Lebanese Army May Enter Fight

Originally posted by Nygdan
First we were told that the lebanese army is too weak to police hezbollah, now they are saying they will fight isreal?

If they can fight israel, then they could've fought hezbollah, but opted not to. THat makes the Israeli 'aggression' even more justified.

After 18 years occupying Southern Lebanon the Israeli Defense Force couldn't beat Hezbollah. Are you saying Lebanon's army should have more success than the highly equiped Israelis? What makes you think the Lebanese would have more success than Israel did in 18 years of occupation?

If Israel - with its billions of dollars of aid from the United States, high tech weaponry and 16th largest economy in the World - cannot defeat Hezbollah then perhaps your categorization of the Lebanese army being weak is not entirely fair.

Lebanon has a very fractured past and one that is ignored at the ignorants peril. For the Lebanese army to even try to erradicate Hezbollah it would spark yet another civil war. That is a price no country can afford and Lebanon shouldnt have to pay it twice.

Lebanon needed outside help enforcing the UN resolution that demanded the Lebanese militias disbanded. They did not receive help yet they reap all the blame. How typical.

Israel wants the Lebanese government to accomplish in 6 years what it could not in 18 years. Not to mention that the Lebanese government doesnt have Israel's advantage of being able to kill as many innocent Lebanese civilians as it wants to in the process.

Remind me again why all Lebanese civilians should pay the price for Israel fighting an enemy which it created through its invasion of Lebanon to get at Yasser Arafat, and swelled its ranks with subsequent violations of human rights, international law and an unhindered trail of war crimes?

[edit on 21/7/06 by subz]

As a political scientist, I'd like to point out a few harsh realities about the Lebanese government.

First and foremost, that government exists on a very thin margin. For all intentents and purposes, it exiss because Syria allows it. That doesn't mean that the leaders of that flimsy don't try and look out for the interests of their people. It just means that they have to make some very stinky deals to stay in power long enough to any good at all.

The decision of the Lebanese government to side with the Hezbollah militias won't be easy to make. A majority of the population doesn't like Israel. If they keep their army out of the fight, Lebanon's leaders will look like they sold out to Jewish interests. As a practical matter, the Lebanese military may just being trying to defend homes, businesses, and churches. They may have no overt wish to fight along side the militias. They may have no choice in the matter.

If the government troops are deployed with orders to not interfere with Drus or Hezbollah militias, they might get away with it for a while. Trouble is, they're going to end up knocking heads with the IDF. Say what you like about the low caliber of the Lebanese army, but these are people who know what it is to fight for an idea. That's what they'll be doing, too. Fighting for the idea of their own soveriegnty.

Can they tip the scales against Israel? No. Can they give Syria a pre-text for action? Yes. If it even looks like the IDF is bogged down, or in retreat, we could see "Syrian heroism" generate just enough sympathy for poor battered Lebanon to bring in troops from other Arab nations. That's a lot to expect from a stubborn little army, but it is possible.

Hopefully the army does enter this attack on thier country. The Army in Lebanon needs to stop the Isralies from murdering innocents on purpose.

Originally posted by Wask
The Army in Lebanon needs to stop the Isralies from murdering innocents on purpose.

How?! Im sure the Lebanese government is all ears about how to fix that little problem. Israel could not, I repeat, could not stop Hezbollah in 18 years of bloody occupation. How on Earth do you propose Lebanon stops Hezbollah?

Which ever member raised the comparison between the British and the IRA and this situation, you struck pay dirt. How would the World of reacted if Britain decided to bomb Ireland "into the stone age" because it failed to reign in the IRA?

My enemies enemy is my friend. Whos lebanons bigger enemy, israel or hezbollah? I think its israel. Just my personal thoughts.

Originally posted by subz
Which ever member raised the comparison between the British and the IRA and this situation, you struck pay dirt. How would the World of reacted if Britain decided to bomb Ireland "into the stone age" because it failed to reign in the IRA?

It was me, Subz...

I think the comparison is very apt. Strange how different standards apply for Israel....

My enemies enemy is my friend. Whos lebanons bigger enemy, israel or hezbollah? I think its israel. Just my personal thoughts.

Well a pretty good guidline to who your enemy is is that if there are people bombing you, it's a good bet they're probably your enemy.

Really, if the Lebanese army and the Lebanese state wish to continue to exist, they have no choice but to fight the Israelis eventually. A basic premise of a people's faith in any government is the ability to at least attempt to defend the citizenry.

The Israelis have backed the Lebanese into a corner, and I think that's a big mistake. Their last occupation of Lebanon proved very expensive for the Israelis, both in treasure and blood. And it did not eliminate the threat of attack from Lebanon, but ensured it would continue.

If the rest of the world offers no hope for a cease-fire that leaves Lebanon intact, they will seek help from whoever they can. Including Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

Originally posted by xmotex
The nerve of the Lebanese Army thinking they have a right to defend Lebanon.

Let's see, if the Lebanese Army starts trying to defend their country from Israel, does that make them "terrorists"?

A free nation must except the responsibilities of being free. I wish they were. All good people wish they were. Look at the border situation there. Thus, Lebanon, isn't free. They obviously don't control their borders. A free nation wouldn't allow murderers to thrive. Nothing against the Lebanese but they obviously have an issue requiring help from someone who can help besides the inpudent un.

Isreal should be able to protect themselves. Have at it.

Originally posted by notbuynit

A free nation must except the responsibilities of being free. I wish they were. All good people wish they were. Look at the border situation there. Thus, Lebanon, isn't free. They obviously don't control their borders. A free nation wouldn't allow murderers to thrive. Nothing against the Lebanese but they obviously have an issue requiring help from someone who can help besides the inpudent un.

Isreal should be able to protect themselves. Have at it.

(its accept not except, figured Id let you know that before I responded)

You know whats funny, is that I could say the same thing about the US.
A free nation must accept the responsibilities of being free. Coming from an american in this day and age, thats pretty hypocritical in itself. Americans now (the ones that call themselves that at least), take zero responbility for our country, which is why the government gets more and more power, because peopl dont want responsibility anymore. To say that they should accept the responbility of being free when americans themselves won't is just hypocritical.

Look at the border situation here. We dont control our borders either. We are one of the most violent nations out there, and we let murderers thrive for sure. You know what the truth of it all is, is that in a free nation there will be murderers and radicals. We prosecute them when they are found guilty. Lebanon is in a different situation though. Hezbollah pretty much is their military. South lebanon pretty much is hezbollahs, and thats the truth in the end. How long did racism in the south thrive, violently, before we stopped it? Longer then israel has been in existance.

No offense to the US, but the US needs some help, and its citizens rather just pass of the responsibility that comes with being free then do anything about it. We are no better or worse then the lebanese, and thats the gritty truth in the end. We are just as irrisponsible as they are, because we choose to.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
^Responsibility is the fear of every ignorant person everywhere.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ok, only an idiot or a pacifist wouldn't fight back when attacked. We are to condem the israelis for not being pacifists??

Are we to condemn the Lebanese for not being pacifists??

They are being attacked by Israel. Any moral high-ground the Israeli's may have once claimed was squandered once they started flattening whole villages and destroying Lebanese national infrastructure.

While Israel continues to kidnap, murder and bomb it's neighbours, it's neighbours will continue to fight back. A simple tally of the death and destruction on each side shows clearly that Israel is NOT the victim in all of this.

The problem is that Israel doesn't have defensible borders (see www.defensibleborders.org...). Basically, what it comes down to is that Israel doesn't have enough territory to passively defend its border.

Hizbollah has been enable to attack Israel with lots of missiles. If Israel, allowed Hizbollah to continue a military buildup forever, it would become increasingly threatening to Israel's security. So, basically Israel has two choices: occupy Southern Lebanon, or periodically launch agressive military action. For a long time, Israel occupied Lebanon, and now Israel has to go agreessive military action.

Israel can't create a lasting peace. They need to hold territory, which holds pople hostile to Israel just to have defensible borders. Since they hold this territory they come under attack. They can't even build a defensive fence without crticism.

Originally posted by crontab
So, basically Israel has two choices: occupy Southern Lebanon, or periodically launch agressive military action. For a long time, Israel occupied Lebanon, and now Israel has to go agreessive military action.

Militarily, I think you have that spot on. However, neither of those options should be considered acceptable. Nor will they work. There are hundreds of countries in the world with equally in-defenisibe borders, and they don't see the need to invade portions of their neighbours land to create such borders.

The problem is in the relationship Israel has with it's neighbours, and that can only be addressed through dialogue, not destruction. What it will take a a sea-change in Israeli attitude to it's neighbours, and an understanding that attacks by "terrorists" might, just possibly, be in retaliation for it's own acts of terror unleashed on the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Judging by the attitudes displayed by many of the Israeli politicians, soldiers and civilians we see being interviewed on TV about the crisis, that day is still a long way away.

Sorry Stu, I should of had the decency to find your post and give you the credit it deserved by name

Originally posted nowthenlookhere
What it will take a a sea-change in Israeli attitude to it's neighbours, and an understanding that attacks by "terrorists" might, just possibly, be in retaliation for it's own acts of terror unleashed on the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.

That is very true but it is also impossible due to the catch 22-like nature of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict.

Israel will continue to try and justify its barbaric treatment of Palestinians as acts of self defence against people who want to see Israel gone. And the Palestinians, along with most Arabs, will continue to attack innocent Israeli citizens because of their government's barbaric treatment of Palestinians.

It all boils down to the unconventional manner in which Israel was created. When Israel was created by the UN it faced pure hatred solely because Jews where given land that Arabs were living on. The Wars they originally faced were because of that reason.

Long term thinking was not part of the World's solution to this uncoventional nation building exercise. It should be noted that no longer are whole countries waring with Israel simply to extinguish the Jewish state. But Israel's security is still threatend, not by nations, but by terrorist organisations.

These terrorist organisations sprang up primarily because of the groundswell of hatred directed at Israel over its treatment of Palestinian civilians. If Israel had not been so barbarous in its treatment of civilians I would wager that the threat to Israel's existence would be negligible today.

There will always be people who want Israel gone, that is a reality of Israel's creation. That sort of threat faces a large number of countries (US, UK, Indonesia, India, China, Russia etc) but they can deal with it either due to their attempts to mitigate the hate or through their shear size. Size is something Israel cannot rely on.

If Israel was to cease its ill treatment of Palestinian civilians today it would still face violence from extremists who are hell bent on Israel's destruction. But thinking in the long term, these people will eventuall die off and maybe in one or two generations of a humanitarian Israel the balance of World public opinion will be in Israel's favour - and justly so too!

If, after a couple of generations, there are people who simply do not want Israel to exist they will find themselves increasingly marginalized by the other Palestinian civilians who simply want to live their lives. Israel will then be secure and can deal appropriately with these comparative handfulls of extremist without endangering Israel's security further.

But who in Israel is willing to be so far-sighted? Who amongst them is willing to risk their political power by seeming weak by not being war-like? Ehud Olmert is the first Israeli PM to not of been a soldier. So he is showing Israel his war-like credentials by destroying Lebanon. That might win him votes back home but when Hezbollah attacks increase ten fold in response how will he try to come off looking even tougher still?

There is pacifism and there is realistic pacifism. Israel needs to be realistically pacifist if its to reverse the trend it has maintained for 50 years. Sure Israel has every right to prevent its citizens from being harmed, but it has to remember that so too do the Palestinians and the Lebanese. Israel should combat these threats with impeccable accuracy and transparency. With police and special forces and in cooperation with Israel-friendly figures like Palestinian President Abu Mazen should Israel protect herself and her citizens. Taking extreme care not to do to other's what it is trying to protect itself from.

If Israel acts like a good guy it will be treated like a good guy. First by the international community, then by Arab leaders, and then finally by the majority of Arabs. It will just take time.

Originally posted by Nygdan
That hardly makes sense. The lebanese attacked israel, israel has a right to defend itself, thus the death is justified.

Nice bit of navel gazing. The Lebanese did not attack Isarael, Hezbollah attacked Israel from the confines of Lebanon. Big difference.

If we use you logic, should we not be in Saudi Arabia right now, kicking the ever loving bejesus out of the Saudis? It was 15 Saudis that attacked America on 9/11, not a single Iraqi, and not a single link to al Qaeda in Iraq. Everything was linked through to Saudi Arabia. I guess that should have been out target?

You cannot beat terrorism by dropping bombs from planes and shelling districts with artillery. You need to use covert operations to hunt down the terrorists and you need education and political programs that include the oppressed people. When the people have options to participate in society, and learn their lives can be enriched through the understanding of the other culture, rather than fighting it, that's when terrorism becomes socially unacceptable and the practice ends. People take to terrorism because they feel they have not other course of action. The secret is to give them other options in society where they themselves make the choice to participate rather than lash out against that society.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by The Iconoclast]

That hardly makes sense. The lebanese attacked israel, israel has a right to defend itself, thus the death is justified.

Nonsense. Isreal is not justified in this disporportionate reaction to the capture of two Isreali soldiers, however, what should be noted is that this was a calculated move collusioned between Washington, Britian and Isreal in an attempt to destablize the region and get an agressive reaction out of either Syria or Iran which would lead to countless reasons they should go to war with them and overthrow their governments subsequently leading to puppet regimes.

Another note: Isreal after the Oslo agreement was supposed to release countless prisoners which have not been released as of yet..

Luxifero

For the moment, we know that the Israel sweep won't start for another 3-4 days. I can't help but think that the visit of Secretary Rice is just a smoke screen and a tacit way of showing U.S. support for the operations without actually saying the words which might be held agains them later.

Now, back to the Lebanese army. The major media outlets in the U.S. are finally picking up on this, and they seem to be unsure of how to report on or exploit this matter. On the one hand, there is open contempt for that little army, and its willingness to fight a known American ally. On the other hand, some have acknowleged that there seems to be no way around this. Hezbollah does have a large stake in the Lebanese government, which makes deployment of the Lebanese army seem more likely.

Recent force estimates suggest that the Army of Lebanon numbers roughly 60,000. Some estimates place the Hezbollah strength at roughly 20,000. Facting in the use of infiltrators from Iran and Al Qaeda, we could see a theoretical opposition of 75,000. Based on what I can find, the Irseali battle corridor seems to involve two front-line divisions with four reserve divisions available. that's roughly a force of 60,000.

If we assume that the Isaeli army lives up to the hype, their qualitative superiority...on the ground...gives them a 2:1 formula for success. This supposition on my part does not speak to the air component.

My question is, will that be enough...assuming...that the Syrians don't get involved?

Justin, that assumes Israel can afford to fight to the last man, they cannot. Whereas religious zealots such as Hezbollah can and will.

If the 18 year failed occupation of Southern Lebanon is any judge of how things will pan out this time, I'd say Israel's objectives are to bloody Hezbollah's nose and prove Olmert has the balls to use the military.

Talk about wiping out Hezbollah is rubbish. You know what they say about talk. The talk about the destruction of Hezbollah is for Israeli domestic consumption. It's an impossibility, as is a conclusion of the very War on Terror itself.

On a similar note, did any one read the story that says Israel has surrounded a UN observation post? I know Israel holds no regard for the UN, especially from what it deems second rate countries such as Nigeria. But Israel is overtly shelling and isolating clearly marked UN positions. Why?

AVIVIM, Israel -- Some 10 Israeli armored vehicles on Saturday crushed a border fence and entered Lebanon, surrounding a UN observation post, an AFP correspondent reported.

Armored personnel carriers and bulldozers crossed the border at Avivim, around 35 kilometers (23 miles) from the Mediterranean coast, and surrounded an observation post of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

Israeli Armoured Vehicles Enter Lebanon

I'm with you z-man. I don't think the extermination of Hezbollah is at hand. the only way that this might (might) be accomplished would be for Israel to invest the whole country and stay there for the next 30 years to oversee the reigme change.

Now, about that U.N. thing. the IDF is merely making sure that the blue-helmets can't see what they're abou to do. Israel has done this before. The multi-national nature of U.N. forces makes it possible for persons...not friendly...to Israel to be in cell phone range of reporting on their movements. The Israelis have always been mistrustful of the U.N.

Luxifero...some people would call "an exagerated reaction" to attacking Israel with over 1,000 rockets in less than a week, sending forces into Israel killing 8 soldiers and kidnapping two, and then asking the release of Hezbollah terrorists in exchange for soldiers...

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Muaddib]

The massive rocket bombardment only started after the attacks on Lebanon began, before that the rockets were fired far less often, and caused little damage. And yes I would call the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians a massive overreaction to the deaths of eight soldiers and the capture of two.

Israel has agreed to prisoner exchanges in the past - there is no reason for them not to do so now. And the idea that Israeli attacks on Lebanon are going to put an end to Hezbollah is absurd, given that Hezbollah was formed in reaction to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and has clearly gained strength and legitimacy in the eyes of the Lebanese each time Israel has attacked Lebanon.

The "get tough" approach may be emotionally satisfying, on the other hand it doesn't appear to work very well... I'll bet on competence and intellegence over "toughness" any day of the week.

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]