Lonan3 Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Today's Guardian Returning (almost) to the original topic: According to Alexander Ivanko, spokesman for the UN interim force in Lebanon (Unifil), there have been more than 100 recorded ceasefire violations by Israeli forces in the last month. These have been mostly over-flights and incursions by tanks, troops and bulldozers. Mr Ivanko said that 24 Lebanese civilians - including four men from Aita al-Shaab - had been detained at gunpoint by Israeli troops. All were later released. In addition to the incursions, there have also been a number of shooting incidents - described by the residents of Aita al-Shaab as "intimidation fire". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 I think we should put these so called ceasefire violations into perspective - deadly fire has ceased - having a plane fly over territory is very different from bombing raids, and temporarily holding people presumably while investigations are being conducted is not to exactly unusual. It is a great relief that violence has ended and the Israeli withdrawal is going so well. The only worry is that Hezbollah has just evaporated away. They remain a serious complicating factor in allowing Lebanon and Israel to become normal peaceful neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Yeah I noticed Rog was particularly quiet. No doubt off celebrating the victory. In strategic terms it IS a victory for the IDF. Hezbollah has now been pushed back over the Litani river. I have no doubt that the Isreali War Cabinet wanted a lot more Hezbollah casualties. But they were so well prepared and dug in so deep that it would have cost a lot of IDF casualties to root them out. However all the long-term Hezbollah preparations now count for nothing as they have had to abandon them. Well I have to say I'm amazed and relieved that the cease fire is basically holding. Though I'm not that hopefull for the future ... I suppose we'll just have to wait and see! If it breaks down and fighting starts again ... well I imagine the Israelis will blame Hizbollah and say the UN forces are being too weak not disarming Hizbollah ... ignoring the fact that the IDF failed to disarm Hizbollah. Great victory Rog, sure you're proud of what your boys did. Hizbollah will blame the Israelis ... ignoring the fact the only reason the IDF is in Lebanon is because Hizbollah launces attacks on the IDF. The UN will be caught in the middle ... probably wishing a plague on both their houses and wishing they'd never been sent in or had been able to bring some bigger tanks and air support with them. Well it aint over yet ... but the fact that there is reasonable discipline from both sides is hopeful, the only trouble Hizbollah isn't going to disarm ... they are just moving out to be replaced by the Lebanese army. What they do with their arms in the longer term is totally unresolved and I'm sure Rog will fret they'll just slink back in: meaning next time the IDF will have to fight the Lebanese Army and Hizbollah and try and not piss off several thousand french para troopers at the same time ... what a mess! This is about the clearest example of how aysmetric insurgents can run rings around airpower and conventional forces ... since ... Iraq ... and the last time the IDF invaded Israel ... and Vietnam ... shit don't the blow them up brigade ever learn. I doubt if the IDF will ever have to face the Lebanese Army and as for French paratroopers well so what? And by the way Hezbollah are not insurgents. They were hunkered down in well prepared permanent positions. Perfect targets for the "blow them up" brigade as you put it. As for me, I would far rather HE did the job of killing terrorists as opposed to sending in your infantry to become casualties. Don't you think so? At the end of the day an armed Hezbollah is still a threat to the region. So if they can't be dis-armed then the UN containing them is probably the next best option. Let's hope they all keep a cool head if (actually probably when) Hezbollah once again start indiscriminently killing civilians. The term "intimidation fire" made me laugh though. What - there's another kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I don't think many people will be really interested in this so rather than starting a new topic I thought I'd reserect the old Lebanon War thread. An interim report is in. It excoriates the Isreali Government and the IDF for the way this nasty little war was planned, organized and implemented. The Prime Minister bears supreme and comprehensive responsibility for the decisions of ‘his’ government and the operations of the army. His responsibility for the failures in the initial decisions concerning the war stem from both his position and from his behavior, as he initiated and led the decisions which were taken. The Prime Minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one. Also, his decision was made without close study of the complex features of the Lebanon front and of the military, political and diplomatic options available to Israel. He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs. In addition, he did not adequately consider political and professional reservations presented to him before the fateful decisions of July 12th. The Minister of Defence did not have knowledge or experience in military, political or governmental matters. He also did not have good knowledge of the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals. Despite these serious gaps, he made his decisions during this period without systemic consultations with experienced political and professional experts, including outside the security establishment. In addition, he did not give adequate weight to reservations expressed in the meetings he attended. The Minister of Defence did not act within a strategic conception of the systems he oversaw. He did not ask for the IDF’s operational plans and did not examine them; he did not check the preparedness and fitness of IDF; and did not examine the fit between the goals set and the modes of action presented and authorized for achieving them. His influence on the decisions made was mainly pointillist and operational. He did not put on the table - and did not demand presentation - of serious strategic options for discussion with the Prime Minister and the IDF. The army and the Army Chief of Staff (COS) were not prepared for the event of the abduction despite recurring alerts. When the abduction happened, he responded impulsively. He did not alert the political leaders to the complexity of the situation, and did not present information, assessments and plans that were available in the IDF at various levels of planning and approval and which would have enabled a better response to the challenges. Among other things, the COS did not alert the political echelon to the serious shortcomings in the preparedness and the fitness of the armed forces for an extensive ground operation, if that became necessary. In addition, he did not clarify that the military assessments and analyses of the arena were that a military strike against Hezbollah will with a high probability make such a move necessary. The COS’s responsibility is aggravated by the fact that he knew well that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense lacked adequate knowledge and experience in these matters, and by the fact that he had led them to believe that the IDF was ready and prepared and had operational plans fitting the situation. The COS did not provide adequate responses to serious reservation about his recommendations raised by ministers and others during the first days of the campaign, and he did not present to the political leaders the internal debates within the IDF concerning the fit between the stated goals and the authorized modes of actions. Various people were full of gung-ho glee about the war, while I worried it would be a disaster from day one. Well the report seems to agree with me: it was one huge mess. What is interesting is that it doesn't look like the IDF had deliberately prepared to escallate a minor incident into major confrontation as some people have claimed - linking Israel into George W.'s plans for right wing global dominence. The IDF were unprepared, the government inexperienced, the result an over-reaction and unrealistic tactical and strategic goals - the conclusion a political victory for Israel's enemies. Not a pretty picture, though you have to admire a democracy which is willing to produce and publish a report like this. Can't see Tony Blair or Georgie Boy doing something similar - the only remotely similar thing I can think of is the Franks' report on the Falkland's invasion. Touch wood this report will help Israel improve its security - though it could result in Netanyahu getting back in. Now that would be a sad end to Sharon's attempts to create a realistic peace process - Discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I wondered about starting a new thread, but its exactly the same topic. I genuinely sympathize with Israel's problems in dealing with militant attacks on it. But quite simply I've come to believe more and more strongly that Israel's disporportionate violence is no solution and in fact is totally counter productive. One Israeli died from the recent missile attacks - they kill one hundred. This is excessive and just gives the militants the propoganda they desire to recruit more to their cause. I cannot support the actions of a state which does this - it is a wrong on a vast scale and people should say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blixo Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Rather interesting artical "Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.) But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza. Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq. Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup. Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says." Read more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The old goat Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 The illegal theft of Arab lands by Jews that Europe organised in order to get rid of what it did not want yet did not dare exterminate and that resulted in the establishment of the rogue and illegal settlement that you call “Israel” in Palestine will very soon be resolved and the land returned to its rightful owners and inhabitants. The Jews can not win. They may win battles but they can not win war. And yet even though the Palestinians will win the war it is the Palestinians who will loose the blood in order to do so. The Jews fight with their American weapons and American money, yet they do not fight with their hearts. The Palestinian people do. The Jews want a base that is just for them. Why should they have one? How is a German Jew or a British Jew or a French Jew anything but a German, a Britain, or a Frenchman each of which follow the same common religion? So how is a Palestinian Muslim or a Palestinian Christian or even a Palestinian Atheist anything else than a Muslim, a Christian or an Atheist each of whom has the same common homeland? The Palestinians only want returned to them what was theirs and was stolen by America and Britain. Now America and Britain stand by and watch the Palestinian slaughtered like animals by weapons of modern war by those with no right to what they hold on to. The Palestinian make some little defence to try to stop more land theft by Jews, but it is a poor defence that can not strike the enemy directly but can only make it difficult for the Jews to get close to the Palestinian protective borders, and all the time Jews use modern very expensive high technology things that they can fire while cowering safe from what little defence the Palestinians have. Why do the British sit back and let the Jews murder the Palestinians who have done nothing except try to get back what has been stolen from them? How can you let this happen? There should be no “Israel” in Palestine. It should be and soon, insh’Allah, it will be removed and the land once more become the homeland of those whose homeland it truly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Please take your poisonous attitude and fuck off out of my homeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The old goat Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Please take your poisonous attitude and fuck off out of my homeland My point entirely, jsut what the Palestinians are saying. If that was aimed at me though when you consider the amount of Middle East investment that is presently in the Isle of Man you will soon reach the conclusion that your “homeland” is not as much yours as you think it is. Not by a long way. Remember, one mans investment is another mans ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 OK, then Please take your poisonous attitude and your money and fuck off out of my homeland. PS Stop acting like an Israeli Jew, just because you invest in a country doesn't mean you own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The old goat Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 OK, then Please take your poisonous attitude and your money and fuck off out of my homeland. PS Stop acting like an Israeli Jew, just because you invest in a country doesn't mean you own it. What is investment if not purchase? Your banks sell the loans they have extended having first taken a cut in order to get money into your societies. The Isle of Man is no different from anywhere else. Where do you think the money to cover the mortgages and business loans that you people take out comes from? Your banks deposits? Surly you are not that gullible? Or may be you are! If the Middle Eastern owners of your mortgages were to demand immediate payment or foreclosure thousands of you would be on the streets on the Isle of Man alone. You and people like you, if you have a mortgage, should keep in mind that it is people from the Middle East that you sneer at so readily who actually own the roof over your head until you discharge that mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Firstly, I don't owe anyone a penny. I have money widely invested in a managed portfolio so I guess I partly own some of your precious oil wells. Secondly, not all of the money here comes from the middle east I can't work out if you really are an arrogant twat or just a good troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 blablabla I'm just thinking how much more entertaining this thread would be if Rog was still around - it'be virtual nuclear war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 You and people like you, if you have a mortgage, should keep in mind that it is people from the Middle East that you sneer at so readily who actually own the roof over your head until you discharge that mortgage. Based on all that oil they sell at a premium rate to the 'decadent' west of course - without which you'd be working in a stone-age egg-timer factory on less than $1 a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 You and people like you, if you have a mortgage, should keep in mind that it is people from the Middle East that you sneer at so readily who actually own the roof over your head until you discharge that mortgage. Based on all that oil they sell at a premium rate to the 'decadent' west of course - without which you'd be working in a stone-age egg-timer factory on less than $1 a day. Even worse, some of their rulers would have to fuel their solid gold Rolls-Royces with vegetable oil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.