Israel Attacks South Beirut

I just though I’d add an article which reaffirms some of the concerns expressed over Israel’s strategy. I recommend reading the link; it shows just how disproportionate and high the death toll is compared to other far bigger air campaigns.

Military analysts question Israeli bombing

Nearly 300 people, mainly civilians, have been killed, Lebanon's prime minister said. Analysts say Israel's targeting of civilian and government infrastructure overshadows its strikes on the offices and rocket launchers of Hezbollah guerrillas, whose capture of two Israeli soldiers triggered the attacks.

"This is a classic strategic bombing campaign," said Stephen Biddle, a former head of military studies at the U.S. Army War College now at the Council on Foreign Relations. "What the Israelis are trying to do is pressure others into solving their problem for them, hence the targeting of civilian infrastructure."

"The Israelis face their classic problem: They cannot punish Hezbollah, which has no physical structure to destroy," Alani said.

Instead, Israel is bombing Hezbollah's Shiite Muslim power base, leveling villages and office and apartment blocks in Shiite neighborhoods in the eastern Bekaa Valley, southern Lebanon and south Beirut.

Link

[edit on 20-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

It is indicative of a mentality that doesn’t support war, for any reason, ever.

Nonsense.
I support wars when they are necessary, and oppose them when they are not.

I am about as far from a kneejerk pacifist as you can get, if anything I am rather more inclined to violence than the average person. Certainly I've had the misfortune to see a lot of it in my life.

If Israel were retaliating against Hezbollah and it's launching sites in the south of Lebanon proper, I would be the last person to object, however they're not - they're clearly retaliating against the entire nation of Lebanon.

As far as my argument goes, the difference between "targeting civilians" and targeting someplace you know civilians are going to be is academic. Either way, you're knowingly targeting civilians.

[edit on 7/20/06 by xmotex]

I just read where Hezbollah have launched approximately 1,100 rockets into Israel since the current round of fighting in Lebanon commenced. That's a lot of rockets and the damn things aren't exactly little-bitty things either. Pre-positioning those weapons inside Lebanon took a lot of time (and a lot of storage space). The civilian population of Lebanon had to have known where such weapons were being kept and why, yet they did nothing about it. The same goes for Hezbollah offices and other facilities inside Lebanon--the civilians near them had to have known they were there, yet they didn't move away or insist that Hezbollah move away. The civilian populace also had to know that Israeli forces would target those weapons and those facilities if a serious shooting war erupted--which it has.

Why didn't the civilian population of Lebanon take any action(s) to lessen the risk of becoming casualities of war? Was it because Hezbollah threatened them with reprisals if they moved or put pressure on Hezbollah to move? Was it because they fully support Hezbollah's activities? Were they lied to about the risks? Were they compensated in some way to stay put and keep their mouths shut? Just what would it take to get mothers and fathers to knowingly accept such risks for their children?

I cannot in all honesty fault Hezbollah for locating their stuff where they did. Even though from a Western viewpoint it seems to show a callous disregard for human life, they aren't in the West and if placed in open areas they would not have lasted very long (the Israeli's are not noted for their submissiveness and acceptance of known threats to their population). At this stage, I can only conclude that some unknown factor, or factors, caused Lebanon's civilian population to accept the risks of death or injury to their children and loved ones.

Considering Hezbollah's dispersal strategy and the Lebanese acceptance of that strategy, the high number of civilian casualties is understandable. What is not understandable; however, is the systematic destruction of Lebanon's transportation, communications and support infrastructure by the IDF. (Israel has complete command of the sky and could target re-supply trucks and such as the need arose.) Such actions amount to shotgun punishment of the entire country and are the primary reason many, such as myself, feel the Israeli response to Hezbollah's activities are disproportionate.

Astronomer,

Considering Hezbollah's dispersal strategy and the Lebanese acceptance of that strategy, the high number of civilian casualties is understandable. What is not understandable; however, is the systematic destruction of Lebanon's transportation, communications and support infrastructure by the IDF. (Israel has complete command of the sky and could target re-supply trucks and such as the need arose.) Such actions amount to shotgun punishment of the entire country and are the primary reason many, such as myself, feel the Israeli response to Hezbollah's activities are disproportionate.

please let me explain.

For this attack Israel decided on the following course of action - Israel when conducting war likes to surprise so what they did is resort to a reverse strategy.

Instead of attacking the front line of Hezbullah which was well trenched in, Israel started by destroying Hezbullah logistic bases, command, supply routes and long range missiles. Israel knew that they had rockets on the front line in villages and in bunkers and their font lines were well fortefied. Although Israel did not know just how much they were well fortified.

Israel figured - let them get the first volleys off and then they'll exhaust their supply. I think that is what we are seeing now. Hezbullah had over 10,000 missiles which was supplied by you know who. Israeli estimates are that 50% has been exhausted or destroyed. Now the attempt is to keep it from reaching the south and hitting Israel and to allow Hizbullah to replenish its war machine - That is why roads, bridges, ports and airports were hit at the beginning.

Well ya know a civilian in Lebanon objecting to Hezbullah placing a missile battery in their olive grove is kinda like somebody objecting to the mafia burying Jimmy Hoffa on your property. Like who in their right mind is going to say no?

Originally posted by grover
Well ya know a civilian in Lebanon objecting to Hezbullah placing a missile battery in their olive grove is kinda like somebody objecting to the mafia burying Jimmy Hoffa on your property. Like who in their right mind is going to say no?

That some harm may befall the Muslim brother because he objects to the militarization of his home? That he might be killed for choosing not to cooperate with such an august organization? That his own family may be in danger from this group of good intent?

Point made, I dare say.

I am not implying anything I am stating baldly that most people put into that situition are not about to say no...odds are they aren't going to say anything, and odds are they would be correct...violent men are not to be trusted regardless of the side they are on.

Originally posted by grover
I am not implying anything I am stating baldly that most people put into that situition are not about to say no...odds are they aren't going to say anything, and odds are they would be correct...violent men are not to be trusted regardless of the side they are on.

Quite likely you are correct Grover, but I am not totally convinced that is the case. Besides, for the most part we are talking about facilities right next door, or above, or below where you live and raise your children--that's quite a bit different from putting a missile launcher in an olive grove. Seems to me many of them could have simply moved away, or if necessary sneaked off in the middle of the night--yet apparently they did not. Why? I would think the U.N. would know that people were being forced to live places against their will if that were the case. I am slowly coming around to the thought that the Lebanese were doing it willingly. It is difficult for me to believe responsible parents could do such a thing, but I just can't see any logical alternative at the moment.

If, and it's a mighty big if, the Lebanese people are willingly providing "human shield" like cover for the Hezbollah terrorists then those people are not exactly innocent civilians and they are getting just what they deserve, since under law they become accomplices to whatever Hezbollah does. That still does not excuse the wanton destruction of the communications, transportation, power, food & water infrastructure of Lebanon however. Given the complete military superiority of the IDF over Hezbollah, the IDF could have effectively prevented reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah without destroying everything an urban population needs to live.

It is becoming clear that Israel must invade Lebanon with ground forces if they are going to root out the Hezbollah terrorists and their facilities & weapons. Such an invasion will not be pretty. The ensuing destruction of much of southern Lebanon will result.

While I'm commenting, let me add that the sheer number of threads that have popped up on this subject is ridiculous. We don't need 50 forums to say the same things over and over.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by xmotex
If they were actually attacking Hezbollah, I'm not sure anyone would object.
But this is clearly a war against Lebanon in general - so far only a tiny minority of those killed have been associated with Hezbollah.

I think the reason they've been using air strikes is, because they're trying to avoid occupying Lebanon yet again. They already made a promise not to do that, so air strikes are the alternative they have decided to use. Sending in ground units would have been a far more effective way of getting rid of (or at least slowing down) Hezbollah. I think the Lebanese and Israeli government would have to come to an agreement on something that big. I won't claim I know much about all that is involved in this situation, but in my opinion it would benefit both countries if Israeli ground troops were sent into Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah face to face.

Originally posted by ragster
With 18 dead and more wounded Israel takes and offensive stand against Lebanon head on. Israel had begun yet another offensive strike earlier this morning, from land and from air. The Israeli attacks were aimed at southern Lebanese city of Tyre, where supposedly guerrillas were launching missiles into Israel.

the Lebanese are only getting the result of waht they started.

Also their "freedom fighters" don't wear uniforms and hide behind the ppl.. so when the news say "cicilian" killied.. you hae to wonder .. how mcuh of a "civilian" that person was. Ans the poor children.. well those as always have to pay for the adults's crap.

Originally posted by Astronomer70
If, and it's a mighty big if, the Lebanese people are willingly providing "human shield" like cover for the Hezbollah terrorists then those people are not exactly innocent civilians and they are getting just what they deserve, since under law they become accomplices to whatever Hezbollah does. That still does not excuse the wanton destruction of the communications, transportation, power, food & water infrastructure of Lebanon however. Given the complete military superiority of the IDF over Hezbollah, the IDF could have effectively prevented reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah without destroying everything an urban population needs to live.

It is becoming clear that Israel must invade Lebanon with ground forces if they are going to root out the Hezbollah terrorists and their facilities & weapons. Such an invasion will not be pretty. The ensuing destruction of much of southern Lebanon will result.

While I'm commenting, let me add that the sheer number of threads that have popped up on this subject is ridiculous. We don't need 50 forums to say the same things over and over.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Astronomer70]

I think you're beginning to get the picture of the Lebanese people. There is a majority of the population that, like us in the US, doesn't want a war, but they are never heard saying anything. Only the ones that are in support of Hezbollah are heard. I think that's due in large part to the fact that those that don't want war are in the process of relocating until the fighting ends.

I'd now like to add a small bit of information about the Lebanese military. It was mentioned quite a bit yesterday that if Israel moved across the border of Lebanon, that the Lebanese military would engage them in combat because of the incursion. I'd like to ask all here to help me understand why is it that the Lebanese government isn't doing anything to route out these terrorists in their own country?

To me, this lack of action speaks volumes of the mindset of the Lebanese government, and their loyalties. Assuming that the Lebanese government is allied with Hezbollah, doesn't that make Lebanon a terrorist state? And if that's true, is there any such thing as a "civilian casualty"?

TheBorg

As has been explained more than once in this forum, the Lebanese army is a small force of about 60,000, and simply doesn't have the strength to disarm Hezbollah. Second of all, any attempt to do so would reignite the Lebanese civil war. Lastly, Lebanon has no logical reason to take such risks solely for the benefit of Israel, a country that by its actions is clearly the enemy of all Lebanese, and not just Hezbollah.

To explore the "mindset of the Lebanese government", ask yourself this question: who are the enemies of Lebanon? Israel, which is currently bombing the stuffing out of Lebanon, or Hezbollah, which is not?

If I were Lebanese, I'd be asking Hezbollah where I sign up to go and fight my attackers, were I Muslim or not.

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

Good questions TheBorg. I don't have the answers. I suspect the Lebanese Army has not done anything to reign in Hezbollah because they realize they can't--if they want to survive. In all likelihood portions of the Army are themselves either Hezbollah or else Hezbollah sympathizers.

Originally posted by xmotex
As has been explained more than once in this forum, the Lebanese army is a small force of about 60,000, and simply doesn't have the strength to disarm Hezbollah. Second of all, any attempt to do so would reignite the Lebanese civil war. Lastly, Lebanon has no logical reason to take such risks solely for the benefit of Israel, a country that by its actions is clearly the enemy of all Lebanese, and not just Hezbollah.

To explore the "mindset of the Lebanese government", ask yourself this question: who are the enemies of Lebanon? Israel, which is currently bombing the stuffing out of Lebanon, or Hezbollah, which is not?

If I were Lebanese, I'd be asking Hezbollah where I sign up to go and fight my attackers, were I Muslim or not.

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

What happened to the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? If Lebanon were truly seeking peace, shouldn't they be more interested in finding a powerful ally to attain said peace from?

Also, if Lebanon honestly doesn't like Hezbollah, why did they tell Israel that they'd engage them in battle if they crossed the border? Why not sign a truce to help Israel with the search and apprehension of all of these terrorists? Wouldn't this help with the "roadway to peace" that's been so highly spoken of for the past 3 years? This all sounds to me like an elaborate way for the Lebanese government to claim anonymity in the confrontation when and if they get involved.

TheBorg

Originally posted by xmotex
Lastly, Lebanon has no logical reason to take such risks solely for the benefit of Israel, a country that by its actions is clearly the enemy of all Lebanese, and not just Hezbollah.

I realize I've kind of quoted you out of context, but I would think the Lebanese Army should have known that many citizens of Lebanon were being put at risk because of the dispersal tactics of the Hezbollah terrorists. Removing Hezbollah from their midst would not have been supporting Israel. It would have been supporting the welfare of the Lebanese people at large, for by moving Hezbollah they would be removing the threat of civilian casualties if/when Israel attacks in reprisal for Hezbollah acts.

What happened to the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

It's in full effect.
Unfortunately right now the "enemy" of Lebanon is Israel, and the "enemy of my enemy" is Hezbollah, and by extension it's sponsors Iran and Syria.

If Lebanon were truly seeking peace, shouldn't they be more interested in finding a powerful ally to attain said peace from?

Bombing people's bridges, gas stations, roads, airports, etc. is generally a poor method of courting allies. These are ususally (and correctly) seen as the acts of an enemy. If Lebanon goes looking for allies, they're going not going to look to the people killing their citizenry. They're going to look to the people who share their enemies, IE: Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.





[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

Removing Hezbollah from their midst would not have been supporting Israel.

It would have been national suicide, and a return to a civil war that lasted 15 years. And the primary beneficiary would be Israel, a country that invades Lebanon killing scads of Lebanese every few years. Exactly what reason do the Lebanese have to get themselves into a civil war for the sole benefit of Israel, a country that invades them every few years?

It would have been supporting the welfare of the Lebanese people at large, for by moving Hezbollah they would be removing the threat of civilian casualties if/when Israel attacks in reprisal for Hezbollah acts.

How is starting a civil war in Lebanon going to "support the welfare of the Lebanese people at large"? It's Israel killing Lebanese, not Hezbollah. Why is it so hard to see that bombing people makes them see you as the enemy?

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that the Arab states don't want a peaceful solution to the problem, otherwise they'd come to the tables and talk about a solution. They're dead set on a pathway to war, and that's exactly what they'll get.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that the Arab states don't want a peaceful solution to the problem, otherwise they'd come to the tables and talk about a solution. They're dead set on a pathway to war, and that's exactly what they'll get.

TheBorg

Well, the Jordanians and Egyptians seem to want a peaceful solution, having signed peace treaties with Israel and stuck to them.

So I'd say that's an inaccurate generalization.

The situation in Lebanon is more complex.
Lebanon is a country which is made up of very different groups: Shiite Muslims, Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, and a lot of secular Arabs. None of who have a clear advantage.

It's also important to remember that there are a lot of people living in Lebanon whose families used to live in what is now Israel, and were driven out or fled.

Somehow nobody seems to want to remember the fact, but Israel is essentially a colony of mostly European refugees living in a place that had a mostly Arab population up until Israel kicked them out.

For some reason, a lot of these people that got kicked out are still pretty ticked off about it.
Who woulda' thunk it?

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]