Author Topic: israel in war (Read 8371 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #120 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:19:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
...said the guy that is wants the Israel to fight Syria, Lebanon and Iran because he wants the trash taken out.

hope we, the US, stand side by side with Israel .. do you? what side do you choose?

Thrawn · « **Reply #121 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:35:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
hope we, the US, stand side by side with Israel

What the hell does that even mean? You hope that your government will send the US military to fight with Israel? Unless you are in the military that I don't see how you standing beside anyone. You would want your government to send guys that swore to defend the US Constitution to go die for what is probably just next cycle that is violence in the middle east.

If it is the case, do you really want the US to occupy yet more countries. All it takes to destroy an empire (or hegemony) is one invasion too many.

Quote

.. do you? what side do you choose?

False dilema, I don't chose either. It takes two to tango. Israel has been acting in bad faith for decades, as has it's neighbours. Israel is certainly no ally of Canada's and neither are it's neighbours. I feel no compulsion to support either side for either moral or realpolitik reasons.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #122 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:38:02 PM »

This just in:

Quote

Red Alert: A Diplomatic Interlude
There is increasing discussion of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. French Prime Minister Dominic de Villepin is in Beirut to discuss it. The Israelis say they are talking to the Italians about it, and even the Iranians have said that they favor a cease-fire. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said today, "A reasonable and just solution must be found to end this crisis. A cease-fire and then a swap is achievable." That is quite a distance for the Iranians to have gone.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert listed three demands for a cease-fire: first, the release of captured soldiers; second, an end to rocket attacks on Israel; and third, the deployment of Lebanese Army troops along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Other diplomats have been talking about an international force along the border.

The first two demands can easily be met. It is the third one that will be the sticking point because it goes to the heart of the issue. When Israel talks of the Lebanese Army being deployed there, it is saying two things. The first is that it doesn't trust an international force containing troops from countries like Russia and France. It does not believe they will be neutral. Second, if a Lebanese force is deployed, it must be able to impose its will on Hezbollah, through military action if possible.

The problem is that the Lebanese Army is not in a position, politically or militarily, to control Hezbollah. If it could do so, it would have. Moreover, if the army were able to impose its will, Hezbollah would cease to be an effective group. Hezbollah's power comes from its military capabilities and autonomy. Israel's demand would represent the end of Hezbollah in its current form. Israel does not trust a suspension of Hezbollah attacks; they believe the militants will strike again unless someone can guarantee otherwise. Israel's call for a Lebanese force that can impose its will on Hezbollah is a contradiction in terms. It is an offer of a cease-fire that can't be delivered.

Israel is, however, interested in continuing the diplomatic process. Its reasoning can be seen from reports Stratfor has received from sources close to Hezbollah. They have said that Hezbollah is maintaining its attacks on Israel because the militants want Israel to attack them on the ground sooner rather than later. Over time, they fear, Hezbollah's ability to resist Israeli attack will be undermined by airstrikes. The militants' command and control, communications, weapons stockpiles and morale will be undermined. On the other hand, if Israel were to attack now, Hezbollah's leadership is confident that it could impose losses on Israeli troops that would be unacceptable. That is what the militants want to achieve -- they want to engage Israel as the first Arab force that, even if it can't win in the end, can severely damage the Israel Defense Forces.

If that is actually Hezbollah's thinking -- and that would explain their behavior -- then we can also better understand Israeli thinking. If the airstrikes are hurting Hezbollah's morale and infrastructure, there is no reason to hurry in on the ground. It makes more sense to let the current situation continue even if it means further attacks on Israeli targets. In the meantime, Tel Aviv can engage in diplomatic initiatives that will reposition Israel in the international system. Rather than resisting diplomatic efforts, Israel is participating, setting demands that appear extremely reasonable while being unattainable. While that game goes on, so does the air war and the undermining of Hezbollah's core strength.

The problem is that Hezbollah can see this happening. That means it must try to increase its attacks to create a political crisis in Israel. Olmert is under a microscope. There is suspicion that he will be sucked into a diplomatic solution that will not only not deal with the Hezbollah threat, but also make it impossible to attack the militants later if they resume attacks. In this scenario, an international presence is forced on Israel, Hezbollah resumes attacks without the international force taking decisive action, and Israel is forced to either do nothing or attack through the international force.

In other words, there is a trap for Israel in all of this. If it gets too clever on the diplomatic side, it can wind up in trouble. On the other hand, a diplomatic process gives Israel time to do what Hezbollah wants least: an air war designed to impose attrition on them.

We have not expected the Israelis to accept bombardment for as long as they have. However, if Hezbollah's view is correct, it is good military strategy and the Israeli public will accept that. It may force Hezbollah to make serious concessions under pressure to preserve the cohesiveness of its force. But if the diplomatic game results in extended attacks on Israel without action, or results in a cease-fire that does not preclude a resumption of attacks, then Olmert will come under dramatic pressure and will lose his room for maneuver.

Olmert knows this, of course. He has managed the internal politics skillfully to this point. He can probably play diplomatic games for another 48 hours by implying military necessity to his Cabinet. But then it starts to become very dicey politically. And by then, Hezbollah's attacks will have become intolerable, and attacking -- whatever the condition of Hezbollah -- will become essential.

Neither an international force nor the Lebanese Army (with its current capabilities) protecting Israel from Hezbollah attacks will fly in Israel.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Thrawn · « **Reply #123 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:42:03 PM »

Outstanding!

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

- Winston Churchill

Eagler · « **Reply #124 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:49:48 PM »

was wondering when you'd play the "you aren't in the military card" so you can't state you want your country to defend you and yours.

I am not a cop or a fireman but I want them to do their jobs and protect my family. Should I not think that either?

wtg Thrawn! you're just another lefty hand wringler LOL

Thrawn · « **Reply #125 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:56:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
was wondering when you'd play the "you aren't in the military card" so you can't state you want your country to defend you and yours.

Uh no, I don't think it's right to ask your military to defend them and theirs.

PS:

"wtg Thrawn! you're just another lefty hand wringler LOL"

Yet your the one who wants to blow other peoples tax dollars to support a war they might not argee with. I'm so capitalist I make you look like Lenin, and if the thought of a war escalating doesn't make one wring their hands I don't know what the hell does.

ghi · « **Reply #126 on:** July 17, 2006, 04:10:21 PM »

this war saves Bush's imagine, is a diversion of the public atention from the civil war in Iraq, more peoples die in Iraq daily than Israel/Liban, but 99% of the News are talking mostly about Israel/Liban

Yahoo news today:

""BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen sprayed grenades and automatic weapons fire in a market south of Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 50 people, mostly *****es. The sectarian attack drew an angry protest from lawmakers who accused Iraqi forces of standing idly by during the rampage.

ADVERTISEMENT

Women and children were among the dead and wounded in the assault in Mahmoudiya, hospital officials said. Late Monday, police said they found 12 bodies in different parts of town — possible victims of reprisal killings..."

"

PonyDriver · « **Reply #127 on:** July 17, 2006, 06:44:19 PM »

Thrawn said:

Quote

Israel has been acting in bad faith for decades,

really? example please.

Slash27 · « **Reply #128 on:** July 17, 2006, 06:54:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -dead-
Move, and ditch the citizenship to avoid conscription/taxes/get a new passport if needed.

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

1K3 · « **Reply #129 on:** July 17, 2006, 06:55:55 PM »

I wonder if USA will fully support TAIWAN as they do with ISRAEL if CHINA decides to Annex Taiwan in the future...

Edbert1 · « **Reply #130 on:** July 17, 2006, 08:31:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
I wonder if USA will fully support TAIWAN as they do with ISRAEL if CHINA decides to Annex Taiwan in the future...

Thats a pretty scary proposition, even more so due to the plausibility of it becoming reality. My instinct tells me I don't care as much since we are currently engaged in a real shooting war of our own with the exact same enemy as Israel is fighting and not the Chinese, that a war between Taiwan and China just has to be given a lower priority. Then I dislike myself for feeling that way. Maybe we can trade Taiwan for NK, now I really dislike myself. Where's my beer?

Elfie · « **Reply #131 on:** July 17, 2006, 08:48:40 PM »

Quote

They've already tried occupying southern Lebanon and they can't.

How many years did Israel occupy southern Lebanon? 18 or so? I think they have showed they can in fact occupy southern Lebanon if they so choose.

Imo, Israel, just like the majority of us, wants to live in peace. If only others would allow them to do so. /sigh

And.....how has Israel acted in bad faith for decades?

Thrawn · « **Reply #132 on:** July 17, 2006, 09:34:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by PonyDriver
Thrawn said:

really? example please.

The settlements, specifically the west bank. In 1972 there where 800 Israelis living there. By 1993, 115,000. That has number has doubled. How the hell can a country say they are negotiating in good faith while they flood the land of the people they are negotiating with with settlers?

Elfie · « **Reply #133 on:** July 17, 2006, 09:53:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
The settlements, specifically the west bank. In 1972 there where 800 Israelis living there. By 1993, 115,000. That has number has doubled. How the hell can a country say they are negotiating in good faith while they flood the land of the people they are negotiating with with settlers?

Unless some agreement had been negotiated that would have precluded Israel from allowing settlers in the West Bank, I dont think that is *bad faith*.

If an agreement had been negotiated, but the other side didnt uphold their end of the agreement, I dont expect Israel to uphold its end either.

I really dont know what, if any agreements may have been reached. I dont think it's bad faith for a country to settle land they have occupied via conquest though.

Thrawn · « **Reply #134 on:** July 17, 2006, 10:38:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
How many years did Israel occupy southern Lebanon? 18 or so? I think they have showed they can in fact occupy southern Lebanon if they so choose.

They can, in fact, do exactly that but in the long term the costs outweigh the benefits. I mean they exposed thier soldiers to suicide bombers and other insurgency tactics on Hezbollah's home territory and what they hell did it change? Not only that but there are the economic costs and all they got was a piece of **** blasted landscape. At least the US is getting first dibs on Iraqi oil.

Quote

Imo, Israel, just like the majority of us, wants to live in peace. If only others would allow them to do so. /sigh

Yes, as do the majority of Palistinians.

Quote

I dont think it's bad faith for a country to settle land they have occupied via conquest though.

Maybe not, but it is if they are trying to negociate a peace with the people whose land it is.