeted. as I said, most of this targets used to make it harder to hizbulla to fight against us, or make the lebannese goverment involve and stop hizbulla. maybe we take some wrong targets or made other mistakes, but as I see it, we take good way into the achievement of our goals, and the operation is mostly success. for now, I don't think it show any other motives.

And ditto:

Yep. Try reading up on the IRA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officia...epublican_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...epublican_Army

And if you bothered to read the second link you'd that the Marxism was the cause of the split, with the stickies becoming the minority faction. Its remarkably hard to reconcile with ones fellow worker when hes trying to burn your house to the ground. The provos are left wing, but not marxist.

as I said historical events prove over and over that israel willing for peace and negotiation, and that terrorists aren't. this prove enough that we had no conspracistic motives about conquerment or all the thing some said..

So the pullout from Gaza and the sudden increase in settlement construction in the West Bank and around Jerusalem was coincidence, as was the mass movement of settlers into the area after Oslo....

I postulate that Israel is pursuing goals other than the return of its soldiers and an end to Hezbullah's attacks. My reasoning follows.
Right and wrong. All Israel wants is the soldiers back and the attacks to stop. However, as long as Hezbollah exists, the attacks in one form or another will never stop. Therefore, to accomplish its truthfully stated objectives, Israel wants to destroy Hezbollah.

Attacking the targets it has hit in Lebanon will do very little to hinder Hezbollah. The fact that the movement was started and thrived in an environment of Israeli occupation indicates that lobbing bombs and shells over the border will achieve very little in terms of actually damaging it.
Conclusion: If several years of on the ground occupation by the IDF could not defeat Hezbollah then the current scale of campaign will fail as well.

First, the most recent news analysis on the subject says you're wrong. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19838470-31477,00.html)

Second, the current tactics and occupation are not the same thing. The occupation did not cut off Hezbollah's Iranian and Syrian supply lines because Israel never controlled all of Lebanon. Also, occupations tend to breed total resentment against the occupier, whereas most of the Lebanese population in this situation is condemning Hezbollah (only the admittedly sizable portion that are Shi'a Muslims). Hezbollah can't thrive with most of its leaders dead and the majority of its launching positions destroyed.

So your conclusion is wrong.

Israel has asked that the Lebanese Government disband Hezbollah and occupy the southern region of Lebanon. Simultaneously Israel has targeted the Lebanese army, all routes the Lebanese army could use to attack Hezbollah and all mechanisms that could be used to mobilise the army.
Conclusion: Israel has no interest in the Lebanese Government disarming Hezbollah.
Of course Israel would have an interest in action by the Lebanese government. It's not like even the harshest critics of Israel believe that it would needlessly subject its citizens to rocket attacks. But if you think the Lebanese government could or would stop Hezbollah, you're living in a fantasy land.

First, ministers in the Lebanese government have said that it has no intention of or ability to disarm Hezbollah. This seems like a good indicator to me that Israel cannot trust Lebanon to function on its own, and needs to effect what it believes are the necessary steps against Hezbollah.

Second, the Lebanese army has no cohesive disciplinary methods and fractures along ethnic lines. Many of the soldiers would side with Hezbollah in a battle, as proven by the fact that Lebanese soldiers provided Hezbollah intel for a rocket strike on an Israeli warship.

Third, even if they wanted to, they don't have the arms to.

This is the link to the article that will verify all of the facts above, in case you're wondering. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886020405&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Conclusion: Everyone wishes we could live in fantasy land, but we don't.

The IDF has continued to hit areas with notable civilian concentrations. These attacks have, more often then not, missed any Hezbollah and instead killed a number of innocent civilians. The civilian victims of Operation 'Just Reward' have no real influence over the militias that hold them, while the militias themselves are thrive on the media coverage those deaths receive. It is possible that acts such as the destruction of Beirut airport and yesterday's killing of yet more civilians might divide Hezbullah and its supporters from the rest of the country, but only at the risk of triggering another civil war and creating a vacuum that Israel's enemies in Syria and Iran will find easier to exploit.
Conclusion: Israel is seeking to achieve a goal other than a stable and peaceful region.
First, the airport attack killed no civilians.

Second, there's no warranted reason why Israeli strikes would cause Syria and Iran to say "You know what we should do? Put our soldiers in Lebanon, in the way of IDF missiles." You wonder why Iran denies that it had 100 Revolutionary Guard members in Lebanon beforehand, which were found aiding Hezbollah attacks against Israel.

Third, this analysis is mostly redundant with your first argument. But, in case you didn't know, Hezbollah hides its missiles in civilian areas. So many of the attacks were essential in destroying Hezbollah ammunitions. And the IDF drops leaflets telling civilians to leave the area where there may be bombing, accounting for the low level of Hezbollah casualties.

Operation Just Reward is clearly an 'off the shelf' plan which means that it has a very clear, very specific set of goals set a substantial period of time before the recent series of events. To me, the IDF strategy seems to be hinting towards a more strategic initiative.
Conclusion: Israel is either seeking to occupy parts of Lebanon once more or it is seeking an engagement with a different nation/nations and this is all a means to an end.
Why would Israel want to occupy Lebanon, given that there are few Jews and how well it worked last time? You wonder why there aren't ground troops in Lebanon? That's ridiculous.

Israel is trying to pander to the world by bombing Lebanon? Riiiight.


The end is an end to the attacks and the return of the soldiers. The means is the destruction of Hezbollah. Or vice versa; it doesn't matter.

Right and wrong. All Israel wants is the soldiers back and the attacks to stop. However, as long as Hezbollah exists, the attacks in one form or another will never stop. Therefore, to accomplish its truthfully stated objectives, Israel wants to destroy Hezbollah.

Cool, we agree that the Israeli Government is pursuing something other than the basic objectives it has given.
Your suggestion, the destruction of Hezbollah, is supported by much of the media and several press releases.

the most recent news analysis on the subject says you're wrong. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19838470-31477,00.html)
I assume that you are reffering to this part particularly?
"Reports from Beirut yesterday said that Hezbollah officials had declared readiness to discuss the pullback proposal as well as a ceasefire with Israel but were not willing to discuss Israel's demand that it disarm."
If so, I would point you towards
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0718/p01s03-wome.html
which seems to support the idea the Hebullah is doing reasonably well. However, Abraham Rabinovich is a respected Middle Eastern historian so his account may well be accurate, although he uses the phrase 'Reports from Beirut' which is short hand for unconfirmed rumour.
If anyone can post his sources/ confirm the rumour I would greatly appreciate it.
It is also worth noting that he is the only one I have seen to lead with this story and historical evidence points to the capability of a robust organisation surviving bombardment. I remain dubious that Hezbollah are being ground down by the actions of the IDF.

Second, the current tactics and occupation are not the same thing. The occupation did not cut off Hezbollah's Iranian and Syrian supply lines because Israel never controlled all of Lebanon. Also, occupations tend to breed total resentment against the occupier, whereas most of the Lebanese population in this situation is condemning Hezbollah (only the admittedly sizable portion that are Shi'a Muslims). Hezbollah can't thrive with most of its leaders dead and the majority of its launching positions destroyed.


I do not think that cutting the supply lines to an organisation for four or fives days of low intensity fighting can seriously weaken an organisation. I would also suggest that the IDF are running a serious risk of turning the Lebanese population against it, much as the attacks by Hezbollah are not gaining them any popularity in Israel.
In fact the article that you post later on actually supports this position
""A large percentage of the [Lebanese] population is sympathetic to Hizbullah,"
There is little proof that most of Hezbollah's leaders are dead (none that I have seen), nor that the majority of its launching positions destroyed. Also, Hezbollah does not need launching positions to remain a threat. It can either rebuild them or continue the sort of low-intensity warfare the signalled the start of this phase of the conflict and that was a trademark throughout the Occupation.

Of course Israel would have an interest in action by the Lebanese government. It's not like even the harshest critics of Israel believe that it would needlessly subject its citizens to rocket attacks. But if you think the Lebanese government could or would stop Hezbollah, you're living in a fantasy land.
Ah, this one is a bit more clear cut. Most of the people on these boards, including me, don't think the Lebanese government can do anything against Hezbollah. The reason it has been raised is that the Israeli government is demanding that the Lebanese disarm Hezbollah for them and that, in fact, the attacks won't stop until Hezbollah is disarmed thus any continuing attacks are because the Lebanese won't disarm Hezbollah
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/15/mideast/index.html?section=cnn_world
This link isn't the most expansive. I, or others, can dig out more if you like.
It would appear that the Israeli Government is the one 'living in a fantasy land' which is why I postulated that this demand was perhaps not entirely disingenuous.

First, ministers in the Lebanese government have said that it has no intention of or ability to disarm Hezbollah. This seems like a good indicator to me that Israel cannot trust Lebanon to function on its own
Indeed, so why make the demands of them? Or destroy their military bases and compounds, killing troops (who are not fighting back) in the process?

and needs to effect what it believes are the necessary steps against Hezbollah.
And those steps do not consist of actually disarming them but of bombing the areas that they may/ may not occupy?

Second, the Lebanese army has no cohesive disciplinary methods and fractures along ethnic lines. Many of the soldiers would side with Hezbollah in a battle, as proven by the fact that Lebanese soldiers provided Hezbollah intel for a rocket strike on an Israeli warship.
Could you please post source for this 'fact'?
The article you referred to used the term 'reportedly' without mentioning a source itself, or stating it as a fact.
As I said, they are already being attacked by the IDF but the Lebanese army seems to be trying to keep itself out of the conflict as there have been no reports of any fighting between the Lebanese military and the IDF.


First, the airport attack killed no civilians.
Indeed. It did, however, inflict hardships on the country and force major reconstructive work to be shouldered by a populace that is currently being beggared by the IDF. The long term affects of the damage are what might split support away from Hezbollah, as I said. I am not sure what point you are trying to prove?

Second, there's no warranted reason why Israeli strikes would cause Syria and Iran to say "You know what we should do? Put our soldiers in Lebanon, in the way of IDF missiles." You wonder why Iran denies that it had 100 Revolutionary Guard members in Lebanon beforehand, which were found aiding Hezbollah attacks against Israel.
Could you please quote the part where I said that Syria/ Iran were seeking to deploy troops in Lebanon?
Can you please quote your source for stating the Iran had Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon (in the weeks leading up to the abductions?)?

Third, this analysis is mostly redundant with your first argument. But, in case you didn't know, Hezbollah hides its missiles in civilian areas. So many of the attacks were essential in destroying Hezbollah ammunitions. And the IDF drops leaflets telling civilians to leave the area where there may be bombing, accounting for the low level of Hezbollah casualties.
I am not sure what you mean by this being redundant. could you explain further?
Oddly, I am aware that Hezbollah places many of its rocket sites in built up areas but, lets be honest, how many 3rd party reports have you read that stated that the IDF had been successfully targeting Hezbollah munitions? few of the reports I read/ see show any evidence of it.
I am not sure how leafletting an area with a specific timeframe for civillian escape would not allow Hezbollah time to move as well. I suspect the leaflets are along the lines of 'Hezbollah are bad' and 'Get out of the area now as we will be bombing it for the next few days'.
Does anyone have a link to a site with the leaflets on?

Why would Israel want to occupy Lebanon, given that there are few Jews and how well it worked last time? You wonder why there aren't ground troops in Lebanon? That's ridiculous.
*sigh*
Yes, I wonder why there are not ground troops in Lebanon.
Let me explain again:-
Without ground troops Israel will not rescue the hostages.
Without ground troops Israel will not disarm Hezbollah.
So how will the Israeli Government achieve these publicly stated goals without invading? Perhaps its publicly stated goals are not all it is pursuing.

Israel is trying to pander to the world by bombing Lebanon? Riiiight.
I put this forward as a theory, not fact.
However, has Israel successfully negotiated for hostages before? Yes.
Is it negotiating now? No.
Are its current negotiating tactics killing 40 and wounding 80 a day? Yes (although I'll check the figures).

Please, suggest another motive for carrying out exactly the sort of operations that attract media attention and UN involvement, rather than doing things in a much more subtle way.

The end is an end to the attacks and the return of the soldiers. The means is the destruction of Hezbollah. Or vice versa; it doesn't matter.
As far as I am aware the attacks have intensified and the soldiers are no nearer to being released (in fact the IDF is bombing the area that the IDF is publicly claiming the soldiers are being held).
There is no example of an organised terrorist force/ guerrilla army being defeated by bombing and shelling. None. Anywhere.
In fact, the article you posted suggested the Hezbollah, which was withering on the vine of general peace, is once again popular with a predictable affect on their recruitment rates.
I do not believe that this will be any different unless Israel is seeking to engage with other nations (could be the US, Egypt, Syria, Russia, China, I wasn't specific so that the debate would be had) and they put pressure on Hezbollah.

I would greatly appreciate if, in future, you would be less patronising when posting and you would treat this as a iterative process to get closer to the truth rather than 'I'm right, you're wrong' contest.
Thank you

someone on the radio the other day had a good point about this Lebanon thing.

they said that the party in power was elected on the platform of withdrawl from settlements and so they made this move in order not to appear weak or else they would not have public confidence in their ability to carry out their goals without appearing to do it as an appeasment to terrorists and an inability to protect Israel.

So the pullout from Gaza and the sudden increase in settlement construction in the West Bank and around Jerusalem was coincidence, as was the mass movement of settlers into the area after Oslo....
those actions aren't made by goverment. most of it are secretlly movement of private citizens.
in the period of oslo and before, they worked with lower secretery in the ministeries or the local commander in the army, without tell the leaders.
mistakes have been made and complicated the situation in the west bank, but the strip and lebanon has nothing to do with it, and they should've stop the terror from this areas if they were real "freedom fighter" or representer of their people.

Survival.

someone on the radio the other day had a good point about this Lebanon thing.

they said that the party in power was elected on the platform of withdrawl from settlements and so they made this move in order not to appear weak or else they would not have public confidence in their ability to carry out their goals without appearing to do it as an appeasment to terrorists and an inability to protect Israel.
make quite sense but wrong. the second pullout plan can't be achieved without long time of ceasefire. the current events make it clearer to the opposition that withrdaw is "victory for terror", thus bring more terror (if you right-wing) or that the fact it don't include any negotiation with the palastinians is "recipy for anarchy", thus harm the peace proccess (if you left-wing). both sides agree that israel can't except that end of the bloodship will achieved in the withdrawn territories if we don't had sign agreement (which in the worst situation let us blame the other side).
other problems are the facts that this plan include only destroying of the settlement and not withrawal of the army, the territory aren't isolated and controlable like the strip, israel withraw there only to the line of the security wall (or less of it) and keep the control on area near the border of jordan.
olmert's plan had no support by the UN, the EU, USA, arab states, PLO (or any organization from their), israeli community, parlamient, goverment, or his own party. even those who take it as less evil (as they think), won't give him enough support to this plan.
I don't think his plan can achieve anything from this situation, which already harm it a lot.