Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
if israel had not invaded lebanon in the 80s, there would be no hezbollah.
|
Curiously, you omit the other 99.999% of the story. Are you not aware of the PLO? Are you not aware that Arafat was doing the exact same thing to Israel in the 70s and 80s, as Nasrallah is doing now? As an historian, it is unfortunate that you do not seem to.
Quote:
|
and if you think about it, a cease fire now serves hezbollah much more clearly than it does israel, from a tactical viewpoint---israeli has not accomplished its stated objectives, its actions have resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of civilians--the olmert government will undoubtedly pay for this politically.
|
Didn't the UN call for a ceasefire in 1978 under almost exactly the same circumstances as now: that is, the PLO attacking Israeli civilians, Israel entering south Lebanon to stop the attacks, the UN calling for a ceasefire? Wasn't there widespread Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics, and the murder of pro-Lebanese governmental forces, along with a Civil War fomented by PLO guerillas? Weren't there civilian massacres and war crimes at the hands of warring militias inside Lebanon? Doesn't this have any relevance at all to current events?
I agree with you that the ceasefire serves hezbollah more than it does Israel. It gives hezbollah (or another terrorist group like them) the opportunity to fight another day, and it gives the politicians something to appease their constituencies with. In other words, it serves to maintain the status quo.
Quote:
|
the only bigger loser in this mess than the olmert government is the bush administration.
|
The way I see it, the biggest losers here are the Israeli and Lebanese civilians who will continue to die because of the ongoing extremist agenda calling for the destruction of Israel.
---
unnecessary.
apologies to roachboy.