[IvP] Mark Four.

[Erik von Nein]

Oh, goody.

Israeli military seizes Lebanese town
Attacks rain down from both sides of border

Saturday, July 22, 2006; Posted: 5:56 p.m. EDT (21:56 GMT)

AVIVIM, Israel (CNN) -- Denying that it plans a full-scale ground invasion, the Israeli military entered the southern Lebanese village of Maroun al-Ras on Saturday to establish its "first foothold" in a security buffer along the border, the Israel Defense Forces said.

The Israeli military flushed Hezbollah fighters out of the village and will hold it until it can be handed over to a multinational force or the Lebanese army, the IDF said, adding that the security buffer will hamstring Hezbollah's ability to launch rockets into northern Israel.

Maroun al-Ras is a few kilometers from the Israeli town of Avivim. (Map)

Israeli tanks and troops will attempt to enter several villages in the same manner, Israeli commanders said. The military passed messages through the local media and community leaders, warning residents of 10 villages to clear out by 4 p.m. (9 a.m. ET) ahead of Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah guerillas, the IDF said.

Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. Oliver Rafowicz insisted that Israel has "no intention" of invading Lebanon. (Watch why Israel believes Maroun al-Ras is so important -- 6:06)

Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon fired Katyusha rockets at an Israeli outpost Saturday, lightly wounding one soldier, the IDF said.

Guerillas also fired more than 100 rockets into northern Israel on Saturday. Some of those rockets targeted Avivim, and at least seven air-raid sirens sounded Saturday in Haifa, as several rockets landed in an open area.
Israel hits back

At 2 p.m. (7 a.m. ET), the IDF said it had struck 150 targets across Lebanon in the past 24 hours, including weapons-storage facilities, 11 rocket launchers, a rocket-launching cell, communication towers, 12 roads connecting Syria and Lebanon, and "dozens of Hezbollah structures and command posts." Other strikes hit Tyre, and near Tripoli and Batroun.

Airstrikes toppled at least six transmission towers north of Beirut, disrupting phone and television service throughout northern Lebanon, a Lebanese government official said. (Watch workers dig through the rubble for survivors -- 4:00)

A Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. employee was killed and two others were wounded during the strikes at Mount Lebanon, according to the LBC.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that missiles struck relay stations for Future TV, Hezbollah-run Al-Manar television and the nation's leading private network, LBC, but their satellite feeds were unaffected.

The conflict has raged since July 12, when Hezbollah militants killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others in a cross-border raid.
300 dead

At least 300 people have died so far in the fighting. The IDF said 34 Israelis, 15 of them civilians, have been killed. At least 266 Lebanese people have been killed, according to Lebanese officials.

More than 300 Israelis and 631 Lebanese have been wounded, the sources said. (Watch dozens of coffins being lined up in a trench awaiting mass burial -- 3:13)

Although Israel has relied heavily on airstrikes and artillery during its 11-day offensive in Lebanon, thousands of Israeli troops began massing on the border Friday. Those troops numbered about 5,000 as of Saturday.

"The ultimate goal of our operations close to the border is to eliminate the infrastructure and the posts established of Hezbollah over the past six years since Israel pulled out of Lebanon," Israeli military spokesman Capt. Erik Snider said.

The Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah could end in about two or three weeks, diplomatic sources said, adding that a political solution -- which includes the Lebanese army or a new international force taking control of southern Lebanon -- would need to be in place before a cease-fire could be brokered. (Watch tanks roll through orchards into Lebanon -- 2:59)

An international U.N. force already is in southern Lebanon. About 2,000 troops -- including 50 military observers -- and 400 civilians have been there since 1978 to observe the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, maintain security and eventually return authority over the area to the Lebanese government.

Under the treaty that ended Lebanon's 15-year civil war in 1990, Hezbollah was allowed to keep its weapons to fight Israeli troops occupying southern Lebanon. Israel pulled its troops from the south in 2000, after a 22-year occupation of the area.

In 2004, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1559, calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, but the group says it wont lay down its arms until Israeli troops leave the disputed Shebaa Farms region near the Syria border, which the United Nations considers Syrian territory.

The United States and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The group, which has claimed responsibility for terrorist acts, also operates an extensive network of social services in Lebanon. Its political wing holds seats in the Lebanese parliament.
Diplomatic developments

# U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Friday that he feared "a major humanitarian disaster" if the violence did not end soon. (Full story)

# President Bush underscored U.S. support for Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, saying the guerillas are backed by Iran and Syria, and provoked Israel's response. The address came the day before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to head to the region on a diplomatic mission. (Full story)

# British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells questioned Israel's response, telling CNN he hoped the United States was aware of the destruction and deaths. "If you're chasing Hezbollah, well, chase Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation, and that's the difference," he said.

# The U.S. State Department says more than 5,700 Americans have been transported out of Lebanon since Sunday. Other Western nations are continuing to pull their citizens out of the country.

CNN's Paula Newton and Christiane Amanpour contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Done]

[Erik von Nein]

Fuck. Screwed up my quote tags. Can a mod please fix it? *dow eyes*

[Admiral Johnason]

I really hope this works and a stable buffer zone is created.

[Erik von Nein]

I really hope this works and a stable buffer zone is created.

Like the Golan Heights?

[Elfdart]

They just had to make do with $3 billion plus bonuses from the American taxpayer.

You know, I get real tired of seeing this strawman thrown about by everyone.

Israel gets $3 billion a year aid from the US, yes, however, that aid is REQUIRED by the Camp David Accords.

Likewise, Egypt gets $2.1 billion a year in aid as required by Camp David, but we never hear about that, no sir.

Another flat-out fucking lie courtesy of MKSheepfucker. What a surprise.

There's nothing from Camp David requiring so much as one thin dime from the US taxpayer for Israel, Egypt, Swaziland, Shangri-La or anywhere else. Vympel debunked this bullshit months ago:

Link

[Admiral Johnason]

I really hope this works and a stable buffer zone is created.

Like the Golan Heights?

No, those were a couch cushion. I mean an actual buffer zone.

[Mange]

According to CNN, rockets have struck Haifa and killed at least two people.

[Elfdart]

wrote:
. . . so you’re saying you can’t read?

Now that you mention it, your prose is a chore for reader.

Let me also take this moment to remind you, Elfdart, that it is you who must prove that the U.S. government is “in the pocket of Israel,” not I who must prove a negative. You should be pointing to evidence that the U.S. has neglected its own interest in the service of this supposedly insidious Israeli lobby about which you speak.

Walt & Mearsheimer spelled it out chapter and verse in a very nice summary. For an overview: being Israel's henpecked sugar daddy gains the United States little on the credit side and much on the debit side. Deliberately pissing off hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims is not in the best interest of any country, including Uncle Sam. The funny thing is, before we started answering "How high?" every time Tel Aviv said "Jump!", we had pretty good relations with the Arabs.

Being joined at the hip to Israel isn't the only thing we do that causes the Arabs and Muslims to hate us, but it's one of the top ones -and we get nothing out of it! At least when the CIA overthrew Mossadegh we got cheap oil from the Shah. When we slaughtered Filipino Muslims we ended up owning the Philippines, ensuring a supply of cheap hookers for our horny sailors. What do we get from Israel in exchange for our payments?

First of all, this was still a time when Israel feared a massed attack on the part of its neighbors. No wonder they were wary of Saudi Arabia obtaining equipment that could potentially improve the fighting power of Arab air forces.

Saudi Arabia is going to attack another US client state? Rolling Eyes

Secondly, what the fuck does Israel’s position on why it opposed the AWACS deal have to do with the fact that Ronald Reagan ignored them regardless? Bottom line: Israel didn’t get what it wanted because the United States felt that its interests lay elsewhere.

There's a difference between not getting your way 100% of the time and being seriously inconvenienced, peckerhead.

The following are quotations from William B. Quandt’s “Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967” (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2005):

“On May 22, 1989, [Secretary of State James] Baker spoke at the annual AIPAC convention in Washington, D.C. Baker’s remarks were predictably friendly toward Israel at the outset. . . . Only when Baker turned to the missing element in the Shamir plan, the fate of the occupied territories, did he hit a discordant note. Interpreting UN Resolution 242 as requiring the exchange of land for peace, Baker referred to ‘territorial withdrawal’ as a probable outcome of negotiations. Then, in a pointed reference to Shamir’s ideology, Baker said: ‘For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel. […] Forswear annexation. Stop settlement activity. Allow schools to reopen. Reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights.” (p. 296)

The BASTARD! How could he? What a terrible thing to say!

“But Bush was gaining credibility in Arab eyes, just as the Soviets were dropping off the map. On September 6, 1941,

On September 6, 1941, GHW Bush was still a high school student at Andover.

Bush asked Congress for a 120-day delay before considering the Israeli loan request. After encountering congressional resistance, Bush went public on September 12. He spoke out forecefully against Israeli settlements and against the Israeli lobby.” (p. 310)

I don't know how he can sleep at night for saying and doing such a horrible thing.

The following is from a news conference given by the president on September 12, 1991. A transcript may be found by visiting the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library’s website, clicking on “Public Papers,” and then directing oneself to September, 1991:

“A few days ago, I asked Congress to defer consideration for 120 days of Israel's request for billion in additional U.S. loan guarantees meant to help Israel absorb its many new emigrants. I did so in the interests of peace. I did so because we must avoid a contentious debate that would raise a host of controversial issues, issues so sensitive that a debate now could well destroy our ability to bring one or more of the parties to the peace table. […]

The BEAST! The FIEND!

My request that Congress delay consideration of the Israeli request for billion in new loan guarantees to support emigrant absorption is about peace. For the first time in history, the vision of Israelis sitting with their Arab neighbors to talk peace is a real prospect. Nothing should be done that might interfere with this prospect. And if necessary, I will use my veto power to prevent that from happening. Peace is what these new emigrants to Israel and, indeed, all Israelis long for. Their chance for a decent job, a decent life, depends on it.”

He threatened a veto against a bill that he thought encouraged more violations of UN 242. There must be a special place in hell for someone like that.

These were your best shots and you haven't shown a single goddamned thing GWH Bush or any other President has done to seriously inconvenience Israel. Shiiiiiiit, I can do better than that: By coddling expansionist fucktards in Israel, the US government helps to incite hatred and violent attacks against Israel, where a peaceful settlement and reparations has a better chance of calming things down. At least my example makes some kind of sense in a reverse psychology kind of way.

If Bush’s statement does not contain some kind of ridiculous minimum level of vitriol that you consider to be the appropriate method of engaging in foreign policy with Israel, Elfdart, do try and remember that his decision to cut off the loan was actually a way of taking a hand in internal Israeli politics. We made no bones about it: we’d do our best to accommodate the coming to power of the kind of elements we wanted to deal with.

Labor voters didn't seem all that troubled.

He basically secured the ejection of Likud, you dishonest piece of shit.

If that's true, GHWB was doing them a favor, not seriously inconveniencing them.

How the hell is that unqualified, unblinking support for the maximalist Israeli position? You claim we’re in Israeli’s grasp. Bush’s actions, however, prove that they were very much in ours.

Another day another strawman from Axis Kast.

I was referring to the current Bush administration, you blithering moron. Do try and read the papers now and again.

You had them together like this, asswipe:

The first President Bush was also known for his willingness to step on Israeli toes when push came to shove: in September 1991, he strongly criticized Israel’s policy of building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. According to former NSC staffer William B. Quandt, Bush’s calculated decision not to authorize a loan package for Israel ensured Likud’s defeat at the polls in June 1991. Certainly that was not support for a maximalist Israeli position.

President Bush also turned up the heat against Israel by becoming the first president to specifically endorse a two-state solution.

Sorry about that. I should know better than to take your posts at face value.

Now, for two other examples of the United States sticking its finger in Israel’s eye. . .

Let me quess: They're just as half-baked as yours?

As Sheppard pointed out

Just as I thought.

in the thread that got HOS’d, the United States effectively told Israel how and when to end the October War in 1973. The IDF wanted to annihilate the Egyptian Third Army. Sheppard has already explained that Henry Kissinger told the Israelis that it “is an option that does not exist.”

How did that seriously inconvenience Israel? Did the Israelis have to fight that army again after 1973?

Actually, you might have a point: denying Aryan Sharon a chance at rounding up and shooting POWs (aside from murdering Palestinian children, his main hobby) must have rendered the fat fuck incapable of getting an erection until Pfizer came out with those little blue pills 25 years later. That was 1973, before most of the people on this board were born.

In 1982, the United States was part of a multi-national peacekeeping force that helped remove the PLO from Lebanon. As much as their relocation may have removed a threat on Israel’s border, the fact that Washington did not allow Israel to crush its enemies outright was a significant indication that the U.S. was not afraid to step on Israel’s toes.

That really stuck it to Tel Aviv, didn't it? I'll be generous and give you that one, too. Hell, I'll give you Yellow Rain Man's mention of 1956 (before the parents of many of the people on these boards were born).

Three times in a lifetime (with me being very generous). Halley's Comet comes around once in a lifetime, or one-third as often as the US seriously steps on Israel's toes.

Which wasn’t the preferred Israeli response, asshole. We dictated to Tel Aviv how the situation would be handled.

And spared them the trouble of having to fight for themselves against Iraq. I'll bet the people of Darfur only wish the US would fight for them. Unlike the spoiled brat Likudniks (and their US fanwhores), they would be grateful enough to say thanks and not bitch about how they're put upon when someone fights their enemies for them.

Because to Iraqis, it represents a transgression against them by a foreign invader. To the Kurds, it suggests that the United States is not a reliably ally, reducing their willingness to cooperate in the reconstruction of Iraq. This is a hard call. Nobody is denying that Kurdish behavior is sometimes detrimental to Turkish security. What is happening, however, is that the Turks risk provoking more violence through their current actions.

Let me re-write your post and show you just how fucking stupid you are:

Because to the Lebanese, it represents a transgression against them by a foreign invader. To the Cedar Revolution, it suggests that the United States is not a reliably ally, reducing their willingness to cooperate in the reconstruction of Lebanon. This is a hard call. Nobody is denying that Hezbollah behavior is sometimes detrimental to Israeli security. What is happening, however, is that the Israelis risk provoking more violence through their current actions.

There's no way any honest person could condone what Israel is doing in Lebanon and what the Turks are threatening to do in northern Iraq.

Nobody disputes that it’s a tragedy that Lebanon has become a battleground. On the other hand, the Israelis have dropped leaflets to make Lebanese civilians aware of upcoming bombardments. That’s more than Hezbollah has been doing.

They drop leaflets telling people to leave, then bomb the roads and bridges. This isn't Star Trek, dipshit. They can't just beam somewhere safe.

Once again, you seem to ignore the fact that war is deadly and dangerous. What would you have Israel do?

Detailed in my first post.

Restrict attacks to Southern Lebanon? They’d still likely hit civilians.

If they thought their soldiers were in immediate danger, I could see them sending in SF to find and rescue them. What they're doing now almost guarantees they'll be killed.

It would also keep them from following a Hezbollah retreat. Or bringing consequences to a government that has given Hezbollah ministerial positions.

Hezbollah won those seats in a US-approved election, dumbfuck. They weren't "given" anything.

Prove it. Especially after Israel has come out and said that its actions won’t result in occupation.

Israel first said they were just trying to get their soldiers back. Now they're talking about a buffer zone and setting Lebanon back 20 years.

Hezbollah’s behavior is proof that their goal is simply to destroy Israel. They twist and turn in an effort to find some justification for that end. Hence, we cannot trust that unilateral peace offerings will be met with good faith. But, of course, you feel that it is Israel that must make all concessions, without reference to anyone who claims they have been “wronged.”

Strawmen and horseshit, where would you be without them? I didn't say Israel had to make all concessions, I just pointed out the ones they should make. If Israel withdrew to the pre-June '67 borders, renounced all territorial claims against their neighbors and paid restitution to their victims, it would go a long way to pulling the rug out from under the Hezbollahs of the world. There will be a few fanatics who won't settle for that (we still have Puerto Rican fanatics out to drive the US out of Puerto Rico), but the vast majority will gladly go away.

The death toll from suicide bombings in Israel has fallen dramatically since the construction of said wall.

So you think Aryan Sharon's plan for expanding it through the Jordan Valley is a good idea?

And wait . . . expanding settlements in Gaza? Israel has left Gaza, you fucking dishonest little shit.

They finally pulled out of Gaza after how many years of trying to colonize it?

Except that concessions were made. Israel turned over Gaza to the Palestinians in a more meaningful way than was ever done before. And they received nothing in the way of effective cooperation in return. But, of course, in your book, that’s a reasonable exchange.

They finally gave up colonizing Gaza and moved their soldiers out (and then back in). Can a Palestinian in Gaza travel to the West Bank without Israel's permission? No. Israel still runs that shithole, whether it's from the inside or outside.

Not to mention that Israel left Lebanon. By the admission of an organization whose standards of international behavior you applaud, the United Nations, Israel was not occupying Lebanese land after 2000. And Hezbollah fought on. They even manufactured a claim to Syrian territory.

And?

Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and was subsequently hammered in return, you fucking idiot.

After Israel decided to lock up thousands of Palestinians, including 300 minors.

TIME Magazine. The same issue that headlined the Abu Ghraib abuse.

A quote would be nice.

And it’s fucking clear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the be-all and end-all of justifications or motivations for violence against the United States in the Middle East.

I never said it was.

They manufactured a false claim on an ally’s land just to keep up the fight.

Is it a false one, or just a claim that contradicts a UN settlement? There's a difference.

By that standard, Israel will always control Gaza just as long as they have a strong army.

If that army keeps assaulting Gaza, yes.

Seriously. Your posts have no connection to reality anymore. You demand unilateral concessions that get people shot and expect Israel to grin and bear it. How the fuck is Israel supposed to believe that letting go of the West Bank will lay down the foundations for a two-state solution when its concessions are attended by military attacks? As soon as they meet one precondition, there isn't any display by the other side of a willingness to cooperate. The justification just changed focus to some other issue.

Israel has made no serious concessions since they gave Sinai back to Egypt. They pulled their squatters out of Gaza just recently, but they keep sending in tanks and troops. They built a Lebensraum Wall to cut up the West Bank (which is like one homeowner building a fence -presumably to protect his property- that cuts right through his neighbor's yard and house) and proposed to build another farther east (to get the rest of that neighbor's house and yard). If they quit pulling this kind of shit and made clear they won't do it in the future the Palestinians and Lebanese wouldn't be in a position where they have nothing to lose and only want to take a few Israelis with them when they blow shit up.

[Broomstick]

Elfdart and Axis Kast, could you like, maybe, summarize those novel-length posts? And get to the fucking point already?

I don't mind reading a long post if it says something or needs to be long to make a point, but endless rounds of sniping one-liners is just crap.

[CJvR]

Syria now threatens Israel with war if the IDF invades Hizbostan. An intresting development, could be to protect the remnants of the Hizbos or a conequence of increased IDF frustration with the air campaign results. We don't really know how badly banged up the Hizbos are.

In the midst of all doom and gloom constantly pouring out from Lebanon other journalists report that you can hardly notice the war as long as you stay out of Hizbostan. With the exception of the occational strike in the north, like the TV & radio masts, the only exposure most non-shiite seem to have to the war is refugees and media and smoke colums in the distance.

[Enigma]

They just had to make do with $3 billion plus bonuses from the American taxpayer.

You know, I get real tired of seeing this strawman thrown about by everyone.

Israel gets $3 billion a year aid from the US, yes, however, that aid is REQUIRED by the Camp David Accords.

Likewise, Egypt gets $2.1 billion a year in aid as required by Camp David, but we never hear about that, no sir.

Another flat-out fucking lie courtesy of MKSheepfucker. What a surprise.

There's nothing from Camp David requiring so much as one thin dime from the US taxpayer for Israel, Egypt, Swaziland, Shangri-La or anywhere else. Vympel debunked this bullshit months ago:

Link

I am not expert but I think it came from here:

WRMEA

There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.

[Mange]

Syria now threatens Israel with war if the IDF invades Hizbostan. An intresting development, could be to protect the remnants of the Hizbos or a conequence of increased IDF frustration with the air campaign results. We don't really know how badly banged up the Hizbos are.

In the midst of all doom and gloom constantly pouring out from Lebanon other journalists report that you can hardly notice the war as long as you stay out of Hizbostan. With the exception of the occational strike in the north, like the TV & radio masts, the only exposure most non-shiite seem to have to the war is refugees and media and smoke colums in the distance.

What the fuck are you talking about? You do know that the Israelis have bombed villages, levelled entire blocks of flats in central Beirut, the Christian cities of Amchit and Junieh were bombed last week, the Israelis have bombed roads and bridges and then told the population to leave. Who are these nameless reporters anyway?

[Axis Kast]

Walt & Mearsheimer spelled it out chapter and verse in a very nice summary.

Then I’m sure you’d be glad to reference some of the evidence they supposedly provided. You know, as opposed to restating your original premise over and over again.

Deliberately pissing off hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims is not in the best interest of any country, including Uncle Sam.

Which is why we don’t endeavor to deliberately anger Arabs.

The funny thing is, before we started answering "How high?" every time Tel Aviv said "Jump!", we had pretty good relations with the Arabs.

This is the point at which you provide evidence to substantiate your harebrained constructions of the American relationship with Israel. Everyone’s waiting.

Being joined at the hip to Israel isn't the only thing we do that causes the Arabs and Muslims to hate us, but it's one of the top ones -and we get nothing out of it!

Except that during the Cold War, our support for Israel helped them smash a number of Arab socialist regimes as we attempted to make the case before the rest of the world that close association with Moscow wasn’t the ideal means by which to build a modern state. Not to mention that much of our support for Israel – as in 1973, for example – was a byproduct of Cold War politics. We were bound to resupply their war effort if only to signal to other allies that the United States did not abandon passingly democratic nations to Soviet-sponsored regimes.

Except in the closing months of 1970, when the Israeli Defense Force mobilized on the border with Syria to help thwart its invasion of Jordan.

Except during the Six-Day and October Wars, when Israel delivered examples of Soviet weaponry to the United States for testing.

And except now, when Israel is giving what-for to Hezbollah, which has tried to infiltrate the United States in the not-so-distant past. You do remember that they were responsible for the Marine Barracks bombing in 1982, correct?

Saudi Arabia is going to attack another US client state? Rolling Eyes

What the fuck does this have to do with the argument, you deceptive little shit? You want evidence that Israel doesn’t always get its way. I pointed out that despite the firestorm of criticism heaped on the Reagan administration, the AWACS deal with Saudi Arabia went through. You then tried to hijack that line of thinking by making light of Israel’s concerns – for no other obvious reason than to avoid having to concede the point.

There's a difference between not getting your way 100% of the time and being seriously inconvenienced, peckerhead.

Israel doesn’t get its way one-hundred percent of the time. It does tend to get its way, however, when Washington believes that Israeli interests dove-tail with our own.

On September 6, 1941, GHW Bush was still a high school student at Andover.

September 6, 1991.

These were your best shots and you haven't shown a single goddamned thing GWH Bush or any other President has done to seriously inconvenience Israel. Shiiiiiiit, I can do better than that: By coddling expansionist fucktards in Israel, the US government helps to incite hatred and violent attacks against Israel, where a peaceful settlement and reparations has a better chance of calming things down. At least my example makes some kind of sense in a reverse psychology kind of way.

Except when President Johnson declined to deploy U.S. Navy ships to open the Straits of Tiran. Clearly, Israel does not determine everything we do.

Except when Henry Kissinger told Israel how it was going to play the game of international politics in autumn 1973, precluding the Israeli Defense Force’s destruction of an entire Egyptian army.

Except when Ronald Reagan sold AWACS technology to Saudi Arabia, which was decidedly antagonistic toward Israel at a time when there was still fear of encirclement by like-minded Arab regimes.

And except when George H.W. Bush shit all over Israeli maximalist hopes and dreams by helping remove them from government.

How did that seriously inconvenience Israel? Did the Israelis have to fight that army again after 1973?

They had to fucking stare at Egyptian troops over the fucking Suez – or some military line not far from it – until 1982, idiot.

Three times in a lifetime (with me being very generous). Halley's Comet comes around once in a lifetime, or one-third as often as the US seriously steps on Israel's toes.

It’s on you to prove that support for Israel has never dove-tailed with American interests. All of their wars after 1956 have served us in some way, with the exception of their 1982 invasion of Lebanon – which resulted in part from miscommunication with the Reagan administration.

And spared them the trouble of having to fight for themselves against Iraq. I'll bet the people of Darfur only wish the US would fight for them. Unlike the spoiled brat Likudniks (and their US fanwhores), they would be grateful enough to say thanks and not bitch about how they're put upon when someone fights their enemies for them.

Israel worried that the United States would not always be there for it, idiot. Why is it that when I point out faults in the premise that Israel has the United States in its back pocket, you start going off on tangents? At the time such decisions were made, the Israeli establishment was powerfully put off. Your commentary about how we made the “right call” is only more evidence that we can act independently to secure our interests.

There's no way any honest person could condone what Israel is doing in Lebanon and what the Turks are threatening to do in northern Iraq.

You can’t equate the two situations. The United States wants a high degree of cooperation from Kurdish leadership. It wishes to signal to Iraqis that the new government can guarantee their territory no matter which ethnic, cultural, tribal, or religious group happens to occupy it. Allowing Turkey to move ahead unhindered would do further damage to American credibility – especially in the north, where it has been better than elsewhere in the country.

By the opposite token, the United States is not attempting to win Lebanese hearts and minds at the current point in time.

They drop leaflets telling people to leave, then bomb the roads and bridges. This isn't Star Trek, dipshit. They can't just beam somewhere safe.

Because Hezbollah uses roads and bridges to mobilize its forces, idiot. How else is Israel supposed to restrict their movement? Bombing all the Warp Pipes in Lebanon?

And unless you can prove that Israel drops leaflets near-simultaneously to dropping bombs, we can say that it takes a hell of a lot more care about what it does than Hezbollah, which brazenly uses human shields.

Detailed in my first post.

Where? You mean your first post in our latest round of debate? Your first post in this thread? Your first post in this whole string of threads? Perhaps you’d be so kind as to specify and link?

If they thought their soldiers were in immediate danger, I could see them sending in SF to find and rescue them. What they're doing now almost guarantees they'll be killed.

Sending special forces in to extract regular soldiers under fire? Or extract Lebanese civilians? You’re not being clear.

Israel has continually indicated that Lebanese should leave areas near Hezbollah strongholds. It is also clear that they should avoid key pieces of infrastructure – ports, airports, energy plants, and military posts.

Of course, what with its captured soldiers and all, Israel was forced to act within a limited time-frame, requiring actions that did put civilians of the other side at risk. But that’s war.

Hezbollah won those seats in a US-approved election, dumbfuck. They weren't "given" anything.

By a country that then inherited responsibility for their actions, numbskull. Nothing was done, however, to make them an honest player. The Lebanese allowed them to operate effectively unimpeded, giving only lip service to the notion – laid down by the U.N. – that Hezbollah should be disarmed.

Israel first said they were just trying to get their soldiers back. Now they're talking about a buffer zone and setting Lebanon back 20 years.

I don’t see any soldiers being returned.

And that “buffer zone” isn’t being handed to the SLA or the IDF. Israel is looking to turn it over to the Lebanese army. It just did the dirty work for them.

If Israel withdrew to the pre-June '67 borders, renounced all territorial claims against their neighbors and paid restitution to their victims, it would go a long way to pulling the rug out from under the Hezbollahs of the world.

That’s all the concessions. Hezbollah has vowed to destroy Israel. Powerful elements in HAMAS also refuse to recognize it as legitimate – meaning its right to exist.

Israel backed out of Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah’s raise d’etre was gone. Israel made the key concession that should have “pulled the rug out from under” them. Unfortunately, Hezbollah took Israel’s actions as a retreat and formulated a more ambitious goal: follow them back home across the border. You’re operating without so much as a reference to reality here, Elfdart.

So you think Aryan Sharon's plan for expanding it through the Jordan Valley is a good idea?

I’m pointing out that this wall has done what Israel said it was intended to do. It’s defending the lives of Israeli citizens. I can’t comment on specifics of whether or not it should go here or there. In general, however, the concept of a security barrier is apparently an effective one.

They finally pulled out of Gaza after how many years of trying to colonize it?

I see. So even when Israel does take positive action, it’s no good for you. Why the fuck, then, should they be enthusiastic about making any additional concessions when their critics can’t appreciate the original ones?

They finally gave up colonizing Gaza and moved their soldiers out (and then back in).

They moved their soldiers back in because Gaza’s new elected government is a terrorist organization that kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

And?

Where the fuck are the honest parties with which Israel can negotiate in good faith? You’re asking them to take blind leaps here – and then saying that it’s not good enough anyway because (1) it’s not the whole pie in one go, and (2) history still somehow justifies Israel’s continued misery.

After Israel decided to lock up thousands of Palestinians, including 300 minors.

Are you seriously contending that Hezbollah would not have acted if Israel hadn’t detained people? Where the fuck do you get your justifications? Hezbollah propaganda newspapers?!

A quote would be nice.

It would. Except I don’t have the magazine on hand – and I won’t have it for a week at least.

I never said it was.

Then stop acting as if Israel’s unilateral concessions can somehow make things better. They can’t. They left Gaza and Lebanon. Things worsened for us since they left Lebanon. They continued to worsen now that they’ve left Gaza.

The Lebanese began to hate us as early as 1958, when they perceived our entry into the country as an attempt to meddle.

Is it a false one, or just a claim that contradicts a UN settlement? There's a difference.

Prove that Lebanon ever occupied that land.

If that army keeps assaulting Gaza, yes.

The army has only been “assaulting” Gaza since the kidnapping, moron. Concession accepted.

Israel has made no serious concessions since they gave Sinai back to Egypt. They pulled their squatters out of Gaza just recently, but they keep sending in tanks and troops.

Because people keep being killed. Backing out of Lebanon was a serious concession also, idiot. Look what it meant for Hezbollah.

You seem to operate under this idiotic notion that if only Israel makes all the concessions on the table right away, it’ll win goodwill – and if it doesn’t, at least it’ll have the moral high ground if the terrorism continues.

They built a Lebensraum Wall to cut up the West Bank (which is like one homeowner building a fence -presumably to protect his property- that cuts right through his neighbor's yard and house) and proposed to build another farther east (to get the rest of that neighbor's house and yard). If they quit pulling this kind of shit and made clear they won't do it in the future the Palestinians and Lebanese wouldn't be in a position where they have nothing to lose and only want to take a few Israelis with them when they blow shit up.

They built a wall when the Palestinian Authority wouldn’t or couldn’t act.

[Elfdart]

Israel has already invaded Lebanon and Syria has done nothing, nor could they do much of anything. I call bullshit.

[MKSheppard]

Except when President Johnson declined to deploy U.S. Navy ships to open the Straits of Tiran. Clearly, Israel does not determine everything we do.

Except when Henry Kissinger told Israel how it was going to play the game of international politics in autumn 1973, precluding the Israeli Defense Force’s destruction of an entire Egyptian army.

Except when Ronald Reagan sold AWACS technology to Saudi Arabia, which was decidedly antagonistic toward Israel at a time when there was still fear of encirclement by like-minded Arab regimes.

And except when George H.W. Bush shit all over Israeli maximalist hopes and dreams by helping remove them from government.

Don't forget 1956, when we told everyone involved in the beatdown of Egypt:

France, Great Britain, and Israel to stop doing it or else we would be most displeased.

In fact, that is when Israel began to distance itself from it's former European allies; the IAF at that point had a very large French component in it in french-supplied aircraft.

[CJvR]

There was an article on a Swedish news site ( forgot which one, sorry ) from Eastern Beirut regarding the bombing of some TV masts in Maronite territory. If I find it again I will post a link for you.

[Broomstick]

While stumbling about under the influence of insomnia around 2:30 am, the Other Half and I overheard something on CNN about both Lebanon and Isreal saying they'd consent to a mulit-national force along their mutual border, but Hezbollah saying no way.

Hm. That's interseting.

Of course, Hezbollah's avowed goal is not a cease fire with Isreal but rather an elmination of Israel. So I see a certain logic there, along with the stupidity.

Anyone have further details/update?

[Keevan_Colton]

While stumbling about under the influence of insomnia around 2:30 am, the Other Half and I overheard something on CNN about both Lebanon and Isreal saying they'd consent to a mulit-national force along their mutual border, but Hezbollah saying no way.

Hm. That's interseting.

Of course, Hezbollah's avowed goal is not a cease fire with Isreal but rather an elmination of Israel. So I see a certain logic there, along with the stupidity.

Anyone have further details/update?

Latest totals:

At least 362 Lebanese, many of them civilians, and 37 Israelis - about half of them civilians - have been killed since the violence erupted 13 days ago.

The 10:1 ratio seems to be holding.

[Edi]

Elfdart and Axis Kast, could you like, maybe, summarize those novel-length posts? And get to the fucking point already?

I don't mind reading a long post if it says something or needs to be long to make a point, but endless rounds of sniping one-liners is just crap.

Umm, Broomstick? This is Axis Kast and Elfdart we're talking about, after all. It's the MO of both to use that tactic in any debates they participate in. Never mind when they go up against each other. Don't get your hopes up.

Edi

[Ubiquitous]

There is talk that Israel has said it would allow an EU peacekeeping force to patrol the boarder. Can I take it there is a consensus from my fellow Brits that there is NO WAY IN HELL we want to see our troops in that goddamm hell hole?

[CJvR]

The EU leader who send troops there needs to have his head examined. A peace keeping force worth the name will be at war with the Hizbos in a week, one not worth the name will be ignored by the IDF in a month.

[Dartzap]

There is talk that Israel has said it would allow an EU peacekeeping force to patrol the boarder. Can I take it there is a consensus from my fellow Brits that there is NO WAY IN HELL we want to see our troops in that goddamm hell hole?

Arnt the majoirty of our proper troops in Iraq/Afganistan anyway? We're hardly going to send in the TA in on their own are we?

[Uraniun235]

Uh... to bring up a fresh gobbet of meat....

My Other Half just wandered into the room and said Hezbollah is hiding katusha rockets in mosques. Is that true?

If you ask me, you stick something like that in a mosque (or church) it's no longer holy ground. Do these fuckers think it's like the Highlander, where you can attack someone, run off to "holy ground" and go neener, neener - can't touch me! ??

Or do they think the rest of the world is that fucking stupid, that we wouldn't see the logic in torching a place of worship that's been converted into a rocket launcher or artillery position?

Or do they think God will give them a +4 Shield of Protection for doing shit like that?

They think, quite rightly, that even if there was recorded, televised footage of them storing artillery rockets in a mosque, and that mosque being subsequently attacked with the rockets still inside, that there would still be people throughout the world who would be outraged at the people who attacked the mosque.

[Uraniun235]

edit, fuck:

Not to mention that in the more likely event, i.e. no such footage existing, there would be even more people who would immediately cry that there probably weren't any rockets in there and that this was obviously an attack on civilians for the sake of attacking civilians.

[Master of Cards]

There is talk that Israel has said it would allow an EU peacekeeping force to patrol the boarder. Can I take it there is a consensus from my fellow Brits that there is NO WAY IN HELL we want to see our troops in that goddamm hell hole?

Arnt the majoirty of our proper troops in Iraq/Afganistan anyway? We're hardly going to send in the TA in on their own are we?

no