Haifa-hit rockets were Syrian made (8 killed)

[sabra]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886006292&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Haifa-hit rockets were Syrian made

Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz said on Sunday afternoon that the more advanced Fajar missiles that were fired with a barrage of other rockets at Haifa on Sunday morning, killing eight people, were made in Syria.

Meanwhile, the names of the eight victims of the Haifa attack were released for publication. The following people all died when a rocket hit a maintenance depot at the train station: Shlomi Mansora, 35, from Nahariya; Rafi Hazan, 30, from Haifa; Kiryat Ata residents Nissin Elharach, 43, and Reuven Levy, 46; Kiryat Yam residents Asahel Damati, 39, David Feldman, 28, and Dennis Lapidus, 24, and Shmuel Ben Shimon, 41, from Upper Yokne'am.

[Poll_Blind]

1. And almost all Israeli military hardware is U.S. made. BOTH....

...the fact you mention in the subject of your message and the fact in the subject of mine are likely well-known and known for a while, by the rest of the world.

  Expect reprisals on both sides, accordingly.

PB

[sabra]

2. So what happens next, PB?

[Poll_Blind]

9. That is a question nolonger entirely up to the Israelis as it was in...

..the beginning of this. Things are being exacerbated greatly by Israel's attacks on the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon as well as innocent civilians. However, now that the Katyushas are flying back in response even if Israel backed off entirely it's no guarantee that the Katyushas would stop anytime soon because, as you know, the Lebanese government is unable to exert any meaningful control over Hezbollah. I've seen reasonable and well-supported opinions that this is all a move by Israel to reset the buffer zone in Lebanon to something alot more "secure" in terms of Israeli security. I think that this sort of thing has been done in the past but Olmert's actions, especially the continual goading of Syria seem intended at something a little broader, in my opinion.

  So, at best, this is a move by Olmert to break the backs of Gaza and Lebanon, giving a little more "breathing room" to Israel in a military sense. At worst, I think it's desinged to coax a reluctant U.S. military into brief but potent strikes (possibly in tandem with Israel) against Syria and possibly Iran as well. The latter option would still be designed to give the Israelis more "security" by weaking their traditional enemies, just in a broader sense.

  Some things don't fit into either model well, like the apparent long-haul nature of the Lebanon assault. Olmert will have to tip his hand soon by either A) Working with the Lebanese to take back control of southern Lebanon B) Continuing to bombard Lebanon which may imply less a desire to get rid of Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and more a desire to put a no-man's land between them and Syria as insurance against a broader military conflict.

  No one, of course, can really say what happens next. Olmert's ultimate goals and what they are willing to concede in hopes of achieving them are not something which is being shared openly. Olmert, vis-a-vis Israel will define their intentions more clearly through action in the next week or two. This continual destruction of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure cannot continue indefinitely without really risking a broader Arab war or some super-act of terrorism on Israel by nations which have access to biological or chemical weapons, specifically.

PB

[Laotra]

14. Hezbollah has stated

They are firing rockets only in response to Israel attacks against civilian targets - meaning that if Israel stops they will also. Whether you take their word or not is up to you, but judging by their behaviour and the overall situation I'm inclined to believe.

[Poll_Blind]

15. It's not their word I question- I simply have no idea how much....

...control they have over whatever various units operate them. Remember that Shalit's capture was the result of 3 different militant factions which splintered off of Hamas. Not Hamas, itself. A good analogy, or at least a passable one, is the difference between "The IRA" and "The Real IRA". When the IRA disavowed terrorist acts and tried to legitimize itself as a political player, an extremely violent militant group splintered off and called itself "The Real IRA". I'm concerned that even among Hezbollah there are factions which disagree with each other to varying degrees. It's this internecine struggle which I think could cause some of the worst problems for a regimented cease-fire of the Katyushas.

  Maybe I'm wrong- and I certainly hope I am. But I don't want to discount it because I suspect it could or will complicate which I hope is a peace process soon.

PB

[Lefty48197]

16. Hezbollah has already vowed to destroy Israel

Have you seen evidence that they've changed their minds? I certainly haven't.

[Laotra]

17. And US has vowed to defend democracy

There is difference between High Rhetoric & Propaganda and actual policies, called realpolitik.

[Poll_Blind]

18. Indeed. n/t

PB

[GuillermoX71]

19. You don't think

Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel?

How about Syria, Iran, Hamas, and the "Arab street?"

Just rhetoric too?

[Laotra]

20. What I know

is that also great many on the "Jew street" want to kick all Palestinians from the "Greater Israel" and unlike rhetoricians playing mostly for the home audience, the Jewish settlers are constantly engaged in the process because they can. Rhetorics is cheap and can be debated ad nauseam, only raising more hatred and division, but facts on ground can be observed and discussed rationally.

So I'm not interested in participating the rhetorics game of demonizing "the other people", because nothing good will come from it. Opinions change, like PLO recognizing Israel (which seems to have been tactical error), and it is our responsibility to not to give too much credit to hatefull and demonizing opinions based on fear and suspicion, but to build bridges of greater understanding and tolerance.

[cali]

22. Yes, rhetoric can be debated

but Hamas and H'zbollah have codified there intentions regarding Israel and Jews in their charters and in other documents. Just some of the extremist settlers have made their intentions known through despicable acts, so too have Hamas and H'zbollah. Hamas is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of deaths in Israel via suicide attacks. H'zbollah is credited with, amoung other acts, bombing a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994 killing 95.

And for someone disavowing demonizing other people, you seem to be on a vacation from that assertion.

[Laotra]

23. So what?

Political movements change their official positions, as the moderate wing of Hamas did by indirectly recognizing Israel just couple weeks ago. Hezbollah is accused of many things, what the truth is I don't know.

And thanks for the ad hominem.

[cali]

24. So what isn't a particularly sharp response

Hamas repudiated that they were going to recognze Israel, implicitly or any other way. And there's difference between an ad hominem attack and an observation.

[Laotra]

25. "Tacit alliance of the extremists"

David Clark, former Labour special adviser at the Foreign Office:
"In the case of the current crisis, it is no accident that it occurred at precisely the moment when the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was gaining the upper hand in the latest round of that struggle. By using the threat of a referendum to force Hamas to accept the existence of Israel as the basis for a final settlement, Abbas had created the most promising opening for peace in six years. Faced with internal division and the loss of political initiative, Hamas militants understood that the only way to prevent it would be to trigger another cycle of violence. In turn, the Israel government, whose interests were also threatened by the Abbas initiative, recognised that it had an equally good reason to oblige. The effect of Hizbullah's intervention and Israel's over-reaction has been to put peace even further down the agenda."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1822097,00.html

There has been no "partner for peace" in Israel since the feeble attempt by Barak. Syria has been working to get Hamas accept the Arab Peace Initiative, which would be the best solution for all, but there is not much point pressuring Hamas as long as Israel sticks with the unilateral policy of creation of "Palestinian state" of apartheid bantustans. Which is not rhetoric, but fairly accurate analogy.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. LOL!

"There has been no "partner for peace" in Israel since the feeble attempt by Barak. Syria has been working to get Hamas accept the Arab Peace Initiative, which would be the best solution for all, but there is not much point pressuring Hamas as long as Israel sticks with the unilateral policy of creation of "Palestinian state" of apartheid bantustans. Which is not rhetoric, but fairly accurate analogy."

LOL! Yeah...that's not rhetoric! :eyes: That is the same puerile crap that gets booted around here all the time.

[Laotra]

27. So

You support the bantustan strategy?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. No...just laughing at your stupid analogy.

[Laotra]

29. What is stupid

is your condescending and insulting response, without any rational content. Why don't you tell what is wrong with the analogy IYO and suggest a better analogy to describe the present situation in Gaza? Would e.g. Warsow Ghetto be more suitable analogy?

[greccogirl]

31. Yes.

And Hamas is going to "recognize" Israel? What a joke. Israel exists and has existed for thousands of years. They will continue to exist, irregardless of whatever Hamas, Hezbulloh, Iran or Syria wish.

[greccogirl]

30. HA

[Laughing Mirror]

3. Who cares where they are made?

Why they are being used is the question everybody should be asking.

[uppityperson]

4. exactly

[Posteritatis]

12. Two possible reasons

1) Simple curiosity; better to have the information out there than not to in most cases. While I admit that the implications and spin are getting silly at this point - equating "Fooian made" with "the forces of Foo are attacking our allies!" - one of the purposes of media is to provide information. The make and possibly origin of stuff like this would count as such. In short, people just might be interested; I tend to be, did some looking as a result of that, and ended up knowing a bit more about Hezbollah's arsenal all around. Simple curiosity counts for something.

2) Sometimes the source of a weapon does point some fingers as to its creators' intent. I don't know enough to know if that's the case here or not, but it often really can matter, if just for the sake of backchannel diplomacy reminding folks to please keep an eye on who they sell their ordnance to. A fifteen-year-old weapon built by one country being used would be one thing; a one-year-old weapon built by another could mean something else entirely. If the missile that hit that Israeli ship was, say, an unlicensed Exocet built last year in Argentina, that would raise a whole lot of eyebrows and probably result in some nervous explaining in various embassies. That's obviously about as hypothetical as things come, but I imagine you see the point.


You're still right, of course, that the fact that the weapons are being used at all should outweigh their origins most of the time. I'm just saying that their origins aren't entirely irrelevant. They're worth noting; they're not worth having talking heads bloviate for hours over them unless something weird's going on, though.

[lonestarnot]

5. Whew damn.

The tug is getting stronger.

[High Plains]

6. So what? Everybody gets their arms from somebody.

[daleo]

7. Who built the weapons that killed the 8 Canadians in Lebanon?

The vacationing family killed by IDF warplanes, I mean.

[mitchtv]

8. Yesterday they were made in Iran

Are you sure it's not part of the weapons of mass destruction that were spirited out of Iraq?

[Poll_Blind]

10. I caught that too. n/t

PB

[Bonhomme Richard]

11. LOL, they need to get the stories straight.

Though there is nothing to laugh about here.

[Posteritatis]

13. Designed in one place, built in another, maybe? Could be; I dunno. (nt)

[Roland99]

21. Bolton needs to shampoo his moustache. A few too many lies stuck in it.