The whole issue is meaningless anyway, since Israel initiates all the wars.

RedLeb,

That, of course, is the brainwashed Arab-street version.

The actual version is the following. Note, nothing like this was tried again after the conflict, and Hezbollah has already admitted it was a mistake.

The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[21] Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, five were killed, and the bodies of two of the dead were taken to Lebanon.[21] Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

Lally said:

…Sharon would never have ordered a ground invasion. Typical of flyboys the world over, Dan Halutz was convinced that HIS AF could do the job. And the gormless DC neocons pushing for it were as always, clueless.

Sharon may not have sent ground troops, but he sure would have fought. I lot of blame went to the defense minister, Amir Peretz, who, at the time had a famous photo of him taken showing him gaze through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars. A fitting photo indeed. He and Olmert were symbols of bad military planning.

Nevertheless, the neocon “strategy” was to simply give Israel the freedom and time they needed to do the job (or the best job) they could under the time constraints they seem to always have due to international pressure. It was also the necon strategy to get a favorable UNSC resolution. UNSC Resolution 1701 was good idea, because it is a given that Hezbollah would not abide by it, thus providing the GOI a reason to overfly and go back into Lebanon the next time hostilities begin.

The neocons also wanted Israel to bite on Syria as well. The GOI decided to forgo that advice.

The only way that is possible is if my country has allowed Israeli access to the top level classified American X-band radar technology installed at OUR military base in the Negev.

YOUR country is my country. YOUR country almost suffered another commercial airplane incident from the typcial brainwashed jihadist last month. YOUR country naively tutored jihadists how to fly commercial airliners for their 9-11 “coming-out party” before YOUR country ever set foot in Afghanistan and Iraq. YOUR country was duped by a Jordanian double-agent.

OUR country would do better if they worked more closely with Israel.

The enemy isn’t “the neocons”.

OF COURSE the US doesn’t intend to give Lebanon the Army it really needs. OF COURSE the not-so-shiny not-so-new Hummvees they’re unloading on the LAF are shabby hand-me-downs. But the sad reality is, they are improving the LAF’s capabilities, that’s how sad a state of affairs we’re facing. Is it enough? Of course not. Does it mean we should swear fealty to Uncle Sam? Who’s asking us to do so? Has it stopped us from acquiring Russians MiGs (as useless as they might be)?

The way to improve the LAF is to exploit all available sources, starting with cost-free ones. In fact, accepting aid from the US has probably stimulated Russia to pitch in which will probably stimulate the US to pitch in even more. We are too far away from an even marginally effective LAF to refuse any help, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept any conditions. The day the Lebanese government presents an unconditional peace treaty with Israel or open a US base in Lebanon or whatever we consider to be a breach of national sovereignty, we’ll all hit the streets and protest and chain ourselves to whichever monument is relevant. Until then, let’s not look gift horses in the mouth, shall we?

As for the Hezbollah-is-great-why-do-we-need-an-army argument, every single of tenet that doctrine has been disproved. Even if you consider the armed pacification and occupation of Beirut, the silencing of (admittedly partisan) media through sheer thuggery and political blackmail by force of arms (not to call it a coup)to be not much of an offense to your delicate-yet-selective-sensitivities, Hezbollah is an ineffective weapon against Israel.

Hezbollah’s rhetoric holds that Israel would have gone through the 2006 war even without provocation, and will go through new wars, because its very existence is built on continuous aggression. In that case, Hezbollah has been unable and will be unable to stop the Israeli Air Force and all the destruction it has wreaked. Maybe, MAYBE, if the much vaunted “secret weapon” materializes, they might down a couple of helicopters, MAYBE even a couple of jets, but it will be like the attack on the Israeli Navy: a one-shot media stunt that would simply force the Israelis to bomb from further away (higher up) unimpeded.

Similarly, the argument that Hezbollah allows Lebanon to resist without suffering Israeli retaliation has been obviously shot to pieces.

What remains is the any-unit-in-the-army-is-compromised argument. Most armies in the world have deep cover special forces groups whose existence is barely acknowledged to the political establishment and who have complete operational freedom as long as they stick to the decision of war and peace held by the government. There is absolutely no reason this would not work in Lebanon, it has for the past 15 years, with the only difference that Hezbollah make their own decisions of war and peace.

I don’t.

Come on, do you think it matters to Israel that the missile were “only meant for distraction but not destruction”?

That kind of subtlety is good maybe for diplomacy, not for war (not that Israel’s diplomacy of late was subtle in any way). Making such claims is not just distorting reality, its turning it inside out.

And all those hints about how Israel is all about destruction while the Lebanease are better?
Like “death by a thousand cuts” is not the current declared approach for Hezbullah and it’s copycats.

The fact we have good shelters and radar warning systems doesn’t mean we have to be ‘tolerant’ about missiles being launched on our territory. Are you ‘tolerant’ of Israel surveillance flights over Lebanon? I am sure you would justify the use of deadly force in that case. I mean, they don’t even physically harm anyone – but that’s hardly the point, is it?

I am increasingly of the belief that what is going on these days between Lebanon and Israel is truly a ‘battle’ for public perception; more so on the Israeli side.

A couple of days ago, Barack, in his near-daily threats to Lebanon (..and I do mean Lebanon and not only the resistance) added a notion that is worthy of further consideration. He said, and here I am paraphrasing, that the borders have been quite for some years now, and it is in both sides’ interest for this state of affairs to be sustained.

I believe that Israel has all the reasons/rationale on a national level to direct a crippling blow to the resistance in Lebanon, not least for 2 strategic considerations: to regain the status of its army that suffered in 2006 a reversal domestically as well as regionally, and to pre-empt the escalation by the Lebanese resistance in its efforts to maintain and indeed enhance its military capabilities. That said, Israel remains ‘hesitant’ in its active endeavours towards achieving these strategic objectives. We constantly hear that efforts are underway to deal with these issues; military manoeuvres, mass public preparations and most importantly an effective response to mid and long range missiles. Notwithstanding the validity of such ‘new’ high-tech response -or lack of it- the issue remains to be one of who will blink first. In other words, which community will be able to handle the human, political and economic repercussions for longer!

Looking at the past six decades or so and the nature and social fabric of both societies gives us, perhaps, an idea of who is prepared to tough it out better!

As to your view in the second to last paragraph about “provocation”, let me borrow a sentiment from almost all international norms and conventions: resisting occupation is not only legal, it is an obligation. The taking of two Israeli soldiers as POWs in 2006 falls within the realm of such legitimate obligations.

Lest we forget: the invasions of 1978 and 1982, not to mention earlier transgressions against Lebanon, and the umpteen UN resolutions that Israel failed to abide by until such time in 2000 when the occupation was rolled back from most of Lebanese territories, and 2006-7 when the vast majority of Lebanese civilians and members of the resistance, dead and alive, were brought home. In view, the achievements resulting from taking the POWs, including the establishment of a ‘balance of terror’ that insured 3 years of ‘stability’ to the Lebanese people in the south, are very much worth it.

Regards

My point was that diversionary attacks cannot be deterred by missile shields because the attacks are not even meant to hit their target, only to focus attention elsewhere.

And its RedLeb.

I find you talk of perception a clear victory of the first over the second.

Perception IS reality for everybody, including you and me.

In 2006 Israel did not declare victory but rather investigated into its faults on the decision level and on-the-ground level. Pushing ‘Iron Dome’ forward is one of the results. You may not like the results, but that is mostly a matter of perception.

It seems really important for you guys to promote the perception that Israel has no technological achievements of it’s own, rather everything is ‘stolen’ of ‘given’ by the US. I don’t agree – but it’s useless to argue.

So what if test missile X failed? I am glad such failures are admitted instead of the cover-ups you may be more used to.

I work in research & development myself, and I am sure Iron dome had may failed tests before achieving a success. That’s how you develop a system, for failure to failure.

Red Lab:

Hezbullah never launched an unprovoked (missile) attack on Israel?? That is not even in the realm of perception.
In 2006, Hezbullah kidnapped the two soldiers across the border and used Katyusha attacks on the surrounding villages as cover and distraction. It is ridiculous to suggest Israel was bound by some unwritten code “You kidnap and launch a couple of rockets, we respond by this & this”.

The fact that your enemy & declared nemesis has responded thus in previous incidents is no guarantee for the future, which should always be taken that into account.

Fighting the previous war, anyone?

Israel’s friends always mention Nasrallah’s statement in order to “prove” that deterrence “works”. What they ignore or perhaps are ignorant of is the history of tit-for-tat kidnappings, prisoner exchanges and sporadic firing of ordnance that was SOP between Hezbollah and Israel under Sharon. The low-intensity status quo was acceptable to both sides. (Sadly, the relaxed attitude among Goldwasser’s patrol led to their ambush. Why was that warning of seeing Hezbollah operatives by the previous patrol ignored?!)

Nasrallah was fooled by Olmert’s declaration that he would follow Sharon’s policies. Sharon would not have been so stupid to launch another war on Lebanon/Hezbollah; in particular, Sharon would never have ordered a ground invasion. Typical of flyboys the world over, Dan Halutz was convinced that HIS AF could do the job. And the gormless DC neocons pushing for it were as always, clueless.

G. I’m quite aware of the extent of Israeli/American military cooperation in terms of missile and civil defense (including evacuation scenarios) and am glad to see that some Israelis and their friends are expressing at least some skepticism about the usefulness of the ballyhoed protection methods. Evidently, they are not entirely persuaded that “perception” trumps “reality” when it comes to the possibilities/probabilities of widespread death and destruction.

But, thanks for your input as it demonstrates the strategery in action. Would you care to explain the dismal failures of the recent co$tly test of the upgraded Arrow off the California coast? Or why the numbskulls promoting the “Iron Kipa” claimed that it could stop MORTARS? The only way that is possible is if my country has allowed Israeli access to the top level classified American X-band radar technology installed at OUR military base in the Negev.

BTW, the danger of the unguided rocket barrages (porcupine quills) is that guidance systems on the larger missiles provide an electronic signature for “locking on to” and targeting. In addition, many Israeli intel assets providing humint targeting info to MI are no longer in business. But the amount of destruction done is dependent on what’s hit. Civilians living around military installations/arms caches and vulnerable toxic industrial sites magnify the potential damages of low yield explosive loads.

Akbar. You’re right that the whole business of the latest Turkey/Israeli diplo debacle is ripe for satire. Although, it would be better if penned by one of the many talented Israeli commenters/TV skit producers who excel at darkly satirical writing. (I’m a great fan). The whole set-up as recorded and explained by “Danny the Diplo” Ayalon MUST be included.

In fact, I fully expect to see some such penned efforts soon although not in the “conversational” form that QN has mastered. I’m not sure that he would “get” the Israeli tactic of insisiting that the target audience stop believing their lying eyes.