Ceasefire

[R. Richard]

And you think Syria won't?

Syria mainly needs weapons to keep their own people down. Since they no longer have Lebanon to milk, they need the Iranian money to try to boost their sagging economy. Politically, they need to show that they are behind the Arab spirit of jihad, 110%.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Syria mainly needs weapons to keep their own people down. Since they no longer have Lebanon to milk, they need the Iranian money to try to boost their sagging economy. Politically, they need to show that they are behind the Arab spirit of jihad, 110%.

So, and assuming you're right and the weapons weren't for the Lebanese cow, what's your snag with it? That only means this has nothing to do with the ceasefire.

 

[R. Richard]

So, and assuming you're right and the weapons weren't for the Lebanese cow, what's your snag with it? That only means this has nothing to do with the ceasefire.

The weapons were, of course, for Hizb'Allah and not, per se, for Lebanon. The difference may seem slight, but it involves a matter of international law.

The matters involving the shipment of certain classes of weapons, ammunition, explosives, etc. are governed by very complex international laws. It is entirely legal to ship weapons to MOST sovereign governments. [I am not going to go into the exceptions here.] It is not legal to ship the kind of weapons that Syria is shipping to a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).

Hizb'Allah [and for that matter Hamas] are NGOs. They can't legally recieve most of the weapons they are recieving. Thus, the actions of the Syrian government are not so much a matter of breaking a ceasefire, but more serious violations of international law. However, said violations of international law are sufficient that Syria may be said to have aided in the breaking of the Lebanon ceasefire.

[The key to legal shipping of certain classes of weapons is something called an "End User Certificate." The purpose of an EUC is to see that restricted weapons do not fall into the hands of such as NGOs. However, an EUC is currently more of a political document than a legal document.]

I would like to add that R. Richard ALWAYS complies completley with all known restrictions involving EUCs. [Wire services please copy for dissemination!] Also, R. Richard NEVER gets involved with forged or "bent" EUCs. Heavens to Betsy no!!!

 

[Pure]

a couple points that have gotten lost, rr,

1) is s. lebanon subdued? is hezbollah destroyed? even seriously harmed (in a way that can't be fixed in say, 6 mos?)?

what WAS the Israeli objective? was it achieved?

was it merely to punish Lebanon so it takes control of its south? well, the Leb army may go south, but do you think it's going to disarm Hezbollah?

2) lastly, if s. lebanon is not subdued, then you have a populace actively supporting a mostly intact Hezbollah (not disarmed), do you not? AND this hezbollah is viewed (by them) as having won, isn't it?

So it looks like H is in a fine position for future actions to harass Israel towns along the border, and even threaten cities further south, doesn't it?

In all, I submit that the Israeli actions have left Israel in a worse position; its foes strengthened and its friends in Lebanon weakened.

==
PS, I would not go on about how it's "illegal" to support insurgents; the US does it all the time--you might remember "Iran contra".

 

[R. Richard]

1) is s. lebanon subdued? is hezbollah destroyed? even seriously harmed (in a way that can't be fixed in say, 6 mos?)?

what WAS the Israeli objective? was it achieved?

was it merely to punish Lebanon so it takes control of its south? well, the Leb army may go south, but do you think it's going to disarm Hezbollah?

2) lastly, if s. lebanon is not subdued, then you have a populace actively supporting a mostly intact Hezbollah (not disarmed), do you not? AND this hezbollah is viewed (by them) as having won, isn't it?

So it looks like H is in a fine position for future actions to harass Israel towns along the border, and even threaten cities further south, doesn't it?

In all, I submit that the Israeli actions have left Israel in a worse position; it's foes strengthened and it's friends in Lebanon weakened.

==
PS, I would not go on about how it's "illegal" to support insurgents; the US does it all the time--you might remember "Iran contra".

Israel seriously underestimated Hizb'Allah. Israel failed to achieve their objectives. However, Israel will not fail a second time. Israel can't fail a second time, they are surrounded by enemies and they will be wiped out if they do fail a second time.

It is not illegal to support insurgents. It is illegal to supply them with at least certain classes of weapons. Technically it is illegal to even supply imsurgents with rifles. However, since the Mideast is awash in Kalashnikovs, that last is not reallly considered to be illegal.

 

[Boxlicker101]

1) is s. lebanon subdued? is hezbollah destroyed? even seriously harmed (in a way that can't be fixed in say, 6 mos?)?

what WAS the Israeli objective? was it achieved?

was it merely to punish Lebanon so it takes control of its south? well, the Leb army may go south, but do you think it's going to disarm Hezbollah?

2) lastly, if s. lebanon is not subdued, then you have a populace actively supporting a mostly intact Hezbollah (not disarmed), do you not? AND this hezbollah is viewed (by them) as having won, isn't it?

So it looks like H is in a fine position for future actions to harass Israel towns along the border, and even threaten cities further south, doesn't it?

In all, I submit that the Israeli actions have left Israel in a worse position; its foes strengthened and its friends in Lebanon weakened.

==
PS, I would not go on about how it's "illegal" to support insurgents; the US does it all the time--you might remember "Iran contra".

There was never any intent to subdue Lebanon, at least not up to now. The intent was to destroy, or at least seriously diminish Hezbollah. The Israelis underestimated their enemy, and did not succeed in this. Suposedly, the UN and Leb. forces will do so, but I have my doubts. The Leb. have already said they won't and the UN sat around jacking off for over twenty years while Hez. built up their forces and armed themselves to the teeth, all the time mingling with the civilian population. When the UN troops weren't sitting around jacking off, they must have noticed this, but said nothing and did nothing, even though they had to have been aware that it was contrary to iternational law. Their orders might be different this time, but I have my doubts they will do much more than they did before. They can't possibly do any less.

I would assume the Is. have observors, perhaps covert ones, and if they see nothing being done to disarm Hez. they will probably attack again. Iran is already trying to resupply Hez., but we don't know how much success they are having. We know about the shipments that are intercepted, but not about the ones that aren't.

Israel definitely did not win this time, but I would hesitate to say they lost. At least they know more about their enemy and they will soon know what their next step will be. I don't know what it will be but I do know they could have done more than they did, and they did warn Leb. "This is your last chance."