Why didn't Hezbollah open the access of their bunkers to the poor Shiite stuck in the middle of the fire?
How can Hezbollah plan and prepare for war by digging bunkers without thinking of the potential poor Shiite casualties?
What sort of perverted strategy is that?
Are the innocent Lebanese civilians considered collateral damage by Hezbollah in his valiant fight against Israel?
How can Hezbollah provoke Israel and shell it with Katyushas when they know that there will be a stronger retaliation and that while they will be hiding in bunkers, their cousins will be outside dying of bombs and hunger?
Israel did prepare for war by making sure that all Israeli civilians can be vacated from the North, and that Hezbollah is not capable of inflicting significant damage.
But Hezbollah didn't seem to care for their civilians. They didn't seem to ponder the possibility that if Hezbollah fighters can hide when warplanes come to bomb, the civilians have nowhere to hide or go. If Hezbollah has enough food and water for some weeks, the poor civilians won't have enough food and water.
The difference between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government is that the latter does not engage in wars without preparing and thinking about all its civilians. Just like the Israeli government.
Hassan Nasrallah considers the poor Lebanese of the South as acceptable collateral damage of his valiant wars and his greater cause. A cause that I fail to understand. What is he trying to achieve?
Israel technically defeated Hezbollah by hitting the weak spot: the Lebanese civilians that Hezbollah forgot to include in their planning and strategy. Not only Hezbollah forgot to plan for the safety of these civilians, but also forgot to plan for a potential sea and air blockade that can humiliate Lebanon, Hezbollah and the innocent people. A blockade that deprives Lebanon from essential needs and that Hezbollah is helpless against.
Wrong strategy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Nasrallah's problem was that he started to believe all the hype about him.
The hope of the arab world, the one who will bring back the lost dignity, etc.
Once you let the hype drive your strategy, bad things happen.
Actually, isn't providing bomb shelters for civilians the responsibility of the Lebanese government? But I do agree bomb sheleters would be a good idea, before the next inevitable Israeli air raid. So would providing the Lebanese army with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down the Israeli air force.
The more I think about this, the more I don't understand your attack on Hizbollah on this issue. If you were a civilian, would you have sheltered in a Hizbollah bunker?
It's up to the Lebanese government to build bomb shelters for its citizens.
Peter,
My point is that you don't engage in wars if you haven't thought of every detail. Providing bunkers, food and water for your warriors and forgetting your civilians is a bad strategy.
If you can't protect your civilians, don't fire Katyushas on the ennemy who will get even more enraged.
The Lebanese government is not responsible of digging bunkers for civilians. It is responsible of "preventing" wars that kill and destroy the entire South without achieving any gains for Lebanon.
In Syria, no one is digging bunkers because no one is firing Katyushas on Israel so there is no need for the bunkers. This is called prevention.
In Israel no one is digging bunkers because Israel knows that all neighboring countries don't have significant firepower for the bunkers to be needed.
So every nation has thought of a strategy to protect the civilians but Hezbollah.
The Lebanese government is not responsible of digging bunkers for civilians. It is responsible of "preventing" wars that kill and destroy the entire South without achieving any gains for Lebanon.
I don't see why these are mutually exclusive. Why can't the Lebanese both use diplomacy to prevent war from happening and take steps to prepare its citizens in case a war does happen? Given Israel's long history of brutalizing Lebanon, it it foolish for Lebanon not to take backup steps to protect Lebanon in case diplomacy does not work.
I don't share your belief that all Hizbollah needs to do is stop provoking Israel (by the way, you are mistating why Hizbollah fired the the Kaytushas; Hizbollah didn't start firing until after Israel started bombing civilian areas) and Lebanon will be safe. You remember 1982, when Arafat went out of his way to avoid provoking Israel, and Israel invaded anyway? As Fadi of Gad Fly has pointed out, Israel has engaged in aggression against many Arab countries besides Lebanon, including Syria.
That's not to say that an armed Hizbollah is in Lebanon's interests. But the Lebanese government is in no position to disarm Hizbollah at this point, which makes it all the more important to Lebanon to come up with a national defense strategy.
And they do have bomb shelters in Israel and Syria.
This is the best Pro-Zionist blog on the internet! I love it!!!
Hey happy Arab, nice nick name i bet your not even Arab( just using the name to gain influence). I think peter is 100 percent right ( Israel started bombing Lebanon first and i cant think of any government that puts its hopes on only one plan).I also think you are are blindly and irrationally biased to Israel and this can easily be proved. Lebanon never invaded Israel, the latter started the conflict by occupying south Lebanon, killing and imprisoning thousands of innocent LEBANESE citizens. SO don't tell me that Hizbollah started the war because the war that Israel started never ended.
Post a Comment