ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

There's one other thing nobody is saying, which is that there simply is no elegant way to try to fight people who are dug into bunker systems like those of Iwo or Okinawa, or the facsimile thereof which the hezbullies built over the last six years. The best American assault troops looked inept at times doing that in places like Tarawa, Betio atol, or Iwo or Okinawa.

Israel obviously came to the realization that there was going to be an unavoidable high cost to digging all of those losers out of all that, and walked away after doing enough damage that no rational person in Lebanon would want to go at it again any time soon.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The Lebanese government is now taking steps to take authority away from Hez. The former doesn't want the latter to be able to unilaterally bring down the wrath of Israel.

If they had done that in the first place there would a) have been no kidnapping b) no rockets fired into Israel c) no bombing or ground combat d) no civilian or other deaths and/or injuries e) no terrified children and/or other civilians f) no displaced persons g) no destroyed roads, bridges, airports, and other infrastructure.

I can't understand how grown people can't see that.

0 Replies

Or if the UN losers in the field had been doing their jobs for the last six years instead of goldbricking and sitting around hobknobbing with the hezbullies who were building bunkers and rocket launch facilities.....

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't understand how grown people can't see that.

Perhaps they agree with others about what the Lebanese government could do and what they couldn't do in the past.
(Needs some intensive reading of foreign news.)

I'd had a long talk today with the former PA of the the late President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany (a friend of my wife and me). She's been in Israel recently and is quite sure that Israel will restart with attacks very soon.

Not really surprising, I think.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Not really surprising, I think.

They needed a two or three week breather to get something in place to shoot down katyusha rockets. Until two or three months ago, Hezbollah and katyusha rockets were at the very bottom of the IDFs list of priorities; you assume that has changed a bit.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't understand how grown people can't see that.

Perhaps they agree with others about what the Lebanese government could do and what they couldn't do in the past.
(Needs some intensive reading of foreign news.)

I'd had a long talk today with the former PA of the the late President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany (a friend of my wife and me). She's been in Israel recently and is quite sure that Israel will restart with attacks very soon.

Not really surprising, I think.

IF the UN gets off the dime and actually disarms Hezbollah and ensures they will not be able to resume random attacks on Israel, and THEN Israel does not cease hostilities, I will join with others in faulting Israel for indefensible behavior.

However, the 'help wanted' sign for peace keepers has been out for several days now, and I don't see the EU or other UN members lining up to fill those positions.

Given the UN's dismal track record in enforcing its rules, policies, agreements, resolutions, etc., until the UN proves that it is serious this time, Israel would be extremely foolish to allow Hezbollah to rebuild its war making machine and regain its former strength.

0 Replies

Here is an interesting article regarding the connection between the Arabs and the Nazi's.
I do not know how much of it is fact (though I suspect that most of it is,I havent found any contradictory information),but it does present some interesting facts and comparisons.
It also explains quite a bit...

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html

http://answering-islam.org/Index/H/husseini.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

However, the 'help wanted' sign for peace keepers has been out for several days now, and I don't see the EU or other UN members lining up to fill those positions.

Why do you mention the 25 EU-countries especially? The USA were initiators as well of the resolutuion as well.

(As far as I understand the situation, the EU wants a new, clearer resolution, especially how to act if e.g. Israel ... ehem ... attacks.)

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Here is an interesting article regarding the connection between the Arabs and the Nazi's.

I admit that there are some neo-Nazis in Germany, other European countries as well as in the USA, Canada etc - but what has this to do with the current situation?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
However, the 'help wanted' sign for peace keepers has been out for several days now, and I don't see the EU or other UN members lining up to fill those positions.

Why do you mention the 25 EU-countries especially? The USA were initiators as well of the resolutuion as well.

(As far as I understand the situation, the EU wants a new, clearer resolution, especially how to act if e.g. Israel ... ehem ... attacks.)

I mentioned the EU countries especially because a) you are part of that group and I was responding to your post and b) this is the group producing the loudest protests against Israel.

Well they now have a chance to put their bodies/guns/influence where their mouth is. They want it specified what to do if Israel attacks? Why do you suppose they are not equally as concerned about what to do if Hezbollah attacks?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Here is an interesting article regarding the connection between the Arabs and the Nazi's.

I admit that there are some neo-Nazis in Germany, other European countries as well as in the USA, Canada etc - but what has this to do with the current situation?

Read the info I posted,along with the relevant links,then ask that question.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Why do you suppose they are not equally as concerned about what to do if Hezbollah attacks?

Just my personal opinion: no-one would really bother.

But if Israel would act against the UN-resolution and the UN-troops would react, well ... guess what would happen?

0 Replies

Has any U.N. resolution ever been taken seriously ever before in regard to Israel and its enemies. Will the Lebanese disarm Hezbollah? Obviously no. Will the U.N. do anything? Obviously no. Look for more of the same, people. It amazes me how the last U.N. resolution is conveniently forgotten, and yet another new one is trumpeted as something that has potential. Ha Ha. Like "Johnnny, I'm telling you one last time, quit doing that," and after the parent tells Johnny that 28 times, does Johnny take it seriously? Obviously no.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Read the info I posted,along with the relevant links,then ask that question.

Since It read them long before you posted them (they've been mentioned a couple of times here A2K), since I knew about that before you were born (besides having had a rather good education at school I've studied history), I post my question now according to your order again.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Why do you suppose they are not equally as concerned about what to do if Hezbollah attacks?

Just my personal opinion: no-one would really bother.

But if Israel would act against the UN-resolution and the UN-troops would react, well ... guess what would happen?

My point is that the resolution calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and neutralized as a threat to Israel. I would think it would be far more likely to be Hebollah who would object and react to that than it is likely that Israel would object and react to that.

Israel has demonstrated its willingness and ability to abide by UN resolutions time and time again.

Hezbollah never has.

I'm certainly not willing to call the EU leaders/military cowards on such skimpy evidence, but it sure looks like they are really really reluctant to give more than lip service to peace in the Middle East at this time.

Or, they really are pro-Hezbollah and thus are not willing to disarm and neutralize them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My point is that the resolution calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and neutralized as a threat to Israel.

The U.N. Security Council calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah militants:
Full text - via BBC, but I've no doubts that it is identical with the one on the UN-website.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Has any U.N. resolution ever been taken seriously ever before in regard to Israel and its enemies.

The USA always blocked a condemnation of Israel when they disregarded the UN-resolutions, you're correct.

0 Replies

If Israel's opponents first break the resolutions, what choice does Israel have but do the same, Walter? Should they simply let the Hezbollahs shoot rockets to their hearts content with no response? My observation of the last few decades has illustrated that Israel will leave you alone if you leave them alone, and their enemies will not leave them alone. Plain to see, Walter.

It all boils down to one unresolved issue. Does Israel have a right to exist as a nation, as adopted by the U.N. in the late 40's? The Arab neighbors and Palestinians have never accepted it, and they do not now. If they would simply leave Israel alone and instead get a life and do something productive themselves, none of this would have happened. All would be peaceful.

So the question, Walter, do you believe Israel should exist as a nation? Yes or no. The debate is really as simple as that.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
My point is that the resolution calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and neutralized as a threat to Israel.

The U.N. Security Council calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah militants:
Full text - via BBC, but I've no doubts that it is identical with the one on the UN-website.

I couldn't find spcifically in the text you linked that Hezbollah would be disarmed but there is text saying that any arms would be by permission/authority of the Lebanese govenrment. (Cold comfort there for Israel I'm sure.)

But then there is this via a legal expert:

Quote:

Perhaps the heart of the matter. The Security Council has outlawed the continued presence of armed Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. The resolution makes no reference to the continued existence of Hizbollah as a political-religious movement. It has further forbidden Iran and Syria, though not mentioned by name, from arming and training Hezbollah.

P18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

This paragraph, inserted, apparently, at Israel's request, would point to the fact that future negotiations with Syria, including the question of the Shebaa farms, should be dealt with in the context of peace negotiations.

General comment

It is too early to know whether the UNSC resolution will be implemented on the ground. If Lebanon will implement the resolution it will not be because of any inherent awe of the UN. It will be because the State of Israel, which Hezbollah attacked from Lebanese territory, responded in force. Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into a military conflict with no possible military or political gain for Lebanon. Both Israeli and Lebanese civilians have been killed, Lebanese infrastructures have been badly hit and Israel has suffered some four thousand, Iranian and Syrian made rocket attacks.

A prominent Israeli "dove" commented recently that he remains a dove but is aware that if a dove doesn't protect itself it can end up on somebody's dinner plate.

Dr. Robbie Sabel teaches international law at the Hebrew University Faculty of Law in Jerusalem, Israel and has served for many years as a Legal Advisor to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

August 14, 2006

The longer analysis is HERE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My point is that the resolution calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and neutralized as a threat to Israel.

Foxfyre wrote:

I couldn't find spcifically in the text you linked that Hezbollah would be disarmed but there is text saying that any arms would be by permission/authority of the Lebanese govenrment. (Cold comfort there for Israel I'm sure.)

But then there is this via a legal expert: ... ...

Well, I think

a) you stated that the resolution calls for Hzbollah to be disarmed,

b) if we are start to exchange the opinions of legal experts, there are at least some with different views than that by "JURIST Guest Columnist Dr. Robbie Sabel of the Hebrew University Faculty of Law in Jerusalem" I could imagine.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know