Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[fargoth]

i'm downloading it right now, but the connection here is very slow... i'll listen to it first thing in the morning.

though i don't think one checkpoint that doesn't work as it should means all checkpoint are like that... the purpose of these checkpoints is not to humiliate.

and i don't see what this has to do with hizbollah - are you suggesting that if Israel does one wrong deed then it, by induction, does all thing because its evil?
i can't see your logic...

 

[Cyrus]

That's not a telling question.

It goes slow, I know. When its done, go to about half way to get to the interview.

Hopefully, more people like in the interview will prevail in Isreal, Palestine and Lebanon. Then peace can be attained.

 

[Bystander]

Listen to the audio clip fargoth. The commander of the checkpoint even had problems with the ways these checks are being carried out.

Saving lives at the checkpoint has nothing to do with humiliation.

Substitute "airline passenger screening" for "Israeli checkpoint;" welcome to the 21st century.

OP had to do with implications of the current "hot phase" of a very old conflict, not its roots, nor whose "gunnysack" carries more weight in the eyes of the world. Is H(e,i)(s,z)b(a,o)lla operating legally far as UN, international law, and what all? No. Has Lebanon taken any action to intern, disarm, deport, or otherwise control the group as far as complying with 1559? No. What are the implications? Same old "sh*t" --- much international expression of shock, dismay, disgust, and the usual ineffective action on the part of the UN, perfectly understandable reluctance to station peacekeeping troops in an area that has no tradition of rule by law, and a guaranteed rematch in 5-10 years --- maybe 20. WW III? No. Hardwired into the nuclear triggers of the Cold War, and since that's over, it's hardwired into nothing.

 

[Hurkyl]

Explain to me the difference then Hurkyl.

The IAF targets Hezbollah. Hezbollah targets civilians. This has been said many times already.

Hezbollah might happen to be in one or two appartments out of the entire building, yes?

Shame on Hezbollah. That's part of the reason something needs to be done about them -- not only do they target Israeli citizens, but they use Lebanese citizens as human shields.

So what about all those other appartments that are occupied by civilians. Why don't you tell them, whose houses have been bombed, why it's different.

This looks like an appeal to emotion. If this is supposed to be an actual argument, then could you clarify it for me?

 

[Cyrus]

The IAF targets Hezbollah. Hezbollah targets civilians. This has been said many times already.

Sure, and that certainly is a problem with Hezbollah.

Shame on Hezbollah. That's part of the reason something needs to be done about them -- not only do they target Israeli citizens, but they use Lebanese citizens as human shields.

And, equally, shame on Israel for knowingly sending bombs when they know it will inflict civilian casualties. Listen to the audio clip I provided, he is quite right in saying that Israel has a responsibility in how it acts when it engages in battle. That is no better than what Hezbollah does, and will always caused renewed hatred.

This looks like an appeal to emotion. If this is supposed to be an actual argument, then could you clarify it for me?

Eh?

 

[MeJennifer]

So what about all those other appartments that are occupied by civilians. Why don't you tell them, whose houses have been bombed, why it's different.

This looks like an appeal to emotion. If this is supposed to be an actual argument, then could you clarify it for me?

The death of innocent people is no longer an argument for you?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I don't know if this is against the rules but I didn't read this whole thread and kind of wanted to drop in and give my unsolicited opinion anyway as I have been following this very closely and I think I made sense of it.

If I repeated anyone I'm sorry and I give all original credit to where it is due.

I don't like the idea that this is a war against Hezbollah only, and leave the Lebonese government out of it. For all intents and purposes, the Lebonese government is behind the Hezbollah attacks and equally culpable.

Does Lebanon not have police? Don't they have a military? Of course. Don't they have the capability to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah? Of course. They can but they won't. They refuse. They said they will for their end of the deal but refuse to comply.

Conversely, the government has openly stated that they will RESIST any invasions seeking to disarm Hezbollah. They are saying "we won't disarm Hezbollah, and neither will you. NO ONE disarms Hezbollah". They are operating therefore within Lebonese borders sponsored and supported by the Lebonese government who is protecting and defending their safe haven.

The premise for the war on terror is that we go after the terrorists, and those who support and harbor them, suchas Iran, Lebanon etc. I like that plan.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

And I think somewhere (though maybe not from physics forums) I recall hearing about this as an "illegal" invasion.

That is weird because if anything, it's not like a new war at all, it's just Israel reoccupying from before and is a continuation of that. Since they didn't get what they were supposed to they said fine in that case we rescind as well.

You know like if I cut a check to an exterminator, and in exchange he is to exterminate a bunch of bugs for me. Well if time goes by and the house is swarming with more cockroaches than ever, obviously they didn't do their job like they were supposed to. At this point it's like okay, well in THAT case we need to issue a stop payment on this check, or dispute the credit card charge or what have you. Israel will pull out if Hezbollah is disarmed. Israel pulls out. Hezbollah is not disarmed. Years go by. Fine then, in THAT case we're going back in.

 

[Yonoz]

Maybe you can answer my question -- how much damage do the bombs being dropped over Lebanon actually do?

Unfortunately I cannot divulge any technical information, I'd be in breach of several contracts i signed. When researching a target the analyst determines the munition(s) needed according to its shielding and distance from other structures. He/she can choose anything from small air-ground missiles with a HEAT payload to a heavy cluster bomb, or in rare cases the infamous bunker buster. A craft on a hunting mission usually carries the first type. Artillery units operate only after civilians have cleared the area and fire HE or cluster shells. I've seen MLRS being used as well.

 

[Yonoz]

Hopefully, more people like in the interview will prevail in Isreal, Palestine and Lebanon. Then peace can be attained.

Even though it's off topic I'd like to comment there are many like us, unfortunately it's hard to convince Israelis to support more concessions with rockets fired on our cities from every place we pulled out of.

 

[Yonoz]

And, equally, shame on Israel for knowingly sending bombs when they know it will inflict civilian casualties.

If you were Israel's PM, obligated to protect your people, and Hizbullah was attacking your civilians from Lebanese population centres, what would you do?

 

[Mickey]

I think we'll have to just end up dropping sedatives and/or antidepressants over the entire region.

 

[kyleb]

Too right. My apologies, kyleb and cyrus, this matter is an emotional one for me. Not because of some national pride, I do have many loved ones who are at risk.

Understood man, it is emotional for me as well as I care about all people. I do wish all your loved ones the best and my comments here are made with the hopes that better was will be presued so that less people are put at risk when dealing with future problems of this nature.

Well it seems that even now they're having problems finding nations that are willing to risk putting their soldiers in confrontation with Hizbullah.

Yeah, that is a problem, much more so now since the this war has heavily escalated the violence.

I hope the international community throws a big enough bone to Egypt or Saudi Arabia so they send some of their troops to do the hands-on work. A western military would be of little use if they decide to give them a fight.

At this point yeah, it is an all out fight Prior to this I would have liked to see Europeans playing a big part as that last World War knocked quite a bit of sense into them in regards to the horors of war and what it takes to achieve peace.

The neighbourhood that was targeted in Beirut was Hizbullah's capital. It housed their offices, command centres, communication facilities, media channels and bunkers all cordoned off behind roadblocks manned by militants with AK47s and RPGs. Ask any journalist who's been to Beirut, you couldn't get in there without authorization from them. It's impossible to prove to you each target's validity so you'll just have to take my word and ask yourself why some buildings were completely destroyed while others were left untouched (a difficult job in itself).
Have you listened to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567843" ? It describes it rather well.

I do understand concept of the right tool for the job, I just don't have the same faith you do that every target was valid. I'd wager that anyone important to Hezbollah command was cleared out of such an easy target as an apartment building and moved to safer locations the moment your planes took to the sky if not before.

I will give the interview you linked a listen tomorrow though.

 

[kyleb]

huh!, the checkpoits weren't made for humiliation's sake.
Do you think Israel would waste it's soldier's time in standing there if it wasn't a necessity to check if the person coming into Israel doesn't carry a bomb with him?

Do you know how many lives are being saved by these humiliating checkpoints?

do you honestly believe Israel does does it all out of hatered?

The checkpoints for coming into Israel are respectable, but not all the checkpoints Israel maintains which divide Palestine into pieces:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/...tinians/maps/html/settlements_checkpoints.stm

 

[kyleb]

Substitute "airline passenger screening" for "Israeli checkpoint;" welcome to the 21st century.

Look at the map I linked in my last post and welcome to a giant prison camp run by foreigners have contenued to occupy your homeland for nearly 40 years. How would you liked to have been born into that?

 

[Yonoz]

I do understand concept of the right tool for the job, I just don't have the same faith you do that every target was valid.

I've an intimate, years-long experience with almost every stage of the process. While obviously mistakes can be made, every target has to be "incriminated" before being attacked. Considering Hizbullah's strategy of using civilians as a human shield and diguising their weapons in civilian vehicles, as well as the danger these weapons pose to Israeli civilians, I think the results, however unfortunate, are absolutely justifiable.

I'd wager that anyone important to Hezbollah command was cleared out of such an easy target as an apartment building and moved to safer locations the moment your planes took to the sky if not before.

Not so in the case of their bunkers. Intelligence does show their command structure suffered loses, though they deny it. Furthermore, though because the buildings may have been empty, their destruction poses an undeniable blow to Hizbullah's operative foundation. It's extremely difficult to manage a paramilitary organisation when all your staff is spread out in limbo (or dangerously concentrated), your phone & radio links attacked, and records destroyed.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well this is moving along, I will say this obviously Yonoz is going to have some very strong opinions, and it shows a deal of maturity that he hasn't gotten angry under a deal of provocation. People say nothing will get solved on internet forums, it's true in a way, but I'm sure making people aware of how those outside of the situation helps them to gain a perspective. Otherwise there is a dager of serious polarizations, and who knows how many Israelis are reading this, not saying this is going to change the world or alter public opinion, but it's never bad to have informed people in the situation, who knoes what ideas they may give to someone who does have influence?

Anyway can't reply to specific points at the moment although I would like to. I am heartened to see that it has gotten to this many pages before someone claimed the UN is useless and could do nothing this is another cliche, I suspect it's now part of the public consciousness, probably kicked of when someone told someone not to do something and they get all huffy with it and start chastising it as a toothless powereless kitten. Anyway. It isn't, people generally have no understanding of it's remit, and of course it was set up so that five major countries could have control, but that doesn't mean it has no power just that, you have to really rub it in when a major power abuses it's powers, losing reputation is not as small a matter as most think, anyway OT, I really must start a "is the UN completely usesless thread, so that we can take a blow by blow look at all the issues it's invovled in."

 

[Hurkyl]

And, equally, shame on Israel

No, not equally. Israel targets Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a fair target for this conflict. It is not Israel's fault that you cannot attack Hezbollah without harming Lebanese civilians.

The fact that Israel has to attack residential areas is entirely Hezbollah's fault. The only possible reasonable criticism along these lines is whether Israel is making enough effort to limit the collateral damage.

The death of innocent people is no longer an argument for you?

Firstly, the death of innocent people is a fact, not an argument.

Secondly, as a fact, it can be used in valid arguments. But emotional appeals are not valid arguments.

I don't like the idea that this is a war against Hezbollah only, and leave the Lebonese government out of it.

It's the power of positive thinking! I think it's still fair to give the rest of Lebanese government the benefit of the doubt.

Does Lebanon not have police? Don't they have a military? Of course. Don't they have the capability to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah? Of course.

I've heard it suggested they're not strong enough to do so. I don't really know either way.

Unfortunately I cannot divulge any technical information,

I'm mainly just looking to see if the scale of the smallest bombs is on the order of "takes out a single room in a house", "damages everything in a 50 meter radius", or "levels an entire city block", if that's the sort of thing you can say.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but Lebanon's biggest and most persistent problem at this moment is not Israel, but Hezbollah. Israel may not be perfect in all this, but to criticize Israel now is quibbling.

Don't confuse yourself on this point: Hezbollah is using Israel as an excuse to destroy Lebanon. Even more than Israel, it is Lebanon that needs for Hezbollah to be eliminated.

 

[kyleb]

I've an intimate, years-long experience with almost every stage of the process.

I do respect that you are involved in the planing and I don't doubt that you do meticulous work with noble intention. But I have trouble believing that is all that is going on here when I continue to see reports like this:

In letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Association for Civil Rights in Israel condemns as illegal IDF chief’s comment that ‘for every Katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed’

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280788,00.html

Surely you don't see such stated intentions as justifiable, absolutely or otherwise?

 

[mbrmbrg]

I'd like to point out that Haluz does not say "For every katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings chosen at random will be bombed." He says that 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed.
It's all in what you want to read: while some would rather read "random buildings," I'd read, "10 buildings for which we have evidence of Hizbullah activity therein."

 

[mbrmbrg]

And if the "10 buildings" question is the proportionate forces question again, I think John Bolton sums it up quite well:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast.bolton/"

"What Hezbollah has done is kidnap Israeli soldiers and rain rockets and mortar shells on innocent Israeli civilians. What Israel has done in response is act in self-defense. And I don't quite know what the argument about proportionate force means here. Is Israel entitled only to kidnap two Hezbollah operatives and fire a couple of rockets aimlessly into Lebanon?"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Firstly, the death of innocent people is a fact, not an argument.

Also pointing out that the ratio of civillian death to military death is also a fact, facts are then used in arguments to convey meaning by correlation of fact we then use a condition or a proposition based on such facts to suggest our reasoning behind a view point; we can of course add an emotional context to strengthen our case such as an anecdotal account from someone at ground zero and so on

Secondly, as a fact, it can be used in valid arguments. But emotional appeals are not valid arguments.

Could you explain why, if I say "thousands of people are dying in Xistan and we need to send help now", and someone says "why it's none of my concern" and you say "God damn it these people only need a few dollars each and we can save hundreds of lives", and you say... You get the idea, emotion is not only a key element to any argument or discussion if you can't use it then your arguments are perhaps precise, but also somewhat hollow and unlikely to get as much attention or of a result as one using the feelings of people in situations.

If I say damn it! Don't you understand that this is turning ordinary Lebanese into partisan Israeli haters, that is not a valid argument for not attacking their country? if I say hate breeds hate and hate breeds a circle of death! That is not a valid argument for warranting moderation? I am afraid we will have to disagree on that, some people do present cases in an analytical and robotic fashion, depending on the situation this can be very successfull, but in a discussion about war, emotion is a key factor, after all do you think that this crisis would even be happening without the strength of hatred? or the tiredness of the people involved with a process that constantly devolves? I'd say people natural become emotional about war, particularly if they are close to it, and their arguments refect this, done well this can give an argument the spice it needs to hit home; emotion not part of a argument? Are you a Vulcan

I've heard it suggested they're not strong enough to do so. I don't really know either way.

Try wikipedia it has a link about the strength of their army, it suggests it sucks basically and they have asked aid from Egypt the US and various other countries to try and strengthen the effectiveness of their forces. as to how reliable wikipedia is is anyones guess. But there isn't much else to go on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Lebanon

The government of Lebanon has contracted the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and Egypt to assess Lebanon's military and security infrastructure to develop reform programs in the near future.

With the departure of Syrian troops in April 2005, the government has made it a priority to modernize and upgrade the military and security forces. As of mid-July 2006 however, Lebanon is under heavy air and sea attack by Israeli forces and the LAF does not seem to be taking any noticeable action to defend the nation from the military campaign against it (since the army does not have any anti-aircraft missiles). Media reports indicate that some Lebanese military facilities as well as LAF personnel have been struck by Israeli bombardment.

The Air Force has no aircraft to counter the Israeli Air Force with. The Army does have anti-aircraft guns which have not fired on the Israelis.

 

[Yonoz]

I'm mainly just looking to see if the scale of the smallest bombs is on the order of "takes out a single room in a house", "damages everything in a 50 meter radius", or "levels an entire city block", if that's the sort of thing you can say.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire" is a common air-ground missile with a 9kg warhead that would likely take out a room as well as the adjacent ones, though I wouldn't like to be anywhere near the floor that it hits. There are also slightly smaller weapons. I know very little about ship-shore missiles, there may be naval options too. Special forces operate and guide lighter weapons that require a short range, increasing accuracy.

 

[russ_watters]

I've missed several days, so I won't get back into the debate, but I do have one comment on debating itself:

Also pointing out that the ratio of civillian death to military death is also a fact, facts are then used in arguments to convey meaning by correlation of fact we then use a condition or a proposition based on such facts to suggest our reasoning behind a view point; we can of course add an emotional context to strengthen our case such as an anecdotal account from someone at ground zero and so on [emphasis added]

Though often used in - indeed, often the basis of - such debates, that tactic is invalid for a debate, practically by definition. Emotions are to be avoided because they get in the way of what should really be guiding our actions: logic/reason. Indeed, acting on emotion is often the underlying problem that starts messes like the Arab/Israel crisis in the first place.

To put a finer point on it, though, PF has adopted rules (for the reasons above) that specify that discussions need to be rational to be acceptable here. That's not a warning or anything, I just wanted to point it out.

Could you explain why, if I say "thousands of people are dying in Xistan and we need to send help now", and someone says "why it's none of my concern" and you say "God damn it these people only need a few dollars each and we can save hundreds of lives", and you say... You get the idea, emotion is not only a key element to any argument or discussion if you can't use it then your arguments are perhaps precise, but also somewhat hollow and unlikely to get as much attention or of a result as one using the feelings of people in situations.

No. People use emotion because it is effective but it is effective only because peoples' ability to reason is poor. That hypothetical works perfectly well when approached rationally - indeed, it only works emotionally if it is the only thing in your head at the time. The minute you provide another emotional situation somewhere else, that situation disappears. The only way to responsibly choose between giving money to the people in your scenario and, say, people who are dying because an earthquake in Yistan knocked out their infrastructure is to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine how much positive impact your finite amount of money will have in each case.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Middle East: Yet another historical miscalculation.


1) Hezbollah’s rain of rockets as a response to the Israeli air attacks has
so far managed to kill 18 or so civilians, several of them being Arab.

2) A single suicide bomber can kill much more civilians in a single blow.

3) Initial attempts to wipe out Hezbollah after the prisoner exchange
kidnapping has so far resulted in over 400 civilian dead, 700,000
displaced people, the infrastructure of a modern country demolished.
Large urban areas completely leveled. Stirred hatred against Israel
and the US to unprecedented levels as a result of the perceived
brutality and unfairness of the mass destruction.

How many people that were just going on with their normal life are
now again turning into suicide bombers all over the place? Again a
major escalation not in the last place due to the absence of the
historical moderating role of previous US administrations.


Regards, Hans

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. Despite the example of Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek television series, emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking. However, there is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought, and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Does Lebanon not have police? Don't they have a military? Of course. Don't they have the capability to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah? Of course.

I've heard it suggested they're not strong enough to do so. I don't really know either way.

I have heard this as well. Lebanon on their own may very well not have enough strength to disarm Hezbollah.

But there are 3k or so UN soldiers there, as well as an enormous Israeli army which would definatily be allies in bringing them down.

I was careful about how I worded that and I was saying that Lebanon most definatily has the cabibility to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah.

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse. In fact they have vowed reverse cooperation. They said they would resist rather than assist Israel if they came in there trying to bring down Hezbollah.

Therefore it is clear whose side the state of Lebanon is on. (which makes sense considering a chunk of their government IS Hezbollah).

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Middle East: Yet another historical miscalculation.


1) Hezbollah’s rain of rockets as a response to the Israeli air attacks has
so far managed to kill 18 or so civilians, several of them being Arab.

2) A single suicide bomber can kill much more civilians in a single blow.

3) Initial attempts to wipe out Hezbollah after the prisoner exchange
kidnapping has so far resulted in over 400 civilian dead, 700,000
displaced people, the infrastructure of a modern country demolished.
Large urban areas completely leveled. Stirred hatred against Israel
and the US to unprecedented levels as a result of the perceived
brutality and unfairness of the mass destruction.

You are understating the Hezbollah violence in an attempt to paint a picture of Israel's response being not worth it in bringing down Hezbollah.

For example, Hezbollah is not only just responsible for 18 civilians dead from the last two weeks. The actual number is closer to 400.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

And the rain of rockets is not just a "response" to Israeli aggression. Hezbollah started this mess, not Israel. ISRAEL is the ones responding to Hezbollah aggression and not the other way around.

 

[Anttech]

Though often used in - indeed, often the basis of - such debates, that tactic is invalid for a debate, practically by definition. Emotions are to be avoided because they get in the way of what should really be guiding our actions: logic/reason. Indeed, acting on emotion is often the underlying problem that starts messes like the Arab/Israel crisis in the first place.

Perhaps we should start a new thread, but anyway. Debating is the means to an end. The end is to convince your *opponent* that your view point is the correct one. Life isn't binary and neither is a debate about the Israel Hezbollah conflict. There is no *logical* 1 or 0 or right or wrong. So to assert that emmotions "get in the way" is a falacy in this context IMHO.

 

[kyleb]

I'd like to point out that Haluz does not say "For every katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings chosen at random will be bombed." He says that 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed.
It's all in what you want to read: while some would rather read "random buildings," I'd read, "10 buildings for which we have evidence of Hizbullah activity therein."

I read that the targets are optional and destroyed out of a desire for retribution rather than as a necessity.

 

[kyleb]

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse.

When, prior to this current war, did the Lebanese government refuse to cooperate to resolve this problem?

 

[kyleb]

You are understating the Hezbollah violence in an attempt to paint a picture of Israel's response being not worth it in bringing down Hezbollah.

For example, Hezbollah is not only just responsible for 18 civilians dead from the last two weeks. The actual number is closer to 400.

He is acknowledging the fact that Hezbollah was simply looking to capture a few solders so they could exchange them for their own. The civilan deaths are a result of Israel's response to that.

 

[Anttech]

But there are 3k or so UN soldiers there, as well as an enormous Israeli army which would definatily be allies in bringing them down.

I was careful about how I worded that and I was saying that Lebanon most definatily has the cabibility to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah.

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse. In fact they have vowed reverse cooperation. They said they would resist rather than assist Israel if they came in there trying to bring down Hezbollah.

Would you like to shared your sources? Or will you accept that is your oppinion? Regardless I would be interested to know how one would come to such an oppinion

The "3000 UN soliders" are toothless. As a matter of fact its only 2000, and they are a *peace keeping* force. Annan wants to change this, and perhaps he will get his way as the EU steps up to the challange.

Lebanon understand that the militay wing of Hezbollah are a problem. But with the same sentance they understand that Israel doesn't have a right to destroy Beruit and create 500,000 Refugies, as they try to smash hezbollah to the ground. Which as we *should* all know by now doesnt work, by looking at all the evidence of counter terrorism tactics.

And the rain of rockets is not just a "response" to Israeli aggression. Hezbollah started this mess, not Israel. ISRAEL is the ones responding to Hezbollah aggression and not the other way around.

Israel is also the aggressor in this situation. Its aggression is towards the whole of Lebanon in its attempt to smite the few.