Myths of Lebanon War 2006

[moono]

hastalavista;

The rest isn't wrong - it's quite accurate, in my view.

Oh it's wrong alright, and for all the reasons already posted in this forum, if you'd have cared to have read them before launching your hasbara.

Have you been reading The Adventures of Zogo the Zionist ?

 

[hastalavista]

Hands up who thinks these are Lebanese casualties?

And hands up who thinks they're Israelis killed by rocket attacks?

Fuck you.[/b]

Are they Iraqis killed by Shia terrorists?

 

[hastalavista]

Have you been reading The Adventures of Zogo the Zionist ?

You'll have to give me a link for that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You want evidence? Did you read my post before asking for some?

I read your post.

Evidence (at least if you wish to have any credibility) is not your assemblage of selective "facts" that can easily be rebutted by the production of other, opposing, selected "facts".

Myth 1 - evidence is the timing of the kidnapping

Myth 2 - evidence is 1) rhetoric from Iran, 2) firing of 1600 rockets at Israel over last 2 weeks

Myth 3 - evidence is lack of massive call up of reserves

Myth 4 - evidence is withdrawal came 1 year exactly after Labor came to power, about the time needed to enact such a withdrawal, also, I know for a fact that was policy

Myth 5 - evidence is recent instability in Lebanon

Myth 6 - evidence is my personal experience with friends

Perhaps you only believe in physical evidence?

No, I believe in evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and that isn't "loaded" or derived from opinion.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I find the claim that Hezbollah had nothing to do with Israel leaving Lebanon the previous occasion quite an intriguing one.

I would love to see some evidence to support it.

 

[hastalavista]

Evidence (at least if you wish to have any credibility) is not your assemblage of selective "facts" that can easily be rebutted by the production of other, opposing, selected "facts".

So rebut them.

No, I believe in evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and that isn't "loaded" or derived from opinion.

Are you suggesting that:

The G8 was not going to discuss Iran and consider imposing sanctions?

Iran hasn't called for Israel's destruction, and no rockets have been fired?

Israel hasn't called up too few reserves for a major invasion?

Nothing has been going on in Lebanon during the past year?

My friends are lying to me and actually enjoyed shooting kids?

 

[RaverDrew]

Hi-ASL I dont suppose you could make those pictures links instead ?

 

[hastalavista]

I find the claim that Hezbollah had nothing to do with Israel leaving Lebanon the previous occasion quite an intriguing one.

It's not a matter of them not having anything to do with it.

It's a matter of lack of reason to stay or to crush them.

Which is a big difference from being chased out.

Israel's casualties in southern Lebanon were 10-20 per year, which is hardly significant in military terms.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/636594.stm

Yes but that article says:

Israel's long and messy involvement in southern Lebanon, which it first invaded in 1978, was becoming increasingly unpopular with the Israeli electorate.

To many, the conflict seemed pointless. In 1985, a so-called "security zone" in southern Lebanon was set up, supposedly to stop guerrilla attacks on civilians living in northern Israel.

But the guerilla fighters' main aim was to end the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Each year they killed dozens of Israeli soldiers.

Finally, the human price of the war became too high. In 1999 Prime Minister Ehud Barak was elected on a pledge to withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon within a year.

Which hardly sounds to me like evidence that the Lebanese guerrilla fighters, including Hezbollah, played no role in the Israeli withdrawal.

 

[Poi E]

Does a good job of perpetuating some of these myths.

Hmm, seems like you can't refute the article, though.

Defending the killing of civilians is revolting.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's not a matter of them not having anything to do with it.

It's a matter of lack of reason to stay or to crush them.

Which is a big difference from being chased out.

Israel's casualties in southern Lebanon were 10-20 per year, which is hardly significant in military terms.

Are you assuming that Israel could in fact crush them if it were motivated to do so? If so, how would that work? In particular, how do you figure out who to 'crush' so you get Hezbollah and not just some random Lebanese person minding their own business say?

 

[bendeus]

Myth: Israeli troops like killing children / deliberately aim for children

Reality: Israel is a far more child-friendly country than England. To suggest they like killing children or do so deliberately is extremely wrong and actually is an effective propoganda weapon.

I personally know 3 Israeli soldiers who have shot Palestinian children (only one of them died).

In each case they never meant it to happen, it happened accidentally (richochet) or in heat of the moment (heavy attack from stones or shots fired at them).

Moreover, the 3 were psychologically damaged from the incidents, even 5 years later they are struggling to recover and are in councelling (they say many others are in similar position).

Ah! So they didn't mean to kill or maim those children, and now they feel bad about it. Well that's alright, then! I'm sure it's a great comfort to the bereaved parents.

I think that for me the most terrifying thing is not that you seek to put a positive spin on the maiming or murder of children but that you actually know three people who have destroyed innocent lives that have barely begun. Do many other Israelis also know people who have killed or injured kids, I wonder, and does this say anything to you about the state of Israel today?

 

[hastalavista]

Are you assuming that Israel could in fact crush them if it were motivated to do so? If so, how would that work?

Well that is what is going on now.

The difference is, Hizbollah is much more heavily armed now than in 2000.

Israel could have defeated Hizbollah in the 1990s, but there wasn't the will.

Instead they did some fairly well publicized but ultimately ineffective campaigns, because there wasn't the motivation to launch a full scale attack.

 

[Aldebaran]

Myth:

This is a serious thread worth serious replies.

salaam.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes but that article says: Which hardly sounds to me like evidence that the Lebanese guerrilla fighters, including Hezbollah, played no role in the Israeli withdrawal.

Quite. In fact the last two sentences you quote would appear to credit Hezbollah with inflicting unsustainable casualties upon the occupying forces and causing the withdrawal.

I don't think there's much doubt on either side that Hezbollah played a pivotal role in removing the Israeli forces.

However some my say that Israel had a right to establish the security zone to prevent attacks on it's own civilians. Just like now.

Btw, that BBC link is a woefully shallow analysis of the ocupation and withdrawal.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

But they're a guerilla organisation, so how do you justify the claim that Israel could defeat them? What stops them from just melting away into the civilian population when you bring in heavy weapons, then re-appearing when you've gone? If they are still able to do that, they aren't defeated, they're winning.

 

[hastalavista]

I think that for me the most terrifying thing is not that you seek to put a positive spin on the maiming or murder of children but that you actually know three people who have destroyed innocent lives that have barely begun.

Not putting a positive spin on anything. You have decided to interpret it that way.

Do many other Israelis also know people who have killed or injured kids, I wonder, and does this say anything to you about the state of Israel today?

Since 1987, about 5000 Palestinians have been killed.

Between 1987 to 2006, perhaps 2 million Israelis served in the military.

What does that say about Israel today?

 

[hastalavista]

But they're a guerilla organisation, so how do you justify the claim that Israel could defeat them? What stops them from just melting away into the civilian population when you bring in heavy weapons, then re-appearing when you've gone? If they are still able to do that, they aren't defeated, they're winning.

Hizbollah is much more of a military force than you seem to think.

They have large facilities that are easily identified.

A guerilla group couldn't manage 13,000 rockets.

The problem is, from a POV of Lebanese civilians, is that Hizbollah builds bases in residential areas.

 

[ZAMB]

Why is Israel bothering to ask people to leave? Probably because they care more about human life then Hezbollah. As to how they are supposed to leave, I don't know, perhaps walking away might be a start?

Yes they care so much that they drop leaflets asking people to leave, and then, when they do, bomb their cars, wiping out the whole village population.

And, if you read my posts on this topic on another thread, you will see that there is some doubt about which side of the border with Lebanon the soldiers were on when they were captured. Plus the fact that Israel regularly crosses that border to capture people who are now in prison in Israel - why do you think Hezbollah wanted a prisoner exchange? Because they've had them in the past.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, I've no doubt Hezbollah et al are itching to try out all those nice tank ambushes they've spent the last few years preparing and practicing, but the way a conventional army wins is by rendering another conventional army unable to fight. When they try that stuff on guerillas, it generally doesn't work because if they're getting the worst of it, the guerillas fade away.

We recently saw the US use everything short of nukes on Fallujah, and it seems to have got them precisely nowhere. The Iraq insurgency just got bigger. What magic tactic do the IDF have that makes them so different?

 

[phildwyer]

Sure, I've no doubt Hezbollah et al are itching to try out all those nice tank ambushes they've spent the last few years preparing and practicing, but the way a conventional army wins is by rendering another conventional army unable to fight. When they try that stuff on guerillas, it generally doesn't work because if they're getting the worst of it, the guerillas fade away.

We recently saw the US use everything short of nukes on Fallujah, and it seems to have got them precisely nowhere. The Iraq insurgency just got bigger. What magic tactic do the IDF have that makes them so different?

Probably none. But they'd rather fight a permanent, low-level counter-insurgency war in Lebanon than allow a hostile force to gather strength there. Makes sense to me.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes they care so much that they drop leaflets asking people to leave, and then, when they do, bomb their cars, wiping out the whole village population.

Do you have some evidence that IDF forces have used leafleting and bombing of subsequent refugee convoys as a tactic to aggress non-combatants?

No. Didn't think so.

 

[bendeus]

Not putting a positive spin on anything. You have decided to interpret it that way.

I 'decided to interpret' it as your trying to justify the killing of children by IDF troops.

Since 1987, about 5000 Palestinians have been killed.

Between 1987 to 2006, perhaps 2 million Israelis served in the military.

What does that say about Israel today?

"In June 2005, the judge advocate general’s office announced that it had opened only 131 criminal investigations into the unlawful death and injury of Palestinians at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces since the current intifada began in September 2000. During that same period, outside any combat situation, Israeli soldiers killed at least 1,722 Palestinians – more than one-third of whom were children – and injured thousands more, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. But since September 2000, the judge advocate general’s office has announced only 28 indictments and seven convictions of Israeli soldiers on charges related to unlawful killing or injury."

link

I make that about 600 children killed in the last six years, not counting those slaughtered over the last few days in Lebanon and also not counting the thousands more who have been injured. How many combat troops have seen active service over that period? I stand by my point: a lot of Israelis must know somebody who has either killed or maimed a child, and this reflects badly on the state of Israel as a whole.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Probably none. But they'd rather fight a permanent, low-level counter-insurgency war in Lebanon than allow a hostile force to gather strength there. Makes sense to me.

That may well be their concious choice, but each time they do something like this, Hezbollah and similar non-state organisations get more powerful as a net result. So ultimately, they may be trading state enemies who their military could deal with, for non state enemies against whom they are virtually helpless, and who are by their very nature far more likely to go after civilians and/or vital infrastructure.

So what may look like a smart move if you're an elderly IDF general, may not in fact be such a smart move if you're a civilian.

 

[phildwyer]

That may well be their concious choice, but each time they do something like this, Hezbollah and similar non-state organisations get more powerful as a net result. So ultimately, they may be trading state enemies who their military could deal with, for non state enemies against whom they are virtually helpless, and who are by their very nature far more likely to go after civilians and/or vital infrastructure.

So what may look like a smart move if you're an elderly IDF general, may not in fact be such a smart move if you're a civilian.

The term "civilian" is ambiguous with regard to Israel, a country permantly at war and with universal conscription. If I were Israeli, I'd rather my children were fighting guerillas than conventional armies. And a conventional war against Israel would likely involve far more non-combatant casualties than a guerilla war.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This is my view on the matter: posters repeatedly coming back under different usernames when they're quite aware that it's not allowed irritate the piss out of me and get banned.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is my view on the matter: posters repeatedly coming back under different usernames when they're quite aware that it's not allowed irritate the piss out of me and get banned.

Please don't say it was Apache/energy_release/Golem/energy/Strategist again?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yep.

 

[ZAMB]

Do you have some evidence that IDF forces have used leafleting and bombing of subsequent refugee convoys as a tactic to aggress non-combatants?

No. Didn't think so.

It was actually reported by a number of journalists, including Robert Fisk of the Independent, AFAIR, who was there and saw it. He spoke about it on Democracy Now, as well. There was a convoy of about 20 cars that was bombed. Not to mention blowing up clearly marked ambulances.
So don't tell me what I know or don't know.

 

[ZAMB]

Here's the link you unbelieving scum. It was 20 people, not 20 cars, I remembered it wrong, but it was still the cold-blooded, purposeful massacre of an entire village.

It will be called the massacre of Marwaheen. All the civilians killed by the Israelis had been ordered to abandon their homes in the border village by the Israelis themselves a few hours earlier. Leave, they were told by loudspeaker; and leave they did, 20 of them in a convoy of civilian cars. That's when the Israeli jets arrived to bomb them, killing 20 Lebanese, at least nine of them children. The local fire brigade could not put out the fires as they all burned alive in the inferno. Another "terrorist" target had been eliminated.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14006.htm