Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Israel National security > Israeli Military Discussion Forum
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Israeli Military Discussion Forum GENERAL Topics Relating To Israel & Its National Security, Latest news and Analysis.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-13-2010, 01:30 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Post Hizbollah vs Israel: the coming clash

Hizbollah vs Israel: the coming clash



Summary: A shifting balance of calculation in the middle east makes Lebanon’s Hizbollah movement more confident in its strategy of “deterrence-by-terror” vis-à-vis Israel, says Robert G Rabil.

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, standing alongside his counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, made a notable remark at a news-conference [1] in Damascus on 25 February 2010 where the deepening of the two countries’ relations was celebrated. "We hope others will not give us lessons when it comes to our region and history...We know what is our interest...We thank them for their advice."

The reference to the Barack Obama administration's attempt [2] to lure Syria from its alliance with Iran - reaffirmed only the day before by secretary of state Hillary Clinton at a Senate hearing - was unmistakable. For his part, Ahmadinejad addressed the backdrop of escalating rhetoric between Israel on one side and Syria and Hizbollah on the other; he warned [3] the "Zionist regime" against any military operation, which would spell out "its end forever." Hassan Nasrallah [4], Hizbollah’s secretary-general soon joined [5] the two leaders in a show of solidarity, which in the Arabic world was referred to as "the nuclear meeting".

The strategy
These statements and displays [6] of solidarity should extinguish any wishful hope that Damascus is prepared to steer away from Iran in return for peace with Israel and recovery of the Golan heights. This, however, does not mean that efforts at peacemaking are stillborn. Rather, they reflect the near-completion of the Iranian strategy to realign the forces in the middle east, especially those confronting Israel. Lebanon [7] and Syria are the main pillars of this ambitious and dangerous strategy whose real objective is the disruption of the Arab-Israeli politico-military balance in favour of an Islamist-nationalist resistance [8] led by Iran and spearheaded in action by Hizbollah.

The Iranians appear to believe that by transforming the longstanding Arab-Israeli balance of power in the region into an asymmetrical balance of “deterrence-by-terror”, they can deepen the impotence of the Arab moderate countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan into a complete paralysis - and thus press [9] their claim to lead the Muslim populations of the region. This belief carries the implicit assumption that these Arab states will avoid becoming complicit with any attempt by Washington or Jerusalem to punish Tehran (militarily or economically) for its alleged pursuit [10] of an armed nuclear capability.

The roots of this Iranian strategy lie in the events of 2000, a seminal year in the region’s history. Three events - the collapse of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the military withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, and the death of Syrian president Hafez al-Assad [11] - changed the political dynamics. Damascus came under pressure to redeploy in Lebanon and Hizbollah moved to become the real supporter of the Syrian regional order.

This shift in regional dynamics intensified with the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the reluctant evacuation of Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005. These events deepened Damascus's embrace of Tehran and Hizbollah as a means to bolster the Syrian regime at a time of domestic and regional uncertainty. It was under these conditions that the Syrian regime parted from its policy of circumscribing Hizbollah's power and conversely began to act both as a conduit and supplier of sophisticated weaponry to the Islamist party. The elite contingents [12] in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards - the Jerusalem Force - trained Hizbollah's militants (then commanded by Imad Mughniyeh, assassinated [13] by Israel on 12 February 2008) in preparation for a future war with Israel (see Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, “The Hizbollah project: last war, next war [14]”, 17 August 2009).

This war [15] took place in July-August 2006, following a Hizbollah raid [16] across the “blue line” into Israel's territory. Despite the heavy damage (human and infrastructural) Israel inflicted on Lebanon in the thirty-three-day war, Hizbollah proclaimed [17] the conflict its “divine victory” (see Zaid Al-Ali, “'Whatever happens, Hizbollah has already won' [18]” (9 August 2006). The sheer fact that Jerusalem was unable to cripple Hizbollah or stop it from firing rockets into Israel proper only hardened the will of Hizbollah and its Iranian sponsor to forge ahead with their plan to change the balance of power in the region (see Nadim Shehadi, “Riviera vs Citadel: the battle for Lebanon [19]”, 22 August 2006).

Lebanon was a focal point in this strategy.

The shift
In the aftermath of the war, Hizbollah - shrewdly, gradually but forcefully - reduced the power of the opposition March 14 forces in Lebanon. In May 2008, the movement [20] effected a military takeover of Beirut; this led the March 14 leaders and vocal anti-Syrian figures, Saad Hariri [21] and Walid Jumblatt, to rethink their position [22] regarding Damascus and Hizbollah (see Zaid Al-Ali, “Lebanon: chronicles of an attempted suicide [23]”, 20 May 2009).

Saudi Arabia had set an example for Hariri by beginning a rapprochement with Syria, which culminated in a visit by King Abdullah to Damascus. The Saudi initiative - itself following diplomatic outreach [24] to Syria in September 2008 by France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy - paved the way for Hariri's own visit. The end of the Washington-led policy towards Syria was reflected in the remark of the state department official Jeffrey Feltman: "It was no longer Syria being isolated. It was the United States that was being isolated" (see “Israel and Syria Threaten War [25]”, Middle East Alliance, 4 February 2010).

The dramatic political realignment of Walid Jumblatt - from staunch opponent to defender of the Syrian regime and Hizbollah, all in the name of Arab nationalism - was a further severe blow to the March 14 forces. The Druze [26] leader’s shift was a mark of his disillusionment and disappointment with the west as well as with March 14.

Jumblatt had overestimated both the George W Bush administration's eagerness to remove the Assad regime from power, and its readiness to use force to aid Lebanon’s anti-Hizbollah, anti-Syrian political alliance. His bitter volte-face was catalysed during Hizbollah’s seizure [27] of Beirut, when militants of the movement put him under house-arrest. The response was resounding by its absence: no American jet whizzed over his palace, no allied force came near his doorstep, no Lebanese Christians mobilised [28] in a show of support. Jumblatt’s frantic calls to the Lebanese-American lobby were followed by a realisation that his political survival (and that of his son and political heir [29] Taymour) necessitated a complete reversal of roles.

In this decisive moment, Hizbollah both acquired a veto in Saad Hariri’s cabinet and managed in the accompanying ministerial statement to have its role (and weapons) legitimised as a "resistance".

Hizbollah's evolving project was expressed by Hassan Nasrallah [30] in a speech commemorating Hizbollah's “martyrs” on 16 February 2010, which drew the qualifying framework for any future confrontation with Israel. He introduced the deterrent equation where Hizbollah would retaliate [31] proportionally to any Israeli aggression: "Tel Aviv for Beirut, and Ben Gurion international airport for Beirut international airport”.

The purpose of this strategic-parity deterrence [32] - or deterrence-by-terror - goes beyond altering the balance of power between Hizbollah (and by extension Iran and Syria) and Israel. It widens the theatre of operations between Israel and Hizbollah, highlighting the effectiveness of retaliation and including Syria in the potential calculus [33] of destruction. It is significant here that Syria’s foreign minister Walid al-Moallem has confirmed [34] that in the event Lebanon was attacked, Syria would not stand by.

The choice
The retired Lebanese brigadier-general Amin Hoteit, commenting on Hizbollah's new strategy in the party's newspaper, stated that it faces Israel with two options: either use force and commit suicide, or don't use force and lose the military spinal-column. Hizbollah, it seems, is confident [35] about withstanding Israel's initial strike, trapping Israel in Lebanon and launching destructive missiles throughout Israel (see David Hirst, Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East [36], Faber 2010).

What Iran and Hizbollah - and by extension Syria - are excluding is a pre-emptive devastating Israeli strike on all three of them. And if Iran is using Hizbollah as a deterrent-force against [37] Israel, then, given the heightened tension in the region against a backdrop of failed peace negotiations and frustrated talks with Tehran to resolve the nuclear standoff, Israel would have more incentive to strike at Iran (see Paul Rogers, “Israel’s shadow over Iran [38]”, 14 January 2010).

More specifically, the Iranian strategy - as embodied in Hizbollah's deterrence-by-terror - is a recipe for a regional conflagration. In this respect, it would be foolish to think that Israel would either commit suicide by using force or relinquish its defence strategy and appear weak. That is why a clash between Israel and Hizbollah is inevitable.

Robert G Rabil is associate professor of middle-east politics and director of graduate studies in the political-science department at Florida Atlantic University. He is the author of Embattled Neighbors: Syria, Israel and Lebanon (Lynne Rienner, 2003) and Robert G Rabil, Syria, United States and the War on Terror in the Middle East (Praeger, 2006)
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-13-2010, 01:34 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow U.S., Israel Worry Over Hizbullah Possession of Rockets Capable of Bringing Down F-16

U.S., Israel Worry Over Hizbullah Possession of Rockets Capable of Bringing Down F-16s
U.S. and Israeli concerns mounted after Syria reportedly supplied Hizbullah with rockets capable of brining down F-16 warplanes.

Head of the Israeli army Intelligence Research Department Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz has uncovered that Syria recently provided Hizbullah with Russian-made surface-to-air missiles type "GLA 9K338" which can bring down reconnaissance planes, helicopter gunships and advanced F-16 fighter jets, which form the backbone of the Israeli air force.

He told the Foreign and Security Committee in the Knesset that "this dangerous development is a strategic shift in the balance of power in Lebanon."

"Israel cannot remain silent on that," he warned.

Meanwhile, Russian news agency Novosti reported that Hizbullah's possession of sophisticated Russian-made surface-to-air "Igla" type rockets will hold back the Israeli air force from destroying the projectiles Hizbullah own for fear of bringing down the attacking jet fighters.

Novosti quoted sources in Moscow as saying that these missiles are shoulder-mounted and cannot be detected by radar or obliterated by any means.

The sources said "Syria regards these missiles as defensive projectiles and, therefore, does not see any problem in providing them to Hizbullah."
Washington has conveyed its concerns to France over Syria's continued supply of weapons to Hizbullah, particularly since they include the more sophisticated surface-to-air missiles.

Pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Friday, citing Western sources in New York, said the U.S. State Department pointed out that "the Syrian arms supplies to Hizbullah have reached a point where Damascus now is providing the group with weapons from its own national military stockpile."
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-13-2010, 01:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default Syria Arming Hizbullah with Scuds While Talking Peace

Syria Arming Hizbullah with Scuds While Talking Peace



Syria is providing Hizbullah terrorists in Lebanon with the Scud missiles that traumatized Israel in the 1991 Gulf War, and a "Scud Crisis" is threatening to ignite an all-out war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper reported.

President Shimon Peres confirmed the reports prior to leaving for his three-day visit to France.

Paraphrasing Psalms 120:7, the president said on Israeli radio, “Syria claims it wants peace while at the same time it delivers Scuds to Hizbullah whose only goal is to threaten the state of Israel. “I am for peace; When I speak, they are for war.”’

Al-Rai reported this week that Israel warned the Obama administration “it will take steps” if the United States does not succeed in pressuring Syria to cease arming Hizbullah with the weapons. The U.S. State Department then summoned Syrian Ambassador Imad Mustafa "to inform his government about the level of danger if the missiles crossed the border.”

Israel reportedly sent warnings it would bomb Lebanese and Syrian targets if the long-range missiles cross the border into Lebanon. There are conflicting reports on whether several Scud missiles already have been delivered to Hizbullah terrorists. Despite the almost invisible line between Lebanese armed forces and Hizbullah, the Obama has administration shipped weapons to the Beirut-based government, which is heavily dominated by Syrian interests.

The increasingly open threats made by Syrian leaders and members of the Hizbullah terrorist group in Lebanon have led analyst David Schenker of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) think tank to warn that war may be on the horizon. In addition, he noted, a future war could include Syria and not only its proxy Hizbullah: in February, Syrian leaders said Syria would not “sit idly by” in case of another war with Israel.

Syrian President Bashar Assad recently told visiting U.S. Senator John Kerry that Syria was not arming Hizbullah with the deadly weapons, but the American government was not convinced.

Read it all> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136986
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-16-2010, 05:54 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-16-2010, 11:19 PM
Belkin Belkin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 179
Belkin is on a distinguished road
Default

When Israel and Hizbollah time Israel a chance test Arrow ant missile system and USA start sell Israel more combat aircrafts because other wise weapons not able hit targets as will could other wise leading more civilians’ deaths on both sides.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-18-2010, 02:13 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The "New Hizballah" built by Syria sparks ME summer war fear

The "New Hizballah" built by Syria sparks ME summer war fear


http://www.debka.com/article/8726/




debkafile's military sources disclose that Syria has expanded the flow of smuggled Syrian and Iranian weaponry across the Lebanese border to Hizballah in line with a master-plan charted in Tehran and Damascus for transforming the 25,000-strong Hizballah terrorist militia into an organized, mobile army with a whole range of sophisticated missiles and other weapons. The new Hizballah is being trained to carry out such offensive operations as capturing parts of Israel's Galilee and equipped with the hardware for knocking out warplanes, warships and armored strength.

One of their missions will be to defend the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Tehran and Damascus calculate that the next time a war erupts on Israel's borders, its army will try and outflank Syrian forces on the Golan and drive past the units defending Damascus. That is where Hizballah is expected to come in.

Even after the Kuwaiti Al Rai claim that Syria had smuggled Scud ground missiles into Lebanon proved inaccurate and was denied in Washington, regional war tensions remained high - although not for the reason ascribed by Jordan's King Abdullah during his current visit to Washington.

The king forecast an outbreak of Middle East hostilities in the coming summer because of the Israel-Palestinian diplomatic stalemate. What's the connection? Our sources ask. Rather than admit he is nervously watching his aggressive Arab neighbor to the north, the Jordanian ruler is pinning the region's troubles on Israel because it is the right tune to sing in Barack Obama's Washington.

In actual fact, a Middle East war this summer depends on two actions which have nothing to do with the Palestinians: a decision by the US and/or Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities together or separately, and a decision in Tehran to unleash its allies against Israel - spearheaded by Hizballah - to preempt such an attack.

Ready to step into its new shoes, Hizballah is being armed with five major military capabilities, debkafile reports:

1. Surface-to-surface missiles able to reach as far as the Dimona reactor in southern Israel: They include Fajr-5, which has a range of 33 km, and the M-600, developed by Syria from the Fateh-110, whose range is 250 km. Both are precise, propelled by solid fuel and carry 500-kilo warheads of conventional explosives, as well as being able to deliver chemical, biological and radioactive materials.

This dangerous new ****nal which tops up the 40,000 rockets Hizballah was allowed to pile up since the 2006 Lebanon war.

Saturday, April 17, Israel's deputy defense minister Mattan Vilnai, warned that Syria and Hizballah between them had ballistic missiles that could reach every millimeter of Israeli territory.

But he did not explain how the national defense leadership, of which he is a senior member, allowed this to happen.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said nothing to account for his 14-month old government's failure to make good on its pledges for change, and first of all to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. Instead, he follows his predecessors' same old passive routines on Iran, Syria and Hizballah, an open invitation to aggression and a recipe for armed conflict. Of late, he is hardly to be seen or heard except for the irrelevant comments he makes at state ceremonies.

2. Iran has built for Hizballah five expanded commando brigades whose mission in a future conflict will be to capture and hold key northern Israeli towns and villages, including the town of Nahariya or parts thereof. This tactic would force Israeli forces marching into Lebanon to turn back and recover lost land.

On March 28, debkafile revealed this Iranian-Syrian master plan in detail.

3. Syrian instructors are training Hizballah militiamen at top speed in the operation of ground-to-air weapons, including self-propelled missiles, against warplanes and incoming missiles and cruise missiles. Israel has threatened to destroy these batteries if they cross the border into Lebanon. They are therefore being held back in Syrian bases up against the border until such time as fighting flares. They will then be transferred into the hands of Hizballah units standing by on the Lebanese side of the border.

4. Syria has set up a Hizballah special unit for attacking warships and fighting off Israeli coastal landings. It is equipped with advanced Chinese SS-26 Yakhont marine cruise missiles, which combine assault features with the ability to intercept attacking missiles or cruise missiles.

5. Iranian and Syrian military engineers have constructed fortified anti-tank lines in many parts of Lebanon. They are linked by fast highways, to be closed to all traffic barring Hizballah units in an emergency, and by a military-grade communications network.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:33 PM
Invictus's Avatar
Invictus Invictus is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 26
Invictus is on a distinguished road
Default

This coming war will not be a repeat of the July-August 2006 war, it will not be just Hezbollah vs. Israel.

This coming war will be Psalm 83, Isaiah 17, Joshua 13 and Jeremiah 9 all rolled up into one very nasty WMD war, and from which Israel will emerge victorious, vastly larger territorially and the possessor of vast wealth.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-20-2010, 01:34 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow U.S. Confronts Syria Over 'Provocative Behavior'

U.S. Confronts Syria Over 'Provocative Behavior'
WASHINGTON -- The State Department summoned the senior Syrian diplomat in Washington on Monday to accuse his government of "provocative behavior" in supplying arms to the Iranian-aligned militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A department statement announcing the complaint was imprecise about the alleged arms deals by the Syrians. It alluded to the transfer to Hezbollah of Scud ballistic missiles but did not say explicitly that Syria was behind such a deal.

Israel's President Shimon Peres last week directly accused Damascus of providing the missiles, which can carry a warhead of up to one ton, making them far larger than the biggest rockets previously in Hezbollah's ****nal. They are also more accurate.

The State Department said deputy chief of mission Zouheir Jabbour was called in to "review Syria's provocative behavior concerning the potential transfer of arms to Hezbollah." It went on to say that providing Hezbollah with Scud missiles risked escalating tensions in the volatile region.

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms the transfer of any arms, and especially ballistic missile systems such as the Scud, from Syria to Hezbollah," the statement said. "The transfer of these arms can only have a destabilizing effect on the region, and would pose an immediate threat to both the security of Israel and the sovereignty of Lebanon."

Gordon Duguid, a State Department spokesman in whose name the statement was issued, said in a telephone interview that the department was not confirming that a Scud transfer to Hezbollah had taken place. He said the meeting with the Syrian diplomat was conducted to seek answers about Syrian arms deals and to reiterate U.S. concerns.

The statement said Monday's meeting was the fourth time in recent months that U.S. concerns had been raised with officials at the Syrian Embassy, and was "intended to further amplify our messages communicated to the Syrian government."

Last week White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that U.S. concern about reports of Syrian Scud missile transfers to Hezbollah had been raised at the highest levels of the Syrian government.

On April 1, during a visit to Damascus, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, reiterated U.S. concern about the flow of weapons through Syria to Hezbollah and told reporters the U.S. view is that this is "something that must stop" for there to be peace.
Syria is a strong supporter of militant groups such as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, whose exiled leadership is based in Damascus.

The State Department statement linked the issue of Syrian arms provisions for Hezbollah to the broader Middle East conflict.

"The risk of miscalculation that could result from this type of escalation should make Syria reverse the ill-conceived policy it has pursued in providing arms to Hezbollah," it said. "Additionally, the heightened tension and increased potential for conflict this policy produces is an impediment to ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2010, 04:15 AM
akivah akivah is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2
akivah is on a distinguished road
Default

Syria and Hezbollah's strategy of missile attacks in depth on Israel's population but no real defence against a mobile Israeli armoured force virtually guarantees that in the next war Israel will be forced to penetrate deeply into Syria capturing Damascus, cutting off Lebanon from Syrian re-supply, destroying all the missile bases and deposing Assad. The best way to defeat Hezbollah is to cut it off from its sponsors who are completely unprepared for a conventional war with Israel.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-01-2010, 07:34 PM
dannytoro dannytoro is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 74
dannytoro is on a distinguished road
Default

........As a son of a Maronite I'm really ****ed about our local Lebanese politics. Aoun has become nothing more then a tool of Assad. Samir Geagea is nothing more then a generic war criminal. I find it strange I agree more and more with the Kateab Party, but there it is......
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-03-2010, 08:33 AM
Beirut Beirut is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
Beirut is on a distinguished road
Default

I do not think that a war is imminent unless Israel is daring enough to actually start it. It does not seem like Hezbollah will give Israel any pretext in the near future and Israel's warnings about this or that weapon deployment in Lebanon is proving to be a bluff. If Israel "preemptively" attacks in Lebanon or Syria it will make the job much harder because Lebanese divisions over Hezbollah arms will dissipate and moral higher. And without a pretext for war, it's safe bet that moral in Israel will dwindle quickly if the the conflict drags on and Hezbollah sustains it's missile fire.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-03-2010, 03:21 PM
XtraFresh's Avatar
XtraFresh XtraFresh is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 140
XtraFresh is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
I do not think that a war is imminent unless Israel is daring enough to actually start it. It does not seem like Hezbollah will give Israel any pretext in the near future and Israel's warnings about this or that weapon deployment in Lebanon is proving to be a bluff. If Israel "preemptively" attacks in Lebanon or Syria it will make the job much harder because Lebanese divisions over Hezbollah arms will dissipate and moral higher. And without a pretext for war, it's safe bet that moral in Israel will dwindle quickly if the the conflict drags on and Hezbollah sustains it's missile fire.

Why must you question Israel's willingness to fight a war? How many times has Israel started such wars in self defense? Are you that totally blind and ignorant of history? The pretext is already there. Think of the Cuban Missile crisis in the early 60s under JFK. There was no way in hell that JFK, a peace loving leftist, would allow nukes in Cuba. Likewise there is no way in hell that Israel will tolerate Hezbollah rearming in spite of UN resolution 1701.

The only question is "when". Israel will take off the gloves in their next confrontation and will make the "shock and awe" slogan look petty. Furthermore Isreal's public will stand behind their government and the IDF. Most Israelis, regardless of their political stripe, recognize that they are facing an existential threat like no other from Iran and their proxies.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-03-2010, 04:06 PM
Beirut Beirut is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
Beirut is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
Why must you question Israel's willingness to fight a war?
I did not, I just said it will make the job more difficult for Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
How many times has Israel started such wars in self defense? Are you that totally blind and ignorant of history?
Let us look at Israel's wars that were not instigated by an attack on Israel
1956 - How long did the fighting last, about 10 days?
1967 - The fighting lasted for 6 days.
1982 - There was no real enemy that was putting up a fight with Israel, and the Israeli interior was not under any thread for the duration of the fighting.

History does not show us any case of Israel initiating a protracted conflict during which it's interior was under threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
The pretext is already there.
Do all Israelis share this opinion that the very presence of Hezbollah even if they did not do anything is a sufficient pretext to invade Lebanon? Does the world public opinion? Does international law? I think the answers are no, no, and no. I could be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
Likewise there is no way in hell that Israel will tolerate Hezbollah rearming in spite of UN resolution 1701.
1701 stipulates that arms south of the Litati are to be authorized by the Lebanese government, there is no explicit mention of Hezbollah's arms being banned. Hezbollah is authorized by the Lebanese government to operate. This makes Hezbollah arming in the south not a violation of 1701. Not to mention, 1701 says nothing about arms north of the Litani.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
Israel will take off the gloves in their next confrontation and will make the "shock and awe" slogan look petty.
What will be objective of such a "shock and awe" bombing campaign? The IAF was used to to full capacity in July 2006 against Hezbollah without tangible results. Attacking Lebanese infrastructure and governmental institutions will remove divisions in Lebanon over the Hezbollah arms as well as be a public relations nightmare for Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
Furthermore Isreal's public will stand behind their government and the IDF.
Initially they will especially if the IDF achieves good results. However if Lebanon turns out into a swamp in which the IDF gets caught in, and if the missile fire is not halted, I think voices in Israel will quickly rise asking to stop the war. I could be mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraFresh View Post
Most Israelis, regardless of their political stripe, recognize that they are facing an existential threat like no other from Iran and their proxies.
I do not think Hezbollah is an existential threat to Israel, it is only a threat to Israeli ambitions in Lebanon.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-03-2010, 04:55 PM
Raytheon Raytheon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 128
Raytheon is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Arab states did not destroy Israel while it had only 2 million population...so i don't believe they will do that now...or in near future.

About second lebanon war...the Human factor,training and moral was on the side of Hezbolah thus modern antitank weapon's that cost Israel more than 40 Merkava tank's ,thus hezbolah warriors did not fear at all to come closer and to hit MK4 at his weak point...and when they did not hit there they were destroying tank mobility thus waiting for evacuation of the personal and then...shooting at them,what is essential is that hezbolah evolves and is already adapted for urban warfare...they won(strategic-not in numbers...hezbolah lost many fighters) even without air superiority...

But on home terrain i can say that there is no force that can beat IDF...no way.

And if eventual conflict will happen...i can bet(i don't do that really)that Lebanon will be loser again,ofcourse if we consider Israel Air superiority,bombing beirut airport's,strategic roadways thus useing submarines in order to cut the supply from sea...and again lebanon industry will suffer...Israel is not an enemy,and muslim's are not devil's...what need's to arab's is renaissance of course this means intelect instead religious lobotomy and being slave to god thus the Arab leaders are (ab)using the religion in order to keep their chair safe while they are killing more muslim's than Israel and USA together,example Is Syria,Saudi Arabia,Iran...

I't may sound strange but if all muslims are brothers then why exist the arabian league...i think that arab's are thinking that they are more muslim's than others..so this league had a meeting and everything "constructive" what they have done is a meal tea and nothing more....

The path of hate is not the right one-altruism is the right one.


Quote:
Syria and Hezbollah's strategy of missile attacks in depth on Israel's population but no real defence against a mobile Israeli armoured force virtually guarantees that in the next war Israel will be forced to penetrate deeply into Syria capturing Damascus, cutting off Lebanon from Syrian re-supply, destroying all the missile bases and deposing Assad. The best way to defeat Hezbollah is to cut it off from its sponsors who are completely unprepared for a conventional war with Israel.
For now there is no need for Israel offensive against Syria...such attack could lead to many event's also attack from egypt is possible(now they have Abrams and even mobile SAM's thus good operator's...not to mention the inside threat from Hamas thus attack from Hezbolah...anyway yes arab's are not good in war..they had lack of coordination..the worst pilot's EVER in the world...or just as one U.S general said-I would rather fight against 100 Arab's than 20 Vietnamese.

Last edited by Raytheon; 05-03-2010 at 05:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-03-2010, 06:22 PM
Beirut Beirut is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
Beirut is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raytheon View Post
Arab states did not destroy Israel while it had only 2 million population...so i don't believe they will do that now...or in near future.
This is true, thus what I said that Hezbollah is not an existential threat to Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raytheon View Post
But on home terrain i can say that there is no force that can beat IDF...no way.
A third war if it happens will not be on Israeli home terrain, it will be in Lebanon. If you are referring to this:

Quote:
2. Iran has built for Hizballah five expanded commando brigades whose mission in a future conflict will be to capture and hold key northern Israeli towns and villages, including the town of Nahariya or parts thereof. This tactic would force Israeli forces marching into Lebanon to turn back and recover lost land.
This sounds more like a Hollywood script then a real plan. I read the report that talked about this. I think it is either simply made up by someone with wild imagination or the other possibility if this is true is that Iran and Hezbollah decided to send these five commando brigades to certain death for no good reason. The former is more likely.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-03-2010, 06:23 PM
New Ron's Avatar
New Ron New Ron is offline
Zatoichi
PhotobucketPhotobucket
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Israel Military Forum
Posts: 8,444
New Ron is on a distinguished road
Default Let's be clear on some things ok?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
I did not, I just said it will make the job more difficult for Israel.

Let us look at Israel's wars that were not instigated by an attack on Israel

1956 - How long did the fighting last, about 10 days?
1967 - The fighting lasted for 6 days.
1982 - There was no real enemy that was putting up a fight with Israel, and the Israeli interior was not under any thread for the duration of the fighting.

History does not show us any case of Israel initiating a protracted conflict during which it's interior was under threat.

................................................


I do not think Hezbollah is an existential threat to Israel, it is only a threat to Israeli ambitions in Lebanon.
Let us first clarify some things, you say "not instigated by an attack on Israel" above in your post.

The Suez war in 1956, is maybe disputable, but Egypt a fierce enemy of Israel, who had joined in the attack against Israel, in 1948, and remained Israels enemy, was now in a position where they could have used the Suez crisis to mount an attack on Israel, with the other arabs, which is what happened a few years later in 1967, when the arab armies were about to surround and attack Israel, reason Israel fought that war. Just before the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, PLO terrorists were attacking Israeli interests constantly, so in order to put an end to them once and for all, Israel went in Lebanon where the PLO and Arafat had found refuge, to go in and get him! (It failed when France and America intervened and saved that rats life, for fear it might make arabs even more mad.)

Yes you are right, a war that would mean alot of time, would not be Israels style, and thats not going to happen, any war will be as swift as possible.

Now you speak of Israels "ambitions" in lebanon, please clarify what ambitions you think Israel has in Lebanon?

The problem in Lebanon is Hezbollah, they have been attacking Israel for years, they call our for holy war against Israel, they say they will liberate the Palestinian people, and get rid of the zionist entity, they are a political and military power not only in Lebanon, but in the region, they are admired by both shi ites and sunnis, and you wonder why Israel sees them as a real and present threat?

Hezbollah (leave alone the scud missilles) has been re arming themselves in the UN "protected" zone despite the UN resolutions, and many incidents, have been unravelled by hezbollahs own negligent handling of their activities.

Hezbollah makes no secret it wants to destroy Israel, and yet people come here and there, and pretend Hezbollah is not an "existential threat" to the Jewish state.
__________________
Shalom to everyone!
No extreme is good. Neither in religion, nor in science.

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~


Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-03-2010, 11:22 PM
Beirut Beirut is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
Beirut is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Ron View Post
Let us first clarify some things, you say "not instigated by an attack on Israel" above in your post.

The Suez war in 1956, is maybe disputable, but Egypt a fierce enemy of Israel, who had joined in the attack against Israel, in 1948, and remained Israels enemy, was now in a position where they could have used the Suez crisis to mount an attack on Israel, with the other arabs, which is what happened a few years later in 1967, when the arab armies were about to surround and attack Israel, reason Israel fought that war. Just before the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, PLO terrorists were attacking Israeli interests constantly, so in order to put an end to them once and for all, Israel went in Lebanon where the PLO and Arafat had found refuge, to go in and get him! (It failed when France and America intervened and saved that rats life, for fear it might make arabs even more mad.)
What you said simply confirmed what I said. The 56, 67, and 82 was were not started by an attack on Israel. The 48, 73, and to a lesser extent the 06 wars were (the 06 war was started by an "incursion", which is technically not an "attack on the Jewish state"). But there is no use debating this as you agree with me that a prolonged war is not Israel's style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Ron View Post
Yes you are right, a war that would mean alot of time, would not be Israels style, and thats not going to happen, any war will be as swift as possible.
Mhm, and hence my conclusion that a war is not imminent. Simply because a swift victory is not possible or at best from Israel's perspective not guaranteed and too risky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Ron View Post
Now you speak of Israels "ambitions" in lebanon, please clarify what ambitions you think Israel has in Lebanon?
At the very least, ambitions to solve the Palestinian refugee crisis on Lebanon's expense by forcing Lebanese to give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

I could go further to hypothetical ambitions such as territorial and water ambitions in south Lebanon. Israel has occupied land before in "preemptive" wars and in some cases annexed it such as the Golan Heights. As a Lebanese I have no reason to think Israel might not do this in Lebanon. Even if this can not be proven, I for one do not trust the Israel has good intentions towards Lebanon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Ron View Post
The problem in Lebanon is Hezbollah, they have been attacking Israel for years, they call our for holy war against Israel, they say they will liberate the Palestinian people, and get rid of the zionist entity, they are a political and military power not only in Lebanon, but in the region, they are admired by both shi ites and sunnis, and you wonder why Israel sees them as a real and present threat?

Hezbollah (leave alone the scud missilles) has been re arming themselves in the UN "protected" zone despite the UN resolutions, and many incidents, have been unravelled by hezbollahs own negligent handling of their activities.

Hezbollah makes no secret it wants to destroy Israel, and yet people come here and there, and pretend Hezbollah is not an "existential threat" to the Jewish state.
Hezbollah lacks the means to threaten Israel "existentially". A threat they are but not an existential one. Can you give me an example of what can Hezbollah do that could threaten the existence of the state of Israel?

Let me know what you think: If the problem in Lebanon is Hezbollah, then why did Israel not withdraw from all of Lebanon after the defeat of the PLO? Back then Hezbollah did not even exist.

Last edited by Beirut; 05-03-2010 at 11:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-04-2010, 01:05 AM
New Ron's Avatar
New Ron New Ron is offline
Zatoichi
PhotobucketPhotobucket
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Israel Military Forum
Posts: 8,444
New Ron is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
What you said simply confirmed what I said. The 56, 67, and 82 was were not started by an attack on Israel. The 48, 73, and to a lesser extent the 06 wars were (the 06 war was started by an "incursion", which is technically not an "attack on the Jewish state"). But there is no use debating this as you agree with me that a prolonged war is not Israel's style.
Yeah its not Israels style, they arent stupid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
Mhm, and hence my conclusion that a war is not imminent. Simply because a swift victory is not possible or at best from Israel's perspective not guaranteed and too risky.
Exactly, thats why Lebanons President and PM are dead wrong in saying that they think Israel might attack, these dumb heads think by saying that, will do what good? Put the Lebanese on red alert, to create more tensions? Both idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
At the very least, ambitions to solve the Palestinian refugee crisis on Lebanon's expense by forcing Lebanese to give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
The Palestinains refugee crisis, in relation to Lebanon, would not be resolved by Israel invading Lebanon, that would only impower both the Lebanese and Palestinians to call on "liberating" their "homeland" rather than getting them citizenship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
I could go further to hypothetical ambitions such as territorial and water ambitions in south Lebanon. Israel has occupied land before in "preemptive" wars and in some cases annexed it such as the Golan Heights. As a Lebanese I have no reason to think Israel might not do this in Lebanon. Even if this can not be proven, I for one do not trust the Israel has good intentions towards Lebanon.
The so called"pre emptive wars" you speak of, were harldy pre-emptive, but just a little ahead of an attack on Israel, or retaliation for attacks on Israel, as I explained above, nothing pre emptive, except maybe the Suez Crisis.

Israel only occupied lands, to block off any further attacks on Israel, in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, then all the lands were returned after deals were struck, or diplomatic relations established that made Israel feel safe, they would not need to worry. The Golan Heights were taken, not for water or territorial reasons, they were taken because Syria used those heights to attack Israel, and that gave Syria an advantage from that height. Even PM Sharon wanted to return it to Syria if Syria accepted to give up all terror support to Hezbollah, and renounce any attack in the future against Israel. Syria refused, Israel kept the land. Personally I think the Golan Heights are too dangerous to return to an enemy that speaks with a double mouth, and has two faces, namely Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
Hezbollah lacks the means to threaten Israel "existentially". A threat they are but not an existential one. Can you give me an example of what can Hezbollah do that could threaten the existence of the state of Israel?
Hezbollah has been "restraining itself" (Thanks to international pressure, and opinion) from causing more damage than it could on Israel, thats the first thing, but alone no they cannot destroy Israel, but with their allies Iran and Syria, they could mount an offensive to try and destroy Israel, yes even then they are too weak, but they think they can win sometimes, and that will cause much damage on both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
Let me know what you think: If the problem in Lebanon is Hezbollah, then why did Israel not withdraw from all of Lebanon after the defeat of the PLO? Back then Hezbollah did not even exist.
My friend, you should know better, because simply Lebanon had much more than just Hezbollah that threatened them from Lebanon, "hezbollah" already existed by the way, just not as organized, and it was a formation of different shi ite groups. PLO was not defeated, I wrote earlier their leader was even rescued by the darn French troops, effectively, putting any end to the hopes by Israel to defeat the PLO in that war. Then as usual a Lebano-International effort to get Israel out of Lebanon was done, with Syria still in control of Lebanon, so if you count the Sunni PLO, Shia "groups" whether or not they were called Hezbollah proper back then, isnt the point they were there and waging war against Israel. Then pop in Syria a fierce enemy of Israel, from even before the 1970's and 1980's, you get your reason for why Israel could not withdraw fully from Lebanon until several years later, which was also a mistake, thats when Hezbollah took advantage to attack Israel, and kill or kidnap soldiers.
__________________
Shalom to everyone!
No extreme is good. Neither in religion, nor in science.

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~



Last edited by New Ron; 05-04-2010 at 01:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-04-2010, 01:22 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Beirut perhaps you should read more history.

Beirut, why do you come to our forum? Is it to learn, argue, or to attack Israel?

In 1948 Lebanon attacked Israel during what Israel calls the War of Liberation and Arabs call the Catastrophe.

“In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his ****nal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.

These “heroes” were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border and infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Abba Eban explained the provocations to the Security Council on October 30:

During the six years during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded.

One reason these raids were so intolerable for Israel was that the country had chosen to create a relatively small standing army and to rely primarily on reserves in the event of war. This meant that Israel had a small force to fight in an emergency, that threats provoking the mobilization of reserves could virtually paralyze the country, and that an enemy's initial thrust would have to be withstood long enough to complete the mobilization.

Great Power Collusion
Earlier, President Dwight Eisenhower had successfully persuaded the British and French not to attack Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. When the agreement on the canal’s use proved reliable over the succeeding weeks, it became more and more difficult to justify military action. Still, the French and British desperately wanted to put Nasser in his place and recapture their strategic asset.

The French had grown increasingly close to the new Israeli government, politically, diplomatically, and militarily. The British attitude toward Israel had hardly changed from the mandatory period. Residual bitterness over the nearly three-decade-long battle fought with the Zionists, combined with the ongoing alliance with Jordan, discouraged any shift in policy.

The French concluded, however, that they could use Israel’s fear of Egyptian aggression and the continuing blockade as a pretext for their own strike against Nasser. The British couldn’t pass up the chance to join in.

The three nations subsequently agreed on a plan whereby Israel would land paratroopers near the canal and send its armor across the Sinai Desert. The British and French would then call for both sides to withdraw from the canal zone, fully expecting the Egyptians to refuse. At that point, British and French troops would be deployed to “protect” the canal.

Israel Routs Egypt
When the decision was made to go to war in 1956, more than 100,000 soldiers were mobilized in less than 72 hours and the air force was fully operational within 43 hours. Paratroopers landed in the Sinai and Israeli forces quickly advanced unopposed toward the Suez Canal before halting in compliance with the demands of England and France. As expected, the Egyptians ignored the Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw since they, the “victims,” were being asked to retreat from the Sinai to the west bank of the Canal while the Israelis were permitted to stay just 10 miles east of the Canal.

On October 30, the United States sponsored a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Israeli withdrawal, but England and France vetoed it. The following day, the two allies launched air operations, bombing Egyptian airfields near Suez.

Given the pretext to continue fighting, the Israeli forces routed the Egyptians….

Read it all> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Suez_War.html

The 1967 Six-Day War - The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but it was not able to persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions. Still, right before the war, Johnson warned: "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone."(16) Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed."(17)

Moreover, while the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel's other main arms supplier also embargoed arms to Israel).

By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.(18)

On June 5, 1967, Israel was indeed alone, but its military commanders had conceived a brilliant war strategy. The entire Israeli Air Force, with the exception of just 12 fighters assigned to defend Israeli air space, took off at 7:14 a.m. with the intent of bombing Egyptian airfields while the Egyptian pilots were eating breakfast. In less than 2 hours, roughly 300 Egyptian aircraft were destroyed. A few hours later, Israeli fighters attacked the Jordanian and Syrian air forces, as well as one airfield in Iraq. By the end of the first day, nearly the entire Egyptian and Jordanian air forces, and half the Syrians’, had been destroyed on the ground.

The battle then moved to the ground, and some of history’s greatest tank battles were fought between Egyptian and Israeli armor in the blast-furnace conditions of the Sinai desert…

Read it all> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1967toc.html

October 6, 1973 — Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar — Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated surprise attack against Israel.
Read it all> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73_War.html


The Lebanon War-
Israel has long sought a peaceful northern border. But Lebanon's position as a haven for terrorist groups has made this impossible. In March 1978, PLO terrorists infiltrated Israel. After murdering an American tourist walking near an Israeli beach, they hijacked a civilian bus. The terrorists shot through the windows as the bus traveled down the highway. When Israeli troops intercepted the bus, the terrorists opened fire. A total of 34 hostages died in the attack. In response, Israeli forces crossed into Lebanon and overran terrorist bases in the southern part of that country, pushing the terrorists away from the border. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew after two months, allowing United Nations forces to enter. But UN troops were unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms.

Violence escalated with a series of PLO attacks and Israeli reprisals. Finally, the United States helped broker a cease­fire agreement in July 1981. The PLO repeatedly violated the cease-fire over the ensuing 11 months. Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Twenty­nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks.

Meanwhile, a force of some 15-18,000 PLO members was encamped in scores of locations in Lebanon. About 5,000-6,000 were foreign mercenaries, coming from such countries as Libya, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Chad and Mozambique. Israel later discovered enough light arms and other weapons in Lebanon to equip five brigades. The PLO ****nal included mortars, Katyusha rockets and an extensive anti­aircraft network. The PLO also brought hundreds of T­34 tanks into the area. Syria, which permitted Lebanon to become a haven for the PLO and other terrorist groups, brought surface-to-air missiles into that country, creating yet another danger for Israel.

Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of this PLO army. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently attacked Lebanon again on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. On June 6, the IDF moved into Lebanon to drive out the terrorists in "Operation Peace for Galilee."

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger defended the Israeli operation: "No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).

"On Lebanon, it is clear that we and Israel both seek an end to the violence there, and a sovereign, independent Lebanon," President Reagan said June 21, 1982. "We agree that Israel must not be subjected to violence from the north."

Read it all> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Lebanon_War.html


Beirut perhaps you should read more history.
A student of history: Paparock
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 05-04-2010 at 01:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-04-2010, 03:43 AM
XtraFresh's Avatar
XtraFresh XtraFresh is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 140
XtraFresh is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
I did not, I just said it will make the job more difficult for Israel.

What will make the job more difficult for the IDF and Israel is the UN demanding that they stop their attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
Let us look at Israel's wars that were not instigated by an attack on Israel
1956 - How long did the fighting last, about 10 days?
1967 - The fighting lasted for 6 days.
1982 - There was no real enemy that was putting up a fight with Israel, and the Israeli interior was not under any thread for the duration of the fighting.

As Paparock correctly pointed out there was a huge buildup alongside all of Israel's borders in 1956. I would argue that the most provocative action was blockading the straits of Tiran with the objective blockading Israel itself. Do you know why Japan declared war on America?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
History does not show us any case of Israel initiating a protracted conflict during which it's interior was under threat.
First let's define a "protracted conflict". Let's put some numbers so that we are communicating on the same page. Do I believe that Israel would become involved in a war that would last for years? Absolutely not. Though i do believe that Israel is willing to become involved in a conflict that spans a few weeks like the last encounter with Hezbollah. The biggest difference would be that Israel would use everything in her ****nal to bring the conflict to a swift ending.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
Do all Israelis share this opinion that the very presence of Hezbollah even if they did not do anything is a sufficient pretext to invade Lebanon? Does the world public opinion? Does international law? I think the answers are no, no, and no. I could be wrong.

First and farmost there is no such thing as "international law". That term has been so badly corrupted that it is a joke. Second Israel will not invade and occupy Lebanon. Last but least I personally don't care about "world opinion". When has the world ever defended Jews when it mattered the most?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
1701 stipulates that arms south of the Litati are to be authorized by the Lebanese government, there is no explicit mention of Hezbollah's arms being banned. Hezbollah is authorized by the Lebanese government to operate. This makes Hezbollah arming in the south not a violation of 1701. Not to mention, 1701 says nothing about arms north of the Litani.
Quote:

- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;


************************************************** *****



-- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;

************************************************** *****



http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm

You should know full well what the Taif Accords are. If not then please allow me to refresh your memory.


Quote:

PART II: IMPOSING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT OVER ALL LEBANESE LAND Given the agreement among the Lebanese parties on the existence of a strong and able state based on national reconciliation the national accord government shall outline a detailed security plan for a one-year period whose aim shall be: the gradual extension of the sovereignty of the Lebanese government over all Lebanese lands through the State's intrinsic resources. The general elements of the plan are as follows:
1. Declaration of the disbanding of the Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and the transfer of weapons in their possession to the Lebanese government within six months of the rectification of the document of national reconciliation the election of a president the establishment of a national accord government and the constitutional ratification of the political reforms.



http://www.mideastweb.org/taif.htm



Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
What will be objective of such a "shock and awe" bombing campaign? The IAF was used to to full capacity in July 2006 against Hezbollah without tangible results. Attacking Lebanese infrastructure and governmental institutions will remove divisions in Lebanon over the Hezbollah arms as well as be a public relations nightmare for Israel.
Hezbollah only endured a fraction of Israel's firepower.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
Initially they will especially if the IDF achieves good results. However if Lebanon turns out into a swamp in which the IDF gets caught in, and if the missile fire is not halted, I think voices in Israel will quickly rise asking to stop the war. I could be mistaken.

This is a two edged sword Beirut. How much damage do you want see done to Lebanon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut View Post
I do not think Hezbollah is an existential threat to Israel, it is only a threat to Israeli ambitions in Lebanon.

By themselves no. But they are part of a coalition who is
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum