How Israel Lost the War in Lebanon

[BaliBabyDoc]

Israel's primary handicaps were arrogance and ignorance:

utility of air power
Hezbollah training
Hezbollah resources
'likely' response of Lebanese civilians

There was never anything worth winning that Israel was going to achieve by attacking Lebanon.

 

[Lemon law]

Of course there was something worth winning and defending----Israelie invulnerability---and really three surprises wrapped on one package.

1. For the first time the arab could terrorise the Israelies with a new weapon---the rocket.

2. The rocket caught the Israelies flat footed---but make no mistake---this was a joint US Israelie planned offensive--the surprise was that the rockets were there in numbers and cached.

3. Israel found itself unable to eliminate Hezbollah and Hezbollah underestimated the extent Israel would retaliate against civialian infra structure and innocent people.

But all in all its a wake up call to the entire world----the hatreds have built up to dangerously new highs---if this conflict is not settled fairly and soon---the entire mid-east will be engulfed by a tragic war of unimaginable destruction.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Heh, you and you people's argument on how Hezbollah hid among the people is really getting old. Yeah they hid among the people, that's how every guerrilla group in the know human history fight, but Israel have absolute control on hitting that missile launch button. Israel is the one who made the decisions to bomb airport, road and hospitals. Israel is the one who made the decision to attack civilian targets that displaced million.

A sovereign nation has a right to defend itself from attack, even if the enemy in question is a terrorist organization.

Yes, Israel has control over hitting the missile launcher...the Lebanese government has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that Hezbollah does not have access to munitions and is not free to operate within the borders of their country.

Oh, and ease up on the dramatics...millions were not displaced.

They have absolute control over what kind of response is needed over 2 kidnapped and 3 killed soldiers. They are the ones who decided to take all the actions, and they are the ones that caused all the destructions.

Most reasonable people recognize that both Israel and Hezbollah are to blame for all of this...two soldiers kidnapped was simply the spark that set off a powerkeg that has been sitting in the region for decades.

But hey, if you are kinda guy who would believe British when they said American rebels were responsible when British burning down all these villages, guess I cannot convince you otherwise.

srael stole Palistinian land in 1948 and more arab land later---holding it will be another thing.----this recent planned Israeli offensive was simply another day in which the world changed.-------and the terrain implies the tactics.

True, although Israeli land grabs in the region were a direct result of failed Arab offensives against Israel...to the victor goes the spoils.

But the offensive battleground nightmare of every military commander is urban street fighting---where the enemy knows all the alleys and streets---and you are going in blind. Even with vastly superior technology---the odds favors the defenders.---and even if you blow the buildings up---the rubble then makes excellent hiding places for the dug in defenders.

The Nazis learned this lesson the hard way in Stalingrad...as have countless other armies over the centuries...insurgent and terrorist forces add another dimension, in that they have home field advantage AND you cannot distinguish them as combatants.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Israel stole Palistinian land in 1948 and more arab land later---holding it will be another thing.----this recent planned Israeli offensive was simply another day in which the world changed.-------and the terrain implies the tactics.

People, stop arguing with this guy; he is obviously the Mel Gibson-type. He should just come out in the open and admit being a Jew/Israel-hater.

Any one who says that the Jews stole land in 1948 is a partisan, ignoring history, a complete fool, or all of the above.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, you and you people's argument on how Hezbollah hid among the people is really getting old. Yeah they hid among the people, that's how every guerrilla group in the know human history fight, but Israel have absolute control on hitting that missile launch button. Israel is the one who made the decisions to bomb airport, road and hospitals. Israel is the one who made the decision to attack civilian targets that displaced million.

Like the other guy said, ease up on the dramatics.
Other than that, we have yet to hear your suggestion to what Israel should've done in response Hezbollah's actions.

 

[Dari]

Well, Bush said Hezbullah lost, so yeah Israel, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Then again, Bush also said It could take time for world to view war as a Hezbollah loss. Hmmm, just like it took time for you to see that America lost? What a fool.

And The Economist, perhaps the most respected magazine in the world, said Hezbullah won the war.

Let's see, Bush vs. The Economist? One is a fool and the other represents those in the center. Whose right, might I ask?

 

[Dari]

Chutzpah: Israel whines to Russia about Hezbullah weapons. Hahaha

Israel to Moscow: Hezbollah used Russian-made missiles against IDF

Israel has complained to Russia that Russian-made anti-tank missiles have reached Hezbollah guerrillas who used them against Israel Defense Forces troops in south Lebanon, government officials said Friday.

An Israeli delegation traveled to Moscow earlier this week to deliver the
complaint, said Asaf Shariv, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The anti-tank missiles proved to be one of Hezbollah's most effective weapons in combat with Israeli soldiers in Lebanon. Such missiles killed at least 50 of the 118 soldiers who died in the 34-day war that ended this week.

Another government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter with the media, said the delegation was "senior," but refused to say who they would be meeting with in Russia.

Israel does not accuse Russia of directly arming Hezbollah, but complains that Russia sold the weapons to Iran and Syria, known supporters of Hezbollah, who then passed them on to the guerrilla group.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said Russia maintains strict controls over its weapons sales, and that tight supervision "makes any inaccuracy in weapons destinations impossible."

Anatoly Tsyganok, head of Russia's Military Forecasting Center, ruled out the possibility that modern anti-tank weapons had reached Hezbollah through Russia or Syria.

"Any accusations alleging Russian or Syrian deliveries of anti-tank weapons to any forces in Lebanon are unfounded. The Israeli side has not presented any evidence of this, and it is unlikely that it will," Tsyganok was recently quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

"Most probably, such weapons, should Hezbollah militants really have any,
might have been brought to Lebanon through third countries," he added.

At least 20 Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed over the course of one month's fighting in Lebanon as a result of anti-tank missile fire from Hezbollah guerillas.

Although the IDF has yet to provide detailed data, it is widely acknowledged that many tanks were seriously damaged from the missiles (and other explosives), and some tanks were completely destroyed.

It is clearly evident that Hezbollah exerted considerable effort in preparing and training its anti-tank units in addition to its build-up of its Katyusha rocket arsenal.

Hezbollah has at its disposal a wide variety of missiles provided by Iran and Syria, including the advanced "Kornet" and "Metis" models - whose range reaches a number of kilometers - as well as the upgraded Sagger missiles, TOW anti-tank missiles, and older-model rocket-propelled grenades.

The missiles, which were fired at a distance of up to 2 kilometers from their target, enabled Hezbollah to strike at IDF tanks and armored vehicles. In addition, the weapons also proved useful for fighting in built-up urban areas.

In the village of Aita Shaab, Hezbollah fighters armed with the missiles were able to score precise hits on buildings which IDF soldiers used for cover. Hezbollah also successfully targeted IDF troops who sought to advance in open areas.

Soldiers who returned from the front recounted how Hezbollah operatives were able to fire missiles accurately through windows of homes in which soldiers stayed.

 

[Aisengard]

Well Dari, I'm glad you find war amusing. Says a lot about your mindset.

Why shouldn't a country complain about another country funding an offending terrorist group?

All of you saying how Israel would be nothing without US support, look at your own side. Hezbollah would barely exist if it were not for Iran and I guess now Russia.

 

[Aimster]

IDF soldiers are complaining about how the war was fought.

They are saying they had a major lack of supplies and that they had poor communications.

There was no planning going into Lebanon according to members of the IDF and they are mad at their government.

They say the problem rests with the IDF's arrogance with their air power. They relied heavily on an air campaign and didn't concentrate on the ground attack.

They are also complaining that they fought this war for nothing. Saying that Hezbollah will rearm again.

They also blame Iran and Syria for providing Hezbollah with the tactics and weapons used against Israel. Hezbollah is a mini Syria/Iran army. Syria and Iran gain while Lebanon loses during these conflicts.

 

[Lemon law]

It is a founding principle of the UN that land gained in combat victory does not belong to the winning army---Israel---last time I checked is a UN member and is bound by those tenets.

So my description of theft still applies in addition to the theft of Palistinian land ---now called the right to return.

And just because I don't blindly buy Israelie propaganda does not mean I don't see the arab side as wrong also.

 

[straightalker]

The Israeli Mossad is one of the World's most prolific terrorist organizations. Unhook your hose that you have attaching yourself to the Matrix Aisengard.

The USA, British, Russian and Chinese each conduct more terrtorism around the World than any miscreant Nation of perps like Iran.

It's mostly all on record and many books by many high level Intel and Military men tell the story.

A good one is found here...

http://expendableelite.com/

Many other good ones exist.

The modus operundi is the Intel agent (terrorist) goes into a Nation with a democratically elected Government and train insurgents to overthrow it to install a Dictator who will sell out that Countries resources to select insider Corporations. Millions of people on the planet have been killed in the process.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It is a founding principle of the UN that land gained in combat victory does not belong to the winning army---Israel---last time I checked is a UN member and is bound by those tenets.

So my description of theft still applies in addition to the theft of Palistinian land ---now called the right to return.

And just because I don't blindly buy Israelie propaganda does not mean I don't see the arab side as wrong also.

Hmm, resolution 181, passed in 1947, not honored by Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Huh? Palestinian refugees? What about the Jewish refugees forced out of the arab countries in one way or another? The numbers seem to be equal to those Palestinians who fled, so I'd say it evens out and nobody owes nobody.

Other than that, methinks you should check your vision.

 

[Lemon law]

The article on resolution 181 supports my position---Palistinians were "forced out"--land forfeit. At the point of a gun.---many arab jews volentarily left and went to Israel. Some of this was off-setting injustice---bottom line---the Palistinians is still screwed.---and you still have not addressed the 1967 and 82 land grabs.

But this current conflict is just wrong piled on another and that piled on many others.---and no number of wrongs make a right--although each side endevors to prove the other wrong under the assumtion that would then make them right----sorry, it just don't work that way----so we need to go back to 1948---and then establish a justice on the status quo then in my opinion.----so the right to return must be on the table.---or any just settlement cannot be fairly decided.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The article on resolution 181 supports my position---Palistinians were "forced out"--land forfeit. At the point of a gun.

I'm sorry, but did you just pull that statement straight out of your ass? Nobody forced them out, just like nobody forced them out when the Brits took over, or when the Ottomans took over -- it would have been a change of landlord, from Brits to a democratic Israeli state in which they could've participated just like those Arabs who stayed.

Let me copy & paste some stuff for you from here.

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily "al-Hoda" (June 8, 1951):

[Azzam Pasha, Arab League secretary,] assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states.

The London Economist (October 2, 1948) reported an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:

There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.

Yep, forced at gun point...

many arab jews volentarily left and went to Israel. Some of this was off-setting injustice---bottom line---the Palistinians is still screwed.

Allright, here's a little quote just for you:

In 1948, approximately 75,000 Jews lived in Egypt. About 100 remain today, mostly in Cairo. In 1948, Jewish neighborhoods in Cairo suffered bomb attacks that killed at least 70 Jews. Hundreds of Jews were arrested and had their property confiscated.

Evidently you didn't read anything, only to write here that the left "voluntarily". Sure, you can argue that in some countries they weren't physically thrown out, but then again, most people get the hint after bing assaulted, bombed, arrested, and having their property confiscated.

As for the Palestinian being screwed, a very good part of it is due to their friends (see quotes above), right along with hardworking, glorious leaders.

---and you still have not addressed the 1967 and 82 land grabs.

Spoken like a true demagogue -- without any context!
In 1967, Jordan decided to join the war, and lost the West Bank. Since the Palestinian have been under Jordanain rule for almost 20 years with no state, I might as well say (sarcastically) that Israel liberated the Palestinians from the Jordanians. Anyway, the Jordanian involvement in the war has demonstrated to the Israeli generals how vulernable the country is without any buffer zone -- Jordan could shell Tel-Aviv easily, as an example; that is why they decided to retain the West Bank, as a safety zone. Perhaps if you were in their place you would've returned it right away, but then I'd guess your survival instincts aren't as strong as your capacity to generate hot air.

The operation in 1982 was due to PLO terror attacks from Lebanon. Arguably, they went to deep, stayed when they shouldn't have. Nevertheless, as of 2000, Israel has fully withdrawn from Lebanon. And allow me to preempt you on the Shebaa Farms issue (since I know you're gonna wail about it), they were never part of Lebanon.

Oh, and this reminds of the Golan Heights -- same thing as with the West Bank, buffer zone, and the fact that due to its height it provides a strategic advantage to its holder, allowing them to dominate the surrounding area.

But this current conflict is just wrong piled on another and that piled on many others.---and no number of wrongs make a right--although each side endevors to prove the other wrong under the assumtion that would then make them right----sorry, it just don't work that way----so we need to go back to 1948---and then establish a justice on the status quo then in my opinion.

Funny, that's the exact definition of a sore loser; the Arabs embarked on destroying the state of Israel in 1948, and have lost bitterly back then, and throughout the years; now they -- and you -- are advocating a return to the "status quo", which they were so adamandly opposed to at the time.

so the right to return must be on the table.---or any just settlement cannot be fairly decided.

There is no such thing as "right of return". Resolution 194 merely suggest/urges that the refugee issue should be resolved. Furthermore, in a classical example of backtracking, and going-back-in-time wishful-thinking that you are now exhibiting, the states of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt voted against resolution 194, effectively voting against this so called "right of return". Here are some more quotes from this page (look there for references), just so you get the context that you so desperately need:

According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, "the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier.

and

After the Arabs' defeat in the 1948 war, their positions became confused: some Arab leaders demanded the "return" of the "expelled" refugees to their former homes despite the evidence that Arab leaders had called upon Arabs to flee. [Such as President Truman's International Development Advisory Board Report, March 7, 1951: "Arab leaders summoned Arabs of Palestine to mass evacuation... as the documented facts reveal..."] At the same time, Emile Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Command, called for the prevention of the refugees from "return." He stated in the Beirut Telegraph on August 6, 1948: "it is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews.... It would serve as a first step toward Arab recognition of the state of Israel and Partition."

Hmm... methinks you have a problem with your "at gunpoint" argument -- seems like it was the Arab League's gun that got them to leave, and did not let them return. And to top that off, they were never really integrated in the countries they were, example: refugees in Lebanon, still after 40 years; you'd think that by now they would've received citizenship.

Now what did King Hussein say? Ah, yes:

Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem
in an irresponsible manner.... they have used the Palestine
people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and,
I could say, even criminal.
-- King Hussein of Jordan, 1960

(damn many typos fixed)

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: The Green Bean


America fought Israel's war and is now paying heavily for it both financially and militarily. The middle east is in sh!t right now. Another stupid move may cause a full blown war. Arab countries, Iran, Pakistan would all get involved in someway. In return, America would come to Israel's help which may just cause China to invade Taiwan, North Korea bomb South Korea and Japan since the US will be involved elsewhere. Russia will look to establish its say in the region. India will take advantage if Pakistan does get dragged in. And in the end everyone would be a loser. Atleast we would see where Europe's loyalty lies. And thats why I think an attack on Iran would be very very dangerous.

Bush has made the world the most dangerous since the Cold War.

I thought 9/11 was what made the world more dangerous...

9/11 was a scrapegoat for Bush's imperialistic stupidity.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its one thing to talk about fighting in a total desert type envoronment---where your side has tanks on the ground and total domination of the air---which is what the USA had in Gulf war one. US tanks moving a a fairly good clip could shoot at and hit the Iraqi tank outside of the range the Iraqi tank could even shoot a shell.

But the battleground in Southern Lebanon was not total barren waste---you have trees, terrain that restricts and funnels movement of heavy equipment, rocks, caves, and all that makes it difficult to see much from the air---and aids the defender---and in the last big war we were in and lost--Vietnam---a dense jungle tree canopy allowed the enemy to sneak very close without being seen.----------the IDF was overconfident---and paid for it----but will be very unlikely to repeat that mistake in future.---nor will Hezbollah fail to learn either.

But the offensive battleground nightmare of every military commander is urban street fighting---where the enemy knows all the alleys and streets---and you are going in blind.
Even with vastly superior technology---the odds favors the defenders.---and even if you blow the buildings up---the rubble then makes excellent hiding places for the dug in defenders.

To occupy something is one thing----to hold it is another thing-----in early 1942---after executing a surpise attack on Peal harbor--the world changed---all of the Eastern Pacific Ocean shortly thereafter became a Japanese lake south to Australia---and nothing moved on that lake without the permission of the Japanese. Three years later, the picture changed as a rather enraged USA had them chased back to their home Islands---and what was left unsunk of the Japanese fleet was out of oil and useless.

Israel stole Palistinian land in 1948 and more arab land later---holding it will be another thing.----this recent planned Israeli offensive was simply another day in which the world changed.-------and the terrain implies the tactics.

You did reasonable in your first four paragraphs.
Then you lost it in the last.

How can land be considered to be stolen when you are attacked and then win & conquer the treacherous enemy.

The US left VN; the conflict was not "won" due to political will, not due to military losses.
Much also has to due with the rules of engagement. When the rules handicap you, much effort is wasted.

So if Iran can conquer Israel, it has the right to hold it and rule it and abduct anyone it feels like?

 

[imported_dna]

Yep. The Palestinians had the past 12 years to own up to their problems, get their act togather, and make something out of themselves. They chose not to, and as usual, Israel is at fault for everything. Someone put it very nicely:

Palestinians - archetype ?victims? no matter how many teenagers they murder in bars and fast food outlets. Never responsible for anything they do ? or done in their name - because of ?root causes? or ?legitimate grievances?.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Hezbollah won because they don't care about 'their people'. To them, a Lebanese citizen is better dead than alive. Just like Hamas and Palestinians. It's sickening. The more of their innocents dead, the better off they are.

Haha, Hezbollah don't care about their ppl but they are the first to start reconstruction in lebanon. Israel love humanity, but they are the one bombing the heck out of lebanon.

I love ur logic.

If the Hezbollah love the Lebanese so much, then why did they use the Lebanese people as human shields?

 

[Lemon law]

The Hezbollah is using the Lebanse people as human shields sounds like the latest big lie talking point---repeat it often enough and people will think its the unquestioned truth.

Where that assertion is tested is in Lebanon------and if you are right that Hezbollah should not have used that tactic---your proof of rightness is in the pudding--and one would then expect to see Hezbollah support to plumit among the Lebanese people.

But instead Hezbollah support has gone from 25% initially to 75% after the Israeli actions.

If the Lebanese don't buy it, even after they paid the price, why should anyone else?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Don't you think that firing rockets from civilian areas knowing that the enemy doesn't want to kill civilians in its effort to wipe out your rocket launchers is the equivalent of using those people as human shields? If that wasn't the purpose, then why not set up the rocket launchers in open areas, away from civilians?

If the Lebanese are too stupid to see how they're being used, then perhaps they really do deserve to have their lands seized and get dispossessed.

 

[Lemon law]

Whipper Snapper-----------please explain to me exactly how many Rockets were being launched from and were hitting Israel from what is now left of beautiful downtown Beruit.

If you can show me exactly one such Rocket LAUNCHED FROM BERUIT---THAT HIT ISRAEL---what you say could be valid---failing that you need to be discredited and not pollute this conversation with phony logic.

Face it----Israel had a right to defend itself from the sites that were launching Rockets----and no such right to go beyond that point. Beyond that point, and Israel is just engaging in mass murder and at random terrorism of an innocent civilian population.

You are also ignoring the evidence of Seymour Hersh who demonstrates that this whole Israelie incursion into Lebanon was pre-planned---and just needed an incident to trigger.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Wasn't Isreal bombing Hezbollah targets in Lebanon? Maybe they should have set up their offices away from civilian areas.

Did Isreal have a pre-planned plan for going into Lebanon? Of course--why wouldn't they? That's just standard military due diligence. Likewise, I'm sure the U.S. has a plan for invading China, a plan for invading Cuba, a plan for invading Mexico, a plan for invading Iran, a plan for nuclear war, etc. Merely having a contingency plan isn't the same as having intent or a burning desire.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Wasn't Isreal bombing Hezbollah targets in Lebanon? Maybe they should have set up their offices away from civilian areas.

Did Isreal have a pre-planned plan for going into Lebanon? Of course--why wouldn't they? That's just standard military due diligence. Likewise, I'm sure the U.S. has a plan for invading China, a plan for invading Cuba, a plan for invading Mexico, a plan for invading Iran, a plan for nuclear war, etc. Merely having a contingency plan isn't the same as having intent or a burning desire.

Meh. Israel has had a burning desire to get rid of Hizbollah ever since they were driven out of Lebanon. They have a burning desire to get rid of them still - there is a lot of talk in Israel about round two in this war.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I say good for Isreal, then. Hezbollah has been attacking Isreal for years. Why Isreal pulled back instead of going in to crush them, I don't know. It succumbed to international pressure from nations that have a policy of appeasement, I suppose.

 

[imported_dna]

Meh, plenty in the Arab world have had a burning desire to get rid of Israel for the past 60 years. The have a burning desire to get rid of them still - there is still a lot of talk in the Arab world about round 29 of this war.