Middle East - DejaVu?

[Vector]

"BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Hizbollah group warned on Saturday that its fighters would not sit idle while Israel laid siege to Palestinian cities and forced its way into the headquarters of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.

Speaking hours after Hizbollah guerrillas attacked seven Israeli positions in a disputed border area, the group's deputy secretary-general Naeem Kassem said the attack was proof that Israel would pay dearly for its assault on the Palestinians."

Hezbollah started its attacks against Israel again. Now situation is different than 20 years ago, hezbollah is now part of the Lebanese government. Also, Syria and other hezbollah supporters have had lots of time to deliver more and more Russian weapons, so probably hezbollah is stronger than ever. It is still hard to believe that this attack is approved by Lebanese government, more likely, it seems that as usual, leaders has no control over their groups. Arafat has lost its authority to hamas and other radical groups long time ago. He is just a doll keeping "innocent" Palestinians shield clean for western countries. And obviously succeed as UN demands Israeli forces to withdraw from ramallah. What exactly has UN said about Palestinians terror against the Israel? I can't recall any strong statement. UN is just group of wussies fearing to anger Arabic nations.
Lebanon surely made bad mistake allowing Palestinians to attack Israel from Lebanon. Then it made even bigger mistake for taking Hezbollah to their government. Now Israel is about to occupy Lebanon again. It's already too late to try to kick hezbollah and other radicals from Lebanon. Hezbollah, hamas and others has already occupied Lebanon. Radicals have turned Lebanon to their battlefield. I feel sorry for Lebanese people, they are obviously facing hard times again.

If we look at this situation in separated areas;

1. Sharon is against the wall.
He promised to stop terrorist attacks inside the Israel and so far he has failed. He is losing his credibility in Israeli peoples eyes. If he want to be in lead, it is time to act.

2. According to above, if Israel occupies more Palestinians areas, how will other nations act?
- Arabic nations: I think they do nothing but strong protests against Israel.
- USA: I think they do nothing except protests.

3. According to above, if Hezbollah starts to attack against Israeli civilian targets with rockets?
Most likely Israel will occupy Southern Lebanon (again) and make it their buffer area. How will other countries act?
- Arabic Nations: No acts (except protests)
- USA: No acts (except protest), could move fleet near Israel if USA starts its attacks against Iraq.
- Lebanon: No acts (except protest), maybe nominal, figurative resistance. Hezbollah will do more stronger resistance & attacks.
- Syria: Probably will occupy Eastern or Northern Lebanon to make it their buffer area and to keep their supplies running to Hezbollah. No acts against Israel, they have learnt their lessons already.
- Iraq: big question mark. But if USA starts its attack to Iraq, it probably will make some acts against Israel.
- Iran: Supports Hezbollah, but I doubt in other way than supplying weapons.

Opinions / views?

-vector

[Thrawn]

Powell said the the US has "Grave Concerns" regarding Israeli military actions against Arafat's compound.  Isn't this diplomatic speak for back the f#$% off?

[Vector]

Yes it is, after all, this critical situation is delaying USA's Iraq actions, too hot situation to start another crusade.

Btw it's interesting if Powell said that. According to Reuters; " Bush called on both sides to find a way to peace but he placed the onus for the latest violence on the Palestinians, saying he understood Israel's decision to defend itself and making no call for Israeli forces to withdraw from Arafat's Ramallah compound, which they invaded on Friday."

I see some conflicts between their statements.

[Sclew]

If Lebanon was invaded again Syria would be involved. Lebanon now is really just a Syrian puppet goverment.

Since Syria is now a UN security council member they could reasonably expect the UN to support thier defense against Israeli aggression in the area. This would mean, at the least, withdrawal of US support militarily, holding of all funds outside of Israel and possibly permission for Syria to buy NATO military equipment and supplies to replace any delapidated Soviet crap they still hold onto for lack of replacements.

In short: Invading Lebanon will never happen again. At the most you will see raids and airstrikes. Never a campaign to create a buffer zone. Even if they tried the worst enemy would be the people who remember the slaughter of the SLA supporters and members when Israel decided to betray them and pull out without trying to give them options to leave. Odd isn't it- that we are so concentrated on the Palestinian noise that the Hezbollah and Syrian factions in southern Lebanon managed to "pacify" 3-4 million people who were involved in the SLA before Israel left?

Wonder how many years before THOSE mass graves come to light.

I think Isael should just agree to give up the land. Screw the settlements of 4,000 people in a city of a qurter million Arabs. They bought a BAD INVESTMENT.

Even better- while pulling out murder Yasser and every whoopee palestinian leader you can, claim "so sorry about that" and ask Jordan if they will step in and take control of the area again.

Hmmm, Jordan owning the west bank again. Yummy. Betcha they would jump at the chance again too.

[Vector]

Originally posted by Sclew
This would mean, at the least, withdrawal of US support militarily, holding of all funds outside of Israel..

I have to disagree with this. There must be really important reasons for US to stop supporting Israel. US don't want to close their only door to middle east, atleast not right now when war against terrorism is running.

In short: Invading Lebanon will never happen again. At the most you will see raids and airstrikes. Never a campaign to create a buffer zone.

I agree that invading whole Lebanon again is not what Israel is after. However, I can imagine the need of buffer zone quite easily. Think rocket attacks to Israeli cities. Hezbollah drives with their vans, stops, launches and drivers away. Nothing that IDF or IAF can do. They don't have any supporters inside the Lebanon (or atleast very little), so they can't get any info about these attackers and Israel won't strike randomly. What are the options?

when Israel decided to betray them and pull out without trying to give them options to leave.

That is not excatly the truth, Israel expressly gave a possibility to major part of the DFF soldiers (with their families) to leave Lebanon when they were withdrawing. Possibility to go Israel or some other near country and offered money too. Major of the DFF soldiers stayed in Lebanon regardless of Israeli offer facing the consequences. IIRC not many of them were killed by hezbollah.

[mrfish]

at least i got to see arafat tell c. amanpour to shut the f*** up when she started talking over him. what a guy, submachine gun  in one hand cell phone in the other, tanks at his door and not even a quiver in his voice.

[easymo]

I have "Grave concerns" about Sec. Powell.  He had far more to do with us not finishing off sadam, than most people realize. I saw an interview with him. In which he, as much as said, that he lost his stomach for killing Iraqis on that road back to Baghdad.

[Tac]

If looked at from a 3rd person perspective... Israel is doing the same the US & allies are doing in Afghanistan. Both got hit by terrorrists hitting civilian targets. Both are responding to it. Only difference is, Israel has been at it for decades.

This whole thing is a mess.

[Toad]

Clearly the Palestinians and Israelis are involved.

Clearly the "Arab League" states have taken a "strong position".

Clearly the US is and has been taking "strong positions" (to no avail) with both the Palestinians and Israelis.

....and the rest of the world? What up with that?

See, NOBODY really wants to touch this "tar baby" (see Uncle Remus stories if that's unclear). Because it's a true, universe-class mess and once you touch it, you're stuck to it.

.... but they sure all love to criticize, don't they?

[ispar]

Originally posted by easymo
I have "Grave concerns" about Sec. Powell.  He had far more to do with us not finishing off sadam, than most people realize. I saw an interview with him. In which he, as much as said, that he lost his stomach for killing Iraqis on that road back to Baghdad.

Last I checked, the goal of Desert Storm was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. That mission was accomplished. Once that goal was achieved, there was no need to keep killing the Iraqi military - they probably would have been safer in cardboard boxes than in tanks, so superior was the US in that action. Powell knew when to stop, and kudos to him for that.

[Sclew]

I have to disagree with this. There must be really important reasons for US to stop supporting Israel. US don't want to close their only door to middle east, atleast not right now when war against terrorism is running.

And there would never be a better reason than a member of the Security council of the UN defending itself and a sattelite state from an act of aggression. Perhaps you missed the fact that Syria IS a UN security council member now? Not to mention that the latest rockets were launched from Syrian lands not Lebanese.

That is not excatly the truth, Israel expressly gave a possibility to major part of the DFF soldiers (with their families) to leave Lebanon when they were withdrawing. Possibility to go Israel or some other near country and offered money too. Major of the DFF soldiers stayed in Lebanon regardless of Israeli offer facing the consequences. IIRC not many of them were killed by hezbollah.

What you say is 1/2 the story. YES they gave the chance to them- then they pulled out WEEKS BEFORE THEY PLANNED! There were thousands caught in the middle of that pullout as the Hezbollah chased them out, nipping at thier heels and locking the border the second they left. And while DFF soldiers were given a chance to resettle there was no offers of money or concrete plans of what to do with them.
your assumption that most were not killed by the hezbollah is almost completely linked the the "IIRC" you put in there. The newspeople weren't there so you didn't hear about it. Like I said- one day those graves and stories won't be repressed anymore. I look forward to hearing exactly what DID happen.

[Sclew]

Originally posted by mrfish
at least i got to see arafat tell c. amanpour to shut the f*** up when she started talking over him. what a guy, submachine gun  in one hand cell phone in the other, tanks at his door and not even a quiver in his voice.

Is there anywhere I could see this interview on the web? I did not know he had any communication except phone since locked in the compound.

[easymo]

Ispar. One thing they thought in terms of, in WW2, was the more ruthless we were.  The sooner the war would end.  Saving more lives in the long run.

  Had Bush Sr. ignored then Gen. Powell. Much of what has happened, in the last year, might well have not happened. Here and in Palestine.

  Its like cutting out a cancer.  There is no pleasant way to do it.  But its better to get rid of it.

[weazel]

The reason Bush Sr didn't finish saddam off was fear of islamic fundamentalists taking control of Iraq.

The power vacuum would have to filled by someone and saddam hasn't left anyone alive in his country who could fill it.

Now his dipshit of a son wants to erase the black mark off his families reputation.

Eventually the truth about the low life character of the Bush family will come to light.

I'll be around to gloat and say "I told you so".  

[easymo]

This was such an odd thing. Pulling up short. That I looked into this quite a bit over the years. I read a number of things.  And I taped two TV interviews that made it pretty clear what happened. I watched them very carefully. One was with Bush, the other i mentioned. Powell and Bush's stories were surprisingly consistent. Bush, in trying to sound presidential, took the responsibility. And did not name the "advisers" that led him to the dicision. But from what he said, what Powell said, and what i read elsewhere, it was clear that he did not want to make the same mistakes as LBJ. So he took the advice of his top general. The Saudi princes wanted to placate their people. And pushed for Bush to back off. Others in the region, including surprisingly, the Kuwaitis. Pushed for the same thing.  But in the end it was Powell's lack of back bone that swung this thing the wrong way. Thousands have died since then as a result. With more to come.

  Dont think for a moment that the people over there think we were being civilized.  Sadam, in speech's, has said many times that we didn't have the guts to go into Baghdad. THAT is what they belive over there. It is a historical fact, that when an enemy perceives a weakness.  They attack.  That is what has happened. And why it happened.

  Needless to say. Clintons laughable attempts at playing commander in chief made things even worse.