Israel Blockades Lebanon

really where can I see their mission statement? You know something like a constitution.

Israel would not be attacking Lebanon if Hezbollah wasn't there.

Why does Hezbollah take orders from Tehran? Iran is Hezbollah's biggest supplier and Iranian troops were amoung the dead in Southern Lebanon. Is Iran interested in defending Lebanon or destroying Israel at any cost? Public statements seem to indicate the Iranian gov't wants Israel destroyed.
 
I dont think Hexbollah take orders from Iran, although its undeniable that there is a strong influence there.

There seems to be a circular argument there

Hezbollah exist to defend Lebanon from Israel
Israel attack Lebanon because Hezbollah exist.

So who is going to break the cycle. The democratically elected government of Israel or the militant group of Hezbollah.
 
The US also takes order from Saudi Arabia. oil oil oil

Lebanon could end if they disarm hezbolla. Or Israel could through the usual means.
 
Lebanon dont have anywhere near the manpower to disarm Hezbollah and thanks to Israel the government dont have enough support from the people to do it. If Israel keep out of Lebanons affairs Hezbollah will lose its raison d'etre which will remove most of its support from the Lebanese public who make up 99% of its membership and boom, their dead in the water.

The biggest threat to terrorism is peace.
 
I guess but a cease fire is a "to be continued" Not much of a peace really. Its just a cold war for the moment. UN won't do anything. They haven't.

In my opinion Israel lost as they did not accomplish any political objectives. The soldiers are still kidnapped if alive. They most likely aren't. Hezbollah hasn't been disarmed. Of course disarming Hezbollah means nothing unless you sever Iranian support. Not happening yet.
 
so you are admitting that this is a no win situation for isreal and that what they have done so far has only make things worse in the region both for lebanon and themselves!?

wow too bad no one was saying this when this whole thing started.
 
I am admitting that not destroying Hezbollah has made things worse. I am saying they underreacted as oppossed to overreacted. This prolonges the conflict and will mean more innocent people die on both sides.
 
obviously you don't get it.. without completly leveling lebanon they are NEVER going to get rid of hezbollah. in fact, even if they did level lebanon there are still too many other people who would take up the fight in another countries.

isreal got themselves involved in what was essentially an unwinnable conflict.
 
There are ceasefires that have lasted hundreds of years. I think the last Britain-France War ended with a ceasefire and that is still going strong.
 
They underreacted in terms of not really dealing with Hezbollah, but they overreacted in terms of destroying a lot of Lebanon's infrastructure which had nothing to do with Hezbollah (and killing lots of people who had nothing to do with it either.) The net result is that they have strengthened Hezbollah's position.

The whole business has been a disaster for Israel. They had to do something - you can't just twiddle your thumbs while someone fires rockets at you - but they seem to have ended up with the worst possible outcome: Hezbollah strengthened and their own reputation further tarnished.

Even if they had smashed Hezbollah, another group would only spring up in it's place. They would only gain a temporary respite.

It is all part of the legacy of their first invasion of Lebanon, which initially created the conditions for Hezbollah to grow.

The Iranians must be laughing their heads off.
 
You mean we are technically still at war with France?

I very much doubt it. Wars between countries normally end with peace treaties.
 
I'm sure I read that somewhere a long time ago. I quite possibly could be wrong as I cant remember where I read it.
 
The Beano?



There have been cases of territories being technically at war for decades because they got missed off the peace treaties. If I remember rightly, it happened with Andorra (at war with Germany from 1914 to 1939, only to make peace in order to declare war again) and Berwick-on-Tweed (which for historical reasons has to be specified on peace treaties) which was technically at war with Russia for 150 years following the Crimean War.
(Edit: Berwick signed a peace treaty with Russia in 1966.)
 
IIRC the first Gulf War never ended either, there was a ceasefire contingent on adherance to certain UN resolutions on weapons inspections and so forth.
 
Korean war never ended, no peace treaty was signed and it is very much a war zone today.

Israel and Hezbollah will never be at peace until 1 is gone.
 
Hmm, not really, Israel is going nowhere short of a nuclear strike from Iran, which is highly unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.

Hezbollah cant be destroyed, at shown by the Taliban in Afghanistan. If the US and a large NATO force cant beat the Taliban then what chance to Israel realistically give themselves of being able to beat Hezbollah into extinction.

Hezbollah will exist until they lose their relevance. At the moment they are relevant, they state their purpose as to defend Lebanon from Israel. They have been doing that. Until all this kicked off again, Hezbollah were lacking in support to the extent that they had to legitimise their existance by entering politics. Now their militant wing has been given a new lease of life and support is at an all time high.

I wouldn't be surprised if the kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers was aimed at provoking Israel into this reaction in order to make themselves relevant again.
 
Back
Top