NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1219280.ece

Israel's verdict: We lost the war
By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel
15 August 2006

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.

The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border.

But, facing his first major political crisis since winning the election five months ago, he acknowledged "the overall responsibility for this operation lies with me, the Prime Minister. I am not asking to share this with anyone."

Sources: YahooNEWS/TheIndependent/OcceanNEWS©2006

my2cents: "I am not asking to share this with anyone"...
...

He did not say "Mistakes were made".. he did not blame the Generals.. he did not blame the Conselors.. he did not blame congress.. he did not pull a taking-the-blame-sidekick ala Oliver North...

Olmert took it like a man.. I am not used to see that in Politicians..
He will pay the price at the polls.. But in my book he is better than most.

Admitting shortcomings does not equal losing a war.

Really, the only way to win a war against guerillas is to destroy the group or get it to capitulate. Israel didn't achieve either of them, so by pulling out with Hezballah still functioning is more or less a defeat.

wow you said something not negative about a jew

this was not forseen
<_< >_>

Really, the only way to win a war against guerillas is to destroy the group or get it to capitulate. Israel didn't achieve either of them, so by pulling out with Hezballah still functioning is more or less a defeat.

Except for the fact that the Lebanonese Army coupled with the UN force soon to be deployed will make it tougher on Hezbollah who were forced to this.

But it was forced to accept the deployment of the Lebanese army and international troops, which will deeply undermine the guerrillas' longtime domination of south Lebanon on Israel's border.

So who actually won? As has been said in another thread, no one won and no one lost.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1219280.ece

Israel's verdict: We lost the war
By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel
15 August 2006

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.

The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border.

But, facing his first major political crisis since winning the election five months ago, he acknowledged "the overall responsibility for this operation lies with me, the Prime Minister. I am not asking to share this with anyone."

Sources: YahooNEWS/TheIndependent/OcceanNEWS©2006

my2cents: "I am not asking to share this with anyone"...
...

He did not say "Mistakes were made".. he did not blame the Generals.. he did not blame the Conselors.. he did not blame congress.. he did not pull a taking-the-blame-sidekick ala Oliver North...

Olmert took it like a man.. I am not used to see that in Politicians..
He will pay the price at the polls.. But in my book he is better than most.
Yeah, I bet this made your day. A few more wars like this and those fucking dirty Jews will all be killed or leave Israel, right? Isn't that the way it goes, or should I throw in some more expletives?

Admitting shortcomings does not equal losing a war.

Agreed. The Western Allies had the shortcoming of losing most of Europe to the Soviets in WWII. Did they lose?

Besides, Hezbollah didn't win. They want to destroy Israel. Israel is still here. It was a stalemate.

Agreed. The Western Allies had the shortcoming of losing most of Europe to the Soviets in WWII. Did they lose?

Nope. The Western Allies did not lose at all.

Besides, Hezbollah didn't win. They want to destroy Israel. Israel is still here. It was a stalemate.

Actually, they wanted the Sheeba Farms which they did not get but you do have an excellent point. No they did not get what they wanted either.

Except for the fact that the Lebanonese Army coupled with the UN force soon to be deployed will make it tougher on Hezbollah who were forced to this.

But it was forced to accept the deployment of the Lebanese army and international troops, which will deeply undermine the guerrillas' longtime domination of south Lebanon on Israel's border.

So who actually won? As has been said in another thread, no one won and no one lost.

It seems Israel had a tactical defeat but a strategic victory; they lost their fight against Hezballah by withdrawing without destroying the group but gained a strategic victory through the terms of the cease fire. Hezballah won this battle but the presence of the UN and Lebanese troops will cause it to lose the war.

I don't think anyone won. Hezbollah is just as homeless as the rest of South Lebanon for one thing, their supplies are low from the seige, and they'll have to worry about UN soldiers taking their weapons.


Actually, they wanted the Sheeba Farms which they did not get but you do have an excellent point. No they did not get what they wanted either.

Doesn't Sheeba Farms actually belong to Syria even though Israel is holding it? So if Israel lets it go would Hezbollah attack Syria because they had Sheeba Farms? If their claims are to be held up then they would have too.

Israel should give Sheeba Farms to Syria, then everyone can all call Hizbollah hypocrites when they don't attack Syria. :D

It seems Israel had a tactical defeat but a strategic victory; they lost their fight against Hezballah by withdrawing without destroying the group but gained a strategic victory through the terms of the cease fire. Hezballah won this battle but the presence of the UN and Lebanese troops will cause it to lose the war.

An apt analogy. To use a World War II example, at the Battle of Coral Sea, Japan won a tactical victory but lost strategicly because they did not push forward with their planned operations.

You are most correct in what you said hence why some of us are saying that it was a wash and neither side truely won or lost this conflict.

It seems Israel had a tactical defeat but a strategic victory; they lost their fight against Hezballah by withdrawing without destroying the group but gained a strategic victory through the terms of the cease fire. Hezballah won this battle but the presence of the UN and Lebanese troops will cause it to lose the war.

Agreed, but Israel also wrecked havoc tactically on Hezballah to.

Doesn't Sheeba Farms actually belong to Syria even though Israel is holding it? So if Israel lets it go would Hezbollah attack Syria because they had Sheeba Farms? If their claims are to be held up then they would have too.

Israel should give Sheeba Farms to Syria, then everyone can all call Hizbollah hypocrites when they don't attack Syria. :D

Yes, the Sheeba Farms do belong to Syria but some in Lebanon say that it belongs to them.

As to what you are suggesting, might be some merit to it but I doubt Hezbollah will attack Syria though since they are funded and armed by Syria.

An apt analogy. To use a World War II example, at the Battle of Coral Sea, Japan won a tactical victory but lost strategicly because they did not push forward with their planned operations.

You are most correct in what you said hence why some of us are saying that it was a wash and neither side truely won or lost this conflict.

That's true. Israel didn't win this invasion because it failed to destroy Hezballah, but won the larger conflict because it achieved its objectives in the cease fire by permanently dismantling Hezballah's bases of operation in Southern Lebanon and with international support to boot.

Eraclea]Agreed, but Israel also wrecked havoc tactically on Hezballah to.

That damage could have been recouped due to the large support the group has from Syria/Iran and parts of Lebanon; Israel didn't really damage their leadership and didn't break the group's morale, so most of Hezballh's losses were temporary.

However, the permanent damage is inflicted by the cease fire and the fact that Israel is the one making demands in negotiations; Hezballah can't be supported by Lebanon without serious condemnation and international pressue, and Israel's willingness to launch these kinds of strikes combined with the UN/Lebanese presence will make it far less possible for Hezballah or its allies to operate in the region.

My verdict:

Israel gained that there will be a much larger and much more capable international force holding a larger area, making it more difficult for Hezbollah to fire missiles. Other than that, the war was a military and political defeat for them, IMHO.

Hezbollah gained much popular support and a reason for its continued existence as an armed group. They probably lost some infrastructure and a few guys, but those can be replaced quickly.

Lebanon lost its future for many years to come.

More than 1700 people lost their lives for this.

I don't think Olmert did well at all. He should've stood up to the military. I'm not even saying there shouldn't have been an offensive, but the way it was handled shows that it was military-only. And without some sort of real political purpose imprinted upon the entire operation (and that was Olmert and his cabinet's job), this result was obvious.

True. Though I think these 'temporary' losses will be more then enough to injure the moral, as they will not be rebuilt and the damage is already done, they will not be to hasty to rebuild and it will take years before those bases will be fully operational, if they ever will be.

Eraclea']True. Though I think these 'temporary' losses will be more then enough to injure the moral, as they will not be rebuilt and the damage is already done, they will not be to hasty to rebuild and it will take years before those bases will be fully operational, if they ever will be.

The big morale loss for Hezballah is the fact that their home base is now being occupied by a much larger UN force with the authority to fight back if necessary to maintain the cease fire. Now they're not just fighting Israel but the forces of multiple nations including Lebanon. Anything they do will not just anger Israel but all of the nations involved in keeping the peace.

Israel didnt get its (boo hoo hoo) captured troops back. Wasnt that their objective? :rolleyes:.

Hezbollah is still there, except it is a hundred times more popular now. It will be status quo ante bellum, and lets hope this time Iran can send some proper SAMs.

Hassan Nasrallah is a pan-arabic hero now, and the US and Israel killed about 1000 lebanese civilians and destroyed their country. Not going to be forgiven for these clear crimes any time in the forseeable future.

Thanks israel. :rolleyes:

I don't see this as a win for Israel at all. Until Nasrallah is dead, Hezbollah is destroyed, and our three soldiers back, the war did not succeed. The threat to Israel and worldwide Jewry still exists.

I see this much like the US war against Al Queda. Both wars were VERY much justified, both wars have damaged terrorist organizations, but both have so far failed to complete the overall objective of destroying the terrorist entities. Just like the US war against terror continues, so will Israel's.

One thing I wish people in America remembered more was that Israel was not fighting a nice friendly organization. They were fighting not only terrorists, but the number one terrorist killer of American citizens prior to 9/11. How can anyone feel pity for Hezbollah while their hands still have the blood of 241 US Servicemen, and countless more citizens.

Israel didnt get its (boo hoo hoo) captured troops back.

Hassan Nasrallah is a pan-arabic hero now, and the US and Israel killed about 1000 lebanese civilians and destroyed their country. Not going to be forgiven for these clear crimes any time in the forseeable future.

Thanks israel. :rolleyes:

Israel did NOT kill those civillians. Hezbollah killed them. By hiding the rockets and soldiers inside apartment buildings, hospitals, and schools, Hezbollah was using human shields.

In a hostage situation where a person has a gun and takes a hostage, if the police intervene and accidentally shoot the hostage, the Police aren't charged with murder. The blame falls on person A, the hostage taker.

Israel did NOT kill those civillians. Hezbollah killed them. By hiding the rockets and soldiers inside apartment buildings, hospitals, and schools, Hezbollah was using human shields.

In a hostage situation where a person has a gun and takes a hostage, if the police intervene and accidentally shoot the hostage, the Police aren't charged with murder. The blame falls on person A, the hostage taker.

That is indeed true.

Just like the US war against terror continues, so will Israel's.
And Russia's. And Uzbekistan's. And Turkmenistan's. And Pakistan's. And Syria's...

The phrase has become meaningless.

Israel did NOT kill those civillians.Hezbollah killed them.war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength :rolleyes:

war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength :rolleyes:

Then you must be the strongest person on earth for your ignorance is astounding.

Then you must be the strongest person on earth for your ignorance is astounding.I am the most peaceful too... specially after 11 pm ;) :p

What the Israelis did not gain this time around, they will gain, assuming the IDF performs up to par and learns from this experience...particularly its commanders...it will gain when this ceasefire breaks down, which it likely will at some point.

Lebanon lost the war. Israel took a huge dump on the Lebanese economy. Israel barely lost some tourism and will recover those tourists quickly. Lebanon will be hurting from this for a long time. It's true though that putting more people into squalor and feeding on their hate will surely cause more extreemism and therefore they Israel is certaily losing the war on terrorism as well as in the media... apparently even their own. Hmmm... i guess that would sorta mean that hiz'bulla did probably win as they more than likely are gaining more support and recruits.

And we all lose because of that.

Neither side have so far completed their strategic objectives - so netiher side really won. Collateral damage, however, is extensive.

Israel lost because it gave up, not because of military defeat.

They could have wiped out Hezzbollah, IF they wanted.

Much like the US in vietnam.

Israel lost because it gave up, not because of military defeat.

They could have wiped out Hezzbollah, IF they wanted.

Much like the US in vietnam.


All well and good, but have you purchased your fine, high quality MERKUR RAZOR yet?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495874&highlight=merkur

???

Israel did NOT kill those civillians. Hezbollah killed them. By hiding the rockets and soldiers inside apartment buildings, hospitals, and schools, Hezbollah was using human shields.

In a hostage situation where a person has a gun and takes a hostage, if the police intervene and accidentally shoot the hostage, the Police aren't charged with murder. The blame falls on person A, the hostage taker.

True enough, but then again, the police don't lob a grenade at them either. :p

I like how the title of the thread says that Israel said that they lost the war. Yet the article that was sourced only has a quote from the leader of Hezbollah that says that. How misleading and stupid.

Israel lost because it gave up, not because of military defeat.

They could have wiped out Hezzbollah, IF they wanted.

Much like the US in vietnam.
...and the US lost in Vietnam, too.

It all depends where the standards fall. In this case - as far as most people seem to be concerned - Israel was attempting an offensive action against Hezbollah. Hezbollah successfully fought off the IDF. From what I hear, it's been a bit of a shocker to the IDF to find out how well Hezbollah soldiers are trained.

Israel lost because it gave up, not because of military defeat.

They could have wiped out Hezzbollah, IF they wanted.

Much like the US in vietnam.

Interesting analogy. ;)

...and the US lost in Vietnam, too.

It all depends where the standards fall. In this case - as far as most people seem to be concerned - Israel was attempting an offensive action against Hezbollah. Hezbollah successfully fought off the IDF. From what I hear, it's been a bit of a shocker to the IDF to find out how well Hezbollah soldiers are trained.

Indeed, but remember that just as in this case, the war in Vietnam was not lost because the American military was not prepared...it was lost because of en element of American society that would pay any price in security for peace.

Indeed, but remember that just as in this case, the war in Vietnam was not lost because the American military was not prepared...it was lost because of en element of American society that would pay any price in security for peace.
I would say differently; I would say the Vietnam War was lost, because there was no way to win it.

Think about it. What would have qualified as winning the Vietnam War? Staying and fighting for another ten years, killing another few million Vietnamese people, spending more arms, munitions, and troops?

In any case, Vietnam was not a security risk. There was no price in security paid by pulling out of Vietnam - only a benefit in having that force available should they actually be needed to deal with an invasive force.

The similarity here is that the IDF pulled out after killing too many civilians and making no identifiable progress towards their objective.

I would say differently; I would say the Vietnam War was lost, because there was no way to win it.

Think about it. What would have qualified as winning the Vietnam War? Staying and fighting for another ten years, killing another few million Vietnamese people, spending more arms, munitions, and troops?

In any case, Vietnam was not a security risk. There was no price in security paid by pulling out of Vietnam - only a benefit in having that force available should they actually be needed to deal with an invasive force.

The similarity here is that the IDF pulled out after killing too many civilians and making no identifiable progress towards their objective.

Well, the generals disagree with you. Political pressure lost Vietnam, we could have nuked the North to shit any day. Pulling out of Vietnam emboldened the communists and all of the other enemies of America. Within 5 years the Russians had invaded Aphganistan, the Iran hostage crisis was on, and OPEC and a firm grasp on our economy's balls.

Well, the generals disagree with you. Political pressure lost Vietnam, we could have nuked the North to shit any day.
We could have nuked anybody to shit any day. It was a good era for having a twitchy finger on the big red button, but that would have been even more of a disaster.
Pulling out of Vietnam emboldened the communists and all of the other enemies of America. Within 5 years the Russians had invaded Aphganistan,
Right, the sore in their side, which turned into their Vietnam, for many of the same reasons, and which - like the Vietnam War - was touched off by internal shifts in power between factions within Afghanistan.

The Soviets at least had the excuse of having a border with Afghanistan, but it was otherwise similar to the Vietnam War.
the Iran hostage crisis was on,
Four years later and as a direct result of a popular revolution against a US-backed Shah. Probably would've happened regardless of what happened in Vietnam.
and OPEC and a firm grasp on our economy's balls.
And you're going to try and blame the politics of the Middle East on Vietnam? The oil embargo had a great deal to do with Israel, not Vietnam. The only surprising thing is that something like that hadn't happened earlier.

Trying to keep the rest of the world scared isn't a good goal to set for a war in any case. I think Israel's lesson here is that trying to keep the rest of the region scared of the crack troops and shiny modern equipment of the IDF isn't going to work forever.

We could have nuked anybody to shit any day. It was a good era for having a twitchy finger on the big red button, but that would have been even more of a disaster.

Right, the sore in their side, which turned into their Vietnam, for many of the same reasons, and which - like the Vietnam War - was touched off by internal shifts in power between factions within Afghanistan.

The Soviets at least had the excuse of having a border with Afghanistan, but it was otherwise similar to the Vietnam War.

Four years later and as a direct result of a popular revolution against a US-backed Shah. Probably would've happened regardless of what happened in Vietnam.

And you're going to try and blame the politics of the Middle East on Vietnam? The oil embargo had a great deal to do with Israel, not Vietnam. The only surprising thing is that something like that hadn't happened earlier.

Trying to keep the rest of the world scared isn't a good goal to set for a war in any case. I think Israel's lesson here is that trying to keep the rest of the region scared of the crack troops and shiny modern equipment of the IDF isn't going to work forever.

Nuking North Vietnam would have ended the war in 1965. You know, instead of 1975....I just find it an interesting turn of events that right when we took the cowards way out of Vietnam pol pot, the radicals in Iran, the Russians, and the South Americans all starting doing pretty much whatever they wanted....all of it against our interests. They knew they would get away with it. The reason that they knew was our political failure on Vietnam and the weak administration of Jimmy Carter. Israel has been under attack from literally day one. They have a legitimate interest in destroying any terror newtwork which threatens them.

Nuking North Vietnam would have ended the war in 1965. You know, instead of 1975....I just find it an interesting turn of events that right when we took the cowards way out of Vietnam pol pot,
Pol Pot's rise to power was firmly established by the time the US decided to pull out. He had his army, he had all the advantages on his side, and he was ready to rumble.

Officially, US troops weren't supposed to cross over into Cambodia. Pol Pot's regime was toppled by none other than Communist Vietnam. Which you wanted to nuke.
the radicals in Iran,
Were already restless and trying to topple the Shah fifteen years before the revolution tried to kick off.
the Russians,
...installed missiles in Cuba in 1963, remember? That's about the closest they came to us, and that was before the Vietnam war got rolling. As far as the Afghanistan conflict went, that got kicked off by the Islamists trying to topple the Marxist government. Not the USSR's choice of timing there, and something they would (by precedent, as with all satellite states) have pitched in with anyway.
and the South Americans all starting doing pretty much whatever they wanted....all of it against our interests.
Latin America was trying to "do pretty much whatever they want" against our interests for a long time. The biggest thumb in the US's eye? The Cuban revolution, well before the Vietnam War. US interests and conflicts were as lively before and during the Vietnam War as after, see here (http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html) for one list.
They knew they would get away with it. The reason that they knew was our political failure on Vietnam and the weak administration of Jimmy Carter.
You can squint up your eyes as much as you like. The political failure in Vietnam wasn't pulling out - it came long before that.
Israel has been under attack from literally day one.
Under attack, or on the attack. There's been pretty much constant warfare around Israel, which is why we wound up with the 1973 Oil Crisis.
They have a legitimate interest in destroying any terror newtwork which threatens them.
Mmm hm. A clear interest.

I could debate silly sidetracks for days but may I point out first that the basis of this thread is wrong? The title is "Israel's verdict: we lost the war" and the quote in the article that serves as the foundation for the thread has the chief of Hezbollah saying Israel lost.......Since when does the chief of Hezbollah speak for Israel?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jufM3lvtpAA

The joos are funny

Yalla ya Nasrallah
We will screw you inshallah

And send you back to allaah
With all the hezbollah

:p

Catchy lyrics. I like it.

The article that serves as the basis of this thread shows nothing that pretains to the title. Just another anti-Israel rant sheet.

The article that serves as the basis of this thread shows nothing that pretains to the title. Just another anti-Israel rant sheet.

Indeed true and has been proven throughout the thread.

and the South Americans all starting doing pretty much whatever they wanted....

Sorry, but according to your views...We should do something else that do pretty much what WE WANTED?, like...doing pretty much what you wanted?

Wow. You have the credits now to be the founder of the Usabollah, you have the nationalism and the fundamentalism. People like you are the reason why the EEUU, or USA, is so despised around the world, and why we, the rest of the americans, try to go against your interests.

Luckily, most people, or at least enough people over there still retain their common sense. Too bad the current USA administration is pretty close to your line of thinking.

The article that serves as the basis of this thread shows nothing that pretains to the title. Just another anti-Israel rant sheet.

That's all the OP ever posts here. Nothing more than a troll.

Well, the title of the thread is a lie, but I've come to expect that from OD.

It's far too early to say whether Israel won or lost. If Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel again in a year, I'd say lost.

Well, the title of the thread is a lie, but I've come to expect that from OD.

It's far too early to say whether Israel won or lost. If Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel again in a year, I'd say lost.

Agreed. But another thought on it is, IF Hezbollah did indeed win this war and they are NOT firing missiles or advancing their current goals against Israel next year, then I'd say this was a A Pyrrhic victory for them. Exactly like the Greek king Pyrrhus, who, after suffering heavy losses in victory over the Romans forces opposed to him, said to those that congratulated him afterwards, "Another such victory over the Romans and we'll be undone completely," Or something like that.

That's all the OP ever posts here. Nothing more than a troll.

is he truly trolling?

i just thought he was phenomenally stupid

is he truly trolling?

i just thought he was phenomenally stupid

Well, there's that, too. ;)

If Israel didn't lose, they must have gained something.

What though?

Certainly not Hizbullah's disarmament.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525877356&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060814/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictusunlebanon
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/world/middleeast/16hezbollah.html?ex=1156392000&en=1c9b9010f8e72da2&ei=5070&emc=eta1
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525885482&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219457.ece
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/August/middleeast_August423.xml&section=middleeast

Did they strengthen public support from Hizbollah in the Middle East?
All the signs are that they did.

Did the IDF hurt Hizbollah's military?
We have no figures on missiles before or after. But bearing in mind how many were being fired and that it would appear that Iran and Syria have pretty much open cheque books I seriously doubt that Hizbollah's arsenal has been depleted.
The increase in popularity and, therefore, recruits is likely to mean that Hizbollah will be back to full strength, if not stronger, by the end of the year and most of its troops now have front-line experience. The peacekeeping forces will also ensure that Israel is able to do very little, militarily, to prevent them rearming.

Did the IDF hurt Hizbollah's social work program?
Yes. In the short term. IDF action destroyed most of the public services created by Hizbollah. However, it would appear that they will be renewed in the near future. New buildings, built with the benefit of experience and named in ways to glorify Lebannon & Hizbollah will soon spring up earning even more support from the local community.
So in the long term: No. They have, in fact been strengthened.

Did the IDF hurt Hizbullah's political standing in the Middle East?
No. In fact, by attacking Lebannon and so much of the infrastructure of the country the IDF heavily diminished both the political standing of the mainstream Democratic parties and also the ability of a weak state to act and wear the trappings of a state. Due to his role as leader of Hizbollah Nasrallah has gained a far more 'postive' political profile. His recent press releases have been in the style of a senior statesman and his political capital is at an all time high. Hizbollah has also been able to use their position as 'defenders of Lebannon' and all the press talk of being 'supplied from Iran' to effectively distance themselves from Syria in the public eye. Thereby bandaging some of the poilitcal wounds in the wake of the Cedar Revolution.
Hizbollah's self appointed role of 'shield of the Palestinians' has also earnt it kudos, both at home and, to a lesser extent, abroad.

Did the IDF hurt Hizbullah's political standing on the world stage?
No. On the contrary, despite Hizbollah's actions it is undeniable that Israel's standing has taken more of a battering than Hizbollah's. Although Israel achieved a press coup in distracting international attention from its actions in the West Bank and Gaza it suffered far more damage in the Lebanese conflict. It is also likely that it has merely strengthened the hand of Syria, Iran and parties in Iraq politically and has added Lebannon to its list of enemies.

Did the IDF achieve its two stated aims?
No. It did not obtain the release of the two soldiers captured at the start of the war.
No. It did not destroy Hizbollah.

Did Hizbollah achieve its aims?
Yes. It has successfully forced Israel out of Lebannon (however you spin it, they are still there and Israel won't be in a few days time).
Yes. They are, if anything, stronger than ever (based on short term outcomes and long term drivers).

Did the West benefit from this war?
No. The West has seen one of the two most concerning Terrorist organisations strengthened in every arena.


Did Hizbollah lose?
No. They are stronger now than before.

Did Israel lose?
Yes. They are weaker now (both internally, as a political party in power, and externally) than before the war and most of their enemies have gained strength from their actions.
Economically, the cost of modern warfare means (I suspect) that Israel has inflicted more damage on its own bank account than on anyone elses'.

I don't see how this could be described as anything other than a loss for Israel and, by extension, for the rest of the West.

<snippage>
I don't see how this could be described as anything other than a loss for Israel and, by extension, for the rest of the West.

You are completely right about all teh stuff I snipped - I do think it can be described in one other way: "Lebanon also lost"

Israel won't be leaving Lebanon anytime soon. The lebanese army has to get there first, and that will take a while.

Israel won't be leaving Lebanon anytime soon. The lebanese army has to get there first, and that will take a while.
Lebanon's army will start moving south of the strategically key Litani River on Thursday, the cabinet has decided. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4799527.stm

That's tomorrow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4799527.stm

That's tomorrow.

Hmm.

I take that back.


However, what percentage of Lebanon's army isn't Hezzbollah?

However, what percentage of Lebanon's army isn't Hezzbollah?

I'd say high considering they don't get on with each other that well.

Although if you have a source to say otherwise, by all means.....

Israel won't be leaving Lebanon anytime soon. The lebanese army has to get there first, and that will take a while.

Check your sources DesignatedMarksman. Israel is already pulling and the Lebanonese Army is beginning to deploy in the South.

Seems to me Hezbollah is going to have a difficult time of it once the International Force and the Lebanonese Army shows up.

Seems to me Hezbollah is going to have a difficult time of it once the International Force and the Lebanonese Army shows up.Yeah.. I bet Hezbollah fighters are pissing on their pants :D :D :p :D

Yeah.. I bet Hezbollah fighters are pissing on their pants :D :D :p :D

Yup, the International Force is led by the French! :eek:

*waits for French surrender jokes*