Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Funny, no one says that Lebanon has the right to defend themselves do they?..

Anyway if I remember the sequence of events right from my reading it was this:  Hizbollah attacks army border post and captures a few soldiers.  Israel sends a tank into Lebanon in pursuit, tank hits land mine blowing up and killing  soldiers inside..Israeli soldiers still in Lebanon pursue Hizbollah fighters.

Nasrallah believes with the Israeli soldiers captured he can negotiate for Palestian/Lebanese people that Israel has in prison.

Instead Israel starts bombing Lebanon and does so for a day and half before Hizbollah shoot off some rockets towards Haifa  seemingly as warning that they can...killing no one.  Israel continues to bomb to shit out of Lebanon for 3 days before Hizbollah gets more serious and starts to send lots of rockets into Israel starting with Haifa.

"People never do evil so throughly and happily as when they do it from moral conviction."-Blaise Pascal

by chocolate ink on Thu Jul 27th, 2006 at 03:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Funny, no one says that Lebanon has the right to defend themselves do they?...

Actually, everyone except Syria does, even the Israelis.
The problem is that Hizbullah decided to attack Israel for the following racist reason:

Nasrallah believes with the Israeli soldiers captured he can negotiate for Palestian/Lebanese people that Israel has in prison.

In other words, the leadership of Hizbullah think that as craven, inferior cowards [like all Jews], the Israeli government would come calling "hat in hand" to beg the superior Muslim supermen to get it's people back.

AFAIK, Hizbullah had been fireing rockets as soon as the whole thing started, except that they were small ones with no guiding device inside.

by messy on Fri Jul 28th, 2006 at 09:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who do you think Lebanon needs to defend itself from, just to be sure?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 28th, 2006 at 09:42:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't put words in my mouth..that is not what I stated or implied at all.  My understanding from reading is that the captured Israeli soldiers were going to be used to negotiate as has been done before except Olmert choose not to do so.

I wasn't even trying to be particularly pro/con just stated the facts as I seen them but as always 'facts' can be open to interpretation depending on a persons viewpoint.

As for Lebanon defending itself-I was speaking to that basically from the viewpoint in the US...and US news.  I seldom listen to the news but when I have turned it on it seems that is what I've heard over/over-'that Israel has the right to defend itself'...nothing said about Lebanon.

"People never do evil so throughly and happily as when they do it from moral conviction."-Blaise Pascal

by chocolate ink on Fri Jul 28th, 2006 at 12:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
my above post was in response to messy not Migeru....although if you are asking me about Lebanon defending itself I simply meant every country has a right to defend itself.  In this particular context of course it does mean between Israel and Lebanon. Although being a pacifist this whole escalating mess is horrifying.

"People never do evil so throughly and happily as when they do it from moral conviction."-Blaise Pascal
by chocolate ink on Fri Jul 28th, 2006 at 12:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was asking Messy, not you. Because if Messy tries to argue that Lebanon needs to defend itself from Hezbollah, I have some news for him.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 28th, 2006 at 01:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Kinda thought so but it didn't hurt to make my position more clear either.

"People never do evil so throughly and happily as when they do it from moral conviction."-Blaise Pascal
by chocolate ink on Fri Jul 28th, 2006 at 04:13:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ahh...how quickly we all forget. I encourage you to read this The link:

Hezbollah

    * Hezbollah launches Katyusha rockets across the Lebanese border with Israel, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area in the Golan Heights which has been a part of Israel since Israel was attacked by various Arab nations in the 1967 Six-Day War.[1]
    * Hezbollah's military wing staged a cross-border attack from Lebanon on two Israeli Humvees, as well as rocket and mortar attacks on northern Israel. Three Israeli soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped, with several civilians injured. "Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the Arab prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev) at the border with occupied Palestine," Hezbollah said in a statement.[2]

IDF

    * In attempt to pursue the Hezbollah force and release the captured soldiers, an Israeli Merkava Mark II tank is hit by a 300 kilogram improvised explosive device. All 4 crew members are killed.
    * In attempt to recover the bodies of the soldiers from the burnt tank, another Israeli soldier is hit by Hezbollah fire and killed.

Not only did Hizbollah provoke Israel, they did so at a pre-determined time. It should not be a surprise for anybody that the soldier in Gaza, and the two soldiers in the north were kidnapped within a few days apart. The assertion that Hizbollah's bombing of Israel didn't begin until later is also untrue. Not only did they fire Katyusha rockets on the 12th, they did so on the 13th bombing Nahariya and Safed killing 2 people and wounding 29.

I understand we would all love for Israel to just keep negotiating with Hizbollah every time they kidnap somebody, but why should they? Is that a right discourse to conduct diplomacy? An organization whose political wing is in the Lebanese government engages in kidnapping people across the border, and there is no outrage with that?

I am sorry, I never support excessive use of force anywhere in the world for any reason, but some of our expectations of how Israel should act are completely unreasonable. They have received zero relief since they left the northern part of Lebanon and Gaza either from Hizbollah or Hamas / Islamic Jihad. I would be pretty pissed off too.


Mikhail from SF

by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 12:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Colman, do you agree that Belfast should have been extensively shelled after the IRA took prisoners?
by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 12:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While Colman composes his reply, the Royal Navy is now positioning itself around Belfast, shelling suspected Republican strongholds. Fighter planes roam overhead, dropping bombs here and there (precision bombing only). The electric supply has been cut throughout town, and the civil population is being told that it's up to itself to get rid of the IRA if it wants its heaters to work.
by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 12:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The international press is divided. Some intellectuals argue that the IRA actually blew up bombs before taking prisoners, making the shelling of Belfast legitimate. Other intellectuals meanwhile recognize that being the UK is not easy, that negotiation with the IRA is near to impossible, but that neither of those two things justify the shelling of Belfast.
by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 12:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it would have been more approprate for the British (in this fictional instance) to attack IRA stongholds near Dublin.
by messy on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 12:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Belfast is a part of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. Lebanon is not a part of Israel. I don't see how the comparison here can be made.
I doubt that if Israel has internal terrorist groups, it would be bombing its own cities, just like Britain didn't bomb its own. But responding to provocation from another country is another issue.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 01:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, but did Lebanon attack Israel? Are you equating Hezbollah with the Lebanese government?
But I agree even less. I don't think nation states get to destroy civilian infrastructure of another nation to retaliate against the aggression of some group operating from its territory. This kind violence against a people for something they have little control over is inexcusable. And yes, Hezbollah's aggression is also inexcusable. And I don't see how subjecting the people of another nation to this kind of violence is any more acceptable than if it were to occur within a nation state.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 02:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While Lebanon did not itself attack Israel, you have to recognize the complexity of this matter, considering Hizbollah is now a part of the Lebanese government, and Lebanon has made very little (if any) effort to involve the international community to re-occupy its own southern borders with regular military. Hizbollah attacking Israel from Lebanon is not the same as the ETA or IRA. They are a militia force with intelligence units, soldiers, modern weapons, bunkers, and other elements of a huge infrastructure.

It is absolutely inexcusable to destroy any civilian infrastructure. And I wish Israel would stop being so goddamn stupid when it comes to that. But if a road or a bridge is being used by Hizbollah to carry weapons, does this now become a military target or still a civilian infrastructure? These are not easy questions to answer, but I think you have to appreciate this thought process.

Mikhail from SF

by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 04:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If Hezbollah symphatizers started clubbing Israeli soldiers to death with frozen baguettes, should all bakeries and freezer retailers in Lebanon become military targets and be destroyed?
by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 08:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you are making ridicule of a very serious issue. You are describing something that is completely not realistic to try to make a point about something that is happening all the time. There are things that are reasonable and things that are unreasonable. I'm not defending Israel's actions (at least not all the time), but if I was getting bombed, you bet your ass I would want to cut off the supply of those bombs and communications infrastructure that makes it possible. It was Hizbollah's choice to use civilian roads, just like it is Hizbollah's choice to put rocket launchers inside mosques, hide inside civilian buildings all the while aiming their rockets not at the Israeli military but civilian targets inside the country.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 11:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm making ridicule about it because it is ridiculous, Let's look at it more closely and see if there really is an intruder in the following examples:

"They're using roads, let's destroy the roads.", "They're using frozen baguettes, let's destroy bakeries". , "They're hiding inside coal cellars, let's put fire to all coal cellars", "They're using a UNESCO world heritage 3rd century minaret to spot for their mortar, let's destroy the minaret". "They're hiding inside ambulances, let's destroy ambulances". , "They're using olive oil to make munitions, let's burn olive oil depots".

Your initial example was a bridge being used to carry weapons ... well let me tell you, if the same bridge is being used to carry bread to civilians, then blowing it up is heartless, not "militarily useful". Even with no bridge, weapons can be ferried across, for instance on inflated rubber ducks (or inflatable Pamela Andersons, or using ropes and pulleys). But there always will be a far greater need for bread than for weapons, and since rubber ducks are limited, the civilians will get screwed ...

Military "tactics" are just things that idiotic officers learn from former idiotic officers, they serve little purpose but to make it harder for civilians. Look at all the bridges the US blew up when invading Iraq, what difference has it made on the long term? Fortunately these were rebuilt, but who's going to rebuild Lebanon this time? Winning idiotic wars is about quantity of firepower, not about blowing up bridges. Leave the bridges alone.

This was a message from the Mostar Bridge Fan Club Association.

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 04:52:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Note to self: on second thought I doubt there is such a thing as a 3rd century minaret.
by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 05:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK did deploy army units in Belfast for a number of years. Think the occupied territories.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 04:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Arguably a more apt comparison would have been a UK attack on the Republic of Ireland, and especially Sinn Fein offices in Dublin.

Even though the UK troops were supposedly there for peace keeping, and even though there were occasional atrocities like Bloody Sunday it's hard to imagine anyone in the UK thinking that a full scale attack on the infrastructure of Ireland would have been anything other than pointless, barbaric, and stupid.

And yes, the IRA were using rockets, bombs, snipers and all kinds of other paramilitary nastiness in the North and sometimes also in London.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 09:59:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember when the IRA sent a rocket into #10. Imagine if it actually hit the mark, or if Maggie Thatcher died in Brighton!
by messy on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 01:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean Hamas is entitled to retaliate massively for Yassin's assassination by Israeli rocket?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 05:43:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The IRA, an organisation whose political wing sits in the Irish parliament, engages in the kidnapping of Brits across the border, and there is no outrage with that?

I am sorry, I never support excessive use of force anywhere in the world for any reason -except maybe in the following case- but some of our expectations of how the UK should act are completely unreasonable. They have received zero relief since they left the northern part of Ireland from the IRA. I would be pretty pissed off too.

Let's bomb the Irish infrastructure to smithereens. Level Dublin!

Commander Alex in Toulouse

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 01:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And while we're at it, let's level Madrid and San Sebastian.

Commander Alex in Toulouse

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 02:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay.

But can we wait till Colman and Sam are on holiday again?

We're still going to need someone to run the servers after Dublin has been reduced to radioactive slag.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 04:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I suppose we could make martyrs out of them and promot international outrage, namely by stating that IRA fighters were using their garden to fire rockets into the UK. Then we could outsource server handling to Asia.

Commander Alex in Toulouse.

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 04:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If that statement holds, then Israel shouldn't retaliate to rocket attacks on the Golan Heights, as they aren't part of Israel.
by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 07:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The two soldiers were kidnapped from the Israeli territory.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 11:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither the Golan Heights nor the Shebaa Farms is internationally recognised Israeli territory.

Besides, Israel kidnapped several Lebanese from Lebanon territory. Some Israelis can see the immorality of the situation much better than you.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 06:27:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The soldiers were not kidnapped in the Golan Heights or Sheeba Farms.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 07:00:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Correct - sorry.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 07:52:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, just read it, Ran HaCohen's news analysis buries the version that the kidnap was on the Lebanese side.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 09:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but do we agree that the rocket attacks are irrelevant, since they landed outside of Israel?
by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 02:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rocket attacks landed outside of Israel on the first day :) And they are not irrelevant, considering the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms have absolutely no relation to Lebanon or this particular problem. It is an excuse that is being used by Hizbollah to justify its existence. They knew exactly what they were doing sending rockets to Golan Heights even though it is not technically Israeli territory.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sun Jul 30th, 2006 at 08:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no inclination to further counter what yxou write. However, whoever added the first line to what you quote from Wiki is historically uncorrect (it was Israel that attacked its neighours in 1967, not vice versa) and ignores the complexities of whom belongs the Shebaa Farms.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jul 29th, 2006 at 07:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series