• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lebanon (Superthread)

Following the Money In Lebanon
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20060802.aspx

August 2, 2006: Hizbollah is a major economic factor in Lebanon, with an annual operating budget of $650-700 million a year, of which some $250 million seems to come from Iran. The rest comes from other donors, including some Islamic charities, and a large number of legitimate businesses, which includes banking, and illegal activities (drugs and smuggling). A fair chunk of this money is spent on social programs, rather than the movement's military wing, but the ratio between the two is unknown.

There are about 1.3 million Shia in Lebanon, and they are the main benefits of Hizbollahs spending. Since the Shia have, and remain, the poorest segment of Lebanese society (the Christians have always been the wealthiest), the Hizbollah money is very important. As such, that comes to over $500 of Hizbollah money, per capita each year for Lebanese Shia. Hizbollah is the major employer for Shia. Because so much of that money comes from Iran, and the Shia supported the two decade Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Shia remain at odds with most Lebanese.
More on link
 
Back on topic:
It is clear to me that in spite of facing a nebulous enemy, the Isreali Army is using "relics" of the cold war, albeit in new roles.  Main Battle Tanks no longer take on other tanks at ranges beyond 2000 metres.  Rather, they are taking on an armed dismounted threat from inside 200 metres.  Infantry/Tank cooperation is very important, perhaps moreso than ever.  My question: what lessons, if any, can Canada learn from this current conflict?
 
While we're talking about lovely children:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/9011.htm
A French language Lebanese publication, citing an unnamed source in Hezbollah, has claimed that the organization placed a rocket launcher on the roof of the notorious building in Qana to provoke an Israeli attack and brought invalid children inside to serve as victims and blacken Israel's name.

The Lebanese magazine LIBANOSCOPIE, associated with Christian elements which support the anti-Syrian movement called the "March 14 Forces," report that Hizbullah masterminded a plan that would result in the killing of innocents in Qana, in an attempt to foil Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's "Seven Points Plan" calling for deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon and the disarming of Hizbullah. The magazine reported

"We have it from a credible source that Hezbollah, alarmed by Siniora's plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations.... Hezbollah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of innocents and curtail the diplomatic initiative," the site stated.

The site's editors claimed that Hezbollah staged the event because of Qana's symbolic significance: "They used Qana because the village had already turned into a symbol for massacring innocent civilians, and so they set up 'Qana 2'." The incident has indeed been dubbed "The second Qana massacre" by the Arab media.
 
HDE said:
Out of curiosity what did Israel actually do to directly cause the killing/kidnapping of their soldiers in this latest go-around?

I suggest it likely comes down to simple economics.1
Israel's neighbours habitually get a great bargain when it comes down to prisoner exchange, or returning the remains of killed Israeli soldiers.

1. May 1985, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, swapped three Israeli soldiers in exchange for 1,150 Palestinian prisoners.
2. July 1996, Hezbollah returned the remains of two Israeli soldiers, in exchange for the remains of 123 Lebanese soldiers.
3. June 1998, Hezbollah returned the remains of one Israeli for the remains of 40 Hezbollah soldiers, and an unspecified number of Lebanese prisoners.
4. January 2004, Israel released a total of 436 prisoners including 400 Palestinians, 23 Lebanese, two Syrians, three Moroccans, three Sudanese, a Libyan, and a German Muslim, plus the remains of 59 Lebanese soldiers.....for the remains of three Israel soldiers and the release of an alleged Israeli intelligence officer.

Two live Israeli soldiers could have significant value in this sort of market. Maybe Israel just got tired of paying that exchange rate?


----------------------
1. Despite the absolute certainty of several posters' views here, on both sides of the debates, I don't think we're likely to know for sure unless some Hezbollah leadership logs on  ;)
 
That's what seems to be it.  Beyond the background stuff.  They kidnap some troops in the hope of bargaining for some better deal.  Israel gets tired of it and hits back hard (or uses this as an excuse to do it depending on your view of things).

Israel bargained in the past and unfortunately it seems to have sent the wrong message.  Which reinforces the whole "don't bargain with terrorists" line.
 
tamouh said:
Though Hezbollah claimed they had planned this operation for long time (and most likely true), I've to believe the IDF incursion into Gaza and Palestinian territory may have influenced their decision to go ahead with this mission. After all, all things are interconnected in the ME.

I suspect that the Gaza crisis created an opportunity for the Hezbollah to put an existing plan into operation, note how the President of Egypt commented that outside groups were urging Hamas not to give up the soldier they kidnapped, likely so as to give time for their own plan to be put in action. Apparently the IDF had already identified the area of the incident as a high risk area.
 
Too bad so many Lebanese civilians suffer due to his misjudgement;  sadly I don't imagine he'll ever be held accountable, at least by his toadies.
 
From the National Post, a little primer on 4GW. Canadians are fighting a similar battle in Afghanistan on the pages of the Toronto Star. Before anyone tries to post that the Israeli Army has a public affairs branch, read the article and see which side of the story is being reported by third parties like the BBC, and remember outfits like the BBC and CNN have resources which could allow to independently verify many claims:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b0d85941-2565-4b47-b853-4041944114ee&p=1

The media war against Israel
The Jewish state is fighting not one enemy, but two: Hezbollah, and those who peddle its propaganda
 
Tom Gross
National Post

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

LONDON - Large sections of the international media are not only misreporting the current conflict in Lebanon. They are actively fanning the flames.

The BBC world service has a strong claim to be the number-one villain. It has come to sound like a virtual propaganda tool for Hezbollah. As it attempts to prove that Israel is guilty of committing "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity," it has introduced a new charge -- one which I have heard several times on-air in recent days.

The newscaster reads out carefully selected "audience comments." Among these are invariably contained some version of the claim that "Israel's attack on Lebanon" will serve as a "recruitment" drive for al-Qaeda.

But if anything is going to win new recruits for Osama bin Laden and his like, it will not be Israel's defensive actions, which are far less damaging than Western TV stations would have us believe, but the inflammatory and one-sided way in which they are being reported by those very same news organizations.

While the slanted comments and interviews are bad enough, the degree of pictorial distortion is even worse. From the way many TV stations worldwide are portraying it, you would think Beirut has begun to resemble Dresden and Hamburg in the aftermath of Second World War air raids. International television channels have used the same footage of Beirut over and over, showing the destruction of a few individual buildings in a manner which suggests half the city has been razed.

A careful look at aerial satellite photos of the areas targeted by Israel in Beirut shows that certain specific buildings housing Hezbollah command centres in the city's southern suburbs have been singled out. Most of the rest of Beirut, apart from strategic sites such as airport runways used to ferry Hezbollah weapons in and out of Lebanon, has been left pretty much untouched.

From the distorted imagery, selective witness accounts, and almost round-the-clock emphasis on casualties, you would be forgiven for thinking that the level of death and destruction in Lebanon is on par with that in Darfur, where Arab militias are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of non-Arabs, or with the 2004 tsunami that killed half a million in Southeast Asia.

In fact, Israel has taken great care to avoid killing civilians -- even though this has proven extremely difficult and often tragically impossible, since members of Hezbollah, the self-styled "Party of God," have deliberately ensconced themselves in civilian homes. Nevertheless the civilian death toll has been mercifully low compared to other international conflicts in recent years.

Last week, a senior journalist let slip how the news media allows its Mideast coverage to be distorted. CNN "senior international correspondent" Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon was stage-managed from start to finish by Hezbollah. In particular, he revealed that his story was heavily influenced by the group's "press officer," and that Hezbollah have "very, very sophisticated and slick media operations."

When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program Reliable Sources, Robertson acknowledged that Hezbollah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hezbollah "had control of the situation," Robertson said. "They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath."

Robertson added that Hezbollah has "very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access to those areas. You don't get in there without their permission. We didn't have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hezbollah fighter by night."

Yet Reliable Sources, presented by Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, is broadcast only on the American version of CNN. So CNN International viewers around the world will not have had the opportunity to learn that the pictures they saw from Beirut were carefully selected for them by Hezbollah.

Another journalist let the cat out of the bag last week. Writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, Time magazine contributor Christopher Allbritton casually mentioned in the middle of a posting: "To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loath to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one."

Robertson is not the only foreign journalist to have misled viewers with selected footage from Beirut. NBC's Richard Engel, CBS's Elizabeth Palmer, and a host of European and other networks, were also taken around the damaged areas by Hezbollah minders. Palmer commented on her report that "Hezbollah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see."

Palmer's honesty is helpful. But it doesn't prevent the damage being done by organizations such as the BBC, whose bias is obvious to those who know the facts. First, the BBC gave the impression that Israel had flattened the greater part of Beirut. Then to follow up its lopsided coverage, its Web site helpfully carried full details of the assembly points for an anti-Israel march due to take place in London, but did not give any details about a rally in support of Israel also held in London a short time later.

Indeed, the BBC's coverage of the present war has been so extraordinary that even staunch BBC supporters in London seem rather embarrassed -- in conversation, not on the air, unfortunately.

If the BBC were just a British problem, that would be one thing, but it is not. Thanks to British taxpayers, it is the world's biggest and most lavishly funded news organization. No other station broadcasts so extensively in dozens of languages, on TV, radio and online.

The BBC's radio service alone attracts over 163 million listeners. It pours forth its world view in almost every language of the Middle East: Pashto, Persian, Arabic and Turkish. (Needless to say, it declines to broadcast in Hebrew, even though it does broadcast in the languages of other small nations: Macedonian and Albanian, Azeri and Uzbek, Kinyarwanda and Kyrgyz, and so on.)

It is not just that the supposed crimes of Israel are completely overplayed, but the fact that this is a two-sided war (started, of course, by Hezbollah) is all but obscured. As a result, in spite of hundreds of hours of broadcast by dozens of BBC reporters and studio anchors, you wouldn't really know that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been living in bomb shelters for weeks now, tired, afraid, but resilient; that a grandmother and her seven-year old grandson were killed by a Katyusha rocket during a Friday night Sabbath dinner; that several other Israeli children have died.

You wouldn't have any real understanding of what it is like to have over 2,000 Iranian and Syrian rockets rain down indiscriminately on towns, villages and farms across one third of your country, aimed at killing civilians.

You wouldn't really appreciate that Hezbollah, far from being some ragtag militia, is in effect a division of the Iranian revolutionary guards, with relatively advanced weapons (unmanned aerial vehicles that have flown over northern Israel, extended-range artillery rockets, anti-ship cruise missiles), and that it has a global terror reach, having already killed 114 people in Argentina during the 1990s.

The BBC and other media have carried report after report on the damaged Lebanese tourist industry, but none on its damaged Israeli counterpart, even though at least one hotel in Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee, was hit by a Hezbollah rocket. There are reports on Lebanese children who don't know where they will be going to school, but none on Israeli children.

Many have grown accustomed to left-wing papers such as Britain's Guardian allowing their Mideast coverage to spill over into something akin to anti-Semitism. For example, last month a cartoon by the Guardian's Martin Rowson depicted Stars of David being used as knuckle dusters on a bloody fist.

Now the Conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph, Britain's best-selling quality daily, and previously one of the only papers in Europe to give Israel a fair hearing, has got in on the act. The cartoon at the top of the Telegraph comment page last Saturday showed two identical scenes of devastation, exactly the same in every detail. One was labelled: "Warsaw 1943"; the other: "Tyre, 2006." The suggestion, of course, is that modern Israel is no different from Nazi Germany.

A politician had already given the cue for this horrendous libel. Conservative MP Sir Peter Tapsell told the House of Commons that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was "colluding" with U.S. President George W. Bush in giving Israel the okay to wage a war crime "gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw."

Of course, there was no "Jewish quarter" of Warsaw. In case anyone needs reminding (Sir Peter obviously does) the ghetto in the Polish capital, established in October 1940, constituted less than three square miles. Over 400,000 Jews were then crammed into it, about 30% of the population of Warsaw. 254,000 were sent to Treblinka where they were exterminated. Most of the rest were murdered in other ways. The ghetto was completely cleared of Jews by the end of May 1943.

The picture isn't entirely bleak. Some British and European politicians, on both the left and right, have been supportive of Israel. So have some magazines, such as Britain's Spectator. So have a number of individual newspaper commentators.

But meanwhile, anti-Semitic coverage and cartoons are spreading across the globe. Norway's third largest paper, the Oslo daily Dagbladet, ran a cartoon comparing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the infamous Nazi commander SS Major Amon Goeth, who indiscriminately murdered Jews by firing at them from his balcony -- as depicted by Ralph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List. (A month earlier, Dagbladet published an article, The Third Tower, which questioned whether Muslims were really responsible for the September 11 attacks.)

Antonio Neri Licon of Mexico's El Economista drew what appeared to be a Nazi soldier with stars of David on his uniform. The "soldier" was surrounded by eyes that he had apparently gouged out.

A cartoon in the South African Sunday Times depicted Ehud Olmert with a butchers knife covered in blood. In the leading Australian daily The Age, a cartoon showed a wine glass full of blood being drunk in a scene reminiscent of a medieval blood libel. In New Zealand, veteran cartoonist Tom Stott came up with a drawing which equated Israel with al-Qaeda.

At least one leading European politician has also vented his prejudice through visual symbolism. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero wore an Arab scarf during an event at which he condemned Israel, but not Hezbollah, who he presumably thinks should not be stopped from killing Israelis.

It's entirely predictable that all this violent media distortion should lead to Jews being attacked and even murdered, as happened at a Seattle Jewish centre last week.

When live Jews can't be found, dead ones are targeted. In Belgium last week, the urn that contained ashes from Auschwitz was desecrated at the Brussels memorial to the 25,411 Belgian Jews deported to Nazi death camps. It was smashed and excrement smeared over it. The silence from Belgian leaders following this desecration was deafening.

Other Jews continue to be killed in Israel itself without it being mentioned in the media abroad. Last Thursday, for example, 60-year-old Dr. Daniel Ya'akovi was murdered by the Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the terrorist group within Fatah that Yasser Arafat set up five years ago using European Union aid money.

But this is far from being an exclusively Jewish issue. Some international journalists seem to find it amusing or exciting to bait the Jews. They don't understand yet that Hezbollah is part of a worldwide radical Islamist movement that has plans, and not pleasant ones, for all those -- Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jew -- who don't abide by its wishes.

- Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph. His Web site is www.tomgrossmedia.com.

© National Post 2006

OF course why do the BBC, CBC or CNN not report this:
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD122906

(edit to include new link)
 
tourza said:
Ok, good argument and I see your point. Let me try this:

"He [Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy] repeated his threats this time from the rostrum of the Knesset, copying Hitler, with the same stance, the same gestures, the same voice, the same manner and the same threats. Levy’s threats to kill children and burn Lebanon reveal the mentality of Israel, which is playing the role of the Nazi executioners who burned the Jews in Auschwitz, according to the Zionists."

The Israeli Foreign Minister of the day did say something to this effect (burn Lebanon and kill its children) and it is public record. I remember the Arab media playing the video clip relentlessly during the Israeli Operation Grapes of Wrath back in 1996 (the first Qana tragedy). Did Levy really mean that he wanted to burn Lebanon and its children (if he could)? If I took this clip and circulated it to Jihadist friends of mine, could I not incite some type of anger and hatred towards Israel? Could I not say 'look, there is the FM of Israel and he is threatening to burn our land and children; we'll burn his land first and slaughter his children"? I don't think that Levy really meant that. To place it in context, he said something to the effect that (paraphrase ahead) 'if missiles continue to fall on Israel and kill our children and burn our land, then we will...'

...

I thought I remembered this “speech”.  I went looking for it and found this, from the Peoples Weekly World which is the direct descendant of the Daily Worker.  It does not appear to be an overly pro-Israel journal.  See: http://www.pww.org/article/static/320/

Here is a report from PWW, dated  it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2000/Israeli%20minister.htm
Israeli minister vows 'blood for blood'

By Hans Lebrecht

TEL AVIV - "Lebanon will go up in flames, its soil will be burned" if another Katyusha rocket hits Kiryat Shmonah, Israel's Foreign Minister David Levy threatened.

When Arab Knesset members (MKs) condemned this outrageous threat Feb. 23, a red-faced Levy furiously pounded on the rostrum in the Knesset's plenary hall with both his fists, knocking over the microphones and with froth on his lips, repeating the threat and added, "Blood for blood, soul for soul, child for child."

No wonder the Arab MKs challenged him with shouts of "inciter to child murder," "You are bringing Israel to the valley of slaughter" and "Shame on you, you are threatening to kill children!" - all broadcast live on Israeli national television. No wonder, too, that the Levy threats drew jubilant applause from the right-wing benches.

Knesset Speaker Avrom Burg did not reprimand Levy for his outrageous outburst, or asking him to retract his threat, but expelled two of the Arab MKs from the hall for heckling Levy's speech.

The sole government coalition MK who censored Levy for his outburst was Zahava Gal-On, the head of the Meretz Party's Knesset faction. She called upon Prime Minister Ehud Barak "to put Levy in his place." Somebody who stands for "blood for blood" and "child for child" cannot have a seat in the government's inner cabinet and should be removed from leading the foreign policy of Israel, she added.

Barak, in a later statement to the media, said Levy's statements were in line with the warning he and his cabinet have been giving again and again to the Syrian and Lebanese leaders - if they do not curb Hisbullah attacks on Israeli citizens and soldiers.

David Levy is not nuts. He also is not like Hitler, as some extremist commentators in Arab countries have said. No, his latest threats are nothing but blunt expressions of nuclear-saber rattling jingoism, the voice of an arrogant politician of a country, the military superiority of which is guaranteed by the world's largest superpower, the United States.

In later statements to the media, Levy said his threats were not "emotional explosion of his feelings," but were aimed to warn the Hisbullah and others in Lebanon and Syria who "do not understand anything but such language." Another arrogant expression of a typical racist colonialist over-lord!

"The wild outburst of Levy in the Knesset, including his threat to burn Lebanon and its capital, Beirut, to kill children, is not a private problem. It is the problem of the whole Israeli political-military complex," the Gush-Shalom peace bloc said in a newspaper ad Feb. 25. "The grand illusion that it is possible to bring the Arabs to their knees by force is being exploded in Lebanon."

While Barak intended to separate Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese from each other, so as to play with each alone, he has now created a united Arab front that includes Egypt and Jordan, with whom Israel has signed peace treaties. "There is only one thing, Israel should do now: declare immediately that it is prepared to evacuate all the Arab territories it has occupied since 1967. Only then can real and earnest negotiation for peace begin."

A Feb. 28 no-confidence motion was defeated. A majority of 58 MKs of the government coalition and the right-wing "opposition" voted against, while only eight Arab MKs voted for the motion.

The author, Hans Lebrecht, can hardly de described as anti-Arab; see: http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/06/hans-lebrecht-right-to-resistance.html and http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2003/aug/aug03.html  so when he says ” David Levy is not nuts. He also is not like Hitler, as some extremist commentators in Arab countries have said. No, his latest threats are nothing but blunt expressions of nuclear-saber rattling jingoism …” I think we might take him at his word.

Edit: punctuation, structure and format
 
ArmyVern said:
.............. Previous borders fell due to winners and losers in war. This is the risk that a country takes when it chooses to go to war...then loses.

There is no better illustration of that point then the map of Europe from say 1806 to present day.
 
At the centre of all this, the Europe analogy (related to the borders analogy, as cited above), seems to have some merit. I remember when the Lebanese Civil War finally ended (1990'ish) that many commentators were heard to muse that Lebanon could become an example for the entire Middle East.

Lebanon, after all it is(was?) a beautiful country, with enough resources to generate some riches, it had a vibrant banking and trade economy and, perhaps most of all, a widely varied ethnic and religious community. (I remember reading Canadian commentator(s) extolling how Lebanon, thus, could become the 'Canada of the middle east' (!))

To extend the analogy of European borders let's think of the one country in Europe that's seen huge revision of her territory. Lebanon has always reminded me of Poland. Always a distinct entity, with a strong history, who had been for many years 'run over' by her more powerful and imperialist neighbours.  Lebanon from 1945 to 1967  had enjoyed a re-birth, like Poland from 1919 to 1939. Like Poland from 1939 to (arguably) to 1989, Lebanon from 1967 to 1989 (even, arguably, to 2000) was cut to pieces by war and foreign occupation.

In 1989 that seemed to be changing. The future looked bright, the original National Pact, the nascence of a Lebanese Constitution,( put together in the 40's at the end of of the French Mandate), had been updated to better reflect the current situation; a new power sharing agreement between the major groups in the country was in place, negating the need for the Druze Militias and the South Lebanese Army. The PLO had been turfed. (Israel seemed at least less belligerent on that last fact).

It looked like from 1990 onward, Lebanon could enjoy something like the sort of 'stability' it had enjoyed from 1945 to 1967. (I'll let the likely suspects correct me on whether that first date should have been 1990 or 2000)

Well what went wrong?

This thread is about the CRISIS IN LEBANON.

Who did the pooch on this one? I mean it's easy to say Nasrullah and Hezbollah, is there an argument against Lahoude (he's always been seen as pro-Syria), what did Hariri's assassination mean? What should the Americans, the West, the EU have done to keep Hezbollah out of the Iranian sphere? And here's a big lob-ball for the anti-IDF crowd.... How, as pre-eminent regional power did Israel, screw up (2000 - 11 Jul 2006 ...please...please...)

I mean who cares about the next month, the IDF will not stop until they get what they need to get, after all Israel cannot afford to lose. Syria will sit it out, Assad can't risk losing. And, unacceptably, too many more non-combatants will die. Jordan, Egypt and the Saudis have all signed the Rome accord. In a couple of months this will calm down. I stabilization force will go in place.

What needs to be done when the dust settles 'to get it right' over the next year(s). How then do we ensure that 2006 to 2016 in Lebanon does not lead to the same carnage we see today? I mean this is not some flea infested little hole in the wall this place has the potential to be an example for the whole Middle East.

Here ends my concerted attempt to change direction of the discussion.
 
Keeping on the idea of the convenient re-drawing of borders on maps to suit ones political aims, no one has really touched on the point of the Shebaa farms in this topic yet. Well, not that I have seen anyway.

The Shebaa farms region has been occupied by Israel since defeating Syria in the last major blowup between the two.

Up until recently, Syria has always claimed this is Syrian soil. Even the historical maps in the UN's archive have always showed that this area was on the SYRIAN side of Lebanon/Syria border. It is rather curious now, that Hezbollah claims that this territory is Lebanese and that is the reason that they have continued to plan attacks against Israel even though they FULLY withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

They needed to invent a reason to continue to "resist", as that was the purpose of the establishment of their organization. So it looks like they got the Syrians on board with the manufactured Shebaa farms argument. Now the Syrians claim that the area has always been Lebanese?? and use that as the justification for supporting Hezbollah's actions against Israel since 2000.

It precisely because of BS like this that there were never be any kind of meaningful settlement here. At least not for the foreseeable future.

Israel tries to disengage from Lebanon 6 years ago, and still they suffer attacks. They endure suicide bombers blowing up buses in Tel Aviv, yet they still make a real effort at peace with the Palestinians, by withdrawing from Gaza.

But what does it get them?? I honestly cannot think of any real attempt at peace from the Arabs toward Israel in recent memory.

I don't know why the Israeli's  even try anymore.
 
cplcaldwell said:
But seriously folks. Shebaa has a long and problematic history, as does the nearby Kiryaat Shmona. These are key spots in the last flare up.

Exactly, not to mention other parts of the Golan Heights region.  This is very much disputed territory that Israel has not given back after past wars despite UN Resolutions.  That is what has created tensions and wars in the region for decades.  Militarily, the area is strategic and a major water source for irrigation. If you've ever been to Israel and the Golan Heights  area (I have) you'll see how irrigation is extensively used.  Syria wants their old land back, and Shebaa Farms is also claimed by Lebanon (though Syria would tend to disagree).  Bombing the crap out of a country will only harden future generations of terrorists like Syrian-supported-proxies like Hezbollah to strike back and continue this vicious cycle.  Hezbollah may even gain more supporters because of it from affected Lebanese, who knows?  IMO, until you solve the problem of the Golan Heights and the Palestinian issue, you won't have any peace in this region.  To broker any lasting peace deal in the current conflict you need to bring in the Syrians.
 
Well its out in the open now. Iran has admitted to supplying arms to Hizbollah. Janes is a pretty reliable source. Iran opens itself up to attack from Israel if a SAM takes out an IAF aircraft.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746631.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060804/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictiranhezbollahweapons
 
Hi, just read this at Yahoo News, reminded me of an article a while back about the Taliban trying to get better AT Weapons. Let's hope they don't get their hands on similar gear.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_hezbollah_s_missiles

Missiles neutralizing Israeli tanks By BENJAMIN HARVEY, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Hezbollah's sophisticated anti-tank missiles are perhaps the guerrilla group's deadliest weapon in Lebanon fighting, with their ability to pierce Israel's most advanced tanks.

Experts say this is further evidence that Israel is facing a well-equipped army in this war, not a ragtag militia.

Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made Milan missiles, the army confirmed on Friday.

In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles.

"They (Hezbollah guerrillas) have some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in the world," said Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior military intelligence officer who retired earlier this summer.

"This is not a militia, it's an infantry brigade with all the support units," Kuperwasser said.

Israel contends that Hezbollah gets almost all of its weaponry from        Syria and by extension        Iran, including its anti-tank missiles.

That's why cutting off the supply chain is essential — and why fighting Hezbollah after it has spent six years building up its arsenal is proving so painful to Israel, officials say.

Israel's Merkava tanks boast massive amounts of armor and lumber and resemble fortresses on tracks. They are built for crew survival, according to Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank.

Hezbollah celebrates when it destroys one.

"A Zionist armored force tried to advance toward the village of Chihine. The holy warriors confronted it and destroyed two Merkava tanks," the group proclaimed on television Thursday.

The Israeli army confirmed two attacks on Merkava tanks that day — one that killed three soldiers and the other killing one. The three soldiers who were killed on Friday were also killed by anti-tank missiles, the army said.

It would not say whether the missiles disabled the tanks.

"To the best of my understanding, they (Hezbollah) are as well-equipped as any standing unit in the Syrian or Iranian armies," said Eran Lerman, a retired army colonel and now director of the Israel/Middle East office of the American Jewish Committee. "This is not a rat-pack guerrilla, this is an organized militia."

Besides the anti-tank missiles, Hezbollah is also known to have a powerful rocket-propelled grenade known as the RPG29. These weapons are also smuggled through Syria, an Israeli security official said, and were previously used by Palestinian militants in Gaza to damage tanks.

On Friday, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Hezbollah asked Iran for "a constant supply of weapons" to support its operations against Israel.

The report cited Western diplomatic sources as saying that Iranian authorities promised Hezbollah a steady supply of weapons "for the next stage of the confrontation."

Top Israeli intelligence officials say they have seen Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers on the ground with Hezbollah troops. They say that permission to fire Hezbollah's longer-range missiles, such as those could reach Tel Aviv, would likely require Iranian go-ahead.



 
Little Green Footballs all over this faked photo. Too bad the media feels the need to do things like this.

20060805BeirutPhotoshop.jpg


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only
 
nothing showing at the link

Can you provide info?

Very interesting...
 
I think LGF is getting alot of hits right now. Reuters has admitted the photo was faked and has suspended the photgrapher.It was the same guy that did the pictures of the Qana victims that has been widely discussed as being staged.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
 
Reuters Pulls Phony Photo
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.

The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.

In the message, Reuters said that “photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience.”

Reuters’ head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: “Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures.”

“As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software,” she added.

Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog , which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote : “This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image.”

 
Back
Top