Author Topic: The Cease Fire (analysis from Stratfor) (Read 1804 times)

Fishu · « **Reply #30 on:** August 16, 2006, 03:23:03 AM »

Hmm.. if Israel's goal was to get the UN and Lebanese forces into the area, then how come they lost as per Stratfors analysis? Both of the forces were forced to move into the area and Israel severely hammered Hezbollah's assets. It wouldn't been a smart idea to move into Lebanon for a more permanent stay than this. Get in, wreck a havoc, pull out and let the others do rest of the work. I thought that was the main idea for Israel's invasion in Lebanon.

Hezbollah may declare themselves as the winners as many times as they wish, they'd do it even with a single man left. There would be no relation to the real outcome.

bozon · « **Reply #31 on:** August 16, 2006, 03:31:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
For example, they claim that rockets on Haifa forced Israel into the fight, but the first rocket fell on Haifa on the evening of the 13th July, Israel had already attacked Beirut airport and imposed a total air and sea blockade of Lebanon by that point.

I don't know which they you refere to but Israel did not go into the war because of the rockets on Haifa. Hizballa's attack on the kidnapping day included fire on Israeli posts in a wide area all along the border as a diversion and to slow down any assistance. This was just one attack too much. Add to that the issue of the kidnapped soldier in Gaza and Israel could not take it quietly any more.

Once the airforce started to hit more than the usual 2 Hizballa outposts, Hizballa started to fire rockets on Israel northern settlements. Here you are right Nashwan. Hizballa did not forsee, expect or planned a war. They tried to announce an immediate cease fire to stop the retaliation and celebrate their success..

Israel declared that if rockets would fall on Haifa, Dahia, the Hizballa neighborhood in south Beirut would be attacked in an attempt to create a deterance ballance. After the first rocket landed in Haifa, Hizballa came out with an immediate strange statement to the media: "we didn't do it". Either someone there acted without authorization, or it was a mistake, or they paniced.

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
The IDF also embedded its forces among arab civilians in northern Israel, using them as shields. Both sides are complicit and neither are saints in this regard.

]
lol, what have you been reading?
Hizballa fired its rockets into arab settlments as well as to Jewish settlements. Haifa is a mixed city and they hit arab neighborhoods as well, killing a few.

bozon · « **Reply #32 on:** August 16, 2006, 04:01:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Hmm.. if Israel's goal was to get the UN and Lebanese forces into the area, then how come they lost as per Stratfors analysis?

That analysis as well as many others give a huge credit to Israel army reputation in preventing future wars. They ignore simple things like the greatest military victory of 67 did not prevent Egypt from starting a standoff war as early as 1970 and a major successful offensive in 1973, a mere 6 years later.

Even though 1973 war ended in complete failure to Egypt and Syria, they consider it a huge success due to the good initial offensive. This allowed Anuar Saadat to sign peace with Israel without loosing face. BTW, he was murdered during a parade in honor of the 1973 victory.

This time, Olmert chose to play they diplomatic front instead of the military front, limiting the army's ground offensive. He and the chief of staff Dan Halutz caught a lot of fire from the media for this. I said in one of my first posts on this war, in another thread, that Lebanon goverment must not be the looser of this war. The current deal places them as a major player and the sovereign of Lebanon, if they only rise to the occasion. If they do, they'll likely be the ones "freeing" Shab'a farms and Lebanese prisoners.

The out come will be critical to Israel's future policies and strategies. If turning to the international community and UN forces fails, next war will be an all out offensive and I don't even want to imagine the consequences to Lebanon. It will also have critical implications on the Palestinian issue if international treaties and UN resolutions fail to guaranty Israel's security.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 16, 2006, 05:25:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
Hezbollah will never be annihilated without annihilating over a million supporters in Lebanon and tens of millions of regional supporters who view it's role differently than Israel does. Not a likely or plausible strategy either.

I think you are right, that IS the only way to end this insanity, it worked on Naziism and Bushido too. But I also agree it is not likely, the American people have lost their stomach for "real war" and are more willing to live with perpetual terrorism than to do what it takes to end it.

eagl · « **Reply #34 on:** August 16, 2006, 05:33:40 AM »

The problem is that hezbollah is an occupying force in a pacified country. They have the lebanese population just as terrified as anyone else, and they really don't care about the nation as a whole. Like the external forces feeding the fires in Iraq, they care only about winning. The day to day welfare of the battleground is barely a tertiary consideration, useful only in the propaganda battle. The more beat down the population is, the easier it is to continue their occupation.

Shuckins · « **Reply #35 on:** August 16, 2006, 06:42:34 AM »

If there was an Israeli defeat here it was due in large part to the tremendous international pressure on them to stop the bombing of "civilian" targets.

Since the violence began, some in the international community have been all atwitter at the mere possibility of an Israeli defeat.

I'm really surprised that the Israelis bowed to that pressure...except for the fact that many of the Jews in Israel are becoming ever more sensitive to world opinion and are desperate for peace.

While Hezbollah may not have been totally eradicated their forces and weaponry have been seriously degraded. Certainly they will rearm. And recruit. And now they have an additional asset to use in the struggle against the IDF...the 15,000 human shields so graciouisly provided by the UN.

This settlement almost seems like a return to the status quo.

~Caligula~ · « **Reply #36 on:** August 16, 2006, 06:49:49 AM »

it seems to me that hezbollah has taken over lebanon. they`ll rebuild some of the homes and other stuff,on money from iran,wich is free cash from oil. so they`ll become even more popular. that puny unifil force won`t be able to stop them. the french won`t have the stomach to die for israel (as they`d see it), iran will test their first nuke over tel-aviv,delivered by hezbollah from lebanon.

Saintaw · « **Reply #37 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:30:27 AM »

Uhm... why is it again that France has to 'die' for Israel?

Edbert1 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:39:39 AM »

He didn't say they had to "die for Israel". I understood what he said perfectly.

He said that they'd refuse to fight against the Islamofascists in the GWOT, their pro-terrorist government and activists would couch their arguments against defeating terrorism in terms like that. They will expect other contries to do the actual work, just like in the last few centuries. All the while speaking out against those western democracies that have a will to fight to preserve their way of life.

~Caligula~ · « **Reply #39 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:47:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saintaw
Uhm... why is it again that France has to 'die' for Israel?

what do u mean again? btw i meant that the french would see it as if they were dying for israel.

if they leave or don`t even show up, i hope nobody will ever care about what they have to say about anything.

Saintaw · « **Reply #40 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:49:50 AM »

"the french won`t have the stomach to die for israel"

Those are the words i read, perhaps this is some different sort of english?

"just like in the last few centuries." Nice selective memory there.

Anyway...I'm not here, I'm not reading this board... you haven't seen me.

straffo · « **Reply #41 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:50:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
He didn't say they had to "die for Israel". I understood what he said perfectly.

He said that they'd refuse to fight against the Islamofascists in the GWOT, their pro-terrorist government and activists would couch their arguments against defeating terrorism in terms like that. They will expect other contries to do the actual work, just like in the last few centuries. All the while speaking out against those western democracies that have a will to fight to preserve their way of life.

And it's cretin, we are doing our share of the work and btw we where doing it long before a big country over the atlantic as hurt on his soil.

straffo · « **Reply #42 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:52:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ~Caligula~
what do u mean again? btw i meant that the french would see it as if they were dying for israel.

if they leave or don`t even show up, i hope nobody will ever care about what they have to say about anything.

Actualy ,I don't see any reason to die for Israel.

Btw are YOU willing to die for Israel ?, have you done your time ?

Charge · « **Reply #43 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:56:32 AM »

The IDF tanks took some serious beating in that conflict, but now Israel has time to renew their tactics to better suit field combat where AT activity is high and rather lethal.

-C+

PS.

"I'm really surprised that the Israelis bowed to that pressure...except for the fact that many of the Jews in Israel are becoming ever more sensitive to world opinion and are desperate for peace."

Maybe they understand that if a massive war escalates they will suffer one way or the other, whether they win or lose, and the price just seem too high and the gains are temporary at best?

***

Edbert1 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 16, 2006, 08:23:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
And it's cretin, we are doing our share of the work and btw we where doing it long before a big country over the atlantic as hurt on his soil.

I'm not sure what you mean by some of that, like "it's cretin" and "as hurt on his soil" but I do gather that you are saying that france is doing it's share to defeat Islamofacsist. Can you give me examples of the work being done toward seeing these diaperheads defeated? Examples I see are the French government stepping in and trying to force other western nations to stop killing terrorists all the while sending their money to Sadaam and Tehran. Sometimes they do it themselves, sometimes they sheild themselves via the UN.

Please let us know exactly how France is trying to defeat terrorists rather than support and defend them.