With ceasefire holding, Home Front Command eases restrictions in northern Israel

[moniss]

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2024, 08:59 AM - Edit history (1)

This is the headline from an article in The Times of Israel dated 11/30/24. It is a little strange to have such a headline when the body of the article talks about Israeli military strikes since the ceasefire. It is particularly unusual in describing those strikes which include one on the city of Sidon. Unusual not least of all because Netanyahu the other day was quite forceful in stating that Israel reserves the right to respond militarily to violations of the ceasefire. OK. That also seems to be backed up by this statement from the article about an assurance by the US:

"The US has also reportedly provided a side letter specifying Israel’s right to respond to any violations of the ceasefire."

Well OK then. The ceasefire is described as being for 60 days during which the IDF withdraws from Southern Lebanon, Lebanon deploys 5000 troops to Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah is not to operate south of the Litani River. OK so then the article describes some Israeli actions against a vehicle etc. But then 2 mentions just kind of almost slip by. One says the IDF struck "deep" into Lebanon in one attack and then there is a specific mention of an IDF attack on the city of Sidon. Golly boys and girls I'm confused because it would seem that a violation by Hezbollah would have to be for something done south of the Litani River because the ceasefire doesn't say they can't be in Lebanon at all. It just says not south of the Litani River. Now I put on my Mr. Peabody glasses and looked at the map and it sure looks like Sidon is a pretty far distance north of the Litani River. Gee did the IDF have their map upside down? Why of course that must be it because I've been told that the IDF has never committed violations.

I guess it's just another one of those mysteries how an agreement got made in the Middle East that only has repercussions for violations for some parties but not all. Golly how could this keep happening over and over in these agreements with all of these concerned and honest arbiters for peace involved in the process? I'm sure such upstanding people just "overlooked" that aspect. Again. So let's sum up where we are on this fine Sunday morning. If one side commits violations they will be attacked militarily. If the other side commits violations they will get a vague mention in newspaper articles.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-ceasefire-holding-home-front-command-eases-restrictions-in-northern-israel/

[comradebillyboy]

1. All Hezbollah has to do is stop shooting missiles

into Israel every day and I bet Israel would stop bombing them in Lebanon.

[moniss]

5. If you read the article there were no missiles fired from Sidon. nt

[Beastly Boy]

11. Oh, that completely erases the effect of tens of thousands of missiles fired from elswhere in Lebanon

into Israel in a single year!

So careless of me to not separate Sidon from the rest of Lebanon! And failing to separate the events of a couple of days ago from the events of past year! And failing to distinguish between the manufacturing of deadly weapons and firing them!

I mean, within these parameters, who in their right mind would ever question the complete innocence of Hezbollah?

[moniss]

13. The report is about now and I think it's pretty obvious the

concept of ceasefire and forward is where the discussion was.

[Beastly Boy]

20. The response was to your post, not the OP.

The post in which you stated, and I quote,

The post in which you stated, and I quote, "If you read the article there were no missiles fired from Sidon. nt".

Pardon me if I got the concept of your post wrong, but I thought it obvious that your post was about the part of the article which stated there were no missiles fired from Sidon.

I responded to the concept of the ceasefire and forward elsewhere in the thread.

[Beastly Boy]

2. The article is only a "mystery" to those who don't (or refuse to) pay attention to the text of the cease fire agreement.

First of all, this is a cease fire agreement, not a peace treaty, an agreement that is limited to its terms. And the wording of these terms matters, wouldn't you say?

Ok then, let's do just that. Let's familiarize ourselves with what exactly we are talking about before we talk about it.

Here is the text of the agreement: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-the-israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-deal/ . Good enough?

So let's wipe those Mr. Peabody glasses of any excess dirt and put them on:

First, note that the agreement is between Israel and Lebanon, not Israel and Hezbollah.

Next, look at the preamble to the agreement which articulates its purpose: "These understandings reflect steps to which Israel and Lebanon are committed in order to implement fully United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1701, recognizing that UNSCR 1701 also calls for full implementation of its predecessor UNSC resolutions, including 'disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon' so that the only forces authorized to carry arms in Lebanon will be the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), Internal Security Forces, Directorate of General Security, General Directorate of State Security, Lebanese Customs, and Municipal Police” (bolding mine). So the dismantlement of all armed groups other than those listed is the goal, not a violation of the agreement.

Then, take a peek at Article 2 of the agreement: "2. From 04:00 hours (IST/EET), November 27, 2024 forward, the Government of Lebanon will prevent Hezbollah and all other armed groups in the territory of Lebanon from carrying out any operations against Israel, and Israel will not carry out any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian, military, or other state targets, in the territory of Lebanon by land, air, or sea." (bolding mine). Note the distinction between "any operations against Israel" and "any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets". Clearly, the restrictions on Hezbollah are much more exacting than the restrictions on Israel, and for good reasons.

Th only references in the agreement regarding south of Litani River are contained in Article 7 (b) and (c), and Article 12. None of them mention Hezbollah. The only obligations regarding this area are on the Government of Lebanon: to provide all necessary authorities to "dismantle all existing unauthorized facilities involved in the production of arms and related materiel, and prevent the establishment of such facilities in the future", "dismantle all infrastructure and military positions, and confiscate all unauthorized arms", and "deploy forces, set road blocks and checkpoints on all the roads and bridges along the line delineating the Southern Litani Area."

Well, OK then: the ceasefire agreement DOES forbid Hezbollah militants from operating or carrying arms anywhere in Lebanon, not just south of the Litani River, and that specifically includes the city of Sidon, no matter how you look at the map of Lebanon. A military strike on any specific Hezbollah target DOES NOT constitute an offensive military operation, nor does it constitute a military operation against a Lebanese target. In fact, it may constitute enforcement of the cease fire agreement as well as that of the UN Resolution 1701. The US letter of guaranties to Israel that you mentioned specifically reserves the right for Israel to conduct just such operations. And nothing in your post, your unfounded protestations notwithstanding, constitutes a violation of the cease fire agreement.

Nothing has been overlooked. Not by the signatories to the agreement, anyway. And, in deference to the DU terms of use, I would, however reluctantly, refrain from any comments as to what has been overlooked, by whom, and for what reasons.

Oh, and nothing just kind of almost slipped by either. All the instances you mentioned had been previously covered in separate reports:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-confirms-carrying-out-drone-strike-in-south-lebanon-says-it-was-warning-shot/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-strikes-hezbollah-rocket-depot-after-identifying-violations-of-fresh-ceasefire/
https://www.jns.org/idf-fires-at-ceasefire-violators-in-lebanon/

[Eko]

3. Too funny.

"A military strike on any specific Hezbollah target DOES NOT constitute an offensive military operation"
You always crack me up.
Thanks for the laugh!

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[Beastly Boy]

4. Look up the definition of an offensive military operation

Then tell me who is laughing.

Got to give it to you, you do have a sense of humor, however peculiar. Looking forward to laughing at your post together! Hoping Orwell is not turning in his grave...

[Eko]

8. Laughing even harder!!!!

Chapter 1
1-10 FM 3-0 01 October 2022
1-43. An offensive operation is an operation to defeat or destroy enemy forces and gain control of terrain,
resources, and population centers (ADP 3-0). Offensive operations are how commanders impose their will
on an enemy. The offense is the most direct means of seizing, retaining, and exploiting the initiative to gain
a physical and psychological advantage. Offensive operations typically include a sudden action directed
toward enemy weaknesses, capitalizing on speed, surprise, and shock. The offense compels an enemy force
to react, creating new or larger weaknesses the attacking force can exploit. (See ADP 3-90 for a detailed
discussion of the offense.)
1-44. A defensive operation is an operation to defeat an enemy attack, retain key terrain, gain time, and
develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations (ADP 3-0). Normally the defense cannot
achieve a decisive victory. However, it sets conditions for a counteroffensive or a counterattack that enables
forces to regain the initiative. Defensive operations are a counter to an enemy offensive action, and they seek
to destroy as many of the enemy forces as possible. Defensive operations preserve control over land,
resources, and populations, and they protect lines of communications and critical capabilities against attack.
Commanders can conduct defensive operations in one area to free forces for offensive operations elsewhere.
(See ADP 3-90 for a detailed discussion of the defense.)
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36290-FM_3-0-000-WEB-2.pdf
Page 24.

And cause I just know how you are going to try to argue it, "An offensive operation is an operation to defeat or destroy enemy forces and gain control of terrain,"
What did they destroy?
The Israeli military said it had attacked a Hezbollah facility in Sidon that housed rocket launchers for the armed group.
According to Israel they attacked an enemy facility of rocket launchers. That covers "An offensive operation is an operation to defeat or destroy enemy forces" and then we have "gain control of terrain", What terrain are they trying to gain control of? The part of Israel that was evacuated due to those rocket launchers they destroyed.
But I'm sure the US Army doesn't know whats what and you do.
So yeah,
Still laughing my ass off.

[Beastly Boy]

9. Brilliant!

Except Israel already had control of the terrain, resources and population centers you think they gained control of due to a single strike on a single building out of Hezbollah's missile range of the aforementioned terrain, resources and population centers. All of it was Israel's all along, with the enemy having zero control over it at any time. In fact, the exact opposite is the case: it was Israel's offensive military operation that gained control of parts of the enemy's terrain, resources and population centers. And that offensive military operation prompted the current cease fire agreement which then permitted Israel to target the missile depot in question. No offense intended in the case of the latter, pardon the pun.

If only you were to read the agreement, you would have found all this self-explanatory.

And now, for our next comedy act, I can't wait to hear how IDF gained control "of terrain, resources, and population centers" they previously controlled with a single strike on a single enemy rocket depot. And while we are at it, why not try to ponder how an act of striking a military target is different from execution of a plan for a military offensive operation (hint: a hammer hitting a nail will get you nowhere without you knowing WTF you are trying to build).

Surely, with enough creativity, hilarity will ensue!

[Eko]

10. Sure sure,

Hezbollah fire has forced some 50,000 Israelis to evacuate in the country’s north, and its rockets have reached as far south in Israel as Tel Aviv. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-bombards-beirut-suburbs-leadership-prepares-vote-ceasefire-116229792

Those 50,000 back now?
And if you cared about the actual definition I supplied you from the US Army handbook you would have noticed that nowhere did it say it had to complete a goal or set of goals to be an offensive military operation, only that it had goals it wanted to complete. One offensive attack not achieving the goals does not in any way make it not an offensive military operation.
Pretty simple stuff but you seem to be having problems with it.
Tremendously hilarious!!

[Beastly Boy]

14. You never disappoint!

Evacuation and control of terrain. No difference, right? Never mind that it is the military that controls the terrain. Israeli military. You know, the Israeli military that ordered the evacuation of civilians. Because they are in control. Not Hezbollah military, who never ordered as much as a slice of pizza in Israel. Ever. And what happened since the strike? Did Hezbollah lose control of Israel's north that they never had?

Of course, you are fully aware that I never suggested that an offensive military operation, like a single strike of a single target, ceases to be one if its goal is not achieved. But it is pointless to conduct one, as you pointed out, if a goal is not articulated. What you failed to grasp, even with the help of my analogy, that the two are not synonymous: the former is the process that describes the goals, and the latter is one of the instruments, among many, to facilitate them.

Pretty simple indeed, unless one is inclined to ignore the simplicity of it in favor of making stuff up.

[Eko]

15. Yeah, you dont control what you cant defend. Derp.

[Eko]

12. And just to let you know.

Nothing in the agreement, nothing at all, anywhere, in no way could have the effect of changing what a offensive military action is. Why did you bring it up?
I know, you know you already lost so now you are just slinging shit to try to cover for it.
Stupendously hilarious!

[Beastly Boy]

16. Could it possibly, conceivably be that I brought it up because

it was the language is in the friggin cease fire agreement, and I was talking about it in the context that relates to the friggin cease fire agreement???

Nooooo!!!

The question is why you inserted yourself into a thread that didn't concern you with specific comments over the very short passage that you didn't understand, foregoing everything else in my post.

And BTW, I wasn't talking about "offensive military action". That was not in the cease fire agreement. I was talking about "offensive military operation", the language that IS in the agreement.

But your objections to the phrase come across as even more comedic in light of this misquote, and I appreciate it.

[Eko]

17. Ha Ha Ha,

"And BTW, I wasn't talking about "offensive military action". That was not in the cease fire agreement. I was talking about "offensive military operation", the language that IS in the agreement."
You weren't talking about "offensive military action" you were talking about "offensive military operation".
As I said,
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[Beastly Boy]

21. I was talking about what's in the cease fire agreement, not what's on your mind.

Does this help your comprehension?

Apparently, quoting Orwell out of context does just the opposite.

[Eko]

22. Oh, I knew that since I quoted your own words.

"A military strike on any specific Hezbollah target DOES NOT constitute an offensive military operation"
That was under the whole part you wrote about the agreement and as I said previously, no agreement defines what a offensive military operation is. The agreement cant magically change what it means no matter how much you want it to.
When you say "And BTW, I wasn't talking about "offensive military action". That was not in the cease fire agreement. I was talking about "offensive military operation", the language that IS in the agreement. " yeah, you fit Orwells quote perfectly. To a tee.

[Beastly Boy]

25. Read this tomorrow morning.

Then, report on the number of fallacies and contradictions you find here.

I ran out of fingers on both my hands in an attempt to accomplish this feat. I am out.

And for gawd's sake, leave poor Orwell out of this! I know he is dead and can't talk back, but hell, he deserves a break regardless!

[Eko]

26. You are welcome to point them out now, heck, I even invite you to.

[Eko]

18. And as for this

"The question is why you inserted yourself into a thread that didn't concern you"
Did you get an invitation to comment on this thread?

[Beastly Boy]

23. You chose the subject to comment on, without an invitation.

And thus you invited my comments. As much as I appreciate it, I don't wish to overstay my welcome. You know where to go for the answer to your previous question. And it ain't me.

[Eko]

24. I dont need an invation from anyone on here thank you very much.

[moniss]

6. Once again you seem to gloss over that the attacks on Hezbollah

I referenced are in Lebanon so they are attacks on Lebanon. Shouldn't be too hard to get that.

[Beastly Boy]

7. They are attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A fact you may have already surmised based on the post above.

Remember,
1. As per the cease fire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which Lebanon is signatory to, Hezbollah is forbidden from carrying arms ANYWHERE in Lebanon. If it weren't in Lebanon, Lebanon would have no need to sign the damn agreement,
and
2. As per the US guarantees that came with the cease fire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which Lebanon is is signatory to, it is Israel's right to strike Hezbollah forces that are in violation of the cease fire agreement.

Lebanon agreed to this. In writing. Lebanon, therefore, does not consider this to be either an attack on Lebanon, or a violation of the cease fire agreement. It is all there, on paper, in the text of the agreement I gave you a link to.

Is it really asking too much to read the damn link before you respond?

[Eko]

19. Hey Moniss!! Did you invite Beastly boy to comment on this thread?

He seems to think we have to be invited. See post 16.