No, I am saying that given that [if the Dayan quote is accurate] Israel has set up conflicts in the past should we not be questioning whether or not the current “what started this war” line is accurate.

a little history to help us understand the then and now

hezbollah was formed to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon (defensive)they are not islamo fascist ready to over the world let alone mount an offensive into israel

In 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Southern Lebanon (hezbollah helped drive them out)

Israel had OCCUPIED southern lebanon from 1985 to 2000

Since then, Hezbollah has repeatedly attacked Israeli military positions, whilst Israel has carried out numerous attacks aimed at striking Hezbollah bases

–the fact that we are debating who started it is moot, because hezbollah and israel are guilty

what’s important to focus on is the fact that israel destroyed lebanse infrastructure, power plants, bridges, ports, airports etc… and in doing so killed over 1140 lebanese civilians mostly women and children because two israelis soldiers were captured…how is that a “measured” response?

the israelis objective was to destroy hezbollah and rescue the two soldiers, and to deploy such a large force and to carry out such a relentless air assault, targeting all of lebanon, this war had to be planned months in advanced

think about that

Ti-Guy - Israel is not going to nuke Iran to Kingdom Come. Israel’s nuke is a detterent to direct Iranian and Syrian hostility towards/invasion into Israel. They can’t fight a proxy war against Iran with nukes, or at least they shouldn’t, and likely won’t.

Jacobin - I would question your assertion that the war had to planned months in advance. The IDF is designed to be highly mobile and highly responsive, since they have always had to be. Don’t forget, the ground offensive didn’t happen for almost two weeks after the shelling started, which is more than enough time for the army to be deployed. As well, Israel would have easily had enough munitions on hand to wage a shelling/arial bombardment campaign of Southern Lebanon, and enough time to get new deliveries from the US.

I agree with you that the decimation of Lebanon was by no means “a measured response” and I do think the IDF and Olmert should be held accountable for their actions, but I find it a bit of a stretch that Israel was itching for a reason to destroy Lebanon, based on your assertion that “this war had to be planned months in advanced.” If anything, the destruction of Lebanon benefits Iran more than it benefits Israel; in fact, I don’t think it benefitted Israel at all.

>how is that a “measured” response?

The “unmeasured” response is the one in which the villages throughout Lebanon are bombarded to rubble and the refugee columns are strafed continuously.

>What? Israel can nuke Iran to kingdom come, you idiot.

That’s small consolation after the fact of a major successful attack on an Israeli city, and there will be a lot of pressure, internal as well as external, for Israel to not compound the tragedy - particularly if the chain of accountability for the attack appears muddled. One of the factors that worries the decision makers in the “kill lots of the guilty bastards” response is the problem of assurance that the guilty bastards really can be identified.

>this war had to be planned months in advanced

Undoubtedly the Israeli military staff prepares contingency plans just as does every other competent armed force, but staffs are easily capable of working up corps-level ground offensives and major air campaigns in less than 72 hours, as a rule.

“Measured” covers several points, all of which boil down to that it was “measured” in that it wasn’t indiscriminate. So it was “measured” because it wasn’t total war against the civilian population in the Hezbollah-controlled areas; it was “measured” because it wasn’t a war against the entire state of Lebanon; it was “measured” in that the Israelis undertook to select targets with distinction; it was “measured” in that the Israelis had a stated aim (regardless of the unanswered question of whether they had broader unstated aims). “Appropriately” is in the eye of the beholder: you can choose to believe they didn’t try hard enough or weren’t selective enough subject to your prejudices and knowledge and experience in the matters of war, campaigning, and targeting; but any suggestion that they didn’t try at all won’t stand scrutiny. Whether or not the response was “measured” in respect of the comparative value of the liberty and safety of two soldiers is irrelevant. Of the principles underlying laws and customs of war, there is none which mandates a “fair fight” or an “equal outcome”.

Yes, but you were also wrong. Brevity is no substitute for accuracy and clarity. First, what you believe about the “correct interpretation” is just your straw man. Second, “appropriately” may be an implied connotation in some interpretations, but unless you clarify what you mean to be measured as “appropriate”, it’s an irrelevant one.

I gotta go with lrc on this one…but not by much. His idea that brevity is no substitute for accuracy and clarity is kind of a silly one considering one can be both brief and accurate.

A bit of an interesting article titled Lebanese civilians helped thwart Israel’s plans via email this morning that is related to KevinGs comment on August 29th.

By simply returning to their homes Lebanese civilians played a key role thwarting Israel’s plans in its most recent war in Lebanon. As the Associated Press reported on August 14, immediately upon the start of the UN sponsored cease fire tens of thousands of Lebanese families defied orders from Israeli commanders, took to the roads, and returned to their villages in southern Lebanon . (see here) Their courageous action stifled any hope the Israeli government may have had for accomplishing its grand vision for southern Lebanon with this war.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in an article, “Old Feud over Lebanese River Takes on New Turn,” August 10, 2006, three of Israel’s founding fathers, Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, and Moshe Dayan, all favored occupying and annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River. Israel launched massive attacks on Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and now in 2006, each time ultimately failing.

Features of Israel’s most recent attack reveal a military plan similar to that used in the 1967 war to acquire the Golan Heights from Syria. The massive bombing of Hezbollah positions along the border was designed to weaken or destroy Hezbollah’s ability to resist Israel’s coming ground attack. The bombing of population centers and civilian infrastructure in this region was designed to frighten and drive out most of the civilian population that would support the guerrilla fighters. The mobilization of 30,000 reserve soldiers meant that Israel intended to invade and occupy the region south of the Litani with sufficient ground troops to drive out remaining civilians and isolate surviving Hezbollah guerrilla fighters from support and resupply. Then those ground troops would destroy all remaining isolated guerrillas, entirely clearing the land between Israel’s northern border and the Litani River. Finally, fully replicating Israel’s successful depopulation and repopulation of the Golan Heights, Jewish settlers would be brought in to secure Israeli control of the land and guard against return of Lebanese villagers so Israel could ultimately annex the region.

(emphasis mine)

If I had been doing the writing it would have read Did Lebanese civilians help thwart Israel’s plans? because we have no proof, other than historical attacks and previous statements by former Israeli leadership, that a land grab was in the making…. it is a consideration though isn’t it? In the name of national security.

I was reminded of the words of Ariel Sharon while reading the piece.

“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours, everything we don’t grab will go to them”