Israeli soldiers were in Lebanon when captured, not Israel

FYI

Slainte70 wrote:

Akrasia, according to your theory and links which you provided, it was the IDF who actually infiltrated the Lebanese border and good auld Hezbollah, who happened upon them in the lebanese village of Aitaa al-Chaab... did their civic duty...fired anti-rockets and blew up 2 IDF hummers... killing three IDF soldiers and kidnapping two....

If this is to be deemed the correct version of events, then can you kindly explain to me why in the bejaysus were the two burning IDF hummers found near the Israeli moshav Zarit?

I won't even mention Nasrallah's speech boasting about the Hezbollah attack was five months in the planning!

This theory really takes the biscuit...:rolleyes:

Slainte 70, there is more info here on the +tank+ involved in the operation:

"Now we are still hearing the planes flying overhead. They have been bombing many locations around the country with heavy artillery against villages on the southern border. The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aita al-Shaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hizbullah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside 'Israel' thus an aggression first started by Hizbullah)."
http://arab-americans.blogspot.com/2006/07/update-from-lebanon.html

and here:

On Wednesday, the two Israeli soldiers were seized at about 9am (0600 GMT), across the border from Aita al-Shaab, 15km from the Mediterranean coast.

Three Israeli soldiers died in the raid, while four more were killed when their tank ran over a landmine. The eighth soldier died while helping to recover the tank, the Israeli army said.
"Israeli officials said the air attacks aimed to exert pressure on the Lebanese government to prevent Hezbollah launching cross-border attacks.

The Israeli prime minister described Wednesday's attack as an act of war by Lebanon and promised a "severe response". The government approved miltary action against Hezbollah after an emergency cabinet meeting."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A67F0AD3-7964-41BC-98A9-CA752CA5B89F.htm

and there is more evidence that the kidnapping were purposely provoked here:

"Just hours before the meeting was due to start, the Israeli Shin Bet internal Security Service arrested Abu Tir and Abu Arafa and warned them not to attend the meeting, under threats of detention. The meeting, which offered a major opportunity to obtain Shalit�s release and launch a new framework for peace, was thrown into disarray. The next day, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) invaded Gaza, and the day after both Abu Tir and Abu Arafa were abducted by Israeli forces, along with a third of the Palestinian Cabinet, provoking a predictable escalation of violence.

Israel simultaneously began conducting covert incursions on to Lebanese territory, provoking Hizbollah�s capture of two IDF soldiers. Credible sources confirm that the soldiers were not abducted on Israeli territory, but inside Lebanon. Like the scuppered peace negotiations, Western officials have ignored this, and misinformed the media. However, some reports corroborate the sources. Israeli officials, for instance, informed Forbes (12.7.06) that �Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel.�"

via Global Research... sorry don't have the original link

But the full text is posted here:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1154114441.html

Manic Moran

The capture of the soldiers and the destruction of the tank and HMMWV were two separate incidents. After the soldiers were taken, the tank and truck were part of a rapid-response column which went across the border in pursuit before being ambushed. Once that happened, things escalated from there.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

The Lebanese (assuming that the Shia component follows orders) would have major advantages over the Israelis.
1) They aren't Israeli, and thus are much more likely to get some co-operation from the locals. Not least, they speak the right language.

The locals probably don't know a whole lot.

2) The can flood areas with troops and search for things on the ground. Israel isn't doing that right now.

Hezbollah may obstruct them and the Lebanese Army probably don't know the area as well as Hezbollah.

3) Israel's only having difficulty because it's restricting itself.

A necessary restriction to reduce casualties. Gently, gently, catchy monkey.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

The capture of the soldiers and the destruction of the tank and HMMWV were two separate incidents. After the soldiers were taken, the tank and truck were part of a rapid-response column which went across the border in pursuit before being ambushed. Once that happened, things escalated from there.

NTM

Well I'll admit that conclusive evidence of either contention doesn't seem to exist. Yet the mainstream press, and pretty much everyone else, has simply led with the story that best fits in with an Israeli response.

This website (http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/07/where-exactly-were-those-israeli.html) has looked into the event in a little detail. The comments again show that no agreement on the issue has been found.

Do you have a timeline and/or reference for the version of events you detail?

Website Ref wrote:

Where exactly were those Israeli soldiers when Hezbollah captured them?
UPDATE: Could the first translation be what Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian based his initial report on? The second translation sounds better worded and based on that and Jonathan Cook's reporting, I think the second one is the accurate translation. See Translations that don't match

On July 12th, the Associated Press reported "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." This is from the article Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN , 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM

This AP news article was run by several news outlets on July 12th like ABC, CBS Forbes, The Boston Herald etc. but this version was probably based on a bad translation.

Changing the Story Two Times ( the first version probably was based on a bad translation):

5:41 AM ET, Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian originally reported "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon"Lebanon Israel Noam Chomsky

7:09 AM ET, Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian had changed his report to read: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."

4:13 PM ET, Associated Press Writer Joseph Panossian had again changed his report, this time to read: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. "

On July 12th, Anthony Shadid, Scott Wilson and Debbi Wilgoren, of the Washington Post Foreign Service, did not say which side of the border in their article Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers , "The militant Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers along the Israel-Lebanon border Wednesday morning, and Israeli officials said seven more soldiers were killed after tanks and troops moved into Lebanon in response to the attack." [as seen in google cache.] But that article was rewritten and on July 13th it read: "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."

Asking this question "Where exactly were those Israeli soldiers when Hezbollah captured them?" is an attempt to get to the bottom of this specific fact. Note in my update that I quote Jonathan Cook who writes, in a July 25th article, Five myths that help Israel's war crimes, "Early on July 12 Hizbullah launched a raid against an army border post"

Jonathan Cook mentions in his article that " We now know from reports in the US media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year." see Israel set war plan more than a year ago
See Translations that don't match

NTM

Manic Moran

Though annecdotal, one of the posters on another board I'm on is a reserve IDF Major, and one of the soldiers killed that day was one of his employees. I figure he's probably in the loop.

You will note that while the reports may have changed, none of them run counter to the concept of Israelis only crossing the border after the initial attack. Some, such as Haaretz have not changed their reports and still explicitly state that sequence. Al Jazeera also still quotes Hezbullah as saying that they crossed the border first, and that the Israeli tank crossed afterwards.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6B054073-6646-4BCD-9269-7439EE6005B9.htm
"Hezbollah said it had destroyed an Israeli tank that had entered Lebanon after its cross-border raid, inflicting casualties on its crew. "

NTM

FYI

Well no, the reports change from "southern Lebanon" to "Lebanese border" to "inside Israel".

While the reports are continuous with regards to the Israeli response, this is not in question.

Anecdotal evidence, while possibly true, does not constituent credible evidence I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, this is all irrelevant.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Al Jazeera also still quotes Hezbullah as saying that they crossed the border first, and that the Israeli tank crossed afterwards.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6B054073-6646-4BCD-9269-7439EE6005B9.htm
"Hezbollah said it had destroyed an Israeli tank that had entered Lebanon after its cross-border raid, inflicting casualties on its crew. "

NTM

This also doesn't appear to be a direct quote, therefore the same inconsistency might be the reason for the use of "its cross border raid".

To say again, there is no conclusive evidence either way. The comments on that site have other direct quotes from Hizbullah which suggest the soldiers were captured inside Lebanon.

Slainte70

FYI wrote:

Well no, the reports change from "southern Lebanon" to "Lebanese border" to "inside Israel".

While the reports are continuous with regards to the Israeli response, this is not in question.

Anecdotal evidence, while possibly true, does not constituent credible evidence I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, this is all irrelevant.

Does two burning IDF hummers (with three dead Israeli soldiers and two missing from the hummers) which were found still burning near Zarit Moshav in ISRAEL (!) constitute credible evidence? It was bloody televised for Pete's sake! And Nasrallah boasting that this kidnapping took five months to plan!

Jeez, I cannot believe this thread is still debating this issue!

spanner

lets see Israel go in and take on Hezbollah hand to hand on the ground. It has seemly the best military in the world so lets see it. They will not dismantle hezbollah by bombing, all they are doing is killing innocent people.

the only way for Israel to get the job done is to push as far in land to make the katusha rockets out of range, then dismantle hezbollahs tunnels and bunkers. clearing the way for the international force to take over. Or if they want they can take up the old job of watch the region, which I dont think they want. carpet bombing Lebanon to "put pressure" for the realise of the soldiers has not and will not work. The only way to get them back will be a prisoner swap

Akrasia

Slainte70 wrote:

Does two burning IDF hummers (with three dead Israeli soldiers and two missing from the hummers) which were found still burning near Zarit Moshav in ISRAEL (!) constitute credible evidence? It was bloody televised for Pete's sake! And Nasrallah boasting that this kidnapping took five months to plan!

Jeez, I cannot believe this thread is still debating this issue!

hezbollah fired rockets at IDF targets in northern Israel shortly after the soldiers were captured in response to attacks by the IDF, it is possible that the jeeps shown on television were destroyed by these rockets and not in an initial cross border raid.

Although it is impossible to know for sure unless either high ranking Hezbollah or IDF officials change their story.

cik

Akrasia wrote:

Although it is impossible to know for sure unless either high ranking Hezbollah or IDF officials change their story.

What weight do you give to the UN observers on the ground there who reported that Hezbollah crossed the blue line into Israel to conduct the attack and in parrellel luanched rockets?

to view the reports go to the UNIFIL website

gandalf

cik wrote:

What weight do you give to the UN observers on the ground there who reported that Hezbollah crossed the blue line into Israel to conduct the attack and in parrellel luanched rockets?

to view the reports go to the UNIFIL website

Well we know the weight the IDF gave them, it came in the form of a guided munition :rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

Manic Moran wrote:

The Lebanese (assuming that the Shia component follows orders) would have major advantages over the Israelis.

1) They aren't Israeli, and thus are much more likely to get some co-operation from the locals. Not least, they speak the right language.
2) The can flood areas with troops and search for things on the ground. Israel isn't doing that right now.
3) Israel's only having difficulty because it's restricting itself.

NTM

Any reports I've heard about the Lebanese army make it sound more and more like the Yugoslav army before their civil war. It, like Lebanese society is divided into factions, Sunni, Shiites, Christians etc (instead of Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians). If the Lebanese army moves against Hizbollah, then there will be another civil war there.

redspider

redspider wrote:

My reading into intelligence is that Hezbollah is as well (or better) armed as the Lebanese army in terms of ordnance

Manic Moran wrote:

Actually, no. Unless Hezbullah has some 350 tanks and 700 APCs, tube artillery, and whatnot.

I was referring to the South Lebanon area in terms of Hezbollah's 'control'. My understanding is that Hezbollah are the de facto 'army' in this area, and allowed to operate by Lebanon and its Army. It is not a case of them being an underground organisation, although they are clearly not an army but a militia that operate in and among the people, and are of the people. Its not a case of unwanted terrorists using civilians as a hiding place. Hezbollah 'operatives' come from there, as well as other parts of the Aran world no doubt.

What I dont understand about this conflict is that Olmert's words after the 8 soldiers were killed at the 'start' was that Israel saw it as an act of war and they would attack Lebanon. They did. But when Beruit Airport was bombed, why didnt Lebanon and their Army respond with anything? Is it basically in a position where it could but it has shown remarkable strength not to, or has it let Hezbollah do the responding and get hit back, along with its civilians taking the brunt?

Where do the old civil war divisions in Lebanon lie when it comes to this situation? Was the army just too fragile to do anything? Also, with the Syrian pullout from South Lebanon only very recent, was the Army ill prepared.

I am just perplexed by any visible response (at least internationally reported) of any Lebanon Army involvement, even military exercises? And I am uneasy with their lack of any airpower. Having the airport of Beruit bombed on the 1st day must have sent a shockwave through all Lebanese people as it was very symbolic.

redspider

Dirk Gently

redspider wrote:

What I dont understand about this conflict is that Olmert's words after the 8 soldiers were killed at the 'start' was that Israel saw it as an act of war and they would attack Lebanon. They did. But when Beruit Airport was bombed, why didnt Lebanon and their Army respond with anything? Is it basically in a position where it could but it has shown remarkable strength not to, or has it let Hezbollah do the responding and get hit back, along with its civilians taking the brunt?

It’s a case of the Lebanese state forces being very weak and divided internally. A lot of the Lebanese army are Hezbollah sympathisers which is why the Lebanese state is reluctant to act against Hezbollah too. Syria made sure that the Lebanese state forces where well infiltrated before they pulled out. Officially the Lebanese state said it will not interfere unless there is a large scale ground invasion in which case the Lebanese army will respond to defend its territory. Tbh the Lebanese forces have their hands full clearing up and rescuing survivors in the aftermath of the air strikes. If the Lebanese army were forced to engage with the IDF in a conflict situation it would more than likely result in the collapse of an already very fragile grip on power that the current Lebanese government have. Lebanon are never going to be able to stop Israeli air strikes even if the Lebanese army declares war on Israel but it will receive massive casualties in the resulting Israeli targeting of the Lebanese army positions resulting in a power vacuum as the state forces will be too weakened to maintain any kind of order.

In short they’re damned if they do fight back and damned if they don't as their country is been destroyed around them. If the Lebanese army had any hope of stopping the Israelis I'm sure they would have declared war already but at the moment it is a case of hoping the Israelis stop short of giving them no choice but to declare war by invading and occupying Lebanon on a large scale. It is hard to image a sovereign state standing by and allowing a foreign power destroy their country but in the case of Lebanon they have very little choice unless they want to loose the internal fragile stability they have gained in the past few years with the current government. The line is becoming very blurry as to what point you want to hold onto what you have and when what you had is already lost.

Just one more point, I know its kind of irrelevant but I highlighted in bold your post where you say Israel said they would attack Lebanon. Officially they are at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon. Means little or nothing in reality I know but Israel hasn't actually declared war on Lebanon dispite the effect being the same as if they did. The result of the Israeli actions amount to a state of war except they are not directly targeting the Lebanese state forces. (even though some Lebanese forces have been killed anyway)

spanner

clown bag wrote:

Just one more point, I know its kind of irrelevant but I highlighted in bold your post where you say Israel said they would attack Lebanon. Officially they are at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon. Means little or nothing in reality I know but Israel hasn't actually declared war on Lebanon dispite the effect being the same as if they did. The result of the Israeli actions amount to a state of war except they are not directly targeting the Lebanese state forces. (even though some Lebanese forces have been killed anyway)

As you said they do not look very much like they are at war with Hezbollah, if they were they would take them head on along the ground. They tried this in one village and had to retreat due to heavy resistance by Hesbollah. Israel are hoping to due the job viva the air and it is failing miserably. If they really meant what they would said they would push their ground troops further in

Dirk Gently

spanner wrote:

As you said they do not look very much like they are at war with Hezbollah, if they were they would take them head on along the ground. They tried this in one village and had to retreat due to heavy resistance by Hesbollah. Israel are hoping to due the job viva the air and it is failing miserably. If they really meant what they would said they would push their ground troops further in

Yeah I agree, the Israeli military campaign was a disaster. Its result was to strengthen Hezbollah’s standing within Lebanon and kill a load of innocent civilians in the process. It doesn't look like they have any hope of a military solution now. If they go in on the ground they are going to meet more resistance now than they would have before they enraged the non-combatant population in south Lebanon. Hezbollah is openly getting the support of people now who would not have supported them before the air strikes.

The air strikes aren't gonna get rid of them and it looks like on the ground man against man the Israelis aren't gonna get much joy either. They are actively retreating anytime they come up against ground resistance. If there ever was a military solution to get rid of Hezbollah they have lost that opportunity now after their indiscriminate air strikes have swelled the amount of active support for Hezbollah on the ground in Lebanon.

The only way they have of getting rid of Hezbollah now is an agreement with Lebanon and an international peace keeping force to police the boarder together. Hezbollah have said they will play along and integrate into the Lebanese army if Israel stop the bombings and give some guarantees (not sure what guarantees they're looking for). Continuing the Military campaign from this point is a futile exercise. I find it Ironic that Israel complain that the U.N. peace keeping force has no teeth when they themselves took the easy option and bombed from the air instead of doing the hard job and actually go after Hezbollah on the ground. Hopefully after this 48 hour break from air strikes it will become politically impossible for Israel to resume the attacks but I wouldn't put anything past them at this stage. I think nothing short of a full trade embargo put on them by the European Union would even make them pause for a moment to think. Obviously if the U.S. threatened a similar embargo they would stop but it’s very unlikely the U.S. would impose any kind of sanctions on them.

I'm sure the boys in Washington are loving the fact that the U.N. is been made to look so powerless as a result of American and Tony Blair’s reluctance to criticise Israel. Looks like Blair is coming under a lot of pressure domestically though with very little support in his own cabinet and Bush might be forced into some sort of compromise to save Blair from a possible premature resignation as prime minister.

Manic Moran

I don't think a full-on ground invasion was ever really on the cards. There was just too much chance of Syria getting involved and I would be surprised if Israel was really looking for that. When Lebanon announced that it would go fight Israel if they went in in force, I think it settled the issue. Israel has no desire to attack the sovereign Lebanese government which it is/was on pretty decent terms with. (Heck, look at the pictures of the rescue workers: They're wearing Israeli equipment)

I had to laugh at the news reports saying "Israeli forces beaten back from (wherever) with heavy casualties". 'Heavy Casualties' out of a battalion is, maybe, a half a company total. 9 dead is a training accident around here. In this case, Israel is a victim of its own restraint. It's looking like it was a sort of 'let's give it a bit of a crack, in case we can walk in' instead of a proper assault. Hezbullah obviously weren't going to just let them waltz in, but it's more of a moral victory than a demonstration of combat prowess.

find it Ironic that Israel complain that the U.N. peace keeping force has no teeth when they themselves took the easy option and bombed from the air instead of doing the hard job and actually go after Hezbollah on the ground.

Why should they risk Israeli lives if it's possible that they can get a UN force to do the job?

Hopefully after this 48 hour break from air strikes it will become politically impossible for Israel to resume the attacks but I wouldn't put anything past them at this stage

If the UN/EU/NATO/Arab League/Whoever haven't come up with an agreement on a plan to put into place, I fully expect that the attacks will resume. They have a wonderful way of focusing attention on the area. Many pages ago, I opined that the only ways that this would stop would be (a) Hezbullah runs out of ammo, (b) They return the two soldiers or (c) the UN or whoever sends a force in with teeth. Or words to that effect. I still maintain that opinion, and that (c) is what the Israelis are realisticly expecting as 'success' for them.

I think politically, in the long term the Israelis are going to come out rather better from this than many people are going to give them credit for right now. Yes, it's natural to be angry with the people who are raining bombs on your country when they're doing it, but when the dust settles, the Lebanese are going to sit down and ask "Just what happened that caused this? We were doing so well at our recovery, until then." Some Arab editorials have apparently already postulated this. (Per BBC overviews)

I'm sure the boys in Washington are loving the fact that the U.N. is been made to look so powerless as a result of American and Tony Blair’s reluctance to criticise Israel.

The UN are not the be-all and end-all of international relations. There are other organisations that could do something, which the US does not have a veto power over.

NTM

Akrasia

clown bag wrote:

Yeah I agree, the Israeli military campaign was a disaster. Its result was to strengthen Hezbollah’s standing within Lebanon and kill a load of innocent civilians in the process. It doesn't look like they have any hope of a military solution now. If they go in on the ground they are going to meet more resistance now than they would have before they enraged the non-combatant population in south Lebanon. Hezbollah is openly getting the support of people now who would not have supported them before the air strikes.

the crazy thing is, this was the only outcome there ever could have been. There was never any chance of the IDF bombing Hezbollah out of existance, and the phrase 'whatever doesn't kill me will only make me stronger' certainly applies in this situation.

By the way, Israel continue to bombard Gaza behind the veil of media attention and just like in Lebanon, their bombing is going to have the exact opposite effect to the one desired. It will not drive out Hamas or Islamic Jihad, it will only serve to harden the resolve of those determined to fight the Israelis. Their actions are just as big a recruitment tool for Israels enemies as the destruction of Iraq was a recruitment tool for terrorism in Baghdad.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

In this case, Israel is a victim of its own restraint.

The words Israel and Restraint don't belong in the same sentance, and in this case Israel have been anything but restrained. The word cowardly is far more appropriate. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice hundreds of civilians if it can protect their soldiers, even if, in operational terms, the aerial bombardment is neither effective against hezbollah nor building international sympathy for their position.

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

I think politically, in the long term the Israelis are going to come out rather better from this than many people are going to give them credit for right now. Yes, it's natural to be angry with the people who are raining bombs on your country when they're doing it, but when the dust settles, the Lebanese are going to sit down and ask "Just what happened that caused this? We were doing so well at our recovery, until then." Some Arab editorials have apparently already postulated this. (Per BBC overviews)
NTM

Don't know where you're getting those ideas from. Any links? The IHT for instance takes a different view.

Tide of Arab opinion turning to Hezbollah

DAMASCUS At the onset of the Lebanese crisis, Arab governments, starting with Saudi Arabia, slammed Hezbollah for recklessly provoking a war, providing what the United States and Israel took as a wink and a nod to continue the fight.

Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for 15 days, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements.

The Saudi royal family and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who were initially more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollah's main sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington.

An outpouring of newspaper columns, cartoons, blogs and public poetry readings have showered praise on Hezbollah while attacking the United States and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for trumpeting U.S. plans for a "new Middle East" that they say has led only to violence and repression.

Even Al Qaeda, run by violent Sunni Muslim extremists normally hostile to all Shiites, has gotten into the act, with its deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, releasing a taped message saying that through its fighting in Iraq, his organization was also trying to liberate Palestine.

I think Hezbollah will come out of this stronger than ever.

Mel Gibson

:-(

oscarBravo

Mel, I'd appreciate if you put a little more effort into your posts. This is a serious discussion forum.

Mick86

My favourite version of this story comes from the Bahrain News Agency;

...Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were arrested as they entered the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. Israeli aircraft were active in the air over southern Lebanon, police said, with jets bombing roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut.

Presumably the same police also shot up the other eight soldiers and dragged the bodies back into Israel before booking the suspects.:D

Tune in next week for an exclusive interview with Elvis aboard his luxury UFO.

MiddleE

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

#24
I'm keeping an open mind. Haaretz is a reputable source and is often highly critical of the government and IDF actions.

Yes, if there is only one thing that you can believe out of Israel, then it's Haartez and Gideon Levy in particular, IMO.

Guardian
Highly respected English edition of Israel's moderate national daily, published in Tel Aviv in association with the International Herald Tribune.

A few examples from H A A R E T Z;

Who started? .....By Gideon Levy
Who is the Terrorist? ...by Gideon Levy ...April 23, 2006
A puppet on a string ..By Benny Ziffer ...Fri., July 14, 2006

Sooner or later, all presidents of the State of Israel seem fated to become the butt of jokes, if they are not sad jokes themselves. In this department, President Moshe Katsav has broken all the records.

Ramon barred from certain decisions while under investigation....By Yuval Yoaz ... 06:23 28/07/2006

Justice Minister Haim Ramon has been barred from making any decisions on professional matters relevant to his ministry while a criminal investigation is being conducted against him.

Norway up in arms after author asserts Israel has lost right to exist ...By Assaf Uni ...01:37 12/08/2006

Under Israeli censorship rules, it is impossible to mention any issue that touches on Israeli security or defense matters: the location of military installations, for example, cannot be divulged. It is arguable whether it would actually be possible to report a Hezbollah strike that hit a military site inside Israel. Hypocrisy About Hezbollah ...August 10, 2006
As Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories, and military installations near or inside civilian communities, if a Hezbollah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should that count as an attack on civilians or on a military site? {On thread shortly}

MiddleE

Malone wrote:

How many Palestinian and Lebanese people have Israel kidnapped over the years.

Is that not the truth of it. Internment without trail is the norm. One recent example...

A political prisoner in Israel's Gulag ..by Ray Hanania ...07.28.2006

Ghazi Falah, a Palestinian with US residency who also is a citizen of both Canada and Israel, was in Israel visiting his sick mother. When he decided to take pictures at the beach, he got arrested. Now he's guilty. Guilty of being Arab.

The word Gulag really upsets many Israelis. They don't like it, insisting "every Palestinian prisoner," nearly 10,000 of them, are all "terrorists, murderers and criminals." That includes many youngsters who are also detained.

Falah went before a magistrate in Haifa, but his lawyer was not only barred from entering the courtroom, he was also warned against saying anything about Falah's condition to anyone. The gag order was only recently lifted when an Israeli newspaper complained that Falah's story was being carried by newspapers in the United States and the gag order was unfair to them.

MiddleE

Manic Moran wrote:

#31
The Lebanese (assuming that the Shia component follows orders) would have major advantages over the Israelis.
1) They aren't Israeli, and thus are much more likely to get some co-operation from the locals. Not least, they speak the right language.

Maybe.

Manic Moran wrote:

2) The can flood areas with troops and search for things on the ground. Israel isn't doing that right now.

Israel is not been let do that right now.

Manic Moran wrote:

3) Israel's only having difficulty because it's restricting itself. NTM

Restricting itself. You must be joking. Israel has never ever restricted itself. It is being restricted by Hezbollah. Restricted and constricted by Hezbollah, like never ever before. It's receiving an ass whipping from a bunch of dirt farmers. The might IDF is a paper bag, full of wind.

Anti-tank missile biggest threat to Israel troops ...Aug 10, 2006

Hezbollah guerrillas using sophisticated anti- tank missiles are proving the biggest threat Israeli ground troops are facing in fighting in south Lebanon, Israeli military officials admit.

Exact figures are not available, but a significant number of the 82 Israeli military fatalities since the fighting broke out on July 12, have been caused by anti-tank missiles, not necessarily used against tanks, but fired at buildings in which troops are taking cover, or at groups of soldiers out in the open.

According to Israeli sources, Hezbollah has - or had when the fighting broke out - tens of thousands of anti-tank missiles of Russian, Iranian and North Korean manufacture, as well as several from other countries.

Israel-Hezbollah showdown in the battlefield – Phase II ...Saturday 12-08-2006

Hezbollah anti-tank units stopped their advance after hitting 7 or 8 Merkava-4 tanks. Field reports suggest the Israelis have had to pull two battalions of Merkava-4 out of the battlefield and replaced them with battalions of Merkava-1 and Merkava-2.

Victor

MiddleE wrote:

As Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories, and military installations near or inside civilian communities, if a Hezbollah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should that count as an attack on civilians or on a military site? {On thread shortly}

Take a look at google earth. Its quite clear that the air bases and tank yards are in rural areas.

MiddleE

Victor

MiddleE
As Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories, and military installations near or inside civilian communities, if a Hezbollah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should that count as an attack on civilians or on a military site?

Take a look at google earth. Its quite clear that the air bases and tank yards are in rural areas.

Halo Victor, I do not know of any air base, military or civilian, that has ever been placed near civilian settlements.

My main point was "Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories, and military installations near or inside civilian communities" and should a hit count as civilian or military. Hair splitting, maybe.

MiddleE

Quiet grows from Lebanon withdrawal
H A A R E T Z ...Tue., May 30, 2006 ...By Amos Harel

Brigadier General Meir Caliphi , who yesterday completed a posting as commander of the Galilee Division, says that "the real answer to the withdrawal question will be provided by time. In the meantime, northern Israel is witnessing one of its more peaceful periods in years. When compared to other parts of the country, the north is flourishing. "

"It may go against military logic," Caliphi admits, "but I think that it is important to continue with the policy of restraint. So long as we can keep the quiet here."

Caliphi expressed great confidence in the ability of the IDF to impose quiet in Lebanon.

Now, three months later, I wonder if he is still as confident after the ass kicking the IDF got from the Lebanese dirt farmers.

The general also has some respectful comments about the head of the Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. "He is rational and smart, and analyzes the situation correctly. I do not underestimate the Hezbollah but take them very seriously."

Hezbollah certainly did. Israel certainly did not.