It is Lebanon not Israel that faces a threat to its existence in this war'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1840842,00.html

As Lebanon is brought to its knees, and Israeli leaders promise yet more of the same, there is something truly extraordinary about the manner in which the war on Lebanon is being portrayed as a war for Israel's survival, as if it were the existence of the Jewish state that were at risk.
Whatever else it may be, this is a war between palpable unequals: a giant nuclear-armed power with the most advanced western military hardware and a potential ground force of up to 650,000 trained men, against a tiny third-world guerrilla force of around 5,000 fighters, armed largely with second-hand former eastern bloc hardware (the first Katyusha rockets were developed in the early 1940s) and castoffs from Iran and Syria.

<snip>

The only conclusion must be that the real purpose of the British-backed Franco-US manoeuvre is a deliberate and calculated western attempt to rescue Israel's ill-conceived war from the jaws of political and moral defeat. It is also meant to threaten the Lebanese with dire consequences for refusing to rise up against the party that is defending their very soil and homes. And it is further intended to send a message to Tehran and Damascus that those who act with such violence in Lebanon, as well as Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, are ready to do the same in Iran and Syria as well.

The UN may yet come to its senses, and stitch together a resolution that has a minimum chance of success. Its initial, absurd draft may have been intended to produce a second modified draft that the Arabs, Lebanese and Hizbullah would find very hard to refuse.

But even if Lebanon survives intact, the hatred of its battered and bloodied population for those on the other side of the border will have intensified, and a whole new generation of Lebanese will have grown up knowing nothing of Israel but its pitiless aerial bombardment and indiscriminate destruction. Far from being a war for its survival, Israel has by its actions over the past month only increased the long-term threat to its own security.

been set back for centuries.

A few decades at the most.

Centuries ago, they had no infrastructure whatever.

what a vile and offensive post.

Certainly I'm not offended by your statement about the United States. It's true. And so was mine.

You'll pardon me if I think you are being overly sensitive. And the original statement was an exxgeration with no basis in reality designed to score emotional points for a political position with which I disagree.

and paints Lebanon as a howling wilderness prior to -- what, exactly? And no more accurate than the American colonists who viewed North America as "empty" and the native people as savages who did not properly utilize the land.

you read into something what you want to read into it.

I deny your utterly baseless charge.

If you think Lebanon had an infrastructure centuries ago equal to a modern infrastructure, please provide a link.

Otherwise, please kindly stop trying to project your own prejudices onto me.

Thank you.

"centuries ago."

Your callousness about the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure speaks for itself.

read into it what you want to.

Finally, you have hit upon my point. what the hell took you so long.

I am not at all callous about Lebanon, or the Lebanese people. I am just realistic about why people go to war and what war entails.

You do not seem to be.

Your obliviousness also speaks for itself.

So careless and callous with other peoples' lives and countries. I doubt you would have the same insouciance if it was Israel or the United States facing a similar rebuilding task. As for "obliviousness" -- that's downright hilarious, coming from someone who has admitted that he considers the IDF the only valid source in this conflict -- which is just like saying that the Pentagon is the only valid source for information about Iraq.

I never said it would take only a few decades to rebuild. Once the fighting stops, it may be faster than New Orleans is doing. But that's not what I said, at all.

We might be misunderstanding each other, and if that's so, let me extend my apologies. However, I actually think you are doing it on purpose.

Now, I didn't say the IDF was the only reliable source in the region. I said I trusted them far more than Hezbollah and other such groups. I have no doubt at all the Lebanese are hurting, I just have a different view of which group has the primary responsibility for this.

And what ago!! The sure mark of someone who knows she's wrong. Drag in something totally off-subject to try to make a point.

.. after the bin Ladens rebuild it.

If NOLA is an example, well...

but they probably won't be involved.

very ancient settlements going back at least 5,000 years. Recent excavations have uncovered important archaeological sites from Canaanite, Phoenician, and Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Omayyad, Abbassid, Crusader, Mamluke and Ottoman eras.

http://www.ancientworldtours.com/leb.htm

pointed out, centuries ago, nobody had any modern infrastructure, which was my point. The post that I originally replied to was using exxageration to score political point for a position with which I vehemently disagree.

So nice to be called a racist for that.

wasn't used by the poster you responded to. Nevertheless, I'd say it is just as important to consider their ancient infrastructure that is being destroyed as much as their modern infrastructure, no?

Ancient infrastructure, everywhere, consists night jars and no air conditioning and 35 year life spans and plagues and beheadings and crucifictions and a 1% literacy rate. I'll grant a certain historical and artistic validity to what you say, but more people live better in the modern world than ever did in the ancient one.

out of existence if you listen to the MSMs take on this war.

Black is white, up is down. Don't believe the BS!!

a complete inversion of reality.

Lebanon was an emerging democracy -- who the hell is gonna pay to return them to at least where they were??? Maybe Bush will send them the billions and billions usually earmarked for Isreale... hahaha...

The writer underplays the strength of Hezbollah shamelessly, but he is still correct in that Hezbollah alone could not destroy Israel. But no one is arguing that Hezbollah alone could estroy Israel. Hezbollah could, however, weaken Israel, and it is a strategic player among others in the region whose ultimate end IS to destroy Israel. So in that case the article is something of a strawman.

fact, this very thread rails quite vehemently against the weakening of Lebanon (and inevitably, Hizbollah) by the Israelis. Your thesis seem to reflect a lack of a sense of proportion.

- but the damage done to Lebanon is severe to say the least. Whether Israel is aware of it or not, its global position is weakening, and I fear its government is weakening also, a dangerous thing in a time when Israel was already in a phase of serious political transition.

Did you really think that the Arabic alliance was going to beat Israel? You can't have given it much thought, can you? Who did you expect was going to be punished, and punished heavily? Israel? Why would Israel continue to allow constant attrition with impunity? It's against human nature. There was bound to come a point when they would say, "Enough's enough. You want war? Fine. You can have it."

If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be no violence. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no Israel. It's that simple. And all you can do is encourage more of the same from the Arab world. Not explicitly, but certainly implicitly. Have you ever posted one sentence suggesting that the Arab world should face up to the reality of Israel's permanence, and get on with their own affairs?

Evidently, unwittingly, you're supporting the Arabic military in the same way as the Republicans are supporting your soldiers in Iraq. The Lebanese are the ones who are periodically suffering ferocious devastation of their country, not their distant "friends" elsewhere.

If you had a child who wanted to take on a gang, would you encourage him to go get 'em, and continue to encourage him to do so, when he kept coming back, badly beaten up? Well, what happens to the Palestinian and Lebanese people is obviously far far worse. Realism and prudence are not the same thing as cynicism. Blind hatred of one party in a dispute, to the far greater detriment of the other party is not idealism. It's, at best, foolishness.

way too much sense. Please stop.

By it's wanton destruction of Lebanon, Israel has angered, not just the Muslim world, but most of the world. It's "friends" Bush & Blair, are encouraging and supplying it to carry on the destruction in the obviously vain hope of shaping a "New Middle East" in which the Lebanese are the sacrificial lambs. Along with the Iraqis. But, Israel's friends are now down to two tottering powers who are themselves bogged down in an endless "war" that has enflamed the entire region and has made them enemies of the people there. The "moderates" in the region, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, have been forced to acknowledge Israel's aggression or face the wrath of their own people.

In it's incredibly stupid policy of destroying Lebanon, it has given the likes of Hezbullah and Hamas, the reputation of being the only ones that are capable of "protecting" the Middle-East from Israeli/American aggression.

Much like our invasion of Iraq, it is a fiasco of monumental proportions made from weakness not strength.

it is the "clean break" strategy of the neocons in Israel and the US driving this policy. It is insane and has NOTHING to do with protecting either country.