Not Buying Israeli 'Defeat'

[Joe]

I don't buy the idea that Israel was defeated by Hizb'allah.

The Israeli back room boys have decades of experience in long term plotting and planning of a most evil nature, and there is little chance therefore that they would or could have made such a massive miscalculation in this recent attack on Lebanon.

Israel's attack was ostensibly on Hizb'allah which, while enjoying widespread support from most Lebanese and Lebanese troops, was a war with a "terrorist" organisation. Israel desires war with Lebanon and also Syria, but the Lebanese government and army are legitimate entities and cannot be arbitrarily attacked by Israel without 'just cause'. The Syrian government has been smart in distancing itself from Hizb'allah at least officially and claiming that it has no control over that organisation (which it seems is more or less true).

Notice however that as a result of Israel's recent attack, Lebanese troops are now taking control of southern Lebanon and of course, Hizb'allah has not gone away. This may make it much easier for the Israeli government to manufacture a war that involves Lebanese troops rather than Hizb'allah alone. If this happens, then war can be waged on Lebanon proper. Such a war would probably draw in Syria, opening the door to Iranian involvement.

Joe

 

[dhess31]

Hi Joe,
That is an interesting take on the situation that I realyl hadn't thought of.

You may be right, since apparently Israel's definition of a "cease fire" is vastly different from mine.

You are probably right, and maybe in Phase I they thought Syria would get involved but didn't, so now it is onto Phase II.

Don

 

[Russ]

Yeah. My Lebanese friend called me up, all excited about the news of Hizb'allah defeating Israel with guerilla tactics, expecting me to rejoice with him, but I didn't. I just said to him I will wait and see, because I don't see israel giving up. He was saying, "Yeah but, I have photos of my relatives sitting on burnt out Israeli tanks! They had their arses kicked, its like Viet Nam!". All I can see is that he is setting himself up to be knocked down again, getting all excited way too prematurely, and he seemed almost desperate for me to partake - maybe he wanted to "bolster" his illusion for the perpose of feeling a grain of happiness. But I couldn't do that to him, I felt that I should offer balance to his view. He was dissapointed with my response. However he has no proof that what he was talking about really meant anything positive, and that was my main point which he seemed reluctant to consider. The next point was that it all seemed a bit too easy and in my opinion vigilance is much more prudent than premature celebration, in this situation, given Israel's "track record".

The way I see it, I am not doing him much of a service as a friend if I don't offer him information which allows him to consider the other side of the coin. So thanks Joe, I will pass your insight on ;)

 

[Joe]

All I know is that the people we are dealing with are not just vicious bastards, they are much worse than that - they are cold, emotionless robots who plan their moves based on their knowledge of the emotional 'weakness' of ordinary human beings, their naivete of the average person...and game theory.

They are specialists at maneuvering individuals and populations into positions where they can be obliterated in an apparently "inevitable" war. Indeed, such wars are inevitable, but only because the world remains unaware of who the real enemy is.

These psychopaths have only just begun their 'end game' in the Middle East, there is much more to come. The 1300 dead civilians in Lebanon was just a taster to get them 'in the mood'.

When it is all over but the crying (as they say) and on the day that these deviant human beings in power finally walk away from their mindless bloody game and stare blankly at the massive slaughter and carnage they have wrought, they will shrug their shoulders, feel absolutely nothing, and wonder what they will do now that there is no one left to kill.

Joe

 

[Cyre2067]

Another thought i just had was that they failed on purpose to give the arabs a semi-confidence boost. This way, if another war pops up, the arabic nations will think that israel was just defeated, therefore they can do it again!

Only this time, they'll actually be trying.

 

[Ruth]

Another thought i just had was that they failed on purpose to give the arabs a semi-confidence boost. This way, if another war pops up, the arabic nations will think that israel was just defeated, therefore they can do it again!

Only this time, they'll actually be trying.

Israel still has to 'take on' Syria and Iran - or get others to do it for them.

I'm wondering what part the future UN troop presence in Lebannon will play. This is thinking in terms of Israel playing 'game theory' with just about everyone... The fact is, they need other governments co-operation - to a certain extent anyway, to do what they want to do.

 

[mlkh]

I would have to disagree that Israel did not suffer a defeat.

I guess I look at it this way - outcomes (when being judged) have to compared to what was expected. In this case, Israel wanted to basically "turn the clock back on Lebanon 20 years" (a general's words, not mine). So really they were expecting to a) create a state where it'd be easy to re-occupy Lebanon, and b) disarm/disband/murder the Hezbollah.

They did neither. While using superior equipment, weapons, etc etc and actual soldiers AND with the pride that comes with being undefeated in the past. On top of this now they're being given shit about.

I'm not sure this makes any sense. It always sounds alright in my head.

Anyhoo, to conclude, I think the sheer fact that Israel failed to do anything they planned to do makes it a defeat.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I would have to disagree that Israel did not suffer a defeat.

I guess I look at it this way - outcomes (when being judged) have to compared to what was expected. In this case, Israel wanted to basically "turn the clock back on Lebanon 20 years" (a general's words, not mine). So really they were expecting to a) create a state where it'd be easy to re-occupy Lebanon, and b) disarm/disband/murder the Hezbollah.

They did neither. While using superior equipment, weapons, etc etc and actual soldiers AND with the pride that comes with being undefeated in the past. On top of this now they're being given shit about.

I'm not sure this makes any sense. It always sounds alright in my head.

Anyhoo, to conclude, I think the sheer fact that Israel failed to do anything they planned to do makes it a defeat.

I'm not sure what I'm about to say makes sense either, but I think both of you are right.

 

[Appollynon]

I tend to agree with Joe that Israel is not defeated, although the quote below from DonaldJHunt's recent posting from Xymphora sums up what I think happened in Lebanon as far as the ground troops and infantry were concerned.

Even worse, the entire fighting ability of the IDF, both tactics and military hardware, has been formed around battling Palestinian small arms fire in urban settings on relatively flat ground. In the hills of Lebanon, facing well trained soldiers with anti-tank weapons, the Israelis were sitting ducks. A fighting unit geared around an ability to fire tank shells into groups of Palestinian schoolchildren was no match for Hezbollah.

I think in the eye's of many outside westerners, Israel may seem to have suffered a defeat, but they did manage to get at least one of their objectives right in destroying a great deal of the transportation infrastructure.

I just had a thought about the destruction of the infrastructure including many of the major roads and bridges in Lebanon. Maybe the Israeli's were simply trying to cut off any Iranian and Syrian escape/retreat routes through Lebanon on-masse using the Lebanese transportation infrastructure once the nukes start falling? There would likely be a mass exodus of civilians from the Iran and Syria once this happens, so maybe this was an objective of theirs, to disrupt Lebanon, but also to cut of any routes of escape.

I also think Joe is probably right about the Israeli's trying to draw more of the Lebanese army into the south for a repeat of the offensive, in fact it makes a really sick sort of sense (thanks for sharing your POV Joe). In fact as we have seen with the bombing of civilians, the Israelis will likely target the Lebanese military and just claim that they were miss-hits and were really aiming at Hezbollah units or weapons cache's and they claiming they really don't mean to get the Lebanese army really.

This would also likely further fan the fires of hatred against the Israeli's from the Syrian and Iranian public, and it's likely that Syria would defend the Lebanese, and what with Syria and Iran sharing mutual defence ties, Iran would also need to keep to the agreements made and join the slaughter.

These psychopaths have far deadlier and more atrocious ways of waging war than by using ground troops and aerial bombardments seen in Lebanon. I was thinking that from and Israeli perspective they may use the lack of success of the troops on the ground and aerial non-nuclear strikes as a pretext for going nuclear to the Israeli public against Syria and Iran. They would likely say something like "As the IDF found in Lebanon, the ground offensive was ineffective to get rid of the terrorists, so the Nuclear option is the only way to be sure they stay gone for good and our country is safe". If this happens then I don't see how other neighbouring countries such as Jordan would be able to remain on the fence so-to-speak.

 

[Joe]

Here's an exchange from Israel Shamir's group togethernet that seems to be thinking the same way I was about the "defeat"

Joe

> Dear Reader,
> As an Internet news junkie, I am disturbed by the gullibility of hundreds of writers on various blogs celebrating the supposed defeat of Israel by Hezbollah. Can't they see that this is nothing but a Hollywood-style mock defeat of a mock invasion against a mock guerilla, choreographed from the outset to convince the world of how big a threat Hezbollah was for the safety and survival of Israel, and that the only way to prevent Hezbollah from finishing Hitler's job was for yet another 'coalition of the willing' to attack and invade Iran and Syria? How naive do you have to be to believe for one minute that the militarily most powerful country in the region - some people claim the third most powerful country in the world - has been defeated by Hezbollah! Israel's military confrontation in Lebanon cannot be compared with the problems US troops are facing against insurgents and roadside bombs in Iraq. To claim that Israel could have been defeated in open battle with Hezbollah is - at best - wishful thinking.

> Andrew Winkler
> Editor/Publisher
> ZioPedia - A Rebel Media Group Project
>


Dear Andrew,

One thing is for sure, in regards to "terrorism" in general, it is hard to tell which Arabs are truly freedom fighters (and who can blame them?!); which Arabs think they are but are being used as patsies by the Mossad/CIA/MI6 and assorted intelligence agencies; and which ones are purely traitors/double agents.

Personally I have no idea whether Hezbollah is for real or not, but many people believe their fighting was real and courageous, and I would not want to belittle their efforts.

On the other hand, I found it a bit odd that it was called a Lebanese victory after the southern half of the country had been literally destroyed, the ecosystem contaminated beyond repair, the innumerable people killed, wounded and displaced-- how is that "victory" (could have been worse!).

There is another twist that smells kind of funny: the line that some liberal commentators are taking is that the IDF officers are complaining that the US dragged them into this war for US strategic reasons. I wonder how many US officers are complaining that Israel dragged the US into Iraq for such reasons?

Hard to tell who all the players are without a scorecard.

My friend Tim writes the following regarding your thesis. Although it is quite speculative, worth considering I suppose:

Here is one possible explanation:

In a plan reported by the U.S. House of Representatives' Task Force On Terrorism And Unconventional Warfare in 1997, the following item of interest emerged:

"... such nations as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt are planning and building for a final, devastating war of annihilation against Israel. This includes acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC) in a mix with conventional weapons, e.g., tanks, aircraft, and soldiers, all in massive, overwhelming numbers."

Prior to the war in Lebanon, Arabs felt helpless against a seemingly undefeatable Israeli Defense Force. However, after this war, very few Arabs fear the IDF. It is my prediction that Arabs are being led to believe they can actually overcome the IDF.

Remember that Pike's letter concerning World War 3 states that:

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences... between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other."

Western powers certainly seem to be following a strategy of deliberately trying to trigger the militarily inferior Muslim nations into attacking Western interests throughout the Middle East, particularly Israel. This is being engineered in order to destroy the Arabic World, as planned.

 

[Keit]

To claim that Israel could have been defeated in open battle with Hezbollah is - at best - wishful thinking.

My close friend told me that he heard first hand from reservists who were in Lebanon that most of the time they weren't allowed to do anything in order to accomplish something. They've got obscure orders from their commanders without any real substance or any possibility to succeed or finish this war much quicker. It's like they didn't want to win this war at all.