Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New (17/11) aggressive behaviour by Israeli pilots against French units in Lebanon
Alexis    11/17/2006 7:02:24 PM
I haven't found a link in English yet. Here is one in French : http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20061117.WWW000000454_nouvel_incident_entre_avions_israeliens_et_casques_bleus_francais_au_liban.html In a nutshell : 2 Israeli F15 overflew at low altitude and high speed UNIFIL French positions while 2 Israeli reconnaissance aircraft were circling the French HQ in Lebanon. Again, French soldiers prepared themselves to shoot down the aggressive planes. Again, they kept enough cold blood not to do it. What is very troubling is that this is the SECOND such incident (first was 31/10) The first one could be explained away as "some moronic pilots thought they could prove their manhood by risking their aircraft and life, which led to their superiors hanging them out to dry, but privately so, denying the incident in public" The second such incident proves that either Israeli superiors are VERY stupid (not probable, though not entirely impossible : the operative word would be hubris), either this is a POLICY. The second possibility would mean that the Israeli government, or at least elements of the military high command, are pushing for an incident to happen, that such a provocation would result in missiles being fired at the seeming aggressors and either an Israeli fighter plus its pilot would be lost (more probable) or at least if the missile did not hit an hostile act would have happened. Play with feelings of some moronic pilots, explain them that the French are hostile and that Israeli fighters are invulnerable, and this is what you would obtain : eventually one of those would get himself fired at, probably shot down, probably dead. And then what ? This is really troubling because the objective cannot be the usual anti-French propaganda : you do not lose one of your fighters and one of your pilots just for propaganda. Could the objective be to try to terminate the UNIFIL mission by frightening away its member nations ? Could it be to justify new Israeli attacks in Lebanon, aimed at UNIFIL, using the numbers of Israeli armed forces to overcome the well-armed but few in numbers French contingent ? (the other UNIFIL contingents don't have MBTs nor artillery) That hypothesis would be SO moronic (so much of hubris, to use a more precise word) that one has to retain doubts. However, this series of provocations HAS to have an objective.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
StateMachine       11/24/2006 4:33:14 PM


"Strange, you expect Hezbollah to act out immaturely."


Recall that Nasrallah, when interviewed in July 2006 about the kidnappings and the military action they caused, was absolutely dumbfounded that Israel responded the way they did. In the published interviews, Nasrallah speaks as though he is 12 years old.  Scroll down to 24 July, then to the 3rd entry for a quote and an initial link.


There were also a few reports of much Iranian astonishment and unhappiness with Nasrallah’s decision(s) and talk about replacing him. But Nasrallah is still in charge of Hizballah, is there any evidence that he has matured?


 


"Everything points toward Hezbollah letting the Isrealis hang themselves by angering Europe over the UNIFIL deal."


Perhaps the Israelis will give the French an opportunity to shoot at an Israeli aircraft. But there are a lot of politics involved. Ultimately, the Israelis are fighting for their homes and families. The actions they are willing to take should be no mystery.


But even if Israel stops its overflights, reports and locations are likely to be leaked. Not everyone in Lebanon supported Hizballah in May 2006; fewer now support them, as many see the refugees from South Lebanon and do not care to have their homes (and lives and families) destroyed.


Nasrallah is still involved, and given the political outlook in Beirut today (admittedly, tomorrow is a different story), it seems that he will not gain control over the Lebanese government. What, then, does he have to show for his years of effort, his military performance, and money spent?


Nasrallah and Hizballah need some achievement, some victory, to show their masters. Nasrallah has much more motive to attack Israel.


 


"Iran did get its money's worth. Hezbollah maintains the strategic deterrent against Isreal that was part of the calculation on whether the US will attack Iran. Though it looks like W is going to go after Iran regardless."


Recall that reports from July and August 2006 suggest the Iranian leadership has severe doubts about how its money was spent. The same reports indicated that the Iranian people are unhappy, as they could use the money.


On paper, the Hizballah strategic was a significant threat to several Israeli cities. When exercised it was negligible, almost comic. What remains of it now? Perhaps next time?


There are reports of anti-missile technology being deployed in Israel. True or not, the Israelis are awake now, and unless Hizballah can deliver a nuke, the Israeli advantage is greater than it would have been if Nasrallah had not miscalculated.


 


"The French have upped the ante. . . . . . ."


This news has been around for a day or so, and there are a few words from both sides. The French officer’s words: ". . . if a commander will feel threatened . . ." leave the French an "out".


Ultimately, the Israelis are fighting for their homes and families, the UNIFIL soldiers are not. The actions the Israelis are willing to take should be no mystery.

 




I think you're confusing unnuanced translations with sounding "like a 12 year old."   I'd like to read some of this unhappiness in Iran's leadership over Hezbollah basically fighting Isreal to a standstill with basically 3000 men and achieving 1:1 kill ratio.
 
 
 
I think Hezbollah lost support in some quarters from Lebanese who felt that if you provoke Isreal, you had better be able to a) beat them and b) protect the civilian populace from the inevitable bombing campaign.
 
But the fact that Hezbollah again emerged standing and unbeaten has won over more than they lost due to lack of air defense.
 
I'd say that since 2000, Hezbollah has been an outperforming investment.
1) Taking land back from Isreal for the first time through military means
2) Consolidating and growing political power in Lebanon
3) Proving to be a stand off force against the Isrealis
4) Proving that 4GW works and providing a perfect test ground for tactics and technology
5) The best advertisement that Russ
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       11/24/2006 6:18:12 PM

"I think you're confusing unnuanced translations with sounding "like a 12 year old." I'd like to read some of this unhappiness in Iran's leadership over Hezbollah basically fighting Isreal to a standstill with basically 3000 men and achieving 1:1 kill ratio."

Israel has sent tanks into Gaza, surrounded Arafat’s compound, etc. These actions were major news items, sometimes even televised, and occurred many times and well before 2006. Who did not know of these actions? Apparently Nasrallah did not.

The interviews of Nasrallah indicate surprise that Israel would send in tanks and troops to recapture kidnapped soldiers. No matter how good or bad the translation is/was, Nasrallah’s reaction and words are not those of a grown man.

3000 Hizballah fighters may be a reasonable number. Israeli losses seem to be in the hundreds, under 300 IIRC. Estimates suggest that Hizballah lost between 1500 and 2000 fighters.

 

"I think Hezbollah lost support in some quarters from Lebanese who felt that if you provoke Isreal, you had better be able to a) beat them and b) protect the civilian populace from the inevitable bombing campaign."

Yes, and Hisballah failed to do either.
a) Hisballah lost ground to the IAF, and only international pressure halted the loss (this was reported on all major TV, newspaper, magazine and wire news services the world over).
 
b) Hisballah military installations and positions within/under villages and houses has never been considered a method to protect civilians. Hizballah must positions its fighters and weapons "between" the civilians they wish to protect and the enemy they wish to fight.

 

"But the fact that Hezbollah again emerged standing and unbeaten has won over more than they lost due to lack of air defense."

Read previous comment.
Hizballah lost, badly, and considering current protests in Lebanon (anti-Syrian protest happening, Hizballah protest cancelled) is still failing.

 
 "I'd say that since 2000, Hezbollah has been an outperforming investment.
 
1) Taking land back from Isreal for the first time through military means"
What Israeli land does Hizballah occupy? All news reports show that once Israel made a decision, Hizballah lost ground quickly, and only international pressure prevented Israel from continuing on (to the Litani, to Beirut).
 
Israel voluntarily withdrew from Lebanon years ago, admittedly because they were tired of spending money and taking casualties occupying Lebanon. Perhaps this is "military means".
"2) Consolidating and growing political power in Lebanon"
Perhaps. The current anti-Syrian protests and the cancellation of Hizballah-sponsored protests suggest that Hizballah is losing. Nasrallah is demending more say in the Lebanese parliament, and the parliament is resisting. The jury is still out on this.
 
"3) Proving to be a stand off force against the Isrealis"
See #1 above.
"4) Proving that 4GW works and providing a perfect test ground for tactics and technology"
See #1 above.
Lind writes a good book; whether it has any value remains to be seen.
"5) The best advertisement that Russia and Iran ever got for their hardware at the Merkava's expense"
Combat performance is generally better than brochures for advertising, but later reports suggest that real Israeli tank losses were 20-30, the rest were easily repaired. This does not seem to be a particularly good advertisement.
"6) Wiping out Isreal's humint network in Lebanon earlier this year"
Perhaps. But my guess is that many Lebanese will not want Hizballah installations within 1000m of their homes, businesses, farms and families.
The best way to prevent Israeli damage "next time" is to make sure the Israelis know exactly where everything is.

"7) Capture of 2 Isreali POWs for trading"
This is Nasrallah’s admitted miscalculation that started the fighting. Nasrallah admits to regret having done it, and admits that he would not have done it, had he known the Israeli response.
An analysis of how #7 supports your claim of "outperforming investment", plus a discussion of Nasrallah’s comments, would be appreciated.

 

"I do believe that Hezbollah lost much of its heavy SRBM in the intial days of the war a) due to leaks on their storage locations and b) they are much harder to fire under the threat of the i

 
Quote    Reply

StateMachine       11/27/2006 12:53:46 AM

Israel has sent tanks into Gaza, surrounded Arafat’s compound, etc. These actions were major news items, sometimes even televised, and occurred many times and well before 2006. Who did not know of these actions? Apparently Nasrallah did not.


The interviews of Nasrallah indicate surprise that Israel would send in tanks and troops to recapture kidnapped soldiers. No matter how good or bad the translation is/was, Nasrallah’s reaction and words are not those of a grown man.


3000 Hizballah fighters may be a reasonable number. Israeli losses seem to be in the hundreds, under 300 IIRC. Estimates suggest that Hizballah lost between 1500 and 2000 fighters.

Nasrallah has made cross border attacks before and simply put up with the limited shelling that Isreal offered. There were other mitigating factors also directing Hezbollah to attack. It seems that Hamas's leader in Syria was desperate for assistance to take pressure off Hamas. Hezbollah did what it could.

There have been ~180 burials of Hezbollah fighters. Isreal took around 120 KIA. 2:3 kill ratio with no air defense is quite remarkable. I've never seen an estimate that claimed 1500+ Hezbollah killed. It not credible since that total dead estimates in Lebanon are now under 1000.

 


Yes, and Hisballah failed to do either.

a) Hisballah lost ground to the IAF, and only international pressure halted the loss (this was reported on all major TV, newspaper, magazine and wire news services the world over).

 

b) Hisballah military installations and positions within/under villages and houses has never been considered a method to protect civilians. Hizballah must positions its fighters and weapons "between" the civilians they wish to protect and the enemy they wish to fight.

The ceasefire ended the bombing of civilians in Beirut. Hezbollah was handling the IDF quite easily. And the stunt of choppering into the Litani was a sad waste of lives for a PR event. The Isrealis were mauled pretty badly in there.

There were no confirmed cases of Hezbollah firing from civilian positions. Had Hezbollah prepared seriously about countering the Isreali air superiority, the taking of the 2 soldiers would have been relatively cost free.

 

Hizballah lost, badly, and considering current protests in Lebanon (anti-Syrian protest happening, Hizballah protest cancelled) is still failing.

That may be the impression Isreal, but on balance, and I've read news and propoganda of both sides, Hezbollah fought the IDF to roughly a draw. Which of course is a bad loss to the side that had overwhelming firepower on paper.
 
Again, I acknowledge that Hezbollah failed to protect the rest of Lebanon from the IAF and the curious assassinations are working their intended effects. But the march of Hezbollah towards power in Lebanon is inexorable. There is simply no political mechanism to stop them with their Christian allies.
 

What Israeli land does Hizballah occupy? All news reports show that once Israel made a decision, Hizballah lost ground quickly, and only international pressure prevented Israel from continuing on (to the Litani, to Beirut).
Israel voluntarily withdrew from Lebanon years ago, admittedly because they were tired of spending money and taking casualties occupying Lebanon. Perhaps this is "military means".                                                                                                                                       
Yes the taking of land by military means occurred in 2000 when Hezbollah broke the SLA. The IDF which was used to sitting safely behind SLA lines brok
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       11/27/2006 3:56:26 AM

"Nasrallah has made cross border attacks before and simply put up with the limited shelling that Isreal offered. There were other mitigating factors also directing Hezbollah to attack. It seems that Hamas's leader in Syria was desperate for assistance to take pressure off Hamas. Hezbollah did what it could."

We agree, then, that 1) Hizballah was/is the aggressor, and 2) Israel is simply responding to Hizballah aggression.

 

"There have been ~180 burials of Hezbollah fighters. Isreal took around 120 KIA. 2:3 kill ratio with no air defense is quite remarkable. I've never seen an estimate that claimed 1500+ Hezbollah killed. It not credible since that total dead estimates in Lebanon are now under 1000."

This link quotes Nasrallah as admitting 1000 killed. The quote does not clearly specify Hizballah fighters, but the Nasrallah’s context implies fighters, as he claims 2000 is too high, and if he included civilians, he would have no reason to reduce the number.

1000 to 120 (+ severely wounded) works out to perhaps 5:1, and Nasrallah has reason to minimize Hizballah losses.

 

"The ceasefire ended the bombing of civilians in Beirut. Hezbollah was handling the IDF quite easily. And the stunt of choppering into the Litani was a sad waste of lives for a PR event. The Isrealis were mauled pretty badly in there."

"Badly" is a relative term. I recall stats, somewhere, that the Israelis were losing about 120 or so soldiers per year, and this was a political liability, as there was no war. The Hizballah losses during this time seem to have been much higher.

 

"There were no confirmed cases of Hezbollah firing from civilian positions. Had Hezbollah prepared seriously about countering the Isreali air superiority, the taking of the 2 soldiers would have been relatively cost free."

There’s video of Hizballah rocket launchers stationed between civilian buildings (apartments, IIRC), and much evidence of tunnels, launchers, etc., under and near villages.

Then there are the various "fauxtography" exercises of the MSM. These actions alone cast doubt on MSM claims no Hizballah forces in civilian areas.

 

"That may be the impression Isreal, but on balance, and I've read news and propoganda of both sides, Hezbollah fought the IDF to roughly a draw. Which of course is a bad loss to the side that had overwhelming firepower on paper."

Israel seems to have stalled initially, but once they made a decision and committed sufficient forces, things changed. Remember, the initial Israeli force was attacking through a prepared, fortified defence, and appears to have been outnumbered (2:1? I’ve read 3:1, but am not sure). The initial "draw" was changed to favor Israel until peace was arranged.

 

"Again, I acknowledge that Hezbollah failed to protect the rest of Lebanon from the IAF and the curious assassinations are working their intended effects. But the march of Hezbollah towards power in Lebanon is inexorable. There is simply no political mechanism to stop them with their Christian allies."

and (from the end of the post):

"And I'm just not seeing the loss of power in Lebanon you claim Hezbollah is undergoing. They were well on the way to toppling the Siniora gov until this latest curious assassination."

 This link points to increasing Iranian involvement in Lebanon. Note the Iranian urging of using the Iranian embassies in Damascus and Beirut as command and control centers, and Iranian officers in the field with Hizballah fighters.

This points to Iranian unhappiness with Nasrallah (and the results), and Iranian concern with their investment.

Again, the current anti-Syrian protests, the cancellation of Hizballah-sponsored protests, and the Lebanese parliament’s decision to investigate the assassination of Hariri, suggest that Hizballah is losing.
 

"Yes the taking of land by military means occurred in 2000 when Hezbollah broke the SLA. The IDF which was used to sitting safely behind SLA lines broke for the border rather hastily."
 
Link? I recall the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 to be a unilateral, political move. The drive from Beirut to the Israeli border is a day.

 

"I would be thinking more long term. Measuring Hezbollah's political rise over the last 6 years, not transient blips in their popularity, it's been quite a success."<
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       11/27/2006 5:12:56 AM
Gentlemen, congratulations on a very interesting thread. Full of info and free of bashing. A true joy.
 
Quote    Reply

dogberry       11/27/2006 12:43:22 PM
If Hezbollah started firing missles into Israeli cities and if there were a credible air defense network in southern Lebanon, would Israel start firing its own missles into Shia population centers.  Previous examples if London bombed then Berlin will be bombed or if Tehran bombed then Baghdad.  Would the tonnage of Israel fire dwarf any that Hezbollah could mount?
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis       11/27/2006 5:44:46 PM

This brings us back, finally, to my original scenario.

Suppose that Hizballah either subjugates Lebanon, or at least survives the failure of their coup, and decides to try again to reverse their fortunes with a big slice o’ Israel.

Hizballah starts launching ballistic missiles from behind UNIFIL, and Katyushas from villages inside UNIFIL territory. Israel responds, certainly with air power, possibly with ground forces.

Will the French or other European forces then defend Hizballah and fight the Israelis?

 

The scenario you propose would not exactly work out like that.
 
Were Hizbollah to start launching ballistic missiles from South Lebanon, that is from a territory where both Lebanese regular forces and UNIFIL European forces are present, it would receive retribution from those forces before Israel had any time launching a new extended bombing campaign.
 
Specifically, there is a reason why a Cobra counterbattery radar system was deployed alongside the same excellent AUF1 155mm cannons which (along with similar British cannons) put an end to the Serbian siege of Sarajevo in 1995. The Cobra + AUF1 combination is regarded as having a better reaction time than any artillery system in possession of Israel. Hizbollah fighters launching missiles from South Lebanon would have a really ***short*** life expectancy. About as long as that of an Israeli pilot playing at "mock" bomb runs against French forces now that patience with those antics has been clearly and publically broadcasted to have run really thin.
 
The French forces in South Lebanon are small in numbers, but their composition is indication of their goal :
- Being able to weigh on the side of lightly armored UNIFIL forces and avoid them being bossed around by hairy unwashed Jihadis & other Israeli soldiers ("Ooops my bad. I just killed UN peacekeepers") --- that's the job of the Leclerc MBT
- Killing in the nest any attempt by Hizbollah to rain more rockets on Israel --- that's the Cobra-AUF1 system for you
- Avoid being bossed around by Israeli fighter aircraft in CAS --- that's the Mistral missiles
 
The mission is risky, to say the least. It's not a foolproof protection against all possible actions by the two factions, far from that : Israel has clearly the means to overcome the small European contigents in South Lebanon under sheer numbers, just like Hizbullah could probably make the continuation of European deployments just as costly as the continuation of US occupation of Iraq. A dangerous bet has been taken, that both factions will be deterred from taking the kind of ***large scale*** actions necessary to uproot the European contingents, by the political consequences of doing so.
 
A dangerous bet it is, but a worthy one : given recent events, the two factions would most probably already have begun shooting on each other anew were it not for the presence of European forces in Lebanon, with a limited - but real and deadly - ability to hammer the first that begins.
 
There is a real chance (possibly an even chance ?) that a new slaughter of Lebanese and Israeli civilians will be avoided.
 
Of course, since this afterall is the Middle East, nothing can be taken for granted ...
 
 
Quote    Reply

StateMachine       11/28/2006 12:30:16 AM
We agree, then, that 1) Hizballah was/is the aggressor, and 2) Israel is simply responding to Hizballah aggression.
 
Well ignoring daily violations of Lebanese airspace, yes.
 
 
This link quotes Nasrallah as admitting 1000 killed. The quote does not clearly specify Hizballah fighters, but the Nasrallah’s context implies fighters, as he claims 2000 is too high, and if he included civilians, he would have no reason to reduce the number.
1000 to 120 (+ severely wounded) works out to perhaps 5:1, and Nasrallah has reason to minimize Hizballah losses.
 
 
Well the article jives exactly with what 99.99% of all the articles written on the war losses assert. Lebanon suffered about ~1000 dead total. Most them civilians in S Beirut. All sources I've read have come to a relatively stable number of just under 1000 dead total Lebanese.
 
Hezbollah lost around 180 KIA. Isreal ~ 120 KIA. 2:3.

 

"Badly" is a relative term. I recall stats, somewhere, that the Israelis were losing about 120 or so soldiers per year, and this was a political liability, as there was no war. The Hizballah losses during this time seem to have been much higher.
 
Not sure what you're referring to here.
 
 
There’s video of Hizballah rocket launchers stationed between civilian buildings (apartments, IIRC), and much evidence of tunnels, launchers, etc., under and near villages.

Then there are the various "fauxtography" exercises of the MSM. These actions alone cast doubt on MSM claims no Hizballah forces in civilian areas.

There's no evidence of Hezbollah firing from buildings occupied by civilians. Buildings are a legitmate entrenchment if they're not full of civilians. Even the Qana bombing propoganda was shown to be false. The video of Hezbollah firing from a building was NOT the Qana building which Isreal leveled with 42 or so civilians in side.
 
 
Israel seems to have stalled initially, but once they made a decision and committed sufficient forces, things changed. Remember, the initial Israeli force was attacking through a prepared, fortified defence, and appears to have been outnumbered (2:1? I’ve read 3:1, but am not sure). The initial "draw" was changed to favor Israel until peace was arranged.

Simply going to have to disagree here. Lebanese infrastructure and civilians in Beirut and Sidon were taking a beating but Hezbollah was in no danger of losing at any point. They were still fighting Isreali forces within sight of the border by the last day.



 
This link points to increasing Iranian involvement in Lebanon. Note the Iranian urging of using the Iranian embassies in Damascus and Beirut as command and control centers, and Iranian officers in the field with Hizballah fighters.
This points to Iranian unhappiness with Nasrallah (and the results), and Iranian concern with their investment.
 
2 problems.
 
1) If true it simply doesn't imply anything of the sort you're reading into it. Very similar to your reading of Lebanese casualties when Nasrallah says Lebanon suffered around a 1000 dead. It means simply what is stated.
 
2) A Saudi source

Again, the current anti-Syrian protests, the cancellation of Hizballah-sponsored protests, and the Lebanese parliament’s decision to investigate the assassination of Hariri, suggest that Hizballah is losing.
 
Again temporary blip. The curious assassination has stalled Hezbollah's likely control of the Lebanese gov. Someone is trying to foment a little civil war in Lebanon to short circuit Hezzbollah legal seizure of the reigns of gov.  I'm still betting on Hezbollah here.
 

Link? I recall the
 
Quote    Reply

StateMachine       11/28/2006 12:35:28 AM




This brings us back, finally, to my original scenario.


Suppose that Hizballah either subjugates Lebanon, or at least survives the failure of their coup, and decides to try again to reverse their fortunes with a big slice o’ Israel.


Hizballah starts launching ballistic missiles from behind UNIFIL, and Katyushas from villages inside UNIFIL territory. Israel responds, certainly with air power, possibly with ground forces.


Will the French or other European forces then defend Hizballah and fight the Israelis?


 



The scenario you propose would not exactly work out like that.

 

Were Hizbollah to start launching ballistic missiles from South Lebanon, that is from a territory where both Lebanese regular forces and UNIFIL European forces are present, it would receive retribution from those forces before Israel had any time launching a new extended bombing campaign.

 

Specifically, there is a reason why a Cobra counterbattery radar system was deployed alongside the same excellent AUF1 155mm cannons which (along with similar British cannons) put an end to the Serbian siege of Sarajevo in 1995. The Cobra + AUF1 combination is regarded as having a better reaction time than any artillery system in possession of Israel. Hizbollah fighters launching missiles from South Lebanon would have a really ***short*** life expectancy. About as long as that of an Israeli pilot playing at "mock" bomb runs against French forces now that patience with those antics has been clearly and publically broadcasted to have run really thin.

 

The French forces in South Lebanon are small in numbers, but their composition is indication of their goal :

- Being able to weigh on the side of lightly armored UNIFIL forces and avoid them being bossed around by hairy unwashed Jihadis & other Israeli soldiers ("Ooops my bad. I just killed UN peacekeepers") --- that's the job of the Leclerc MBT

- Killing in the nest any attempt by Hizbollah to rain more rockets on Israel --- that's the Cobra-AUF1 system for you

- Avoid being bossed around by Israeli fighter aircraft in CAS --- that's the Mistral missiles

 

The mission is risky, to say the least. It's not a foolproof protection against all possible actions by the two factions, far from that : Israel has clearly the means to overcome the small European contigents in South Lebanon under sheer numbers, just like Hizbullah could probably make the continuation of European deployments just as costly as the continuation of US occupation of Iraq. A dangerous bet has been taken, that both factions will be deterred from taking the kind of ***large scale*** actions necessary to uproot the European contingents, by the political consequences of doing so.

 

A dangerous bet it is, but a worthy one : given recent events, the two factions would most probably already have begun shooting on each other anew were it not for the presence of European forces in Lebanon, with a limited - but real and deadly - ability to hammer the first that begins.

 

There is a real chance (possibly an even chance ?) that a new slaughter of Lebanese and Israeli civilians will be avoided.

 

Of course, since this afterall is the Middle East, nothing can be taken for granted ...

 



Very good analysis.
 
And i would simply refer you and everyone back to your original post.
 
What are Isreal's goals behind this otherwise inexplicable dangerous behaviour?
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       11/28/2006 4:41:28 AM
[A] We agree, then, that 1) Hizballah was/is the aggressor, and 2) Israel is simply responding to Hizballah aggression.
[SM]"Well ignoring daily violations of Lebanese airspace, yes."

From your posts of 11/21/2006 9:53:28 PM ". . .the fact that Hezbollah has their 2 IDF soldiers as trading bait . . .", 11/24/2006 4:33:14 PM "7) Capture of 2 Isreali POWs for trading", and from one of my previous links, Nasrallah admits to kidnapping Israeli soldiers, in an attempt to obtain the release of several Hizballah fighters, one of whom murdered a 4-year-old girl.

Israeli "daily violations of Lebanese airspace" are not the proximate cause of the events of Summer 2006. So indeed we further agree that Nasrallah and Hizballah’s actions are responsible for the events of Summer 2006.

 

[A] This link quotes Nasrallah as admitting 1000 killed. . . . . and Nasrallah has reason to minimize Hizballah losses.
[SM]"Well the article jives exactly with what 99.99% of all the articles written on the war losses assert. Lebanon suffered about ~1000 dead total. Most them civilians in S Beirut. All sources I've read have come to a relatively stable number of just under 1000 dead total Lebanese.

Hezbollah lost around 180 KIA. Isreal ~ 120 KIA. 2:3."

From your 11/27/2006 12:53:46 AM post "There have been ~180 burials of Hezbollah fighters". But Israel drove Hizballah from the field. Clearly, the burial count is low. The context of Nasrallah’s words imply Hizballah fighters killed, not Lebanese civilians.

 

[SM]"There's no evidence of Hezbollah firing from buildings occupied by civilians. Buildings are a legitmate entrenchment if they're not full of civilians. Even the Qana bombing propoganda was shown to be false. . . ."

and

[SM]"No evidence of Hezbollah near civilians."Bunkers built under, and rocket launchers stored in, villages, apartment buildings and residential areas are in fact near civilians. Rocket launchers used from between apartment buildings are using civilians as shields.

If "buildings are a legitimate entrenchment if they’re not full of civilians" (odd, does entrenchment = target?), then why did Hizballah launch thousands of rockets and several missiles at many Israeli towns (composed of many buildings full of many civilians). Why is Hizballah rebuilding its stocks, implying the same threat?

 

[A] . . . The initial "draw" was changed to favor Israel until peace was arranged.
[SM]"Simply going to have to disagree here. Lebanese infrastructure and civilians in Beirut and Sidon were taking a beating but Hezbollah was in no danger of losing at any point. They were still fighting Isreali forces within sight of the border by the last day."

Doubtless at least one Hizballah fighter was still within sight of the Israeli border, but not in the areas where Israel attacked. But we shall agree to disagree on this point.


[SM]"2 problems.

1) If true it simply doesn't imply anything of the sort you're reading into it. Very similar to your reading of Lebanese casualties when Nasrallah says Lebanon suffered around a 1000 dead. It means simply what is stated.

2) A Saudi source"
and
[A] The Iranians seem to have severe doubts.
[SM]"Sorry that's simply not there in the article(with dubious sources)."

If the reports in the article (this link) are true, then your objection to the Saudi source (partly confirmed by the Israelis) is not valid.

If Hizballah’s performance was satisfactory to the Iranians, then why the increased Iranian involvement? The best explanation for the meaning of the article (its implication) is that Hizballah’s performance was unsatisfactory, and now the Iranians are looking to protect their investment.


[A]Again, the current anti-Syrian protests, . . . . . . suggest that Hizballah is losing.
[SM]"Again temporary blip. The curious assassination has stalled Hezbollah's likely control of the Lebanese gov. Someone is trying to foment a little civil war in Lebanon to short circuit Hezzbollah legal seizure of the reigns of gov. I'm still betting on Hezbollah here."

and

[SM]"Hezbollah has a very good chance of running Lebanon with Aoun by next spring."

". . . Hezzbollah legal seizure of the reigns of gov."?

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics