Middle East erupts

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Quiz questions for tw

1. According to the UN, who was supposed to disarm Hezbollah?

tw answers "nobody" because UN1559 doesn't specify anyone. He is partly correct and gets half credit. In fact, a previous resolution 425 directs the creation of UNIFIL and makes part of its mandate to return control to the Government of Lebanon.

Originally Posted by UNSC 425

3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;

How'd that work out? Well, in 2000 the UN certified that Israel had in fact withdrawn. But UNIFIL didn't go away, as its mandate had not been fulfilled. Did they go on to fulfill the mandate? Let's see:



2006 image showing Hezbollah and UN flags flying side by side.

2. Who said about Jews, "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide?"

Answer: Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.

Tw answers: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect.

3. When you watch this February 2006 video of Nasrallah calling the crowd to chant Death to America, do you A) secretly get a hard-on, or B) secretly wish that neighborhood was the first in Beirut to be hit?

Tw answers: the video is propaganda for the cannon fodder. It's not clear whether he means Hezbollah, Israeli, or American cannon fodder. In any case, the answer is correct. My question was a silly setup to get people to watch the video.

4. As you watch that video, aren't you embarrassed that you claimed that Beirut is, and I quote, "devoid of Hezbollah"?

Tw's answer: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect. The correct answer is "Yes, I didn't understand the situation, and given your video, this is as devastating a lack of understanding as failing to interpret those aluminum tubes correctly."

5. Since the beginning of hostilities in Lebanon, there is one other country that experienced more deaths, yet did not receive any sort of UN cease-fire demand, media attention, or spin of any kind. Name it

Tw's answer: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect. However, this is a trick question. There are not one but two locations seeing more violence and deaths this month, than Lebanon. Those two locations: Iraq and Darfur.

Tw's final score is 1.5 out of 5 and therefore he is not knowledgeable enough to continue to discuss the middle east.

I kid of course!

[Undertoad]

Tw is an avowed enemy of extremism and big-dic-ism. But not really, right? Because a speech like Nasrallah's Death To America speech is 100%, undeniably, extremism and big-dic-ism.

Israel, in his position, dare not use any level of force to achieve its goal, because it is theoretically the 800 pound gorilla in the region and has the general support and backing of the 1600 pound gorilla across the ocean.

(When Hez is being equipped with anti-tank and long-range munitions by its own 400-pound gorilla... well we overlook that part, for some reason.)

The expression of that power is scary, because simply holding power and authority, the worst anyone can do is to exercise it without restraint. As we sometimes note, to have power means to have responsibility. But you know, the responsibility is in the hands of the citizens. Because in a democracy, the restraint created by a voting citizenry exercizing its decisions and representing its interests does count.

As is often pointed out by the neo-cons, there has never been a war between two democratic countries.

But I guess what the voters say this time doesn't matter. The votes are "manipulated" by propaganda from the side they don't agree with - usually called the minority, but never mind all that. Even the peace movement in Israel is somehow manipulated this time, but never mind all that.

(And the people in the square, being addressed by Nasrallah and chanting Death to America, are not being manipulated?)

To that side, to have nuclear weapons and not ever brandish or test them is still unacceptable... and to not have them and suggest that once you do have them, the state of Israel will be wiped off the map, is acceptable. Not extreme, not big dic.

Is the expression of ANY power, by a powerful country, "extreme"? Is there ALWAYS a diplomatic answer?



The answer to that one, is an exercise once again left for the reader. But one last historical note. When we last left tw he was saying that it's all good for an armed, dangerous, extreme, big-dic militia to take over in Lebanon because after all Israel invaded earlier and was far too harsh in the expression of its power. (though not as harsh as the sectarian factions in Lebanon, who committed far worse massacres...)

He has a case, I admit, if you accept this notion of "original sin" in international relations. Of course, if you do, there is no action that Israel can take whatsoever except to negotiate with an organization whose stated goal is the termination of its existence, and who derives most of its power from its willingness to commit violence in the name of Shia Islam. Yeah I don't think that will work out so well.

He must of course be against the overthrow of the Taliban, because plenty of "original sin" can be found in the history of the US actions as well.

[Hippikos]

Nobody can denie that with the last military action by Israel, Hizbollah's authority has been increased tremendously.

They are currently winning hearts and minds amongst the Lebanon people by helping those who lost their homes by giving them cash on the spot, where it would take weeks if not months for the official Lebanese government to be able to help themselves.

As I 've mentioned before, pre-emptive wars serve no purpose if you don't have reliable intelligence, a clear objectiv and a proper exit strategy, as been shown in Iraq and now in Lebanon. The Mossad has underestimated the strength of Hizbollah and you cannot fight an a-symetric army from the air.

Israel clearly has lost the war by letting Hizbollah not having lost.
Isreal not only lost the war military but also politically, as it has underestimated the influence of civillian casualties.
Israel has lost the war because it lost many support in the free World as well.
Israel has lost the war as it's aura of invincibility and Mossad's intelligence qualities has taken a heavy blow. This war has all the qualities of a Keystone Cops action, unworthy of earlier Israeli actions.

The Lebanese Cedar revolution has lost the war, as their country is in ruins and it allows Hizbollah to gain political power.

[Undertoad]

I agree with almost all of that, but be sure to save your ticket stub so you can return to your seat. The boxers are in their corners and the bell is about to ring for round two.

[Hippikos]

The world has a front seat when the Guns of August thunder and drown the voices of reason. Your metaphor is very appropriate, but I'm not sure the result will be as many think...

[Undertoad]

Helpful advance hint: if you want to convince people you're not simply propagandist, it's probably a bad idea to blame Israel for the end of the cease fire until the cease fire actually breaks.

Never mind to speculate about an inevitable loss no matter what occurs.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I agree with almost all of that, but be sure to save your ticket stub so you can return to your seat. The boxers are in their corners and the bell is about to ring for round two.

This made apparently because the points of that ceasefire do not address any issues from both sides. The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel. It does not even address Sheeba Farms which even Prime Minister Fouad Siniora listed as one point of the conflict.

Neither side is really ready for peace. How will a pathetic force - not even empowered with UN Chapter 7 authority - achieve peace? It will be interesting. No country wants to put their soldiers into battle without purpose. As a result, the UN is even having difficulty get commitments for a trivial 15,000 men.

The problems have not been addressed. Attitudes have not changed. Nothing was accomplished. Neither Israeli help prisoners nor two kidnapped Israeli soldiers have been returned. Nor does the resolution even address that basic and earliest issue.

However stranger things have happened. When Egypt did a surprise attack on Israel and so severely destroyed the Israeli air force, well, what eventually resulted was enough respect by each side for the other as to result in a peace treaty. Hezbollah, if nothing else, has repeatedly earned respect by causing Israel's six invasion of Lebanon to terminate and having fought Israel to a stalemate. Question remains whether this turns into respect for Hezbollah or an end of Prime Minister Olmert's government. Olmert displayed poor leadership. Will Israeli's blame him or did they gain respect for Hezbollah?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

When Egypt did a surprise attack on Israel and so severely destroyed the Israeli air force...

Erm... is this the war you're talking about:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Yom Kippur War

In the Yom Kippur War, the IAF suffered heavy casualties from Soviet anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles but managed to regroup and assist IDF's ground forces and later bomb infrastructure targets in Syria and Egypt. One of the first battles in the war's air front was 2-28 Air Battle. IAF helicopters proved to be highly useful in logistics and rescue efforts (MedEvac). According to Israel, during that war, the IAF lost 102 planes while the Egyptian Air Force lost 235 and the Syrian Air Force lost 135.

I know how much Pearl Harbor made us respect the Japanese, I'm sure Yom Kuppur had the same effect on the Israelis re: the Egyptians.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Erm... is this the war you're talking about:

I know how much Pearl Harbor made us respect the Japanese, I'm sure Yom Kuppur had the same effect on the Israelis re: the Egyptians.

Egyptians surprised the Israeli air force with successful air defense units attached (I believe) at the battalion level. Israelis suffered massive aircraft losses and were desperate for American emergency aid. During that period, Europe refused to allow American resupply through Europe. So the US set up a series of ships (navigation beacons) through the Med and tanker refueling so that massive American military aid could rearm Israel's air force. I believe Golda Meir was Prime minister and Moshe Dyan was Defense minister. Eventually Israel drove the Egyptians back to the Suez Canal where Sharon tried to create WWIII.

This alone did not result in respect and peace. But military success by both sides earned enough respect that both side could eventually go to Camp David with heads held high. Other events then had to occur before Camp David could happen. But the point is that both side had enough pride and respect that they were able to consider peace.

Although not likely, we have a similar situation. Hezbollah has proven itself worthy. Will this set a tone where Israel and Lebanon can finally talk peace? I doubt it. But a similar situation exists.

Sidebar: one reason why the current Israeli administration will be so roundly criticized and may have to call for elections. They tried to use air force power only to accomplish what only ground forces can do. Israeli pilot talking in confidence complained how they could not even see or identify missile they were suppose to attack. Israel's government (and I have to assume it was in direct contradiction to what generals were saying) tried to conquer an enemy with air power. Naive and foolish. Air power is essential to supporting ground troops as even Patton demonstrated in WWII.

Egyptian ground to air defensive missiles virtually destroyed the Israeli air force in that first week of Yon Kippur. It was a shining moment for the Egyptian arm forces (Egypt even named a naval ship after that day) and one of the darkest moments in IDF history. Not like respect after Peral Harbor. After Yon Kippur, both sides demonstrated enough self respect and enough respect for their enemy that both could negotiate earnestly many years later.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Hezbollah has proven itself worthy.

For some very strange values of "worthy".

They're puppets of a regime that has announced publically that it wants to see Israel annihilated. When someone announces deadly intent, you should believe them, and act accordingly.

[DanaC]

What if the person announcing deadly intent is armed only with a very sharp piece of fruit ? :P (a concept shamelessly stolen from Black Adder Goes Forth)

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

They're puppets of a regime that has announced publically that it wants to see Israel annihilated.

And the IRA were puppets of the United States. Same logic.

Meanwhile Hezbollah was created for and again demonstrated what is Hezbollah's purpose: protection of Lebanan from Israel. If Israel was attacking the US, and I was a member of HizPA_NJ (an east coast militia), then I too would be calling for the destruction of Israel. That would be my propaganda. But my real intention is to destroy every Israeli that invades PA, NJ, NY, CT, DE, MD, VA, etc.

Hezbollah drove out Israel after 1982. Hezbollah, only a militia, again held off Israel. Hezbollah accomplished its purpose. Where others (ie Europe) sees Hezbollah for what it really is, then Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Only a mental midget propaganist (and we know who that is) would declare Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The question is whether Hezbollah was that worthy - or Israel's government so subverted the IDF battle plan. One way to overwhelm a milita is to conduct a battle that required Division level responses. Hezbollah is only a milita and should have been overwhelmed at division level combat. But Israel never conducted division sized operations (except maybe in the last week). I'm sure generals wanted to, which means I have serious doubts about Israel's leadership - Olmert in particular. To better know, many details are still missing. Currently Hezbollah looks like it was worthy of its purpose - the defense of Lebanon only from Israel.

[JayMcGee]

which brings us full circle to

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11263

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

And the IRA were puppets of the United States. Same logic.

Sorry...must have had my tinfoil hat mistuned when *that* theory went by.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What if the person announcing deadly intent is armed only with a very sharp piece of fruit ? :P (a concept shamelessly stolen from Black Adder Goes Forth)

I thought that was Monty Python?