The Israeli Mistake

[storealex]

I have never in my life heard of a country (before now) carpet-bombing a country over 2 hostages. This is insanely over the top and demonstrates a kind of Zionist fascist ideology I would call Zionazism.

As Izeblaze wrote several times now, the kidnapped solderis is only part of the reason why the bombings occur, and it is not carpetbombings, but strategic bombings, which kills far less. We haven't seen thousands of dead in a single bombingraid yet.

 

[mango20022002]

As Izeblaze wrote several times now, the kidnapped solderis is only part of the reason why the bombings occur, and it is not carpetbombings, but strategic bombings, which kills far less. We haven't seen thousands of dead in a single bombingraid yet.

They have destroyed 63 bridges and 5,000 homes. Doesn't look very strategic or targeted to me. I think the Defence Minister let the cat out of the bag at the press-conference yesterday when he referred to what a shame it was that Lebanon was in the state it was and that it wouldn't be if it did what Israel said. Aha...

 

[Asclepius]

[...]
I can tell you that Israel did not target the UN compound in purpose. I can't tell you why, though (and not because I don't know why). You (again) will just have to take my word for it.

Even if you were a member of the artillery battalion that conducted the shelling in 1996, I fail to see why I should take your word above that of Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Dutch Army who conducted the UN inquiry and came to the conclusion it was deliberate.

(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.


While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.

I don't want to hijack your thread with this so I suggest we leave it here as I don't believe this can be debated at all. The report is quite clear.

 

[storealex]

They have destroyed 63 bridges and 5,000 homes. Doesn't look very strategic or targeted to me. I think the Defence Minister let the cat out of the bag at the press-conference yesterday when he referred to what a shame it was that Lebanon was in the state it was and that it wouldn't be if it did what Israel said. Aha...

Obviously you have no idea what carpetbombing is. Carpetbombing is dropping bombs out very close to each other, so that they will land in a carpet, and level entire areas of housing. You don't carpetbomb a bridge for an example, you target the bridge. 5000 homes and 300 dead in two weeks, spread out in different locations all over Libanon is not carpetbombing. 25.000 dead overnight in Dresden, now that is carpetbombing. Sorry, but let's get the terms right.

 

[eyrei]

This thread started off very well, and thanks to the opening poster for that. Let's keep it that way please. I notice a few of you starting to revert to the flaming and trolling that have characterized most other threads on this topic. Please cease that behavior so we might have a good discussion. Thanks. Eyrei.

 

[IceBlaZe]

It's good to see an Israeli who thinks for him self, and dosn't try to justify everything his country ever did, just because he happens to be from that country, as indeed many others on these boards seems to do.

As to why Hizbullah fight and why they have support, Im sure the reasons that you stated is a part of the explanation, but I think the main reason is the continuing suffering and unsatisfying conditions of the Palestinians. Many have lived in refugeecamps for decades now. In the West Bank, the settlements are consolidated behind the wall, a wall which continues to take more land from the Palestinians and give it to Israel. When sympathy for the Palestinians is so great in Europe, how great do you think it is among Arabs? Enough to fight for? Most certainly.

If you are asking me, most certainly not.
There is a very thick line between sympathy and motivation to kill yourself for another population. You won't see many Europeans strapping bombs to their chests and going ka-boom inside an Israeli bistro.

There is a need to draw a line, especially in the case of leaders in the Arab society of today, between what is said and what is actually being done.
Arab leaders until today showed no sympathy for the Palestinian refugee. Why? Because their hatred (of the refugees) is a good tool.
Hizbullah (or was it the regular lebanese people, I can't recall) at first was happy that Israel is going to banish the Palestinian terror organizations out of Lebanon. It did not help those organizations, it wanted them out, it wanted to control them. Now the remains of all these organizations are under the umbrella of Hizbullah. Not one action is taken by them without direct authorization of the Hizbullah. Again, they are used as a tool.

Also, the occupation, as it is referred, started circa 1967. When was the first action of Hizbullah?
The second, more violent intifada erupted in 2000. A little bit after Israel retreated from Lebanon. But the six years from 2000 to 2006 were of relative calm between Israel and Hizbullah. An action here, an action there - but certainly not the actions you'd expect if anyone at the Hizbullah really actually cared about the Palestinians. Hizbullah would never risk even the slightest of its interests for the Palestinians. In times of serious conflict and IDF operation in the territories, you see Hizbullah acting very "gently", in order not to risk itself or Lebanon. I remember only one katyusha rocket landing inside Israel in the time between 2000 to 2006 (probably there were more, but that's what I remember), the 6 most violent years between the Palestinians and Israel.
Taking just this into consideration, I don't understand why you think Hizbullah acts for the Palestinians. Sure, declaring so is popular, it "sells", if you understand what I mean. That's why everyone talks about the Palestinians in the Arab world, because the problem is the focus of media attention in the middle east. It is your cheapest way to "show strength" of the "troubles" of the Arab world. Of course, a large part of the Arab population in the ME believes the root of trouble in the ME is the Israeli problem.
Some think how nice it could be if they would do "hocus pocus" and Israel would dissapear. It is a comfortable belief, it is what their leaders want them to believe. Because that way, their anger is going towards Israel, America, everyone just not their own leaders.

 

[ArneHD]

A bit off topic, but I can see a reason for why Israel would bomb the UN (bunker? What sort of instalation was it?) instalation. They would create international pressure and could that way withdraw WITHOUT being seen as military loosers, the Hizbollha can't take the honor and the arab nations might view the west with more sympathy. In addition Israel gets to make it's point that attacking Israel is a bad idea.

On another note, I would recomend reading Time. They have had some exellent articles on the conflict recently.

 

[mango20022002]

A bit off topic, but I can see a reason for why Israel would bomb the UN (bunker? What sort of instalation was it?) instalation. They would create international pressure and could that way withdraw WITHOUT being seen as military loosers, the Hizbollha can't take the honor and the arab nations might view the west with more sympathy. In addition Israel gets to make it's point that attacking Israel is a bad idea.

On another note, I would recomend reading Time. They have had some exellent articles on the conflict recently.

Maybe it was punishment for Kofi's comments on "collective punishment"?

 

[Homie]

I have never in my life heard of a country (before now) carpet-bombing a country over 2 hostages. This is insanely over the top and demonstrates a kind of Zionist fascist ideology I would call Zionazism.

What are you talking about "2 hostages"? You don't think the constant shelling of Northern Israel has something to do with it? That they are going in to take out the ones that keep killing them from across the border?

Oh shut up Homie! You can take your patronising "It's so obvious" tone and stick it.

Do you know what the stated goal was for IRA? Complete unification of Ireland. But IRA gained much support and justification due to the bad treating of Catholics in Northern Ireland. People suffered under British tyrany, and that made them fight. Once justice and fairness was introduced into Northern Ireland, IRA support dwindled until the point where only a few hardcore fundies still wanted to fight.

The same thing here. Sure their stated goal is extreme and unrealistic (Like the IRA goal) but don't fool your self into believing that Hizbullah support would continue to rise, once the living conditions of the Palestinians would become somewhat bearable. Take away peoples reason to hate you, and guess what - most of the people will stop hating on you...

See, this is where you are wrong though. Israel isn't making life horsehockey for Palestinians, if so, what exactly are they doing? The only thing Israel ever does is to protect its citizens from being killed by the Arabs. The hatred for Israel is not due to "poor living conditions" its due to old school blood feud. Meaning that they hate them simply because they are Israelis and not Arab muslims.

Israel is a Western style country in many ways. And we know that our (Western) style of running a country creates more wealth and higher living standards. Just because Arabs do not have this style of country, do not mean they can kill the Israelis for having it. Israel is not the cause of the Palestinian economic situation.

 

[mango20022002]

See, this is where you are wrong though. Israel isn't making life horsehockey for Palestinians, if so, what exactly are they doing? The only thing Israel ever does is to protect its citizens from being killed by the Arabs. The hatred for Israel is not due to "poor living conditions" its due to old school blood feud. Meaning that they hate them simply because they are Israelis and not Arab muslims.

They hate them because the Jews came in and stole their land.

Israel is a Western style country in many ways. And we know that our (Western) style of running a country creates more wealth and higher living standards. Just because Arabs do not have this style of country, do not mean they can kill the Israelis for having it. Israel is not the cause of the Palestinian economic situation

Don't know of other Western countries illegally occupying other countries and planting colonists there unlike Israel in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan.

 

[C~G]

Thank goddess we all read Eyrei's comment.
Don't know where this thread would have gone without it.

For IceBlaZe's introspection

 

[ainwood]

A bit off topic, but I can see a reason for why Israel would bomb the UN (bunker? What sort of instalation was it?) instalation.

http://www.nysun.com/article/36860

Annan's Claims On Casualties May Unravel

By BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
July 27, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan's initial accusation that Israel "deliberately" targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.

A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.

A senior U.N. peacekeeping operation official who briefed the press yesterday, however, said that on the day the deaths occurred, the only "known Hezbollah activity was 5 kilometers away."The official's briefing was conditioned on anonymity, but the undersecretary-general for peacekeeping operations, Jane Holl Lute, supplied the Security Council with similar information at an earlier briefing yesterday.

"To our knowledge, unlike the vicinity of some of our other patrol bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity" of the base that was hit Tuesday.

Based on reporting by the U.N.'s peacekeeping chief, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Mr. Annan alleged in Rome Tuesday that the incident was an apparent "deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon." Although Mr. Annan began to backtrack yesterday, his spokeswoman, Marie Okabe, said he stood by the accusation.

Personally, I think this muddies the issue - not clarifies it though.

 

[Sidhe]

Well Uillers and the OP have really informed me, I've read other forums where Israelis are simply not questioning what is happening, and it's frustrating to read the ideas that are so partisan, which I know aren't majority ideas, but more the usual kneejerk reactions; I think I'll stick to this thread in future, because frankly trying to explain simple morality and logic to people who can't be bothered to look deep into a situation is a fruitless task.

I am not well informed, or knowledgable on the issues, but I try, and I'm hoping this thread will inform and educate me and more importantly those who seem to post biased trolling with no perspective, it's like a revelation, to actually find something informed you can really come to grips with. Most of my questions have been proposed, so I await the responses. all.

 

[boarder]

Thank you for answering my questions, its a really good insight.
Take care out there.

 

[Uiler]

Anyway, I've been reading news articles and there are speculations that if fighting continues to drag on, it is very possible that the Iraqi Shi'ites could rise up to support their fellow coreligists in Lebanon. I wonder if America would be willing to lose Iraq in order to attempt to destroy Hizbollah.