Israel At War
Techniguy - 07-14-2006
Techniguy.com                Site Meter
Techniguy's Newsletters

Forty years ago on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, Mr. Spock said to Scotty "Undeniably, the sole purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis." This was never more evident today than it is in Israel. For a few short years there was hope, especially within the Bush Administration, that a "Peace Plan" for the Middle East could resolve the conflict between Israel and the Arab states including the Palestinian territory. While these talks were going on, human bombs continued to kill innocent Israelis in restaurants, night clubs, and shopping centers. In retaliation, Israel continued to fire missiles at key Hamas leaders and locations and even held PLO leader Yasser Arafat hostage in his own compound for several months. The final solution to the problem, build a wall to keep the Palestinian suicide bombers out of Israel, it worked.

For a brief time there was peace in Israel but only until diplomacy once again raised it's ugly head and Ariel Sharon returned control of Gaza back to the Palestinians as a peace offering, essentially allowing them back onto the Israeli side of the wall. Israeli citizens were evicted from their homes in Gaza and forced to move away as the Palestinians moved in.

The first thing the Palestinians did was to set up bases in Gaza from which to fire rockets into Israel and continue their attacks on innocent civilians. Israel finally had enough. They set up artillery lines along the Gaza border and mounted a very limited attack on key Palestinian targets which included a power generation station which was insured by an American insurance company. This target might have been spared had Israel checked with the US first but insurance was probably the furthest thing from their minds at the time.

The current conflict began with a tunnel. A half mile long tunnel dug right under the lines between Gaza and Israel. Israel discovered the tunnel and blew it up, but not before it had been used to capture an Israeli solder named Cpl. Gilad Shalit, and kill one other. Israel demanded the return of Shalit but Hamas refused demanding that all Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails be released. Israel's policy of not negotiating with terrorists prompted Israel to decline saying that these prisoners are being held because they are guilty of murder and attempted murder of innocent civilians in Israel.  Most were captured during their acts of aggression against Israel such as rocket launchings, suicide bombing attempts, and other attempts to murder Israelis.

When it appeared that the conflict at the Gaza border had come to a stand off, suddenly and without warning, Hezbollah began launching attacks from southern Lebanon onto northern Israeli towns and villages. Anticipating that these attacks would be answered by the advance of Israeli Army personnel, Hezbollah mined the roads with extremely powerful IEDs which destroyed several Israeli vehicles including and Israeli main line tank, killing everyone inside. Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in the process and then used them to make the same demands of prisoner release that Hamas had made. Of course that demand was refused and met with counterattacks by Israel on Hezbollah positions.

To date, Hezbollah has fired over 200 Katyusha rockets into Israel and is said to have thousands more provided by Iran. The Katyusha rocket has a range of about 13 miles but somehow, 2 rockets or missiles hit the city of Haifa nearly 50 miles away. Hezbollah has denied firing the rockets that hit Haifa, so who did? An early report, since suppressed, claimed that Haifa was hit by a different kind of Iranian missile and was fired by Iranian soldiers stationed in southern Lebanonís Baca Valley, the same valley where some of Saddam's WMD are reported to be buried. The official story now is that some of the Katyusha rockets have been modified with a booster rocket for more range. But still, Hezbollah denies firing on Haifa. Why would they lie about it? If they had done it, wouldn't they want to take credit for it?  It's possible that these rockets actually came from Syria in an attempt to escellate the war.

The picture emerging is that this whole conflict was inspired by Iran and intended to provoke major war in the Middle East. That has been the goal Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since the day he took office. Not that Iran is acting alone in this, Syria is right in the middle of it as well, being used as a conduit for Iran. Syria is also known as a depository for illegal weapons from other Islamic countries who wish to hide them from UN weapons inspectors. Yesterday, Ahmadinejad said an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a "fierce response." No doubt if this wingnut had the bomb today, he would use his statement yesterday to justify using it. It's what he lives for, it's his mission in life, as he sees it.

After the attack on Haifa and other northern Israeli cities, Israel decided to get serious and launched attacks into Beirut on Hezbollah operational targets including Hezbollah TV, and more recently, a radio station owned by Hezbollah. They bombed the runways at Beirut Airport shutting it down, then bombed the airport fuel storage tanks. They bombed the highway between Beirut and Damascus to cut off ground traffic from Syria, and stationed warships off the coast. They have isolated Lebanon and cut it off from the rest of the world. These targets were all strategic in nature and designed to prevent Hezbollah from receiving more war supplies. The airport was a "hub for Hezbollah weapons". The US is now trying to figure out how to get 25,000 Americans out of Beirut.

Israel bombed the headquarters of Hezbollah causing the multi-story building to collapse. It was thought that Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was in the building at the time but he somehow survived and later appeared on Hezbollah TV saying "You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war." The Hezbollah leader promised "war on every level". He said the Israeli coastal city of Haifa would come under attack, "and believe me, even beyond Haifa". 

Hezbollah later launched an armed, Unmanned Ariel Vehicle at an Israeli warship, previously unknown to be in their possession. Nasrallah said on television; "Look at the warship that has attacked Beirut, while it burns and sinks before your very eyes." Israel later confirmed that one of its warships had been "lightly" damaged by rockets fired from the shore, but later unnamed military officials were reported as saying that the ship's steering had been damaged, that its helicopter deck had been hit and that it was still on fire hours after the attack.  4 sailors are still unaccounted for and believed blown overboard.

President Bush seems most concerned with "preserving the democracy in Lebanon" and is asking Israel to use restraint. What good is democracy in Lebanon if they support terrorist groups like Hezbollah? Hezbollah was created 25 years ago by Iranian Shiíites in southern Lebanon. The democratic process in Lebanon has brought representatives of Hezbollah into the Lebanese government where they have political power. It's the same story with Palestine where Hamas has been voted into power in Parliament. Most Arab voters are aware that they have to chose between two evils in their elections and usually don't know which one is worse. On the other hand, many of them support the evil regimes and the evil they do.

Until last year, Beirut was occupied and controlled by Syria. Is that how Hezbollah gained seats in the government? Now, with Syria's army removed from Lebanon, and if Lebanon does not support terrorist groups, why don't they kick Hezbollah out of the country? That is exactly what Israel is putting pressure on them to do. Some say that the Lebanese army is too small to take on the terrorist group and drive them out, but Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said the Lebanese army outnumbers Hezbollah by about 10-to-1 -- and therefore has the power to stop the attacks on Israel. He used the example of southern Texas towns coming under constant attack from a militia or terrorist group in Mexico. "You would expect the Mexican government to stop the terror," he said. "And if they do not, you have to take action. That's the situation we are facing in the north," he said. He said Israel has every right to demand that Lebanon put a stop to the Hezbollah provocations.

This brings to mind something that I have been wrestling with for some time now. Since this terror war began, we find ourselves differentiating between terrorist countries, and the people who inhabit them. We try to go after the leadership without harming the people. Is this any way to fight a war? The Bush Administration seems to think so and I understand their thinking, but it sure does make it hard to fight an effective war. In a democratic country where people vote these tyrants into office, shouldn't they be held just as responsible as the regime they put in power? How do we know who is an innocent civilian and who isn't? This policy also makes a declaration of war nearly impossible when you can't name a country in the declaration. This is no way to fight a war. Collateral damage simply cannot be considered to be unacceptable if you're going to fight an effective war.  Citizens of countries under attack, and people of the world simply have to understand that.

After 911, Bush said we are coming after terrorists. If a country supports terrorist groups, it will be considered just as guilty as the terrorists. Both Lebanon and Syria qualify as terrorist supporting states under this definition. Yesterday, Bush said "Syria must be held accountable". So why hasn't he done it? Does he really think the UN is going to do anything about a terrorist supporting Islamic country? I think he knows better than that, or at least should by now. The Iraqi invasion should never have stopped at the Syrian border and should have continued right on into Syria. If it had, we would likely not be seeing the violence leveled on Israel that we're seeing today. Did I mention that Syria supports both Hezbollah and Hamas, along with Iran?  Who does Bush think is going to hold Syria accountable if he doesn't do it?

Dr. Jafar Ja'afari, Syrian ambassador to the UN has been making appearances on tv interviews this week. When asked a direct question, he evades any direct answer and recites rhetoric as good as the best American Democrat politician. When asked anything about the current conflict, or Syria's part in it, he consistently goes back 50 years into the past and tries to explain why it's all Israel's fault that they were attacked by both Hamas and Hezbollah. When asked about Syria's ties with Iran, he was equally evasive. But when pressed on the question, he states that Iran is a neighboring country and they try to maintain good relations with their neighboring countries. He points out that "we have good relations with Turkey as well". But he was never asked about relations with Iraq, and when asked about relations with Saudi Arabia, he refused to answer and walked away.

Ja'afari seems to have been taking Bush bashing lessons from our Democrats as well, saying Bush is partly to blame for the current conflict. "Why do they give Israel such permission [to use military force]? The U.S. is the only superpower. They should use their power to decrease, not increase such tensions." As though we control Israel and should not allow them to defend themselves against the aggression from Hezbollah. But how do we stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel? No, it's all Israel and the US's fault.  Ja'afari had other comments aimed directly at President Bush as well as though he were reading the Democrat talking points script.

Ja'afari also reluctantly admitted there is little organizations such as the U.N. Security Council can do and that the current crisis will likely play itself out according to timetables coordinated between Jerusalem and Washington. "What can the U.N. do? The United States will use its veto? Its foolish but they will use it." Isn't it more likely that the current crisis will likely play itself out according to the timetables coordinated between Hezbollah and Syria and Iran?  Israel and the US didn't plan this war. 

Is it any wonder that Palestine is such a desperately poor and miserable group? They have virtually no exports other than suicide bombers and are dependent on imports for their daily lives. They have been dependent on foreign aid, mostly from the free world but that all changed when Hamas was elected to represent the people in Parliament. The free world will not support terrorist groups and the foreign aid has been curtailed.

Why can't Palestine depend on other Arab states for their support? The reason is that other Arab states don't like Palestinians and don't want them in their countries and never have. Palestinians are nomads, originally from Egypt who settled in western Jordan where they live today. Even though Iran and Syria support their terrorist activities, they will not support their economy and commerce. They prefer to use the Palestinians as pawns in their war against the west. Their only interest in Palestine is as a tool to use as an excuse for war against Israel.

What can Israel do to end this conflict? The most efficient thing they could do is to turn the Baca Valley into a giant Coke bottle. That would put an instant end to the aggression by Hezbollah but wouldn't set well with Iran and Syria or for that matter, the rest of the world countries who are sympathetic to the Islamic cause or just simply afraid of nukes. They would need two more, one for Damascus and one for Tehran. Let's face it, this problem isn't going to be solved by diplomacy, it's going to be solved by one side winning and one side loosing in a war. You're not going to change centuries of Islamic hate for Israel by talking to them.

I know what I'm suggesting here; the possibility of World War III. The Bible says it will start in Israel and many believe that time in nearly here. Personally, I don't think that is going to happen, but at the same time, I don't see any other way of resolving this conflict that has now gotten out of hand and has escalated further than ever before in history. As Gen. Alexander Haig put it, "There can be no peace until Hezbollah is destroyed."  He's right, but what will Iran and Syria do about it, that is the question.  If they become actively involved, it's likely, so will we.  That could easily bring other countries into the fight on both sides. So what are the choices?  I frankly don't know.

We don't want to get involved in this conflict because we know what the consequences would be. It would likely escalate into world war. But Hamas and Hezbollah are already being supported and inspired by Iran and Syria, even if they deny it at the present time. The fact is, Iran wants to use Hezbollah as an instrument to destroy Israel with Syria as it's ally.

How long can Israel remain surrounded by piranhas, who want to kill them?  How long can they keep them at bay? How long could the United States put up with being surrounded by terrorists determined to wipe us off the map, without eventually taking them all out?  Israel is in a fight for it's survival and no amount of diplomatic talking is going to solve the problem. Israel can just forget about getting any help from the UN, they only support Islamic and communist countries.  The only countries Israel can turn to for help are the United States and her allies.  When it appears that Israel will succeed against Hezbollah, Iran will find an excuse to get involved and launch attacks on Israel.  That will be the thing that triggers world war, and if Israel is unable to effectively respond, we will have to.

There is every reason to believe that this whole current conflict was planned, armed, and inspired by Iran's terrorist leader Ahmadinejad. This serves two of his objectives. The first and most obvious one is to provoke Israel into a war that they did not want. The second and less obvious thing is to deflect world attention away from his nuclear program. Experts believe Iran is 2 to 3 years away from constructing a viable nuclear bomb, some say less. I'm no expert, but from things I've seen Ahmadinejad do and say recently, my feeling is that he is only months away from the bomb, not years.

I hope our government is taking this more seriously then they appear to be. Diplomacy didn't work with Saddam, and it stands less of a chance of working with Ahmadinejad. I hope Bush knows this and I suspect that he does. But does he have any guts left to do something about it? Or should we just let someone else blow the world up first, then try to react, as the liberals suggest?  There are no good options, and no good answers.  God bless America and protect her when the prophesies are fulfilled.

Copyright 2006 by Techniguy.com All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction of this article is permitted providing this copyright and author is included. 

 
Techniguyís Newsletters
To see other Newsletter articles, JOIN the mailing list, or be REMOVED from the list go to
http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters
PLEASE NOTE: Email addresses used for this newsletter are not authorized for use in group mailing lists from your address book under any circumstances. Thank you for your cooperation. You are welcome to post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
http://www.techniguy.com