The Radish

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

JulienP — Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:45 am

Author: JulienP

Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:45 am

Blair's speech was hardly a climbdown if we're honest. One thing did cheer me up though, that reports suggest that nearly the entire labour party is unhappy at his actions and the government's support for Israel Pity they wont do anything about it!

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

gabs — Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:34 pm

Author: gabs

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:34 pm

In Mr Blair�s so called climbdown speech yesterday (although if asked he would still not say that invading Iraq or Afghanistan was a mistake or that Israel should stop blowing up quite so many children) he said that:

Quote:

Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted. Their support of terrorism, their deliberate export of instability, their desire to see wrecked the democratic prospect in Iraq, is utterly unjustifiable, dangerous and wrong

What fucking rules do Britain and America play by? What fucking rules does Israel play by? I really should stop being surprised at the arrogant twaddle that this guy comes out with but I can�t help myself.

The full speech is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5236896.stm but I don�t advise reading it if you�re feeling at all unwell as it might tip you over the edge.[i]

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

JulienP — Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:15 pm

Author: JulienP

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:15 pm

I see that the Israeli Prime Minister has said that Hezbollah is now been entirely destroyed. So if this is the case why not stop, instead of carrying on like they are doing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5237620.stm
I mean if they really have been destroyed then surely tis mission accomplished. And if it hasn't (as the subsequent hezbollah rocket attacks would suggest) why say it in the first place? You'll never completely destroy something like hezbollah if I'm honest anyway, they'll just fade into the undergrowth, be even more agrresive and harder to deal with.

I also read the other day that Prime Minister Teflon Tony may be advocating the intergration of Hezbollah into the Lebanese Army, what the fuck??? Does he really think the Israelis will agree to that? Someone's living in cloud cuckoo land, and if they would, then that just makes them a massive load of hypocrites, did they not start this to destroy Hezbollah?

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

hannoir — Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:24 pm

Author: hannoir

Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:24 pm

Neither side are right, neither side is willing to do a whole lot about it. I think thats all that needs to be said on the matter.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

JulienP — Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:32 pm

Author: JulienP

Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:32 pm

Raaaww. Someone's got their claws out! My final word on the subject is this; Both sides are blowing people up, both sides are killing civillians. Now the reason that I have a go at Israel more than I do at Hizbullah (or Palestinian terror groups), is because frankly they are a state and should know better. There's no point having a go at all these terror groups and corrupt states and saying that they're bad and kill civilians when Israel (and the rest of the west) do exactly the same. We're supposed to be better than that, but we're not, Israel is not. Which is why i don't give them the benefit of the doubt, just because an army belongs to a democratically structured country, does not give more of a right to bomb the hell out of another country without some sort of international sanction (ie the UN). In fact being a democratic country in some ways gives it less of a right, with democracy, nation status and international recognition come responsibilities.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

Dear Prudence — Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:03 pm

Author: Dear Prudence

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:03 pm

steven wrote:

And having looked at the Harry's Place website, it appears to be a gathering place for people to try and justify anything Israel does (particularly liked the bit where they try and justify bombing a UN outpost), so it's probably not the most objective place to get information on the anti-war movement.

i well cant be bothered with this any more cos im getting thoroughly sick of the whole thing as i think everyone is, but they didnt 'try and justify' that, and they asserted that israel was committing war crimes in a previous post, furthermore i am not saying that harrys plkace is the font of all flawless knowledge, its just an alternative source to take into accout, seeing as most of those you probably look at are biased in the OTHER direction, blah blah blah blah

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

gorky — Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:39 pm

Author: gorky

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:39 pm

Good points Steven and JulienP. The latest statements from the Israeli Justice Minister is rather interesting:

Quote:

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm

Quote:

"Asked by Israel Army Radio whether entire villages should be flattened, [the Israeli Justice Minister] said: �These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hezbollah people are hiding and from which they are operating.�

Irish Examiner

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

JulienP — Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:24 pm

Author: JulienP

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:24 pm

Quote:

I do hope Margeret Beckett can sleep at night

Well what do you expect from the one person who makes Jack Straw look competent when he did the job. She's a absolutely clueless nutter. Absolutely useless at environment secretary, useless at this, say what you want about Jack Straw (and let's face it I usually do, and it aint complimentary) and least he had personality and a clue of what was going on.

As for the rest of it, yeah I agree with Steven, I don't care what side you're on on this debate, you're not going to solve anything while everyone's bombing the crap out of each other. You're hardly gonna diminish support for an organisation by bombing the crap out of the population where the organisation is based, fuel to their fire. Israel don't seem to get this, that by bombing people and unilaterally doing stuff they fuel support for disreputable organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "I don't care who started it, we're finishing it" should be the attitude of the UK and US governments, but tis not alas.

On a related point this is why Hamas won the election, cos Israel didn't engage enough with Abbas and Fatah about withdrawls and ceasefires etc. Didn't seem to be getting anywhere between Fatah and Israel, in terms of long term stuff. And then low and behold they are all angry and shocked when Hamas get elected. Well d'uh!

But before we all go off on one about Israel as a country, tis worth remembering they're not all as nuts as the IDF and its government. Had an email today from a friend in Israel, bemoaning the the current crisis and the actions of her government.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

steven — Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:33 pm

Author: steven

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:33 pm

Quote:

The current "score" is about 20 Israeli civilians dead to about 400 Lebanese.

Ironically, according to today's Guardian there have so far been slightly more Israeli military casualties than Hezbollah casualties, and many more Lebanese citizens have been killed than Israeli ones - this is fairly unfortunate since apparently they're only bombing the civilian population to attack Hezbollah members.

I've also seen Vietnam mentioned, which I think brings up an interesting comparison - the Vietcong were a guerilla army that hid in jungle communities; to attack them the US bombed the crap out of those communities; they ended up having very little success. We now have Hezbollah hiding amongst Lebanese communities, so what does Israel do? Bomb the crap out of those communities. No wonder they say 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron.

Plus the way this is going it will soon (if it isn't already) be inaccurate to say that Hezbollah is 'hiding' within Lebanese communities - indiscriminate attacks like this will only radicalise huge amounts of people until Hezbollah becomes the community.

And on a slightly different topic, was anyone else actually physically repulsed when they learnt that Britain was one of only two countries to vote against the call for an immediate ceasefire? And for the excellent non-reason that "you would probably be back in hostilities in a few days" - I do hope Margeret Beckett can sleep at night having said that. The whole incident just makes me wonder at what a pathetic, morally corrupt state we seem to have sunk into.

Generally speaking, the whole issue has really been grinding my gears all day, as you can probably tell.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

gorky — Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:59 pm

Author: gorky

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:59 pm

Quote:

Well, technically we were fighting a French government. We were fighting the Vichy government which ruled part of France and parts of the French Empire in alliance with the Germans. At the same time we backed a rival Free French government in exile.

I think a better comparison for this conflict is Britain and Ireland. If Britain had acted as the Israeli government does today every Provisional IRA (PIRA)bomb on the mainland would have been met with a bombing campaign against Dublin by the RAF.

The two conflicts are actually quite similar. The IRA waged what was known as the Border Campaign between 1956 and 1962. Launching attacks from the Republic of Ireland on the British military and Loyalist targets. Using the reasoning of the Israeli politicians today the British government should have bombed the Republic of Ireland or even invaded.

Instead Britain tackled the militant Irish Republican groups within the borders of Northern Ireland. A strategy that was successful in the long term.

Quote:

I think at the end of the day a more enlightened approach would be for Israel to take what is a pro-Western government in Beirut and attempt to turn it againt Hezbollah. But what am i gonna do?

Hezbollah have two seats in the cabinet of the current Lebanese government, so I don't think the government is entirely pro-western.

Why should Israel interfere in affairs of sovereign state and decide the policy of a democratically elected Lebanese government?

In my opinion the Lebanese government can't disarm Hezbollah, even if it wanted to do so, for the following reasons:

- It risks restarting the Lebanese civil war. The politics of Lebanon are still highly sectarian, the parliament etc. are carefully balanced to ensure equal representation for all religious groups. An attempt to disarm Hezbollah could be seen as a move by one of these groups (most probably the Christians) to place themselves in a favoured position.

- The Lebanese army is weak and not only in terms of arms. The army is composed of many faiths, but Shi'a Muslims predominate. They're unlikely take part in action against Hezbollah a fellow Shi'a Muslim group. Ordering the army could provoke a revolt by the ranks. Alternatively the deployment of the army could be seen as an attempt by one religious group to use the state against their sectarian rivals. Again this opens the possibility of renewed civil war.

- Hezbollah are hugely popular across many sectors of Lebanese society. They've provided health care, welfare and basic services (e.g. rubbish collection) when the Lebanese state could provide none of these things.

- Hezbollah are seen by many Lebanese are predominantly nationalist rather than a religious group (e.g. they pushed the IDF out of Israel in 2000). In keeping with this tradition Hezbollah have made overtures to Christian groups and attempted to be less sectarian than other militia groups in Lebanon (e.g. they stood on an electoral list with the Lebanese Communist Party, an organisation dominated by people from Christian backgrounds). This gives them a degree of genuine national support.

- Hezbollah is backed by Syria which finally left Lebanon in 2005. A crack down on Hezbollah could cause a Syrian invasion or intervention.

The Israeli government know all to well that it is asking for the impossible from the Lebanese by telling them to disarm Hezbollah, yet they still continue to punish the Lebanese people.

Quote:

So you clearly don't count the English Civil War as a war (not between two sovereign states), or any civil war for that matter. Nor was the Vietminh struggle against the French a war, just a prolonged series of military operations.

Quote:

Israel are fighting Hezbollah, not Lebannon, this is a terrorist organisation

Ye Gads! You better e-mail the Lebanese Army at once! Someone hasn't told them they're not at war:

http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/article.asp?ln=en&id=11470

http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/article.asp?ln=en&id=11392

Quote:

But to then go on and fire Kitusya missiles into Israel; they are no longer freedom fighters at that point. Only the soverign government of a country have a right to declare war and Hezbollah are not this.

I think the rocket attacks are wrong. But why does a Hezbollah attack cause them to lose the moral highground in your eyes? The IDF has killed hundreds of Lebanese, why hasn't their right to self-defence become an organised slaughter in your view? The IDF have deployed cluster bombs against civilians areas and 900,000 people are now displaced in Lebanon (about 1/4 of the population). It's a major humanitarian disaster.

There's terror on both sides, but Hezbollah's terror pales in comparison to the IDFs. The current "score" is about 20 Israeli civilians dead to about 400 Lebanese. The Lebanese economy has been wrecked, their journalists and paramedics are targets. That's before we start talking about what's going on in Gaza and the West Bank. It doesn't make the rocket attacks justified, but Israel could stop this tomorrow and negotiate a prisoner exchange.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

steven — Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:08 pm

Author: steven

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:08 pm

If Israel are fighting Hezbollah, not Lebanon, why is it the Lebanese citizens that seem to be getting shat on from a great height? And let's face it: Israel won't declare war on Lebanon because they're getting away perfectly well with calling this travesty 'self-defence'; if Lebanon declare war on Israel, which might be justified as they're being bombed by them, they'll get called the agressors and again the Israeli state comes out smelling like roses.

And while it might potentially be justifiable to bomb infrastructure like roads and airports (or at least it would be if you were at war with the state you were bombing, which Israel apparently aren't), how can it ever be justifiable to bomb ambulances or the UN?

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

higuy — Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:49 pm

Author: higuy

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:49 pm

Im not taking a cast iron side in this debate, I just have two things to contribute:

gorky wrote:

This must in part by the Israeli tactics. You acknowledge that 'Lebannon' and 'Hezbollah' are two seperate entities. However attaching the Lebanese infrastructure which is being used by Hezbollah could be seen as a justified method of war. Many French bridges where destroyed in the Second World War to fight the Germans. It didnt mean we were fighting the french. I think at the end of the day a more enlightened approach would be for Israel to take what is a pro-Western government in Beirut and attempt to turn it againt Hezbollah. But what am i gonna do?

gorky wrote:

I'd say that Hezbollah has a right to defend the Lebanese nation against attack especially as the Lebanese army is incapable of doing so, they've certainly been fighting the IDF, proof was provided of that by yesterdays IDF casualties. Of course that doesn't justify the rocket attacks on Israel, but these were launched after Israel attacked civilian targets in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is a small irregular volunteer organisations, without tanks, aircraft, superpower support or the nuclear bomb. In short they don't have a chance of destroying Israel. This is not a war about Israel's survival. Hezbollah's immediate objectives have long concentrated on liberating southern Lebanon (the IDF final left in 2000 and the Sheba Farms area is still disputed) and getting their POWs back from Israel.

Im quite uncomfortable with that. First an foremost any war must by definition be fought between two sovereign nation states. The current middle East conflict I do not believe can be classified as a war. Israel are fighting Hezbollah, not Lebannon, this is a terrorist organisation. As much as I do not agree with the tactics the Isralies undertake I do not believe Hezbollah have any right or duty to take up arms against Israel. When Lebannon was occupied, fair enough, you could claim it was seld defense and a fight for freedom, I can just about go with that. But to then go on and fire Kitusya missiles into Israel; they are no longer freedom fighters at that point. Only the soverign government of a country have a right to declare war and Hezbollah are not this.

As is the case with most conflicts both sides are somewhat to blame.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

gorky — Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:30 pm

Author: gorky

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:30 pm

Ah, a discussion on the politics of the Middle East. Everyone goes temporarily insane.

Well we're all agreed that ignoring the STRATBORE reports is a good idea.

Quote:

Didn't read any of those uber long posts, but Gorky, although I agree that Israel is committing war crimes, surely the point has to be made that Hezbollah is exacerbating the problem by hiding amongst civilians deliberately

No Hezbollah fighters in the ambulances. No Hezbollah fighters at the UN post. This is before we take into account the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure: Roads, airpoirts and even a lighthouse. Nothing to do with Hezbollah, yet apparently essential targets.

Take the following analogy, a criminal with a gun is hiding in large supermarket. The police don't know what he looks like. He's fired a shot or two at them before going into the supermarket and hiding amongst the shoppers. Does this justify machine gunning the crowd of shoppers indiscriminately on the grounds that the gun man is there somewhere?

I would say not.

Why should people be punished with death for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Especially when more often it not it seems the IDF are wrong and our simply bombing civilians. Why does the IDF get the benefit of the doubt whilst Hezbollah doesn't?

Furthermore I think these comments by a former IDF commander, General Gur, responsible for IDF operations in Lebanon during the 1970s are rather revealing:

Quote:

Q-But military communiqu�s always spoke of returning fire and counterstrikes against terrorist objectives.

A-Please be serious. Did you not know that the entire valley of the Jordan had been emptied of its inhabitants as the result of the war of attrition?

Q-Then you claim that the population ought to be punished?

A-Of course, and I have never had any doubt about that. When I authorised Yanouch [diminutive name for the commander of the northern front, responsible for the Lebanese operation] to use aviation, artillery and tanks [in the invasion] I knew exactly what I was doing. It has now been thirty years, from the time of our Independence War, until now, that we have been fighting the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and everytime that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?[Al-Hamishmar, May 10, 1978]

From The Question of Palestine by Edward Said

Although many years have past since these comments were made the IDF's approach to Lebanon seems rather familiar...

Quote:

Let's not forget that, while Israel are committing war crimes, their opposition is to some extent applauding and glorifying what everyone knows to be TERRORISTS who want to DESTROY ISRAEL. I will never march side by side by people who say 'have faith in Nasrallah', someone who blatantly hates Jews and wants them to 'gather in Israel so we don't have to go after them elsewhere'.

I'd say that Hezbollah has a right to defend the Lebanese nation against attack especially as the Lebanese army is incapable of doing so, they've certainly been fighting the IDF, proof was provided of that by yesterdays IDF casualties. Of course that doesn't justify the rocket attacks on Israel, but these were launched after Israel attacked civilian targets in Lebanon.

Glad you acknowledge the IDF war crimes. Those crimes are far and away greater than the Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians. This isn't an equal contest. Lebanon doesn't have a military capable of defending it from IDF attacks. Its like shooting fish in a barrel.

The interesting thing about this conflict is that it is uniting Lebanese society. Christians, Communists, Hezbollah and so on are forming a united front to combat Israel. Quite a change from a country which fought a vicious sectarian war only two decades ago.

Strangely enough one of the Hezbollah prisoners in Israel is actually Jewish:

Quote:

Israel also holds a Jewish-Lebanese man, known as Nissim Nasser, arrested in 2002 and accused of spying for Hezbollah

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5211930.stm

So Hezbollah seems to stretch its appeal widely, even if this is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Whilst Hezbollah want to destroy Israel they don't have a hope in hell of achieving that goal. Israel has the most advanced military in the Middle East, well funded and trained. They have the backing of a superpower. They also have the nuclear bomb.

Hezbollah is a small irregular volunteer organisations, without tanks, aircraft, superpower support or the nuclear bomb. In short they don't have a chance of destroying Israel. This is not a war about Israel's survival. Hezbollah's immediate objectives have long concentrated on liberating southern Lebanon (the IDF final left in 2000 and the Sheba Farms area is still disputed) and getting their POWs back from Israel.

I don't think many Hezbollah members go on London marches, but you never know. Plenty of Lebanese people support them because it their actions that finally got the IDF out of Lebanon in 2000 and they're seen as defenders of the nation. Lebanese expats might well go on London protests, but the reasons for supporting Hezbollah are complex.

Otherwise, I agree with Steven regarding Harry's Place. Regarding the cartoon, Harry's Place loved the racist caricature of Mohammed, perhaps those without sin should cast the first stone.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

steven — Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:14 am

Author: steven

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:14 am

And having looked at the Harry's Place website, it appears to be a gathering place for people to try and justify anything Israel does (particularly liked the bit where they try and justify bombing a UN outpost), so it's probably not the most objective place to get information on the anti-war movement.

Re: Current situation in the Middle East: a strategic analysis

steven — Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:04 am

Author: steven

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:04 am

This whole Middle East thing is one of those things that I won't pretend to know enough about to comment intelligently. But this is the internet, spiritual home of unintelligent commentary, and I've never been averse to the occasional impressionistic post. Basically, I agree with Gorky - the fact that there are terrorists in Lebanon is not really a very good excuse for horrific, completely disproportionate Israeli response. The idea that collectively punishing the Lebanese people because they must implicitly support Hezbollah is ridiculous - would you like the whole of Britain to be collectively punished because we allow the BNP to exist in our midst and must therefore implicitly support them? And going on any anti-war march always associates you with unsavoury types that want the destruction of Israel - again, the beliefs (and cartoons) of a minority does not make the majority opinion worthless - you wouldn't say all danes are racist because of the cartoons of Mohammed, and equally not all anti-war protesters agree with sensationalist cartoons featuring bad charicatures of Jewish people. I'm sure I have talked bollocks, and I'm positive that I could continue doing so for many pages, but I feel I should probably just shut up before I say anything stupid(er).