Israeli soldiers were in Lebanon when captured, not Israel

Akrasia

Has the media has been lying to us all along to justify the horrific Israeli military action against Lebanon?

We have all been told that Hezbollah breached Israeli borders and captured Israeli soldiers from behind the Israeli lines and this has been the justification for the annialation of lebanon and the killing of around 400 lebanese people and 4 U.N. observers.

Initial reports of the event were that the Israeli soldiers were captured on Lebanese territory after clashes between the IDF and Hezbollah, but now it has emerged that the Soldiers were captured near the town of Aitaa al-Chaab well inside the Lebanese border.
this one is from forbes.com

The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them.

The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html

The story was quickly changed to imply that the soldiers were captured along the border, and then changed again to suggest that hezbollah had captured the soldiers from within Israel.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

The fact that Israel were the aggressors in this incident completely removes all possible justification for Israeli's bombing campaign in Lebanon and now the case is perfectly clear, Israel are in gross violation of international law and should be immediately sanctioned.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

Nuttzz

british soliders that crossed into the republic were never kidnapped....

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Heinrich

Nuttzz wrote:

british soliders that crossed into the republic were never kidnapped....

Off topic but while we are at it do you have proof of your statement?

Sadly Israel , having the backing of the Global Sheriff, is broadly being looked on as a victim! The destruction in Lebanon for the kidnap of two military personnel is disproportionate even if they had been taken in Jerusalem itself.

References to IRA activity are inappropriate as are references to Nazism.

Sgt. Sensible

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Beirut, July 12 (DPA) The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon.

'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said.

'The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place,' it added.

The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border.

Yahoo news.

:rolleyes:

hydra_

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

*shakes head* What are you blind? The current reporting is extremely biased towards israel. Where is the headlines calling for sanctions against israel for the atrocities they are now committing? There is none, why is that do you think?

Do you think if hezbollah were conducting cross border raids in israel & had 2 of their men captured it gives lebanon the right to level israel, kill 400 civilians, most of them women & children & displace 3/4 of a million people??? No it does not, so whats different here???
Your being incredibly naive to think this is fair reporting :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Heinrich wrote:

Off topic but while we are at it do you have proof of your statement?

It is off-topic. Nuttzz, don't reply to that, and please don't try to drag any more threads off-topic.

oscarBravo

hydra, please confine your comments to the points being made by other posters, and keep your opinions on the posters to yourself, thanks.

silverharp

[QUOTE=hydraThe current reporting is extremely biased towards israel. Where is the headlines calling for sanctions against israel for the atrocities they are now committing? There is none, why is that do you think?
[/QUOTE]

I was watching the BBC news last night and the first 10 minutes was all about the plight of the civilians, the next segment was how could the IDF not have known that they were shelling a UN base?

not bad considering Blair is Bush's bitc*!

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

Has the media has been lying to us all along to justify the horrific Israeli military action against Lebanon?

Perhaps.

Its also possible that the initial reports were based on false information, that Hezbollah falsely claimed that the captures were in Israel (thus leading to teh confusion) and the current version is the true one now that the confusion over what initially happened has cleared up.

Its also possible that the media are honestly reporting what information they can determine to be true, even if someone else is lying in order to mislead them.

Suggesting the media is lying suggests that the media know what they are saying is untrue, and that they are deliberately trying to mislead people. I find that fairly unlikely, personally.

gandalf

TBH it doesn't matter at this stage if they were in Lebanon or not, the IDF have no justification in the murder of civilians either way.

Akrasia

gandalf wrote:

TBH it doesn't matter at this stage if they were in Lebanon or not, the IDF have no justification in the murder of civilians either way.

It is important in the context that Israel claim that Hezbollah were the unprovoked aggressors, and that they can not be expected to stand Idly by and allow them to threaten Israeli citizens and soldiers.
If there was no actual incursion then their claims to be acting in self defence are completely false and the already thin ice they are skating melts away completely.

Sgt. Sensible

bonkey wrote:

Perhaps.

Its also possible that the initial reports were based on false information, that Hezbollah falsely claimed that the captures were in Israel (thus leading to teh confusion) and the current version is the true one now that the confusion over what initially happened has cleared up.

Hezbollah's initial claim was that the Israeli soldiers were killed and captured on the Lebanese side of the border. See my post above. I'm not aware that they ever claimed to have been on the Israeli side of the border.

I don't see much reporting from the hezbollah side, probably because it's simply too dangerous.

Manic Moran

Well, looking through the UN reports for the last few years, there are no claimed Israeli ground violations of the Blue Line, but multiple from the Lebanese (Hezbullah) side, including that attempt 6 months ago to capture soldiers. I think the likelihood is that the Israelis were indeed on the Israeli side of the line.

The Hezbullah claim about Southern Lebanon may simply be a reflection of them refusing to hold the existance of Israel, and that that part of Israel is in fact a piece of Lebanon just not under Lebanese control.

NTM

banaman

silverharp wrote:

I was watching the BBC news last night and the first 10 minutes was all about the plight of the civilians, the next segment was how could the IDF not have known that they were shelling a UN base?

not bad considering Blair is Bush's bitc*!

Other news sources were quite clearly carrying the statement from the UN that they had informed the IDF 10 times in 6 hours. How could they not know?
So the BBC is pushing the IDF lies AGAIN.

lostexpectation

bonkey wrote:

Perhaps.

Suggesting the media is lying suggests that the media know what they are saying is untrue, and that they are deliberately trying to mislead people. I find that fairly unlikely, personally.

but of course they are they have access to this information and dont't report it, and they take the government press release line over anyother truths.

silverharp

banaman wrote:

Other news sources were quite clearly carrying the statement from the UN that they had informed the IDF 10 times in 6 hours. How could they not know?
So the BBC is pushing the IDF lies AGAIN.

you misunderstood what I wrote, the BBC had a graphic showing the UN base on top of a hill, the tone was they must of known what they were hitting, as they showed base communicating that they were the UN

Slainte70

Akrasia, according to your theory and links which you provided, it was the IDF who actually infiltrated the Lebanese border and good auld Hezbollah, who happened upon them in the lebanese village of Aitaa al-Chaab... did their civic duty...fired anti-rockets and blew up 2 IDF hummers... killing three IDF soldiers and kidnapping two....

If this is to be deemed the correct version of events, then can you kindly explain to me why in the bejaysus were the two burning IDF hummers found near the Israeli moshav Zarit?

I won't even mention Nasrallah's speech boasting about the Hezbollah attack was five months in the planning!

This theory really takes the biscuit...:rolleyes:

Nuttzz

Akrasia wrote:

If there was no actual incursion then their claims to be acting in self defence are completely false and the already thin ice they are skating melts away completely.

If the IDF troops went into South Lebanon then surely it is up to the Lebanese army rather than Hezbollah to deal with?

Slainte70

So I take it Arkasia, since you haven't answered my question, this theory of yours is baseless...

Sgt. Sensible

Haaretz wrote:

The fighting began at about 9:00 A.M., when a group of reserve soldiers in two armored jeeps was conducting a routine patrol of the border. As the jeeps passed between Moshav Zarit and Moshav Shtula, Hezbollah attacked.

An initial inquiry revealed that the Hezbollah operatives had crossed the border earlier via a "dead zone" in the border fence not visible from any of the IDF observation posts. There are dozens of similar "dead zones" along the northern border, though the IDF said that observation cameras to cover this particular spot were due to be installed next week. The assailants may have used a wheeled ladder to climb over the fence.

The operatives hid themselves in an overgrown wadi about 200 meters on the Israeli side of the fence and waited until the IDF troops arrived, whereupon they attacked, apparently with a combination of explosives and anti-tank missiles.

Three soldiers were killed during the initial assault, while one soldier was seriously wounded, another lightly wounded and a third suffered a shrapnel scratch. In addition, the assailants kidnapped the two soldiers. According to the IDF, Hezbollah probably had an escape vehicle waiting on the other side of the fence. The entire incident took no more than 10 minutes, and the Israeli soldiers apparently never fired a shot.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738310.html

Frederico

I have seen a couple of reporters in the last few days saying "which we are not allowed to report on".. I saw an interview with Dan Rather a few years back, he came across as very frustrated what he was not allowed to report. The media tries not to purposefully tell lies, but they can be manipulated to a certain degree by governments, agencies, etc. Stories can be buried or hyped. Israel has alot of influence.

Put these in order in which they would appear on Irish news..
300 Chinese dead in flood
25 killed in explosion in Sri Lanka
2 killed in suicide bombing in Tel Aviv

The truth can be ignored, the IDF taking 2 Palestinians was ignored, now with the Lebanon WAR (sick of spin like crisis, incursion, blah) Palestine was ignored till a few days ago when they realised 160 had died. If Lebanon or Hizbollah say the Israeli soldiers were captured on the Lebanese side of the border, all Israel has to do is say they weren't. The world will take the Israeli word on it.

Frederico

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738310.html

Thats an Israeli site, theres a war on.. do you believe it?

Sgt. Sensible

Frederico wrote:

Thats an Israeli site, theres a war on.. do you believe it?

I'm keeping an open mind. Haaretz is a reputable source and is often highly critical of the government and IDF actions.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote:

they have access to this information and dont't report it,

Strange then that this entire thread is based on this information being reported.

and they take the government press release line over anyother truths.

Any other truths? So there's different truths in your view?

Malone

How many Palestinian and Lebanese people have Israel kidnapped over the years.

redspider

Whether the 8 soldiers killed when the 2 others were kidnapped were in South Lebanon or Israel is immaterial, in the sense that Israel will say that they were in Israel and Hezbollah will say that they were in Lebanon. The exact truth may never be known and there is also I believe a zone which is the border where both side 'interact'. But it doesnt matter.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, its not important as to how this latest esclation of hostilities started, there is no benefit ion answering 'who started it', as it was 'started' decades ago. The question now is who will solve it.

Nuttzz wrote:

If the IDF troops went into South Lebanon then surely it is up to the Lebanese army rather than Hezbollah to deal with?

My understanding is that in South Lebanon, Hezbollah are seen as the de facto military force and are allowed by Lebanon to do so. In fact welcomed to do so. It was Hezbollah's years of fighting with Israel in South Lebanon that has won them that 'respect'. For many in the area, they are not a terrorist organisation. Even for many soverign nations around the world, they are not terrorists, and you can include Ireland in that list ! They even build hospitals and schools !

Also Syria's pull-out fom South Lebanon must be considered, as their 10's of thousands of well equiped soldiers, etc, and with tanks were protecting Lebanon. They have gone only recently (earlier this year wasnt it) and it would be interesting to hear what they have to say on the situation. I wonder do they feel duped?

I dont know much about the Lebanese Army or its strength, but there is no airforce of any note it seems, nothing to stop the Israeli's from bombing Beruit, Lebanon's capital, the airport, etc, and its not as if they are holding back 100,000's of thousands of soldiers or saying to airforce not to shoot at Israeli planes, etc Let them bomb us. Its a case of not having the capability I believe, and their previous reliance on Syria to handle the military aspects.

Lebanese people wanted Syria out, they changed governments, etc, so that is also a factor. Now I think Syria are waiting for Lebanon to ask them back in, but Lebanon probably wants global help in being able to stand on their own two feet.

My reading into intelligence is that Hezbollah is as well ( or better) armed as the Lebanese army in terms of ordnance, and is a part of the people and lives among them. The 'terrorists' in this case are embedded, not as a strategy, but thats who they are - they are part of the people, and are supported by the vast majority of them, it would seem.

redspider

redspider

Frederico wrote:

I have seen a couple of reporters in the last few days saying "which we are not allowed to report on"..
Put these in order in which they would appear on Irish news..
300 Chinese dead in flood
25 killed in explosion in Sri Lanka
2 killed in suicide bombing in Tel Aviv

The truth can be ignored, ... Palestine was ignored till a few days ago when they realised 160 had died.

Yes, it is true that Israel is censoring what International news media can broadcast. The same happened in Iraq, and is happening, for example, CBS in the US aren't 'allowed' to show dead US soldiers, coffins coming back from Iraq, and in this current conflict must show 'balanced' reporting, as in where the bombs come down in Israel, etc. They have more access to Israeli bomb sites than those in Lebanon.

The first victim of war is the truth. It has always been the case. Thats why smart people need to think and read 'through' the news. Read between the lines as to what world leaders say and do. The media helps get at the tuth but cant get access to the whole tuth, thats for sure.

In terms of attacks on Palestinians, these escalated in the last couple of weeks while the world's eyes concentrated on Lebanon. Bad news somewhere else is to many an opportunity. But deaths anywhere become 'acceptable' after the initial shock wears off. eg: Iraq was also dropped off the news yet many days there were 50 or 60 deaths a day, probably more than in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, 1m people a year die from Malaria and many millions from starvation. There are wars all over the place.

What a happy world we live in?

redspider

Manic Moran

redspider wrote:

My reading into intelligence is that Hezbollah is as well ( or better) armed as the Lebanese army in terms of ordnance,

Actually, no.

Unless Hezbullah has some 350 tanks and 700 APCs, tube artillery, and whatnot.

The issue is whether or not the Lebanese army would split into factions if ordered to go forcibly disarm Hezbullah.

NTM

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

Actually, no.

Unless Hezbullah has some 350 tanks and 700 APCs, tube artillery, and whatnot.

The issue is whether or not the Lebanese army would split into factions if ordered to go forcibly disarm Hezbullah.

NTM

If Israel is struggling to defeat hezbollah, the Lebanese army would have zero chance. Tanks, especially Lebanon's antiques, are vulnerable in the kind of terrain hezbollah occupy. The IDF acknowledged this and that's why they're relying on artillery and air power.

Not that there's any chance of the Lebanese army collaborating with Israel now.

Manic Moran

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

If Israel is struggling to defeat hezbollah, the Lebanese army would have zero chance. Tanks, especially Lebanon's antiques, are vulnerable in the kind of terrain hezbollah occupy.

The Lebanese (assuming that the Shia component follows orders) would have major advantages over the Israelis.

1) They aren't Israeli, and thus are much more likely to get some co-operation from the locals. Not least, they speak the right language.
2) The can flood areas with troops and search for things on the ground. Israel isn't doing that right now.
3) Israel's only having difficulty because it's restricting itself.

NTM

FYI

Slainte70 wrote:

Akrasia, according to your theory and links which you provided, it was the IDF who actually infiltrated the Lebanese border and good auld Hezbollah, who happened upon them in the lebanese village of Aitaa al-Chaab... did their civic duty...fired anti-rockets and blew up 2 IDF hummers... killing three IDF soldiers and kidnapping two....

If this is to be deemed the correct version of events, then can you kindly explain to me why in the bejaysus were the two burning IDF hummers found near the Israeli moshav Zarit?

I won't even mention Nasrallah's speech boasting about the Hezbollah attack was five months in the planning!

This theory really takes the biscuit...:rolleyes:

Slainte 70, there is more info here on the +tank+ involved in the operation:

"Now we are still hearing the planes flying overhead. They have been bombing many locations around the country with heavy artillery against villages on the southern border. The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aita al-Shaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hizbullah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside 'Israel' thus an aggression first started by Hizbullah)."
http://arab-americans.blogspot.com/2006/07/update-from-lebanon.html

and here:

On Wednesday, the two Israeli soldiers were seized at about 9am (0600 GMT), across the border from Aita al-Shaab, 15km from the Mediterranean coast.

Three Israeli soldiers died in the raid, while four more were killed when their tank ran over a landmine. The eighth soldier died while helping to recover the tank, the Israeli army said.
"Israeli officials said the air attacks aimed to exert pressure on the Lebanese government to prevent Hezbollah launching cross-border attacks.

The Israeli prime minister described Wednesday's attack as an act of war by Lebanon and promised a "severe response". The government approved miltary action against Hezbollah after an emergency cabinet meeting."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A67F0AD3-7964-41BC-98A9-CA752CA5B89F.htm

and there is more evidence that the kidnapping were purposely provoked here:

"Just hours before the meeting was due to start, the Israeli Shin Bet internal Security Service arrested Abu Tir and Abu Arafa and warned them not to attend the meeting, under threats of detention. The meeting, which offered a major opportunity to obtain Shalit�s release and launch a new framework for peace, was thrown into disarray. The next day, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) invaded Gaza, and the day after both Abu Tir and Abu Arafa were abducted by Israeli forces, along with a third of the Palestinian Cabinet, provoking a predictable escalation of violence.

Israel simultaneously began conducting covert incursions on to Lebanese territory, provoking Hizbollah�s capture of two IDF soldiers. Credible sources confirm that the soldiers were not abducted on Israeli territory, but inside Lebanon. Like the scuppered peace negotiations, Western officials have ignored this, and misinformed the media. However, some reports corroborate the sources. Israeli officials, for instance, informed Forbes (12.7.06) that �Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel.�"

via Global Research... sorry don't have the original link

But the full text is posted here:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1154114441.html

Manic Moran

The capture of the soldiers and the destruction of the tank and HMMWV were two separate incidents. After the soldiers were taken, the tank and truck were part of a rapid-response column which went across the border in pursuit before being ambushed. Once that happened, things escalated from there.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

The Lebanese (assuming that the Shia component follows orders) would have major advantages over the Israelis.
1) They aren't Israeli, and thus are much more likely to get some co-operation from the locals. Not least, they speak the right language.

The locals probably don't know a whole lot.

2) The can flood areas with troops and search for things on the ground. Israel isn't doing that right now.

Hezbollah may obstruct them and the Lebanese Army probably don't know the area as well as Hezbollah.

3) Israel's only having difficulty because it's restricting itself.

A necessary restriction to reduce casualties. Gently, gently, catchy monkey.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

The capture of the soldiers and the destruction of the tank and HMMWV were two separate incidents. After the soldiers were taken, the tank and truck were part of a rapid-response column which went across the border in pursuit before being ambushed. Once that happened, things escalated from there.

NTM

Well I'll admit that conclusive evidence of either contention doesn't seem to exist. Yet the mainstream press, and pretty much everyone else, has simply led with the story that best fits in with an Israeli response.

This website (http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/07/where-exactly-were-those-israeli.html) has looked into the event in a little detail. The comments again show that no agreement on the issue has been found.

Do you have a timeline and/or reference for the version of events you detail?

Website Ref wrote:

Where exactly were those Israeli soldiers when Hezbollah captured them?
UPDATE: Could the first translation be what Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian based his initial report on? The second translation sounds better worded and based on that and Jonathan Cook's reporting, I think the second one is the accurate translation. See Translations that don't match

On July 12th, the Associated Press reported "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them." This is from the article Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN , 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM

This AP news article was run by several news outlets on July 12th like ABC, CBS Forbes, The Boston Herald etc. but this version was probably based on a bad translation.

Changing the Story Two Times ( the first version probably was based on a bad translation):

5:41 AM ET, Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian originally reported "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon"Lebanon Israel Noam Chomsky

7:09 AM ET, Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian had changed his report to read: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."

4:13 PM ET, Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian had again changed his report, this time to read: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. "

On July 12th, Anthony Shadid, Scott Wilson and Debbi Wilgoren, of the Washington Post Foreign Service, did not say which side of the border in their article Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers , "The militant Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers along the Israel-Lebanon border Wednesday morning, and Israeli officials said seven more soldiers were killed after tanks and troops moved into Lebanon in response to the attack." [as seen in google cache.] But that article was rewritten and on July 13th it read: "The Lebanese Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah infiltrated the Israeli border Wednesday in a brazen raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers, killing three others and prompting Israeli attacks on the airport in Beirut and bridges, roads, power stations and military positions across the hillsides of southern Lebanon."

Asking this question "Where exactly were those Israeli soldiers when Hezbollah captured them?" is an attempt to get to the bottom of this specific fact. Note in my update that I quote Jonathan Cook who writes, in a July 25th article, Five myths that help Israel's war crimes, "Early on July 12 Hizbullah launched a raid against an army border post"

Jonathan Cook mentions in his article that " We now know from reports in the US media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year." see Israel set war plan more than a year ago
See Translations that don't match

NTM

Manic Moran

Though annecdotal, one of the posters on another board I'm on is a reserve IDF Major, and one of the soldiers killed that day was one of his employees. I figure he's probably in the loop.

You will note that while the reports may have changed, none of them run counter to the concept of Israelis only crossing the border after the initial attack. Some, such as Haaretz have not changed their reports and still explicitly state that sequence. Al Jazeera also still quotes Hezbullah as saying that they crossed the border first, and that the Israeli tank crossed afterwards.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6B054073-6646-4BCD-9269-7439EE6005B9.htm
"Hezbollah said it had destroyed an Israeli tank that had entered Lebanon after its cross-border raid, inflicting casualties on its crew. "

NTM

FYI

Well no, the reports change from "southern Lebanon" to "Lebanese border" to "inside Israel".

While the reports are continuous with regards to the Israeli response, this is not in question.

Anecdotal evidence, while possibly true, does not constituent credible evidence I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, this is all irrelevant.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Al Jazeera also still quotes Hezbullah as saying that they crossed the border first, and that the Israeli tank crossed afterwards.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6B054073-6646-4BCD-9269-7439EE6005B9.htm
"Hezbollah said it had destroyed an Israeli tank that had entered Lebanon after its cross-border raid, inflicting casualties on its crew. "

NTM

This also doesn't appear to be a direct quote, therefore the same inconsistency might be the reason for the use of "its cross border raid".

To say again, there is no conclusive evidence either way. The comments on that site have other direct quotes from Hizbullah which suggest the soldiers were captured inside Lebanon.

Slainte70

FYI wrote:

Well no, the reports change from "southern Lebanon" to "Lebanese border" to "inside Israel".

While the reports are continuous with regards to the Israeli response, this is not in question.

Anecdotal evidence, while possibly true, does not constituent credible evidence I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, this is all irrelevant.

Does two burning IDF hummers (with three dead Israeli soldiers and two missing from the hummers) which were found still burning near Zarit Moshav in ISRAEL (!) constitute credible evidence? It was bloody televised for Pete's sake! And Nasrallah boasting that this kidnapping took five months to plan!

Jeez, I cannot believe this thread is still debating this issue!

spanner

lets see Israel go in and take on Hezbollah hand to hand on the ground. It has seemly the best military in the world so lets see it. They will not dismantle hezbollah by bombing, all they are doing is killing innocent people.

the only way for Israel to get the job done is to push as far in land to make the katusha rockets out of range, then dismantle hezbollahs tunnels and bunkers. clearing the way for the international force to take over. Or if they want they can take up the old job of watch the region, which I dont think they want. carpet bombing Lebanon to "put pressure" for the realise of the soldiers has not and will not work. The only way to get them back will be a prisoner swap

Akrasia

Slainte70 wrote:

Does two burning IDF hummers (with three dead Israeli soldiers and two missing from the hummers) which were found still burning near Zarit Moshav in ISRAEL (!) constitute credible evidence? It was bloody televised for Pete's sake! And Nasrallah boasting that this kidnapping took five months to plan!

Jeez, I cannot believe this thread is still debating this issue!

hezbollah fired rockets at IDF targets in northern Israel shortly after the soldiers were captured in response to attacks by the IDF, it is possible that the jeeps shown on television were destroyed by these rockets and not in an initial cross border raid.

Although it is impossible to know for sure unless either high ranking Hezbollah or IDF officials change their story.

cik

Akrasia wrote:

Although it is impossible to know for sure unless either high ranking Hezbollah or IDF officials change their story.

What weight do you give to the UN observers on the ground there who reported that Hezbollah crossed the blue line into Israel to conduct the attack and in parrellel luanched rockets?

to view the reports go to the UNIFIL website

gandalf

cik wrote:

What weight do you give to the UN observers on the ground there who reported that Hezbollah crossed the blue line into Israel to conduct the attack and in parrellel luanched rockets?

to view the reports go to the UNIFIL website

Well we know the weight the IDF gave them, it came in the form of a guided munition :rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

Manic Moran wrote:

The Lebanese (assuming that the Shia component follows orders) would have major advantages over the Israelis.

1) They aren't Israeli, and thus are much more likely to get some co-operation from the locals. Not least, they speak the right language.
2) The can flood areas with troops and search for things on the ground. Israel isn't doing that right now.
3) Israel's only having difficulty because it's restricting itself.

NTM

Any reports I've heard about the Lebanese army make it sound more and more like the Yugoslav army before their civil war. It, like Lebanese society is divided into factions, Sunni, Shiites, Christians etc (instead of Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians). If the Lebanese army moves against Hizbollah, then there will be another civil war there.

redspider

redspider wrote:

My reading into intelligence is that Hezbollah is as well (or better) armed as the Lebanese army in terms of ordnance

Manic Moran wrote:

Actually, no. Unless Hezbullah has some 350 tanks and 700 APCs, tube artillery, and whatnot.

I was referring to the South Lebanon area in terms of Hezbollah's 'control'. My understanding is that Hezbollah are the de facto 'army' in this area, and allowed to operate by Lebanon and its Army. It is not a case of them being an underground organisation, although they are clearly not an army but a militia that operate in and among the people, and are of the people. Its not a case of unwanted terrorists using civilians as a hiding place. Hezbollah 'operatives' come from there, as well as other parts of the Aran world no doubt.

What I dont understand about this conflict is that Olmert's words after the 8 soldiers were killed at the 'start' was that Israel saw it as an act of war and they would attack Lebanon. They did. But when Beruit Airport was bombed, why didnt Lebanon and their Army respond with anything? Is it basically in a position where it could but it has shown remarkable strength not to, or has it let Hezbollah do the responding and get hit back, along with its civilians taking the brunt?

Where do the old civil war divisions in Lebanon lie when it comes to this situation? Was the army just too fragile to do anything? Also, with the Syrian pullout from South Lebanon only very recent, was the Army ill prepared.

I am just perplexed by any visible response (at least internationally reported) of any Lebanon Army involvement, even military exercises? And I am uneasy with their lack of any airpower. Having the airport of Beruit bombed on the 1st day must have sent a shockwave through all Lebanese people as it was very symbolic.

redspider

Dirk Gently

redspider wrote:

What I dont understand about this conflict is that Olmert's words after the 8 soldiers were killed at the 'start' was that Israel saw it as an act of war and they would attack Lebanon. They did. But when Beruit Airport was bombed, why didnt Lebanon and their Army respond with anything? Is it basically in a position where it could but it has shown remarkable strength not to, or has it let Hezbollah do the responding and get hit back, along with its civilians taking the brunt?

It’s a case of the Lebanese state forces being very weak and divided internally. A lot of the Lebanese army are Hezbollah sympathisers which is why the Lebanese state is reluctant to act against Hezbollah too. Syria made sure that the Lebanese state forces where well infiltrated before they pulled out. Officially the Lebanese state said it will not interfere unless there is a large scale ground invasion in which case the Lebanese army will respond to defend its territory. Tbh the Lebanese forces have their hands full clearing up and rescuing survivors in the aftermath of the air strikes. If the Lebanese army were forced to engage with the IDF in a conflict situation it would more than likely result in the collapse of an already very fragile grip on power that the current Lebanese government have. Lebanon are never going to be able to stop Israeli air strikes even if the Lebanese army declares war on Israel but it will receive massive casualties in the resulting Israeli targeting of the Lebanese army positions resulting in a power vacuum as the state forces will be too weakened to maintain any kind of order.

In short they’re damned if they do fight back and damned if they don't as their country is been destroyed around them. If the Lebanese army had any hope of stopping the Israelis I'm sure they would have declared war already but at the moment it is a case of hoping the Israelis stop short of giving them no choice but to declare war by invading and occupying Lebanon on a large scale. It is hard to image a sovereign state standing by and allowing a foreign power destroy their country but in the case of Lebanon they have very little choice unless they want to loose the internal fragile stability they have gained in the past few years with the current government. The line is becoming very blurry as to what point you want to hold onto what you have and when what you had is already lost.

Just one more point, I know its kind of irrelevant but I highlighted in bold your post where you say Israel said they would attack Lebanon. Officially they are at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon. Means little or nothing in reality I know but Israel hasn't actually declared war on Lebanon dispite the effect being the same as if they did. The result of the Israeli actions amount to a state of war except they are not directly targeting the Lebanese state forces. (even though some Lebanese forces have been killed anyway)

spanner

clown bag wrote:

Just one more point, I know its kind of irrelevant but I highlighted in bold your post where you say Israel said they would attack Lebanon. Officially they are at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon. Means little or nothing in reality I know but Israel hasn't actually declared war on Lebanon dispite the effect being the same as if they did. The result of the Israeli actions amount to a state of war except they are not directly targeting the Lebanese state forces. (even though some Lebanese forces have been killed anyway)

As you said they do not look very much like they are at war with Hezbollah, if they were they would take them head on along the ground. They tried this in one village and had to retreat due to heavy resistance by Hesbollah. Israel are hoping to due the job viva the air and it is failing miserably. If they really meant what they would said they would push their ground troops further in

Dirk Gently

spanner wrote:

As you said they do not look very much like they are at war with Hezbollah, if they were they would take them head on along the ground. They tried this in one village and had to retreat due to heavy resistance by Hesbollah. Israel are hoping to due the job viva the air and it is failing miserably. If they really meant what they would said they would push their ground troops further in

Yeah I agree, the Israeli military campaign was a disaster. Its result was to strengthen Hezbollah’s standing within Lebanon and kill a load of innocent civilians in the process. It doesn't look like they have any hope of a military solution now. If they go in on the ground they are going to meet more resistance now than they would have before they enraged the non-combatant population in south Lebanon. Hezbollah is openly getting the support of people now who would not have supported them before the air strikes.

The air strikes aren't gonna get rid of them and it looks like on the ground man against man the Israelis aren't gonna get much joy either. They are actively retreating anytime they come up against ground resistance. If there ever was a military solution to get rid of Hezbollah they have lost that opportunity now after their indiscriminate air strikes have swelled the amount of active support for Hezbollah on the ground in Lebanon.

The only way they have of getting rid of Hezbollah now is an agreement with Lebanon and an international peace keeping force to police the boarder together. Hezbollah have said they will play along and integrate into the Lebanese army if Israel stop the bombings and give some guarantees (not sure what guarantees they're looking for). Continuing the Military campaign from this point is a futile exercise. I find it Ironic that Israel complain that the U.N. peace keeping force has no teeth when they themselves took the easy option and bombed from the air instead of doing the hard job and actually go after Hezbollah on the ground. Hopefully after this 48 hour break from air strikes it will become politically impossible for Israel to resume the attacks but I wouldn't put anything past them at this stage. I think nothing short of a full trade embargo put on them by the European Union would even make them pause for a moment to think. Obviously if the U.S. threatened a similar embargo they would stop but it’s very unlikely the U.S. would impose any kind of sanctions on them.

I'm sure the boys in Washington are loving the fact that the U.N. is been made to look so powerless as a result of American and Tony Blair’s reluctance to criticise Israel. Looks like Blair is coming under a lot of pressure domestically though with very little support in his own cabinet and Bush might be forced into some sort of compromise to save Blair from a possible premature resignation as prime minister.

Manic Moran

I don't think a full-on ground invasion was ever really on the cards. There was just too much chance of Syria getting involved and I would be surprised if Israel was really looking for that. When Lebanon announced that it would go fight Israel if they went in in force, I think it settled the issue. Israel has no desire to attack the sovereign Lebanese government which it is/was on pretty decent terms with. (Heck, look at the pictures of the rescue workers: They're wearing Israeli equipment)

I had to laugh at the news reports saying "Israeli forces beaten back from (wherever) with heavy casualties". 'Heavy Casualties' out of a battalion is, maybe, a half a company total. 9 dead is a training accident around here. In this case, Israel is a victim of its own restraint. It's looking like it was a sort of 'let's give it a bit of a crack, in case we can walk in' instead of a proper assault. Hezbullah obviously weren't going to just let them waltz in, but it's more of a moral victory than a demonstration of combat prowess.

find it Ironic that Israel complain that the U.N. peace keeping force has no teeth when they themselves took the easy option and bombed from the air instead of doing the hard job and actually go after Hezbollah on the ground.

Why should they risk Israeli lives if it's possible that they can get a UN force to do the job?

Hopefully after this 48 hour break from air strikes it will become politically impossible for Israel to resume the attacks but I wouldn't put anything past them at this stage

If the UN/EU/NATO/Arab League/Whoever haven't come up with an agreement on a plan to put into place, I fully expect that the attacks will resume. They have a wonderful way of focusing attention on the area. Many pages ago, I opined that the only ways that this would stop would be (a) Hezbullah runs out of ammo, (b) They return the two soldiers or (c) the UN or whoever sends a force in with teeth. Or words to that effect. I still maintain that opinion, and that (c) is what the Israelis are realisticly expecting as 'success' for them.

I think politically, in the long term the Israelis are going to come out rather better from this than many people are going to give them credit for right now. Yes, it's natural to be angry with the people who are raining bombs on your country when they're doing it, but when the dust settles, the Lebanese are going to sit down and ask "Just what happened that caused this? We were doing so well at our recovery, until then." Some Arab editorials have apparently already postulated this. (Per BBC overviews)

I'm sure the boys in Washington are loving the fact that the U.N. is been made to look so powerless as a result of American and Tony Blair’s reluctance to criticise Israel.

The UN are not the be-all and end-all of international relations. There are other organisations that could do something, which the US does not have a veto power over.

NTM

Akrasia

clown bag wrote:

Yeah I agree, the Israeli military campaign was a disaster. Its result was to strengthen Hezbollah’s standing within Lebanon and kill a load of innocent civilians in the process. It doesn't look like they have any hope of a military solution now. If they go in on the ground they are going to meet more resistance now than they would have before they enraged the non-combatant population in south Lebanon. Hezbollah is openly getting the support of people now who would not have supported them before the air strikes.

the crazy thing is, this was the only outcome there ever could have been. There was never any chance of the IDF bombing Hezbollah out of existance, and the phrase 'whatever doesn't kill me will only make me stronger' certainly applies in this situation.

By the way, Israel continue to bombard Gaza behind the veil of media attention and just like in Lebanon, their bombing is going to have the exact opposite effect to the one desired. It will not drive out Hamas or Islamic Jihad, it will only serve to harden the resolve of those determined to fight the Israelis. Their actions are just as big a recruitment tool for Israels enemies as the destruction of Iraq was a recruitment tool for terrorism in Baghdad.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

In this case, Israel is a victim of its own restraint.

The words Israel and Restraint don't belong in the same sentance, and in this case Israel have been anything but restrained. The word cowardly is far more appropriate. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice hundreds of civilians if it can protect their soldiers, even if, in operational terms, the aerial bombardment is neither effective against hezbollah nor building international sympathy for their position.