Aug 23, 2006

One More on Lebanon

Hopefully this will be my last post on the topic (unless they start fighting again then all bets are off.) But I would be remiss if I didn't steer readers toward this really fine piece of analysis;

Israel's Water Wars by Jason Godesky

The writer makes a very convincing case for what I've stated here before; it had nothing to do with the ostensible pretext of two soldiers captured; it was all about water. I'll say it again; all wars are about resources; land, oil, water etc. etc. There is always a much-hyped casus belli which is nothing but a propagandistic smoke-screen. Don't pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain.

Read the article if you still think this was a war of self-defence.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's nice, but not convincing, because of these main reasons:

1. The Israelis soldiers were attacked in Israel. The Lebanese boarder is well equiped by Hizbola, therefore, no Israeli's patrols can be made across the boarder without causing a total war.

2. If water was the problem, the infantry attack on Lebanon should have been made at the beginning and not at the end of the war. Most of the war was carried by air force and it does not provide water!

Ajahn Punnadhammo said...

Nice try but;

1. The location of soldiers when captured is at the very least a matter of dispute. The balance of the evidence seems to indicate that the capture was made in Lebanon. See this article; Operation Change of Location

Your point about the border being protected could cut both ways; don't you think the IDF was watching their side of the border?

2. Your second point is a question of military tactics. Not launching an early ground offensive has brought the generals into criticism within Israel. I assume the air offensive was just typical military bone-headed arrogance, wanting to win the war "on the cheap" irregardless of the slaughter of civilians.

Water remains the one and only crdible explanation for Israel's aggression against Lebanon.

Anonymous said...

Nice try but;

1. The location of soldiers was in Israel. There was a propaganda war. A good eaxmple is the number of dead people in Kanna attack(which I do not support!!)- Hizbolla claimed for 57, and that was written in all papers, until the red cross said only 28. What this example shows is that the press do not always says the truth because reprters do not have time always to check the facts. Sometimes it is even more interesting... see e.g.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only

2. Actually you cannot use water without infantry. So air force is useless. Moreover, generally speaking, the Lebanese army was not attacked. So... how does Israel is going to take the water? And you wrote about the criticism in Israel regarding capturing Lebanon.

I just cannot see your point...

Rod said...

Well, the soldiers may well have been in Israel, but the personnel carrier in which they were traveling was miles inside Lebanon.

As for water, this has always been an issue, and any changes in the river's course usually get bombed by Israel. As for it being the main issue, this is debatable, I thought the main issue was having such a dreadful bunch of people as your neighbors, and I don't mean Hezbollah.

You might also note that the Israelis also targeted ICRC ambulances, the ones with red crosses on top which are so easy to see. Perhaps the rent-a-blacks could initiate some negotiations whereby the Israelies could perhaps be persuaded to join the human race.

Anonymous said...

Dear Rod,
Thank you so much for your helpfull comment. It really helps to see the things diffrently.

As for the "facts", I'm not going to argue with you since you are so full of yourself. It is pointless.

Nobody argues about the fact that the press might be wrong, and nobody argues about the fact that there are different stories about what happened. Maybe one of them is true ,maybe all of them are wrong.

Nobody argues about the fact that wars are stupid.

I just wonder, dear Rod, do you belong to the human race?

I mean, to speak about the "Israelies" is like to speak about the "Muslems". Well, I know some Israelies (do you?) and some Muslems (Do you?), and guess what? All of them are human, with different views, different dreams. They do not see reality in the same way, but they are human. Some of them are even friends.

It is funny that you read a Buddhist blog. I guess that your opinion about a global peace includes something about eliminating disturbances such as Israel, Iran, Iraq, all the people that stand in the line in front of you, your bos etc... Well, it is not going to work. Budha teaches us that accepting reality as it is (Including Isrealies) is the first stage for inner peace, which in turn will provide a global peace.

Well, dear Rod, I offer you full of metta. I think you realy need it (bad childhood?). I hope that one day you will grow up and understand how to express your feelings even if you are angry. Don't take me as an exmple since I'm Israeli, and I haven't yet aranged all the paper work required to be accepted to the human race. Take an example from Punnadhammo that does not agree with me at all, but knows how to handle its anger. (I hope that you accept the ajhan as human).

Don't just hurry to comment. Sit and breath before. Meditation helps me. It might help you as well.

Have alot of metta.