Aug 15 2006

What Is With Israel?

Published by at 9:16 am under All General Discussions,Hezbollah

There have been some strong and rightful complaints about Olmert’s leadership. He has truly been weak and indecisive.

THE AMERICANS have lost faith in Israel as an ally. After he gave Israel every opportunity to win this war, even signaling clearly that Israel should feel free to go as far as Beirut if necessary, President Bush was convinced that Olmert simply didn’t want to fight. The Americans were shocked by Israel’s performance. They know that we can win when we set our mind to it and were flummoxed when presented with an Israeli leadership that refused to even try.

But this last bit of news has me totally stumped:

Hizbullah will not hand over its weapons to the Lebanese government but rather refrain from exhibiting them publicly, according to a new compromise that is reportedly brewing between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

The UN cease-fire resolution specifically demands the demilitarization of the area south of the Litani river. The resolution was approved by the Lebanese cabinet.

Well, Hezbollah hasn’t been exhibiting their weapons in public for the last month of fighting (unless you count placing them inside civilain enclaves an ‘exhibition’). Olmert has a chance to redeem himself by not allowing this charade to go unchallenged. Bush better not allow this to go unchallenged. This would be the victory Nasrallah claimed yesterdat.

27 responses so far

27 Responses to “What Is With Israel?”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    “THE AMERICANS have lost faith in Israel as an ally. ”

    I’m not sure. I think Americans mostly just want to mind their own business and hope all the problems in the world will just go away on their own.
    As I said before, Israel had to agree to to this SHAM deal because the USA insisted on it.
    Israel got zip out of this whole deal. The one thing they said had to happen first was, the kidnapped soldiers had to be returned. Didn’t happen, USA wouldn’t allow the demand.
    This second resolution that is supposed to follow: Won’t happen. Hezbollah has already won, why should they agree to now get less?
    When the agreement was made to leave Hezzie’s in place without disarming, the handwriting was on the wall.

    For some reason, Pres Bush and S of S Rice didn’t have the stomach for the fight. Once the world started shouting, they caved. Pres Bush seems to no longer believe that Iran is worth fighting against any longer. Just let the UN worry about them. As I said before, If I were Pres, I would have A’mA Nut job over for a private walk in the rose garden and tell him to knock off this crap or his little cushy job would be interrupted for a vacation in a spider hole. I would give him references, check with Saddam.
    No, it’s the USA that let Israel down.

  2. Olmert-a – When Your Political Prospects Are Dead…

    Perhaps Olmert-a should come to mean politically dead. This is absolutely incredible. I wish I could say I don’t believe it, unfortunately, I do. Israel is withdrawing, meanwhile Hezbollah will keep its weapons? There aren’t enough words to describe …

  3. kathie says:

    Suppose Israel’s initial response caught the White House by surprise, but the White House was ok with it. Israel said that they would do away with Hizballah once and for all. The White House was ok with that decision, but then Israel after committing chickened out and it was obvious from a US point of view that the job would not be done. So we had to scurry around and try to broker a cease fire from a very weakened state. Israel knew that Hizbollah had the tunnels, rockets etc. They had had a plan for 2 years on how to deal with it but didn’t execute the plan and now they find themselves in this situation.

  4. For Enforcement says:

    “”””but then Israel after committing chickened out and it was obvious from a US point of view that the job would not be done.””””

    Can’t agree with that at all. If given about 30 more days, Israel would have owned South Lebanon, They were stepping up their activity, not chickening out. No way.

    “So we had to scurry around”

    We did that on our own, WE chickened out and left Israel to sink or swim, but we tied an anchor to them and said if you don’t accept our(the USA’s) deal to stop, we’ll throw the anchor overboard.. They didn’t have a choice.
    This was our one big chance to shut down Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran and we gave up……….GAVE UP!!!!!

  5. kathie says:

    Enforcement—-what happened to the first 30 days? There would have been no need for a cease fire if Israel had taken out Hizbollah or had been decisive in the first place. My bet is that we got our plan when we went into Bagdad from the Israelis.

  6. For Enforcement says:

    “”what happened to the first 30 days? “”

    So bombing them for 20 some days didn’t subdue them, but then the ground forces moved,and was still moving in, in mass force, and the Hezzies were scurrying like mice in a corn crib in a ‘rat killing’.

    Don’t you think giving Israel 60 or even 90 days would have been well worth the results. Besides what was the downside? Kofi and Jacque being upset with us?

    What was the downside of what has now happened? The world sees that Iran and Hezbollah defeated the United States. They don’t see it as a defeat of Israel at all, just the US.

  7. For Enforcement says:

    “”My bet is that we got our plan when we went into Bagdad from the Israelis.””

    If we did, it was a damn good plan, what did it take? Two weeks to take Baghdad?

    What’s happening now is from being politically correct. No’ will to win’. I’m damn glad the liberals weren’t around to controll things on D-Day, they would have aborted that deal after about 10 boats landed. Long live the politically correct.

  8. kathie says:

    Enforcement-it was a darn good plan yes, we coordinated air and ground and went in force. Israel should have used that plan. Israel didn’t have to accept the cease fire. They wanted to. Simon Perez said today this is an opportunity to talk to Lebanon and Hizballah. Wholly Cow sounds like the left wing of the Democrat party. Look at the celebration in Syria and Iran. These people hope we will fall into the talking mode while they clean our clock.

  9. For Enforcement says:

    Kathie, you said:

    “Israel didn’t have to accept the cease fire. They wanted to.”
    But I disagreed above:
    “We did that on our own, WE chickened out and left Israel to sink or swim, but we tied an anchor to them and said if you don’t accept our(the USA’s) deal to stop, we’ll throw the anchor overboard.. They didn’t have a choice.”

    Israel, as you well know, has never lost a war before, but now we caused them to. We put too much pressure on them to give up.. I see this as a total embarrassment to the US.

    Yes, look at the celebration all over the Fascist world, they recognize our embarrassment as much as we do.
    Pres Bush can call it a victory all he wants to, but that doesn’t make it a victory.

  10. Terrye says:

    I think people are overlooking the fact that if it was really possible for Israel to take out Hezbellah in 30 or even 60 days they would have done it years ago. Why wouldn’t they? Since when did they need a green light from anyone? They occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and did not destroy Hezbellah.

    If Hezbellah refuses to comply with the cease fire, and we know they probably will then the cease fire is null and void.

    The idea here is to make it plain that if Hezbellah speaks for Lebanon, then all of Lebanon pays.

    It is not fair to blame Rice for not being able to accomplish the impossible, as it was she got the most proIsrael resolution to come out of the UN in 35 years. People can scoff at that, but Israel does not want to occupy Lebanon for 20 years like it did before. Their goal was not to take southern Lebanon and stay there forever, it was to push Hezbellah back.

    This is without a doubt the most pro Israel administration in recent memory. Clinton might let Arafat sleep in the Lincoln bedroom but Bush would not even let him in the country.

    As for the Arabs celebrating…that is what they do. Saddam claimed victory after the Gulf War. Egypt claimed victory after Yom Kippur. Baghdad Bob was showing his ass when Americans were moving into Baghdad. Why it is that we let some raving people with fireworks play us I do not know. Those celebrations are as much propaganda as the pictures are.

  11. For Enforcement says:

    This is without a doubt the most pro Israel administration in recent memory. Clinton might let Arafat sleep in the Lincoln bedroom but Bush would not even let him in the country.

    That’s certainly true, that’s why it’s so heartbreaking that they let them down when it counted.

    As for the Arabs celebrating…that is what they do. Saddam claimed victory after the Gulf War. Egypt claimed victory

    Claiming victory!!!! Why is Pres Bush claiming victory? If we had won, wouldn’t we know it without having to be told?

  12. ivehadit says:

    Read Caroline Glick’s article from the Jerusalem Post over at realclearpolitics.com. Says it all for me.

  13. Terrye says:

    Ive:

    I don’t much care for Glick.

    The bottom line for me is that this is Israel’s business. If the Israeli people want to replace Olmert and company then they can, they have a democracy. But we are not the ones the rockets will be landing on. We are not the ones who will be occupying the country of Lebanon and keeping Hezbellah at bay. Now if the right wing in Israel had wanted to go after Hezbellah they had years to do it. But it was left to Olmert.

    It seems to me that there are people in Israel who are using this the same way Democrats use Iraq here in this country, to gain a domestic political advantage.

    But it does not change the fact that for more than 20 years Hezbellah has been there in Lebanon and Olmert was the first PM in many years who actually confronted them. If they want to send him packing they can, but I just think people are forgetting the fact that if those soldiers had not been taken none of this would have happened. Glick would not be making demands or anything else. Nasrallah would be operating with virtual impunity in the south the none of these people would be writing opeds about it.

  14. For Enforcement says:

    Read Glick’s post at RCP also, and I agree with Terrye about Glick, she sounds like (from this article only, I’m not familiar with her writings)that she is part of the Dems against Olmert in Israel, similar to Dems against Bush here. Everything is his fault. I don’t agree that Olmert failed at all, he did all he could until US put pressure on him to accept ceasefire. I’m a Bush supporter, but if you want to blame anyone for Israel’s lack of success in this case, blame Pres. Bush for non support.

  15. Terrye says:

    Enforcement:

    Let them down? How did they let them down? The US gave them a green light and kept it on as long as possible, they managed to get them the most proIsrael resolution in history. There is no indication at all that Israel was stopped, or hampered, or anything else. In fact when this started the goal was to get back the soldiers and push Hezbellah off the border, only in the fantasies of the Right did Israel promise to wipe Hezbellah out. That was not on the radar. ever.

    What was Bush supposed to do? Declare himself King and go fight Hezbellah for them?

    I mean really, I am so tired of this constant backstabbing. Now after the Dubai nonsense we have gone from Bush sells ports to terrorists to kill us all to Bush sells out Israel and won’t let them beat the terrorists because he is a bad man crap.

    with friends like this base no Republican president needs enemies.

  16. Terrye says:

    Israel never lost a war? If that is true, why was Hezbellah stronger in Lebanon in 2000 when Israel left than it was when they began their occupation?

    Forced them to quit. That is just stupid.

  17. Terrye says:

    Besides all that when I look at the pictures of what is left of Lebanon and all those Israeli troops in tanks setting up on hillsides it does not look to me like Israel lost.

    Israel is not a pile of rubble. There are not 35,000 armed Hezbellah in Israel. Tel Aviv was not bombed. The infrastrucuture was not destroyed. A thousand Israelis did not die.

    If we call this losing a war then I think we need to rethink what has always been considered losing and winning. If all it takes to win a war is to stand on a pile of rubble and declare yourself yourself the winner, then why do we even bother having a military?

  18. Libano: vincitori e vinti…

    Hezbollah non consegnerà le proprie armi al governo libanese, ma si limiterà a non esibirle in pubblico. Se questo è il compromesso raggiunto tra il primo ministro Fuad Siniora e il leader dei terroristi, Hassan Nasrallah, ha probabilmente ragione B…

  19. For Enforcement says:

    Actually Terrye, you’re right. I should’ve just said so in the first place, you’re not interested in carrying on an interesting discourse, you’re just interested in being right and attacking the messenger. (“That is just stupid.”) Same old Terrye
    Just for the record, I don’t attack Pres Bush, in fact I thank God he was the Pres when 9/11 happened. If a Dem had been in, I fear we would just have run up the surrender flag.
    Is he wrong on some things, certainly, but he is so much superior to the alternative that it’s not even debabable to me. He just should have given Israel more time and not put pressure on them to agree to cease fire.

    “Let them down? How did they let them down?” I answered that, Pres Bush pressured Israel to accept cease fire. that was a major let down.

    In either case whether I’m right or wrong, Terrye, you are right.

  20. ivehadit says:

    Good points, Terrye.

    Tell me about Glick. I do not know all the background….
    thx!