BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:20 PM

Goodbye - mug!

Drop a sheckel in the hat on your way out. Jews have meant trouble ever since they butchered Jesus!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:54 AM

When the trolls start spewing their hatred of Jews, its time for me to leave. I don't like the Zionist State of Israel any more than I like the administration of the U.S. but it doesn't mean I hate Jews or Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:41 AM

History of Lebanon The Cedar Revolution of 2005 AD

The Cedar Revolution

Syria kept persecuting the Lebanese leaders who resisted its occupation of Lebanon.Exiled Premier General Michel Aoun is threatened to be arrested if he tries to return to Lebanon, while the leader of the Lebanese Forces ex-militia Samir Gaegae is imprisoned in Lebanon since 1994.

Joumblat's first aid Marwan Hamade escaped an assassination attempt by a car bomb in October 2004. Former premier Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut on February 14, 2005 by a massive car bomb that killed sixteen other people.

The opposition met after Hariri's assassination later that night and publicly accused the pro-Syrian government and Damascus of being behind the assassination. They called for the Syrian troops to pullout of Lebanon, demanded an international protection for captured Lebanon, and called on the pro-Syrian illegal government to resign.

On February 18, 2005, the opposition launched the "Independence Peaceful Uprising" to liberate Lebanon, motivating the Lebanese mass to support its move. The Lebanese in occupied Lebanon and in Diaspora held mass rallies to support the freedom of their occupied motherland. The protests continued -- larger, louder and bolder -- until the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon resigned on February 28, 2005.

On March 5, 2005 the Syrian president bowed down to the national and international pressure, and announced that the Syrian army would pull out from Lebanon in two stages, without setting a timeline for the withdrawal, yet proclaiming the implementation of the UN resolution 1559. The Syrian troops started a partial withdrawal from Beirut and Northern Lebanon on March 8 th. The popular demonstrations continued and reached their peak on March 14, 2005 when the Lebanese people rallying against Syrian occupation held the largest demonstration in Lebanon 's history with over a million demonstrators.

By the end of March 2005, the Syrian government pulled most of their troops and dismantled all of its intelligence stations in Beirut and north Lebanon . While the Lebanese were celebrating the withdrawal of the Syrian army in the areas they evacuated, pro-Syrian militants made several appearances as several bomb explosions took place around the country. The Lebanese opposition, the United Nations and the international community held the Syrian regime and its proxy government responsible for any security problems against the people of Lebanon.

On February 26, 2005 , a United Nations fact-finding mission held Syria and its proxy regime in Lebanon responsible for the political events that led to Hariri's assassination. It also accused the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon of misleading the investigation and hiding evidence to cover up the crime. On April 7, 2005 , the United Nations Security Council ordered an international investigation into Hariri's assassination opposition through resolution 1595.

In response to the continuous United States-led pressure and in face of popular protests, the Syrian government pledged to pull out by April 30, 2005 .

The peaceful "Cedar Revolution" continued in Lebanon and around the world, seeking the independence of Lebanon, and calling for general elections free from Syrian interference. The Syrian army withdrew its troops from Lebanon end of April 2005 after 30 years of occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:38 AM

Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003

The Lebanese lobbying groups in the United States managed to draft a bill with the American legislators supporting the freedom of Lebanon. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act was passed by the United States Congress, and signed by President George W. Bush in 2003.

The act called "to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, and cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq".

It finally restored the importance of supporting Lebanon's independence by stating that "the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity is in the national security interest of the United States."

The French government and several other European states followed the United States' steps calling for a full Syrian withdrawal of its army and security forces from Lebanon. However, the Syrian regime kept trying to release the pressure by announcing partial redeployments in Beirut suburbs.
UN Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004

The International community was growing convinced that the Syrian regime did not play any positive role in Lebanon, not to mention its negative role in supporting the ex-dictator regime of Saddam Hussein, and the insurgents in Iraq against the new Iraqi government.

The Syrian control of Lebanon was very obvious when the Syrian government wanted to renew the expired term of the Syrian-appointed president in Lebanon Emile Lahoud. The Syrian regime found in Lahoud an ally that no one could match, so they worked to amend the Lebanese constitution which prevents the re-election of presidents.

The United States and France drafted a resolution that was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004 as Resolution 1559. It supported a free and fair presidential election in Lebanon to be conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules, devised without foreign interference or influence, and called upon all forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

The resolution called also for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias in the country.

The Syrian regime ignored the resolution and forced the puppet parliament in Lebanon to amend the constitution of Lebanon and extend the Pro-Syrian's president term for three more years despite the wide public opposition to Lahoud.

The Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council in the end of September 2004. His report stated that the Syrian regime refuses to pull its troops and security forces from Lebanon, and that neither the Syrian government nor its proxy government in Lebanon is working to disarm the militias in the country such as Hezbollah and the radical Palestinian militias.
Growing Opposition to Syrian Occupation

The United Nations Resolution showed a regional and international interest in the case of our small Lebanon. Arabic media sources from several Arabic countries broke the conventional taboo of criticizing other Arabic regimes.

Terms such as "pro-Syrian government in Lebanon", "Pro-Syrian president of Lebanon" and "Syrian-appointed president" were utilized in the Arabic media joining the international community in describing the Syrian homogony over Lebanon. Voices from Jordan and the Arabian Gulf countries called openly on Syria to implement Resolution 1559.

By the end of 2004, the public opposition to the Syrian occupation and its proxy regime in Lebanon grew substantially and attracted many political leaders including even some of those who were previously allied with the Syrian regime such as prominent Muslim-Sunni leader Rafik Hariri, and Druze leader Walid Juomblat.

The Lebanese opposition built a wide Christian-Muslim opposition front and decided to participate in the general elections expected in May 2005 benefiting form the international attention to the Lebanese cause.

The conflict regarding resolution 1559 in Lebanon remained ongoing between those who are hoping to implement it, and those who are afraid of loosing their major power in the country – their martial force. As the resolution calls for full withdrawal of Syrian forces, and the disarming of Hezbollah and radical militias, the latter three parties are striving to prevent its implementation so they can maintain an exceptional power through the use of physical control.

The Lebanese who oppose the Syrian occupation and support the UN resolution 1559, faced physical and mental persecution from the pro-Syrian regime in Lebanon, and had to face the armed forces who oppose the resolution.

The task was not easy with hundreds of Lebanese fearing the fate of those who were killed in Lebanon or those who have been in Syrian prisons for more than twenty years; imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:37 AM

Contemporary Lebnaon (2001 AD - 2004 AD)

August 7 th 2001 Events

In the new millennium, the Syrian army and intelligence members still continue to occupy Lebanon, devastating its people. Hundreds of Lebanese have been arrested, abducted, tortured, imprisoned and killed; moreover, many of them have even been subjected to chemical and biological experiments in Syrian prisons. (for Details)

In August 7 and 8, 2001, the Lebanese Maronite-Catholic Patriarch Nasrallah Peter Sfeir sponsored a historic reconciliation between Druze and Christian former militias that had confronted each other in fierce battles during the war in Lebanon.

The Syrian regime and its proxy government in Lebanon were not pleased with the reconciliation, which was seen as a potential threat to the influence of the Syrian regime in Lebanon. Security forces in occupied Lebanon arrested hundreds of Lebanese opposition activists and leaders from their homes and businesses.

Males and females aging between 16 and 77 were abducted and detained without legal charges. Around a hundred of them were sent to martial courts with political charges; some spent years in jail.

People from Lebanon and the world were astonished by scenes of civilians protected by Syrian troops and their proxy regime in Lebanon, attacking Lebanese students who were protesting, in what later became known as the "Events of August 7 th".

Millions of Lebanese descendants around the world were moved by the devastation and the active Lebanese movements in occupied Lebanon. Lebanese organizations, exiled Premier and individuals around the world struggled to bring international attention to the small occupied country of Lebanon.

Remarkable efforts were shown in the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.
September 11 th Attacks and Lebanon

The terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and other targets in the United States of America rearranged the priorities of the most powerful countries and drew attention to some previously neglected cases such as the Lebanese crisis.

The deterioration of democracy in Lebanon, the freedom that some extremist Palestinian militia enjoyed in protected zones, and the uncontrolled fund transactions in the free-market-Lebanon became major concerns in the global war against terrorism.
Lebanon's MTV

With more pressure from local and international groups, the Syrian regime tried to shape up its image in Lebanon; it announced partial redeployments from several areas around and north of Beirut. However, these steps were not convincing at any level to either local opposition groups or the international community.

The opposition groups and parties were growing stronger because of the illegal aspect of the continuous Syrian control over Lebanon, and the negative social and economical consequences it brought to Lebanon.

In 2002, after the death of a legislator in the Syrian-controlled parliament of Lebanon, a bi-election took place.

The Syrian regime planned to appoint a legislator through a phony election process. However, the opposition groups wanted to prove their strength and planned to run Gabriel Murr against the Pro-Syrian candidate Mirna Murr, and since the elections were taking place in one district only, this would make it harder to manipulate the results.

The pro-Syrian regime was so confident of its victory because of the deceiving techniques it employs, such as forcing citizens to fill their voting ballots in public, and allowing the illegal naturalized citizens to vote. Despite all the illegal methods used, the Anti-Syrian candidate won the highest number of votes with about 45% while the pro-Syrian candidate received 43% of the votes.

The Pro-Syrian government in Lebanon annulled the results, and appointed a third candidate who got only 2% of the votes for the empty seat. Furthermore, it shut down completely the Murr television station (MTV) and Radio Mount-Lebanon, owned by the Anti-Syrian candidate, and sent hundreds of families to unemployment.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:35 AM

http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1990.php

History of Lebanon Syrian Occupation (1991 AD - 2000 AD)

Proxy Regime

The Syrian status quo imposed what became known as the "Taef Accord". The Arab-League-brokered "Taif Agreement" called for political reforms and for disarming all militias in Lebanon.

On the other hand, it legitimized the Syrian army's occupation of Lebanon and mentioned only a partial redeployment of the Syrian troops upon the request of the (pro-Syrian) government in Lebanon.

The Syrian-appointed government in Lebanon exiled the Lebanese Premier to France and 'legitimized' the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Syria took drastic measures to enforce its martial and political presence in Lebanon by occupying more than 90% of Lebanese territory, including the capital, airport, harbors and all major cities.

Syria disarmed most Lebanese militia except for those affiliated with it, such as Hezbollah, Amal and the radical Palestinian militias. The Lebanese army was restrained from performing any major activities and was directed to internal security functions.

The puppet regime of Lebanon amended the Lebanese constitution to allow for the election and renewal of Syrian-imposed presidents in Lebanon. It also drew several agreements with the Syrian regime giving Syria the rights to use Lebanese natural resources and abuse the free-market benefits in Lebanon.

The Lebanese community, especially university students, engineers, physicians, lawyers and workers, started a peaceful revolution to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 520 which calls for Syrian pullout of Lebanon.
Syrian Persecution

90% of the Lebanese population eligible to vote boycotted the Syrian-arranged parliamentary elections that resulted in the puppet parliament of 1992.

This Lebanese popular refusal to legitimize the Syrian occupation of Lebanon was answered by Syrian measures aiming to change the ethnic and religious demography of Lebanon.

Syrians forced their proxy government to naturalize around half of a million Syrians and Palestinians, and granted them the night to vote. That was equivalent to 20% of the population of Lebanon at the time.

This act was rejected by the highest Lebanese judiciary council in 2003, yet around half of a million non-Lebanese people still lived around the world, falsely holding Lebanese citizenship.

Meanwhile, Syrian troops in Lebanon kept protecting 1.5 million illegal Syrian workers, about half the population of Lebanon, which forced more than 35% of the Lebanese to leave their country in search for work.
Israeli Pullout and Hizballah

In the 1990's, with Syria occupying 90% of Lebanon and Israel occupying the remaining 10%, Hezbollah guerrilla gained some popularity as a means of resistance against one of the two occupiers, fighting against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon (for Details).

In May 2000, Israel pulled out of South Lebanon per the UN resolution 425 in respect to the Lebanese international borders. Hezbollah militia refused to disarm and enroll in the civilian social and political life after the Israeli withdrawal, which deprived it from most of its Lebanese popularity.

It occupied the Southern territories that were evacuated by the Israelis, while the Syrian regime prevented the Lebanese army from deploying in these territories. Post Israeli pullout, more national, regional and international voices pressured the Syrian regime to pull its troops out of Lebanon .

The Syrian Baath regime tried to cause conflicts with the United Nations and Israel over the 'Shebaa Farmland' in order to keep tension between Lebanon and Israel and to distract the international community from its occupation of Lebanon (for Details).

Some radical and terrorist Palestinian groups who are protected by the Syrian army continued to practice their authority over Palestinian camps in Lebanon and terrorize Lebanese civilians while the Lebanese security lacked any power of control over them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:16 AM

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm

Security Council declares support for free, fair presidential election
in Lebanon; calls for withdrawal of foreign forces there

Resolution 1559 (2004)

Adopted by Vote Of 9 in Favour, to None Against, with 6 Abstentions

The Security Council this evening declared its support for a free and fair presidential election in Lebanon conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence and, in that connection, called upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

By a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation), the Council adopted resolution 1559 (2004), reaffirming its call for the strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout the country.

In a related provision, the Council called for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. It also called upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Council for the full implementation of all its resolutions concerning the restoration in Lebanon of territorial integrity, full sovereignty and political independence.

Requesting the Council to withdraw its consideration of that resolution before the vote, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, Mohamad Issa, said that friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders. Syrian troops had been deployed and redeployed at Lebanon's request, and had contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions. Also, the matter was purely internal and related to the upcoming presidential elections in Lebanon.

Asserting that the Syrian actions in the past week had made a "crude mockery" of the principle of a free and fair presidential electoral process, the United States' representative said the Syrian Government had imposed its political will on Lebanon and had compelled the Cabinet and Lebanese National Assembly to amend its constitution and abort the electoral process by extending the term of the current President by three years. Clearly, the Lebanese Parliament had been pressured, and even threatened, by Syria and its agents to make them comply.

Similarly, the representative of France, who, along with the United States, had introduced the resolution, worried that persistent serious interference in the political life of Lebanon might cause it to retreat from the objectives that had been reaffirmed constantly by the international community. That was why a rapid mobilization and a decisive reaction from the Council had seemed essential. By refraining to act, the Council would have sanctioned interference in the internal affairs of another State. By acting in a robust manner, it was showing its confidence in Lebanon's future, which must include its full restoration of sovereignty, and not the intensification of interference.

Having abstained in the voting, China's representative said that respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs constituted a centrepiece of China's foreign policy and were principles of the United Nations. In adherence to those principles, he supported safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. But, the draft resolution touched on the question of the presidential elections in Lebanon, and such questions fell within Lebanon's internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that, with tensions high in the region, any wrong step might exacerbate the situation and lead to a new focal point of instability. He had tabled amendments to the text, aimed at moving it towards the context of a Middle East settlement as a whole and preventing the document from being one-sided and from concentrating solely on domestic Lebanese affairs. His proposals would have improved the draft by making it more acceptable to Council members. Their lack of acceptance, however, had made it impossible for him to support the resolution.

Pakistan's speaker said he had also abstained, as the resolution was not consistent with the Council's functions and responsibilities. Moreover, there was no evidence of any urgent threat to peace. There had been no complaint from the country whose sovereignty and integrity the draft purported to uphold. On the contrary, the Lebanese representatives had communicated to the Council their opposition to consideration of the resolution. Besides, the text addressed the wrong threat. If there were a threat to Lebanon, that was well known and did not arise from Syria.

Explanations of vote were also made by the representatives of Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Angola, Philippines and Benin.

The meeting began at 7:38 p.m. and was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.

Resolution

The text of resolution 1559 (2004) reads as follows:

"The Security Council,

"Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

"Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally territorially recognized borders,

"Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

"Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

"Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,

"Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

"1.   Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

"2.   Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

"3.   Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

"4.   Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

"5.   Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon's upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

"6.   Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

"7.   Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of this matter."

Statements

MOHAMAD ISSA, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, said that there were no militias in Lebanon. There was only the national Lebanese resistance, which appeared after the Israeli occupation and which would remain so long as Israel remained. The resistance force existed alongside the Lebanese national forces. Lebanon determined the presence and size of the force, depending on the country's need. The authority of Lebanon extended to all parts of Lebanon except those areas occupied by Israel.

He said that submitting the draft resolution confused two matters. The first was the distinguished relations linking Lebanon and Syria, which achieved their joint interests, particularly the interests of Lebanon. < font color=red>Friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders. It had warded off radicalism and violence, fed by the violence exercised by Israel against the Palestinians. Secondly, the matter was purely internal, and related to the presidential elections to be held in Lebanon. Syrian troops came to Lebanon in accordance with legitimate requests. Their presence was guarded by an agreement concluded by two sovereign States. Those troops had been redeployed several times. They contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions.

Hence, saying that Syria supported radical movements in Lebanon was not true. To the contrary, Syria supported the Lebanese national resistance, which desired to liberate the territories occupied by Israel. The draft resolution was talking about supporting free and just elections in Lebanon. He did not believe that that internal matter had ever been discussed in the Council relating to any MemberState. It was an internal matter, he stressed. The United Nations had not interfered in that matter with regard to any other State. There was no justification for the draft resolution, which constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a MemberState.

In addition, it discussed bilateral relations between two friendly nations, neither of which had filed any complaint concerning those relations. He called for the withdrawal of the draft resolution.

Action on Text

Next, the Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation).

Speaking after the vote, JOHN DANFORTH (United States) said that the Security Council had consistently affirmed that it supported the full sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, free of all foreign forces. Lebanon should be allowed to determine its own future and assume control of its own territory, yet the Lebanese people were still unable to exercise their rights as a free people. With France, the United States had introduced the resolution, joined by several other co-sponsors. He had asked for a vote tonight because the situation in Lebanon was moving very quickly.

He explained that the Syrian Government had imposed its political will on Lebanon and had compelled the Cabinet and Lebanese National Assembly to amend its constitution and abort the electoral process by extending the term of the current President by three years. The final vote in the Assembly was scheduled for Friday so it was imperative for the Council to address the issue now. The Lebanese Parliament and Cabinet should express the will of the Lebanese people through a free and fair presidential electoral process. What the Lebanese people and he had witnessed in the past week in terms of Syrian actions was a "crude mockery" of that principle.

Clearly, he continued, the Lebanese Parliament had been pressured, and even threatened, by Syria and its agents to make them comply. He strongly supported the extension and control of Lebanon's Government over all Lebanese territory, including southern Lebanon, as called for by the Council for the past four years. The continued presence of armed Hezbollah militia and the presence of Syrian military and Iranian forces in Lebanon hindered that goal.

He said that that situation, 14 years after the end of Lebanon's civil war and four years after the Council had accepted unanimously the Secretary-General's report that Israel had complied fully with Council resolution 425, was simply unacceptable. It was wrong for Syria to continue to maintain forces in Lebanon in "flat contravention" of the spirit and clear intent of the Taif Accord, and it would be very wrong for it to continue to interfere in the presidential electoral process in Lebanon....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 11:03 AM

How Israel won the war
Barry Rubin
Citizen Special
Saturday, August 19, 2006

TEL AVIV - If you don't know that Israel won the recent war with Hezbollah it's because you haven't heard the behind-the-scenes story of the fighting.

A good place to start is to ask why, despite many televised threats from Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah did not hit Tel Aviv. The answer is that using a combination of intelligence and technical means, Israel identified the location of Hezbollah's longer-range missiles and knocked them out with amazing speed and efficiency.

About 90 per cent of them were destroyed quickly in the war. Nasrallah could not deliver on what he considered to be his ultimate weapon.

An equally remarkable success, despite being taken for granted, is Israel's domination of the air. More plane and helicopter combat flights were flown than in any previous war by Israel, yet only one helicopter was shot down.

This was not due to Hezbollah lacking advanced anti-aircraft systems. In fact, they had the best light equipment available. Highly secret Israeli counter-measures, however, ensured that every anti-aircraft missile missed. Throughout the war, Israel retained full air superiority, which meant that its planes could go anywhere in Lebanon and hit any target.

While Hezbollah lost the war militarily, it did score significant victories in terms of public relations. One of the biggest hoaxes of modern media history was how Hezbollah manipulated the media. Photographs were falsified by those fooled by or aiding Hezbollah. All Lebanese casualty figures came from the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is part, and these never admitted that anyone killed was a Hezbollah gunmen or that any target hit was a military one.

Yet Israel has firm evidence that around 450 Hezbollah soldiers were killed -- more than half the purported civilian death toll -- and large numbers of Hezbollah facilities and arms dumps were destroyed. This is roughly 20 per cent of Hezbollah's best soldiers. Proportionate to forces in the field, Hezbollah's death toll alone was more than 30 times higher than Israel's.

One of Israel's most impressive achievements, which has still not been fully comprehended, was its ability to hit incoming shipments of arms from Syria. In many cases, trucks were hit within moments of crossing the Syria-Lebanon border. Hezbollah was using up munitions far faster than they were coming in. If the war had not ended when it did, they would have suffered an even more visibly humiliating defeat.

Another factor that has not yet registered is the deaths of high-ranking Hezbollah officials, several of whom are still missing, due to Israeli attacks on their headquarters and hiding places. One known name is Sajed Dawayer, head of Hezbollah's special forces. At one point, Mr. Nasrallah threatened to attack Tel Aviv if Israel struck at central Beirut. But why central Beirut when Hezbollah's followers live in south Beirut? Presumably, he was hiding in the centre of the city.

Given the huge number of rockets fired at Israeli civilians, the Israeli civil defence system functioned reasonably well. A key element there was the post-1992 policy of mandating that all newly built apartments have a specially reinforced room that could serve as a bomb shelter. Many lives were saved by this method. While losses were serious and social disruption tremendous, Hezbollah's claims of inflicting heavy losses should be weighed against the fact that single suicide bombings have killed almost as many Israelis as did 4,000 Hezbollah rockets.

The war also saw some firsts in imaginative psychological warfare. Israeli technicians broke into Hezbollah's al-Manar television broadcasts to send their own messages to its viewers. Recorded messages were sent to Lebanese telephone numbers warning of Hezbollah's inevitable defeat.

Unquestionably, Israel made mistakes in the war, many of them due to the political leadership's slow start and to an over-dependence on air power early on. Hezbollah also used some new techniques and advanced weapons that caused Israel troubles and casualties. Bolder techniques -- such as the reserve paratroopers' operation, which killed several dozen Hezbollah men with no Israeli losses -- came later in the campaign.

But less visible is the fact that Israel quickly adjusted to these conditions. Already, committees have been meeting and making recommendations -- in some cases already in the process of being implemented -- to correct faults. For example, tanks are going to be fitted with better defensive systems against advanced missiles. The anti-rocket Nautilus system will be developed for the future. A different approach will be used for attacking fortified bunkers, avoiding the use of tanks when possible.

One technique to which Israel caught on was Hezbollah's setting up of scattered rocket batteries activated by a two-man crew racing around on a motorcycle to fire them. And most important of all was the new type of army created by Hezbollah with the help of Iran and Syria. Its secrets include the fact that it is a regular army operating as guerrillas, possessing the world's most advanced arms, and ready to behave like suicide soldiers.

As U.S. forces found in fighting against the Japanese in the Second World War, it takes longer and costs more casualties to root out an enemy that prefers death to surrender or retreat. Yet suicide techniques are ineffective in winning victories. Such an army loses its best men and much equipment as a result, rather than falling back to fight another day.

Hezbollah also set its victory conditions very low. It was sufficient to survive and inflict losses on Israel. By this standard, however, many losers in war could claim success. The question is whether Hezbollah really is better off now with Lebanese army and international forces -- even if far from fully effective -- deploying in the south.

Moreover, its own constituents are not pleased with Hezbollah for bringing on their sufferings. Other Lebanese forces are outraged at it for dragging the country into a devastating war.

In the end, defeat on the battlefield cannot be wished away by claiming victory in speeches.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (Gloria) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and editor of Turkish Studies.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 10:19 AM

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/international-33/1155993552217220.xml&storylist=topstories

8/19/2006, 8:12 a.m. CT
By SAM F. GHATTAS
The Associated Press

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that left one Israeli soldier dead. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms smuggling from Iran and Syria.

Witnesses also said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect on Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.

The fighting did not appear to be escalating, but it highlighted the fragility of the 6-day-old truce as the United Nations pleaded for nations to contribute to an international peacekeeping force due to patrol southern Lebanon.

The first small contingent of reinforcements for the peacekeeping force — 49 French soldiers — landed Saturday at the southern Lebanese coastal town of Naqoura, with 200 more expected next week.

But Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said more countries need to step forward to fill out a vanguard of 3,500 troops that the U.N. wants on the ground by Aug. 28 to help ensure that the truce between Israel and Lebanon holds after 34 days of warfare.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called Saturday's commando raid a "flagrant violation" of the cease-fire, and said he would take the issue up with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Under the cease-fire terms, Israel has said it will conduct defensive operations if its troops are threatened. But the raid took place far from positions of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli military said such operations would continue until "an effective monitoring unit" was in place to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal.

"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the (U.N. cease-fire) resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "Once the Lebanese army and the international forces are active ... then such Israeli activity will become superfluous."

Such a bold operation, jeopardizing the cease-fire, suggested Israel was going after a major target near Baalbek — perhaps to rescue two Israeli soldiers snatched by Hezbollah on July 12, or to try to capture a senior guerrilla official to trade for the soldiers.

Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the U.N. cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.

The Israeli commandos were dropped by helicopter on a hill outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek and apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school, Lebanese security officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media.

Local media said Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa and a member of the Shura council of the group, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.

Hezbollah TV said the guerrillas foiled the raid. Israel said one of its military officers was killed and two other soldiers were wounded, but the force completed its mission.

Lebanese security officials said three guerrillas were killed and three were wounded, but a Hezbollah spokesman said none of his fighters died.

Hezbollah officials at the scene said the Israeli commandos brought two vehicles with them that they used to drive into Boudai. They identified themselves as the Lebanese army when intercepted by Hezbollah fighters in a field, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted, according to the officials.

Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew out of the area an hour later, they said.

Witnesses saw bandages and syringes at the landing site outside Boudai, about 10 miles west of Baalbek and 15 miles west of the Syrian border, the Israelis suffered casualties. A bridge was destroyed bridge about 500 yards from the area in what witnesses said was an Israeli airstrike.

Baalbek is the birthplace of the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah. The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold.

On Aug. 2, Israeli commandos targeted the Iranian-funded, Hezbollah-run Dar al-Hikma Hospital in Baalbek. The commando assault and Israeli strikes around the ancient town killed 16 people, according to Lebanese police. Baalbek residents said the Israelis took four people as prisoners, and that none were Hezbollah fighters.

Israel had said the building was a Hezbollah base, not a hospital, and that its soldiers captured five guerrilla fighters and killed 10 others before withdrawing.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh told reporters he protested the Israeli violation in talks with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Beirut on Saturday and said the U.N. team would raise the issue with Israeli authorities.

"If Israel continues its violations, it is the responsibility of the (U.N.) Security Council to take action and ask Israel to stop these violations," Salloukh said.

Also Saturday, a Lebanese civilian was killed when unexploded Israeli munitions from the offensive detonated in the village of Ras al-Ein, outside Tyre, said the Syrian Baath Party, of which the man was a member.

Roed-Larsen said the cease-fire brought a "huge opportunity" for the Lebanese government to extend its authority over southern Lebanon, which has been dominated for years by Hezbollah guerrillas.

Under the cease-fire plan, some 15,000 Lebanese troops are to move into the south, backed by the beefed-up U.N. peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL, as Israeli forces withdraw. Once there, the troops are to enforce the cease-fire. Lebanon has said Hezbollah will not be allowed to bring its weapons out in public — though it has not said whether it will try the more controversial step of disarming the guerrillas.

The Lebanese army has deployed more than 1,500 troops in three sectors that Israeli forces have left, and the U.N. force — which currently numbers 2,000 — has set up checkpoints and started patrolling the areas.

The 49 French troops that landed by inflatable dinghy at Naqoura were the first forces in the expansion of UNIFIL, which is planned to reach 15,000 soldiers.

So far, Italy and Finland have promised troops — and in an effort to encourage more countries to sign on, Annan said the peacekeeping force would not "wage war" on Israel, Lebanon, or Hezbollah militants.

"It is not expected to achieve by force what must be realized through negotiation and an internal Lebanese consensus," Annan said in a report to the U.N. Security Council on implementation of the Aug. 11 cease-fire resolution.

A key concern of many countries is whether the U.N. force will be called on to disarm Hezbollah fighters, as called for in a September 2004 U.N. resolution. They want to study the rules of engagement and concept of operations for the force before making a decision on troops.

Malloch Brown said countries needed to understand that the force would not be offensive. "It's not going to go in there and attempt large-scale disarmament," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:36 AM

The racist comments from "guests" on this page are sick. To any Jew who is arguing on this thread, I say you are welcome to come into my home and have a cup of tea and play some music. I may disagree with the current war in Lebanon, but that disagreement is not with any individual Jew, or with Israel's right to exist. You are my friends, even if some of us argue occasionally.

that's my last word on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:18 AM

" It is stupid and wrong--and anti-Semitic-- to say "Israel is a terrorist state". "

I'll agree with that, but to many, if it looks like a dog-turd, smells like a dog-turd, tastes like a dog-turd, and walks like a dog-turd. they will not be able, for practical purposes to tell the difference.

I'm happy to keep the thread open if all future submission are as reasoned as Ron's, but the thread has just been going in circles, and many have just been shouting "See! that PROVES your an xxxx-hater!"

Pointless.

"If you hate haters, you may become just another hater yourself."

THE AUTHOR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM

It is stupid and wrong--and anti-Semitic-- to say "Israel is a terrorist state".   It is also ridiculously naive to allege that Israel can ever "destroy" Hezbollah. All they can ever hope to do is--hold it at bay--probably by a low-level war --continuing, it looks now, forever.

And, as I said earlier, in large part they have Mr. Bush to thank for the strength and prestige Hezbollah now enjoys throughout the Arab world. (As well as, of course, their own recent spectacular miscalculation of how easy it would be to "take out" Hezbollah.)

By far the most important thing now is to keep nuclear weapons of any kind out of the hands of Hezbollah--probably by strengthening the anti-Hezbollah portions of the Lebanese government which have to monitor any progress Hezbollah might be making towards this. In other words, exactly the opposite of what the Israelis accomplished by the recent devastation of Lebanon--which in turn weakened the Lebanese government--and bolstered pro-Hezbollah sentiment all over Lebanon--and the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 08:02 AM

I agree with Foolestroupe ... maybe it is time to close it down.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 07:57 AM

This thread is now just attracting the trolls - keeping it open serves no useful purpose - close-minded people are just shouting the same things at others, and now anonymous trolls are just stirring up hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 06:01 AM

"These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". "

But random attacks by Katyuska anti-personnel rockets against civilians are ok?

Can't cause any concern to Arabs, but still ok to kill Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

"As far as the thirteen Jews who were executed in Iran, what punishment do you suggest for espionage? "


IF they were tried and convicted- which does not seem the case. So, you would say

"Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

Free Vanunu! "

and deny ISRAEL the right to punish criminals , but allow Iran to kill them without trial? Seems like a biased viewpoint to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 05:03 AM

Are they winning?

I hope so - teach those evil israelis not to commit war crimes &attrocities. They worse than the fucking Germans ever were. Come to think of it I wish the Jerries had wiped the evil bastards off the face of the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,jon
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 03:03 AM

Israeli commandos broke the ceasefire when they attacked a village near Baalbak ,in the north of Lebanon in the early hours of saturday morning.The attack was halted by Hezbollah fighters and the commandos had to retreat back to their helicopters.The raid was covered by Israeli jets which attacked targets in the area.
jon

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 02:02 AM

Well is it or isn't it? Point out the inaccracies.

One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers.

Here is an example if drivel (I prefer to call it bullshit:

"In 1956 Israel invaded Egypt and has continued its belligerent and militaristic policies against its neighbours ever since."

For one thing Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1977 and Anwar Sadat was assasinated by Arabs because of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/1956war.html

MYTH

"Israel's military strike in 1956 was unprovoked."

FACT

Egypt had maintained its state of belligerency with Israel after the armistice agreement was signed. The first manifestation of this was the closing of the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. On August 9, 1949, the UN Mixed Armistice Commission upheld Israel's complaint that Egypt was illegally blocking the canal. UN negotiator Ralph Bunche declared: "There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the armistice agreements."1

On September 1, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said early in 1954 that :

"The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East."2

In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.3

fed.jpg (19368 bytes)These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border, and to infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of Israel's shipping lane in the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

    I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956. The Israeli attack on Egypt was successful, with Israeli forces capturing the Gaza Strip, much of the Sinai and Sharm al-Sheikh. A total of 231 Israeli soldiers died in the fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:43 AM

Been watching the BBC and CBC today, seeing Hezbollah members passing out usefully large sums of U. S. dollars to rebuild homes in southern Beirut and in several towns in south Lebanon, and manning heavy equipment to clear rubble in preparation for rebuilding. Not only have the Israelis failed to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, but, as apparently few here wish to admit, the Lebanese in the southern part of Beirut and the southern part of the country, mostly Shia, are Hezbollah supporters and contribute to the militias. To remove Hezbollah, one must remove the people.
The Hezbollah are no small band of terrorists, but an important part of the Lebanese people.
The Lebanese army, which includes many Hezbollah members, refuses to disarm their brothers.
I am afraid that lack of support will cause the UN to be an ineffective means of separating combatants, and that hostilities will continue.

The United States must learn to negotiate with peoples of the Middle East other than the Zionists of Israel. Bush has only succeeded in bringing death and destruction to the Middle East through his ignorance and that of his cronies.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:38 AM

That looks like some other drivel you posted before. Almost word for word.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:35 AM

Israel is a terrorist state. It came into existence through the mass ethnic cleansing of the indiginous Palestinian people who had lived on its soil for many,many, centuries going back to Biblical times.

In 1956 Israel invaded Egypt and has continued its belligerent and militaristic policies against its neighbours ever since.

It still occupies parts of Syria and Lebanon and has invaded and has destroyed Beirut and much of the rest of Lebanon on two occasions.It has also made numerous smaller attacks against that country on other occasions.

Israel has occupied the Palestinian West Bank since 1967 and has kept its Palestinian in thrall since then.It has also invaded and occupied East Jerusalem.Its treatment of he Palestinians is a war crime .It goes in for collective punishment, forced expulsions of people,the demolition of thousands of houses and the imprisonment and torture of palestinians often without any form of trial.

It has settled armed paramilitary colonialists across the West Bankwho are more than willing to show their fanaticism through the shooting of Palestinians on a weekly basis.

One of these armed settlers ,an army reservist, murdered 30 muslim worshippers and injured dozens more at a holy shrine near Hebron.He is widely regarded as a hero by right wing zionist extremists.

Gaza was occupied brutally for many years and its million strong Palestinian population kept in a state of complete control by the Israeli govt which built huge checkpoints,grabbed water supplies ,kept the beaches for Israelis and controlled all aspects of life in the refugee city [most of its palestinian population had fled from what is now Israel ] . Even after the pullout of the military a year or so ago the Israeli military still has complete control of Gaza's air,sea and land borders.

It has fired thousands of shells into the city nd has waged war on its young killing many .The Gazans are half starved as the Israeli attacks continue.

Israel is also a nuclear weapons state which has been armed and supported by both the US and the UK.It has one of the most modern and well equiped armies in the world with apache helicopters,jet warplanes,bunker busting bombs,tanks etc.

It is a higly militarised society.Its Palestinian citizens are treated as unwanted , second class citizens. There are voices in Israel who are calling for their expulsion. It is an expansionist state seeking to conquer or retain more territory .

Yet it is beginning to run into big trouble.Hebollah has given he IDF a bloody nose in Lebanon and there are calls for Olmert and his generals to go.The times are indeed a -changing....
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:31 AM

"Israel has killed far more people in the Middle East than anybody else"

Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:30 AM

Where is the armed wing of the Red Cross?

If Hezbollah is justified in having an armed wing that launches rockets at non military targets, The red cross should have one too.

There is a huge fundamental difference between Israel and Hezbollah that all the liberl anti war crybabies refuse to recognize. Hezollah openly admits that their main goal is to kill every Jew and re take Israel.

What is the main goal if Israel? Is their goal to kill all Muslims and take over the middle east? I think their goal is to live peaceably with their neighbors. Why are there Arabs living in Israel? An Arab mother and daughter were killed by a Hezbollah rocket. If they are treated with hostility, why don't they leave Israel? They have more rights there than in Muslim countries.

Why does Israel get along with Jordan? I saw a show on TV where panties were made partially in Israel and sent to Jordan. Jordanese women were putting on the finish touches like ribbons and lace by hand.

Muslim extremists are their own worst enemy. They can't get along and they make their own lives miserable.

http://www.quibbling.net/wparchives/2002/03/
As horrendous and bloody as a war in the Middle East would be, and as much as I would NOT like to see the situation come to that, it is time to stop playing footsie with Yasser Arafat. Let's recap some history:

1948: The State of Israel is established by the UN, which includes an internationally-controlled Jerusalem. It is established in the area commonly known as Palestine, which was under the control of the British Empire at the time, which donated the land for the purpose of founding a Jewish state. Within hours of Israel formally becoming a sovereign state, more or less the entire Arab world launches a war on it.

1949: Israel, which barely had time to pull itself together, succeeds in fighting them off.

1964: The Arab League charters the Palestinian Liberation Organization for the purposes of "the destruction of Israel" and the "establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state."

1967: The USSR tells Syria that Israel is amassing troops on its border (which was a total falsehood), and Syria grabs Egypt and they start amassing troops on Israel's borders. They eventually get the Saudis, Sidan, Algeia, Jordan, and Iraq to join in. Facing a three-front war against Arabs who were literally announcing to the world, "We're ready to attack Israel, y'all!" Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and kicks their asses back to where they came from within 6 days, taking some territory in the process as an insulator. Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, start bitching about how Israel is "occupying their territory." Never mind the fact that they tried to occupy Israel's territory by preparing to invade in the first place. Also, the territory Israel annexed had both strategic and spiritual significance. It included the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights.

It was at this point that Israel started offering "Land for Peace." In other words, "we'll give you back your land if you just stop f'n PICKING ON US."

Oh, and by the time the war started, Israel was officially a nuclear power.

1973: Apparently not learning their lesson, the Yom Kippur war is launched against Israel. Israel beats them back within three weeks.

1974: The Arab League names the PLO "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," and rejects UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which establish Israel's right to exist within UN-established borders and calls on all parties to abandon belligerency.

1978-79: The Camp David Accords: Egypt and Israel make peace. Israel hands back the Sinai peninsula and Egypt recognizes Israel's right to exist.

As a result of this peace, the Arab League removes its HQ from Cairo, several Arab nations sign a resolution encouraging "progressive and nationalistic" forces in Egypt to overthrow Anwar al-Sadat, the Egyptian leader, and an Arab joint political and military command is formed to coordinate moves against Israel and Egypt. Sadat is assassinated not long thereafter. But to this day, Egypt and Israel are still at peace- Egypt did not attend this most recent Arab summit.

1993: The Oslo peace treaty between Israel and the PLO is signed.

1994: Israel and Jordan sign a peace treaty, promising "mutual understanding and cooperation in security-related matters," full diplomatic relations, free trade, and recognition of Israel's right to exist. Jordan, incidentally, also did not attend this most recent Arab summit.

PS: Some of the recent rocket attacks on Israel were from land given back to Lebanon in exchange fpr promise of peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 01:24 AM

'To understand just how shoddy some of these human rights advocates have been in their legal reasoning, it helps to start with those human rights groups that are actually treating international law seriously. Take Human Rights Watch (HRW) first. On July 17, the organization published a comprehensive document titled "Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah." The Q&A accurately explains humanitarian law and fairly applies it to the current conflict. With regard to Hezbollah, HRW states that the taking of hostages is "strictly forbidden" and is a "war crime." It further states that the use of imprecise Katyusha rockets in civilian areas "violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime." With regard to targets attacked by Israel, HRW states that civilian targets with military uses (airports, roads, bridges) may, in certain circumstances, be legally attacked, but that Israel is constrained by the principle of proportionality. With regard to whether the destruction of power stations is disproportionate, HRW reserves judgment but notes that "Israel faces a very high burden to justify these attacks." HRW has also urged Israel to cease the use of cluster munitions in populated areas, as such use "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law."'

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:40 AM

"Guess where Israel gets its weapons? Thats about as significant as where Hezbollah gets their weapons."

Then stop moaning about it.


"Thats no reason to draw the country and its people into a brutal war."

I agree. Hezbollah should have considered what they were starting.


"Go after the weapons dealers if you must but don't use it for an excuse to bomb the people."

Absolutely. But then you'd be moaning about Syria and Iran being bombed.


"You don't eradicate people in an attempt to end terrorism. The Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinians deserve more respect than that."

At last we agree on something. But you seem to have neglected to include the Israelis in that list.


"Disarming Hezbollah is like capturing bin Laden. Neither has been successful."

The fight against cancer has yet to render a cure for all cancers, but the research has helped to save many people with what was learned along the way.


"The Arabs are making fools of the west. I think when it comes to war, they are smarter than the west gives them credit for.


I agree. The West should use the same tactics against Jihadists/Terrorists that they use against the West.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:33 AM

Guess where Israel gets its weapons? Thats about as significant as where Hezbollah gets their weapons.

Thats no reason to draw the country and its people into a brutal war.

Go after the weapons dealers if you must but don't use it for an excuse to bomb the people.

You don't eradicate people in an attempt to end terrorism. The Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinians deserve more respect than that.

Disarming Hezbollah is like capturing bin Laden. Neither has been successful.

The Arabs are making fools of the west. I think when it comes to war, they are smarter than the west gives them credit for.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM

"• Hizbollah is a heavily-armed, fanatical fighting force which holds an estimated stockpile of 13,000 missiles and rockets, mainly supplied by Syria and Iran

• Since Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbollah has steadily built up this arsenal, immediately across the border with Israel . Europe and other outside powers have been passive as this build-up has taken place"

Nothing premeditated about this though . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 06 - 12:04 AM

Syria and Iran included themselves years ago. The weapons Hezbollah uses don't come from Qatar.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:58 PM

"On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months."

Exactly, Freda.

This particular incident had nothing to do with Israel's invasion of Lebanon. That why I said that Israel didn't really care about the kidnapped soldiers. They were looking for an excuse and they got a surprise.

Hopefully it will make the U.S/Britain/Zionist military machinery to think twice about excalating this to include Syria and Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM

There is still no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

(... again, taken from George Monbiot article - he says it better than me)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:11 PM

you're right bobad, I've found several other articles that refute that link too - including this one from the washington post:
Hezbollah Raid Opens 2nd Front for Israel

(excerpt) BEIRUT, July 13 -- 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...
.............

But it's interesting that these sort of border operations by both sides have happened in the past few years without escalating to war. SinceIsrael's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation". (info quoted from a Guardian article by George Monbiot Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong )

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM

Again, it's asymmetrical. Everything for Israel is existential. Everything for Hezbollah is preparing for one day being strong enough to finish off Israel. This is even noticeable in Mudcat where many of our guest,posters are pleased to denigrate Israel in anyway but when asked if they acknowledge Israel under any borders at all, they refuse. Therefore, Israel is not fighting for the destruction of Hezbollah so much as the survival of Israel. Hezbollah is fighting for the destruction of Israel rather than the survival of Hezbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM

Thanks bobad .... is it worth debating with these 2 individuals .... I'd say not.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:56 PM

Then I'd have to say that Forbes article is not credible at all.

Thanks Peace.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:55 PM

sIx

freda is beating a dead horse, even dianavan has admitted that the article has been refuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:51 PM

"-but any thorough job of it will bring a higher price than Israel will want to--or should want to--pay."

If it comes down to a matter of survival - they will pay it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:50 PM

That Forbes article is from July 12, 2006. There were some links (three?) posted that were of a later date that refuted the Forbes article.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: number 6
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:46 PM

Freda .... why is it that this appears only in this Forbes website ... if there was any ounce of truth in this, it certainly would have appeared elsewhere .... and forgive my ignorance, but what creditibility is there in this Forbes website?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:45 PM

No--in fact--not checkmate. Given the way Hezbollah is integrated into Lebanese society--and physically dug in--"destroying Hezbollah"--will mean a wider war than just in Lebanon.

Not a good idea for the Israelis.

They may try to "destroy" Hezbollah--but any thorough job of it will bring a higher price than Israel will want to--or should want to--pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:43 PM

here is the link to the Forbes article quoted by Dianavan
Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon

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.

The Israeli military would not confirm the report.

Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called an emergency Cabinet meeting and said Lebanese guerrillas would pay a "heavy price" for Wednesday's attacks. "These are difficult days for the state of Israel and its citizens," Olmert said. "There are people ... who are trying to test our resolve. They will fail and they will pay a heavy price for their actions."

...

note.."Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.
" it seems they've changed their story.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM

I actually wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Jerusalem) and said that despite 'winning' the war, they had royally pooched the 'PR' aspect of it all. (In slightly different words, but with that meaning.)

I am not as naive as you might think. I do understand the dynamics at work in this 'war'. The whole damned thing is wrong. It would have been infinitely better for Israel to quietly seek and 'talk' with the Hezbollah leadership. Now, it's too late for that. Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:36 PM

"So--stalemate. Then the war resumes."

Then Israel destroys Hezbollah - checkmate.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:32 PM

Many Lebanese would be against the deaths of the Hezbollah fighters. It's not as simple as you paint it.

It also doesn't matter that Israel acted "with restraint". That's not the perception of many Lebanese.

And if they had not acted "with restraint"--you would have seen a real jihad in response.

And that would help nobody--including the Israelis.


It was a miscalculation--first by Hezbollah--but then also by the Israelis.

And now it's Catch-22. No strong multinational force until Hezbollah is disarmed. Hezbollah will not do that unless the Israelis leave Lebanon first--if then. The Israelis won't completely leave until Hezbollah is disarmed.

So--stalemate. Then the war resumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:15 PM

All the deaths were needless. That is, any death that was not that of a Hezbollah fighter. The deaths of Israeli civilians was also needless. But folks love to keep the arms manufacturers working and the ideologists love to push their stuff.

Hezbollah has set as one of its goals the destruction of Israel. In turn, Israel has set as one of its goals the destruction of Hezbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 10:09 PM

Sorry again, Peace--many of those deaths were needless--and caused by Israel's insistence on destroying Lebanese infrastructure--to stop resupply of Hezbollah, we are told-- and "taking out" Hezbollah leaders--far from the border.

And it failed.

And that has just strengthened Hezbollah.

From what I read, Hezbollah did not in fact expect the massive Israeli response--but they've certainly made the most of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:59 PM

I agree with you Robin. You fail to understand: we do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:58 PM

You just don't get it mate - total war only brings total peace thru total genocide. As long as ONE of those little hated opponents lives, it never finishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:44 PM

Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:44 PM

"Maybe five if they start now. "

Hundred, or thousand years?