3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLooking at the situation as it stands is a bit like looking at the delta formed at the mouth of the mississippi when Katrina blew through and trying to postulate where the planning had failed by looking at the end result. Yet the causes of the flooding cant be acertained at the mouth. Any reasonable analysis has to go upstream back to the levies that broke and even further upstream.
Plain ignorance, pure and simple. Here's a pop quiz:
1) When was Hezbollah founded in Lebanon? In reaction to what?;
2) What occurred in 2000 that might cause a lessening of hostilities?;
3) What recent events preceded the "spate of rocket attacks" (immediately)?
4) A terrorist organization is one that commi ...[text shortened]... es according to AI; what events since 2000 show Hezbollah to be a 'terrorist organization"?
I like analogy if you find it too tangential then try this for size. The memory of old men can influence ways of thinking for at least a couple of generations. Two succesive men reaching 80 if they are father and son can be part of and carry set ways of thinking for close to 100 years with hardly a significant shift in attitude for much of that time. Why the aside: Consider these dates and events and think that just maybe for some tired of waiting to be attacked decide to swap their tactics and think to use offense as the best form of defence and with the best intel that they can muster wage war preemtively.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I asked for evidence since 2000 that Hezbollah had engaged in "terrorist" acts, not attacks against the Israeli military. Other than two stabbings supposedly by a "Hezbollah-LINKED Palestinian organization", I see nothing of any "terrorist" attacks, which are ones directed at civilians. The word "linked" relating to "terrorist organizations" is one routinely thrown around, but never defined. Hezbollah, of course, is not a Palestinian organization, but a Lebanese one.
At least I have my own opinion and dont need to stoop to rabid anti Israeli sentiment as championed by Noam Chomsky or one of his acolytes Dr Tanya Reinhart. If I wanted to belong to something I wouldnt choose stand4truth.org either.
1) 1982, because of Israel invading Lebanon
2) Israel withdrew from the Lebanon
3) This is a synopsis of an anti-US/Israel r was wounded when Katyushas were fired at an army base at Mt. Meron in the upper Galilee.
The firing of rockets by Hezbollah at civilian areas followed Israel's massive bombing of civilian targets on the first day of its offensive like the Beirut airport, bridges, roads, power stations, etc. Hezbollah adopted a "tit for tat" policy while ceasing its rocket attacks whenever Israel ceased attacking civilian targets (once during a 48 hour bombing "halt"😉.
And Hezbollah made a public, standing offer to cease rocket attacks on civilian areas if Israel ceased bombing and shelling the same (even without a general cease fire). Israel refused to do so. These are the undisputed facts. Hezbollah's "tit for tat" policy is not justifiable under IL, but it was certainly more restrained than the IDF.
Originally posted by kmax87kmax: Then I think from an IDF perspective anyone near the epicentre of a base has by their association signed their own death warrant in the event of any military actions.
Opinion:-
If Hizbullah are the perfect embedded decentralised model of an army then they still share all the characteristics of supply and logistics common to any defence force, which would not be all that hard to track and monitor. Past experience would also indicate when critical masses of weapons and militias are formed and if an opportunity presents itse ...[text shortened]... e as the best form of defence and with the best intel that they can muster wage war preemtively.
Which is why a War Crimes Tribunal and a few hangings would have a salutary effect on this criminal organization.
Originally posted by kmax87kmax: Consider these dates and events and think that just maybe for some tired of waiting to be attacked decide to swap their tactics and think to use offense as the best form of defence and with the best intel that they can muster wage war preemtively.
Opinion:-
If Hizbullah are the perfect embedded decentralised model of an army then they still share all the characteristics of supply and logistics common to any defence force, which would not be all that hard to track and monitor. Past experience would also indicate when critical masses of weapons and militias are formed and if an opportunity presents itse ...[text shortened]... e as the best form of defence and with the best intel that they can muster wage war preemtively.
Or maybe, just maybe, they could actually withdraw from the territory they are unjustifiably occupying? Just a thought.
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause my posts were really getting unweildy Ive forward edited a piece you have already quoted so please do not be alarmed this is not a temporal time warp.
kmax: Consider these dates and events and think that just maybe for some tired of waiting to be attacked decide to swap their tactics and think to use offense as the best form of defence and with the best intel that they can muster wage war preemtively.
Or maybe, just maybe, they could actually withdraw from the territory they are unjustifiably occupying? Just a thought.
But to answer your last question I put this together with the help of the BBC
Opinion:-
If Hizbullah are the perfect embedded decentralised model of an army then they still share all the characteristics of supply and logistics common to any defence force, which would not be all that hard to track and monitor. Past experience would also indicate when critical masses of weapons and militias are formed and if an opportunity presents itself then I think from an IDF perspective anyone near the epicentre of a base has by their association signed their own death warrant in the event of any military actions.
The history of the region is the imperitive telling them to do it
This from the BBC
Arab discontent
The Zionist project of the 1920s and 1930s saw hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating to British Mandate Palestine, provoking unrest in the Arab community.
Zionist-Arab antagonism boiled over into violent clashes in August 1929 when 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians and 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police.
Arab discontent again exploded into widespread civil disobedience during a general strike in 1936. By this time, the militant Zionist group Irgun Zvai Leumi was orchestrating attacks on Palestinian and British targets with the aim of "liberating" Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) by force.
In July 1937, Britain, in a Royal Commission headed by former Secretary of State for India, Lord Peel, recommended partitioning the land into a Jewish state (about a third of British Mandate Palestine, including Galilee and the coastal plain) and an Arab one.
Palestinian and Arab representatives rejected this and demanded an end to immigration and the safeguarding of a single unified state with protection of minority rights. Violent opposition continued until 1938 when it was crushed with reinforcements from the UK.
UN partition of Palestine
Britain, which had ruled Palestine since 1920, handed over responsibility for solving the Zionist-Arab problem to the UN in 1947.
The UN set up a special committee which recommended splitting the territory into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. Palestinian representatives, known as the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the proposal; their counterparts in the Jewish Agency accepted it.
The partition plan gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, 33 countries of the UN General Assembly voted for partition, 13 voted against and 10 abstained. The plan, which was rejected by the Palestinians, was never implemented.
Britain announced its intention to terminate its Palestine mandate on 15 May 1948 but hostilities broke out before the date arrived.
The death of British soldiers in the conflict made the continuing presence in Palestine deeply unpopular in Britain. In addition, the British resented American pressure to allow in more Jewish refugees - a sign of growing US support for Zionism.
Both Arab and Jewish sides prepared for the coming confrontation by mobilising forces. The first "clearing" operations were conducted against Palestinian villages by Jewish forces in December.
Establishment of Israel
The State of Israel, the first Jewish state for nearly 2,000 years, was proclaimed at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv. The declaration came into effect the following day as the last British troops withdrew. Palestinians remember 15 May as "al-Nakba", or the Catastrophe.
The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one.
Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank.
The Jewish armies were victorious in the Negev, Galilee, West Jerusalem and much of the coastal plain.
The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed, and the Israeli army crushed pockets of resistance. Armistices established Israel's borders on the frontier of most of the earlier British Mandate Palestine.
Egypt kept the Gaza Strip while Jordan annexed the area around East Jerusalem and the land now known as the West Bank. These territories made up about 25% of the total area of British Mandate Palestine.
So has anything changed in the region? Or is there still nothing new under the sun?
Originally posted by kmax87I'm aware of the history (though the partition plan was even more unfair than indicated). The question is what is to be done now. Obviously the use of force hasn't solved the problem; maybe it's time to sit at a table and talk.
Because my posts were really getting unweildy Ive forward edited a piece you have already quoted so please do not be alarmed this is not a temporal time warp.
But to answer your last question I put this together with the help of the BBC
Opinion:-
If Hizbullah are the perfect embedded decentralised model of an army then they still share all the characte ...[text shortened]... .
So has anything changed in the region? Or is there still nothing new under the sun?
Originally posted by no1marauderSeriously I think that people will individually entertain the notion of peace, but the minute the committees form and men in suits start to mass, then the residual fears and paranoias send people second guessing each other so that every nuance in attitude while negotiating is overanalysed to the point where they reach the "paralysis of the analysis". At that point the internal fear that they may have sold out their heritage or their faith or some unavenged innocent revives the posturing and before any length of time passing its straight for the jugular time. Thats my opinion. I hope to be proven wrong.
I'm aware of the history (though the partition plan was even more unfair than indicated). The question is what is to be done now. Obviously the use of force hasn't solved the problem; maybe it's time to sit at a table and talk.