How Israel was pulled back into the peril of Lebanon

[spindrifter]

The Times July 13, 2006

By Nicholas Blanford, Ian MacKinnon and Stephen Farrell

<snip>

Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, his generals and Cabinet ministers emerged from an emergency session last night promising a ”severe response” to the worst, and most complex, crisis facing the new Israeli Government. Israel held Lebanon responsible for the plight of the abducted soldiers, a Cabinet statement said.

Before the expected large-scale operation to recover its troops, the Israeli army prepared to call up thousands of reservists and told residents of border towns to get into underground bomb shelters.

The Lebanese front was reopened in an echo of Gaza’s hostage crisis 160km (100 miles) south, where events began yesterday. At 2.30am Israeli aircraft dropped a 250kg (550lb) bomb on a house in Gaza in an attempt to assassinate Mohammed Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing. The raid killed a Hamas activist, Nabil al-Salmiah, his wife and seven of his children, who were aged four to fifteen.

<snip>

In Beirut the Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said that the raid was mounted out of solidarity with the Palestinians. Cautioning that Hezbollah was prepared to repel Israeli troops, he said: “We are ready for confrontation if they want it, and they have to expect surprises.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2267845,00.html

[Tom Joad]

1. "told residents of border towns to get into underground bomb shelters"

They are going to bomb these border towns.

Many civilians will die. This will bring peace?

It is time to pull back, and start negotiating.

Release Palestinian prisoners.

[Igel]

4. That's clearly not what was meant.

It's a common enough instruction to Israelis living in that part of Israel, since northern Israel, the all clear from the UN notwithstanding, is occasionally shelled. And, in fact, was shelled today.

[JDPriestly]

5. Israel tried negotiating. Israel gave up territory.

Palestinians voted to continue the violence. What in the world can Israel do?

[Tom Joad]

7. Israel did not negotiate. Israel gave up nothing of theirs.

Israel did not even negotiate with Abbas.
Israel simply took its illegal settlements out of Gaza, increased settlements in the West Bank, and kept Gaza under occupation and without means of survival. It has also done everything it could to punish Palestinians under brutal sanctions.

[pelsar]

9. .ignore facts....they're so bothersome

gaza had the oppertunity to develope a wonderful economy and life once israel left....they had two options:

take the greenhouses, their access to egypt and "get a life" instead they destroyed the greenhouses, rioted and killed two egyptians, fired missles into israel....

Lebanon?...same, Israel left lebanon, Hizballa took over s. Lebanon. The Lebanon govt rejected UN resolution 1559, which called for disarming the militia.

and they start attacking israel.

_____

both cases show the result of "trusting arab/palestenian militias when israel pulls back to 67: attacks and more attacks on israel....

[Igel]

2. I have to wonder what the "Islamic explosion" that

Ahmedinejad was referring to that would "remove Israel from the map."

One wonders if this either isn't an attempt to force the issue. There have been a few cases where the assumption has been that some group of jihadis would strike some blow against shirk and kafir and suddenly all of Muslimdom would rise up to reclaim its just spot over all the inferior folk. Never's happened. But such is faith. Frequently such people use overly exaggerated hyperbole, to understate the case.

Or perhaps it's simply tactical planning. The common wisdom is that Iran'll work on a nuclear bomb, damn the UN and everybody else. It's their right, after all, they're part of the best nation. So it'll come down to a US strike to cripple the program, I'd be shocked if the US did it, all the fear-mongering and paranoia notwithstanding. That'll leave Israel, repeating its Osirak strike in a different country. If Israel's bogged down on two fronts, even if one is a proxy army for Iran, it'll be danged hard for them to spare the forces for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and harder for everybody to argue against Iran shipping troops and materiel to support their brother Shi'ites and Muslims.

[azurnoir]

6. Would Israel have to do the pre-emptive strike?

Earlier today George was saying that America holds Iran and Syria responsible for the abduction of 2 Israeli soldiers. I have not read that Israel has stated anything about Iran and has not mentioned Syria since talks with Condi. Also today it was announced that America is moving more troops to Iraq.Could it be that if the fighting expands beyond Gaza and Lebanon Israel won't be going it alone?

[Igel]

11. No, but the

assumption that's widespread is that if the US won't take out the Iranian nuclear development site, that Israel would on its own initiative.

Israel looks with some satisfaction at what happened in Iraq: they took out a nuclear plant there, were condemned, but nobody much cares these days.

[azurnoir]

12. I remember that

what struck me at the time was that there was no reporting on the after affects on the people living around the site, certainly there must have been some , almost like Hiroshima? I don't know anything about the physics involved but a nuclear blast is a ......

[DELUSIONAL]

3. It sounds like macho time to me . . . .

Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, his generals and Cabinet ministers emerged from an emergency session last night promising a ”severe response” to the worst, and most complex, crisis facing the new Israeli Government. Israel held Lebanon responsible for the plight of the abducted soldiers, a Cabinet statement said.

Olmert seems to be another guy who wants to be a "war leader" . . . and a lot of people will die for this bastards ego.

[hoboken123]

8. Stupid macho leader

So they kidnapped a few soldiers....why does he need to react?

[Recursion]

10. A "war" response is better in the long run...

...than a "we're cops who will imprison people we don't like" response.

The fiercer this fighting is right now, the faster it will reach an equilibrium of force like wars always do, and which ends fighting. The half-hearted, legalistic nature of the violence in the past decade or so was what allowed to the violence to continue. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel have to fight each other as enemies (and remember, if Hamas and Hezbollah manage to make meaningful contact this could well become a 3-way war), their leaders will start having to deal with the consequences of their violent decisions, rather than always blaming the other party. War is vicious and horrible, but it does have a way of making operational and logistical realities win out over rhetoric: the trick is that you need a leader who can see that as quickly as possible. But they all have to see it eventually, and the war will continue until they do.