Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-21-2006, 10:54 PM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
hiredgun's Avatar
 
Taking Stock of Lebanon

With a bit of distance now between ourselves and this summer's conflict, I'd like to pose a simple question about the confrontation between Israel, Hizbullah, and the Lebanese state; namely, what has been accomplished? What have been the significant consequences of this war, for the actors involved as well as others with a stake in the region?

Let's think deeper than merely listing numbers and material losses, which I'm sure have been expounded in detail in other threads. (I'm not interested in a laundry-list of casualties for its own sake.) I am more interested in the meaning of what has happened. As I see it there are a number of areas of consequence:

1) the Israeli position, particularly with regard to security as Israel's primary concern

2) Hizbullah. Factors to consider include their Lebanese, Arab, and international standings; their position vis-a-vis the Lebanese state and body politic; and their fighting ability.

3) the Lebanese state and body politic

4) the United States and the discourse of the global war on terror

5) Arab (as well as Muslim) regimes and populations

An additional issue is whether this round of the conflict is truly over or only momentarily paused; Hizbullah remains on the ground, and the IDF remains in parts of South Lebanon.

Address one or more of these as you like; they are inter-related and are included mainly as guidelines.
hiredgun is offline  
Old 09-22-2006, 05:49 AM   #2 (permalink)
Conspiracy Realist
 
Sun Tzu's Avatar
 
Location: The Event Horizon
I dont think it's over. It looks as though Israel was internationally influenced (or the US was internationally influenced) to restrain itself. Im sure had it been up to them they would have kept going. The war has been going on since the end of WW II, it just has periods of slience. There is going to have to be a definative battle where one side is left standing. Or Israel can abandon the settlements the international community have determined illegal.
The high probability the second of the two wont happen, things are going to get worse and most likely never get better.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
Sun Tzu is offline  
Old 09-22-2006, 06:11 AM   #3 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
As far as I can tell, two results were produced:

1) Hezbullah is strengthened. They now have the support of all of Lebanon and much of the rest of the Arab world. Prior to this confrontation, they were favored, but not considered a major player. Now they're both a military force and (especially in the aftermath of the attacks on Lebanon) a benefactor of Lebanese society.

2) The US and Israel are further polarized and isolated from the international community. The WHOLE WORLD was screaming for Israel to stop its attacks. Literally, it was every nation of the UN verus Israel and the US. We're now the political fringe, the international bully cruising for a fight. Israel is TOTALLY INSANE about security, and with its American allies, it will operate like the bully's little thug sidekick, enforcing US policy in the Middle East.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 09-22-2006, 06:31 AM   #4 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
1) the Israeli position, particularly with regard to security as Israel's primary concern
Israel knew what it was doing. I am almost certian their intention was to prevent Lebanon from becoming a peaceful, non-extreemist state. You see Israel can't control Lebanon if it becomes peaceful. Hezbollah was losing it's standing in the minds of the Lebanese people. Their economy was growing. Lebanon was going to be something of an example for other extreemist states in the region. Israel wouldn't have that, so when the Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, instead of doing a prisoner exchange like normal they decided to go to war. They fought the Hezbollah, Hezbollah gained back a great deal of support, and now we have a Lebanon with a South that is in ruins, the people are pissed as hell at Israel, and I'll bet that Hezbollah gains back a lot of political power after this, and that foriegn policy in Lebanon shifts back to a more extreemist view. So long peaceful Lebanon, hello Israeli dominance in the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
2) Hizbullah. Factors to consider include their Lebanese, Arab, and international standings; their position vis-a-vis the Lebanese state and body politic; and their fighting ability.
Their fighting ability was claerly underestimated. It never ceases to amaze me how nations with technologically advanced militaries assume that they can mow down less technologically advances militaries or militias. That's not how it works. Look in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. Now, as stated above, the Hezbollah will regain a lot of political power that they were losing to more peaceful leaders. Lebanon will deevolve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
4) the United States and the discourse of the global war on terror
Once the next elections are over and the Hezbollah gains back more control, the US will declair it a terrorist state, and i will die a little on the inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
An additional issue is whether this round of the conflict is truly over or only momentarily paused; Hizbullah remains on the ground, and the IDF remains in parts of South Lebanon.
This is a momentary breather between rounds. It will only get worse as time goes on. If Lebanon were to be left alone, the Hezbollah would destroy itself. Most of the Lebanese know that the Hezbollah are to radical to be benificial. The Hezbollah were headed towards obscurity and thus oblivion.

Not so anymore.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-22-2006, 07:12 AM   #5 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
well, there's this dimension--fundamental but forgotten too often:

Quote:
Seventy per cent of Palestinians in Gaza need international food aid to survive ? UN
Report, UN News, 19 September 2006

With the new school year beginning in just a few days, 70 per cent of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip cannot feed themselves without assistance, a 30 per cent increase in the number in just over a year, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) said today.

The Gaza economy is near total collapse and WFP, which this month increased the number of people to whom it is providing food by 25 per cent to 220,000 persons, will try to add more beneficiaries since the situation was deteriorating on a daily basis, spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume told a news briefing in Geneva.

Overall, half of the Palestinians living in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank are unable to feed themselves without assistance, she added.

Earlier this year Israel stopped the transfer of Palestinian value added taxes (VAT) and other countries suspended contributions to the Palestinian Authority (PA) following the Hamas election victory in January.
source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5752.shtml

which is appalling and ongoing and forgotten.

it appears that the olmert government is heading for collapse.
it will, if polls are correct, be replaced by a rightwing government and wth that any hope of a more rational israeli "security" position will probably go out the window for the foreseeable future.

the brutalization of gaza will continue.

the americans--well the bush administration--is a big big loser in this. the only solace i can see is that the fact that the bush administration is already the richard bey show of international politics--the formation that defies ridicule by actually implementing policies beyond the imagination of a satirist--and thereby has so little credibility to loose that...well....ok i dont really see how any of this functions as solace, so never mind.

lebanon: this is an overview...

Quote:
Counting the Cost of Destruction in Lebanon
Saturday, 16 September, 2006 @ 5:12 AM



By Hardev Kaur
The damage inflicted on Lebanon is unbelievable. It is not just the damage to vital infrastructure but also the environment, the economy and the unseen dangers that threaten the health of its people.


The economy, which was growing between five and six per cent annually in part due to increasing tourist arrivals, has been severely impaired.

The humanitarian disaster is beyond comprehension. The cluster bombs used by Israel continue to take lives even after the fragile ceasefire came into force. Aid workers find it difficult to reach those who desperately need help as infrastructure, including roads and bridges, had been systematically destroyed by the Israeli bombardments.

The total cost of the devastation has yet to be calculated. Donors, meeting in Stockholm last month, pledged US$940 million for the reconstruction of Lebanon. But whether these funds will reach those affected and help restore some semblance of normalcy is yet to be seen.

By some accounts, it would cost more than US$2 trillion to repair the physical damage. But the cost of lives cannot be estimated. How does one put a dollar figure to an individual's life? The future of many children has been robbed, their schools destroyed and many lost their teachers in addition to their parents.

Then there is the environmental damage. The oil spills are washing up on the beaches in the Mediterranean. Lauren Walker, a columnist with a holiday home in Greece, says in an email: "I am in our house on a beach in Greece. Last night, I watched loggerhead turtles hatch 50 metres from our house ... magic! But the oil spill in Lebanon is turning into the biggest environmental disaster in the Mediterranean since Exxon (Exxon Valdez, which spilled in Prince William Sound, Alaska) in 1989.

"Conservative estimates are that it will cost US$50 million to clean up the Lebanese beaches and that most of the eastern Mediterranean will become affected," she says.

"The actual damage will take years to assess. The main problem in the Mediterranean this year is the rise in the number of jelly fish. Turtles usually eat them and environmentalists are saying that the changing balance of nature will see a continued increase in poisonous varieties."

The cost of restoration and cleaning up is mounting. Weeks after the cessation of hostilities, the oil spills are threatening coastal waters, not only of Lebanon and its more than 200 beaches, but also Syria and Turkey.

The economic effects of the spill go far beyond the immediate coastline.

More than 1.6 million tourists had been expected this year - bringing in US$4.4 billion, said Tourism Minister Joe Sarkis.

Tourism accounts for about 12 per cent of the economy. Seaside resorts and restaurants account for more than half of that. "Without the sea, it would reduce the attraction of Lebanon," Sarkis said. "It might take between one and two years to clean."

And over the longer term, unless the area is cleaned up and the cluster bombs systematically removed, there will always be questions as to whether Lebanon and its beaches are a safe holiday destination.

Back in Nicosia where she lives, Lauren adds: "As far as I know, the oil slick is now being tackled but it's a long hard slog." And she is right.

Not only has much of the infrastructure been destroyed, but the equipment needed to clean up the spills cannot be delivered to the affected areas fast enough. The longer it takes to clean up the oil spills, the greater the damage to the environment and economy.

Fishermen are having a hard time making ends meet. Thousands of families who depend on the sea for their primary food supply - fish - are also in dire straits.

Even if they survived the hostilities and escaped the cluster bombs, their fish supplies could be contaminated, leading to medical problems over the longer term.

Environmentalists say they are concerned by the possible use of depleted uranium, air pollution caused by fires and the destruction of houses and factories as well as the long term effects of war on rural and farming communities' interaction with their environment.

There is increasing evidence that the conflict will leave greater long-term legacies, in addition to the huge losses of lives and material damage.

And work to tackle this has not even started.
Picture: A layer of crude oil covers the Ramlet el-Beida public beach in Beirut. Lebanon is preparing legal action to sue Israel for damages over the huge oil spill caused by Israeli bombing of a power station during the recent conflict, the environment minister said ( AP)
source: http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...ing_the_co.php

and this:

Quote:
A lasting legacy: The deadly impact of cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon
Report, OCHA, 19 September 2006

The sheer amount of unexploded ordnance that remains in south Lebanon, one of the poorest areas of the country, has implications for the future social and economic livelihood of the region. The quick destruction of remaining unexploded ordnance, particularly cluster bomb sub-munitions, is critical to restoring normalcy to the region and, ultimately, to a secure and lasting peace. It is vital that a social safety net be quickly established and that agricultural livelihoods are restored to prevent people from south Lebanon slipping deeper into poverty.

The Scale of the Problem


During the conflict, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) delivered up to 3,000 bombs, rockets and artillery rounds daily, climbing to 6,000 daily towards the war's end.

Hizbollah launched around 100 daily, climbing to 240 daily before the war's end.

Around 90 per cent of all cluster bombs and their sub-munitions were fired by the IDF into south Lebanon during the last 72 hours of the conflict.

UNMACC has identified 516 cluster bomb strike locations.

The failure rate of these cluster bomb sub-munitions is estimated by UNMACC to be between 30 and 40 per cent.

Based on reports by IDF soldiers, as many as 350,000 unexploded cluster sub-munitions are scattered throughout south Lebanon. This excludes the cluster bomb firings by conventional artillery or dropped by Israeli aircraft.

A single artillery shell disperses sub-munitions over an area as large as two football pitches. Air delivered cluster shells saturate an area twice that size.

It could take up to 30 months to destroy the majority of unexploded cluster sub-munitions.

Israel's passing over the coordinates of the cluster bomb strikes, as requested by the UN, would greatly accelerate the clearance effort.

The Victims


The density of cluster munitions in south Lebanon is higher than that witnessed in Kosovo and Iraq, with a greater concentration in built-up areas, according to UNMACC.

Unexploded cluster munitions have killed or wounded, on average, three people daily since 14 August.

At least 15 people have died and 83 others wounded since 14 August.

Most of these casualties have occurred as people checked their homes or fields.

Five civilians have been killed while herding or working their land and a further 16 have been injured.

One child has been killed and 23 others injured.

The impact of cluster munitions on agricultural livelihoods


The south is among the poorest regions in Lebanon and has also been the hardest hit by the conflict.

Agriculture is the main source of income in south Lebanon - depended on entirely by half the working population and providing 70 per cent of household incomes.

The direct damage to agriculture caused by the conflict is more than $70m, excluding the cost of indirect economic losses, which the Ministry of Agriculture says are considerably higher.

Farmers have not been able to irrigate or harvest their current crops and are unable to plant the winter crop. Next year's agriculture cycle will also be affected.

Farmers have been burning off their fields after demarking the bomblets in an attempt to destroy them.

At least 6 per cent (94km2) of land used to cultivate citrus fruits and bananas - the highest-value crops - and 10 per cent (74km2) of land for field crops are contaminated. UNMACC expects the percentage of agricultural land contaminated to rise as new cluster bomb strike locations are identified.

Unexploded ordnance - the fear it may be there -- keeps farmers out of their fields and unable to prune their trees in preparation for next year's harvest.

More than 7 per cent (35km2) grasslands, used for animal grazing, is contaminated.

The banks and streambeds of 173 streams and rivers in south Lebanon are contaminated putting shepherds and farmers at risk.

The Response to Cluster Bombs


By 27 September, UNMACC teams will be clearing munitions from farmers' fields.

The Lebanese army, UNIFIL, NGOs and UNMACC are disposing explosive ordnance and their capacity is increasing all the time.

Donors have supported the establishment of clearance capacity, and early indications are that sufficient funding should be available to sustain operations until December 2007.
source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5768.shtml

here is an analysis of the situation hezbollah finds itself working with now:

Quote:
Hezballah seeks to live with a new situation

Only a few weeks after the end of the hostilities, Hezballah has launched an organized offensive against the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora in order to have a new cabinet installed that would include Michel Aoun and other allies of the ?Party of God?. Many sources have published a detailed plan demonstrating how the Hezballah-Free Patriotic Movement axis will proceed in the near future to achieve this aim. Meanwhile all Hezballah officials have been firing verbal salvoes at the present cabinet at every opportunity, and the March 14 coalition has been hitting back. Where will this dangerous confrontation lead? Some parties are talking about a civil war. Is this possible now after 17 years of the peace process that began with the Taef Agreement? In his recent interview with the Al-Jazeera news channel, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the general secretary of Hezballah, said that there was no danger of a confrontation between Sunnites and Shiites, and spoke in favor of reconciling all their differences. He added that in his view, there was absolutely no question that a war or religious conflict could erupt again. But in a previous statement Nasrallah said his group has been practicing self-restraint against what he described as back-stabbing and provocation by some politicians.

There was no restraint in the way he castigated the visiting British prime minister, Tony Blair, or the way he accused the Saniora cabinet of failing to protect the Lebanese against the Israeli battering ram. He also claimed that guerrillas of the party were still south of the Litani, and indeed throughout the border zone.
In the political dictionary these statements might have two contradictory meanings. On the one hand, they could aim to anchor a strong position, making use of the military advantages Hezballah obtained during the war and benefiting from the support he got from some Lebanese groups during and after the war especially.
But on the other hand, this discourse could be seen as retaliation against the political and strategic losses of the party. Supporters of this point of view say that Hezballah never imagined the final scenario, in which an enlarged and strengthened UNIFIL would deploy throughout the border zone in a way that would drastically limit Hezballah?s scope of action. It miscalculated how far the international community would tighten its control on the party?s military activities along the border and deep inside the country. And the commitments the Saniora government has made to the international community go very much against the party?s interest in the long term.
For these reasons Hezballah decided to target the government in order to consolidate its presence in the decision-making that will affect the party?s future. Nasrallah chose the visit of Blair to pivot his attack against the government. He considered that ?the first mistake of [Saniora] and the political bloc that backs him is that, by inviting Blair, they behaved immorally and inhumanly towards the people who were killed, wounded or displaced?. He added there were attempts to ?humiliate, to harm, stab in the back and provoke?. But on the political levels the offense was not strongly justified because Blair was not the only foreign official to criticize Hezballah?s behavior. The French prime minister and his foreign minister, the German chancellor and many others condemned the abduction of the two soldiers and pushed for adoption of UN Resolution 1701, which has clipped the party?s wings. Many of these officials visited Beirut and no one raised any objection. Why Tony Blair? Because he is an easy target, not only because he is in political trouble at home, but also because he is George Bush?s closest foreign ally and is regarded by many as being hand in glove with Bush and his attempts to delay adoption of a cease-fire resolution. Hitting him is tantamount to hitting Bush.
Saniora decided not to reply to this political offensive because he considered that Hezballah was trying to draw him into a shouting match as part of its attempts to bring about a change of cabinet, or at least a reshuffle. Saniora intends to resist these attempts as long as he possibly can, relying on the time factor.
Time used to be a factor working in favor of Hezballah, but the situation has now changed. As time passes and the international force deploys and increasingly controls the borders and observes all activities in the zone, in cooperation with the Lebanese Army, Hezballah?s military effectiveness will gradually diminish. Its presence will be limited to civilians and the reinforced UNIFIL will continue seeking for tunnels and weapon stores.
Meanwhile the dialogue with Syria might reach a positive result in the future, especially since many influential countries are working to resume peace talks on all tracks. The Syrian issue can?t be separated from what is going on in Gaza and the attempts to form a new government including Hamas and Fateh in order to resume the dialogue with Israel.
Diplomats say that Syria expressed positive reactions regarding the resumption of the peace talks. These diplomats are expecting to see a clear change in the Syrian policy if the Palestinian track succeeds in bringing life to the peace process. In this line of ideas, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan pressed the leaders of Syria and Lebanon to quickly launch negotiations to establish diplomatic ties between their two countries. Annan told the Security Council he expected Damascus and Beirut to agree to ?the early initiation? of efforts to establish full relations after Syrian President Bashar Assad and Saniora told him they were ready to meet ?at any time? to start the process, which will lead to a balanced relationship between Lebanon and Syria.
Meanwhile, Hezballah will try to devise a new policy enabling it to accommodate itself to the results of the recent war and to find a new setting for its military power.
source: http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp...0&CategoryID=2
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:37 AM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: You're kidding, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
As far as I can tell, two results were produced:

1) Hezbullah is strengthened. They now have the support of all of Lebanon and much of the rest of the Arab world. Prior to this confrontation, they were favored, but not considered a major player. Now they're both a military force and (especially in the aftermath of the attacks on Lebanon) a benefactor of Lebanese society.

2) The US and Israel are further polarized and isolated from the international community. The WHOLE WORLD was screaming for Israel to stop its attacks. Literally, it was every nation of the UN verus Israel and the US. We're now the political fringe, the international bully cruising for a fight. Israel is TOTALLY INSANE about security, and with its American allies, it will operate like the bully's little thug sidekick, enforcing US policy in the Middle East.
Serious question, no sarcasm intended or implied:

How many times would Hizbollah have to shoot at Israel (or how many Israelis would have to die their hands) before you would consider that a military response from Israel would be warranted?
_God_ is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:53 AM   #7 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by _God_
Serious question, no sarcasm intended or implied:

How many times would Hizbollah have to shoot at Israel (or how many Israelis would have to die their hands) before you would consider that a military response from Israel would be warranted?
The Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers. In response Israel killed thousands of Lebanese civilians, a few Hezbollah members (somwhere in the low hundreds?), and displaced millions. The ratio of dead Lebanese to Israelis is 30:1.

Israel still occupies some of Lebanon, btw. Israel was forced out of most of Lebanon in 2000, but still occupies Shaba Farms (and area said to belong to Syria, though Syria has not claimed that land since the 1976 6-day war). Syria already ceceeded the area to Lebanon, but the rest of the world has not accepted that ceceetion.

Israel has every right to protect itself within reason. The problem is that protecting yourself by invading a country that has almost no defences is kinda stupid (see US/Iraq war).
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 12:15 PM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: You're kidding, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers. In response Israel killed thousands of Lebanese civilians, a few Hezbollah members (somwhere in the low hundreds?), and displaced millions. The ratio of dead Lebanese to Israelis is 30:1.

Israel still occupies some of Lebanon, btw. Israel was forced out of most of Lebanon in 2000, but still occupies Shaba Farms (and area said to belong to Syria, though Syria has not claimed that land since the 1976 6-day war). Syria already ceceeded the area to Lebanon, but the rest of the world has not accepted that ceceetion.

Israel has every right to protect itself within reason. The problem is that protecting yourself by invading a country that has almost no defences is kinda stupid (see US/Iraq war).
That's an answer to (or a discourse on) a question I didn't ask. It also violates what hiredgun requested, namely:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
Let's think deeper than merely listing numbers and material losses
I don't want to get into a statistical shootout by listing all of the attacks BESIDES the two soldiers--it's hard to believe that you act as if the two soldiers are the entirety of what prompted the violence. Sometimes it appears that many here don't believe Israel has a right to exist.

In other words, I'm still looking for an answer to my question.
_God_ is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 12:40 PM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by _God_
Serious question, no sarcasm intended or implied:

How many times would Hizbollah have to shoot at Israel (or how many Israelis would have to die their hands) before you would consider that a military response from Israel would be warranted?
Alright, I'll give you a straight answer. Israel does not have the right to occupy a country. Israel does not have the right to attack all of Lebanon because of a few extreemists. How many times would Hezbollah have to shoot at Israel before I would consider a military response warrented? Well that depends on the response (which is what I was getting at in my first response). Had Israel gone to the Lebanese government with a plan to work together to remove the Hezbollah, it would have been great. If Israel would have sent in a few military officers to take out the kidnappers, it would have been acceptable. Israel destroyed South Lebanon. That was wrong, and I cannot give you a number of times Hezbollah would have to shoot at Israel, because infinity isn't a number.

You asked for a number, God:
Quote:
Originally Posted by _God_
...how many times
then you corrected me for giving a number.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 01:17 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
1) the Israeli position, particularly with regard to security as Israel's primary concern
I think Israel lost the battle for world opinion. The battle was most likely lost before they fired thier first shot, since they are aligned with the USA. I am sure Hizbula was aware of their advantage and used it to their advantage and continue to do so. Most believe Israel was the aggressor and fights without regard for innocent life. Unless world opinion is reversed Israel has been weakened.

These are thoughtful questions.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 01:52 PM   #11 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by _God_
Serious question, no sarcasm intended or implied:

How many times would Hizbollah have to shoot at Israel (or how many Israelis would have to die their hands) before you would consider that a military response from Israel would be warranted?
To ask such a question reduces the whole decades-long conflict into a single flare-up of violence. It's inappropriate and naive to take the current inflagration out of context. Israel has been a de facto occupier of south Lebaon since 1978, and Hezbollah is an uprising that is dedicated to ending that occupation and securing the return of tens of thousands of Lebanese being held by Israel. I'm not defending their tactics, but reducing this thing to "how many rockets do they have to shoot into Israel before Israel should go bomb the ever living fuck out of them" is simply wrongheaded.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 03:47 PM   #12 (permalink)
Addict
 
hiredgun's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by _God_
How many times would Hizbollah have to shoot at Israel (or how many Israelis would have to die their hands) before you would consider that a military response from Israel would be warranted?
That's a false dichotomy. It isn't a black-or-white choice between the war as it was conducted on the one hand, and an utter non-response on the other. The point is that the war as it was conducted seems to have done more to hurt Israel than to help it; if you agree with that, then in what way can you defend it?

If you don't agree that nothing substantial has been accomplished, then please do explain what we're missing.
hiredgun is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 05:06 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Nobody won. It's a question of who lost the most IMHO.
Nimetic is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 10:05 AM   #14 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Saying Israel's reaction was unwarranted or even illegal is really ridiculous. As a basis of operation the governments' sole purpose is to provide for the common defense of its people. It acts as the sovereign, the leviathan, its power deferred from the people it represents.

When you have Hezbollah a known terrorist organization, representative of a states government (that is holding parliament and cabinent seats), and acting within a sovereign boundaries, you better damn well believe you are culpable for any aggressive actions taken by them. A government is in no way shape or form allowed to act, or in the case of Lebanon not act, in such an indifferent manner, it is surmountable to an act of war. In this instance the actions of a few extremists becomes an action of the state as a whole because the state is facilitating the act of war. Not to mention that on top of everything, Israel and Lebanon were still at a "state of war", they were not nations at peace.

If a country cannot enforce its own laws effectively, and it leads to conflict across sovereign borders, the second sovereign actor has every right to occupy said country to provide for the defense of its people. The only legal obligation a state has is to its people, there is no higher order then the state, no international authority that makes "occupation" illegal or any other sovereign action as such.

----
As far as whats been accomplished, nothing has been. Israel caved to international pressure before it was able to get what it needed done. Lebanon got its own people screwed as a result of their actions in the handling of Hezbollah. The worst part for them though is that Hezbollah was not destroyed by this conflict, it was only strengthed and emboldened. I could forsee this as being the biggest problem resulting from the war as any future action that Hezbollah takes will probably welcome an equal or greater result from Israel next time.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 09-26-2006 at 10:12 AM..
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 12:06 PM   #15 (permalink)
Conspiracy Realist
 
Sun Tzu's Avatar
 
Location: The Event Horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
If a country cannot enforce its own laws effectively, and it leads to conflict across sovereign borders, the second sovereign actor has every right to occupy said country to provide for the defense of its people. The only legal obligation a state has is to its people, there is no higher order then the state, no international authority that makes "occupation" illegal or any other sovereign action as such.

Is the essence of what you are saying here that it’s not a matter of right and wrong in the eyes of the international community, because no one will have a countries best interest in mind other than the country itself? So then right and wrong out of it, does the bottom line represent when (as been the theme for much of history)- the one with the bigger guns is the one that’s right. I say this because occupants of the settlements- especially in the West Bank (I leave the label illegal / legal off) expand their lands via migration of temporary fencing. This will only accelerate as time goes on. Obviously the expansion is colliding with other indigenous occupants. One can only attempt to guess how either side will feel when approaching each other about this issue. The difference is- some (not all) possibly even far and few between. . . that because the country is that is going to contribute the kind of support I think you are mentioning happens to be Israel, the settler (many- immigrants) have the right to expand their land, the previous owner becomes labeled a terrorist if ANY resistance shown.

Are you stating the settlement expansion at the cost of indigenous occupants can’t be seen as illegal or legal by outside countries with any foundation because they are not Israeli? When conversing with others that have similar views the fact of the expansion remains a key issue that seems to be avoided. Do you think it’s because of the underlying nature of what it really means? Defining what "it" means is a cross between a mathematical equation (population growth vs. land /2) and a reflection of early American history perhaps.

Rockets hurling into towns is terrible. I've been in a couple of bomb shelters in that region (not during shelling), I can imagine how difficult it would be to be cooped up or getting flyers falling from the sky stating "get out were about to bomb the shit out of your house." Not taking any loss of life for granted, I don’t see what recently happened as "the big one". My question is if / when the "big one" happens what do you think the chances that will become WWWIII, if any?
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
Sun Tzu is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 04:03 PM   #16 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Is the essence of what you are saying here that it’s not a matter of right and wrong in the eyes of the international community, because no one will have a countries best interest in mind other than the country itself? So then right and wrong out of it, does the bottom line represent when (as been the theme for much of history)- the one with the bigger guns is the one that’s right. I say this because occupants of the settlements- especially in the West Bank (I leave the label illegal / legal off) expand their lands via migration of temporary fencing. This will only accelerate as time goes on. Obviously the expansion is colliding with other indigenous occupants. One can only attempt to guess how either side will feel when approaching each other about this issue. The difference is- some (not all) possibly even far and few between. . . that because the country is that is going to contribute the kind of support I think you are mentioning happens to be Israel, the settler (many- immigrants) have the right to expand their land, the previous owner becomes labeled a terrorist if ANY resistance shown.
In one sense you are right in saying that no agent will have the interest of a state, but that isn't necessarily the point I was making. The point I was trying to make is how a non-sovereign interest would try and implicate its will on a sovereign actor. When you address the question of who is right and wrong, I think there are some things to be considered. Politics by very nature is solely about power, the allocation thereof, who gets what, when, where, and how. A state as an actor cannot be solely bound to work within a framework of "right and wrong", operating under such a tense is ideal, but it isn't practical, as things are not always so easily right and wrong, black and white. To quote Machiavelli:

Quote:
I deem it best to stick to the practical truth of things rather then to fancies. Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather then his preservation.
For me the preservation point was key, but in the context of this conversation I was talking about the occupation of places like the Golan Heights, strategic military positions, rather then places like Gaza and the West Bank. I have a hard time really siding with or defending residential settlements in occupied zones. But in the context of this thread, I find myself perplexed. The problem is with the partition, Israel exists as a state. At it's inception it was attacked by several other sovereign nations, all at the welcoming of the Palestinians. Palestine didn't itself yet exist as a sovereign nation, and when they team with other countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, and they lose, I think Israel has all the rights to hold the contested land, especially for defensive purposes. I think its ironic that these countries are so angry about the occupation, when they had in mind the destruction of an entire state and people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Are you stating the settlement expansion at the cost of indigenous occupants can’t be seen as illegal or legal by outside countries with any foundation because they are not Israeli? When conversing with others that have similar views the fact of the expansion remains a key issue that seems to be avoided. Do you think it’s because of the underlying nature of what it really means? Defining what "it" means is a cross between a mathematical equation (population growth vs. land /2) and a reflection of early American history perhaps.
This question was posed about indigenous occupants, which is more of a Palestinian/Israeli issue, not a Lebanese/Israeli issue. When I initially talked about occupation, I wasn't talking about what Israel is doing in the west bank or gaza, but again the positions taking along the borders of Syria and Lebanon. But if you are asking me personally I can't really say. Any party can levy such claims in regards to legality of state actions, they may or may not be right, bottom line is at the end of the day Israel is responsible to its people, not the UN. Also I don't know about the comparison to American History as it is night and day for differences to me. Tough to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Rockets hurling into towns is terrible. I've been in a couple of bomb shelters in that region (not during shelling), I can imagine how difficult it would be to be cooped up or getting flyers falling from the sky stating "get out were about to bomb the shit out of your house." Not taking any loss of life for granted, I don’t see what recently happened as "the big one". My question is if / when the "big one" happens what do you think the chances that will become WWWIII, if any?
Are you asking me? Hope I'm not presuming to much by answering this. I don't know if WWIII will come out of this conflict. In the instance of global conflict I definitly think the Middle East will be a deciding catalyst for the next major conflict, but I think it will immensly larger in scope than Israel and it's neighbors. World War III will come about when the global hegemon, being America, is threatened or taken into conflict. My personal opinion is it will be more of a Russian-Sino, possibly Iran conflict. Who knows though maybe shit will degrade with Israel, at which point Syria and Iran get involved, the US jumps in and stands decisively with Israel, things will probably be so bad that no amount of International pressure will matter and things will gradually get worse. Somewhere in between all of that Russia or China would make a move, and thus you would have your world war.

Does that help, or am I missing something?
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
 

Tags
lebanon, stock, taking

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360