Israel VS. Lebanon

[johnny]

While i understand what you mean with "there are no winners in a war", i personally think that's a load of BS. When two sides are at war, and at a certain point one side signs a paper that says "i surrender", like what happened in Nurnberg for instance, there's definitely a winner in the game. Iraq is another example. They invaded Kuwait, had plans for the region, but the US's interference made them think again. That's called losing a war.

[ 08-15-2006, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by johnny: Can you believe those Hezbollah loons ? They're celebrating victory, they claim to have won.

Is it so obvious that they've lost?

A few days before the ceasefire rocket attacks were at an all-time high - does anyone have figures for the last few?

Nasrallah is still alive, presumably along with the other members of the Hizbollah leadership, Israel has been drawn into Lebanon yet again in what is sure to be an expensive and bloody affair, a substantial portion of world opinion has hardened against Israel. On top of that, Hizbollah soldiers performed impressively when it came to actual ground fighting as opposed to just chucking rockets blindy into Israel - this will cement the reputation they paint of themselves as a true force to stand up to the 'Zionist crusader'.

I think that considering the strength of the Israeli response, I would be very very happy if I were Nasrallah.

[johnny]

They were in control of the entire southern region of Lebanon, they lost all that territory, they are going to have to find new launchingsites for their upgraded firecrackers. So yeah...to me it's obvious who lost this little dispute.

[Kakero]

Nah, they probably gonna regain back the territory that they've lost once Israel eventually move back to their own place. And then we'll have another conflict and the cycle continues......

[johnny]

No, from what i understand, that region is going to be under UN control, like in the past. Of course it's only a temporary solution, but for the coming years Hezbollah won't be able to fire missiles into Israel from close range.

[shamrock_uk]

Heh, you'll like this Johnny

Link. Looks like Syria and Iran are pretty sure it was a massive victory, those crazy cats.

Still, very interesting turn of events...I did not expect Israel to stop until Hezbollah had been destroyed.

I'm inclined to agree with Kakero, they may have pushed Hezbollah back but there's nothing to stop them from launching attacks from outside Lebanon. Does anyone know why Olmert ceased the attack (esp as his generals were still asking for more time)..was it really a nod to the UN?

Lets just hope these UN troops are actually willing and authorised to shoot anyone violating the border.

[Thoran]

Hezbollah was well armed (from Syria and Iran) which is something new to the Israeli's (who've ususally fought underarmed opponents or opponents with inferior equipment). Weapon cache's were found with top end Russian anti-tank missiles, and that would slow down any ground offensive.

I think Israel stopped because of the negative publicity more than anything else... plus the fact that they got what they wanted (buffer zone). If for some reason the buffer zone is ineffective I expect to see them jump right back in... this time maybe with a few new tactics.

I certainly wouldn't call this a victory for Hezbollah either... unless you consider 'survival' a victory (setting the bar pretty low arent they?). They've given the Israeli's license to bomb their country back to the 80's while other than a few northern cities Israeli life went on as usual. Israeli life will return to normal in days... it'll take years to repair the damage to Lebanon.

Someone should make a cartoon... a Hezbollah flea on the back of a knocked out prize fighter Lebanon yelling "we win".

[johnny]

There's a task for Danish newspapers, Arabs have grown quite fond of Danish cartoons i hear.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by johnny: Can you believe those Hezbollah loons ? They're celebrating victory, they claim to have won. This reminds me of Saddam claiming victory for the mighty people of Iraq after the first gulf war. That his army and infrastructure were completely destroyed was of lesser importance, the great satan was utterly beaten. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] And now Hezbollah is doing the same thing. What a weird bunch of fellas those Arabs.

If they consider victory as managing to get half the country destroyed, that's what they achieved. There's already a backlash from the country's non-Shiite elements about what Hezbollah did and how it wrecked the country. There was an interview with a Lebanese govt spokesman for PM Siniora who said that Hezbollah has declined to help with the rebuilding of the damaged areas - the only areas they are willing to help rebuild are the Shiite areas where Hezbollah enjoy their support. The rest of it will all have to be paid by the Lebanese government, probably with aid from the West (ironically). I wonder how many Arab governments (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc) will volunteer funds to help rebuild? Not a lot, I'll wager.

But if Hezbollah defines victory by survival, no matter what the cost to the country, then fair enough. It's always easier for a guerilla group to survive, because of the nature of their manner of warfare. Personally, I don't think anyone won, and in any case it's not a win worth celebrating or being happy about. Israel certainly didn't achieve their objectives either, it's impossible to do so against a guerilla force as survival means victory, despite massive losses of territory.

I still don't understand why Hezbollah is allowed to carry arms when there is a Lebanese military and army. Israel withdrew from Lebanon initially back in 2000. Why did Hezbollah continue to fire rockets into Israel indiscriminately (not even aiming at military targets as Katyushas can't be aimed) from 2000 to 2006 then?

The Lebanese govt and military has been a dismal failure at policing its own territory eh.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Memnoch: The rest of it will all have to be paid by the Lebanese government, probably with aid from the West (ironically). I wonder how many Arab governments (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc) will volunteer funds to help rebuild? Not a lot, I'll wager.

Actually, the opposite is the case. Middle-Eastern governments have been falling over themselves to pledge huge sums of money. That's never the failing of the rich governments in the Middle-East - the failing is that they only give cash away because they are always unwilling to assist their neighours in a more concrete way when it risks angering their cash cows in the west.

Personally, I don't think anyone won, and in any case it's not a win worth celebrating or being happy about. Israel certainly didn't achieve their objectives either, it's impossible to do so against a guerilla force as survival means victory, despite massive losses of territory.

I agree completely.

I still don't understand why Hezbollah is allowed to carry arms when there is a Lebanese military and army.

Because the Lebanese military/army isn't capable of disarming them. That's the plain fact of the matter. Even assuming that the relative strengths could be equalised, it would be like England recruiting an army from Scotland and then asking it to crush a Scottish uprising - it would never happen.

The political leaders in Lebanon know that the army would split in two and that they risk a civil war by doing so - rather wisely, they have refrained from forcing the issue. Lebanon is a remarkable democratic construction, a finely balanced house of cards that stays together by virtue of everyone fearing what would happen were it to collapse.

That's one of the reasons why Lebanon is very happy with a UN peace force in the Israeli-occupied areas - it means that the issue can be sidestepped. (The other reason being that it stops the attacks of course).

Israel withdrew from Lebanon initially back in 2000. Why did Hezbollah continue to fire rockets into Israel indiscriminately (not even aiming at military targets as Katyushas can't be aimed) from 2000 to 2006 then?

The stated reason is that Israel occupies the Shebaa farms area which Hizbollah claims belongs to Lebanon. Israel says that the land isn't Lebanese, pointing to the UN which says it's Syrian. (Of course, the land is still being occupied...) Syria says the land is Lebanese, but won't actually sign something to that effect.

As to rocket fire since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, it was nothing like was seen in this conflict. We're talking little border skirmishes every now and again, conducted by both sides. Indeed, kidnapping of soldiers has occurred before with relatively little trouble to the wider region - usually followed by Israel releasing a few hundred of its (many thousand) prisoners held without charge in exchange for their safe return. This is what has prompted some analysts to say that Hezbollah miscalculated this time and didn't expect a war.

The bottom line is that ever since Hezbollah was formed to drive Israel out of Lebanon it has seen its mission as one to remove Israel from all the Muslim lands it occupies. The issue of ownership surrounding the Shebaa farms is just a small part of that wider struggle which will never stop until a final solution is found to the aftereffects of previous events.

Depending who you speak to, Hizbollah's aims are described in varying degrees of violence. These are usually based on the rhetoric of its leaders, but as is always the case there is more than just one side. The rhetoric has ranged from the extreme of implying they wanted to kill all Jews in Israel to more moderate talk, at times acknowledging a two state solution (after Israel withdraws to original borders) and at other times separating Zionism from Judaism as their enemy. The bottom line - words are easy to say and play to different audiences and it would be unwise to form an opinion based on them.

I see condemnation of Lebanon from you and many others for not enforcing the UN resolution calling for the disarmament of militias. Setting aside the impracticalities I mentioned above, the attitude amongst Hezbollah is to accuse the international community and Israel of hypocrisy by turning to international law when it suits them and ignoring it at other times.

It is a view that certainly has credence in my opinion; no country has flouted more UN resolutions than Israel and this is despite the US vetoing countless (and yes, I really do mean countless) others. An attached list of those that were actually passed can be found here.

I long for the day when all countries are held to account for their crimes at the UN and it's no longer the corrupt and selfish pawn of the few. How do we ever expect justice from it when this is the case? And how can we ever expect other countries to respect international law when we do not?

Hopefully that's been largely informative without too much bias...

Oh, and I nearly forgot:

A summary of the positions of each major power written during the war:

Who stands where

Also a brief analysis of winners and losers here.

Doh, final edit after spotting it in one of those articles:

It looks like the day before the ceasefire Hezbollah fired 200 rockets into Israel. Therefore the strategy of a buffer zone has already failed and Hizbollah are presumably holding their fire out of a wish to respect the UN ceasefire (which they said was their intention) rather than because of their displacement by the IDF.

[ 08-15-2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]