Israel-Hizbollah war FAQ

Here is a simple FAQ I have compiled to clarify the huge amount of disinformation and propaganda on this conflict. It will probably be updated in the future.

Who started the war? What is it all about?

The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) occupied a part of Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 in order to prevent terrorist attacks from PLO militia who used southern Lebanon as a launching ground for attacks on Israeli civilians.

In 2000, Israel left southern Lebanon, with the hope that there will be no more terror attacks, but Hizbollah continued to sporadically initiate rocket attacks into Israeli civilian cities, sponsored by Iran.
During one such rocket attack, Hizbollah militants entered Israel and killed three soldiers, later to trade their bodies for a few hundred Muslims released from Israeli prisons.

In 2004, the UN security council resolved that Lebanon would dismantle Hizbollah. Resolution 1559 was not adhered to by Lebanon, probably because they are afraid to stand up to the terrorist militia which is far superior then the Lebanese army.

In 2006, Hizbollah broke into Israeli territory, attacked an Israel Defense Force post, killing eight soldiers and abducting two, then added a rocket session against civilians (killing one and wounding 25) to strengthen the demoralizing attack.

Israel demanded that the two soldiers be returned immediately, Hizbollah said they would only return the soldiers if Israel released hundreds of Muslims from Israeli prisons (both terrorists and criminals).
Israel refused to negotiate with the terrorist group, and initiated an attack against Hizbollah rocket launchers in southern Lebanon, and various Hizbollah outposts, command centers and routes in Lebanon.
To counter this, Hizbollah revealed an unbelievable array of thousands of unconventional rockets against Israeli civilian cities.

Currently (August 5th), Israel shifted it’s operations mainly to ground assaults against HIzbollah militants, probably to avoid the war clutter and civilian casualties caused by the air-strikes.

Why did Israel attack Beirut?

The Israeli Air Force attacked several Hizbollah targets in Beirut.
The destruction was limited to Hizbollah’s buildings and supplies, no civilian infrastructure was targeted.

What about roads and bridges attacked by Israel? Isn’t this civilian infrastructure?

According to international law, civilian infrastructure actively used for fighting becomes valid military targets. Thus most of the roads and bridges used to transport rockets have been destroyed. Israel has always left one intact road to any bombed area to allow civilians to evactuate (as instructed by leaflets and radio transmissions).

Some claims have been made that this is not true, but were there no roads to Qana and other bombed areas, the press (of course stationed in areas outside the bombing scope) could not have reached the damaged areas to cover the bombing damage within the hour.

Why does Israel oppose a ceasefire?

Israel initiated a heavy attack against Hizbollah to destroy their ability to attack Israeli civilians.A cease fire means that Israel withdraws, and that Hizbollah starts regrouping, rearming, and will probably attack again when they are strong enough. In addition, Israel has offered a cease fire in exchange for the return of the two abducted soldiers, but Hizbollah declined.

Why doesn’t Israel just give Hizbollah what they want?

Hizbollah’s ideology is (officially) the destruction of the state of Israel.
Thus, Israel cannot appease their demands in any level, and peaceful coexistence of this terrorist militia with the state of Israel is impossible.

Is Hizbollah a terror organization or freedom fighters?

It is a well established fact that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. None the less, was Hizbollah really a freedom fighting group meant to protect Lebanon from aggression, they would have been happy to assimilate within the Lebanese army and government. After all, that’s what a country’s army is for – protecting it. The fact that they did not do this means they have a different agenda.

Then why did Hizbollah not assimilate into the Lebanese army?

A good guess is that since Hizbollah states Israel should be destroyed, while Lebanon (being about half Christian and a relatively peaceful country) has no such interest. This difference in agenda probably means Hizbollah are not interested in conforming to the control of Lebanon.

Also, Hizbollah takes orders (as well as weapons and training) from Iran, and they will not be able to continue this while being assimilated in the Lebanese army. It seems as if Hizbollah wants to eat the cake and leave it whole – to be able to attack Israel unprovoked, while not holding their country liable.

Was there a massacre in Lebanon?

Before Israel bombed Hizbollah targets in Lebanon, they gave warning to the civilians to leave.Many civilians did not leave, either because they cannot, or because Hizbollah did not let them, or because they ARE Hizbollah themselves (Hizbollah are not military, they are merely armed civilians).

Hizbollah has made this task even more difficult by using schools and apt. buildings for hideout, and by launching rockets into Israeli civilian areas from inside Lebanese villages. Some even report that they have been using ambulances for rocket transfer.

None-the-less, Israel has managed to keep the civilian casualty rate quite low by using precision weapons, and not mass-bombing (which would have been both safer for Israeli forces, and more useful in destroying Hizbollah). Israel has continuously stated that it is NOT targeting civilians.

Then why did the UN almost condemn Israel for war crimes?

That is an interesting question for two reasons.

First it is interesting because there is no specific war crime Israel is accused of (Israel is very careful to follow the Geneva convention resolutions in all fighting).

Second, it is interesting because the UN seems to ignore real massacres (i.e: intended killings of masses by a country), such as the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Christians by Sudan’s Muslim regime.

Why are there so many more Lebanese civilians casualties then Israeli?

Hizbollah is attacking Israeli civilians with Iranian long distance rockets filled with ball bearings (small metal balls used to inflict maximal damage to living tissue). Due to the long flight time of these rockets and pre-established warning systems, Israeli civilians usually have app. 30-60 seconds to reach a safe place. Shelters are very common in Israel (one exists almost in every building, as such terrorist attacks have been going on since the establishment of Israel), and thus Israeli civilian casualties are rare.

In addition, Israel uses it’s forces to push into Lebanon, in order to protect Israeli civilians and prevent rocket launching, and thus keeps Hizbollah far from the border, limiting their ability to attack Israeli civilians and engaging the militants.

On the other hand, Hizbollah are disguised as civilians and use civilian buildings as outposts and launch sites, meaning that when the Israeli air-strike follows a launch or escaping militants, they often hurt civilians by accident.

Israel has apologized for hurting Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah has declared maximal Israeli civilian casualties as its goal.

Why are there so many more civilian Lebanese casualties then Hizbollah casualties?

There are many possible explanations for this:

1. When Israel warned the Lebanese civilians that they are about to attack in several hours, Hizbollah fled, leaving behind only those civilians who are incapable of leaving (sick, old, etc.)

2. Civilian death toll are estimates based on the collateral damage, it is probable that the real death toll is much smaller (for example, in Qana the official Lebanese death toll was 80, while eventually only 28 actually occurred).

3. Civilian death tolls include Hizbollah militants disguised as civilians (meaning any Hizbollah militant around, as they are all apparently civilian when not engaging actively in terrorist activities).

Then why doesn’t Israel try to minimize civilian casualties? Why is their response disproportionate? Are they targeting civilians on purpose? Why didn’t Israel stop after civilians were hurt?

True to August 5th 2006, the Lebanese civilian death toll stands at app. 500, and the Israeli civilian’s at around 80 (Around 20%). It is a good time to remember previous conflicts:

In world war two, the allies killed 1.8 million German civilians, and 2 million Japanese civilians. The US and UK suffered only 0.8 million civilian deaths combined (Again around 20%). Yet nobody ever accused them of using disproportionate force. In one incident, UK bombers killed 83 children in a hospital in Copenhagen. In another, the UK completely wiped out the city of Dresden, killing all the civilians. None the less, the war was not stopped due to these events.

In 1999, Dozens of civilian Albanians where allegedly killed by order of Milošević, ruler of then Republic of Yugoslavia. In response, NATO forces began a military campaign based mostly on bombing, resulting in the death of app. 10,000 people, and the escape of 800,000 (some are still refugees today). This attack by NATO was highly criticized over the years, but no official actions were taken against NATO. Today there is a tense peace at the FYR.

In these and other historic wars, many more civilians died then in the present day campaign by Israel, yet these wars were never stopped when civilians died. It is a sad but apparently necessary outcome of all war, and Israel cannot forfeit the war before they destroy Hizbollah, or the terrorist group will rearm and attack again at a time convenient for them, as they have done numerous times in the past.

CUPE Ontario’s campaign against Israeli “apartheid wall”

We have recently been informed that the Ontario section of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE Ontario) has initiated a boycott and divestment act against Israel. This decision caused much protest around the world, attached is my open letter to the President of the organization. You will find many other posts with different anecdotes across the net.

To: Mr. Sid Ryan, CUPE Ontario president

Subject: campaign against Israeli “apartheid wall”

I was shocked and uphold by your chapter's decision to begin a boycott mission against Israel, condemning it's actions as apartheid. I would first like to emphasize that I too, like most of Israelis (according to recent polls and elections) am against the occupation of the Palestinian territories, and support seeking a solution that will bring peace to our region. None-the-less, your decision to start this campaign is out of place, and is a political act impersonating as a humanitarian.

First of all, you should note that your chapter is the only organization in the world, outside some Arab countries (which also condemn Israel's and the USA's rights to exist, along the way), to support such an act. It is second only to a single organization in Great Britain. You may have been convinced that this is a great common goal by some anti-Israeli Palestinian group, but this is wrong. Your chapter has either been tricked into solitude solidarity with political cause, or you personally decided to use the organization you head as a political tool. Either of which is not acceptable by any means.

Second, the definition of Israel's actions as "apartheid" are nothing more then propaganda aimed to cause the listener to attach Israel with south Africa, while the situation is very different. In south Africa, immigrants from Europe took over the lands and started an apartheid regime. In Israel, there is no difference between an Arab and a Jew. Some of my fellow classmates are Arab. Some of my Lecturers are Arab. They are fully incorporated in Israel as equal citizens, and they see no reason to leave it or boycott it. Some of them state that Israel should act more strongly against the Palestinians if it wants respect from them. Some state that Israel should be destroyed – but they are still not thrown from their positions, as freedom of academia exists in Israel.

Well, what about the west bank you say? What about the wall?

Let me ask you – does the USA have a wall between it and Iraq? Why are you grinning? It is a silly question as the USA has the entire North Atlantic ocean and several continents separating it from Iraq, where terrorists are constantly trying to hurt Americans. And yet, the USA does not allow people from Iraq or other Arab countries into the USA without extreme security checks, and if there was a border between the USA and Iraq, would the USA not build a wall there? Probably not. They would probably position automated cannons to shoot down anyone approaching. But Israel should not do this. When Israel keeps citizens of enemy countries outside Israel by a wall, it is apartheid. Why should they be given rights to incorporate in Israel? They have their own regime, they have their own industries and educational system. They have their own police force powered by Israel provided weapons. Yes, they are under occupation, but the only reason is that their leaders have failed to reach a settlement – leaders who do not agree with the existence of Israel by religion, not politics, meaning they cannot change their mind. Leaders who offered Israel 20 years of peace (not peace, only a temporary cease-fire), for the full return of all occupied territories (including those where Israelis have been living for three generations) and the right of return for all refugees into Israel, an eternal blow to it's Jewish identity, and effectively it's termination – Just imagine a decision of Canada to allow 10 million Arabs into Ontario. Will your life remain the same?

Third, and most importantly – The decision to act against Israel alone is shameful for your organization. Being stationed in Canada, I would assume that the first self-determination organization you would support should be Front de Libération du Québec (Quebec Liberation Front). Afterwards, I would expect you to demand that the USA return it's lands to the native Americans, or at least pull out it's troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and open their gates to Mexicans. Then I would expect you to call Russia to release it's claws from Chechnya, and Great Britain to leave Gibraltar. This should happen Immediately as Great Britain frees the occupied Ireland to the hands of the IRA to rule it (IRA, unlike Palestinians elected Hamas, did not kill hundreds of civilians with intent). Afterwards, Muslim Sudan should stop massacring millions of Christians in the south and Darfur, and Indonesia should release east Timor. Japan should release Okinawa, China release Tibet, and Turkey release from prison the elected leaders (!) of the Kurd minority group. When these and other dozens apartheids, occupations and massacres are acted against around the world, then, and only then, would it be not hypocritical to act against the occupation imposed on Israel.

Until then, this decision reeks of plain Antisemitism, and I would suggest your organization focus on it's missions and recover some self esteem by reversing it.

Thank you,
Neko