What should Israel have done?

C

Care4all

Junior Member
Contributor
Okay, it is time to put Israel's shoes on for a minute....let's "play" pretend.... :)

Background: (from what I have read about it! ;) )
Lebanon, was suppose to guard their southern area and prevent terrorists from living or building up any bases there.....this was part of a cease fire, and this was why Israel retreated back in to its own land after the Lebanese war cease fire.

for the last 6 years this was left unchecked by the Lebanese gvt and this is why Hezbollah was able to build up their stronghold in southern Lebanon....and this is why Hezbollah has been able to fire the couple of thousand rockets in to Israel the past two weeks.

Hezbollah has been supplied with its ammunition via Syria, and Iran Shiites. Lebanon let this happen....and in a way, I think we did too, by NOT giving the gvt of lebanon what they needed to build up their strength to fight off hezbollah and prevent them from taking this stronghold in the southern region of Lebanon, bordering Israel.

Hezbollah attacked Israel two weeks ago and a half dozen soldiers were killed and two soldiers were kidnapped.

Israeli Intelligence had been showing the build up of hezbollah the past 6 years....their intelligence had showed them that Lebanon had not been doing their job or REQUIREMENT of the signed cease fire agreement to keep terrorist groups like hezbollah out of the region next to Israel's border.....

then, this incident that set Israel off....the killings and the kidnapping of the two soldiers....

What should their response have been? What would have been the "right" thing to do in response to the kidnapping....on their ground, because hezbollah crossed their border to do this....?

What would you do if you knew all of the above and you were the government in charge? What would have been the PROPORTIONATE response KNOWING ALL OF THE ABOVE?

I guess I keep asking the same question....:confused:
 
Well, I think they should have bombed a couple of days to let the Lebanese know that they were serious and then gone to the bargaining table, to rehash the cease fire before the UN, and then the UN should have found a way to support Lebanon in fighting off Hezbollah....

Or maybe if I were Lebanon, I would have said, Let me do it...but give me support, Isarel...

Let me, the Lebanese gvt bomb the shit out of Hezbollah, but first moving the innocense out, with ammunitions supplied by the usa or israel to do it...?

To me, Israel used the two being kidnapped as an excuse to take care of Hezbollah, once and for all in Lebanon near their border and appears to have over-reacted, especially with all of the innocent that have been killed?

but I do understand why israel felt this was necessary, especially when I put myself in to their shoes...

I dunno?
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
Well, I think they should have bombed a couple of days to let the Lebanese know that they were serious and then gone to the bargaining table, to rehash the cease fire before the UN, and then the UN should have found a way to support Lebanon in fighting off Hezbollah....

Or maybe if I were Lebanon, I would have said, Let me do it...but give me support, Isarel...

Let me, the Lebanese gvt bomb the shit out of Hezbollah, but first moving the innocense out, with ammunitions supplied by the usa or israel to do it...?

To me, Israel used the two being kidnapped as an excuse to take care of Hezbollah, once and for all in Lebanon near their border and appears to have over-reacted, especially with all of the innocent that have been killed?

I dunno?
Click to expand...

Kofi Annan is anti-Israel in almost every stance he has ever taken. Why would Israel ever trust the UN to represent their interest?
 
....

for the last 6 years this was left unchecked by the Lebanese gvt and this is why Hezbollah was able to build up their stronghold in southern Lebanon..

First, Lebanon didn't even have a functioning democratic government until a yeear ago. Its still to weak to control the country.

The Iraq government hasn't been able to control kurdish rebels on its terrority from infiltrating Turkey and killing turkish citizens for the last 14 years. Yet, we would be astonished if turkey decided to bomb Bagdad's international airport, iraqs highways, bridges, and infrastruture.

Israel has a right to defend itself. I would recommend doing it in a more restrained and covert way. Special forces, surgical strikes, covert ops, etc.
 
They could been a lot more surgical in their efforts to get those who were attackign them. Certainly destroying hte Lebanese civilian and gov't infrastructure was not the only option. This is the same military that successfully pulled off operation thunderbolt.
 
Every country and entity on Earth has a right to defend itself. But lets be honest here, Israel hasn't always been "defending". They've occupied foreign countries for decades on end, and they're not free from all complicity in the messed up nature of the climate in the Middle East.
 
I belive Isreal is, so far, acting properly unless it is true they bombed the UN intentionally.
 
I definitely disagreed with their decision to bomb the banks in Lebanon. I'm sure if they approached the owners in a diplomatic fashion with both governments, they would have been able to get a lot more information and help to stifle Hezbollah financially. Instead, people are dead, and have no jobs.
 
They should use ground forces. Their is less risk of killing innocent people that way. However it would mean that more Israeli soldiers would die. However in war it is the soldiers who must shed blood to reach an objective and not civilians.
 
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...ok? ;)

IHG...weldome!
But if they should have used ground forces, as they are doing right now, they say they needed to bomb strategic locations for the safety of their ground forces that they were about to send in....

the ground forces are still on Lebanese soil as we speek, I think?

care
 
LadyT said:
I definitely disagreed with their decision to bomb the banks in Lebanon. I'm sure if they approached the owners in a diplomatic fashion with both governments, they would have been able to get a lot more information and help to stifle Hezbollah financially. Instead, people are dead, and have no jobs.
Click to expand...

(Again...devils advocate, but this time on the side of lebanese...)

Hezbollah is financially supplied by Syria, and the Shiites in Iran perhaps....how can Lebanon have been able to agree to ending that in this meeting with the Israeli's that you proposed?
 
IHateGovernment said:
If those strategic sites that needed to be bombed are in populated areas they should be destroyed from the ground.
Click to expand...


Yes! That makes sense, and I agree that this would be the humane measures to take, and yes, even during war....there are humane measures or inhumane measures....

I think the USA should hold to the same standard too...even if it means MORE loss of lives for our own.
 
I think Aerial bombardment upon populated areas should be against international law. The argument of loss of soldiers lives was the kind of rationale they use to justify the atomic bomb droppoing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Civilian loss of life must be kept at a minimum even if 100 times as many soldiers die. When you pick up a weapon to kill others you are a more legitimate target then a woman holding a baby.
 
Care4all said:
(Again...devils advocate, but this time on the side of lebanese...)

Hezbollah is financially supplied by Syria, and the Shiites in Iran perhaps....how can Lebanon have been able to agree to ending that in this meeting with the Israeli's that you proposed?
Click to expand...

Lebanon is a new government. I'm sure banking protocols are not the top of their agenda, however israel could have made them aware and help to offer solutions for the funneling of monies in and out of their country. I know the US would have more than glad to mediate if not iniatiate such a proposal.
 
LadyT said:
Lebanon is a new government. I'm sure banking protocols are not the top of their agenda, however israel could have made them aware and help to offer solutions for the funneling of monies in and out of their country. I know the US would have more than glad to mediate if not iniatiate such a proposal.
Click to expand...

Hezbollah has seats in their gvt....I don't know if that comes in to play, but I think it would....just an fyi.... ;)
 
IHateGovernment said:
I think Aerial bombardment upon populated areas should be against international law. The argument of loss of soldiers lives was the kind of rationale they use to justify the atomic bomb droppoing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Civilian loss of life must be kept at a minimum even if 100 times as many soldiers die. When you pick up a weapon to kill others you are a more legitimate target then a woman holding a baby.
Click to expand...

well said, and precisely!
 
Cypress said:
for the last 6 years this was left unchecked by the Lebanese gvt and this is why Hezbollah was able to build up their stronghold in southern Lebanon..

First, Lebanon didn't even have a functioning democratic government until a yeear ago. Its still to weak to control the country.

The Iraq government hasn't been able to control kurdish rebels on its terrority from infiltrating Turkey and killing turkish citizens for the last 14 years. Yet, we would be astonished if turkey decided to bomb Bagdad's international airport, iraqs highways, bridges, and infrastruture.

Israel has a right to defend itself. I would recommend doing it in a more restrained and covert way. Special forces, surgical strikes, covert ops, etc.
Click to expand...


Although I firmly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself ... you are right on target with your analogy.. extremely well put Cypress...

I give you 20 Grind points on this one alone ... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top