This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 22 Oct 2006, by tony curzon price.
-
22 Oct 06
-
Israel has made the most of a bad war and that, possibly, it has obtained benefits through war that would not have been possible otherwise.
-
what about image? Surely the thirty-three-day war in Lebanon has damaged Israel's reputation, regionally and internationally?
-
If, on the other hand, Hizbollah succumbs (even if only for the time being) to the pressure to respect the ceasefire, this could translate into a political advantage for a currently beleaguered Ehud Olmert and for Israel more generally.
-
breach of the ceasefire would in the international arena corrode any good faith it might have accrued as a side-product of IDF heavy-handedness.
-
The UN and Lebanese presence in southern Lebanon is there precisely to ensure that Hizbollah does not launch any further attacks on Israel.
-
tie its withdrawal from Lebanon to the formulation of rules of engagement that would allow it to engage Hizbollah, should it deem such action necessary.
-
Lebanese army has also mobilised southwards to cover all "blue-line" villages where Hizbollah had previously operated freely.
-
safeguard, it is believed, against renewed Hizbollah attacks on Israel and a guarantee that the west keeps its eye on developments in the region
-
-
war resulted in the acceleration of rocket attacks on Israeli villages, it also tarnished the country's reputation, not only in the Arab world but globally, resulting in further condemnation of its military and foreign policies.
-
gathered strength and support through the Israeli Defence Force (IDF)'s heavy-handedness
-
Israel fell victim to the strategic fallacy typical of western militaries: that a conventional military superiority can be used to defeat insurgencies.
-
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.