Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

I am sure we are all aware of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. As an outside observer, I have to say this operation is a risky one because anything less than the total destruction of Hezbollah or at least reducing its capacity significantly should be considered an utter failure. The reason for my assertion is quite simple: by attacking Lebanon, Israel has opened up the door to a potentially bigger and lengthier conflict, which might require the costly occupation of Lebanon for decades once again. If such an attack proves fruitless and makes Hezbollah even more popular, then this organization will become a bigger menace than it has ever been as it will have a far more solid platform in Lebanon than ever before. But I guess we should wait and see.

Quote: Analysis: Israel tries to restore deterrence, but what then?

Tel Aviv - The kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah along with the deaths of eight others in subsequent fighting left Israel Thursday with the problem of trying to restore its deterrence capability, while at the same time making sure it has an exit strategy allowing a face-saving solution.

From the point of view of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Amir Peretz, both relatively new in their jobs, the problem is more acute, given that Israel's two-week old offensive in the Gaza Strip aimed at securing the release of a kidnapped soldier and ending Palestinian rocket fire on Israel, is getting precisely nowhere.

Almost as soon as the news filtered through Wednesday that two soldiers had been kidnapped under the cover of a Hezbollah attack on the border with Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister was talking about 'an act of war.'

Although the Lebanese government said it had no prior knowledge of the Hezbollah attack, Israeli leaders were quick to hold Beirut responsible for the latest escalation, saying that the Iranian-backed group sits in the Lebanese government, which has never carried out United Nations resolution 1559 calling for all Lebanese militias to be disbanded.

By Thursday afternoon, Israel's air offensive against Lebanon was the 'widest' since the 1982 Lebanon war, an army official said on condition of anonymity. Hezbollah had meanwhile fired an unprecedented 60 Katyusha rockets at the Jewish state.

At the same time, however, an Israeli army spokeswoman said that 'at the moment it it isn't really a war situation. A war situation is full-out, head-on combat.'

However defined, Israel's assault on Lebanon was designed not so much to secure the release of the abducted soldiers, but to restore Israel's deterrence against Hezbollah, some analysts, no doubt well-briefed, said Thursday.

'The cabinet decided yesterday to redraw the strategic balance with Hezbollah and to do so with all the force that can be employed at this stage, from the air ' Ben Caspit, an analyst for the Ma'ariv daily, said Thursday.

'Israel's strategic goal is to achieve a 'reign of security' along the border with Lebanon. Political efforts in this direction ended in failure,' agreed Alex Fishman of the rival Yediot Ahronot daily.

Whether Israel will restore its deterrence against a Hezbollah buoyed by its most recent success is one question; whether the Israeli assault will achieve anything else is another altogether.

What seems to be the Israeli strategy of hitting at Lebanon's infrastructure as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the Lebanese government would be 'dangerous', Middle East expert Moshe Maoz warned.

He told the Jerusalem Post daily that past experience has shown any Israeli action against Beirut will be less effective, since neither the Lebanon government nor Hezbollah are affected by pressure brought to bear by a civilian population made to suffer the brunt of Israeli anger.

Yet the problem for Israel is where to go should the attacks prove fruitless.

Ephraim Kam, deputy head of Tel Aviv's Jaffe Centre for Strategic Studies, told the Jerusalem Post that while one option would be for Israel to apply 'heavy pressure' on the Lebanese government, he believed Tel Aviv would prefer to apply military pressure on Lebanon for a limited period, and then seek negotiations.

But negotiations over the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers are likely to drag out and may even prove fruitless, given that Israel has said it would not give into the Hezbollah's demands to free Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, and given too that Hezbollah, like Israel, has to save face and show some return for its effort.

A more likely scenario is that Israel will demand another quid pro-quo for ending its assault on Lebanon.

The clearest hint of this came in statements Defence Minister Peretz made Thursday, when he said Israel would not allow Hezbollah to return to positions on the border with Israel, in some cases only metres from Israeli army outposts.

'This operation is intended to prevent unequivocally Hezbollah's access to the northern border. Lebanese forces are the ones who need to sit there and we expect them to deploy on Israel's border,' he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5177374.stm

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: I am sure we are all aware of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. As an outside observer, I have to say this operation is a risky one because anything less than the total destruction of Hezbollah or at least reducing its capacity significantly should be considered an utter failure. The reason for my assertion is quite simple: by attacking Lebanon, Israel has opened up the door to a potentially bigger and lengthier conflict, which might require the costly occupation of Lebanon for decades once again.

Which brings into question the wisdom of withdrawing from Lebanon in the first place.

Quote: If such an attack proves fruitless and makes Hezbollah even more popular, then this organization will become a bigger menace than it has ever been as it will have a far more solid platform in Lebanon than ever before. But I guess we should wait and see.

The attack will prove fruitless. For the simple reason that Hizbollah had 6 years to train and prepare for exactly this type of attack. They will incur losses, but they will weather it.

That's the reason why Israel's only realistic long-term solution is to rape Syria, who along with Iran is Hizbollah's main sponsor, and its main conduit.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: The attack will prove fruitless. For the simple reason that Hizbollah had 6 years to train and prepare for exactly this type of attack. They will incur losses, but they will weather it.

I think the only goal for Israel right now will be to reduce the number of rockets that Hezbollah has and destroy some of the Hezbollah related infrastructure to weaken them. Frankly, I doubt that such a move is really going to achieve anything other than an illusion of security. :-|

[Muslima]

things will really get heated up if syria and iran get involved because this means some involvment of egypt too.

[John]

Muslima wrote: things will really get heated up if syria and iran get involved because this means some involvment of egypt too.


I've got $50 on Israel. :wink:

[Muslima]

are you betting?

if so sorry i don't bet....

[theshield]

Duchifas wrote: Which brings into question the wisdom of withdrawing from Lebanon in the first place.

On the contrary.What has been proven both here and Gaza are 2 things:

1.Occupation of territory is meaningless because there will always be a rocket with greater range than the land occupied by us.

2.Any government that wants to disengage/not occupy has to supply not only fiscal security on the ground in the form of a wall but also a wall against incoming missiles (and tunnels).

The technological capability is here:

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

It has been there for years.It was Israeli development backed by US money.The American backed from the project and the project ended.In an article on Israeli TV channel 1 it was said that budgetary constraint (of around 1 Billion dollars) are the reason for what you see now.

The system has 100% success rate.I am sure that the lesson has been learned , in the next few years they will probably deploy it.There wont be one Qassam or one Katusha that wont be intercepted.

[Dead Eye]

Muslima, I must total disagree with you on about Syria, Iran, and Egypt becoming involved with Hezbollah in the aggression on the nation of Is real. First off, Syria will only fight if Iran tell them they have too. Syria will get there butts kicked like a 8 year old boy trying to fight a three 25 years men. Look at the history of past wars. Iran thinks it is a 7 foot giant but if they try to take Israel on, they will find they are puny little boys and get slapped around by Israel. Iran needs to pray to God that they done get the USA into any war. Egypt is tired of there soldiers dying for the rest of the Islam. This is a no win for any Islamic nation. Dead Eye/ US Army Vietnam 67 to 70. :evil: :twisted:

[Pelagius]

Israeli spokesperson on CNN
Code: "When this is over Hezbollah will no longer be a threatening force on our northern border"

I think Israel will be keeping the pressure on for several weeks.