[vmarks]

That's right.

Two pieces of news that need to be seen:

Even as Israel begins to prepare for ceasefire, HizbAllah is being armed by Syria, and the Iran Revolutionary Guard is fighting among the HizbAllah.

My opinion:

Olmert has failed Israel- what has been won? Is HizbAllah crushed? Has Syria stopped supplying weapons to be used to kill Israelis? Has Iran been stopped from supporting the attacks on Israelis?

Because these things have not been accomplished, Iran, Syria, and HizbAllah are enjoying a victory, and Israel a loss.

Because of this, more Israelis will die. More terrorists will continue their acts unabated. And any response will draw criticism and world angst over Israel's defending itself. If Olmert is leader enough to even respond. Remember, he's saying as soon as this is done he's withdrawing all Jews from the West Bank, which will encourage more attacks on Israelis, if the Gaza withdrawal is any indicator.


Last update - 07:53 13/08/2006
Syria still transferring supply of rockets, missiles to Hezbollah
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

Syria continues its efforts to transfer large quantities of war materiel, including rockets, to Lebanon, in an effort to assist Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a senior Israel Defense Forces source told Haaretz on Saturday.

According to the IDF source, the air force has succeeded in partially stemming the arms transfers, but intelligence shows that supply convoys have managed to cross into Lebanon from Syria.

Senior Syrian army and intelligence officers are involved in the arms smuggling, according to the senior IDF source, who says it is unlikely this continues without the explicit support of the regime in Damascus.

Two specific types of weapons - anti-tank missiles and rockets used to target Israeli civilians - are of concern.

The alert levels of the Syrian army, especially on the Golan Heights, is at its highest levels since the Lebanon War in 1982. The Syrian preparedness is mostly defensive, but the IDF is not excluding the possibility that Damascus will initiate a limited ground operation during the closing stages of the war.

Such an act, from a Syrian point of view, would aim at improving its position toward the end of the current confrontation and force Israel to begin negotiations on a broader diplomatic initiative that would include the return of the Golan Heights.

Part of the IDF's defensive deployment is meant to counter such a threat, including the deployment of anti-aircraft missiles in Haifa and the Sharon to intercept possible launches of Syrian Scud surface-to-surface ballistic missiles targetting Israeli cities.

In another development, in recent fighting, IDF forces uncovered the bodies of a number of fighters who appear to belong to Iran's Revolutionary Guard. No identifying documents were discovered on the bodies but tattoos suggest they belong to the Iranian force.

According to IDF sources, Iran sent several dozen Revolutionary Guard fighters to bolster the ranks of Hezbollah.

[Sky Captain]

Intresting.
But the cease fire isn't in place yet.
Perhaps Syria and Iran are going to mount one last huge offensive before the UN bartered cease fire.

And when has any ME nation ever listened to the UN anyway?
Much less the UN abidided by it's own rules?(like food for oil scandle)

[Nicko]

Just got back from a week in Dubai (damn it was hot there), and I saw a similar article in Gulf News I think was, but anyway here is the NYT version:

IMO, It's no surpise that Israel can kill civilians 10 times more efficiently than Hezbollah,

August 11, 2006
Weapons
Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast
By DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range antipersonnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, two American officials said Thursday.

The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.

But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, officials say, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas.

Israel is asking for the rockets now because it has been unable to suppress Hezbollah’s Katyusha rocket attacks in the month-old conflict by using bombs dropped from aircraft and other types of artillery, the officials said. The Katyusha rockets have killed dozens of civilians in Israel.

The United States had approved the sale of M-26’s to Israel some time ago, but the weapons had not yet been delivered when the crisis in Lebanon erupted. If the shipment is approved, Israel may be told that it must be especially careful about firing the rockets into populated areas, the senior official said.

Israel has long told American officials that it wanted M-26 rockets for use against conventional armies in case Israel was invaded, one of the American officials said. But after being pressed in recent days on what they intended to use the weapons for, Israeli officials disclosed that they planned to use them against rocket sites in Lebanon. It was this prospect that raised the intense concerns over civilian casualties.

During much of the 1980’s, the United States maintained a moratorium on selling cluster munitions to Israel, following disclosures that civilians in Lebanon had been killed with the weapons during the 1982 Israeli invasion. But the moratorium was lifted late in the Reagan administration, and since then, the United States has sold Israel some types of cluster munitions, the senior official said.

Officials would discuss the issue only on the condition of anonymity, as the debate over what to do is not resolved and is freighted with implications for the difficult diplomacy that is under way.

State Department officials “are discussing whether or not there needs to be a block on this sale because of the past history and because of the current circumstances,” said the senior official, adding that it was likely that Israel will get the rockets, but will be told to be “be careful.”

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment on Israel’s request. He said, though, that “as a rule, we obviously don’t fire into populated areas, with the exception of the use of precision-guided munitions against terrorist targets.” In such cases, Israel has dropped leaflets warning of impending attacks to avoid civilian casualties, he said.

In the case of cluster munitions, including the Multiple Launch Rocket System, which fires the M-26, the Israeli military only fires into open terrain where rocket launchers or other military targets are found, to avoid killing civilians, an Israeli official said.

The debate over whether to ship Israel the missiles, which include the cluster munitions and use launchers that Israel has already received, comes as the Bush administration has been trying to win support for a draft United Nations resolution that calls for immediate cessation of “all attacks” by Hezbollah and of “offensive military operations” by Israel.

Arab governments, under pressure to halt the rising number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, have criticized the measure for not calling for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.

While Bush administration officials have criticized Israeli strikes that have caused civilian casualties, they have also backed the offensive against Hezbollah by rushing arms shipments to the region. Last month the administration approved a shipment of precision-guided munitions, which one senior official said this week included at least 25 of the 5,000-pound “bunker-buster” bombs.

Israel has recently asked for another shipment of precision-guided munitions, which is likely to be approved, the senior official said.

Last month, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch said its researchers had uncovered evidence that Israel had fired cluster munitions on July 19 at the Lebanese village of Bilda, which the group said had killed one civilian and wounded at least 12 others, including 7 children. The group said it had interviewed survivors of the attack, who described incoming artillery shells dispensing hundreds of cluster submunitions on the village.

Human Rights Watch also released photographs, taken recently by its researchers in northern Israel, of what it said were American-supplied artillery shells that had markings showing they carried cluster munitions.

Mr. Siegel, the Israeli Embassy spokesman, denied that cluster munitions had been used on the village.

The United States Army also employs the M-26 rocket and the Multiple Launch Rocket System in combat, and the Pentagon has sold the weapon to numerous other allies, in addition to Israel. The system is especially effective at attacking enemy artillery sites, military experts say, because the rockets can be quickly targeted against a defined geographic area. Each rocket contains 644 submunitions that kill enemy soldiers operating artillery in the area.

But Human Rights Watch and other groups have campaigned for the elimination of cluster munitions, noting that even if civilians are not present when the weapons is used, some submunitions that do not detonate on impact can later injure or kill civilians.

The M-26 “is a particularly deadly weapon,” Bonnie Docherty, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, who helped write a study of the United States’ use of the weapons in the 2003 Iraq invasion. “They were used widely by U.S. forces in Iraq and caused hundreds of civilian casualties.”

After the Reagan administration determined in 1982 that the cluster munitions had been used by Israel against civilian areas, the delivery of the artillery shells containing the munitions to Israel was suspended.

Israel was found to have violated a 1976 agreement with the United States in which it had agreed only to use cluster munitions against Arab armies and against clearly defined military targets. The moratorium on selling Israel cluster weapons was later lifted by the Reagan administration.

This week, State Department officials were studying records of what happened in 1982 as part of their internal deliberations into whether to grant approval for the sale to go forward.

[Millennium]

As a quick aside, vmarks, I've been wondering about something. I've heard the name of the group spelled Hezbollah and Hizbullah before, but that's an awfully strange spelling and capitalization that you're using. You've been using it consistently, so I can only assume you've seen it before: where does it come from?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Millennium

As a quick aside, vmarks, I've been wondering about something. I've heard the name of the group spelled Hezbollah and Hizbullah before, but that's an awfully strange spelling and capitalization that you're using. You've been using it consistently, so I can only assume you've seen it before: where does it come from?

His spelling simply demonstrates the true meaning of the word--"Party of God". Hizb=Party and Allah=God. All spellings of it are phonetic anyway, so there isn't a true English spelling of it that I know.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Nicko

August 11, 2006
Weapons
Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast

So, what you're saying is that even as Israel begins to prepare for ceasefire, Israel is being armed by the US and may be preparing for a large offensive before the ceasefire goes into effect?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, what you're saying is that even as Israel begins to prepare for ceasefire, Israel is being armed by the US and may be preparing for a large offensive before the ceasefire goes into effect?

They are preparing for the likelyhood that HizbAllah will not adhere to the ceasefire. Not doing so, would be blindly trusting a terrorist organization. How smart would that be?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by greenG4

They are preparing for the likelyhood that HizbAllah will not adhere to the ceasefire. Not doing so, would be blindly trusting a terrorist organization. How smart would that be?

Sounds like both parties got the same idea.

Oh but Hezbollah is Evil, so Israel Right after all...

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Sounds like both parties got the same idea.

Oh but Hezbollah is Evil, so Israel Right after all...

Which do you think is more likely to break a ceasefire agreement? If you say Israel, I'm gonna scream. Really loud.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Which do you think is more likely to break a ceasefire agreement? If you say Israel, I'm gonna scream. Really loud.

Without question, HizbAllah/Hezbollah is more likely to break a ceasefire agreement than Israel. However, that only means Israel is less likely, not unlikely, to break such an agreement. Given Israel's history, how wise would it be to blindly trust Israel?

Having said that, I can't see how this ceasefire will affect the current conflict. The agreement is to be between Lebanon and Israel, yet the conflict is between Israel and HizbAllah/Hezbollah, not Lebanon, and it sounds as though the Lebanese government is incapable of controlling the actions of HizbAllah/Hezbollah.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Having said that, I can't see how this ceasefire will affect the current conflict. The agreement is to be between Lebanon and Israel, yet the conflict is between Israel and HizbAllah/Hezbollah, not Lebanon, and it sounds as though the Lebanese government is incapable of controlling the actions of HizbAllah/Hezbollah.

100% agree with your assesment. Ceasefires don't have much effect in the Middle East period. They simply postpone the inevitable. History shows that a victor in war (as long as it's "the good guy" is what causes peace, not meaningless ceasefire agreements. We didn't just call a ceasefire with Japan or Germany, we stomped them into the ground. And afterwords, peace.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Without question, HizbAllah/Hezbollah is more likely to break a ceasefire agreement than Israel. However, that only means Israel is less likely, not unlikely, to break such an agreement.

It was HezbAllah that started this entire thing. The northern border was quiet and Hezballah cut the fence and kidnapped Israeli soliders.

Clearly, HezbAllah cannot be trusted. The Israelis can.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Which do you think is more likely to break a ceasefire agreement? If you say Israel, I'm gonna scream. Really loud.

I don't know, and I don't care much for this stupid war, except for the number of innocents on both sides. Both parties are to blame for this, and both deserve one another: Hezbollah for its useless terrorism tactics, and Israel for out of proportion responses. The weapons merchants get fatter on the blood of children, and that fool at the head of Iran is getting more tmpted to stupid actions. In the meantime, the EU, the US-UK and the UN show up as either Uber-impotents or accomplices to carnage.

I am fed up with those politicians and wish for Peace only through a peaceful resolution. Call me a foolish utopist, but that is it.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I am fed up with those politicians and wish for Peace only through a peaceful resolution. Call me a foolish utopist, but that is it.

I think we all wish for peace that way. But both parties involved in a war would have to wish for it too. I really believe that Israel would take peace by peaceful means if it was possible. And there is no way HizbAllah would. So there goes our wish, right out the window. I won't get into the disproportionate resonse arguement again--it's been beaten to death.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by bstone

It was HezbAllah that started this entire thing. The northern border was quiet and Hezballah cut the fence and kidnapped Israeli soliders.

Clearly, HezbAllah cannot be trusted. The Israelis can.

One side of a conflict being clearly untrustworthy does not by default make the other side trustworthy. I don't think Israel is unjustified in retaliating against HizbAllah/Hezbollah (though I do think they are guilty of not trying very hard to avoid civillian casualities), but that doesn't mean I necessarily trust Israel to do the right thing.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by greenG4

I won't get into the disproportionate response arguement again--it's been beaten to death.

Ergo, the disproportion.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Ergo, the disproportion.

Nice way to put words into his mouth. I'm starting to see that tactic among you guys more and more.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

...(though I do think they are guilty of not trying very hard to avoid civillian casualities)...

They can and are trying. However, it's complicated by the fact that their enemy puts its own civilians at a vastly greater risk, which has been well established by even the liberal press. The only thing left for them to do to avaoid civilian casualties is to not defend itself.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Nice way to put words into his mouth. I'm starting to see that tactic among you guys more and more.

And sidestepping the point of my post as well...

(Edit) Pendergast, I was trying avoid a topic which has been discussed greatly in other threads. I was trying to keep it to the topic being discussed here.

[mojo2]

The Jews Took No One's Land.
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=305418

Hizb Allah is breaking man's law and should be crushed. The Palestinians should be made to pay for breaking the law.

What would be done if we all lived under Sharia Law and a group disobeyed?

Does ANYONE think there would be such patient consideration for the innocent Israelis while the Islamic Police or HizbAllah or other military set about forcing compliance and dispersing any protests???

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by greenG4

And sidestepping the point of my post as well...

(Edit) Pendergast, I was trying avoid a topic which has been discussed greatly in other threads. I was trying to keep it to the topic being discussed here.

Fine by me. But as Syria apparently provides more weapons to Hezbollah, and the US to Israel, understanding Hezbollah is less succesfull at making a point as Israel... The issue is still relevant. But I am not trying to open on a debate already "debated", as I know debates keep on being reopened anyway. I am just stating my opinion.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Nice way to put words into his mouth. I'm starting to see that tactic among you guys more and more.

These were my words and I am fully accountable for them. Your interpretation is your projection. Sounds like your prejudice to generalize my post to everyone else corresponds to your accusations.

Yet, as sidestepping the issue goes, you certainly trolled this one, for a moment.

Tel est pris qui croyait prendre!

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Fine by me. But as Syria apparently provides more weapons to Hebollah, and the US to Israel, understanding Hezbollah is less succesfull at making at making a point as Israel... The issue is still relevant. But I am not trying to open on a debate already "debated", as I know debates keep on being reopened anyway. I am just stating my opinion.

I can see the relevancy if you believe Israel is overreacting. Just realize that I believe Israel is not overreacting, thus the relevancy decreases for me.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by vmarks

That's right.

Two pieces of news that need to be seen:

Even as Israel begins to prepare for ceasefire, HizbAllah is being armed by Syria, and the Iran Revolutionary Guard is fighting among the HizbAllah.

My opinion:

Olmert has failed Israel- what has been won? Is HizbAllah crushed? Has Syria stopped supplying weapons to be used to kill Israelis? Has Iran been stopped from supporting the attacks on Israelis?

Because these things have not been accomplished, Iran, Syria, and HizbAllah are enjoying a victory, and Israel a loss.

Because of this, more Israelis will die. More terrorists will continue their acts unabated. And any response will draw criticism and world angst over Israel's defending itself. If Olmert is leader enough to even respond. Remember, he's saying as soon as this is done he's withdrawing all Jews from the West Bank, which will encourage more attacks on Israelis, if the Gaza withdrawal is any indicator.

I can imagine Olmert trying to use this as an opportunity to gain worldwide support.

Why would this be any different than the dozens of other times when the Israelis have acted in good faith only to be taken advantage of when the Palestinians or Lebanese or whoever took advantage of their earnest actions and used it against the Israelis (as has become a well known Muslim jihadist tactic)?

Because now the whole world has already shown they are paying close attention this time. That is different than before. Also the world and even the UN has shown a willingness to try to be fair to the Israelis this time.

And the Sunni Arab states are dead set against the Iranian-Syrian-HizbAllah forces gaining any momentum and so I can actually imagine there being a real effort to prevent any future attacks coming from the north at least for a good number of years. And if not then the Israelis will be given the benefit of the doubt as they hammer even greater amounts of land in any future retaliations.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by greenG4

I can see the relevancy if you believe Israel is overreacting. Just realize that I believe Israel is not overreacting, thus the relevancy decreases for me.

We can agree that we disagree.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

We can agree that we disagree.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks

My opinion:

Olmert has failed Israel- what has been won? Is HizbAllah crushed? Has Syria stopped supplying weapons to be used to kill Israelis? Has Iran been stopped from supporting the attacks on Israelis?

Because these things have not been accomplished, Iran, Syria, and HizbAllah are enjoying a victory, and Israel a loss.

For once we may agree on this topic. The purpose of war is to get the enemy to submit to your will by force. Clearly Israel has failed to do this. Despite vastly superior weaponry and resources, the IDF has failed to stop HizbAllah from firing rockets into northern Israel ... failed to push HizbAllah out of southern Lebanon ... failed to significantly diminish HizbAllah's military capacity .... and certainly failed to win the PR battle worldwide.

What they have done is killed more Lebanese civilians in a month than HizbAllah has killed Israeli civilians since its founding in 1982. What they have done is decimated the infrastructure of Lebanon as punishment for the Lebanese government's failure to restrain HizbAllah ... which they knew good and well it was incapable of doing in the first place. What they have done is displaced 700K to 1 million people ... essentially depopulating southern Lebanon in what might be the single most effective ethnic cleansing operation in history.

And to what end? They still don't have the 2 IDF soldiers back which was the ostensible reason for conducting this operation in the first place. And they have 150+ Israeli deaths (the vast majority of which were soldiers) and numerous tank and other military equipment losses to show for it. And let's make no mistake about it, the rockets are no longer raining on northern Israel because HizbAllah chose to respect the cease-fire ... not because they no longer have the capacity.

It seems to me that all of this foolishness could have been avoided if Israel had simply negotiated a prisoner exchange. It's not as if they aren't still holding Lebanese prisoners from the 1982 - 2000 occupation.

OAW

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by OAW

For once we may agree on this topic. The purpose of war is to get the enemy to submit to your will by force. Clearly Israel has failed to do this. Despite vastly superior weaponry and resources, the IDF has failed to stop HizbAllah from firing rockets into northern Israel ... failed to push HizbAllah out of southern Lebanon ... failed to significantly diminish HizbAllah's military capacity .... and certainly failed to win the PR battle worldwide.

What they have done is killed more Lebanese civilians in a month than HizbAllah has killed Israeli civilians since its founding in 1982. What they have done is decimated the infrastructure of Lebanon as punishment for the Lebanese government's failure to restrain HizbAllah ... which they knew good and well it was incapable of doing in the first place. What they have done is displaced 700K to 1 million people ... essentially depopulating southern Lebanon in what might be the single most effective ethnic cleansing operation in history.

And to what end? They still don't have the 2 IDF soldiers back which was the ostensible reason for conducting this operation in the first place. And they have 150+ Israeli deaths (the vast majority of which were soldiers) and numerous tank and other military equipment losses to show for it. And let's make no mistake about it, the rockets are no longer raining on northern Israel because HizbAllah chose to respect the cease-fire ... not because they no longer have the capacity.

It seems to me that all of this foolishness could have been avoided if Israel had simply negotiated a prisoner exchange. It's not as if they aren't still holding Lebanese prisoners from the 1982 - 2000 occupation.

OAW

Brilliant post. My sentiments exactly. Although I disagree with your phrase 'essentially depopulating southern Lebanon in what might be the single most effective ethnic cleansing operation in history". It sounds a bit extreme.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Brilliant post. My sentiments exactly. Although I disagree with your phrase 'essentially depopulating southern Lebanon in what might be the single most effective ethnic cleansing operation in history". It sounds a bit extreme.

Well clearly southern Lebanon was depopulated. The Lebanese prime minister said that nearly a quarter of the country's population was displaced by the fighting. One can quibble as to whether or not this was the intent of the Israelis. Clearly they attempted to turn the Lebanese Shias against HizbAllah ... the leaflets they dropped blamed them for their suffering (including the displacement) ... but I can't state that Israel has long-term designs on holding this territory and expanding its population into it. So perhaps I should have said "single most effective ethnic displacement operation in history" instead of "single most effective ethnic cleansing operation in history" since the latter implies a goal of territory acquisition. I don't think that was the intent of Israel, however I definitely believe that the intent was to destabilize Lebanon and massive population displacement accomplished that objective.

The "funny" thing now is that Israel is all of a sudden offering to do a prisoner exchange.

Israel’s military also made a first gesture at possible post-conflict negotiations. It said it could exchange 13 Hezbollah prisoners and the bodies of dozens of guerrillas for two Israeli soldiers whose capture in a cross-border raid July 12 touched off the fighting.

Like I said before ... why couldn't Israel do this from the get go instead of decimating the infrastructure of Lebanon and killing hundreds of Lebanese? And then they wonder why the negative opinion of its foreign policy worldwide is rivaled only by the USA itself.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Wars haven't really been won since WW2. There's no such thing as a civilian. People produce goods and services that are used in conflict - and people, by virtue of settling land and creating governments are the root cause of all wars.

War is hell. Anything less isn't war.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by OAW

Well clearly southern Lebanon was depopulated. The Lebanese prime minister said that nearly a quarter of the country's population was displaced by the fighting. One can quibble as to whether or not this was the intent of the Israelis. Clearly they attempted to turn the Lebanese Shias against HizbAllah ... the leaflets they dropped blamed them for their suffering (including the displacement) ... but I can't state that Israel has long-term designs on holding this territory and expanding its population into it. So perhaps I should have said "single most effective ethnic displacement operation in history" instead of "single most effective ethnic cleansing operation in history" since the latter implies a goal of territory acquisition. I don't think that was the intent of Israel, however I definitely believe that the intent was to destabilize Lebanon and massive population displacement accomplished that objective.

The "funny" thing now is that Israel is all of a sudden offering to do a prisoner exchange.



Like I said before ... why couldn't Israel do this from the get go instead of decimating the infrastructure of Lebanon and killing hundreds of Lebanese? And then they wonder why the negative opinion of its foreign policy worldwide is rivaled only by the USA itself.

OAW

I think the Lebanese will think long and hard before they allow the Party of God to mount attacks on Israel again.

And the more that Iran is forced to provide funds to rebuild Lebanon the less likely they would be to fund more wars against Israel or anyone.

The world opinion re: Israel didn't help keep them from being attacked, did it?

The world opinion didn't help to keep their soldiers safe from kidnapping, did it?

The world opinion didn't help keep Hizb Allah from smuggling in 15,000 rockets into an area that was SUPPOSED to have been cleared out of South Lebanon, did it?

The world opinion didn't see through the lies and mistruths that was being spread about Israel, did it?

So, now that you say world opinion is against israel, funny, I see no big difference than before.



So, if this leads to ten years or more of peace from Lebanon then it will have been successful. Whether the Lebanese hate Israel or not. And if it doesn't keep them in line the IDF might just have to kick their asses all over again.

And further deplete Iran's economy.

And maybe then they'll get smart.

But something tells me they'll continue to obey this command.

"Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone.”