Israel warns Hizbullah war would invite destruction

[Scurrilous]

IDF Northern Command chief says in any future war Israel would use ' disproportionate' force on Lebanese villages from which Hizbullah will fire rockets at its cities. 'From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases,' Maj.-Gen. Eisenkot tells Yedioth Ahronoth

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3604893,00.html

<snip>

"Israel would use "disproportionate" force to destroy Lebanese villages from which Hizbullah guerrillas fired rockets at its cities in any future war, an Israeli general said in remarks published on Friday.

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army's northern division.

Dahiya was a Hizbullah stronghold that Israel flattened in sustained air raids during a 34-day war with the Shiite group two years ago.

"We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases," Eisenkot told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved," Eisenkot added."

[still_one]

1. I have an idea, how about no war, a two state solution, and a dialog? /nt

[LeftishBrit]

2. Sounds like a great idea!

Fortunately, despite all the intransigence shown by people on all sides (I say 'all' rather than 'both' as other countries, especially in the Middle East, are significantly involved), there are plenty of people who do support such a solution.

www.allmep.org

www.onevoicemovement.org

[shira]

4. and 2 states will stop Hizbullah....how?

Let's say Israel agrees to peace next week with Abbas. All problems are solved miraculously. Kumbaya! Negotiations and voila, 2 states finally!

Now the bad news.

There's still Hamas and Hizbullah, supported by a holocaust-denying Iran. What on earth makes anyone believe they'll stop attacking? Hizbullah's leadership stated just a few years ago that it would make things easier for them if all Jews were to gather into Israel, so that they could finish them off all at once. And it was Hizbullah (and Iran) behind the Argentinian JCC attack years ago that killed many Jews, who for some reason, Hizbullah thought were really Israeli zionists in disguise.

It's not just about land and "Israelis". It's anti-semitism disguised as anti-zionism. A jewish state (seen as a cancer) in dar al Islam; a constant and humiliating reminder of a lowly few million dhimmi Jews standing up against hundreds of millions who should instead be dominating them. If Jews only knew their place and accepted that....

It's very sad. A local peace means nothing without regional peace.

[still_one]

9. Since you conviently ignored I also said a dialog. You don't make peace with people you agree with

you make it with those you don't agree with, and that includes all the political parties within the whole region

You imply no dialog with hamas or hezbola, then then your approach is endless war, and no one wins. In fact that IS the current neocon position, which is what the mccain camp advocates.

It is in direct contradiction to the Bake/Hamilton plan.

Every president except the current one, tried to bring the situation closer to a resolved peace

This administration encouraged Isreal to build more illegal settlements, ignored any Palestinian state, and refused any dialog with any of the parties in the region

They effectively, unilaterally invaded Iraq based on a lie, which resulted in more power for Iran, and destablized the entire region.

After World War I, the allies crushed and effectively looted Germany which destroyed them economically. That is what all wars previously had done to the losing side.

After World War II, the Marshall did a revolutionary thing. Instead of taking everything away from Germany and Japan, it instead built those countries up economically, and what that did is allow them to be part of the world community. It worked

We know that the approach of the last eight years has not worked, it is time for something new

[LeftishBrit]

10. Great post; fully agree!

[shira]

11. that's nice

I too would like to see Hezbollah and Hamas act reasonably and negotiate fairly. Do you think Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc...are interested in going truly democratic and getting economically viable like Germany and Japan from 60 years ago? I'd love to think they would.

You think the leadership in Japan and Germany would have negotiated a Marshall plan without having to be utterly defeated first and being forced into the best deal they were going to get? I see no reason to believe they would have.

[still_one]

16. Thank goodness we had a dialog with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missle crisis

Even Nixon realized you cannot pretend that "Red" China doesn't exist, and opened a dialog with them

You don't just negotiate with countries that you believe are interested in Democracy, that is a plan for endless war

How can you expect to have peace if you don't talk to your adversaries?

It wasn't until Egypt and Israel had a dialog, that Egypt recognized Israel, and Egypt is no Democracy

My point of the Marshall plan was not about "crushing" an enemy, but taking a different approach with the loser, than what had been done for hundreds, actually thousands of years.

It is way past time for a different approach

[LeftishBrit]

18. Good points! And to add one relevant to the UK...

The Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to Northern Ireland, was achieved after years of negotiations, many of them initially secret, between the British and Irish governments *and* lots of other people and groups, some of them very nasty. The IRA, at least in its late-20th-century form, was much nastier, and more clearly a terrorist organization, than many Americans quite realize; and on the other side, the Protestant paramilitary groups were equally nasty bunches of terrorists. Yet all this talking did eventually bear fruit!

[shira]

28. Egypt wanted to talk....not so Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, etc...

It takes 2 to tango.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Excellent post, still_one...

I totally agree with you about dialogue...

[azurnoir]

3. A "two state solution" would be nice

but such proclamations such as the ones being made by Israel and Hezbollah make it an all the more distant possibility.
However at the very least this time Israel is being honest about who is a civilian and who is not.

[shira]

5. israel honest about civilians now?

...well, maybe Israel shouldn't respond at all if Hizbullah decides to launch thousands of rockets from densely populated areas, schoolyards, mosques, etc. Israel could try to negotiate while the death counts mount only on the Israeli side. Hizbullah and Iran would love this. Think they'd ever stop? If so, why?

Maybe Israel should be the only country in the world to act truly christian...by just turning the other cheek in the face of violent adversity?

[azurnoir]

6. Can't you come up with something new?

The oh so common Israel should not defend itself wail is getting a bit old.
Israel quite conceivably just militarized the entire population of Lebanon, with the same claim they always use there were "terrorists near by".

The problem here for Israel is that there have been no rocket attacks by Hezbollah since 2006. There have been 2 rockets from Lebanon since then but neither was launched by Hezbollah.

[pelsar]

so whats the problem?...

all hizballa has to do is not shoot at israel....to a point hamas seems to have figured that one out....egypt did, jordan did........

maybe hizballa will...and if they havent figured it out yet, eventually they will.....some people and groups are just a bit slow in picking up what history has shown to work

[azurnoir]

8. Eventually Hezbollah will figure it out ?

It has been 2 years, seems that they have "figured it out", however exactly what that means is yet to be seen, for now Hezbollah is biding its time, not to mention the new American early warning system that can also monitor what is happening and where rockets come from.

Edited to add< I posed a question to Oberliner yesterday and I will pose the same one to you[br />
Do you think that the outcome of the American presidential electionn could influence the outcome of the Israeli elections? Could a win by Obama here make Netanyahu a more viable candidate in Israel, I am going by what I see in Israeli newspapers who do not seem to favorable to Obama at least in the ads. IMO the future of the region looks more positive with Obama here and Livni in Israel that with McCain and Bibi in Israel but those are polar choices.

[pelsar]

17. no.....i dont think the american election will have a major affect....

The israeli elections have their own dynamic based on the region....america in general is trusted no matter who gets in.....of course their are groups that prefer this one or that one, but its no more than an interest....

obama in general in israel is looked upon as a neophyte (we just had two-defense minister and pm) and is 'suspect"
_______

actually i'm more interested in the irans/syrians/hamas and hizballa reactions...they are all "voting' for obama....this makes things a bit more interesting, though i think if obama gets in they will be disappointed. And livni? i havent made up my mind yet...third parties in israel dont seem to last long... (i usually vote for meretz anyway-they and the haridi seem to be the only ones with any integrity)

[pelsar]

7. dp

[shira]

12. but it's the same old from your side

"The oh so common Israel should not defend itself wail is getting a bit old."

But you really believe that.....otherwise what is a proportional response in your opinion that would not constitute a war crime, collective punishment, etc.? Let's imagine next summer Hezbollah gets ballsy and fires away from densely populated areas. How do you suggest Israel defends from that, apart from doing nothing but beg and plead for Hezbollah to act reasonably?

I never ever see an answer to this.

[azurnoir]

14. If such a thing were to happen

then yes Israel would have the right to defend it self, so what is your definition of a densely populated area, a village, a city, a farm house with a barn?

[pelsar]

15. but you cant answer......

because the magic weapons that only hit the people who pushed the button, pulled the trigger doesnt exist......

in fact as much as i have seen even the non violent recon flights designed to find just those missiles have been deemed "violent " or at least equal to hizballas attempts at killing israelis.....so why dont you try to actually come clean:

if you clam israel has the right to defend itself...please explain exactly how that would work using todays weapons? (i will be glad to explain their limitations to aid you)

[azurnoir]

20. I already did

what you want Israel has the right todrop cluster bombs on civilians, create environmental disasters, in short anything short of nuclear war because a village was shelled, you will not get that from me, no country including my own has that right.
Now you will wail that Israel doesn't have the right to defend it self. Not true, Israel or any other country does not however have the right to wholesale warfare with untold civilian causalities cause it can or simply wants to, your argument of it's all or nothing is that of a spoiled 5 year old.

[pelsar]

21. i m just asking for specifics.....

if a rocket is being fired from a house...can the idf drop a 250lb bomb which may not do the job, but kill some people..or 500lb bomb that may damage the house and kill some people in it?..or a 1000lb which will definitly do the job and flatten the house, and kill everybody and possibly those in the area?

those kind of options im talking about?

can artillary be used on a hizballas setting up some rockets...knowing full well that the first shells will miss by about 500yds possibly hitting the houses near by?....or should israel do nothing if that is their only choice in that particular situation?

will you defend that kind of defense?..if not what exactly are you talking about?..help me out here, but i cant recall a single post of yours when you defended any action of the IDF

[shira]

22. come on

If Israel kills anyone else, even one person, aside from the 3-5 Hezbollah operatives killed at that same moment - that's a war crime, collective punishment, etc. Or is it not, in your opinion? If not, when does it become one? When 2 civilians along with many Hezbollah operatives are killed? 5? 10? Just want specifics.

[azurnoir]

23. LOL ridiculous example

but the hysteria is fun to w2atch when certain parties do not get the answer they depended on, BTW when is it a war crime to you? How many Arabs civilians have to die, 1100+ in Lebanon didn't cut it so how many?

I gave my answer, Israel has a right to defend it self.

[pelsar]

24. so define what it means...

Israel has a right to defend it self.

since your more than willing to criticize israel when it actually does attempt to defend itself....please explain how you define it?

____

i realize its an impossible question for you to really answer....if you agree that the IDF can use a bomb, which by its very nature is an uncontrolled explosion, to a certain degree you admitting that civilian casualties may occur..worse than that, you would be admitting that hizballa, hamas, etc fight from civilian areas and then you might actually have to put the blame on them for civilian casualties....but i dont believe you want to put the blame on them (i cant recall you ever mentioning that)....

so correct me if i am wrong...though you will claim that israel has the right to defend itself in principle, in reality given the inexact nature of bombs, judgmental decisions of IDF soldiers, combined with the fact that hizballa and hamas fight out of civilian areas, in reality there is probably not many actions that the IDF can do that you would actually defend and call it "israel defending itself" is there?

why do you find it difficult to answer real life questions that israel and the IDF actually face?...why do you avoid them?

[azurnoir]

25. You got your answer

but because it was not what you wanted you keep asking, like a small child.

[pelsar]

26. i got evasion.....

i got from you a very general answer....i as a member of the IDF am curious just when my actions deemed by you are a war crime and when they are deemed defensive......i would think since you are quick to condem the IDF at the same time you can give me a definition so that when i am in the field i have something to go by......

i just want to read something definitive something that i can actually use to judge....anything.......

[azurnoir]

27. Were you on active duty in 2006?

can not give you an answer, need an exact scenariom that is the problem it is hard to make a judgment as to what would be "proper" response when I do not know what is being responded to.

[shira]

29. how about....

.... missiles being launched from a certain point in Lebanon? There are Hizbullah operatives there. The rockets keep going into Israel. IAF bombs away and stops all that, along with 3-5 civilians who for some reason are in the area.

War crime? Collective punishment?

Also who is more at fault? Israel or Hizbullah?

[pelsar]

30. annually.....

its not really hard to come up with real life scenarios that involve judgements that consist of partial information and the "potential" for loss of life.....that is the standard for war and low level war....

[Alamuti Lotus]

19. Coy Rhetorical Response

Should the argument be made that 'all "Israelis" serve in the military, thus any are military targets' be made, would the good General still favor this line of reasoning? Granted that it is foolish to take such a bellicose fanatic seriously, or to expect sturdy logic.. As an aside, greetings to all.

[Scurrilous]

31. The commander's criminal intent

<snip>

"This past weekend, a local TV channel aired an American documentary film called "Street Thief." The film's protagonist, a burglar on the streets of Chicago, allowed the moviemakers to accompany him during an entire year of criminal activity. The movie's principal documentary achievement is in the central figure's willingness to involve the viewers in his intrigues and deliberations. In fact, the film, which sparked debate about the limits of the documentary genre upon its release in 2006, exposed viewers to the black box of the crime world: the mysterious realm of criminal intent.

Like any mental state, criminal intent is evasive, fluid and usually leaves behind no trace. What thief has not claimed to the police, "I didn't mean to take the money"? What rapist has not claimed in court, "I thought she wanted it"? And we, the lawyers, both defense attorneys and prosecutors, are coerced into constructing legal arguments about who intended to do what and when, when deep down we know that these are nothing but fictitious assumptions. This is why the confession of the street thief is so interesting and why so many people thought and still think that the film is not really a documentary, but a fraud.

Coincidentally, in the same weekend, the Israeli public was exposed to an additional rare public confession from another criminal conspirator. This self-exposure occurred closer to home, in an interview in which the one confessing was none other than GOC Northern Command Gadi Eisenkot.

"What happened in the Beirut suburb of Dahiya in 2006 will happen in every village from which shots are fired in the direction of Israel," Eisenkot said to journalists from Yedioth Ahronoth. "We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized."

Hence, in two short sentences, one of the Israel Defense Force's senior commanders stated, with the world as his witness, his intention to violate the two central tenets of the international laws of war: the principle of distinction, which states that every time military force is used, it is imperative to differentiate enemy combatants from enemy civilians, and that attacks may be directed only at the former; and the proportionality principle, which states that even in attacks against enemy combatants, disproportional use of power is prohibited.

It is important to understand this: The international legal definition of an illegal military attack is one directed at civilians, or one that involves a disproportional use of force. It was as if Eisenkot, then, was standing on a hilltop, declaring his intention to commit war crimes, yelling to passersby, "My intentions are biggest of all!"

more