Setanta wrote: O'Bill, Israel can get up from the bed it has made, and about which it whines over the necessity to lie in, any time they wish to engage in constructive engagement...
Set, they have. They withdrew from the vast majority of Lebanon, who in turn neither disarmed Hezbollah nor took any steps to ask for help in doing so. As you pointed out yourself; Hezbollah holds a small fraction of seats in government... but where's the majority? Why didn't they demand that Hezbollah disarm? Had this majority asked even Israel itself for help in doing so; do you think they wouldn't now be negotiating trade agreements? I think you are too quick to turn the blind eye to Lebanon's role in their own destruction.
Setanta wrote: ...But Israel held onto a strip of southern Lebanon, and it held onto Hezbollah and other Lebanese Muslim prisoners.
All things considered; do you really find it unreasonable that they'd want a buffer until the agreement was complete? Asking them to release Hezbollah, while continuing to suffer attacks from Hezbollah, is a bit much, no?
Setanta wrote: Iran has drastically reduced their support for Hezbollah, and has quietly been disengaging from the Lebanon. All the signs suggest that Hezbollah is acting alone, and not being manipuated by puppet-masters in Damascus or Teheran.
I couldn't agree less. Do you have any links to support that Iran has drastically reduced their support and has been disengaging for any purpose other than plausible deniability?
Setanta wrote: As has been pointed out by others in this thread, Israel has cut prisoner-exchange deals in the past, and has traded territory seized in military operations for peace with her neighbors. She could do this again. However, the current government seems to think that they can destroy Hezbollah, and has openly stated now that this is their intent. Fifteen years of civil war in the Lebanon failed to destroy the PLO, and in the end, Israel was forced to negotiate, and to not only release prisoners, but to allow the return of the Palestinians and of Yasir Arafat, their biggest bête noire while he lived.
My understanding is that no such exchange ever took place on demand or by force and was in fact many many months after such prisoners were taken that exchanges were worked out. Is this not so?
Even so, in this, Israel has itself to blame for rewarding bad behavior.
Setanta wrote: Exactly the same thing could be accomplished with Hezbollah. If the Lebanese prisoners (not nearly all of whom were ever members of Hezbollah) were released, and Lebanese territory restored, not only would Israel have engaged in good-faith, constructive engagement which would satisfy Syria and improve her diplomatic capital in the world, she will have driven Hezbollah into a corner. Hezbollah claims to speak for the more than 1.5 million Shi'ites in the Lebanon, but they don't even come close to winning even a quarter of Shi'ite votes in elections. The Lebanese, and the majority of Shi'ites included, want Hezbollah to disarm. The fastest way to at least emasculate Hezbollah, if not destroy them outright, would be to negotiate in good faith to return Lebanese territory, and exchange prisoners. The fastest way to build Lebanese support for Hezbollah will be to continue to do what they are doing right now--attacking the Lebanon indiscriminately.
Isn't this essentially what they did with Palestinians and Gaza? And didn't that "Good will" by them renewed attacks from the very territory they gave back and a majority of Palestinians (not scorning) but rewarding Hamas by electing them? What makes you think this would be any different?
Setanta wrote: Rant how one will about the "terrorists" in the Lebanon, Israel's policy is stupid and self-defeating.
The "terrorists" in Lebanon wish to destroy Israel. No amount of appeasement or retreat will change that. It will only give them something to brag about, and use to show new recruits how they're winning the battles.
Contrarily, if Israel continues to meet new threats with overwhelming force, I for one would think twice about being next in line to needle them. Soon after I would learn to despise the stupidity inherent in attacking a superior force by my so-called countrymen. While punishment may or may not prove an effective deterrent to bad behavior, rewarding it is no deterrent at all.
Setanta wrote:What worries me most, after the consideration of the horrible and unnecessary suffering brought about by Israel's reaction to both Hamas and Hezbollah, is that these incidents might successfully be used to justify more American military adventurism against Syria or Iran.
What worries me most; is that it won't at least wake the American public up to the fact that these people wish to destroy both Israel and the United States. Which part of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric suggests otherwise? I think you are way to quick to dismiss the common goals and myriad of links between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Last I checked, both Hezbollah and Hamas are still held in high esteem by the Supreme Leader (the real head jerkoff in Iran for those who don't know)and both remain on the payroll of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard... who is of course the business end of Ahmadinejad's mouth. You have way too much faith in good will, IMO.
Any interested in finding out just what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is should click
here.
