Israel's Attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to divert attention from the issue?

Not including the link the first time was an oversight.

Now back to the meat:

I have not seen any reports of him backing off from that statement. I have no doubt that the UN had contacted and got assurances from the Israeli's regarding their people's safety. Just as they have recd assurances regarding humanitarian convoys. SOP.

They were also assured during that day that they would not be attacked.

So, which of my choices is it: a) incompetent (dont know how to aim precision quided weaponry) b) insubordinate (disregarding their military commanders orders or c) the military commanders not listening to the PM's office.

Feel free to add other, credible, choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently you missed the fact that "precision guided weaponry" only implies a high probability of hitting the target. Incompetence isnt the only choice....in fact the obvious choice is exactly what Israel claims and Annan now acknowledges is possible...accident.

[ACPlayer]

Actually the obvious choice is that the military is operating without inputs from the political readership. This is a repeat of the pattern in the early lebanese was as well.

We all knew that the formal reports would be "just one more accident" amongst hundreds where targetting is off. Like buses with kids, cars with families, buildings with families etc.

We also knew that Annan would "accept" the report. That is the diplomatic reality. Although, I have yet to see the report or its formal acceptance. All he has accepted (as far as I know) is assurances that the political leadership has told the military to stay away.

[Copernicus]

What I heard on two different radio stations were that he essentially apologized for unfounded accusations of intentional targeting and acknowledged that with the missile sites so close to the UN post that an accident was possible. There has been no report to "Accept" yet that I know of.

[Copernicus]

What I heard on two different radio stations were that he essentially apologized for unfounded accusations of intentional targeting and acknowledged that with the missile sites so close to the UN post that an accident was possible. There has been no report to "Accept" yet that I know of.

I dont follow your obvious choice.

[NapHead]

[ QUOTE ]
We all knew that the formal reports would be "just one more accident" amongst hundreds where targetting is off. Like buses with kids, cars with families, buildings with families etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much preferred to terrorists' explanations to the results of explosions on buses with kids and restaurants filled with civilans and malls packed with people that their targetting was spot on.

And the indiscriminate shelling of 2200 rockets into population centers in Israel where an "accidental hit" is actually a strike on any sort of military target.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
What I heard on two different radio stations were that he essentially apologized for unfounded accusations of intentional targeting and acknowledged that with the missile sites so close to the UN post that an accident was possible. There has been no report to "Accept" yet that I know of.

I dont follow your obvious choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In one news conference I saw, he upbraided a reporter for not using the term "apparently" when talking about the targetting. he appeared to stand by his original statement. He also said that he was waiting for the formal report and was glad that the PM had assured him that it was not deliberate.

The third option is whether the military is sharing its plans with the political leadership and/or listening to its political leaders. As in the PM tell the Gen's no attacking of the UN posts, the PM's spokesman tell the Generals that they are near a UN post and to not go there and the Generals "neglect" to pass along the information to the field commanders.

Like I said earlier a more sinister option. But consistent with the Israeli military's previous history.

Keen to see the formal cover up.... errr... report.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the obvious choice is that the military is operating without inputs from the political readership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amir Peretz is Israel's Defense Minister.

From that article:

'He is a member of Peace Now, the Israeli pacifist organisation that campaigns for a Palestinian state, and supported Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.

"I see the occupation as an immoral act, first of all," he is quoted as saying. "I want to end the occupation not because of Palestinian pressure, but because I see it as an Israeli interest."

Here is an article from the current U.S. News & World Report

From the article:

'HAIFA, ISRAEL--He may be Israel's unlikeliest warrior, a socialist trade union leader who participated in Peace Now demonstrations. Today as defense minister, Amir Peretz is giving orders to conduct Israel's biggest military offensive in years. The pacifist Labor Party leader, who barely a month ago urged restraint against Palestinian militants (and saw his poll rating drop) and then stammered at the start of the current crisis, is now talking tough. "There is no stopwatch on the military operation" in Lebanon, he declares--and the latest polls show he has gained Israelis' confidence................ Rocky start. Sure enough. On the morning of June 25, when an Israeli soldier was captured by Palestinian militants from Gaza, Peretz faced the first of a sequence of fateful trials. It didn't go well. At a press conference with the Army chief of staff two days later, he stammered and stuttered, unable to get out a word. The local media broadcast it, repeatedly. Until then, Peretz had restrained the generals, who for months had been pushing for a ground invasion of Gaza to stop the Kassam rockets launched against his southern Israeli hometown of Sderot.

Finally, when Egypt's diplomatic efforts failed to gain the soldier's release and a Kassam fell for the first time on the city of Ashkelon, the famously stubborn leader caved in to pressure for action from the public, the military, and Olmert. Israeli tanks and troops entered northern Gaza, though Peretz restricted them to short incursions and urged restraint toward the civilian population.........Unlike the fight against Palestinians, this is a battle that Peretz believes in--a response to an unprovoked attack across an internationally recognized border by people not under Israeli occupation. Speaking to pilots during a visit to a military base, he convincingly declared, "This is a military operation that will determine the future of the state, and we will win." Nothing dovish sounding in that.'

THAT is who is in charge of Israel's military. A member of Peace Now. And he is determined to defeat Hizballah. For good reason.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I heard on two different radio stations were that he essentially apologized for unfounded accusations of intentional targeting and acknowledged that with the missile sites so close to the UN post that an accident was possible. There has been no report to "Accept" yet that I know of.

I dont follow your obvious choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In one news conference I saw, he upbraided a reporter for not using the term "apparently" when talking about the targetting. he appeared to stand by his original statement. He also said that he was waiting for the formal report and was glad that the PM had assured him that it was not deliberate.

The third option is whether the military is sharing its plans with the political leadership and/or listening to its political leaders. As in the PM tell the Gen's no attacking of the UN posts, the PM's spokesman tell the Generals that they are near a UN post and to not go there and the Generals "neglect" to pass along the information to the field commanders.

Like I said earlier a more sinister option. But consistent with the Israeli military's previous history.

Keen to see the formal cover up.... errr... report.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh..."leadership" not "readership".

I didint hear Annan myself but both WINS and WABC cast his statements as backpeddling on his prior accusations.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
THAT is who is in charge of Israel's military. A member of Peace Now. And he is determined to defeat Hizballah. For good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that is Peretz in "charge" of the military is all the more reason to believe that the IDF are paying very little attention to what the politicians are telling them to do. I am certain that the Israeli top brass have zero respect for Peretz as a past peace campaigner (that seems to have gone out the window now, as it always does once Israeli "doves" get into power) and a non-military man (just like Olmert), when they are used to having one of their own in the post.

The relationship between the military and power is a massively unhealthy one. The ease with which military men move into top political posts would embarass a banana republic. In 2000 Shaul Mofaz was the Israeli Chief of Staff. According to Charles Smith's history of the Arab Israeli conflict, at the start of the second intifada Barak asked the military to deal relatively lightly with the protests following Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. But the army repeatedly responded with live fire to unarmed demonstrations, killing dozens, with Mofaz's connivance at least and probably his direct order. The whole thing predictably spiralled out of control and became increasingly militarised on both sides. The upsurge in violence brought Barak down and Sharon in.

Who does Sharon make his Defence Minister in the next government? Shaul Mofaz.

Just as Israeli soldiers often get away unpunished with beating or killing innocent Palestinians, Israeli top brass often get away with far exceeding or breaking their orders (eg Sharon going all the way to Beirut in 1982 when the government only gave him approval to go a few kilometeres into Lebanon). It took Sabra and Chatila to get him reined in and even then, after an Israeli inquiry found him personally responsible for the events, he stayed in the cabinet.

Elements of the Israeli military elite have their own agenda and they aren't going to let things like politicians who aren't one of their own get in their way.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
The question that raises is why they didnt leave. If they had approached Israel for a brief hiatus in bombing I doubt they would have been denied. Do you interpret what he said as HZB was restricting their movement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt they were able to leave under the circumstances. Did the IDF offer them a respite to leave? No, they dropped a precision bunker buster on their, er, bunker.