Israel set war plan more than a year ago

[not systems]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP

Israel set war plan more than a year ago
Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength

Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service

Friday, July 21, 2006

(07-21) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.

In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

...

[Skink]

1. We will now impliment the plan.....

[NoAmericanTaliban]

2. Agree. & if you don't thing that the USA is helping Israel then I have

a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya... Just think about the satellite data and intelligence we are handing over.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. Water wars -- IS the the REAL reason for Israel's invasion of Lebanon?

Now we learn that plans were FINALIZED a whole year ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2249599.stm

10 September, 2002, 17:39 GMT 18:39 UK
Israel warns of war over water

An alleged Lebanese scheme to divert water from a river feeding Israel's largest reservoir could provoke a war, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has warned.

Israeli army radio quoted the prime minister as saying on Tuesday that the issue constituted a "casus belli", or "grounds for war".

He was addressing senior military and civilian officials after a cabinet meeting.

Lebanon opened a pumping-station on the River Hasbani in the spring of 2001 to irrigate a drought-stricken village but denies that it plans to dam the river.

The river supplies between 20 and 25% of the water flowing into the Sea of Galilee, an official at Israel's Ministry of Agriculture was quoted as saying by the French news agency AFP.

It rises in Lebanon and flows for about 50 kilometres (30 miles) through its territory before joining the River Jordan and emptying into the Sea of Galilee.

Warning

Army radio said Mr Sharon had notified the United States that Israel could mount military operations should Lebanon begin pumping water out of the Hasbani or its tributary, the River Wazzani.

The Israeli Transportation Minister, Ephraim Sneh, said Mr Sharon had called for a "good and enlightened way" to settle the issue but was ready to "act".

Lebanese workers lay water pipe
The project has drawn criticism from Israel
"If Lebanon put into effect its project to siphon water from the river, it would be serious enough a reason for Israel to act," Mr Sneh told the radio station.

This is sort of like the US invasion of Iraq -- how did our oil get under their sand.

How did Israel's water find it's way to Lebanon??

Hizbolla is real -- and they are nasty -- experts at kidnapping & murder and who know what else -- BUT they exist because of Israel's first invasion of Lebanon 20 years ago. Who sort of hellish group will come into being to drive Israel out -- remember folks occupations aren't terribly successful. The US is re-learning this bitter lesson in Iraq. When countries keep making the same mistakes . . .

HOWEVER -- IF Israel's need for water is so great that they will invade a weaker country and re-take water. . . what else is Israel willing to do? One of the reasons for Israel's occupation of the West Bank is that Jewish settlements and water sources match up on a water map of the area. Water Wars have been going on in this region for a very long time.

We are being pulled into an ancient feud -- which is currently being fueled by dwindling resources. European/Western style water consumptions is deadly in a desert region.

Just do a Google search -- WATER + War -- educate yourself.

The first poster earlier today made fun of my insight (research) into one of the real reasons for Israel's invasion of Lebanon. WARS over water have been predicted and have ALREADY happened.

Water issues will become even more critical throughout the entire globe -- not just the Middle East -- in the coming decade and as this century ages.

[Skink]

5. I knew there was a reason.

[lumpy]

6. Believable

Greenbelt is one of the reasons Israel can't stay out of Palestine territory.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Analysis: The politics of water (BBC 1999)

Tuesday, March 16, 1999 Published at 14:05 GMT

World: Middle East

Analysis: The politics of water



Scarcity of water has contributed to regional tensions and is an aggravating factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Israel and the Palestinians: The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is about water, as well as land. The West Bank is a major source of water for Israel. But Palestinians complain that, on average, an Israeli uses three times as much water as a West Bank Palestinian.

Lebanon: The Lebanese have long accused Israel of having designs on the waters of the River Litani, suspecting this is one reason why the Jewish state maintains a toehold in southern Lebanon. Israel denies the charge.

Syria: Similarly, Syria accuses Israel of being reluctant to withdraw from the Golan Heights - the strategic plateau it captured in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 - because of a desire to exploit the Golan's water resources.

Egypt: Cairo warned, in 1991, that it was ready to use force to protect its access to the waters of the Nile. The warning was directed mainly at its neighbours Ethiopia and Sudan. Rapid growth of a population already over 60 million is putting immense pressure on Egypt's water supplies.

Turkey: Turkey's exploitation of the waters of the Euphrates has long been controversial. Since 1984 the Turks have been building a series of dams and hydropower plants in south-east Turkey, as part of an ambitious scheme known as GAP. Syria and Iraq complain the scheme is depriving them of much-needed water. Given the troubled relationship between Syria and Turkey, in particular, the issue has become politically contentious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/297164.stm

[cantstandbush]

9. This has always been the case: water and fertile land

Study the history of this region and you will see. This is precisely why Arafat could never have accepted the "swiss cheese" plan that Clinton put forth. It's non-contiguous becasue Israel lopped off the areas of the wells and most fertile land belts to build their "settlements" around. But they are good at spinning that they offered back 90% of what they had taken from the Palestinians. This same spin continues today.

[goforit]

19. Yes this could be an easy excuse or a small part, but not the WHOLE.

[mom cat]

27. They started out wanting just a small part of Palestine too.

Expansionists never stop, unless they are defeated.

[snooper2]

23. This is exactly what it is all about...

6 million people in Israel, around 3.3 million Palestinians, Isreal is using approx. 88% of the fresh water available. (From what I've read on the subject.)

Oh yeah, and from that article, Israel apparently thinks you can divert an entire river with a 4 inch pipe.

[Exiled in America]

38. That's very interesting - basically a chomsky analysis

Warning: ok, I admit I've been drinking with friends until late in the evening but I can't help but want to comment.

I've been very influenced by Noam Chomsky's analysis on a great many subjects. I freely admit that I've never read The Fateful Triangle through and through, but what I understand is that essentialy his analysis boils it down to water being one of the fundamental reasons for the enduring conflict between israel and the rest of the middle east.

Now, I admit, up until recently I rejected this analysis. I always felt like it did appreciate the religions component of the conflict. I always believed the biggest reason for the conflict was religous in nature - two groups of people fighting over the same "holy" land. But now I'm starting to rethink that. I'm sure religious disagreements are part of the package, but I'm starting to wonder if more pragmatic concerns are actually at the heart of leader's decisions. I'm thinking that perhaps "Water" is really one of the critical reasons for a lot of the ongoing conflict in the region.

I'm totally open to feedback, disagreement or criticism of this thought.... I'm not an expert on any of this.

[daleo]

4. Suppose someone wanted a war

A rogue element inside the IDF for example. A little LIHOP at the border post, and the internal political dynamics almost take care of themselves. A plan ready to go, the new PM is advised that he can't look weak...

A good plot for a novel, anyway.

[chookie]

10. "a little LIHOP"?

How about a LIHOP that targets Americans? D'ya think it's just a little freaky that Bush and Bolton are saying nutty things by insulting Muslims as official American statements of policy (i.e. some victims of violence are more equal than others)? I am thinking they are deliberately trying to provoke another "incident" which will be the new LIHOP to bring the US into a tragic regional/world war for Israel and plutocrats, the orgasm of the NeoCons.

Maybe this incident will occur against one of the 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, which happen to be in position between Israel and Iran (the latest Hitler du jour)? Funny that the US is heedless of their vulnerability. Maybe against a neocon-correct "Rachel Corrie" involving Hamas or Hezbollah.

Incompetence -- or is everything going *exactly* as planned for many years?

George W is advised that he can't look weak (giggle giggle snort snort say the NeoCons).

A single act of provocation -- that's all that is standing between the US and a consuming regional/world war.

>>A good plot for a novel, anyway.<< Sorry dude. This ain't no disco. This ain't a novel. It will unfold before you eyes on tv (no profits for Amazon.com). It *is* a total fabrication, but will enter all of our doors as "fact", and we will be deep in a world war for the foreseeable future, with all the joy of our occupation of Iraq. Research the Road to War with Iraq, and substitute "Iran" for "Iraq" and "Saddam" with "Ahmadinejad", and you will see, deja vu, where we are heading. And in my prediction -- into another disastrous situation, like Iraq -- but far, far worse.

I'm guessing 8 months to 15 months for direct American involvement....

[daleo]

17. There are many actors that would profit by that scenario

I am sure the Bush administration would "make the best of it", should a helicopter or ship full of American refugees be hit. As you say, there are powerful forces at work that want to wage war on Iran, among other things.

[goforit]

21. An "authentic mihop" I should dare say.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Well, this is Israel's version of America's there are WMDs in Iraq

and it shows Ehud Olmert as a bald face liar when he told the press that he kept the pictures of the captured IDF soldiers on his desk. It was never about them!

I see that the war is going splendidly, all according to plan. Too bad that Hezbollah has failed to follow their role in that plan.

Who helped Israel draw up the war plans? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz?

[chookie]

11. So' mo' (a few)

Cheney, Feith, Netanyahu, Abrams, Perle, Woolsey, Cambrone, Sharon.

When George W was being "groomed" for the Presidency, the folk who were "grooming" him were Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and Condi.

The idiotic notion that "everything changed" on Sept 11 is a lie -- no -- they have been planning this from Day 1.

George has never lent his ear to anyone but hawkish NeoCons. Powell (anyone remember how powerful and prominent he used to be??) was just window-dressing to appease PC liberals and draw "The Black Vote" by claiming giving positions to African Americans as a sign of "progress". But look where he is now, after his Great Fall from, being considered a likely Prez (uh, anybody know where he is these days? How the sane have fallen!!).

The war is going splendidly, exactly according to plan. Who's to object? Not the Democrats!! And Christian evangelists, who are reveling in the notion that this is Armageddon unfolding -- well, they won't care about how disastrous the new war will be, because, after all, it is supposed to be Armageddon, and nobody expects Armageddon to go well.

This is the slam dunk monkey boy has been waiting for.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Here's the Plan

Funny how many people who became members of the Bush Administration were involved in creating this plan.



A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

* Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

* Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

* Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

[Zhade]

13. KandR

NT!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hadrons]

15. part of the resource wars

[not systems]

16. statistics for article

Since fighting started

-- Israeli air strikes on Lebanon have hit more than 1,255 targets, including 200 rocket-launching sites.

-- Hezbollah launched more than 900 rockets and missiles into northern Israel.

-- At least 317 Lebanese have been killed, including 20 soldiers and three Hezbollah guerrillas. Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora says 1,100 have been wounded; the police put the number at 657.

-- 31 Israelis have been killed, among them 16 soldiers, according to Israeli authorities. At least nine soldiers and 344 civilians have been wounded.

-- Foreign deaths include eight Canadians, two Kuwaiti nationals, one Iraqi, one Sri Lankan and one Jordanian.

[robcon]

18. I would hope so.

This war has been imminent for quite some time.

[manic expression]

20. Israel's belligerence and hostility is nothing new

Israel shows no respect for decency or any sense of justice. That they would plan out how to punish an entire people far in advance is not a surprise, unfortunately.

[jseankil]

24. So do you think Israel setup IDF members be kidnapped by Hezbollah?

Let's go one futher, is Hezbollah actally part of the IDF? (sarc)

I agree that Israel's response is harsh, but blaming one side is the wrong thing to do.

[manic expression]

25. Do you think that is justification?

What Hezbollah did does not begin to warrant the atrocities Israel has carried out. It is not any sort of justification, it is Israel deciding it wants to punish Lebanon and its people for no reason. This only confirms that Israel knew how they were going to go about this crime long before they claimed cause for it (they aren't "defending" ANYTHING, by the way).

This is all ignoring the fact that Israel is responsible for the circumstances and environment which prompted the "original" action.

[rman]

36. If you get robbed or beaten up,

is blaming one side the wrong thing to do?

That's not to excuse any terrorist actions, but it is not always that both sides are equally guilty in creating an undesirable situation. More often than not there is one side that started it.

[sofa king]

29. Jeez!

Look up the Coastal Road Massacre, for crying out loud. You think this is the first time this has happened? It's the third, and the only reason it hasn't happened half a dozen times more is because Israel occupied the Lebanese border for eighteen years--which is why Hezbollah exists in the first place, by the way.

Also, you didn't say it, but I'm going to point it out anyway. Hezbollah chose this war. They chose where it was going to start and how to start it--by kidnapping and killing people. They knew where the war was going to be fought (on their own territory) and they had to know that they would probably temporarily lose ownership and control of some of that territory. They knew that Israeli retaliation to the war they started would result in the deaths of their own civilians, and they're counting on using that to generate outrage against Israel. Hezbollah needs its own civilians to die in order to slow down or stop Israel's sure-to-come counterinvasion.

That's premeditated murder--of Hezbollah's own countrymen, and in defiance of Hezbollah's own government. Keep that in mind next time you decide to rail against the indecency of the Israelis.

[funnymanpants]

32. Not the full picture

>>They chose where it was going to start and how to start it--by kidnapping and killing people.

So Israel didn't start the war when it kidnapped two people the day *before* Hamas kidnapped the Israeli soldier? Israel has 10,000 Palestinian leaders, most held without any charches. This practice has been condemned by human rights groups.

I won't even mention the numous incusions and other human rights violations of Israel, documented and condmned by every country in the world except by two: the US and Israel itself. For exmple, in the Fall of 2000, the UN General Assembly approved of a measure condemning Israel for "deliberate killing" and "torture." The vote passed by something like 148 nations for, and only the US and Israel against. There were about 15 similar votes that year. And human rights groups--Human Rights Watch, B'Tsleem (based in Israel), a Palestinian human rights group, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International--all came to the same conclusion.

Not to mention the root of the problem: Israel's illegal occupation and full scale theft of Palestinian land, the brutal subjugation of Palestinian Natives very silimar the US's treatment of American Indians.

[sofa king]

37. Hamas is not Hezbollah and June is not July

And Lebanon is not Palestine--though the Palestinians would have gladly had it that way.

The Israeli kidnappings were directed against Palestinian members of Hamas, the Palestinian terror/political party. The largest Israeli kidnapping was on June 28, geographically located either in the West Bank or Gaza--I forget which. Hamas is concerned first and foremost with the murder of all Jews in the Middle East (see Article 15 of the PLO Charter) and secondarily, the creation of a new Palestine on the execution grounds of the old Israel--or anyplace else they can acquire by force. Palestinian interest in Lebanon has ended since the last time Israel had to invade Lebanon in order to stop the PLO from staging attacks from there--exactly as Hezbollah is doing now.

Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in a border incursion from Lebanon two weeks later. Hezbollah is a (theoretically) Lebanese terrorist/political party which takes its marching orders from Syria and Iran. Hezbollah's supposed reason for existence is ending the Israeli occupation of Lebanon--an occupation which had ended to UN satisfaction six years ago, after most Palestinians had left Lebanon. After that, Hezbollah also turned its interests toward the murder of Israelis inside of Israel.

While the two groups share the similarity of being barely legitimate political parties bent on murdering Jews and using civilian deaths for political gain, they are from different geographical locations, different countries, with different missions and different masters--and in theory they should not like one another very well. After Palestinians tried to overthrow the Jordanian government in Black September, 1970, they were expelled to Lebanon, where they tried to overthrow that government in 1975. So when you talk about land theft, I presume you're confining our outrage to the successful endeavors and overlooking the attempts, which is the only way to hate Israel for it while forgiving the Palestinians.

But I understand your confusion, since the kidnappings are obviously connected. It of course suggests that not only Palestine, but also Syria, and Iran, and elements within Lebanon are working in concert to attack the Israelis at the same time. Working in concert would also explain why both groups insist on hiding their most important assets in the most densely crowded civilian areas. But admitting that would be to legitimize Israel's claim that they are embroiled in a greater war for survival against all of those enemies at the same time.

You probably don't want to admit that if you want to keep blaming Israel for this mess, because that means that the deaths of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians are being planned and actively used for propaganda by the people bent on liquidating Zionism in Israel.

[Matilda]

42. Kidnappings by both Hezbollah and Israel have been ongoing.

The Israelis have always negotiated a prisoner swap. This time they
didn't. By design, to trap Hezbollah? I don't know.

Some local ME commentators think Hezbollah has walked into an Israeli
trap, with the eventual aim being to attack Iran.

Others think Israel has walked into a trap, designed to weaken it by
wearing down its forces, who are engaged now on two fronts, and also
to draw attention from Iranian nuclear plans.

Being the ME, where deviousness is all part of everyday life, either
scenario, or both, is equally plausible.

[sofa king]

43. Yes, I also think it is a trap or diversion of some sort.

Specifically, I think that the trouble with Lebanon is an attempt by Iran and Syria to spoil a future attack against one or both of them.

What's being played out in the Middle East right now is sort of a modern version of the Great Game in Africa in the late 1800s. It's a squeeze game. Until last week the involved countries splayed out in a straight line, from west to east:

Israel Syria Iraq Iran Afghanistan

Where "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" really means the American Empire. If the American Empire succeeds in quelling the countries it has already gobbled up, they can be used as staging areas to attack either Iran or Syria, or both, from opposite sides (and add them to the Empire). Israel can supply the second front against Syria. But both Iran and Syria have lived with this strategic reality for much longer than the Americans have. They know that the way to foil the attempt is to open up new fronts against their enemies, external and internal.

Israel successfully de-fanged Fatah and Hamas through a bloody string of assassinations (and kidnappings) in 2003-2005, so a Lebanese front is the only way to keep Israel busy while the Palestinians train back up to their former civilian-killing prowess. (Civilians are targets in Israel because the military targets are usually too "hard" for informally trained insurgents to successfully attack.)

One thing that nobody points out is that since the Palestinians tried to take Lebanon for themselves in 1975, there has been no major Israeli invasion of any of its traditional enemies: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Probably one reason for that is because the occupation of southern Lebanon diverted IDF forces from a potential offensive role to an occupation role. Stoking up Hezbollah in Lebanon serves the exact same purpose as stoking up Sunnis and former Baathists in Iraq: it keeps the occupation forces busy occupying instead of invading elsewhere. It takes the initiative away from the occupiers and forces them to react instead, along predictable lines. In that respect, Lebanon has been the most successful operation against the Israelis since the first 48 hours of the Yom Kippur War.

It also deliberately involves an otherwise innocent nation and that nation's civilian population, and it was a choice made on the part of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah--a choice they knew the Israelis would have to deal with. This is why I say that those entities--not the Israelis--are the proximate cause of ALL civilian deaths in Lebanon from this war. Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah chose to involve them. They choose to use their deaths as propaganda against the Israelis, and it is they who are benefitting from the outrage from the readers at DU.

I'm not particularly for the Israelis in general, but I am definitely against murdering innocent people, and I am particularly against murdering innocent people and then using those murders to further one's own cause. That's my problem with this situation: that most of you cannot see that even though innocents are dying at the hands of the Israelis, they are dying as part of someone else's plan against the Israelis.

[Matilda]

45. Both sides are capable of playing a double game,

and very often the truth is hidden from their own people.

But when it comes to strategic planning, I think Israel has the edge,
and so I suspect that it's more likely that Hezbollah has walked into
a trap.

Time will tell.

[funnymanpants]

49. Wrong again

You fail to mention that while Israel was so called involved in "de-fanging" Fatah, it was also busy stealing more land from the Palestinians. In other words, Israel is involved in an attack on the Palestinians. If Israel were really just defending herself, she would not steal land, huge portions of land. It is pretty bizarre you don't mention this. There are parties in the Israeli government who openly claim that all of the land belonging to the Palestinians actually belongs to Israel because of God's plan. Israel builds settlements in this land daily. This is simply a fact that Israelis themselves would not deny.

Yet somehow, you believe it is Israel that is being attacked. In fact, Israel kills 3 times as many Palestinians as the other way around, and these deaths have been described as "deliberate." If Israel is killing Palestinians and stealing their land, I would tend to think is Israel that is doing the attacking.

If you want to claim that Israel is fighting a defensive war, then we should claim that the American government was fighting a defensive war against the Native Americans, who were also "terrorist" in the eyes of the white settlers.

And if you are against murdering innocent people for furthering a cause, then you should definitely be against Israel's occupation, which does just that. And you should also be against what it does in Lebanon, since it is killing civilians in order to further their cause of making the bordering states weak.

[funnymanpants]

52. I don't think this is true

>>One thing that nobody points out is that since the Palestinians tried to take Lebanon for themselves in 1975,

I was highly dubious of the claim that Palestinians tried to take Lebanon in 1975, and after doing more research am even more so.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/lima/lebanon1975.htm

<blockquote>

The spark that ignited the war occurred in Beirut on April 13, 1975, when gunmen killed four Phalangists during an attempt on Pierre Jumayyil's life. Perhaps believing the assassins to have been Palestinian, the Phalangists retaliated later that day by attacking a bus carrying Palestinian passengers across a Christian neighborhood, killing about twenty-six of the occupants. The next day fighting erupted in earnest, with Phalangists pitted against Palestinian militiamen (thought by some observers to be from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). The confessional layout of Beirut's various quarters facilitated random killing. Most residents of Beirut stayed inside their homes during these early days of battle, and few imagined that the street fighting they were witnessing was the beginning of a war that was to devastate their city and divide the country.

</blockquote>


And

<blockquote>

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-8063.html


The fuse that ignited the Civil War was finally lit in February 1975 when the Lebanese Communist Party and other leftists organized violent demonstrations in Sidon on behalf of fishermen who were threatened economically by a state-monopoly fishing company.

</blockquote>

I can find no evidence of your claim. Each site I find clearly states there was a civil war, not an attempt by Palestinians to take over the country.

[funnymanpants]

48. Wrong

No, I am not at all confused. You did not even answer the substantial part of my post. It really doesn't matter if this is July. Do you think that an action started in July can't continue into July? And you have never denied that Israel kidnaps Palestinians, and that it holds 10,000 Palestinians illegally. If it is okay for Israel to destroy country because of kidnapping, then it is okay for Israel to be destroyed because Israel kidnaps people itself. That part of the argument you ignored.

Further, you offer no proof that Iran, Syria and Hizbollah are coordinating attacks. This is simply speculation, and according to Middle East expert Juan Cole, probably not true. Certainly, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support it.

Regarding the terrorist groups desires to destroy Israel, you are correct. They are terrorist groups. However, they are weak terrorists groups who couldn't even come close to their goals. Further, both terrorist groups are the result of Israel occupation. I find it absolutely ludicrous that Israel is fighting for its existence. The capture of two soldiers and the deaths of several others doesn't even come close to meaning Is rae ceases to exist. If so, we should argue that American is fighting for existence in Iraq because over 2,500 of our soldiers have been killed. There is not a single tank on Israel's border. Israel destroy all of the Arab states in 1967 in 6 days and Israel has only gotten stronger since. No one threatens Israel at all.

In contrast, Israel is right not destroy the Palestinian culture. It has been doing so since its existence. It continues to build illegal settlements in someone's else's land because the extremists think God gave them this land. Look at what any human rights groups say. And to achieve this goal, Israel commits "deliberate killing" and "torture," to quote a human rights report. In other words, they do exactly what you accuse Hamas and Hizbollah of wanting to do.

>>So when you talk about land theft, I presume you're confining our outrage to the successful endeavors and overlooking the attempts, which is the only way to hate Israel for it while forgiving the Palestinians.

This is the most typical line for the Israel apologist. Instead of addressing the illegal actions of Israel, which make the life of 3.5 million Palestinians hell, and which fuel terrorist groups, you want to go back and talk about what happened in 1970 and switch the topic. The Palestinians might have wanted to overthrow the government in Jordan (it is a dictatorship, after all), but how exactly does that excuse Israel's behavior? Does the fact that Saddam tortured Iraqis excuse the fact that now the US does it?

[funnymanpants]

50. Also

>>The Israeli kidnappings were directed against Palestinian members of Hamas, the Palestinian terror/political party.

This is absolutely false. On June 24 Israel kidnapped a doctor and his brother. No one knows what happend to them or what their fate is. Israel has no legal right to go into occupied territories and kidnap anyone and then hold them without charging them. They have 10,000 prisoners, *most of them held with no charges.* In other words, they have 5,000 more illegal prisoners than Hizbollah captured.

If it is okay for Irael to destroy Lebanon over two kidnapped soldiers (and I agree that the act by Hizbollah was provocative and a violation of human rights), then does another country have the right to do the same to Israel? How can Israel calim the high grounds.

>>Palestinian interest in Lebanon has ended since the last time Israel had to invade Lebanon in order to stop the PLO from staging attacks from there--exactly as Hezbollah is doing now.

This is false too. Israel claimed that the reason it invaded was because Palestinians killed an Israel envoy in Britain. These Palestinians had nothing to do with the PLO in Lebanon. The Israelis lied about the reasons for going into Lebanon. This is a matter of public record and can be read in almost any history. Further, as regarding attacks between Lebanon and Irael, Israel attacked Lebanon a number of times in the late 1970s, all of the attacks illegal and all of them unprovoked. For example, in May of 1982 the Israelis launched massive attacks on the PLO headquarters, and the PLO did not fire back, but obeyed the cease fire.

[onenote]

22. planning is what any good military does

I don't see where the fact that the Israelis had a plan in place for responding to a provocation/attack/aggression (choose one) by Hezbollah across the Lebanese border proves anything. Military bodies create plans. Its what they do. Not just the Israelis, but all militaries.
(Well, most militaries. Ours apparently had a plan for attacking Iraq but not for what would come after).

[Danmel]

46. Exactly

isn't half the criticism aimed at the * administration based on failure to have a plan? For terrorism pre-9-11, for Katrina for anything that doesn't channel money to halliburton?

Well, Israel had a plan in place for this possibility- what is wrong with that? Aside from the fact that it is Israel so anything she does is immediately suspect, genocidal, or worse.

[funnymanpants]

51. Maybe

If the plan was simply a contingency plan for a Hizbollah attack, then you are correct. However, if the plan indicates that Israel wanted to attack Lebanon and just wanted an excuse, the plan would be telling in the same way that there was a plan to attack Iraq before 9/11.

[Centered]

53. Of Course

Heck the USA probably has plans for an engagement with Canada and Mexico to be used either for direct war or more probable war with another force that entered those countries by force and held them. Having a plan and being ready is what you pay the military analysts for, It doesn't mean (nor will it ever mean) you plan to invade/engage.

[mhatrw]

26. Right or Wrong, Israel Is Still My Client State.

[manic expression]

33. Care to explain yourself? n/t

[Pachamama]

28. And when do you think the Bush Administration knew about the plans?

:eyes:

[Raine]

31. The whole time

I have no doubt at all. x(

[Pachamama]

41. Not only the whole time...it was probably their idea...

I'm serious when I say that...and when I turn on the TV and see what is happening between Israel and Hezbollah and the death and dying on both sides and seeing the destruction and knowing there are over a million refugees in Lebanon who never know if they can go home - and then I remember that Bush and the Neo-cons have known the plans and wanted this - I get sick.

[twaddler01]

30. A view from another angle

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2006/20-07-2006.htm

FROM: The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)

EDIT: Some nasty pictures at the bottom of page...a couple of injured people from a refugee camp.

[Tab]

34. We did it too

Any nation facing the prospect of war sets up contingency war plans. We used to have plans for various scenarios, such as a nuclear strike by Russia, and possible necessary invasions of everything from Cuba to war with China. Too bad we didn't have a decent one for Iraq.

Anyway...

Given the environment that Israel is in, both politically and physically, they'd be nuts NOT to have prepared war plans against most all of the countries in the region, and most certainly ones that have declared their enmity toward Israel.

[slaveplanet]

35. Missles?

it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles

rockets are not missles.

Israel has real missles and the international community will not be preventing Israel from stockpiling them either.

[zippy890]

39. sounds like they changed their plans

from the same article

~snip~

"A big invasion is not suitable here," said Marzuk. "We are not fighting an army, but guerrillas. It would be a mistake to enter and expose ourselves to fighters who will hide, fire off a missile and run away. If we are to be on the ground at all, we need to use commandos and special forces."

~snip~

plan they are using is different from this one-

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Just about the time Hariri was offed, supposedly by the Syrians

But I wonder...

Just sayin'...

:tinfoil:

[enough]

44. Juan Cole has extensive discussion of this story today. Worth reading.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/war-on-lebanon-planned-for-at-least.html

snip from Cole>

That this war was pre-planned was obvious to me from the moment it began. The Israeli military proceeded methodically and systematically to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, and clearly had been casing targets for some time. The vast majority of these targets were unrelated to Hizbullah. But since the northern Sunni port of Tripoli could theoretically be used by Syria or Iran to offload replacement rockets that could be transported by truck down south to Hizbullah, the Israelis hit it. And then they hit some trucks to let truck drivers know to stay home for a while.

That is why I was so shaken by George W. Bush's overheard conversation with Tony Blair about the war. He clearly thought that it broke out because Syria used Hizbullah to create a provocation. The President of the United States did not know that this war was a long-planned Israeli war of choice.

Why is that scarey? Because the Israeli planning had to have been done in conjunction with Donald Rumsfeld at the US Department of Defense. The US Department of Defense is committed to rapidly re-arming Israel and providing it precision laser-guided weaponry, and to giving it time to substantially degrade Hizbullah's missile capabilities. The two are partners in the war effort.

For the Bush administration, Iran and Hizbullah are not existential threats. They are proximate threats. Iran is hostile to US corporate investment in the oil-rich Gulf,, and so is a big obstacle to American profit-making in the region. Rumsfeld is worried about Iran's admission as an observer to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is to say, that he is worried about a budding Chinese-Islamic axis that might lock up petroleum reserves and block US investments. If Chinese economic and military growth make it the most significant potential challenger to the Sole Superpower in the coming century, a Chinese alliance with the oil-rich Muslim regions, including Iran, would be even more formidable. The Shanghai group has already pulled off one coup against Rumsfeld, successfully convincing Uzbekistan to end US basing rights in that country.

much more>

[leveymg]

47. Much more logical to escalate than to do a preemptive attack on Iran

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP
http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/war-on-lebanon-planned-for-at-least.html

Of course these plans have been in place for more than a year. The concept of a preemptive attack on Iran was vetoed by the JCS in 2004. Reports about Cheney's ordering nuclear first-strikes against Iran sounded like sabre rattling rather than realistic military planning. This is the real alternative -- more conventional -- plan of attack. Rev up sympathy for Israel, let the Israeli military loose as a provocation, and then if that doesn't draw Syria and Iran into hostilities, one more step will be required. A phony showdown over Iran's WMDs.

The hope is that Iran/Syria do something stupid in response to this display of Israeli muscle-flexing in Lebanon and Palestine that would justify a more active, direct American role in the conflict.

The connection with Iranian "missiles" and Shi'a "terrorists" has already been established in the heads of most Americans, so a progression to an actual strike against Iranian and Syrian missile sites would now be much more politically palatable.

A successful war with Iran -- one which the U.S. achieves political-military objectives with foreseeable outcomes at an acceptable cost -- is still unrealistic from a military perspective. So, I still don't believe that it's actually going to lead to a direct U.S.-Iran war.

Finally, this incursion into Lebanon doesn't seem to be doing much for the Israelis, either, other than killing a bunch of Hexb'allah and expending munitions on both sides. So, I have growing doubts that this is actually going to lead to any real strategic change in the situation. It's doing wonders for oil and defense industry profits, which may be the real point of all this carnage in the Middle East.