The NEXT Lebanon War

[Leonardo]

Hypothetically assuming a conflict happens, and Israel assert this "scorched earth" policy (i.e. raze the residential areas) but allow civilians to leave, will Israel then not only repatriate the Lebanese, but also pay for the reconstruction, or will Israel occupy the land "for security" and then allow Jewish settlements to be built on it?

[RavenHawk]

This is your interpretation, that these are the "reasons" for Israel to attack.

That’s not my interpretation. That is your list.

I am saying this is what we will hear and be told to swallow the pill.

It’s more than what we will hear. It is what we will see with our own two eyes. And it’s only a pill if you directly or indirectly support Hezbollah.

Obviously the undertext is that I believe 90% of it is gonna be bull****. However, I do say "look for them". Hey, who knows, these signs of getting fed the lies hook'n'line might not be there in the end!

We don’t have to look for the obvious, it is already there. But your list can be reduced down to that Hezbollah *ARE* terrorists intent on the destruction of Israel using the Palestinian and Lebanese as shields. And the fact that Hezbollah has many thousands of missiles that can only be used for one purpose should be reason enough to attack right now.

Wouldn't it be great if I was wrong and this didn't turn out to be the equivalent of the dumb bully beating up some small kid coz he doesn't get everything he wants or wants to divert attention from other things, leading to - in this case - thousands of deaths and millions in destruction? My that would be grand!

I don’t know how great it is but you are just plain wrong. The dumb bully is Hezbollah and Israel is the kid that stands up to him.

I wouldn't have to reassure my European friends who want to visit Lebanon this summer that they won't end up under an Israeli bomb because they were considered "terrorists".

I think your friends have less to worry about from Israeli bombs than from the typical turmoil between Muslim and Christian.

Also I am a Lebanese.

And I was asking you if you were Christian, Muslim, or Hezbollah?

You, the Israelis, the world and many Lebanese people might love to keep this whole confessions thing alive to keep pulling a string here, a string there, and mount up communities against each other. I am a Lebanese citizen, and I want what's best for my country. I do not support Hezbollah (actually happen to hate their guts quite often) but I recognize their value and what they represent: the only succor to a bunch of people who were abandoned by all for decades and had only these guys to defend them and cater for their needs.

That’s some ramble. If you claim to be Lebanese and hate Hezbollah, then to me, your course of action is clear. Get rid of Hezbollah. Stop enabling their terrorism. Hezbollah isn’t supporting the Palestinian refugees for the sake of the refugees. They do it to maintain shielding. If you consider yourself Lebanese then petition your government to grant citizenship to the Palestinian.

Today I wish they'd cut back on the warmongering and stick to politics, but I also know our army can't do **** if the Zionists decide they want a rematch.

They can’t and won’t cut back because they are intent on the destruction of Israel (oh, I already said that). Unfortunately, your army isn’t much of a match for Hezbollah either. And until they are, Israel will always be forced to have to respond. Israel will do the same it did the first time to isolate the Lebanese army to keep it out of harm’s way. Ideally, Lebanon and Israel should join forces to take out Hezbollah once and for all so that peace can have a chance. That would save Lebanon millions in destruction. But you still have LaFarge there? It would probably keep France happy.

So I have no reason to want their downfall to come from the hands of outsiders.

Well, the Lebanese army can’t do it and it is something that must happen. So who else will do it?

The world can live without Israel dictating their demands for everything.

I didn’t know wanting to not have to worry about being attacked is really dictating??

And forget the "self-defense" rhetoric, I am immune. Start having half as many dead (in Israel, forget WWII, there's prescription) as you've created in the last 40 years, then we'll talk about "self-defense".

Numbers isn’t what matters. It is threats. The minute that Israel relaxes in retribution for even just one death will enable others to shoot blindly across the border. This next time, Israel will lay waste to Southern Lebanon and the only ones to blame will be the Lebanese that allowed Hezbollah to gain so much power. You are just as guilty as anyone for the death and destruction coming as those that directly supports Hezbollah.

[+and-then]

Hypothetically assuming a conflict happens, and Israel assert this "scorched earth" policy (i.e. raze the residential areas) but allow civilians to leave, will Israel then not only repatriate the Lebanese, but also pay for the reconstruction, or will Israel occupy the land "for security" and then allow Jewish settlements to be built on it?

Since when does anyone "owe" the defeated aggressor anything? Only Americans are fool enough to take that route.

[Leonardo]

Since when does anyone "owe" the defeated aggressor anything? Only Americans are fool enough to take that route.

A very Christian attitude, and then.

If Hezbollah initiated the conflict, why would that make the Lebanese civilians "the aggressors"?

[+and-then]

A very Christian attitude, and then.

If Hezbollah initiated the conflict, why would that make the Lebanese civilians "the aggressors"?

The IDF isn't Christian Leo. And if you believe the Israelis should not strike back because their enemies launch rockets from among civilians then what you are saying is you believe the Israelis deserve to suffer. What other means to defend themselves? Go to the UN perhaps? Send in squads of ground troops to be butchered and STILL have to make a choice to shoot at these cowards through human shields? You know better.

[Leonardo]

The IDF isn't Christian Leo.

Where did I say I was talking about the IDF?

And how do you know there are no Christians in that military force?

[+and-then]

Where did I say I was talking about the IDF?

And how do you know there are no Christians in that military force?

I realize that you intended to impugn my Christian walk - I ignored the jab because I am not the issue here. The issue is what the IDF should do to defend it's nation. Leo you are intelligent enough to know that the approach you speak of is untenable in the real world. If the IDF failed to strike back effectively, about 100 THOUSAND rockets would fall over their homes. 100,000, Leo. It is no longer a situation where they can be restrained in their approach. When the last conflict ended in 2006 there were an estimated 40,000 rockets available to Hezbollah. The UN force that took up positions in southern Lebanon were commanded officially to STOP the influx of weapons to Hezbollah. Does it not seem unfair that such a disparity has been allowed? In reality all the Hezzies have accomplished is to make themselves MUCH more of a target - they and the civilians who house their weapons. This is a point I've been making for two years here. As pressure builds on Israel, Israel will become less concerned with it. Once sanctions actually begin, I suspect the IDF may go medieval on their foes. IOW tit for tat. Christian members of the IDF? Sure, there probably are some but they will not put their religion before their duty - oterwise they wouldn't be serving.

[RavenHawk]

A very Christian attitude, and then.

Yes it is and it shows your ignorance. When Christ was talking about turning the other cheek, he wasn’t telling Christians to be stupid. Christ also spoke of defending yourself and standing up for those that can’t. When someone is lobbing missiles at you, it doesn’t make sense to allow it to continue. You’re not going to get a message across by turning the other cheek. The only message that that would send is one of weakness that that goes against being able to defend yourself.

If Hezbollah initiated the conflict, why would that make the Lebanese civilians "the aggressors"?

It doesn’t unless the Lebanese civilians are actively supporting Hezbollah.

[GoldenWolf]

Yes it is and it shows your ignorance. When Christ was talking about turning the other cheek, he wasn't telling Christians to be stupid. Christ also spoke of defending yourself and standing up for those that can't. When someone is lobbing missiles at you, it doesn't make sense to allow it to continue. You're not going to get a message across by turning the other cheek. The only message that that would send is one of weakness that that goes against being able to defend yourself.

It doesn't unless the Lebanese civilians are actively supporting Hezbollah.

Where in the N.T. does it say that?

[+and-then]

Where in the N.T. does it say that?

I don't have an answer to that question but it seems to me that a lot of people tend toward calling Christians out as hypocrites if we even try to defend ourselves. It is a misconception to expect perfection from a person who has accepted the gospel of Christ and is attempting to live their life in accordance with his commands. NO ONE is perfect and being a Christ follower certainly doesn't mean a person thinks they are perfect. That is the whole point of the gospel. We recognize how broken we are and we plead for mercy. It's what grace is all about. With respect to the topic at hand, it is irrational to expect anyone to intentionally expose themselves to deadly force when they do not have to - just to try to gain good pr in a neighborhood where it will NEVER happen for them. Israel can do no right in this conflict - since they are held to an impossible standard they may soon decide not to concern themselves at all with PR. THAT is going to be the opposite outcome than their enemies expected.

[Frank Merton]

Since when does anyone "owe" the defeated aggressor anything? Only Americans are fool enough to take that route.

Well true and it has paid off handsomely to the U S's benefit in Japan and Germany. If they had take a more generous attitude toward former Baathists in Iraq they might have avoided a lot of trouble there (a lesson they appear to have learned in Libya).

[Frank Merton]

I don't have an answer to that question but it seems to me that a lot of people tend toward calling Christians out as hypocrites if we even try to defend ourselves. It is a misconception to expect perfection from a person who has accepted the gospel of Christ and is attempting to live their life in accordance with his commands. NO ONE is perfect and being a Christ follower certainly doesn't mean a person thinks they are perfect. That is the whole point of the gospel. We recognize how broken we are and we plead for mercy. It's what grace is all about. With respect to the topic at hand, it is irrational to expect anyone to intentionally expose themselves to deadly force when they do not have to - just to try to gain good pr in a neighborhood where it will NEVER happen for them. Israel can do no right in this conflict - since they are held to an impossible standard they may soon decide not to concern themselves at all with PR. THAT is going to be the opposite outcome than their enemies expected.

Oh we are all hypocrites, but it is best to pay attention to our hypocrisies and not use those of others to justify them.

I tend to agree with you about Israeli-Palestinian politics, which is kinda strange because I think your idea about Israel and Bible prophesy is just plain nonsense.

[+and-then]

Oh we are all hypocrites, but it is best to pay attention to our hypocrisies and not use those of others to justify them.

I tend to agree with you about Israeli-Palestinian politics, which is kinda strange because I think your idea about Israel and Bible prophesy is just plain nonsense.

The basis of my outlook and analysis of the situation there is all about my faith and common sense according to my moral upbringing. Feeling that a person's faith is nonsensical is completely understandable and does not offend me at all. I think we are not all called to faith at the same time or in the same way. The difference is that some people have a capacity to extend respect even to those they may feel are totally misguided - and others who only feel the need to ridicule them. Offering respect costs a person nothing and can gain them quite a lot at times

[Frank Merton]

My problem with Western religions that rely on faith is that I don't give it any credit. I don't really believe anything -- I just think some things are more or less true based on the evidence. Faith to me is just a way of avoiding having to deal with problems in a set of beliefs that one has decided one wants to believe. If one must believe, then believe what is good and true and held by the wisest and best people -- but why believe? Just operate in a world of uncertainty, with some things highly likely and others less.

[Leonardo]

Yes it is and it shows your ignorance. When Christ was talking about turning the other cheek, he wasn't telling Christians to be stupid. Christ also spoke of defending yourself and standing up for those that can't. When someone is lobbing missiles at you, it doesn't make sense to allow it to continue. You're not going to get a message across by turning the other cheek. The only message that that would send is one of weakness that that goes against being able to defend yourself.

Where did I suggest that Israel should not defend itself?

The scenario the OP proposes suggests that, in retaliation for rocket strikes, the IDF would raze civilian areas. The general quoted in the article suggested they would let civilians leave before this happened, which suggests the IDF, and thus Israel, consider those civilians innocent.

So, my question regarding the reconstruction of those areas razed was not at all "anti-Israel". It did, however, evoke a response from some posting here which suggests their extreme bias towards Israel, to the extent of granting them a "free-pass" for any sort of behaviour.

As long as this situation exists, as it does also among those who have influence in certain western powers, then there can be no peace in the ME because those who are in conflict with Israel there will always retain a sense of injustice that Israel is allowed to get away with what others condemn them [those in conflict with Israel] for.

My point regarding the "Christianity" of some was not about not defending yourself, but having the basic decency to recompense those innocents whom your actions have caused loss to.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Leonardo

[Leonardo]

Whoops, hit wrong button!

Edited February 6, 2014 by Leonardo

[jeem]

Why do you assume that I don't know this? He was still not part of the Israeli government which means that whatever he does cannot show intent on the part of the Israeli government. Historically the furthest extent of Israel went from the Euphrates to the Nile, going beyond the East bank of the Jordan. But that's not intent either. Israel proper was closer to the current borders. The bottom line is that Israel has not shown any intent to expand beyond its external borders.

That's fine.

You miss the point here.If he didn't find the Israeli government intention was same as his he would never donate.

Edited February 6, 2014 by jeem

[DudeMcDude]

Once again, it is clear neither side can change their opinions and both sides find the other's position completely mindboggling and dishonest (well, that's what I think of the pros, and I perceive the same from their answers, so I think it's a fair assessment).

I have no desire for sterile debates, so I'll end my contribution here. I just hope I've given a different point of view to the whole matter so indecisive people can make up their minds without having to rely on one side of the issue.

Also I recommend reading up on the 70s/80s war(s) in Lebanon to anyone interested in the subject, I'm reading "Pity the Nation : Lebanon at War (3rd ed. 2001)" by Robert Fisk at the moment and it's... hard to not be p***ed at everyone involved at one point or another. It's also a good way to avoid oversimplifications.

Cheers.

[+and-then]

Once again, it is clear neither side can change their opinions and both sides find the other's position completely mindboggling and dishonest (well, that's what I think of the pros, and I perceive the same from their answers, so I think it's a fair assessment).

I have no desire for sterile debates, so I'll end my contribution here. I just hope I've given a different point of view to the whole matter so indecisive people can make up their minds without having to rely on one side of the issue.

Also I recommend reading up on the 70s/80s war(s) in Lebanon to anyone interested in the subject, I'm reading "Pity the Nation : Lebanon at War (3rd ed. 2001)" by Robert Fisk at the moment and it's... hard to not be p***ed at everyone involved at one point or another. It's also a good way to avoid oversimplifications.

Cheers.

Yes, Fisk is surely a non biased source. I suppose Link TV fits in there as well? To each his own but acting as though it is only others who's opinions are biased is amusing.

[RoofGardener]

Hmmmm... interesting.

I'll make one prediction right now, in relation to the opening article.

If Israel DOES decide to attack Hezbollah inside of Lebannon's territory, then one BIG difference will be its attitude towards the United Nations.

In 2006, Israel attacked with the stated intention of destroying Hezbollah's ability to launch rockets against Israel. Despite some nasty suprises (particularly Hezbollah's posssion of Russian 'Kornet' guided armour-piercing anti-tank missiles) the IDF was doing rather well, and Hezbollah was taking horrific casualties.

The United Nations suddenly woke up to the fact that Israel was winning, and immediately jumped into action to try and impose a cease-fire to help Hezbollah survive. Part of this ceasefire (and withdrawal) mandated that the Lebenese Army, assisted by a UN peacekeeping force, would disarm Hezbollah in the South, and hence prevent rocket launches.

This is what Israel wanted ANYWAY, so it was glad to sign up to the peace deal. The UN immediately betrayed the deal by bravely refusing to disarm Hezbollah, contrary to its own Security Council resolution. Fortunately, Hezbollah was SO rattled that they stopped firing rockest ANYWAY, even during the subsequent Cast Lead operations in Gaza. Hence the UN showed itself as doubly ineffectual and inreasingly irrelevent.

so we move up to the current times. I predict that - in the event of hostilities - Israel will no longer allow itself to be hoodwinked by the UN Security Council, and will likely ignore any calls for a cease-fire.

[+and-then]

Hmmmm... interesting.

I'll make one prediction right now, in relation to the opening article.

If Israel DOES decide to attack Hezbollah inside of Lebannon's territory, then one BIG difference will be its attitude towards the United Nations.

In 2006, Israel attacked with the stated intention of destroying Hezbollah's ability to launch rockets against Israel. Despite some nasty suprises (particularly Hezbollah's posssion of Russian 'Kornet' guided armour-piercing anti-tank missiles) the IDF was doing rather well, and Hezbollah was taking horrific casualties.

The United Nations suddenly woke up to the fact that Israel was winning, and immediately jumped into action to try and impose a cease-fire to help Hezbollah survive. Part of this ceasefire (and withdrawal) mandated that the Lebenese Army, assisted by a UN peacekeeping force, would disarm Hezbollah in the South, and hence prevent rocket launches.

This is what Israel wanted ANYWAY, so it was glad to sign up to the peace deal. The UN immediately betrayed the deal by bravely refusing to disarm Hezbollah, contrary to its own Security Council resolution. Fortunately, Hezbollah was SO rattled that they stopped firing rockest ANYWAY, even during the subsequent Cast Lead operations in Gaza. Hence the UN showed itself as doubly ineffectual and inreasingly irrelevent.

so we move up to the current times. I predict that - in the event of hostilities - Israel will no longer allow itself to be hoodwinked by the UN Security Council, and will likely ignore any calls for a cease-fire.

I think you are correct and I further believe that this knowledge by Hezbollah is what is helping keep the peace. I think they know that whatever their rhetoric about who won or lost, they will be mauled badly if not ENDED in the next round precisely because they are being told out loud in public that they will have nowhere to hide this go round.

[Cherrypress]

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/IAF-chief-Israel-will-destroy-Hezbollah-bases-in-Lebanon-even-those-in-residential-areas-339773

Apparently the IDF chief is preparing the world for potentially massive civilian casualties should Hezbollah launch a massive missile attack from Lebanese soil again. In short, Israel knows where most of missiles are located and knows that civilians are in many cases living above and below the firing positions. So the choice is to save Lebanese civilians or Israeli civilians. The Lebanese are frankly being warned in advance to evacuate or die. I think the world is pushing Israel into a corner and this next war will push them harder because no matter how many advance warnings are given, Israel will still be blamed completely no matter the circumstances. When absolutely no incentive is left to moderate their behavior, why SHOULD the IDF refrain?

Hezbollah is deliberately placing missile sites amongst civilian locations such as schools and homes, purely for this reason. So that even the most precise surgical attack from Israel will inevitably lead to civilian casualties.

Hezbollah are using these civilians as sitting ducks.

[+and-then]

Hezbollah is deliberately placing missile sites amongst civilian locations such as schools and homes, purely for this reason. So that even the most precise surgical attack from Israel will inevitably lead to civilian casualties.

Hezbollah are using these civilians as sitting ducks.

My understanding is that they are also doing very charitable work in the community as well - buying loyalty so to speak. I have no doubt the Israelis will give warning to the extent they can but it won't matter to the international press of course. Since they are increasing being portrayed as illegitimate then they can make no legitimate response to aggression against themselves. That old saw is getting really dull though and soon enough they will have a leader that tells the world "to get over it".

[Yamato]

Hezbollah is deliberately placing missile sites amongst civilian locations such as schools and homes, purely for this reason. So that even the most precise surgical attack from Israel will inevitably lead to civilian casualties.

Hezbollah are using these civilians as sitting ducks.

It's called guerrilla war. It's how you fight when you're up against a vastly superior enemy force.

[RoofGardener]

It's called guerrilla war. It's how you fight when you're up against a vastly superior enemy force.

Thats a bit harsh on the civilians who's houses are being used as machine gun nests or rocket launch pads, isn't it ?

Hezbollah are exposing those people to the inevitable counter-attacks.

At which point, would you not criticise the Israeli's for causing civilian deaths ?