MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict

[yolland]

You must like every terror organization.

Please let it go. Her post wasn't aimed at you.

 

[nbcrusader]

Does This Apply To Others?

Dean Calls Iraqi PM an 'Anti-Semite'

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel.

Al-Maliki has condemned Israel's offensive, prompting several Democrats to boycott his address to a joint meeting of Congress and others to criticize him. Dean's comments were the strongest to date.

"The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite," the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. "We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

Is the DNC out of whack, or does this condemnation apply to many other people as well???

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Does This Apply To Others?

[BIs the DNC out of whack, or does this condemnation apply to many other people as well??? [/B]

i think it's a not-terribly-well-formulated criticism of Bush's Iraq "policy" -- that Arab democracy can bring into office people who might make the region even more dangerous than it already is.

Dean commented further:

[q]"failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raises serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East."
[/q]

 

[AliEnvy]

Re: Does This Apply To Others?

Originally posted by nbcrusader Is the DNC out of whack, or does this condemnation apply to many other people as well???

It probably does but to use a broad brush and paint everyone critical of Israel's actions as anti-semitic is about as transparent and credible as it was to call people opposed to the war in Iraq unAmerican 3 years ago.

The further Israel pursues a military agenda in Lebabnon the more likely it will face an Iraqi-style insurgence and make Hezbollah even stronger over time.

 

[verte76]

I think the DNC is terribly out of whack. You can't say that anyone who opposes Israeli policy is an anti-Semite. I oppose Irael's attacks on Lebanon. I do not oppose Israel's right to exist or to defend itself within reasonable parameters, but it's gone way too far.

 

[STING2]

but this is precisely the point. this is why Israel's tactics are doomed to fail in the long run and why Hezbollah (or any terrorist organization that implants within the local population) has actually defeated Israel, or whoever, with this particular move. this is why bombing is such a bad idea -- innocent civilians die, because hezbollah wants them to die, because dead 6 year olds killed by Israeli bombs mean more recruits. Israel is doing Hezbollah's recruiting work for them. violence begets violence. in some ways, it's very simple.




but why are they bombing the regular Lebanese army north of Beirut if their real enemy is Hizbullah, a southern Shiite paramilitary? why are they bombing radio relay stations?
again, it's HILARIOUS that you compare each and every single conflict to WW2, as if these are even remotely comparable. does the word "distinction" mean anything to you? how about "nuance"? it's not that i think Hezbollah should be allowed to use roads (way to re-frame the question and ignore the issue) and that i don't think civilians in Beirut should suffer enormous damage to infrastructure that will foment a humanitarian crisis.






hmmm ... guess not. check out Yolland's post.




and we'll all go back to 1982, and the Israeli population will be bled by another prolonged occupation that will engender the hatred of Israel in yet another generation of Arabs. the only way this conflict can end is for the Lebanese state to be strengthened so that it has a hope of dealing with Hizbullah. Israel's actions are not strengthening the Lebanese state and are making average Israeli's less safe in the long run.

No, its really not the simple, or Israel would have been wiped off the map decades ago. Its true that insurgency's are difficult to fight, contain or defeat, but sometimes this is the only option. Terrorist or insurgence hug the civilian population and use the civilian population as a way to shield themselves from a military organization like the IDF that is unwilling to use indiscriminate military force to accomplish its objectives. But, remove the population from the equation and the insurgents are have little if any way to defend themselves and can quickly be defeated.

By pushing the entire civilian Lebanese population from a 20 mile area from the Lebanon/Israely border, the IDF will be able to establish an effective buffer zone that will mean that 98% of Hezbollah's rockets are out of range of Israel. Between 1982 and 2000, Israel did have a buffer zone, but they did not clear the civlian population from the area, which allowed for an insurgent movement to always be present. Clear a 20 mile area of any civilians, and no insurgent movement will be possible. The only people in the zone will be the IDF, and anyone else would be regarded as an insurgent. The rules of engagement become easy for the IDF, and Hezbollah will find it nearly impossible to go up against the IDF without a civilian population to hide behind.

With Israeli towns secure from the vast majority of rockets, and the northern population is not staying close to the shelters and going about their daily lives, Israel would have accomplished its most immediate objective which is the safety of its citizens in the North. The IDF will be in firm control of a buffer zone or "no mans land" with only IDF members allowed to come an go.

Under these conditions, a negotiated settlement can be attempted. Lebanenese infrustructure can be rebuilt, and work on political, economic and military development can continue. If Hezbollah will agree to disarm, Israel will leave the buffer zone and have it filled with a NATO or UN force that is robust and ready to fight, like the forces that were deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo were. The civilian population that once lived in the buffer zone can then return. But if these conditions are not met, then the IDF will hold onto the buffer zone indefinitely.





In the IDF's bombing campaign, they are going to hit any area that is being used by Hezbollah for supplies or from where they are firing missiles. Hezbollah uses civilian neighborhoods in Beirut to fire missiles. That is why the IDF has struck back at these area's and also hit area's where the Lebanese military is stationed and where the UN is stationed. Hezbollah fires from these area's hoping that it will protect them or at the very least cause Israel political difficulties when they miss.



Any military conflict, whether it took place 2,000 years ago, 60 years ago, or 3 years ago will often have lessons, parallels to conflicts today in terms of specific things like military strategy etc. The importance of logistics to any military force, whether it be Napolean's grand army in Europe, Hitler's army in France in 1944, Saddam's military in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or even Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 are dependent upon supplies in order to continue several of their operations. It is true that a military organization like Hezbollah is more decentralized and prepared for being cut off from logistical support then a larger more conventional military would be, but the fundamentals remain the same. If Iran is really the big supplier and supporter of Hezbollah as everyone claims that it is, the interdiction of key supply routes into Lebanon is vital to insuring that such supplies is stopped from reaching Hezbollah or substantially reduced. That is why hitting the roads, hitting the birdges, closing down the airport, closing the sea ports, is important to the operation. No it won't stop Hezbollah from fighting, but over time it will degrade their ability to fight.

No one wants the civilians in Lebanon to suffer a humanitarian crises anymore than the United States wanted the people of Afghanistan to suffer or in Iraq to suffer as a result of military operations in their back yard. As bad as living in Northern France in 1944 under Nazi control may have been, it got a lot worse for French civilians as the Allies invaded in the summer of 1944. 20,000 dead civilians within days of the beach landings and a humanitarian crises that would dwarf anything that we have seen in Iraq or Lebanon today. In both cases, the Allies in 1944 in France, or the Israeli's in 2006 in Lebanon, both military forces did not want to harm a single civilian and did everything in their power at the time to reduce that amount of damage to civilians that came as a result of targeting the enemy.


I read Yollands post and there are plenty of inaccurate statements and assumptions in the article.



Israel can occupy Lebanon if it needs to for the next 100 years. Israel lost 2,700 troops and over 7,000 wounded in the Yom Kipper war of 1973 which only lasted 20 days! Thats 135 troops killed per day. The occupation of Lebanon by comparison which lasted 20 years only caused the deaths of 675 Israeli soldiers or about 1 soldier every 10 days. It terms of casualties, it was far less costly then several of the wars Israel had fought previous to the conflict, and protected the Israeli population from attacks during the time when the occupation zone extended far enough into Lebanon to keep rockets and other types of attacks out of range.

Many people in Israel criticized the pull out of Lebanon in 2000. Proponents predicted Hezbollah would stop fighting and Israel would have peace on their northern border. They were wrong. They were also wrong when they predicted that the Syrians and Palestinians were ready to negotiate deals to end the conflict. Israel gave both groups 95% of what they wanted, and the rejected the peace deals. Israel has been willing to negotiate and compromise on just about every single issue you can think of, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and the Syrians have rejected every peace proposal and offer from 1948 to today.

From 2000 to 2006, without Israeli interference in Lebanon, Hezbollah grew in both size and strength. The Hezbollah forces in Lebanon today are far better equiped and trained than at any time during the Israeli occupation. Their numbers are also larger than they were during the occupation. This is what withdrawal has brought Israel. Hezbollah has gone from being a terrorist/insurgent force to being nearly a professional military force with capabilities comparable to some of the regional military forces.

Israel would prefer a strong Lebanon that is able to exercise complete control over its territory, but the reality is that it is light years away from being able to do that, and 6 years of Israel being out of Lebanon has made Hezbollah stronger, NOT weaker. Hezbollah must be disarmed if there is ever to be a strong Lebanese government and military that will be able to control and police its own territory.

That is what is needed for the long term. In the short term though, Israel has far more important and pressing matters to think about like the lives of its people which are threatened by the constant barrage of Hezbollah rockets coming into Israel. Ending the rocket threat to northern Israeli towns is and should be the immediate goal of the IDF. In addition, Hezbollah must be weakened from a military standpoint. It has had 6 years to equip itself with a vast arsenal of weapons, and will not be very amenable to negotiations until it is weakened in this respect and is unable to inflict the level of terror and damage it is currently able to inflict on the Israeli population.

Even Anti-Iraq War democrats have come out in support of Israel's current response to Hezbollah. The fact is, conditions on the ground must be changed in order for a negotiated settlement to work and for Lebanon to be able to progress into the future. It will not work as long as Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and rocketing Israeli towns when ever they feel like it.

Israel is prepared to live with a democratic and prosperous Lebanon or a Lebanon that is a failed state. In each situation, Israel will insure its security and its peoples way of life as it has done so successfully despite all the odds since 1948. Israel's will never compromise the lives of its citizens for naive and foolish peace deals that will never hold up or accomplish their aims. Israel has successfully negotiated from a position of strength in the past and that is what it will do in the future. Israel took the Egyptian Sinai during the Yom Kipper War of 1973 and did not give it back until many years later when a lasting peace deal on Israel's terms was signed.

Stop the rocketing of Israeli towns, weaken Hezbollah's military strength in terms of equipment, create a buffer zone in South Lebanon, and then you will have set the conditions under which a negotiated settlement will have a chance of being approved and holding. If Hezbollah refuses to negotiate, then Israel can continue to bomb what ever remains of its military forces without Israeli towns being rocketed since the buffer zone would have pushed the vast majority of Hezbollah rockets out of range. Israel has proven over the past 58 years that it can live with what ever the Arab world wants to throw at them.

 

[STING2]

[/B]

Read up on what the IDF accomplished in its wars fighting Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries at the same time, and you won't be surprised at all by what Israel can do from a military standpoint went it puts the full weight of its forces into the operation. Israel may only have a population of 6,000,000, but upon full mobilization of its reserves, Israel can deploy a military force of over 600,000 troops using some of the most advanced weapons in the world.

 

[STING2]

Wow, this is a really short-sighted perspective on what Hezbollah is about (and capable of). Do you really not see the bigger picture here?

With al-Zawahiri's blessing, Sunnis and Shiites can now put aside their differences and focus their effort and energy on their real Zionist, imperialist enemies.

One step further toward a united Islam and Israeli and American governments seem to be playing right into it at every turn like brainless bullies who can't control their tempers when poked ...why???

I see the bigger picture, but Israel is concerned about the immediate safety of its citizens. Their going after rockets that are being fired right now as we speak into their cities.

Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon has only made Hezbollah stronger. The rocket threat must be ended, Hezbollah weakened from a military standpoint, and a buffer zone established before one can even think of addressing the longer term issues through negotiations and the deployment of UN or NATO troops.

Al-Zawahiri has more video's than U2, but that does not change the fact that his organization has been unable to strike the soil of its declared enemy for 5 years, has been unable to do anything about the destruction and removal of its headquarters in Afghanistan or the detention of many of its key leaders. All talk, and no action. Its not the first time Al-Zawahiri has made such statements.

 

[maycocksean]

It seems like most of the time people are just arguing past each other.

I think everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself (though some posters keep insisting that any criticism of Israel's actions means that critics want Israel to "lay down").

I think everyone also agrees that Israel is not actively TRYING to kill civilians. They have, however, chosen military actions that engender a fair number of civilian casualities and a great deal of damage to civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. For, Israel, this is unfortunate, but a necessary cost of getting the job done.

The issue is the methods Israel has chosen. What Israel has chosen to do, as far as I can tell, is to engage in standard conventional warfare against Lebanon. They are taking on the country of Lebanon as a whole as the most practical, and simplest way to deal with Hezbollah. Sure, they could have taken less "invasive" methods. Special forces strikes, assassinations, etc, but this would have taken more time, and possibly but Israeli military in more danger. But why bother with that, when a broader, more powerful campaign could get the better results more quickly. Israel knows that it has a lot of leeway with it's most powerful ally, the United States. The U.S. is never seriously going to do anything to stop them, and Israel has a thick skin when it comes to hand wringing and "hey, guys, guys, isn't that a little excessive." They're willing to endure a little whining from the rest of the world while they go ahead and do what they feel they need to do.

The issue is this: is Israeli taking on Lebanon as a whole the best way for them to deal with Hezbollah. Israel seems to think so. I'm not so sure.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: Re: Does This Apply To Others?

i think it's a not-terribly-well-formulated criticism of Bush's Iraq "policy" -- that Arab democracy can bring into office people who might make the region even more dangerous than it already is.

Dean commented further:

[q]"failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raises serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East."
[/q]

As opposed to the supposed fact that Iraq now has a "puppet regime" in place

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Does This Apply To Others?

As opposed to the supposed fact that Iraq now has a "puppet regime" in place

i don't understand the question.

 

[A_Wanderer]

On one hand we have accusations that the US has emplaced a regime to do the bidding of the US and Israel - now how can this be reconciled when there is evidence pointing to the opposite?

 

[Irvine511]

On one hand we have accusations that the US has emplaced a regime to do the bidding of the US and Israel - now how can this be reconciled when there is evidence pointing to the opposite?

but it is not the same source making these two accusations. what needs to be reconciled?

or could it be that the US would like to install a regime that would do it's bidding, but the rub with democracy is that you don't always get what you want or what the country and/or the region might need.

now there's a quandry.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think everyone also agrees that Israel is not actively TRYING to kill civilians. They have, however, chosen military actions that engender a fair number of civilian casualities and a great deal of damage to civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. For, Israel, this is unfortunate, but a necessary cost of getting the job done.

I'm not sure I share your optimism. When I see accusations of war crimes, the suggestion is that civilians are intentionally targeted.

 

[maycocksean]

I'm not sure I share your optimism. When I see accusations of war crimes, the suggestion is that civilians are intentionally targeted.

Well, granted there is the occasional poster that indulges in hyperbole,and it is certainly not helpful to reasoned discussion.

But hyperbole is easy, sounds snappy, and is also easier to argue against which is why it appears here. (I often find that when we all debate on these threads we tend to go after the opponents weakest argument and ignore the stronger ones).

But, I also think there is a tendency to "paint" the other side with a brush of our choosing. If someone says "I think Israel is doing what they have to do" then we paint them with the accusation "you don't care about civilian deaths." On the other hand, if someone says "I don't think Israel is showing enough restraint in their attacks and civilians are dying as a result" the other side paints that as "You're saying Israel is intentionally targeting civilians."

I think most of the posters here don't believe Israelis are intentionally trying to target civilians. However, many of the posters here do think, that Israel is not overly concerned with "collateral damage" right now, and the argument is that they should be.

 

[maycocksean]

the rub with democracy is that you don't always get what you want or what the country and/or the region might need.

Ah, therein lies the implicit danger, the risk of this thing called democracy. We'd all prefer it if only the right kinds of people voted for the "right kinds" of policy. (See voting thread started by nbc).

 

[Teta040]

The most potent comment I have read this week comes from a NYT editorial in which a seasoned ME diplomat spoke to a Jordanian official very recently. The official said: "Democracy is like toilet paper to these people [terrorist groups]. You use it once and then you throw it away.'"

As to what do I think of all this? I havbe been a faithful lurker for three weeks, my head is spinning..but as I write LONG posts, I will have it soon....

Personally, I'm beginning to think it would have been better for subsequent humanity if Hagar had done a "Loreena Bobbit" job on Father Abraham, Sarah should have sued him for divorce, and the old Patriarch should have gone back to Ur in Mesopotamia and took over his dad's old shop downtown and went back to the job he had as a kid: selling clay idols.....I wonder if God ever regrets His decision to get personally involved in any way in the affairs of His creation.....

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Western Media and Arab media have never shown such things as you described.

Switch off Fox News.

 

[Teta040]

Oh..PS STING: It's, um, "Israeli", not "Isrealy"....just a gentle reminder..learn to spell....lol

 

[verte76]

The issue is this: is Israeli taking on Lebanon as a whole the best way for them to deal with Hezbollah. Israel seems to think so. I'm not so sure.

Neither am I.

 

[Teta040]

You have to remember that among Arabs, traditionally, he who achieves prowess in battle and wins military victories is the most esteemed as a leader. In their culture, they are revered. The reason why Hizbollah has managed to get as polular as it has been before this started, was only because they were the first force since 1948 that got Israel to back down in a military campaign. They did what Nasser could not. And behind all the polite diplomatic and cultured statements made from Egyptian, etc leaders, etc, REMEMBER THAT. NONE of them is going to be contrubting to the weakening of Hizbollah after this. To the contrary, their eyes are being openend. They will "fight" Iran in public but from now on, if Israel is the one who blinks on this, you can damn well bet that they'll be passing bills under the table to keep these folks in business. They are THE ultimate answer to the destruction of the Jewish state....perhaps even nmore so than the birthrate.

This is a phsycological fight in that regard or the warring parties on that front as well...there is much more at stake here than last time in 82, or 78.

 

[nbcrusader]

The issue is this: is Israeli taking on Lebanon as a whole the best way for them to deal with Hezbollah. Israel seems to think so. I'm not so sure.

Is Israel really "taking on Lebanon" at all? It appears that they are targeting Hezbollah where ever they exist in Lebanon. I don't believe they have engaged the Lebanon military in any way.

Re-establishing the buffer zone would be an incomplete mission, as Hezbollah would continue to operate, train, plan and attack from outside the buffer zone.

 

[maycocksean]

Is Israel really "taking on Lebanon" at all? It appears that they are targeting Hezbollah where ever they exist in Lebanon. I don't believe they have engaged the Lebanon military in any way.

Re-establishing the buffer zone would be an incomplete mission, as Hezbollah would continue to operate, train, plan and attack from outside the buffer zone.

First a caveat. I've been traveling and so haven't followed the new closely so I may be misinformed on some of the most recent events.

But, bombing infrastructure, roads, bridges, airport. Sending troops, uninvited, into another sovereign country. Yeah, I think that's taking on the country as a whole. If they haven't yet engaged the Lebanese military, they probably will as the Lebanese gov. is not happy about what's happening and has even said (as posted here in this thread) that they will "fight back."

And your second paragraph actually supports my contention that indeed Israel finds it most practical to just engage in conventional warfare and engage the country as a whole.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Is Israel really "taking on Lebanon" at all? It appears that they are targeting Hezbollah where ever they exist in Lebanon. I don't believe they have engaged the Lebanon military in any way.

I don't think they've 'engaged' the military in the sense of actually fighting them, but they have attacked military bases. I would also call destroying plenty of civilian infrustructure a direct attack on Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. They've been knocking out power, water, communication and transport that effects far more than just Hezbollah.

 

[AliEnvy]

Read up on what the IDF accomplished in its wars fighting Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries at the same time, and you won't be surprised at all by what Israel can do from a military standpoint went it puts the full weight of its forces into the operation. Israel may only have a population of 6,000,000, but upon full mobilization of its reserves, Israel can deploy a military force of over 600,000 troops using some of the most advanced weapons in the world.

I have no doubts about that whatsoever. However, Iraq has demonstrated the effectiveness of a strong insurgency against the biggest badass military of them all.

Hezbollah was bound to take their shot at it as well and I'm sure Israel was waiting and prepared for even the slightest provocation.

If they have underestimated Hezbollah's capabilities the way the US underestimated Iraq...and so far that seems very possible...then we are headed down a long, very ugly road.

 

[AliEnvy]

I see the bigger picture, but Israel is concerned about the immediate safety of its citizens. Their going after rockets that are being fired right now as we speak into their cities.

Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon has only made Hezbollah stronger. The rocket threat must be ended, Hezbollah weakened from a military standpoint, and a buffer zone established before one can even think of addressing the longer term issues through negotiations and the deployment of UN or NATO troops.

The buffer zone is a great idea...but so was ousting Saddam Hussein.

If that can be accomplished without a prolonged occupation and strong insurgency, that is absolutely ideal. But my feeling is that Hezbollah is deliberately sucking Israel futher into a web at its own timing and choosing.

Al-Zawahiri has more video's than U2, but that does not change the fact that his organization has been unable to strike the soil of its declared enemy for 5 years, has been unable to do anything about the destruction and removal of its headquarters in Afghanistan or the detention of many of its key leaders. All talk, and no action. Its not the first time Al-Zawahiri has made such statements.

Unable or unwilling? Another big attack by al-Qaida on the west right now (particularly the US) would just create solidarity. Right now the divide and conquer approach is working pretty well for them so they're not going to randomly mess with it. Look beneath the rhetoric.

 

[AliEnvy]

NONE of them is going to be contrubting to the weakening of Hizbollah after this. To the contrary, their eyes are being openend. They will "fight" Iran in public but from now on, if Israel is the one who blinks on this, you can damn well bet that they'll be passing bills under the table to keep these folks in business. They are THE ultimate answer to the destruction of the Jewish state....perhaps even nmore so than the birthrate.

This is a phsycological fight in that regard or the warring parties on that front as well...there is much more at stake here than last time in 82, or 78.

I agree...the momentum that could be building right now is hugely disturbing and frightening.

 

[STING2]

You have to remember that among Arabs, traditionally, he who achieves prowess in battle and wins military victories is the most esteemed as a leader. In their culture, they are revered. The reason why Hizbollah has managed to get as polular as it has been before this started, was only because they were the first force since 1948 that got Israel to back down in a military campaign. They did what Nasser could not. And behind all the polite diplomatic and cultured statements made from Egyptian, etc leaders, etc, REMEMBER THAT. NONE of them is going to be contrubting to the weakening of Hizbollah after this. To the contrary, their eyes are being openend. They will "fight" Iran in public but from now on, if Israel is the one who blinks on this, you can damn well bet that they'll be passing bills under the table to keep these folks in business. They are THE ultimate answer to the destruction of the Jewish state....perhaps even nmore so than the birthrate.

This is a phsycological fight in that regard or the warring parties on that front as well...there is much more at stake here than last time in 82, or 78.

The moderate Arab governments are interested in a Palestinian State and they release Hizbollah's actions are not contributing to that which is why they came out and condemned them. Iran and Syria are the only countries supplying Hizbollah.

Hizbollah's true strength lies in being able to hide behind innocent Lebanese civilians. Without them, they would have been wiped out long ago. They kill people and terrorize Israel if given the opportunity provided by the Israeli pullout from Lebanon 6 years ago, but the establishment of a buffer zone will put an end to much of the ability to hit Israeli towns. Provided that Israel clears out all civilians from the buffer zone, Hizbollah will have no ability to seriously challenge Israel in such a zone.

Many Arabs believe that they defeated Israel in every war they have fought with them. Hizbollah never defeated the IDF from 1982 to 2000, unless of course you consider their mere survival hiding behind the civilian population to be a victory. Israel pulled out in 2000 to fullfil a UN Security Council Resolution and as an alternative strategy to the situation. It failed and were seeing the results of the Israeli pullout over the past two weeks. The Ultimate result is that Hizbollah is far stronger now than they ever were when Israel was occupying parts of Lebanon. The withdrawal in 2000 was a choice, not something Israel did out of necessity or because they had been defeated on the battlefield in some way.

 

[STING2]

Is Israel really "taking on Lebanon" at all? It appears that they are targeting Hezbollah where ever they exist in Lebanon. I don't believe they have engaged the Lebanon military in any way.

Re-establishing the buffer zone would be an incomplete mission, as Hezbollah would continue to operate, train, plan and attack from outside the buffer zone.

But this time, a buffer zone that is devoid of Lebanese civilians will be easier to maintain, and it will eliminate the immediate threat from 98% of the rockets that Hizbollah has in its arsenal. Hezbollah can certainly attack the buffer zone, but without a civilian population from which to operate from and hide behind, it becomes incredibly difficult for them to do much damage or infiltrate the buffer zone, much less be able to hit Israeli towns much further to the south.

That being said, it is not a final solution and I think this is where negotiation should be attempted to resolve the issues. A robust peacekeeping force that could fight Hezbollah if need be could be a result of such negotiations. Such a force could fill the buffer zone and allow the return of Lebanese civilians. Of course, Israel would have to agree to it, and their certainly not going to agree to something that is not much better than the current UN deployment. If the international community cannot come up with a solution, Israel can stay in the buffer zone indefinitly and continue to strike Hezbollah under favorable conditions than what we see on the ground currently. Hezbollah's ability to retaliate will be primarily limited to attempting to hit IDF forces in the buffer zone, a difficult task given the absence of a civilian population and limited ways of getting into the buffer zone without being detected and fired on by the IDF.

 

[STING2]

I don't think they've 'engaged' the military in the sense of actually fighting them, but they have attacked military bases. I would also call destroying plenty of civilian infrustructure a direct attack on Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. They've been knocking out power, water, communication and transport that effects far more than just Hezbollah.

When the Allies did the same thing to France in 1944, was it a direct attack on France?