Our World: Israel's encirclement

[bemildred]

---

Deployed along Israel's northern and southern borders, these forces constrict Israel's ability to maneuver, and prevent the IDF from taking preventative actions against Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Gaza thus increasing the risks that Israel will face in the event that action is taken against Iran's nuclear facilities and constraining Israel's ability to stealthily launch any attack.

Nearly 10,000 French-commanded UNIFIL troops today protect Hizbullah in south Lebanon. And increasingly, they do so while provoking Israel. Last week two incidents took place between German naval forces and the IAF. Last Tuesday and Thursday IAF jets were scrambled when a German naval helicopter entered Israeli airspace after taking off from a German naval ship off Rosh Hanikra without permission or prior coordination.

What is most remarkable about the story is its repetition. Last Tuesday the German helicopter elicited a strong Israeli response. Rather than desist from provoking the IAF, the Germans repeated their action on Thursday. So what could have been viewed as a regrettable incident was transformed into a provocation.

Germany's hostile behavior is par for the course with UNIFIL. Two weeks ago French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie called the IAF's overflights of Lebanese airspace "extremely dangerous," and threatened that France's forces in Lebanon were liable to fire on the IAF flights "because they may be felt as hostile by forces of the coalition." By word and deed, UNIFIL forces are making clear that they view the IDF, not Hizbullah as their enemy. As they increase their provocations against Israel, UNIFIL forces turn a blind eye to weapons being smuggled daily to Hizbullah from Syria. Were Israel to attempt to take action against Hizbullah or Syria to prevent them from attacking in anticipation of an Israeli strike on Iran, there can be little doubt how UNIFIL would respond.

JPost

[union_maid]

1. Link isn't to Haaretz

The link is to the Jerusalem Post rather than Haaretz.

[bemildred]

2. Good point.

Thanks.
:thumbsup:

[union_maid]

3. glad to help

[scarletwoman]

4. "...in anticipation of an Israeli strike on Iran" Here's a thought, how about not

"striking Iran"?

And, uh, I'm rather confused as to why you would title your text link "Haaretz" when it actually links to an article in the Jerusalem Post.

Sorry, I didn't make it through the whole article. All I can think of are the song lyrics; "Paranoia will destroy ya..."

sw

on edit: I see that while I was composing my post, you corrected the text for your link -- thanks!

[bemildred]

5. It's a point of view we rarely see spelled out (coherently) here.

I thought it was worth understanding.

My own view is that if you accept the premises she reasons from, then the situation is hopeless. The war is lost, strategically, you might say. She delineates the elements of that, but does not accept the conclusions those point to, neither does she consider whether she should re-examine her premises.

This is something I see in other posters, they see the futility of the present course, have nothing better to offer, and yet are not willing to consider alternate approaches that might offer some hope, some avenue forward.

In any case she makes good and clear points about certain elements of the situation, and the viewpoint on the German "provocations" was interesting.

-- B

[scarletwoman]

6. Well, as I said, I didn't make it through the whole article. So I'm not in a position to analyze it.

Truth is, the title of your OP intrigued me. I clicked on your post, starting reading at the link -- first noticing that it was the Jerusalem Post and NOT Haaretz (thinking, wtf?) -- and just didn't feel willing to proceed through the whole thing.

I guess I'm one of the people who "have nothing better to offer".

sw

[bemildred]

8. No, you would not be one of those. nt

[scarletwoman]

10. Ah, thank you. I have to admit though, I feel utterly at a loss in regard to having

anything useful to say in repsonse to all the fear and sense of embattlement expressed in the article you posted. When an entire country is caught in a downward spiral of paranoia (which is NOT to say that the paranoia is completely unjustified, btw) then what words from a lowly stranger can possibly have any meaning?

Some sort of resolution will eventually manifest. Such a state of tension cannot persist unendingly.

sw

[bemildred]

11. Yes. nt

[breakaleg]

7. What a doomsday article.

The position that international peacekeeping forces are the enemy is interesting. She places them alongside Egyptian troops implying Israel is either going to be attacked from all sides or is going to be penned in from all sides.

Funny, this is exactly what Israel has done to Palestinians. Doesn't feel good does it?

[bemildred]

9. Gives you a bit of cognitive disconnect, doesn't it?

What was all the fuss about getting them in there for, if they are an enemy force? There have been similar efforts to get the Egyptians to police the Gaza border better, and now they make a gesture in that direction, and it is perceived as a threat. What do you have to do to NOT be an enemy, anyway?

Of course, there are other interpretations. Since the Second Lebanese War was less than a stirring success, it is no surprise that the results in the aftermath are less than satisfactory. And the loss of "freedom of action" on the Lebanese border is one aspect of that. I tend to think that all the bluster with the overflights is related to that. You don't have the feeling that the situation in Gaza is "under control" or even moving in that direction, either.