Werent the Iranian civilian casualties in hundreds of thousands? in the Israel-Lebanon conflict a little more than 1000 Lebanese died. Didnt Saddam willingly target civilian objects?

Israel, with much more equipment could have inflicted far more civlian casualties if intended.

I do not believe Israelis targeted civilians with full knowledge that those targets lack Hezbollah fighters...

I'm no expert on Middle Eatern Politics nor am I an expert in Israeli-Lebanese relationships nor on military actions. However, there seems to be an overglossing of certain issues running through this thread.

First pertaining to the referal of the term "Arab" as denoting both Jews and other middle eastern populations. This term is completely wrong! Jews although a semetic people are not "Arab," this does not mean that there are no Arab Jews just that they are few in number. If we want to be truely correct we should refer to the parties involved by there nation of origin ie: Israeli, Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian etc. I have no problems with a person being a bigot but if we are going to be bigoted we should know the difference between the focuses of our bigotry (although this is contrary to the idea of bigotry).

The second issue that seems to be running through some of the posts here is that people on both sides like to focus only on "chest thumping" that is my side is right your side is wrong. Although this is the nature of debate this is counter productive. However, some people seem to be missing basic history of this region. For this I suggest reading a wonderfully well written book From Beirut to Jerusalem. Some also seem to miss the point that while the actions of Israel might not have been a proper "proportional response" they were none the less provoked not just by the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers but the murder of at least two more during that same raid. Some people would go so far as to call this an act of war. This was just the culmination of years of animosity between Hezbollah and Israel. This brings me to my final point.

Hezbollah through out the running thread is commonly referred to in terms of endearment. This should not be the case any organization that rejoices at the death of an outsider should not be referred to in such terms. The fact remains that Hezbollah is an organization founded on the destruction of Israel and other westernly alighned governments. I read in one of the posts that they (Hezbollah) were defenders (or something to that nature the exact phrase escapes my mind for which I appologize) of Lebanese soil against foreign occupation. This is simply a less than true statement what was Hezbollah's stance on the recently ended Syrian occupation of Lebanon? They embraced it as a matter of fact they are still part of the pro-Syrian faction of Lebanese politics.

I would like to point out that the verdict is still out on this conflict. Neither side was able to claim an immidiate victory, but the long term effects have yet to be seen, and it is there that the winner will be made apparent.

I would like to appologize for any misspelled words or poorly chosen phrases. If some people feel that I have attacked them that was not my intent and I would like to appologize, I simply wanted to address issues that I encountered. Again I would like to appologize for misspelled words, poorly chosen phrases, and bad grammar.

Now, now I never said they wanted to destroy the west. What I said was they wanted to "destroy westernly aligned governments." However, I probably should have included a qualifying statement with a statement that said something to the effect of: "in surrounding nations and their own, hoping to establish an Islamic regime in its place." Unfortunately I can not off the top of my head come up with an instance where Hezbollah has stated its aim as being to destroy Israel. However, this does not mean that it is not a true statement. Show me where they expressly state that it's not their aim.

In terms of understanding Israel's context for their actions. Why don't we look at the numerous invasions of Israel by their neighbors in 1948, 1967, and the 1970's. So all of a sudden Israel's context becomes more apparent.

in 1985? things have changed. There are statements i can find in those wiki sources that contradict that hard line. Different audiances require different language, our politicians do it also, as far as i can see they wont accept isreal taking over all of jerusalem which is not acceptable to most arabs anyway.

Nasrallah, Q and A and his ideas for peace (washington post in 2000)

"If Israel pulls out, he promises that Hezbollah will end its "security" activities there. But he refuses to say whether Hezbollah, whose history includes bombings and the taking of hostages, will halt all activities against Israel, its archenemy.......

From the perspective of Hezbollah, what are the major issues to be addressed during any future Lebanon-Israel peace negotiations?

Lebanon should first recover sovereignty over all its territories, without neglecting any. Second, all Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails should be released. . . . Third, Lebanon has the right to ask for compensation for all the damages and harm which have resulted from Israeli aggressions against Lebanon during the past decades. Furthermore, Lebanon has the right to ask for punishment of those Israeli officials who should be considered war criminals. . . .

The next issue, which is no less important than the previous ones . . . is the issue of the Palestinian refugees. Lebanon cannot enter into any settlement with anybody based on the granting of Lebanese nationality to the 300,000 or 400,000 Palestinians who live on Lebanese territory. There is no way that such a thing can happen. . . . Any settlement that does not take into consideration the issue of the Palestinian refugees endangers the process and will prove to be a time bomb which can explode at any time."

link

sounds unreasonable?

Hersch's converstion with Nasrallah in 2003

"Nasrallah emphasized that he was not seeking a confrontation with the United States. Because of Hezbollah�s ability to disrupt a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, I asked Nasrallah about his view of the renewed talks. He hesitated a moment and declared, �At the end, this is primarily a Palestinian matter. I, like any other person, may consider what is happening to be right or wrong. . . . I may have a different assessment, but at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on. Of course, it would bother us that Jerusalem goes to Israel.�

I asked, �But if there was a deal?�

�Let it happen,� he answered. �I would not say O.K. I would say nothing.� "

Link

CNN transcripts (2003)

"MACVICAR: You know that one of the key questions here in the region that many want to know the answer to is how will Hezbollah act if there is a war? Would Hezbollah, for example, attack Israel if there is a war?

NASRALLAH: Our policy is clear, we are fighting in an area that is still under occupation in Lebanon. And beyond that area, we are on the defensive. What is being talked about now is the probability of the Sharon government launching an attack against Lebanon to eliminate the resistance of Hezbollah by using the American war against Iraq. But, of course, in this case, we will certainly fight with all our strength.....

MACVICAR: Anderson, that was the key message of Sheikh Nasrallah -- that Hezbollah is now not looking for a fight. He came as close as he possibly could of saying that they were not interested now in attacking Israel. Of course, saying that if, in fact, Lebanon was attacked they would reserve the right to respond. A very different tone, as I said before, in this interview than in some of the other public statements that we've heard from Sheikh Nasrallah, which in many ways may have been meant for domestic consumption in Lebanon -- Anderson."
link

this is from the leader himself, not a foot soldier or an isreali adaption.




Edited by Leonidas - 11-Dec-2006 at 02:00

Originally posted by King John I'm no expert on Middle Eatern Politics nor am I an expert in Israeli-Lebanese relationships nor on military actions. However, there seems to be an overglossing of certain issues running through this thread. First pertaining to the referal of the term "Arab" as denoting both Jews and other middle eastern populations. This term is completely wrong! Jews although a semetic people are not "Arab," this does not mean that there are no Arab Jews just that they are few in number. If we want to be truely correct we should refer to the parties involved by there nation of origin ie: Israeli, Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian etc. I have no problems with a person being a bigot but if we are going to be bigoted we should know the difference between the focuses of our bigotry (although this is contrary to the idea of bigotry). The second issue that seems to be running through some of the posts here is that people on both sides like to focus only on "chest thumping" that is my side is right your side is wrong. Although this is the nature of debate this is counter productive. However, some people seem to be missing basic history of this region. For this I suggest reading a wonderfully well written book From Beirut to Jerusalem. Some also seem to miss the point that while the actions of Israel might not have been a proper "proportional response" they were none the less provoked not just by the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers but the murder of at least two more during that same raid. Some people would go so far as to call this an act of war. This was just the culmination of years of animosity between Hezbollah and Israel. This brings me to my final point. Hezbollah through out the running thread is commonly referred to in terms of endearment. This should not be the case any organization that rejoices at the death of an outsider should not be referred to in such terms. The fact remains that Hezbollah is an organization founded on the destruction of Israel and other westernly alighned governments. I read in one of the posts that they (Hezbollah) were defenders (or something to that nature the exact phrase escapes my mind for which I appologize) of Lebanese soil against foreign occupation. This is simply a less than true statement what was Hezbollah's stance on the recently ended Syrian occupation of Lebanon? They embraced it as a matter of fact they are still part of the pro-Syrian faction of Lebanese politics. I would like to point out that the verdict is still out on this conflict. Neither side was able to claim an immidiate victory, but the long term effects have yet to be seen, and it is there that the winner will be made apparent. I would like to appologize for any misspelled words or poorly chosen phrases. If some people feel that I have attacked them that was not my intent and I would like to appologize, I simply wanted to address issues that I encountered. Again I would like to appologize for misspelled words, poorly chosen phrases, and bad grammar.

POST OF THE MONTH

Victory from a purely military perspective relative only to this past conflict. All divergences into politics must be avoided.

Since this is a military history thread, I wonder why political and moral issues are being discussed here.

Certain parts strike me as being extremist on the part of Hezbollah. I higlight them below:

Originally posted by Leonidas in 1985? things have changed. There are statements i can find in those wiki sources that contradict that hard line. Different audiances require different language, our politicians do it also, as far as i can see they wont accept isreal taking over all of jerusalem which is not acceptable to most arabs anyway. Nasrallah, Q and A and his ideas for peace (washington post in 2000) "If Israel pulls out, he promises that Hezbollah will end its "security" activities there. But he refuses to say whether Hezbollah, whose history includes bombings and the taking of hostages, will halt all activities against Israel, its archenemy....... From the perspective of Hezbollah, what are the major issues to be addressed during any future Lebanon-Israel peace negotiations? Lebanon should first recover sovereignty over all its territories, without neglecting any. Second, all Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails should be released. . . . Third, Lebanon has the right to ask for compensation for all the damages and harm which have resulted from Israeli aggressions against Lebanon during the past decades. Furthermore, Lebanon has the right to ask for punishment of those Israeli officials who should be considered war criminals. . . . Israel will never go for this last one. Hezbollah is pushing it too far here. The next issue, which is no less important than the previous ones . . . is the issue of the Palestinian refugees. Lebanon cannot enter into any settlement with anybody based on the granting of Lebanese nationality to the 300,000 or 400,000 Palestinians who live on Lebanese territory. There is no way that such a thing can happen. . . . Any settlement that does not take into consideration the issue of the Palestinian refugees endangers the process and will prove to be a time bomb which can explode at any time." This is debatable too. It ties any solution to the Palestinian question with the situation in Lebanon effectively complicating both. Perhaps the Palestinians can remain in Lebanon untill conditions are better in the West Bank/Gaza. But to seek relocation of 400,000 Palestinians as part of a settlement with Lebanon will not be accepted by Israel. link sounds unreasonable? Hersch's converstion with Nasrallah in 2003 "Nasrallah emphasized that he was not seeking a confrontation with the United States. Because of Hezbollah�s ability to disrupt a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, I asked Nasrallah about his view of the renewed talks. He hesitated a moment and declared, �At the end, this is primarily a Palestinian matter. I, like any other person, may consider what is happening to be right or wrong. . . . I may have a different assessment, but at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on. Of course, it would bother us that Jerusalem goes to Israel.� I asked, �But if there was a deal?� �Let it happen,� he answered. �I would not say O.K. I would say nothing.� " Link CNN transcripts (2003) "MACVICAR: You know that one of the key questions here in the region that many want to know the answer to is how will Hezbollah act if there is a war? Would Hezbollah, for example, attack Israel if there is a war? NASRALLAH: Our policy is clear, we are fighting in an area that is still under occupation in Lebanon. And beyond that area, we are on the defensive. What is being talked about now is the probability of the Sharon government launching an attack against Lebanon to eliminate the resistance of Hezbollah by using the American war against Iraq. But, of course, in this case, we will certainly fight with all our strength..... But they launched missiles into Israeli cities and kidnapped israeli soldiers prior to israel attacking. These are hostile acts. MACVICAR: Anderson, that was the key message of Sheikh Nasrallah -- that Hezbollah is now not looking for a fight. He came as close as he possibly could of saying that they were not interested now in attacking Israel. Of course, saying that if, in fact, Lebanon was attacked they would reserve the right to respond. A very different tone, as I said before, in this interview than in some of the other public statements that we've heard from Sheikh Nasrallah, which in many ways may have been meant for domestic consumption in Lebanon -- Anderson." link this is from the leader himself, not a foot soldier or an isreali adaption.

Edited by konstantinius - 03-Jan-2007 at 21:22

Personally I think it's the Prime Minister who should be resigning after that one.