The thing is, they don't get to decide that unilaterally.
The New Israel/Palestine Conflict Thread: Read the OP Before Posting
- Thread starter SunRaven01
- Start date
My take is the Gaza revenge strike isn't panning out for whatever goals they wanted to achieve and it's hurting their international standing, so pivoting to "Hey, what about Hezbollah?" is another of the Netanyahu administration's layers of war-as-distraction... on top of the other one.
No, they do not. Killing people for political brownly point is evil.
Because the US government has never sent boots on the ground when the US population has been against it.
This exactly. Is Lebanon just going to sit there while they, a sovereign nation, are invaded so the Israeli government can have a “win”. That so nonsensical. Lebanon has every right to defend themselves fully if this happens. The IDF crossing the border is an act of overt aggression and Lebanon could follow the way Israel conducts their “self-defense”. They won’t because it’s war crimes but still.
Frankly, this idea is conspiracist bullshit. Which is to say: the US government sends boots on the ground when there is a US interest in sending boots on the ground. Invading Lebanon simply isn't such an interest.* To imply otherwise requires some kind of Jewish cabal secretly controlling US foreign policy. That simply isn't an accurate description of the relationship between the US and Israel. We might be friendly toward Israel, and might even be willing to supply arms for such a conflict,† but actually sending American troops to die in such a conflict is so far beyond the pale that you might as well be suggesting that America is going to invade Ukraine in support of Russia.
* We have, after all, fairly friendly relations with the Lebanese government and our geopolitical interest is primarily in keeping things from escalating further. Deploying American troops in some Israeli offensive against a friendly nation doesn't do that, like at all.
† Generally speaking, if such a conflict were to break out, I am fairly sure that the American government would tell Israel that they shouldn't use our weapons in it, but, if Israel were to ignore that (as they surely would) we would probably turn a blind eye. That said, it's also possible that the geopolitical effects of such a conflict would create too many problems for that to actually work.
It’s not a conspiracy to state the US government has multiple times sent boots on the ground to protect allies even when that goes against what the population wants. The US is far more than friendly to the Israeli government. If it suited US interests they would absolutely send boots on the ground to defend Israel.
Edit:
Members of congress actively call those supporting Palestine terrorists. A member of congress wore an IDF uniform, Netanyahu is being invited to speak to a joint session. What other country’s leader has that honor been given to.
This is all hypothetical. The fact is that Israel invading Lebanon is bad for literally everyone.
Edit:
Members of congress actively call those supporting Palestine terrorists. A member of congress wore an IDF uniform, Netanyahu is being invited to speak to a joint session. What other country’s leader has that honor been given to.
This is all hypothetical. The fact is that Israel invading Lebanon is bad for literally everyone.
Last edited:
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
'Member those campus protests when we were only providing cover and bombs, all at plausible arms length? Now imagine the 101st Airborne is actively mobilizing to deploy to fight someone else's criminal holy war. The Summer of Rage would look like a tea cotillion.
It's hostage taking behavior. Let's hope it backfires by causing still more countries to sanction Israel.
It's "look what you made me do!"
They made the same claim about Hamas in Gaza. It was a lie then. What do you think it is now?
Yep, exactly. They'll use that as justification for attacking any and all Lebanese within whatever area they want to carve off as a security zone or whatever they want to call the next phase of their colonization.
certain.
No it isn't. It's to say that whoever is currently in control of the US government disagrees with you about what is in US interests and what isn't. And the government effectively is who gets to say what is and isn't. Will the US continue to back Israel when it invades Lebanon? I think it will I don't think it should, but I don't get a very big say in the matter.
Right, Biden is going to send American troops to Lebanon to die for Israel... Let's be real here, that idea makes no damn sense. Anyone who is suggesting otherwise isn't thinking realistically.
Sure, Israel invading Lebanon is bad news likely to escalate and cause a quagmire. Sure, it is reasonable to presume that America will be more involved than we desire, we already are that. But, the idea that this is going to draw American troops into a middle east war is insanity. We have no obligation to protect Israel from a war it starts. And, realistically, Biden isn't likely to involve American troops in such a conflict.
It is when you are suggesting that, somehow, Israel starting a war will force us to do that. Israel doesn't have that kind of power over our government. America's interests and Israel's interests aren't the same thing.
Diving through what Haaretz has been saying about Lebanon recently. Smotrich has been calling for 'total military victory over Hezbollah' for at least a month, and this view has been spreading (possibly inevitably due to the sense of helplessness that the fires and evacuations seem to be stoking, even though the fires have happened in previous wars).
Some notes on a proposed military strategy, which Haaretz casts doubt on working and points out was a plan that Prime Minister Olmert overruled back in 2006:
Earlier this week, there was an online conference of organized Uri Tzafon ("Wake Up the North"), which Haaretz labels a far-right movement calling for Israeli settlement in southern Lebanon. One of the panels was "Successful Models of Settlement From the Past and Lessons for South Lebanon", with Daniella Weiss, Yehudit Katzover and Rabbi Elishama Cohen, who were responsible for various settlements:
The view on how long the war would last split - probably due to a split in war aims (also, it always makes me nervous whenever anyone assumes a war will go as planned with a set timeline):
That mention of a security zone will eventually come back up again in another article.
Some notes on a proposed military strategy, which Haaretz casts doubt on working and points out was a plan that Prime Minister Olmert overruled back in 2006:
Haaretz has this summary for the political situation in Lebanon:
Earlier this week, there was an online conference of organized Uri Tzafon ("Wake Up the North"), which Haaretz labels a far-right movement calling for Israeli settlement in southern Lebanon. One of the panels was "Successful Models of Settlement From the Past and Lessons for South Lebanon", with Daniella Weiss, Yehudit Katzover and Rabbi Elishama Cohen, who were responsible for various settlements:
These people are now joining the small movement to settle South Lebanon. Others at the conference laid the groundwork for settlements. One speaker presented the following for the geopolitical aspect of Lebanon:
There was a theological premise for settlements:
Hagi ben Artzi, the older brother of Sara Netanyahu, also chimed in.
A lawyer's advice was roughly summarized by his declaration that "everything is bullshit" and legal and diplomatic formalities can be arranged if Israel decides to annex south Lebanon. This may be the end result of Smotrich's call for a security zone under Israel's control. And for the cynical, once the land is settled, won't they be under threat of rocket attacks from across the river?
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Jesus Christ, that's some Nazi lebensraum "we have no desire to continue past the Urals" rhetoric. What do the locals think? Not that colonizers care.
It isn't that unthinkable. Israel has invaded Lebanon twice before, in my lifetime. 1982 and 2006. And Reagan sent troops to Beirut (leading to the infamous Beirut Bombing -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings).
1982 Lebanon War - Wikipedia
2006 Lebanon War - Wikipedia
Although the Beirut bombing probably makes it unlikely that there will be troops on the ground, Reagan shelled the living bejezus out of Lebanon with that battleship they revived from the dead back in the 80s. The New Jersey.
Last edited:
Well I didn't say that would happen, did I? Currently the form of the US's support for Israel is supplying them with weapons with very few questions asked about what they're using them for. Biden might, by some stretch of the imagination, try to cut that off, but his options are limited, don't you think? And Trump? He'd gladly sell weapons to assist an Israeli assault on Lebanon, especially if Netanyahu bribes him.
A prospective from Israeli living at the boarder town. I am not sure what is the right answer. The civilians at the boarder town do deserve to live safely.
Well, that is what "boots on the ground" means though, and @andlight91 was suggesting that we would do that to support a invasion on Lebanon by Israel (Indeed, he was suggesting that was part of Israel's motive in such an invasion... which, again, is conspiracy theory bullshit. Israel doesn't deploy American troops). As for providing weapons to Israel in that circumstance, yes, I think that we are all agreed that America would probably continue that.
So, while perhaps not non-controversial, a joint military operation in Lebanon with the Lebanese military still isn't really comparable to an invasion of Lebanon by Israel supported by a deployment of American troops. As I said, America has relatively good relations with Lebanon. The idea that Israel is going to be able to rely on American troops to help them invade Lebanon is absolutely nuts.It isn't that unthinkable. Israel has invaded Lebanon twice before, in my lifetime. 1982 and 2006. And Reagan sent troops to Beirut (leading to the infamous Beirut Bombing -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings).
1982 Lebanon War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2006 Lebanon War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Although the Beirut bombing probably makes it unlikely that there will be troops on the ground, Reagan shelled the living bejezus out of Lebanon with that battleship they revived from the dead back in the 80s. The New Jersey.
The trouble is, the Lebanese government seems unwilling or unable to prevent Hezbollah from launching attacks against Israel.
That’s a problem.
(For the record, I’m not suggesting Israel going to war with Hezbollah is the solution.. expanding the conflict may not turn out well for anyone)
I don’t think it serves America’s strategic interests to get entangled in a ground war in the Middle East. The focus really needs to be on containing and deterring China.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but "it's absolutely nuts" has not proven to be a convincing argument over the previous 8 months!
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
"Joe Biden would absolutely cut his own throat electorally were he to deploy force in Gaza, let alone an escalated conflict in the greater region," is a bit more poignant. The rhetoric of "Israel dragged us into this" would set an even lower bar for how bad it could get, both in the form of the left fracturing and a genuine fear of violent antisemitism, not harsh words. The United States traipsing into this conflict in any role other than peacekeeper? (also don't do that) It's Nicky and Willie and Georgie trading letters about how silly this whole war idea is, and surely they'll have a bit of a smash-up and be home by Christmas.
Biden's the one who's been desperately trying to prevent escalation and expansion of the conflict with neighbors.
He may not be doing enough (or what the law requires) to keep US weapons from being used to commit war crimes, but he's CLEARLY against moving the fight to Lebanon.
He may not be doing enough (or what the law requires) to keep US weapons from being used to commit war crimes, but he's CLEARLY against moving the fight to Lebanon.
Peace with their neighbors. It's worked successfully all over the world.
I guess this is yet another case where Israel is talking about following in Russia's footsteps to create a buffer zone from the territory of a neighbor, (or two or three), so they can feel "safe". The world isn't accepting that from Russia, and I doubt they will react any differently if Israel follows through on the idea.
Not long after the current conflict started, the Pentagon stated that Hezbollah is far better armed than Hamas, and that there is a possibility that they could defeat an Israeli attack. It would be a dangerous, bloody game for both sides.
The idea of "defensive aggression" to justify the current/planned war by appealing to heading off a future one goes back to Rome, and is in no small part how they wound up with Judea as a province.
It may be very costly to Israel. Israel is a small country with a small population. "Spending" people in needless war is wasteful. It may also expose weakness in Israel military. A fail military action may allow its neighbors to take a more aggressive stand toward Israel.
I do wonder how negotiable Hezbollah is. In theory, Lebanon has goodish relationship with the West. There should be way to negotiate and pull Lebanon away from Iran's influence.
That would probably require addressing our (the West's) functionally unconditional support of Israeli apartheid towards the Palestinians though. A few weaksauce sanctions on the settlements have manifestly not put a stop to Israeli behavior and the US continues to provide hefty foreign aid to Israel and despite things like the BDS movement having more traction in Europe, the status quo is still highly favorable towards Israel.
And then there's the issue of longstanding grudges between Israel and Lebanon, we shouldn't forget that Israel occupied parts of Lebanon for almost two decades.
We don't exactly have a lot of carrots we're willing to offer Lebanon/Hezbollah, especially not when we (again, the West) are generally happy to drive the entire carrot truck up to Israel.
Lebanon is practically governed by Hezbollah, the democratic government is dysfunctional and they have not elected President since 2022. Hezbollah itself has the destruction of Israel in it‘s DNA and their religious head is Chamenei. So hard to see a way there.
Speaking of dysfunctional governments, I just read a book by the historian Moshe Zimmermann. I had no Idea how bad the kakistocracy inside Israel is. They currently have 43 ministers, including 2 for justice (!), all to pander to the special interests of the corrupt right…
Last edited:
It goes back further than that. Many of those near the border towns and villages that are now being rocketed are places where the families of refugees in Lebanon used to live before Israel pushed them out.
Right. It's been all stick for Lebanon though. If the west had taken Lebanon's side half the time it would be another story.
Hezbollah has even less of an excuse for their actions than Hamas, and I have no sympathy for them. But I will say from a practical standpoint, the occasional firing of missiles at each other is a much less-bad situation for both parties than an open war would be.
Even if Israel wins an outright military victory, they're virtually guaranteed to create (yet) another humanitarian crisis in Lebanon in the process. Something that's going to isolate Israel even more with the global community.
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
It's an interesting kind of kabuki theater, or maybe more like Swiss aggressive neutrality? Hezbollah has had almost two decades to harden the border areas and build defense in depth, an intricate network of supported positions and caches and killboxes. Israel knows this. They've almost certainly infiltrated Hezbollah deeply, possibly to the point that they have detailed schematics of the whole shebang. Hezbollah has to know this. Assuming they're not stupid, they've planned accordingly -- additional redundancies, decoys, traps, false ops, Israel should anticipate this as well. This won't be Gaza, this will be the next best thing to a nation-state military, and they see you coming.
It could become a situation with the US arming one side and Turkey (among others) arming the other, which can escalate into a regional war.
Not at all a good thing for Israel if that happens.
Nor for the US.
Not at all a good thing for Israel if that happens.
Nor for the US.
The Israeli Knesset is now considering a law to make the ban on Al Jazeera permanent. The current law requires the ban to be extended every 45 days.
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
I know that's a rhetorical question, but those other Western democracies:
- don't ban media just on a whim.
- are not ethno-states that put one chunk of their citizens before all of the others.
- don't engage in obvious crimes against humanity and war crimes aimed against a certain people.
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Sure, it's a bit of a stretch, but the TikTok ban has about as much supporting evidence as this AJZ ban. Both are saying and showing things that those in power would prefer they not wrt Gaza.
In the US, maybe not as explicitly as before 1960. The impact and outcomes still exist, whether we acknowledge it or not. Mississippi lawmakers expanded jurisdiction of capitol police, who report to them, over the objections of the city of Jackson; any guesses as to the melanin content of the legislature -vs- the residents and elected officials of Jackson? We still have a caste system centered on whiteness. Abroad, look at how the English treat people from former colonial holdings, especially from Africa or the Caribbean. Or the French vis a vis Algerians and Moroccans. Syrians in Denmark. Is there anywhere in Europe that the Romani aren't treated like filth? And that's just the ethnic side, not various and sundry other minority labels that damn sure get unequal treatment under the law as a matter of course and policy.
Hoo boy. I will definitively state that while it may be abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity, I have no evidence that the United States of America has itself engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity within the last calendar week. Before that, well, [gestures broadly]
Wait, no. I take that back. Our border controls constitute such -- criminalizing existing in the wrong place, drowning children, keeping people in an open air pen between two fences in the middle of the desert. Our prison system constitutes such -- solitary confinement is torture. Guantanamo Bay constitutes such -- remember that? Still 30 dudes there.
My question, while somewhat rhetorical, has a genuine component. The Israeli brutality was there for everyone to see. Has been for a long time. At the same time, it looks very familiar to anyone who knows the atrocities "Western democracies" hath wrought. So is Israel the JJ Abrams oversaturated lens flare version of a mirror of us? At the same time, we've grown less and less squeamish about perpetrating our evils in the broad light of day. We're proudly pardoning war criminals and threatening the ICC. The state murdered its first environmental protestor last year, in service of a training center to further militarize police. The state violence and surveillance industries in the US and Israel feed and accelerate one another. Are we becoming more like them?
Haaretz reported on a Wall Street Journal article that estimated that as few as 50 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza are still thought to be alive. The WSJ cites US officials familiar with the latest intelligence.
Haaretz had an article on a New York Times report (which I do not have access to) covering Smotrich's comments to settlers and his claims that Netanyahu is aware and supportive.
Haaretz had an article on a New York Times report (which I do not have access to) covering Smotrich's comments to settlers and his claims that Netanyahu is aware and supportive.
The article mentions why the change from military to civilian is important:
A follow up opinion piece in Haaretz had some more detail on the method in use - the illegal Israeli farms and their animals (probably not a surprise to anyone following the issue):
Beyond Hamas for the actual kidnapping and deaths, I sincerely hope Israeli citizens hold their leadership accountable for dithering while hostages died. Israel had multiple chances to bring those hostages home, and lied repeatedly about that being their primary goal.