Israel-Hizbollah war FAQ

August 5, 2006

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.

22 Responses to “Israel-Hizbollah war FAQ”

  1. Ehud Says:

    There are spelling errors, and I believe also factual errors, though it is more correct than not.

  2. nekothoughts Says:

    I will, of course, fix any errors pointed out.

  3. Fred Says:

    Mostly correct I think. Yet, what we hear in the media is that “Israel invaded Lebanon after two of its soldiers were abducted”.

  4. Ann Says:

    Nice. Now people just have to see it…

    I think there should have been some reference to the way the world-media covers this war & are people getting as unbiased a report as possible or are there politics & threatning envolved. Why did Roters forge pictures so obviously ? What is realy going on in the media world ?

  5. D-mon Says:

    the muslims are just looking for blood…
    they dont care whose blood. they just want to kill anyone who is not muslim doesnt matter if a christian or a jew

  6. anthony from honolulu Says:

    use spellcheck mr neko
    houndreds
    officialy

  7. anthony from honolulu Says:

    oops, didn’t read earlier comments

  8. Ron Chmara Says:

    Interesting FAQ. sponsered/sponsored, sephoradically/sporadically, houndred/hundred…

    It might be good to have some words on 1559 and whether it applies to dismantaling all of Hezb’allah, or the military wing alone, (views differ), as well as the disputes of whether the hostages were taken on Israeli or Lebanese land (guess which side says which).

    You might also want to mention the Shebaa Farms as an ongoing point of contention between Hezb’allah and Israel, where Hezb’allah claims that Israel never fully withdrew its troops from Lebanon.

    It might also be good to explain the PLO -> Hezb’allah transition in Lebanon, as the 1980 invasion is covered (in the context of the PLO), but doesn’t explain that the PLO left (and tried, somewhat, to go legit), and Hezb’allah got started later, behaving much like, oh, the PLO was before.

  9. nekothoughts Says:

    Spellcheck used (I had no idea there was such an option here :) ), errors fixed.

    Ron – Re. 1559, I don’t want to go in to too much detail, the FAQ should only give an overview to the layman who has no idea what’s going on except for bits and pieces.

    Re. side of border – There is no question that the soldiers were taken from the Israeli side, even Hizbollah themselves have not stated otherwise (they are proud of any operation carried out against Israel, the more dangerous the better), and such a thing was not reported on any relevant source.

    Re. PLO->Hizbollah, it’s even much more complex… I cannot write on that without going into the Palestinian conflict, and that is truly a material for a whole different article (maybe when the current mess ends I’ll do it).

  10. nekothoughts Says:

    An interesting idea why Hizbollah initiated the attacks on Israel. Hizbollah are relatively weak in Lebanon (only about 20-30% support as a political party), and the UN resolution called for them to give away their weapons. They needed support quick before the Lebanese government takes them out of play, and what better way then to provoke Israel into a full fledged assult, then hide behind civilians who die from the attacks, and then emerge as protectors of the people.

    So simple, so brilliant. Israel had to retaliate at some point (they didn’t retaliate the last time 3 soldiers were kidnapped, they didn’t retaliate after dozens of rockets fell into Israel – but no Israeli government could stay in power while ignoring attacks), and Hizbollah gained the support they needed. Now who in Lebanon would force them to give away their weapons, when they positioned themselves as protectors?

  11. Rinat Says:

    this is beautifuly explained, very good job. now all we have to do is to show this to other people, and spread truth all over the world. to show that we are only responding and not with full force that we do have.

  12. nekothoughts Says:

    Update: it was announced that Hezbollah is pro cease-fire. None the less, Hizbollah themselves have stated that this war is not over, and it is only temporary. Nasrallah:
    “We must not make a mistake, not in the resistance, the government or the people, and believe that the war has ended. The war has not ended… Today nothing has changed and it appears tomorrow nothing will change”

    Are we on the verge of a civil war in Lebanon when the government tries to disarm Hezbollah and enforce UN resolution 1701, or will it be forgotten just like 1559 until Hezbollah strike again?

  13. Tina Says:

    I appreciate this FAQ post, as being an american I truly had no understanding of what the fighting was about or whom hezbollah was. What you seem to be describing is that Hezbollah are terrorist, engaged in Urban Warfare. Todays conflicts are unlike wars of past history where the enemy was clearly defined and the battlefields often played out in fields and countrysides. In todays conficts the enemy is not always clearly known or marked as an enemy combatant, and fighting is in close proximities. Israel should stand fast in their convictions and in the protection of thier country. Know that your cause is just, and this american supports your efforts.

  14. Max Says:

    Well, it’s about time to remember that each coin, has two sides..
    People around the world got no a fucking clue what’s really goin’ on there.. Hizbollah’s propognda is so much better than the Israeli’s, they only want to destroy Israel, and for what?!
    Truely, I’m worried about the rising of the terror organisations in the world, and their radical agendas..

  15. Max Says:

    * Truly

  16. eric Says:

    Hizbollah has claimed victory. It seems israel snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The army had 4 weeks and they relied on ineffectual airstrikes on bunkered terrorists and launched a ground offensive on the eve of the un ceasefire. The enemies of israel are crowing because of mismanagement of war. Israel must understand that they are dealing with fanatical mad men and fight for its survival. Half-measures will not work with islamic fascists and only total defeat will stop them. God save israel and its people.

  17. Moran Aharoni Says:

    as the cease-fire agreement is in process now, we see again who stands behind these supposedly lebanese-freedom fighters – pres. Assad announces that the war against Israel is only beginning and praises Nasrallah.

    Hizb’allah, a sophisticated and amoral group (using civilians as shields), with it’s new weapons, doesn’t seem like the only improvised hope of miserable conquered people – it’s a high-tech army, posing a danger to it’s own country’s goverment and stability, not held by it’s authority. the lebanese themselves want freedom from Syria – this means freedom from Hizb’allah’s mafia reign as well.

    we have another proof that the Hizb’allah are but a hand of Syrian and Irani meddling in Lebanon, as was already stated in this page and many other places. they are not, and weren’t, the lebanese organization to free south lebanon from Israel occupation – they are set there to provoke fighting on the border. Israel have been out of Lebanon for 6 years, and they have no business there since.

    we, the people of the middle east, all of us, have to think about the future: do we want to prosper, or be drawn into dark ages, led by fundementalists and power-crazed nuclear-weapon lovers. we have to think fast, because soon we won’t have the choise.

  18. arthm Says:

    Hello Neko,
    Great thoughts-well put.
    Nice to see people come up with independent views on the situation-one does get tired of hearing the same ‘media mantra’ all over again.
    I have actually included a link to your article from my blog. Do read it some time.
    cheers

  19. sue Says:

    Thanks, Ron. Good job. And true.

  20. Executer Says:

    Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Executer.

  21. Campbell Says:

    I thought this sounded useful, but it was mainly unsubstantiated claims and distortions that one could get from any mainstream media reporting on the topic. Just a couple of points.

    Israel is far more a proxy of the US, than Hizbullah is of Iran. Hizbullah could survive through local revenues, but Israel would be unlikely to maintain itself in the region without the $3 bil from the US each year.

    Hizbullah and Israel have been at war for decades. Hizbullah has been attempting to capture Israeli soldiers for years, and Israel constantly invades Lebanese air space. Israel was simply looking for a pretext to destroy Hizbullah. It was not simply a response to the capture of soldiers.

    Israel kidnapped (you ‘kidnap’ civilians and ‘capture’ soldiers) 2 Palestinian civilians on June 24 2006, but no one said that would justify Palestinians destroying half of Israel. In fact no one said anything about this major crime under international law.

    Israel did intentionally target civilians. It is quite clear that Israel meant to make Lebanon pay such a high price that the state would move against Hizbullah. Obviously this tactic failed miserably.

    You get the idea of my argument.

  22. neko Says:

    @Campbell:
    “Israel would be unlikely to maintain itself in the region without the $3 bil from the US each year.”

    Since the US started supporting Israel with defensive technology, there was no war, but Israel maintained itself against collective Arab aggression way before the alliance with the US.

    “Israel constantly invades Lebanese air space.” – reliable source? I never heard even a Lebanese claim of such.

    “Israel kidnapped … 2 Palestinian civilians on June 24 2006″ – reliable source?

    “In fact no one said anything about this major crime under international law.” – Its hard to ’say anything’ about things that never happened…

    “Israel did intentionally target civilians” – which is why the civilian casualty rate in this war is the lowest in modern history?

    “It is quite clear that Israel meant to make Lebanon pay such a high price that the state would move against Hizbullah.” – hardly plausible. The Syrian/Iranian proxy army of Hizbullah is several leagues above the Lebanese army. Even if Lebanon wanted to recapture their country and would be willing to take the expected casualties, they would not be able to.


Leave a Reply