Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 387

Thread: Israel v Lebanon

  1. #21
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Back in London
    Posts
    507
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch
    To quote Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni: "Hizbullah is a terrorist organization, which is part of the Lebanese government. The international community, including the Security Council, has demanded, repeatedly, that the government of Lebanon dismantle Hizbullah. Lebanon has failed to act and today’s aggression is the result."
    Only a Strong government with a clear mandate from the people could achieve this. After a bitter internal civil war that lasted 15 yrs, Israel invaded southern Lebenon in 1982 under the same pretext that it is using today, then it was the PLO. As a result of that the syrians moved into northern Lebanon to protect its eastern border from what it saw as an israelie threat. Remember clashes between the two in the Bekaa valley...(No didnt think so)

    Israel only disengaged in late 2000 and the Syrians finally bowed to Lebanese Goverment pressure and left in 2005 after its policy of assination of Lebanese government ministers failed to convince them otherwise. The present administration has been in power only a very short time, and given the previous 20+ years of conflict hardly in a position to oust a popularist grass roots anti-Israelie movement and lets face it Israel doesn't do a lot to enamour itself to its neighbours.

    There currently is no pressure by the international community being put on the Israelies to bring its armed response into context, mainly because the Bush administration views all middle eastern para-military (one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter) organisations as linked to Al-Queda and thus by extension an enemy of the US.

    Basically this situation will continue until it becomes politically expedient in the west to call a halt, or to paraphrase when the Oil price becomes too expensive.

  2. #22
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyr
    After a bitter internal civil war that lasted 15 yrs, Israel invaded southern Lebenon in 1982 under the same pretext that it is using today, then it was the PLO. As a result of that the syrians moved into northern Lebanon to protect its eastern border from what it saw as an israelie threat.
    Syria moved 40,000 troops into Lebanon as early as 1976, in an alliance with the Maronite Christians. Syrian involvement in Lebanon predates the Israeli campaigns there, the first of which was back in 1978.

    Once again, a simplistic two-paragraph precis of any situation in the middle east leaves out vital facts, distorts others, and misinteprets the rest. Even without loaded words such as "pretext", "grass-roots" and "para-military".

    By the way: It would be Syria's western border, and Israeli doesn't have an e on the end.
    Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 19th-July-2006 at 12:24 PM.

  3. #23
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Msfab
    These groups which have based themselves on islam, because its the major religon in the area, which looks for justice! How do you achieve justice?
    Through the democratic process ? Its about time the countries in the region took a more civilized approach to their peoples future.

  4. #24
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    Through the democratic process ? Its about time the countries in the region took a more civilized approach to their peoples future.
    I guess it's just one of those Western preconceptions that democratic equals better. Do I think it is? Yes - but then I grew up in the West.

  5. #25
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Back in London
    Posts
    507
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Syria moved 40,000 troops into Lebanon as early as 1976, in an alliance with the Maronite Christians.
    Thats true, How many did that increase to, once the Israeli occupation started and were the clashes in the Bekaa territorial?

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Once again, a simplistic two-paragraph precis of any situation in the middle east leaves out vital facts, distorts others, and misinteprets the rest. Even without loaded words such as "pretext", "grass-roots" and "para-military".
    Any simplistic two-paragraph precis will do that on any subject, what I was trying to was give some historical context. What would you call Hezbollah, only terrorists kill innocent civilians? How many murder charges have levelled against the Israeli Army recently?


    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    By the way: It would be Syria's western border, and Israeli doesn't have an e on the end.
    Sorry, wrote it in a rush(got a day job) didnt have time to do due diligence on the piece.

    I can now go one better than a simplistic two-paragraph precis. The simplistic one-paragragh precis, this one I took a little more time over.

    It seems to me Hezbollah’s kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers shows that the region's "para-military"(not terrorist) organisations have discovered Israel’s soft spot. By acting more harshly in response to soldiers being taken than it does to the suicide attacks that kill dozens of its innocent citizens, Israel has clearly displayed what it takes to be infuriated. Hezbollah has targeted this soft spot, and the response they received implies that hitting that spot hurts Israel more. Lets face it the Israeli response by delivering threats of war is as inappropriate as Hezbollah’s actions that pushed Israel to respond this way in the first place.
    Last edited by mikeyr; 19th-July-2006 at 01:07 PM.

  6. #26
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyr
    It seems to me Hezbollah’s kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers shows that the region's "para-military"(not terrorist) organisations have discovered Israel’s soft spot. By acting more harshly in response to soldiers being taken than it does to the suicide attacks that kill dozens of its innocent citizens, Israel has clearly displayed what it takes to be infuriated. Hezbollah has targeted this soft spot, and the response they received implies that hitting that spot hurts Israel more.
    I think your analysis is again too simple. Hizbullah is not Hamas, nor Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, nor Islamic Jihad. Israeli military action in Lebanon aims to reduce the capability of Hizbullah to target northern and other Israeli towns with Iranian rockets, as well as counter Hizbullah's attempt to redefine itself (and therefore its paymaster Iran) as a dominant player in the Middle East. Israeli responses to suicide bombings are aimed to minimise future danger from that direction too. The difference between the two reactions reveals nothing that an opinion poll in the streets of Tel Aviv wouldn't tell you.

    Pay attention also to the timing of this crisis: sparked by Iranian-backed Hizbullah, it achieved a significant goal of driving any discussion of Iranian nuclear ambitions off the G8 agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyR
    Lets face it the Israeli response by delivering threats of war is as inappropriate as Hezbollah’s actions that pushed Israel to respond this way in the first place.
    If you're worried about "threats" of war (I'm not), then pay atttention to Hassan Nasrallah, who's been bidding pretty well in the auction (July 15).

  7. #27
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    I guess it's just one of those Western preconceptions that democratic equals better. Do I think it is? Yes - but then I grew up in the West.
    I wouldnt say it was the best and I was only implying it was better in the context of the current situation. Killing people doesnt garner you much support, the reason Israel gets more backing is that they are generally perceived as being stuck in the middle surrounded by arab nutters - and were "put there" (there being their traditional lands) by the western powers in the first place- but even that traditional opinion is changing e.g. the assumption that the "bombing the beach" incident was Israels doing.

    Israel would have to abide by democratic resolutions brought by the combined might of arab countries as the rest of the west would see the whole thing as massive progress toward peace in the region.
    Say there was a peaceful arab coalition of all the countries surrounding Israel and they got rid of all the suicide bombers and fundamentalists and requested support from the UN and "the west" for their "issues". They would get it.

    Sorry lunch, away to shoot the pig that flew past my window.

  8. #28
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    Killing people doesnt garner you much support
    To the contrary: in the context of a discussion about democracy, killing the right people gets you a huge amount of popular support. The Israeli government is said currently to be enjoying the support of 80% of its electorate, Hizbullah enjoys a groundswell of approval for battling against the "Zionist Enemy", and Hamas suicide bombings were no doubt part of the reason for its landslide victory in Palestinian elections. (And no, I'm not making any comment about the equivalence or otherwise of those organisations or their actions. Margaret Thatcher won a landslide victory in 1984 after war in the Falkland Islands, too.)

    Looking further afield, Egypt has problems with extremist Islam that continually threatens to do well in democratic elections, and the 1991 elections in Algeria were won by Islamic extremists (the victory was rather hollow though since the military seized power and annulled the results). What if, for instance, 60% of the population of Britain was Muslim, and voted to enforce Sharia law?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    Israel would have to abide by democratic resolutions brought by the combined might of arab countries as the rest of the west would see the whole thing as massive progress toward peace in the region.
    In the context of world politics I suspect that no Israeli would agree that they would "have" to do any such thing, particularly given the national disgust at what is genuinely seen as bias and lack of balance shown by organisations such as the UN and the EU.

  9. #29
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    To the contrary: in the context of a discussion about democracy, killing the right people gets you a huge amount of popular support.
    You would not garner much support from the people you're killing. I would have thought you'd have picked up on my meaning If the aim is peace, you want support from the "enemy" too, and killing them does not do that very well. It makes you and by association, your position, seem quite unreasonable.

  10. #30
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    You would not garner much support from the people you're killing. I would have thought you'd have picked up on my meaning If the aim is peace, you want support from the "enemy" too, and killing them does not do that very well. It makes you and by association, your position, seem quite unreasonable.
    Look, I'm not worried in the least about whether I seem reasonable nor about whether my position seems reasonable. You can examine what I (and anyone else) has to say in the light of your own cultural and historical prejudices, just like I do you.

    You say "if your goal is peace": well again there are differences of opinion about what that word means in practice. Refer above to my abbreviated list of the characters who might use that word rather differently. And "support" from the enemy? No, I don't think that's anybody's goal in this set of conflicts.

  11. #31
    Registered User Msfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    PhD land - Yippeee
    Posts
    1,104
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Pay attention also to the timing of this crisis: sparked by Iranian-backed Hizbullah, it achieved a significant goal of driving any discussion of Iranian nuclear ambitions off the G8 agenda.
    Not only that but also whats happening in southern palestine!

    Yes I know they also kidnapped a soldier!

  12. #32
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Look, I'm not worried in the least about whether I seem reasonable nor about whether my position seems reasonable.
    aah i think you read my you as you, it was meant in the general sense.

    And "support" from the enemy? No, I don't think that's anybody's goal in this set of conflicts.
    Im suggesting that it should be, and that by having peace as a goal "you" (quotes this time ) do want the support of the people you want peace with. Harmony is not likely if you want the "other lot" to be killed.

  13. #33
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
    Im suggesting that it should be, and that by having peace as a goal "you" (quotes this time ) do want the support of the people you want peace with. Harmony is not likely if you want the "other lot" to be killed.
    But telling people what their aims in a war "should" be doesn't work. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, many people's goal is simply not "to live in harmony with those with whom they're currently at war". What they see (and they may be a majority of one side or the other, or both) as a 'fair' solution is fundamentally incompatible with this outcome.

  14. #34
    Meglio del Cioccolato Demo
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,541
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Syria moved 40,000 troops into Lebanon as early as 1976, in an alliance with the Maronite Christians. Syrian involvement in Lebanon predates the Israeli campaigns there, the first of which was back in 1978.
    Actually, During the 1967 Six Day War Israeli forces seized a piece of Lebanese territory called the Shebaa Farms, an area consisting of 14 farms located south of the Shebaa, a Lebanese village on the western slopes of Mount Hermon.

    Israel claimed this area to be Syrian territory, while it was transferred from Syria to Lebanon in the early '50. The UN, pointing out that the 1923 Anglo-French demarcation and the 1949 Armistice line clearly designated the area as Syrian territory, backed Israel and certified its pullout from Lebanon.

  15. #35
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    But telling people what their aims in a war "should" be doesn't work.
    I wouldnt dream of it, Im talking purely in the theoretical sense. For this "solution" to work people need to think of it themselves.

  16. #36
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Back in London
    Posts
    507
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    But telling people what their aims in a war "should" be doesn't work. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, many people's goal is simply not "to live in harmony with those with whom they're currently at war". What they see (and they may be a majority of one side or the other, or both) as a 'fair' solution is fundamentally incompatible with this outcome.
    IT doesn't help things when the Leader of the most powerful nation in the world starts talking to his "Poodle" with the microphones still on..........

    US President George W. Bush made another gaffe at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg.
    Bush -- assuming the microphone was off -- was caught during the lunch for leaders of the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg.
    Chatting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair over lunch, Bush said "What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this ****, and it's over."


    BTW - I do hate picking up on spelling on this forum, cos basically I am an easy going kinda guy(and I am oft guilty). But it is spelt "Hezbollah"

  17. #37
    Registered User El Salsero Gringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,881
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyr
    BTW - I do hate picking up on spelling on this forum, cos basically I am an easy going kinda guy(and I am oft guilty). But it is spelt "Hezbollah"
    You might spell it like that. But it's Arabic, and avails itself of various different transliterations. So with your permission, I'm happy with Hizbullah. (We have "Hizb-ut-Tahrir", after all.) Perhaps Msfab might comment?

  18. #38
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyr
    But it is spelt "Hezbollah"
    No it isnt, thats just how YOU spell it - dont get pedantic about a phonetic language

  19. #39
    Registered User Msfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    PhD land - Yippeee
    Posts
    1,104
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    You might spell it like that. But it's Arabic, and avails itself of various different transliterations. So with your permission, I'm happy with Hizbullah. (We have "Hizb-ut-Tahrir", after all.) Perhaps Msfab might comment?
    Its actually 2 words meaning group/party (hezb/hizb) of/for God (allah).

    Go down to the notes section of this page http://www.answers.com/topic/hezbollah (I think/say it with more of an 'A' in it "Hazibullah". The arab language doesnt really have an 'H' as we'd say it in english and is probably where the confusion comes in)

    Your term 'Hizb-ut-Tahrir' actually means 'party of freedom' which is different to 'party of God'

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    1,476
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Israel v Lebanon

    Quote Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
    Pay attention also to the timing of this crisis: sparked by Iranian-backed Hizbullah, it achieved a significant goal of driving any discussion of Iranian nuclear ambitions off the G8 agenda.
    If you're worried about "threats" of war (I'm not), then pay atttention to Hassan Nasrallah, who's been bidding pretty well in the auction (July 15).
    With regards to the timing of the crisis, there is a lot of speculation that Hezbollah wanted to test out the new Israeli leader to see if he might be a bit weaker than Sharon and be blackmailed into releasing Hezbollah Millitants in return for Israeli soldiers. I also wonder if the strength of the response on this first major crisis since Ehud Olmert took over is designed to answer any questions in Hezbollahs mind about the new Israeli leaderships resolve.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •