Israeli officers disciplined

yosi

Pepe, I have already said this, but I have come to learn not to expect you to pay close attention to what people say. I would have no problem with an eventual Palestinian state creating a ribbon to commemorate Hamas. Or to be more precise, I might have a problem with it, but I would not be stupid enough to judge them for it. I would recognize that they have their own narrative of events and that a state has an interest in being as inclusive in its creation narrative as it can be.

As for the Israeli ribbon, it is utterly meaningless. It isn't awarded to current soldiers. It is entirely symbolic, a token to make a few old men, who have probably lived most of their lives feeling unappreciated feel recognized by their country. (I say that these men probably felt unappreciated because they were unappreciated due to the fact that the Lehi play a very minor, and to be quite honest somewhat negative role in the mainstream Israeli narrative, which is really the story of the Haganah and the Palmach.)

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

Israel left Lebanon not because of Hizbollah's fighting prowess, but because the Israelis recognized that there is no way to actually win such a war short of destroying Lebanon itself. Destroying it even more than they already did, I mean. If you want to talk facts, Hizbollah's extremely ill-advised hostage taking behavior starting the 2006 invasion in the first place, leading directly to the bombings and all those civilian deaths. Nice move by a bunch of "freedom fighters". Whose freedom? If indeed Hizbollah's goal in 2006 was protecting the Lebanese people, they fucked that up pretty badly.

And not to beat the point re. civilian casualties to death, but this summary of Hizbollah casualties makes the most sense to me (again from wikipedia):
Hezbollah
Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 184 to 1,000. However, Hezbollah is known to have sustained more fatalities than Israel during the conflict. Hezbollah's leadership claims that 250 of their fighters were killed in the conflict,[9] while Israel estimated that its forces had killed 600 Hezbollah fighters.[9][12] In addition, Israel claimed to have the names of 532 dead Hezbollah fighters.[174][dead link] A UN official estimated that 500 Hezbollah fighters had been killed,[11] and Lebanese government officials estimated that up to 500 had been killed.[10] A Stratfor report cited "sources in Lebanon" as estimating the Hezbollah death toll at "more than 700... with many more to go",[175] Meanwhile, British Military Historian John Keegan estimated that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah fighters were killed.[176] A burial count published in an October 2006 article in the Asia Times Online suggested a death toll of 184.[177] However, Israel also captured the corpses of 199 Hezbollah fighters. Following the prisoner swap deal in July 2008, Israel returned the remains of almost 200 militants.[178] Defense analyst Ben Moores estimated that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) lost a combined total of 600 to 900 killed in action.[179]

Con Coughlin of the Daily Telegraph reported that the difficulty in ascertaining an accurate Hezbollah casualty count was due in large part to deliberate attempts by Hezbollah to conceal the true extent of its losses. Citing a “senior security official” he wrote, “Hizbollah(sic) is desperate to conceal its casualties because it wants to give the impression that it is winning its war. People might reach a different conclusion if they knew the true extent of Hizbollah’s(sic) casualties.” [180] Patrick Bishop of the Telegraph reported that Hezbollah’s “culture of secrecy has disguised the true number of its losses – funerals of ‘martyrs’ are being staggered to soften the impact of losses.” [181]

You are wrong. Israel did leave south Lebanon because of Hizbullah. The group made the occupation of south Lebanon hell for the Israelis. They were not only losing soldiers but the security threats made it financially impossible to maintain such an occupation. So they packed their bags and left in 2000. Hell even the IDF admitted to this so I'm not sure why you are arguing a false point. The rest of the post about destruction of the country is BS and only shows how little you understand of what went on in Lebanon post 1983.

Regarding the incursion, the Israelis had multiple daily incursions in Lebanon before 2006 and Hizbullah or the Lebanese army never retaliated by sending rockets to completely destroy northern villages. If there was retaliation it was one or two rockets shot out. There were many reports that Israel had planned an invasion of Lebanon until the Litani river months before the 2006 war and the incursion was just an excuse to put those plans into effect and destroy Hizbullah completely. They failed miserably.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at with your civilian vs fighter count because even if the number is 600 as the IDF say it is that would still make it an overall 4:1 ratio against Israel. Perhaps you should move on.

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?

By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.

yosi

If we are already assuming that Shebaa Farms is nothing more than an excuse then why should Israel give it up to a bunch of thug terrorists, since it should be clear that they will just find another excuse to attack Israel. You don't make concessions, or at the very least you shouldn't make concessions, to terrorists committed to your destruction. They will always find another reason to attack you, and every time you give in to them it only re-enforces their belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. If Israel gives up anything, anywhere, it should only be in the context of a negotiation with a legitimate partner.

NoK

yosi wrote:

If we are already assuming that Shebaa Farms is nothing more than an excuse then why should Israel give it up to a bunch of thug terrorists, since it should be clear that they will just find another excuse to attack Israel. You don't make concessions, or at the very least you shouldn't make concessions, to terrorists committed to your destruction. They will always find another reason to attack you, and every time you give in to them it only re-enforces their belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. If Israel gives up anything, anywhere, it should only be in the context of a negotiation with a legitimate partner.

I'm not entirely sure who this "we" is but I believe you are the only one who is assuming that. Shebaa village is known to be part of Lebanon. That is fact. The farms on the other hand were in unknown territory, until Syria agreed that it is part of Lebanon. Regardless of the motives (and I assure you the last thing Syria wants is to give more land to Lebanon), it is part of Lebanon so get the fuck out.

and actually, thug terrorists are currently occupying it at the moment and if it was returned to Lebanon it would probably be turned over to the UN and not Hizbullah. The Lebanese army will deploy there as well, as they did in the south post-2006.

yosi wrote:

They will always find another reason to attack you, and every time you give in to them it only re-enforces their belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want.

Like every time the US vetoes a UN resolution it only re-enforces Israel's belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. Spot on.

rebornFixer

I shall move on, because people glorifying Hezbollah is not my cup of tea. Its actually quite repulsive.

rebornFixer

NoK wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?

By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.

I am quite irritated by your tone regarding my knowledge of the 2006 war (personally, I think you are just irritated that someone is raining on your Hezbollah worship parade), but I will concede this point (mostly because its facile and obvious).

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

I shall move on, because people glorifying Hezbollah is not my cup of tea. Its actually quite repulsive.

Is this the excuse you are going to give to back off a failed argument?

I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to when you say glorification of Hizbullah but what I have said are facts whether you like them or not.

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

NoK wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?

By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.

I am quite irritated by your tone regarding my knowledge of the 2006 war (personally, I think you are just irritated that someone is raining on your Hezbollah worship parade), but I will concede this point (mostly because its facile and obvious).

Hahaha is this the best you have? "Hizbullah worship parade"?

I'll have you know I come from a family of hardcore Hariri supporters who are adamantly opposed to Hizbullah. But you can keep trying to paint a negative picture of me.

badbrains

Dnt let the door hit u on the way out reborn. You're a fucking joke. Me a Hezbollah cheerleader? Where did I ever say that? I just said the facts. Hezbollah handed it to Israel. I'm not cheering up and down, it's just the truth.

rebornFixer

badbrains wrote:

Dnt let the door hit u on the way out reborn. You're a fucking joke. Me a Hezbollah cheerleader? Where did I ever say that? I just said the facts. Hezbollah handed it to Israel. I'm not cheering up and down, it's just the truth.

And you're an irritating little dink whose most original idea would appear to be "Islam is a perfect religion".

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

whose most original idea would appear to be "Islam is a perfect religion".

I have a feeling you are confusing MT posters but I may be wrong.

rebornFixer

NoK wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

whose most original idea would appear to be "Islam is a perfect religion".

I have a feeling you are confusing MT posters but I may be wrong.

Hmm ... That's possible. I should know better than to respond anyways.

Anyhow, if your basic argument is that Israel did not stay in Lebanon because it was too costly in terms of casualties and that there was no way they could destroy Hezbollah, I agree. Those are the facts of the matter. Maybe my wording was poor in that other post. I was attempting to argue that defeating Hezbollah would require the destruction of Lebanon, which still doesn't strike me as an unreasonable argument, and that the Israelis therefore left, AFTER making themselves look horrible on the world stage via indiscriminant use of air raids. Surely we can agree on that.

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

Hmm ... That's possible. I should know better than to respond anyways.

Anyhow, if your basic argument is that Israel did not stay in Lebanon because it was too costly in terms of casualties and that there was no way they could destroy Hezbollah, I agree. Those are the facts of the matter. Maybe my wording was poor in that other post. I was attempting to argue that defeating Hezbollah would require the destruction of Lebanon, which still doesn't strike me as an unreasonable argument, and that the Israelis therefore left, AFTER making themselves look horrible on the world stage via indiscriminant use of air raids. Surely we can agree on that.

You are specifically talking about the 2006 war where I am talking about Lebanon post 1983. I am taking into consideration the occupation of south Lebanon and not just the war of 2006. The IDF said the occupation was too costly financially and the casualties were affecting public opinion in Israel as well.

With regards to 2006, israeli strikes were more sadistic than anything. They destroyed every bridge in the country with air strikes and by every bridge in the country I mean EVERY one. Even the stupid accessory metal one the army set up to have a back entrance to their barracks was bombed. Then they struck the oil deposit of the electricity plant contaminating the entire Lebanese coast of the Mediterranean. The oil spill even reached Syria and Israel. This is just mentioning a few things which had nothing to do with Hizbullah. The reason why I do not accept your argument is because the israelis failed on the ground as well. They advanced initially but Hizbullah fought back and they retreated in many areas. Their goal of reaching the Litani and securing it was never achieved. The other thing was that they had leveled an entire area within the southern suburbs of Beirut that was believed to be Hizbullah headquarters yet most of the leaders emerged unharmed. You see even leveling the whole country would not have defeated Hizbullah. That is what the 2006 war showed.

rebornFixer

NoK wrote:

You are specifically talking about the 2006 war where I am talking about Lebanon post 1983. I am taking into consideration the occupation of south Lebanon and not just the war of 2006. The IDF said the occupation was too costly financially and the casualties were affecting public opinion in Israel as well.

With regards to 2006, israeli strikes were more sadistic than anything. They destroyed every bridge in the country with air strikes and by every bridge in the country I mean EVERY one. Even the stupid accessory metal one the army set up to have a back entrance to their barracks was bombed. Then they struck the oil deposit of the electricity plant contaminating the entire Lebanese coast of the Mediterranean. The oil spill even reached Syria and Israel. This is just mentioning a few things which had nothing to do with Hizbullah. The reason why I do not accept your argument is because the israelis failed on the ground as well. They advanced initially but Hizbullah fought back and they retreated in many areas. Their goal of reaching the Litani and securing it was never achieved. The other thing was that they had leveled an entire area within the southern suburbs of Beirut that was believed to be Hizbullah headquarters yet most of the leaders emerged unharmed. You see even leveling the whole country would not have defeated Hizbullah. That is what the 2006 war showed.

Well, I won't dispute any of this. A movement like Hezbollah is probably not defeatable by standard military means, and no matter how the 2006 war turned out, the latter could claim a political victory based on survival alone. My understanding is that this is exactly what they did, despite 1) taking heavier casualities than the IDF did and failing to destroy the IDF forces that invaded Lebanon, and 2) doing little or nothing to halt the aforementioned sadistic airstrikes. I suppose my issue is that all those Lebanese dead should be hard to pitch as a victory, but Hezbollah is more concerned with propaganda and making the claim that they are invincible. And the Israelis, in essence, walked right into it. Did they believe they could destroy Hezbollah, or was the goal to go in and give them a spanking, so to speak?

Byrnzie

Norman Finkelstein: Hizbollah - The Honour of Lebanon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe65-nF3FQ

NoK

rebornFixer wrote:

Well, I won't dispute any of this. A movement like Hezbollah is not defeatable by standard military means, and no matter how the 2006 war turned out, the latter could claim a political victory based on survival alone. My understanding is that this is exactly what they did, despite 1) taking heavier casualities than the IDF did and failing to destroy the IDF forces that invaded Lebanon, and 2) doing little or nothing to halt the aforementioned sadistic airstrikes. I suppose my issue is that all those Lebanese dead should be hard to pitch as a victory, but Hezbollah is more concerned with propaganda and making the claim that they are invincible. And the Israelis, in essence, walked right into it. Did they believe they could destroy Hezbollah, or was the goal to go in and give them a spanking, so to speak?

I think propaganda is used by everyone to further their goals so its not surprising Hizbullah would boast about it.

Relatively speaking the amount of casualties on the IDF side was huge compared to post 1990 operations on Lebanon where they'd use air strikes to bomb from the sky. I would think it is close to impossible for a militia to destroy the IDF but they did stop them from advancing and in some areas actually made them retreat. This is keeping in mind Hizbullah have nowhere near the equipment the IDF have. As for stopping the air strikes well this is impossible for Hizbullah or even the Lebanese army as they do not have the means to attack fighter planes.

I believe the exact language that was used to describe the invasion was "to deal Hizbullah a blow that they will never recover from", i.e. to destroy them beyond recovery.

Byrnzie

Interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/fe ... tine-peace

Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid

Rory McCarthy Herzliya - Guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 3 February 2010


Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt ­warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish ­majority or an "apartheid" regime.

His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.

There have been no formal negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in more than a year, but Barak was speaking at a rare joint event with the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, as part of an annual national security conference in the Israeli city of Herzliya. The pair shook hands and both were warmly applauded.

Barak, a former general and Israel's most decorated soldier, sought to appeal to Israelis on both right and left by saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was the only way to secure Israel's future as a "Zionist, Jewish, democratic state".

"As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

He described Israel and the Palestinian territories as the historic "land of Israel" to which Israelis had a right.

"We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel," he said.

"We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to ­international constraints." Barak is in a delicate political position. He leads the Labour party, supposedly a centre-left movement, but accepted a position in a rightwing coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, a decision that split his party.

Though Barak articulates a willingness for peace talks, he represents a government that has defied US and Palestinian calls for a full settlement freeze as a prelude to any negotiations. He was also defence minister during last year's Gaza war in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.

The Herzliya conference has echoed Israeli concerns about growing ­international criticism, particularly in the year since Gaza. Barak himself alluded to the danger that Israel might lose ­legitimacy if no peace deal was forthcoming. "The pendulum of legitimacy is going to move gradually towards the other pole," he said.

He acknowledged that Washington was pushing the two sides towards "proximity talks" but said this was "only an initial stage" before any return to full negotiations.

Fayyad, who has a limited political following among Palestinians, called on Israel to stop settlement building in the occupied territories and to halt military incursions in Palestinian cities as a sign of seriousness about negotiations.

"Things have to begin to happen in order to give the suggestion that this occupation is going to end," he said. "That Palestinian state is supposed to emerge precisely where settlements are expanding." Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has refused to start fresh negotiations with Israel unless settlement construction stops, in line with the 2003 US road map. Nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, even though settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.

"How confident can we all be that once relaunched that political process is going to be able to deliver that which needs to be delivered, the permanent status issues and the key question of ending the ­occupation?" Fayyad asked.

rebornFixer

Ehud Barak is a great politician, and while this probably sounds like an insult, I don't intend it as such. He is choosing his words carefully but at the same time is obviously aware of the need for a Palestinian state.

yosi

Congrats, you've finally managed to post something worth a read.