point noted sky will do in the future

of course the terrorist want civilian casualties they can get that into the news all over the world and the peace and anti war/ and israel flag wavers can be suckered into protesting

public opinion matters it can effect a nations stance on any event for instnce the bombings in spain changed a goverment

And it is at the border conflict level presently (until Israel decided to break it). The closest things ever came to being "over the existence of whole Israel" is like 1973.

Actually, the situation is far more complex. Israel is a state literally installed where it wasn't exactly welcome. Despite being only 1/3rd of the population and owning only 8% (versus nearly half of the land by Arabs) of the land, somehow they were awarded 55% of the territory. One can see how this nation is going to be so popular. They swallowed entire areas of Arab majority (not surprising since there were more Arabs) into the notionally Jewish part. In a way, they were on the offense from the get go.

Naturally, war started almost as soon as the UN imposed this resolution. Israel somehow managed to win and annexed more territory.

In 1967, we finally learn that "defense" meant Pearl Harbor style air attacks and a massive attack and annexation. We also realize that the US will not punish Israel when it bombs one of her ships.

For reasons of "defense", they actually bombed an Iraqi nuke reactor in 1981.

If this is "defense", Israel "offense" must mandate the first use of its nuclear arsenal...

Again, set that border wherever you want, it will be attacked, ever, always. It is a conflict about the existence of Israel. Agreed, 1948 was stupid, and if we would have 1950 or so, I would vote for reversing it. but two generations have been born and partially died in Israel meanwhile. Deleting Israel now is only possible at the price of repeating exactly the same kind of error that was done 1948. Not to mention that Islam will see it as another encouragement to push even harder than before into weak Europe. - - - On another thing, the medias start to report that their is disagreement in Israel'S secret services on the ammount of damage done to Hizbollah, and that there is disagreement on wether to go for a huge scale ground operation, or not. I never have dream that this could be true: that they have nothing learned from Rumsfeld's failed doctrine of minimal ground forces. I took it for granted from the frist day on that the air war would lead into a massive, unlimited ground invasion of the southern Lebanon, becasue that is the only way to hunt down Hezbollah there. Air strikes will disrupt their supply lines and make life miserable for them, but they cannot acchieve a strategical win that would justify the destruction being doen so far. Don't tell me that this is true, that they do not want to go in in massive force. If it will be so, I will immediately shut down all support for the war, declare them as freakin idiots who should have known better, predict their defeat and Hezbollah's victory and never will support a military action by Israel again, becasue then they obviously are too dumb to know what they need to do. If they leave it to an air campaign only, it will result in a major strategical defeat, and the political fallout will cost them dearly. They need to go into the South in an unlimited great scale ground invasion with massive troop levels that leave Hezbollah, using guerilla as well as terror tactics, no free space to take a breath of air. I was shocked when they reported about the split in the Israeli leadership about that decision, just minutes ago in German TV news. I would have expected the Israelis at first to know it better.

It's not like Israel has a huge standing army. They're mostly made up of reservists so an operation on the scale you're talking about would be an enormous problem for them to sustain. Besides, it's not like they can afford to pull their troops off their borders with PLO/Hamas either.

We may actually agree on something here...
 

I actually agree on the Occupation part. As you know I'm not warm about what Israel is doing right now. But since they've already done it, the only way a net positive can be made out of this situation now is if Israel invades full scale and then does the right thing, not botch it like they had with all their occupations so far.

Occupations are not necessarily a bad thing, nor do they necessarily create hatred, if you know how to run them. Japan and Germany are good examples, as has been mentioned in a previous discussion. Even a massive firebombing (Japan and Germany) can be made up for if you know how.

So, after they occupied the nation with swift and decisive force to create that nice shock and awe effect, they actually start to do some real good. The Hezbollahs are not all that popular, so the Lebanese won't mind if you are chasing them down as long as you aren't blowing up their houses and power plants in the attempt (or are they really attempting? Either way, time to stop).

More importantly, though, is that they do good. Such as obviously helping to rebuild. Such as not overreacting when a diehard terrorist shoots one of your soldiers - you are occupying; such things happen. You don't have to hand it to the UN, not yet, though observers would be nice. Make it unambigiously clear you are there to help them.

Do all that and Israel can regain all the points it had lost so far, and gain a much more secure border.

Including their reservsists, males up top 45, and women up to 45, both groups can show up with troop levels of around 1.2 million. Learned that at an IDF information site yesterday. You need huge ammounts of infantry, for me that was clear from the very beginning. Not necessarily highly trained specialists, but just infntry to keep control of places once they got cleaned, while the froint moves further north. If your enemy is using guerilly tactics and is a small militia, you can only control him if "flooding" his living environment with troops. Else the hidden space is his, and he will move at will and always evade you, and strike at his choice of time and place. Anti-guerilla warfare is difficult enough and most of the time resulted in failure in the past, but trying to do it with air power alone is madness, irrational and irresponsible. If they leave it to that, I will immediately join Scandium's protest to stop the action, becasue then it is doomed to fail from the very beginning, and all the destruction in Lebanon is for nonsens only. It will achieve nothing that way, nothing. A grand scale invasion is a must, a definite precondition to secure a significant defeat over Hezbollah in that region. Small expeditions like they do now will not do much of a change, only cosmetical corrections in the statistics. Flatten every village were a single shot is coming from, by artillery and airpower, then flood the area with troops. That is the only way, and I thought they were prepared for that. Everything else is just playing games. My God they want to send UN or NASTO troops into that region - when it even is not substantially cleared???

Well, there's no consequences to bombing the UN outposts, other than the UN pulling out of Lebanon. Just like when the Baghdad office was bombed. Except that Hizballah isn't receiving intelligence from the UN transmissions.

I say fight just as dirty as the enemy. I say fight dirtier than the enemy. You can re-write history however you want if you win, and knowing now what value democratic societies place on the victims, you can portray yourself as the victim. That's like Tarif Ziyad (oh, yes, I do know the article spells his name as "Tarik"). He was just a peaceful farmer who fought back against the oppressive and violent Spainish Imperialists. He just imposed a tariff on all Mediterranean traffic to pay for the war against the evil Zionist oppressors who were controlling Spain at that time.


Win by whatever means you can, then re-write history so you were the victims....because your enemy would do the same thing to you if they win.

First, countries in the Islamic sphere in no way can be compared to Japan and Germany. Bush and Co made the same erratic assumption when they went into Iraq. Second, Hezvbollah HAS a great support amongst Muslims in Lebanon, because it has been allowed to sink that deep into the civil structures that it now is seen as a guarnatee of stability by many, though not by all. Israel was not loved during the first occupation, and it will not be loved when doping that now. I only talk about occupation for as long as the battle for wiping out Hezbollah's aresenals in southern Lebanon and all the infrastructure that it could use will last. after that, they are well-advised to either occupy the whole country, or hand control over to an extremely robust international force that is not hesitent to use even massive firepower to hinder hezbollah to return into these territories - because that it will try to do that, people can take for granted. An international force that is not determined to put up a fight if Hezbollah returns, better should not be send. That's why the UN must not be allowed to have a word in this, because history shows, that the UN does not have that spine and determination. I do not like the idea of NATO being onvolved there, but maybe we have no realistzic alternative. What shoudl also be avoided is to giove the Turks a leadinf rfole, they will understand it as an ecouragement to push even harder for becoming the regional leading power, and will demand even greater support for their drive into the EU, as a payment, so to speak. whatever helps Turkey to push stronger for EU membership, should be avoided.

All this is, this entire thread, is opinion based on the legitimacy of Israel as a state. They are back where they belong after being conquered by the Assyrians in 701 BC. Most Arabs beleive that the land that the Isralies currently own is not legitimate land because it is holy land, but they forget who had the first state there. This is like going into Iran, taking over, staying for a while, building a church, and then the Iranians are replanted and we say that that is our land. Ah, no - historically it is not our land, it is the Sunnis land.

What I don't get, the Palestinians got exactly what Israel got - their own state, yet they still attack Israel after Israel gave them the land? Why should Israel not be allowed to have their state on the very ground they had there empire once before? Isn't this along the same lines? Why does Hezbollah continue to attack Israel?

Israel already proved what happens when you give the attacking Palestinians what they ask - they take and then continue to attack Israel for no reason. History repeats itself once more. Again, Israel will do what it needs to do, and they better go full on and finish the job this time. We don't need an armed terrorists force hanging around the area and financed by rogue states. It is this very thing that can be a potential flashpoint and it needs to be dealt with. No one likes war, but sometimes you must do what you must do.

-S

PS. If some terrorist group kidnapped me or someone from my family, and our country knew who it was, I'd hope that my country would do a similar response and crush them, regardless my fate. This is so it doesn't happen again to someone else. The world cannot afford to permit armed groups like this to exist since it boils over into the very thing you are seeing right now.

I thought he say their are two kinds of UN soldiers armed and unarmed (can't ask him he is on holiday now)the officers observing are unarmed, perhaps a sidearm?

From a interview by France Unifil-commandant General-major Alain Pellegrini.
The Libanese governement never try to move there regular army south, so hezbolla grows out of controll. They (Hezbolla) place their katoesja's between houses and close to UN post hoping Israël won't bomb them.
But Israës doesn't go backwards.

You must not ask him, I did not mean it that way. I question the concept of unarmed soldiers with blue helmets in principle, the concept of non-robust mandates. Either you send a troop with a punch - though it may have order to remain neutral and not to intervene - or you don't send them at all. That'S the absolute minimum you owe to every man and women you command into a situation wehre he must risk his life: that you give him the means of self-defense, and this means of course that the potential fighting capabiltiy may not be just symboli, but must be essential. Sending unarmed troops means supplying the conflict zone with potential human shields that are at everybody's mercy - irresponsible.If you enter a rumble pit, clean your teeth and sharpen your claws, even if you intend not put up a fight yourself. For you do not know if the others answer your self-restraint on equal terms.

For a few days, I saw a Israëly plain destroying a missile launcher in a wood. You could see two or three missiles coming up from the wood before the bom hit.
Today I saw a katoesja launcher at work, four missiles in a simple launcher, and no one near the launcher.
My idea is they only bomb a hole in the ground with those expencive guided bombs. The missiles ar emost or all lauched before the bomb hit the target and no hezbollas are near the launcher ( a few iron pipes).

You are down there, currently? Take care!

Your observations just illustrate why this airshow is only of limited use as long as it is not complemented by a massive ground operation, that I so far took for granted. After Kosovo, it took the British less than 24 hours to come up with an estimation that roughly 90% of the fired dedicated tank-killer ammunition, missiles for the most, hit dummy tanks only. The Serbian forces were able to retreat with almost all their equipment, in cohesive unit formations, and in order and calm. Their losses in heavy equipment and weapons and tanks were minimal. Have the Israelis really not learned from that? I cannot believe it.