Israel Unable to Defeat Hizballah?

[pantom]

Whew! That’s got to be the stupidest post I’ve seen in, oh, a day at least.

How about this?
For the same reason Napoleon couldn’t defeat the Spanish guerrillas.
Or, if you don’t like that, for the same reason France couldn’t win in Algeria.
Etc., etc.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The old Soviet Union is bank rolling them with funds and weapons galore and the Chinese threaten to invade and start a global world war if there is an invasion of the North? Who knew??

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Iran is bankrolling them and Syria might threaten (citing precedent as least as good as the Israelis have got) to invade Lebanon and maybe not stop there. The parallel holds.

[FRDE]

Does anyone really care about the Shebaa Farms ?

For Hezbollah it is just a pretext, for Israel it is a buffer zone.

People keep saying that this is a ‘guerilla war’

• it does not look like one to me, Israel has no beef with most of Lebanon, they just don’t like having a load of nutters firing long distance rockets at them.

Hisbollah are in a very tightly defined area (or rather areas), they have rather unfriendly people behind them and are using those of their own people who were intimidated enough or stupid enough not to get out - as human shields.

Israel can make S. Lebanon extremely unpleasant to live in, wait until enough non-combatents have got out, and enough Hesbollah have been drawn to the front, then they can use a scorched earth approach to wipe out anyone in the area.

The situation has more in common with a Medieval siege than guerilla warfare.

Where guerilla warfare might turn up is in the non-Hezbollah parts of Lebanon, but that would have nothing to do with Israel.

Personally I reckon Hezbollah don’t stand a chance, if they stay where they are they will be pounded out of existence, and if they retreat and try to mingle with the rest of Lebanon they stand a very good chance of being massacred. There is a chance that they’ll get hustled over the border to Syria - but that is rather a civilized solution.

This is a surgical operation on a bandit stronghold

• and it was Hezbollah that started it, which means they don’t have much sympathy.

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Iran is bankrolling them and Syria might threaten (citing precedent as least as good as the Israelis have got) to invade Lebanon and maybe not stop there. The parallel holds.
[/QUOTE]

Precedent shows that Syria has not been very successful at directly attacking Israel in the past.

They did quite a good job of occupying Lebanon, but somehow I don’t think they would risk it. It would be quite easy for Lebanon to call on others for help.

Recent history has shown that it is unwise to be viewed as the aggressor.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Israel can make S. Lebanon extremely unpleasant to live in, wait until enough non-combatents have got out, and enough Hesbollah have been drawn to the front, then they can use a scorched earth approach to wipe out anyone in the area.
[/quote]
Except that between the destroyed roads and the Israelis shooting anything that moves, they probably can’t get out. As well, the other name for your “scorched earth approach” is mass murder.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
The situation has more in common with a Medieval siege than guerilla warfare.
[/quote]
Well, both sides have medieval minds.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
This is a surgical operation on a bandit stronghold

• and it was Hezbollah that started it, which means they don’t have much sympathy.
  [/QUOTE]
  Destroying a good chunk of a country isn’t “surgical”, and I don’t see much sympathy for Hezbollah; just the citizens of Lebanon.

[XT]

[QUOTE=pantom]
Whew! That’s got to be the stupidest post I’ve seen in, oh, a day at least.
[/QUOTE]

If mine was the stupidest post you’ve seen in days then you obviously don’t get out much. Is it your serious contention that guerilla warfare is universally successful?

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Iran is bankrolling them and Syria might threaten (citing precedent as least as good as the Israelis have got) to invade Lebanon and maybe not stop there. The parallel holds.
[/QUOTE]

Iran is not the old Soviet Union, both in terms of what it can give to HB and the fact that it has to do so covertly. They can’t exactly roll in ships or trains full of goodies and bags of money, right? As for Syria jumping in…for one thing I believe thats a bunch of hot air. But even if I’m wrong and they DO decide to jump in, Syria ain’t no China.

Oh, and Israel is a bit more effective (and stable) than the South Vietnamese military/government.

I don’t think your analogy is worth the powder to blow it to hell (not just for these reasons but because the situation isn’t even remotely similar politically or militarily). But you seem to have a friend in pantom wrt this, so it isn’t a total wash.

-XT

[pantom]

Well, let’s look at the facts of the matter:

Hizbullah is responding to the Israeli offensive with resistance on the Leb side, while lobbing rockets aimlessly into Israel. Point of the latter? Nothing really, except to kill.
Said rockets are small, and apparently can be launched from just about anywhere by just about anyone. Being small, they are also cheap. Being cheap, they are numerous. Being numerous, it will be devilishly hard to get all of them.
You can dream until the cows come home that Israel will get all of them. Dreaming won’t make it so. A guerrilla force likes nothing more than it likes an enemy like Israel, with lots of expensive, high-powered weaponry. With their machine-guns, rpg’s, and small rockets they can fight them forever. And a day.
So, a summary of what’s been accomplished so far:

• Lebanon’s been blown to hell.
• Israelis all over the north have been forced to cower in shelters as hundreds of rockets rain down on them.
• Israel has managed to take a couple of small positions inside the border.

I’ve written elsewhere what I thought Israel and the US should have done against Hizbullah and Iran, so I’ll just sum it up with this from the Art of War:

One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful.
Subduing the other’s military without battle is the most skillful.

As for what’s happening to Israel and the US now, it’s along these lines:

And so one who does not know the harm from employing the military
Cannot thoroughly know the advantage of employing the military

As for whether guerrillas always win, well, obviously no. But mostly they’ll manage to run down a foreign conventional army, sooner or later. Why do you think Israel isn’t trying to overrun the southern part of Lebanon? They remember what happened the last time they occupied that ground, and if they need a reminder of what it was like, they need only look at what’s happening to our troops in Iraq.
Indeed, between that and this war, Iran is sitting mighty pretty. Personally, I’m at the point where I’m beginning to think that Dubya is deliberately working for the interests of Iran. He certainly couldn’t do a better job for them if he was trying.

[XT]

[QUOTE=pantom]
Said rockets are small, and apparently can be launched from just about anywhere by just about anyone. Being small, they are also cheap. Being cheap, they are numerous. Being numerous, it will be devilishly hard to get all of them.
[/QUOTE]

And being as HB can’t manufacture them they will have to be shipped in from outside the country, then brought overland (in numbers big enough to sustain the current rate of fire…which they are doing now because they stockpiled them in advance)…across what is pretty much a war zone patrolled by Israeli air. Possible sure. But it won’t exactly be a cake walk.

[QUOTE=pantom]
You can dream until the cows come home that Israel will get all of them. Dreaming won’t make it so. A guerrilla force likes nothing more than it likes an enemy like Israel, with lots of expensive, high-powered weaponry. With their machine-guns, rpg’s, and small rockets they can fight them forever. And a day.
[/QUOTE]

Where are you getting this stuff from? Did I say that Israel can get all the rockets? If so do you have a cite of me saying that bullshit?

As to the rest I think you are living in a fantasy world if you believe that HB is rubbing its hands with glee over an ‘enemy like Israel’ pounding on their door. THey have certainly hurt the IDF in the encounters so far…but they have been hurt a hell of a lot worse for their troubles. And I don’t believe its reality based that HB can (or would) fight in the current situation ‘forever. And a day’ as you put it. Inflict enough casualties on ANY force and it will eventually withdraw, if only to lick its wounds and reform its ranks. Where do you get this picture that HB somehow has endless resources of men and material, that somehow logistics are irrelevent to them, etc?

[QUOTE=pantom]
Lebanon’s been blown to hell.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose this depends on your definition of ‘blown to hell’, but ok.

[QUOTE=pantom]
Israelis all over the north have been forced to cower in shelters as hundreds of rockets rain down on them.
[/QUOTE]

Again, a bit of an exaggeration and overstatement of the facts…

[QUOTE=pantom]
Israel has managed to take a couple of small positions inside the border.
[/QUOTE]

One extreme to the other, ehe? What do you base this incredible statement on…and has HB been notified? The Israeli’s claim to have destroyed at least 50% of HB’s combat capability. Perhaps thats an exaggeration (it probably is)…but you seem to be saying that Israel has only done minor (1%? 5%) damage. How do you justify this…based on what?

[QUOTE=pantom]
As for whether guerrillas always win, well, obviously no. But mostly they’ll manage to run down a foreign conventional army, sooner or later. Why do you think Israel isn’t trying to overrun the southern part of Lebanon? They remember what happened the last time they occupied that ground, and if they need a reminder of what it was like, they need only look at what’s happening to our troops in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

In response to your own earlier comments, and to fight my own ignorance I started this thread in your honor to discuss guerrilla/insurgencies in history. Feel free to participate.

Iraq is nothing like whats going on in Lebanon. As for what happened the last time, recall that it took 10 years and mounting international pressure to finally get Israel to leave. I don’t believe that this situaiton is comparable to that one…for one thing, Israel doesn’t want to occupy Southern Lebanon…they simply want to take out HB military installations, supply depots, rocket launchers, and paramilitary units…and they seem to be doing a fairly good job of it from what I’ve seen.

[QUOTE=pantom]
Indeed, between that and this war, Iran is sitting mighty pretty. Personally, I’m at the point where I’m beginning to think that Dubya is deliberately working for the interests of Iran. He certainly couldn’t do a better job for them if he was trying.
[/QUOTE]

Um…righto mate.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Where are you getting this stuff from? Did I say that Israel can get all the rockets? If so do you have a cite of me saying that bullshit?

[/QUOTE]

But but but… earlier you pointing out that an analogy did not have a 1:1 correlation with current events was refuted with the firm factual rebuttal that it was the stupidest post of the day to be seen.

Who needs cites when you can call an argument dumb?

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Iran is not the old Soviet Union, both in terms of what it can give to HB and the fact that it has to do so covertly. They can’t exactly roll in ships or trains full of goodies and bags of money, right? As for Syria jumping in…for one thing I believe thats a bunch of hot air. But even if I’m wrong and they DO decide to jump in, Syria ain’t no China.

Oh, and Israel is a bit more effective (and stable) than the South Vietnamese military/government.
[/QUOTE]

So, you think Israel can defeat Hezbollah, without exterminating or expelling the entire Southern Lebanese population among which the Hezbollah militants are hiding? How? If they couldn’t do it when they occupied Southern Lebanon last time, why should it be any different this time? You can’t exterminate termites with a machine gun! You can try and try, but at the end you’ll only bring down the house, and the wreckage will still be infested with termites. And in this case, fumigation is not an option, as I hope you’ll agree!

[XT]

Hoping you would wander in at some point Finn.

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So, you think Israel can defeat Hezbollah, without exterminating or expelling the entire Southern Lebanese population among which the Hezbollah militants are hiding? How? If they couldn’t do it when they occupied Southern Lebanon last time, why should it be any different this time? You can’t exterminate termites with a machine gun! You can try and try, but at the end you’ll only bring down the house, and the wreckage will still be infested with termites. And in this case, fumigation is not an option, as I hope you’ll agree!
[/QUOTE]

Lets talk about that earlier occupation since it keeps coming up BG. Here is the Wiki cite for it. I’ll toss in some of what I feel are the more relevant parts, then you can read the cite and toss some back…then we’ll get to your question if we still need to. Fair?

The Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון, Milkhemet Levanon), also known as the Operation Peace of the Galilee (מבצע שלום הגליל, Mivtsa Shalom HaGalil in Hebrew), began June 6, 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon. The Government of Israel gave a green light for the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov by Fatah - Revolutionary Council and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel. See also Operation Litani.

After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon. Surrounded in West Beirut and subject to heavy bombardment, the PLO and the Syrian forces negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of international peacekeepers.

Just a brief background.

On 10 July 1981, after a period of peace, violence erupted in South Lebanon. According to the U.N. Secretary-General, the Israeli air force bombarded Palestinian targets in south Lebanon, and later that day Palestinian elements fired artillery and rockets into northern Israel. However, according to the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, “Israel responded to PLO rocket attacks on northern Israeli settlements by bombing PLO encampments in southern Lebanon.”[1] The United Nations Secretary-General noted, “After several weeks of relative quiet in the area, a new cycle of violence has begun and has, in the past week, steadily intensified.” He further stated, “There have been heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon; there have been civilian casualties in Israel as well. I deeply deplore the extensive human suffering caused by these developments.” The President of the Security Council, Ide Oumarou of Niger, expressed “deep concern at the extent of the loss of life and the scale of the destruction caused by the deplorable events that have been taking place for several days in Lebanon.”[2] [3] On July 24, United States envoy Philip Habib brokered a shaky ceasefire, but incidents continued. Over the next 11 months, Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders, in which 29 Israelis were killed and more than 300 were injured.

Ok…so, it was really the PLO that Israel was after here. They were worried that the PLO would use Lebanon as a second front to attack them from. Nothing shocking yet.

Reasons for the war

Starting in 1968, Palestinian groups in southern Lebanon raided northern Israel, and bombarded Israeli towns with katyusha rockets.

Secondly, Israel argued it could derail the establishment of a base of operations for the PLO, from which they could mount assaults in the international arena such as the 26 December 1968 attack on an Israeli civilian airliner in Athens.

Another reason given for the invasion was as an intervention in the ongoing Lebanese Civil War to counteract Syrian influences in Lebanon, and possibly enable the establishment of a stable Lebanese leadership from the Christian population, which would strengthen a central Lebanese Army, restore security and agree to diplomatic relations with Israel.

Just a bit more background. If you read carefully some of this is disputed a bit further on…I’ll leave that part for you if you like.

Israel’s objective was to push back the PLO militants 40 kilometres to the north. The Israeli forces soon reached that target but were determined to drive the PLO from southern Lebanon once and for all[5]. Tyre and Sidon (major cities in the south of Lebanon, still within the 40 kilometre limit) were heavily damaged, and the Lebanese capital Beirut was shelled for ten weeks, killing both PLO members and civilians.

The security buffer zone

In August 1982, the PLO withdrew most of its forces from Lebanon. With U.S. assistance, Israel and Lebanon reached an accord in May 1983 that set the stage to withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon. The instruments of ratification were never exchanged, however, and in March 1984, under pressure from Syria, Lebanon canceled the agreement. In January 1985 Israel started to withdraw most of its troops, leaving a small residual Israeli force and an Israeli-supported militia in southern Lebanon in a “security zone,” which Israel considered a necessary buffer against attacks on its northern territory. The Israeli withdrawal to the security zone ended in June 1985.

Ok, now things start getting interesting…seems there was a ceasefire and withdrawl agreement between Israel and Lebanon…but that the LEBANESE backed out (at the urging of Syria…go figure). Interesting how history repeats itself, ehe (hint: Think Palestine).

The other interesting thing here is that Israel withdrew most of its troops in January of 1985, leaving mostly militia with a scattering of regular IDF forces.
And then the public moral rot sets in (interesting how history repeats itself, and all that, ehe? :))

Political results

In the voting in the Knesset on the war, only Hadash opposed the war (and even submitted a no-confidence motion against the government). Hadash Knesset member Meir Vilner, said in the Knesset plenary session that “The government is leading Israel to an abyss. She is doing something that in the course of time might lead to crying for generations”. In response they were condemned and calls were heard, among others from the editor of Yediot Ahronoth to prosecute them for treason. Left-wing Knesset members, including Shulamit Aloni and Yossi Sarid were absent from the plenary for the vote. The HaMa’arakh faction even voted in support. The newspapers, except Haaretz, also supported the war: optimistic articles were published (for instance, reports were made on a lessening in the number of theft in Gush Dan region, implying that there was a connection with the war) and not one doubting voice was heard in these communications media.

The most famous case of the cooperation between the media with the government was during the conquest of Beaufort. The Prime Minister of Israel reported that Beaufort was conquered “without losses”, even though it was known that six soldiers of Sayeret Golani, including the commander of the Sayeret, Major Goni Hernik, fell during the fighting. The media itself reported the courage and bravery of the soldiers in the battle, but did not mention the losses[citation needed]. Only fastidious examination of the obituaries showed another picture: “on the death of Major Goni Hernik, in the time of the conquest of Beaufort, mourn Peace Now movement”.

But heavy Israeli casualities, alleged disinformation of government leaders and the public by military and political advocates of the campaign, and lack of clear goals, led to increasing disquiet among Israelis. This culminated in a large protestor rally in Tel Aviv, organized by the Peace Now movement, following the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. Organizers claimed 400,000 people participated in the rally, and it became known as the “400,000 rally”, but actual figures are estimated to have been much lower.[7]

In addition, it has been noted that the US Embassy bombing on April 18, 1983 and the bombing of the United States Marine barracks in Lebanon on October 23, 1983 were forerunners of the kinds of asymmetrical warfare experienced with increasing frequency in later decades. The United States has repeatedly experienced the disproportionate impact a small number unconventional attackers can have in many later events - from first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, to the second attack of the World Trade Center in 2001, to the insurgency experienced after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Such attacks revealed the limited utility of overwhelming superiority of conventional forces in providing immunity from highly visible losses when the attackers are willing and able to operate anonymously from the midst of noncombatant populations which the leadership of those conventional forces are unwilling to destroy.

Israel finally withdrew from the “security zone” in 2000, during the Prime Ministership of Ehud Barak. Israel continues to control a small area called “Shebaa Farms”, which Lebanon and Syria claim to be Lebanese territory but Israel insists to be former Syrian territory with the same status as the Golan Heights, since they have captured it from the Syrians. The United Nations has determined that Shebaa Farms is not part of Lebanon. The UN Secretary-General had concluded that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978, bringing closure to the 1982 invasion as far as the UN was concerned.

Ah yes…one last thing. Lets take a quick look at those horrible casualties inflicted on the IDF (and on everyone…actually, some of THOSE figures ARE pretty horrible IMHO):

Casualties

It is estimated that around 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimates of the proportion of civilians killed. Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that 5,515 people, military and civilian, were killed in the Beirut area during the conflict, and 9,797 military personnel (PLO, Hezbollah, Syrian, and others) and 2,513 civilians were killed outside of the Beirut area.[6] Approximately 675 Israeli soldiers were killed.

According to the Wiki cite this is total casualties in Lebanon between 1975-1990. Its cite 30 at the bottom if you are interested.

Anyway, my post is way too long as it is so I’ll let you read all that then reply…then we can get back to your question if you still feel the need.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Hoping you would wander in at some point Finn.

[/QUOTE]

Hey, I aim to please… and to ruthlessly crush innocent nations under my cruel jackboots of woe. I kick puppies, too.

@BrainGlutton

So, you think Israel can defeat Hezbollah, without exterminating or expelling the entire Southern Lebanese population among which the Hezbollah militants are hiding? How?

Well, how are you using the word “defeat”? Are we using the obsolete definition of destroying something, or the more accepted definition of nullifying something?

If Hezbollah cannot resupply, if their logistical and material capabilities are signifantly degraded, if there is a peacekeeping force that will actually keep the peace, then they can indeed be nullified, at least for a certain span of time.

If, of course, we are using defeat as a synonym for totally-wipe-out, then of course only something approaching genocide will satisfy the defintion, because we’ve just defined it that way.

[XT]

Damn, stole my thunder there.

-XT

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Except that between the destroyed roads and the Israelis shooting anything that moves, they probably can’t get out. As well, the other name for your “scorched earth approach” is mass murder.

Well, both sides have medieval minds.

Destroying a good chunk of a country isn’t “surgical”, and I don’t see much sympathy for Hezbollah; just the citizens of Lebanon.
[/QUOTE]

First the Israelis ‘bombed’ South Lebanon with leaflets telling people to get out.

True they attacked anything that looked as if it might be carrying missiles, a minibus full of kids was one example, but huge numbers of people did get out.

After the incident when about 50 non-combatents (women and kids) they announced a 48 hour pause, but continued going for anything that looked military.
Incidentally those people were the families of ‘tobacco farmers’, by that I read that they did not want to lose their Leb Red harvest.

The distances are miniscule, walkable, and I’ve heard radio interviews with people who /drove/ out, admittedly it took days, but that was down to traffic.

The Israelis don’t want to kill non-combatents

• more accurately they don’t want the World’s newspapers and TVs covered with pictures of dead kids and old women.

They also don’t want any arms coming into the South, or any arms being pulled back for use from Beirut.

What they want (I believe) is to turn the place into a battlefield without camp followers, at that point they can have a massacre.

What they are doing is highly surgical, the majority of the Lebanon is totally unscathed, hence the shock about Israel destroying two water drills on trucks parked in a totally non-Hezbollah area.

Remember, the Maronites and the Druze are historical allies of Israel, they want to keep them in good condition so that they can wipe out any Hezbollah combatents that escape the net.

From what I have heard, Beirut is business as usual.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
True they attacked anything that looked as if it might be carrying missiles, a minibus full of kids was one example, but huge numbers of people did get out.

After the incident when about 50 non-combatents (women and kids) they announced a 48 hour pause, but continued going for anything that looked military.
[/quote]
You mean like the minibuses you just mentioned ? To the Israelis, a military target is anything outside their borders, apparently. The “48 hour pause” is meaningless; it’s not like they actually care.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
The Israelis don’t want to kill non-combatents
[/quote]
Well, so far that appears to be the majority of their victims.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
What they want (I believe) is to turn the place into a battlefield without camp followers, at that point they can have a massacre.
[/quote]
Which can’t be done, especially after wrecking the infrastructure and killing those who do try to get out.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
What they are doing is highly surgical, the majority of the Lebanon is totally unscathed, hence the shock about Israel destroying two water drills on trucks parked in a totally non-Hezbollah area.
[/quote]
Pure, utter garbage.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Remember, the Maronites and the Druze are historical allies of Israel, they want to keep them in good condition so that they can wipe out any Hezbollah combatents that escape the net.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sure they will. Just like the Shiites love us for getting Saddam out of power.