Terrorists or .... partizans

[Dâriûsh]

As for your first portion, would you define the cross border incursion into Israel by Hizzbullah guerillas as being against the "occupation"? The incursion and kidnapping started this fiasco.

Remember, in their opinion, as long as parts of Lebanon are occupied, Hizbullah is still at war with Israel. That this incident occurred on the border rather than, like last time, on the Golan Heights is unessential. Hizbullah has conducted numerous raids across the border since the Israeli general withdrawal. Israel has also captured many Hizbullah militiamen. In my opinion, they shouldn’t venture into Israel at all.

How about purposeful targetting of civilian areas with their rockets, such as in Haifa?

Detestable indeed. That would be the indiscriminate bombardments I mentioned.

Israel is targetting Hizzbullah leadership and their membership. While civilians casualties are despised by all remember: HIZBULLAH HIDES BEHIND CIVILIANS SO THAT ISRAEL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CAUSE CIVILIAN DEATHS.

No choice eh? Hizbullah is hiding behind civilians, so that is why roads, bridges, residential areas, and Beirut airport had to be bombed? Israel is terrorizing the Lebanese populace. Period.

Alternatively, Israel is out in the open. Ready to engage and be enagaged. Your "brave warriors" use women and children as their shield and rockets against israeli children as their sword. Real heros.

Tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, warships, and some of the most highly trained combat troops in the world versus unskilled militiamen. A massacre. But you are quite right, Hizbullah’s armed wing should never have retaliated with terror against the Israeli terror-bombardments in Lebanon. In fact, Hizbullah’s armed wing should be disarmed and disbanded. Preferably sooner rather than later.

And I’d love to tell you into which body opening you can insert the “your brave warriors” comment.

Hizzbullah is a terrorist organization. Period.

Until they disband the armed wing, I’m inclined to agree.

[Divinus Arma]

Well good sir, I apologize if I have offended you. we seem to agree on post points, more often than not. It frustrates me to see rational men such as yourself view this as somehow Israel's fault. I would like to hold a dialogue with you on this matter, as you see fit, so we can understand our differences.

First, as for the "Brave Warriors" comment, it is quite true that the militarily weak will use any tactic necessary to win. By hiding behind civilians, Hezbullah places Israel in the predicament of tactical v. propoganda victory. Do you agree that this is the intentional tactics of both Hizballah and Hamas, or no? I will elaborate if you need me to in order to further clarify, sir.

Remember, in their opinion, as long as parts of Lebanon are occupied, Hizbullah is still at war with Israel.

Forgive my ignorance, but can you please tell me which part of Lebanon Israel occupied prior to the kidnapping trigger event?

That this incident occurred on the border rather than, like last time, on the Golan Heights is unessential.

I disagree. The kidnapping raid occurred in Israeli lands, not Lebanese lands. I would be inclined to yield to you otherwise.

Hizbullah has conducted numerous raids across the border since the Israeli general withdrawal. Israel has also captured many Hizbullah militiamen.

it is logical that Israel should capture Hizbullah militiamen if they conduct raids in Israel.

In my opinion, they shouldn’t venture into Israel at all.

And clearly, we are in agreement.

Detestable indeed. That would be the indiscriminate bombardments I mentioned.

I concur.

No choice eh? Hizbullah is hiding behind civilians, so that is why roads, bridges, residential areas, and Beirut airport had to be bombed?

I understand the frustration that this strategy yields sir. You question: Why should the ordinary Lebanese pay for the actions of Hizbullah? Please allow me to explain. By conducting a general encirclement of lebanon through land, air, and naval blockades, Israel has placed Hizbullah under seige. We are both TW fans. You can relate to the seige within TW. That the lebanese innocent are within the town are not the objective of Israel. Israel will not "execute" or "enslave" the populace. They seek to remove the enemy within: Hizbullah. In order to be successful Israel has denied them the ability of movement and resupply. If the Lebanese army were to now rise up against Hizbullah in unison with Israel, they could actually disarm them. I hope you understand, and if you do not, I will address any questions you may have. Alternatively, I would challenge you to show me the motive that Israel has for damaging critical lebanese infrastructure.

Tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, warships, and some of the most highly trained combat troops in the world versus unskilled militiamen.

Both groups have their strategic and tactical advantages. Do not discount Hizbullah's power. By using civilians as a shield, Hizbullah is able to use the media as a propoganda against Israel. By forcing Israel to unintentionally kill civlians, Hizbullah may paint Israel as the evil aggressor through photos and video of dead children. Do you deny this?

A massacre.

Of civilians at the hand of Hizbullah. In the absence of technological strength, Hizbullah must employ the strength of imagery. Hamas and Hizbullah have both become near experts at this.

But you are quite right, Hizbullah’s armed wing should never have retaliated with terror against the Israeli terror-bombardments in Lebanon.

I agree with you uo to your point of "Israeli terror". I explained the Israeli stragey and the Hizbullah strategy. Please condier what I have said.

In fact, Hizbullah’s armed wing should be disarmed and disbanded. Preferably sooner rather than later.

And if they did, Lebanon would be the jewel of the middle east: a shining example of prosperity and inter-ethnic/religious cooperation. It would be a stunning victory for peace and the moderation against radical Islam.

And I’d love to tell you into which body opening you can insert the “your brave warriors” comment.

Do they not engage in these tactics?

Until they disband the armed wing, I’m inclined to agree.

Agreed.

[Brenus]

“To them the occupation doesn’t end until the Golan Heights are returned to Lebanon”. Not sure of that, but I think Golan Height belonged to Syria.

[Dâriûsh]

“To them the occupation doesn’t end until the Golan Heights are returned to Lebanon”. Not sure of that, but I think Golan Height belonged to Syria.

Yes, most of it did indeed. But Mount Hermon belonged to Lebanon.


So it was poor phrasing on my part.

[Tribesman]

That's why Hezabobo are terrorists. The fact that they also pick on the military is irrelevant, their primary targets are civilians.
I am afraid the IDF does not agree with you , their figures show that prior to events following the kidnapping the primary targets are military , just as the vast majority (an exclusive majority in many years) of casualties on the northern front are military .
You can't include civilian casualties as a result of military action as terrorism
So that means none of the civilian casualties on the northern front from hezB'allah attacks are victims of terrorism ???????

[Dâriûsh]

Well good sir, I apologize if I have offended you. we seem to agree on post points, more often than not. It frustrates me to see rational men such as yourself view this as somehow Israel's fault. I would like to hold a dialogue with you on this matter, as you see fit, so we can understand our differences.

Do you really think that I am offended because you rip on Hizbullah’s questionable tactics? I’m angry because you associate me with them.


You talk of removing Hizbullah from south Lebanon. How is that even possible? They originated there and they live there, as do their supporters. And I bet the very thought of having the Lebanese army fight the Hizbullah is enough to give General Al Masri nightmares. There is more to Hizbullah than the armed wing, to many poor Shia, they are a good alternative to the corrupt Amal. And with IDF bombs raining down on their neighbourhoods, oh I mean “Hizbullah strongholds”, Hizbullah is guarantied to gain more popular support.

As to what part of Lebanon is still occupied? Hizbullah propagandists claim the Shebaa Farms territory as a part of Lebanon, to them the Israeli occupation wont end until the IDF withdraws. Is that sensible? That is another question better asked Hassan Nasrallah.

And how can they force the IDF to unintentionally kill civilians? The IDF decided to bomb the political wing of the Hizbullah as well as the military wing, and much of the infrastructure. To me it seems that they are trying to create a buffer zone of ruins.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You cannot beat terrorists with guns anf bombs, you defeat them idiologically.

Example: The IRA, they pretty much ran out of support after the British agreed to a regional assembly that would allow them to make their own decisions.

Hezbollah will continue to exist as long as Isreal occupies and antagonises Lebenon. Until Isreal withdraws, helps rebuild Lebenon and actively supports the Lebonese governement in routing out terrorists they will get nowhere.

So long as the Lebonese people support Hezbollah they will continue to exist. Failure to recognise this simple fact is failure to recognise the strategic reality.

Isreal has to convince the Lebonese Hezbollah is the bad guy. At the moment Isreal is the bad guy.

I'm sorry but they've spent the last sixty years sticking their fingers up at the Arabs. Why should the Arabs put up with it? The only thing that protects Isreal is America, during they 80's they were propping up the Isreali economy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until Isreal withdraws behind the Green Line it is still in breach of UN resolutions going back forty years.

Eclectic, can you seriously justify the destruction of power supplies and ports? Isreal could have enforced a blockade without firing a shot.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You cannot beat terrorists with guns anf bombs, you defeat them idiologically.

Example: The IRA, they pretty much ran out of support after the British agreed to a regional assembly that would allow them to make their own decisions.

I agree with much of your post, but it is pertinent to examine this case in more detail.

The IRA were not defeated (in their own terms, which is important). They were converted to peaceable means for achieving their ends. Their support is still quite high (witness the success of Sinn Fein in elections), but their core supporters no longer want an armed struggle.

Why? First, the British government (under Thatcher, whilst swearing blind publically that they would never talk to terrorists) negotiated with the terrorists. They discovered that there were people in the organisation who despite their rhetoric, might be intelligent enough to work with (most terrorist organisations are full of ignorant demagogues). Alongside this, better intelligence work led to targeted assassination (low key, back street stuff usually using proxies such as the Unionist terrorists - which incidentally served the purpose of convincing the Unionists nutters that the Brits were entirely on their side, so they wouldn't go off on one if they found out about the secret negotiations). The assassination success convinced the moderates that they were vulnerable to security infiltration, and got rid of some of the more obdurate hardliners, smoothing the path to power.

As noted in another post, the British also took a softly, softly approach to policing the territory. This reduced the polarisation of the communities against military brutality. It was hard (as the kill ratio in that other post shows) but was part of a wider strategy to build capability and support, all with the long term aim of building up the moderates in the IRA. Constant army killings would have undermined Gerry Adams and his supporters.

Eventually, the moderates were in a position of strength, and the Good Friday talks were possible.

Alongside this military/political strategy, the economic prosperity of both the Republic and Northern Ireland increased dramatically. Terrorism stopped being an excuse for poverty and isolation, and the border, long so emotive, actually passed into practical non-existence. Both countries part of the EU, goods cheaper or more plentiful one or other side of the border. Prosperous people don't want nutters blowing up their shops and trains.

And as you say, finally the injustices seen in the early days were easily righted in independent courts, trusted by most.

The armed wing of the IRA didn't get defeated, it got bought and retired through lack of interest.

(Note: there are still some residual nutters, which are slowly being cleared up. When they get in the way of peace, Britain does not invade, bomb and destroy all that has been built up, but patiently tries to bring them to justice through law. The worst that happens is the assembly is suspended and the politicians get a long holiday on full pay).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thankyou for elaborating, that was essentially what I meant, the para-military wing lost support for the armed struggle.

I suspect there are quite a few people in Hezbollah that feel the same way. They formed to get Isreal out of Lebanon and Isreal is still in Lebanon. If Isreal pulled out fully and offered support for reconstruction they might find a lot of wind would go out of Hezbollah's sail. Also the kidnapping does look like it was intended to facilitate a prisoner exchange. These aren't really the "Kill all who worship the great Satan!" people, IMO.

Al Queda is full of radicals that hate the West but they're not the only type of terrorist in the region.

On a side note a way to really take the wind out the militants in Iraq and Al Queda would be for Bush to loudly proclaim that he was going to move troops out to impose a ceasefire on Isreal, and then do it.

He might just undo most of the last three years of damage the US forces have done.

Terrorism requires at least tacit support for the population, thats what you need to neutralise, after that the movement can't opperate and sustain itself.

[Pannonian]

As noted in another post, the British also took a softly, softly approach to policing the territory. This reduced the polarisation of the communities against military brutality. It was hard (as the kill ratio in that other post shows) but was part of a wider strategy to build capability and support, all with the long term aim of building up the moderates in the IRA. Constant army killings would have undermined Gerry Adams and his supporters.

Eventually, the moderates were in a position of strength, and the Good Friday talks were possible.

Funnily enough, much the same things were happening in Palestine, where Fatah and Hamas prisoners tiring of the armed struggle had drafted a declaration in support of the recognition of the states of Israel and Palestine, and hence an abandonment of Hamas' goal of wiping out Israel. This movement gained the support of President Abbas, and eventually the Hamas government itself (PM Haniyeh in a WaPo editorial talks of Israel and Palestine as having equal rights of existence). Then came the current brouhaha.

At various points in the 1990s, talks between the British government and Sinn Fein broke down in the face of yet another IRA bombing. Despite that, and public repudiations of these terrorists, links were kept, talks were soon resumed with the overall objective of making them work, and eventually the bombings stopped altogether.

Looking at Israel through British eyes, it seems the Israelis don't want peace, but want a pretext for reconquering Herod's kingdom.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or Davids.

I've sometimes thought this myself. Isreal's first response in the first instance is violence.