War of a Thousand Paper Cuts Will Destroy Israel

[watchman]

War of a Thousand Paper Cuts Will Destroy Israel

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=37427


"Once the cow falters, knives and butchers multiply," an Arab proverb says. Unless it is clear-headed about Lebanon, Israel will end up with a cease-fire, leading to a war of attrition in which a constellation of jihadists will line up for their cut.

The queue may start with Hamas and other Palestinian Arab jihadists ready to launch a third intifada, but it includes Hezbollah's guerrillas at the Lebanese border and stretches all the way to Damascus and Tehran.

The seriousness of this situation is like nothing we have seen for 25 years. In the past 25 days, a new paradigm has emerged that says to every jihadist out there: Israel can be vanquished; its aura of invincibility is just a mirage, and it is high time for the "big push." The genie has to be forced back into the bottle, which cannot be done Iraq-style — on the cheap — as Israel's military and political leadership seem to think. Three strategic objectives must be tackled immediately:

1. Reinstitute the image of Israel's invincibility that was shattered by Hezbollah's rockets and tenacious resistance by mobilizing all of Israel's reserves to fight the war against Hezbollah — not against Lebanon, where Israel has many friends.

2. Direct the mighty Israeli air force to stop bombing Lebanon and start bombing Hezbollah's primary enabler, Syria, with crippling blows to its leadership, air force, infrastructure, and, yes, oil industry. A 21-day bombing campaign will shift the balance of power and encourage many friendly Lebanese to come out of hiding.

3. Promise a comprehensive peace settlement with Lebanon and moderate Palestinian Arabs, as well as generous financial aid from world donors, immediately after the dust settles — and mean every word of it. That will secure the Sunni Arab Muslim world's support. Why is such a drastic turnaround so crucial?

For years, Israel claimed that its survival was at stake, surrounded as it was by Arab armies. In fact, it had already destroyed each of them, in a matter of days. Now, however, anyone can see that Israel is indeed facing an existential threat — call it death by a thousand paper cuts. Israel's economy and a million of its citizens in the north cannot survive a war of attrition. Unless it is reinstituted with extreme ferocity, Israel's aura of invincibility will give way to a feeding frenzy of jihadi sharks and the collapse of a peacefully inclined but weak Lebanese government.

The apocalyptic scenario of an enemy within and a Shiite militia without comes with impressive numbers to back it up. Together with Hezbollah's sister Lebanese Shiite militia, Amal, and 1 million Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran's combined Shiite population of 100 million looms large. This huge force is poised to fight foes selected by the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and his masters.

I am not an alarmist, just an egoist. For after these jihadi hordes finish their work in Lebanon and Iraq, they'll come for the rest of us: moderate Arabs, secular Arabs, Christian Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Druze, and eventually the Sunni Muslims (whom they are already cutting to pieces in Iraq).

In this "Spartacus"-like Shiite uprising, which began with the Iranian Revolution of 1979, those hanging on crosses all the way to the gates of Rome will be all the non-jihadists among us. This time around, the barbarians at the gate aren't just coming for the Jews, but also for what is left of Arab secularism and liberal Islam. That, again, is why a cease-fire will not do.

If we were to affix red pins to wherever jihadists are operating today on a map of the Middle East, red would be the color of Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. So, once again, a cease-fire will not do.

If the mythology of Hezbollah survives the war in Lebanon without a demonstrable humiliation or defeat, the notion will spread that jihadists don't need armies, just some fighters and a bit of momentum.

That momentum has spread to Al Qaeda, which is now rallying to Hezbollah's side, as well as Hamas; the Muslim Brotherhoods of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria; Iran's mullahs, and all the jihadi franchises around the world. This is why a cease-fire will not do in the Israel-Hezbollah war.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think they might be overreacting a bit, myself. Israel might not have "wiped out" Hezbollah, but Hezbollah suffered a MASSIVE pounding at the hands of the IDF. I would imagine it will take some time before they feel ready to take on Israel again, particularly with the UN force between them.

Israel no doubt has learnt a few lessons though. I doubt very much they will be as unprepared next time. They have thoroughly professional defence forces, no-one can deny that and Hezbollah might not get off so "lighty" again.

 

[.pt]

Digger,

That may be so, but besides the military reality, theres the general public, Arab and non Arab, perception, that this whole mess was, if not militarly, at least politicallly and diplomatically, an Israeli defeat. What will be the consequences of this in the near future, no one knows, but i fear it may be an instigator to further Arab moves, directly, or indirectly, against Israel, in 3 or 4 years from now, and who knows where that will lead? Or, perhaps, hopefully, this will just be another episode in the lebanese saga, with no repercussions outside the immediate area.
Next time (there will be a next time) perhaps we will see who will fair better.
.pt

 

[merocaine]

Israel no doubt has learnt a few lessons though. I doubt very much they will be as unprepared next time. They have thoroughly professional defence forces, no-one can deny that and Hezbollah might not get off so "lighty" again.

True but the Hezz and their backers will have learned a few thing as well.
But for the moment the Israelies have there ace in the hole, no conventional military will dare to move against them. But they will face a low level attritional war for the foreseeable future, but not like thats new.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Digger,

That may be so, but besides the military reality, theres the general public, Arab and non Arab, perception, that this whole mess was, if not militarly, at least politicallly and diplomatically, an Israeli defeat. What will be the consequences of this in the near future, no one knows, but i fear it may be an instigator to further Arab moves, directly, or indirectly, against Israel, in 3 or 4 years from now, and who knows where that will lead? Or, perhaps, hopefully, this will just be another episode in the lebanese saga, with no repercussions outside the immediate area.
Next time (there will be a next time) perhaps we will see who will fair better.
.pt

And the whole point of this website is to discuss military matters. Who cares if Syria and Iran unilaterally declare that "Hezbollah won". Who cares if "experts" on Reuters and CNN decide that Israel "lost".

We are supposed to be debating military issues on there particular merits, not based on what "civilians" in the mass media who have NO IDEA about military operations and capability might say.

Remember the shock and awe rubbish from the mass media from GW2? Then guess what happened? US launched a massive ground invasion. They advanced over 300k's in the first few days and the halted as ANY armoured force is required to do, because heavy armour simply can't continue indefinitely, yet according to the media this was a sign of America becoming "bogged down".

They understand nothing of military matters, and the coverage of the Israel/Hezbollah crisis continues to show this. Most media cannot even tell the difference between a "shell, a rocket or a missile" as they constantly get them wrong, yet they're quoted by various people on here as some kind of proof!!!

They can't get it right even when they are not deliberately trying to mislead people, as was shown by the "scandal" of the photographers using the same corpses in different locations in Lebanon to try and provide some "proof" that Israel was deliberately targetting civilians.

Fact is Hezbollah, though not destroyed, suffered a savage beating. Israel also suffered a beating though I cannot for 1 second envisage it was anything like that which Hezbollah and Lebanon generally suffered.

The pretext for the operation from the Israeli POV was the recovery of the 2 "captured" soldiers, however I viewed this as the excuse to kick off a long planned operation moreso than any real justification. They were not recovered, most likely because they were already killed, however as I said, I don't think that was the real objective anyway.

As such, militarily at least how can anyone seriously claim Hezbollah won?

 

[Sea Toby]

Its too soon to declare a winner. Future events will have to unfold before anyone can claim a victory. If the UN force disarms Hezbollah, Hezbollah loses. If the UN force doesn't disarm Hezbollah, Hezbollah wins the heart of radical Muslims. However, if the UN force keeps Hezbollah from rearming, its a tie.

From a military point of view, Lebanon suffered much more than Israel. Unless Lebanon disarms Hezbollah, Lebanon will face the same defeat again in only a few years. Hezbollah again, never threatened Tel Aviv. Until its able to mount a land offensive, its just borrowing time. While it may gain Muslim support, not one of the other Muslim nations considered its policy as a way to peace.

With the ongoing Shite and Sunni conflict continuing in Iraq, its of greater interest to the rest of the Arab and Muslim world than itty bitty Israel.

If Iran threatened the peace in the Middle East, everyone of its neighbors would be allied against them. From Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, and eventually all of Europe. Any Iranian threat would be squashed as quickly as Saddam Hussein. Nevermind Israel.

There is an old saying, one can't see the forest through a tree. Unfortunately, the press prefers to play winning and losing battles, rather than see the entire picture.

 

[.pt]

Digger,

Sorry then for the public opinion thing. Its just that in this conflict politics are very much hand in hand with military issues.
Militarly who did win? Altough i do agree with most of what you said, in the end, that would depend on what were the objectives for each side, and that is not totally clear to me. Yes Hizbolah took a beating, and if we talk of pure numbers, then they did loose, as well as Lebanon. The Israelis also took more than they probably were anticipating, but in this exchange, ultimately they were the winners. So, basically, we agree.
.pt

 

[swerve]

Digger,

Sorry then for the public opinion thing. Its just that in this conflict politics are very much hand in hand with military issues.
Militarly who did win? Altough i do agree with most of what you said, in the end, that would depend on what were the objectives for each side, and that is not totally clear to me. Yes Hizbolah took a beating, and if we talk of pure numbers, then they did loose, as well as Lebanon. The Israelis also took more than they probably were anticipating, but in this exchange, ultimately they were the winners. So, basically, we agree.
.pt

But the purpose of military action is to achieve political ends. If you undertake a military action, & you fail to achieve your political ends, but your opponent does, he's won & you've lost. That may be the fault of the politicians, not the soldiers, but in this case it looks as if the soldiers allowed the politicians to believe they could deliver a particular aim (the destruction of Hezbollahs ability to strike at Israel), which has certainly not been achieved. By boosting Hezbollahs public credibility, it has increased its ability to gain recruits, finance & new weapons.

Doesn't sound much like victory to me. Sounds very like 1956, when British, French & Israeli forces easily defeated the Egyptian military, but Egypt emerged politically (& hence, soon, militarily) stronger, & Britain & France were weakened. Israel picked the wrong fight, on the wrong terms, & fought it the wrong way, & (despite proving its ability to blast any Hezbollah soldier or rocket launcher which showed above ground) has lost as a result.

Imagine a big boy who has undisputed dominance of the playground. One day, an obnoxious runt who's been winding him up provokes him too much. He beats the runt to a pulp, & pummels some of his acquaintances at the same time, but the runt puts up a much better fight than expected, & draws blood. He then discovers that everyone's stopped deferring to him, people who formerly shunned the runt are now sympathetic, & the runts formerly shy supporters have come out into the open, & his own mates are openly critical. Did he win?

 

[Aussie Digger]

But the purpose of military action is to achieve political ends. If you undertake a military action, & you fail to achieve your political ends, but your opponent does, he's won & you've lost. That may be the fault of the politicians, not the soldiers, but in this case it looks as if the soldiers allowed the politicians to believe they could deliver a particular aim (the destruction of Hezbollahs ability to strike at Israel), which has certainly not been achieved. By boosting Hezbollahs public credibility, it has increased its ability to gain recruits, finance & new weapons.

Doesn't sound much like victory to me. Sounds very like 1956, when British, French & Israeli forces easily defeated the Egyptian military, but Egypt emerged politically (& hence, soon, militarily) stronger, & Britain & France were weakened. Israel picked the wrong fight, on the wrong terms, & fought it the wrong way, & (despite proving its ability to blast any Hezbollah soldier or rocket launcher which showed above ground) has lost as a result.

Imagine a big boy who has undisputed dominance of the playground. One day, an obnoxious runt who's been winding him up provokes him too much. He beats the runt to a pulp, & pummels some of his acquaintances at the same time, but the runt puts up a much better fight than expected, & draws blood. He then discovers that everyone's stopped deferring to him, people who formerly shunned the runt are now sympathetic, & the runts formerly shy supporters have come out into the open, & his own mates are openly critical. Did he win?

I understand your POV and agree with some your points, but it presupposes any of us are guessing Israel's true motives? Who says they ever thought they could totally destroy Hezbollah?

I would have thought military campaigns such as that conducted in Northern Ireland or Vietnam would show most people the futility of thinking a guerilla force (which is what Hezbollah essentially is) can be completely annihalated to the last person.

Perhaps Israel is far more aware of this (particularly given it's own long experience from 1982 to 2000 fighting predominantly the same group) than some are aware of or are willing to admit? Perhaps they ARE satisfied with simply bashing Hezbollah into a far less capable entity than it obviously was immediately prior to this campaign and expect this will become a regular occurence every few years? The "death of a thousands cuts" may come true but for Hezbollah rather than Israel?

If that is the case, then Israel has obviously achieved their objective, and if Hezbollah break the ceasefire they've a perfectly valid reason for having a greater "go" at Hezbollah.

I think Israel would in any case be furiously analysing their performance in this campaign and "re-capitalising" on JDAM's and other precision weapons in case they need to go to war again. I reckon their air defence will be rapidly boosted soon to try and stop the "rocket flow" into their Country...

I would not want to be the next "enemy" wanting to have a go at Israel. They will not likely be caught unprepared again, if they were this time.

 

[fylr71]

The key to this whole situation is how the Israeli people feel. If they feel Olmert has risked their security, his government will collapse and the Israelis will vote in someone with a tougher stance. That is whats great about a parliamentary system. It seems as though Syria and Iran are trying to goad Israel into attacking them. My own belief is that their purpose for doing this is that they believe the entire Muslim world will flock to their banner and they will be able to achieve a great victory against Israel. However a simple reality check shows that the Iranians and their followers are entirely dillusional. First and most blatenly Israel possesses nuclear weapons and if necessary would use them, as was shown in the Yom Kippur war of 1973 where nuclear strike was not ruled out. Also it would be very hard for the arabs to cooperate in an attack on Israel. And any invasion of Israel would immediately give the west the necessary excuse to launch a massive invasion of the entire middle east.

In reality that doomsday scenario seems unlikely but eventually the tensions in the middle east will reach a climax if a major permanent peace accord cannot be reached.

 

[steve33]

Hezbollah can talk tough and they have to,they have an audience to play up to but the truth is and they have admitted it that they wouldn,t have attacked Israel if they had known what the responce was going to be so you can be sure they will think twice in the future so that means it was not a victory for hezbollah but really a draw,neither side come out on top.

The Israeli have a lot of work to do with there infantry from what has been said they were totally disorganised,i saw one Israeli soldier who said no one knew what they were doing they got shot at more from there own people than Hezbollah.

 

[KGB]

Nasrallah: Soldiers' abductions a mistake

POSTED: 10:07 p.m. EDT, August 27, 2006



Adjust font size:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Had Hezbollah known how Israel was going to respond, the group would not have captured two Israeli soldiers last month in northern Israel, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Sunday.
But, in an interview with Lebanon's New TV, Nasrallah also said the war would have happened anyway -- a few months later.
He insisted, without offering evidence, that Israel had been planning to launch military action in October, and the July raid by Hezbollah merely moved up the Israelis' timetable.
In a raid into Israel on July 12, Hezbollah militants killed three Israeli soldiers and abducted two others.
That attack sparked a response that the Israelis said was intended to target Hezbollah militants, but which resulted in the killing of more than 1,000 Lebanese -- most of them civilians -- and the widespread destruction of the country's infrastructure. The death toll among Israelis was 159, including 41 civilians.
If someone had said July 11 that there was "a one percent possibility" Israel's military response would be as extensive as it turned out to be, "I would say no, I would not have entered this for many reasons -- military, social, political, economic," said Nasrallah, speaking in Arabic.
Not even the families of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel would have wanted to bring on such action, he said.
"If there was a one percent possibility, we would not have done that. We would not have done any capturing."
But, he added, "If we hadn't captured those soldiers, the war would have come in October anyway." Hezbollah's raid drew Israeli action sooner and "deprived the Israelis of the element of surprise," he said.
"The Israelis wanted to begin this war," Nasrallah said, calling it "an American decision" with "many European countries" involved. He insisted Israel was looking for "an Arab cover."
When Israel launched major military action after the raid, it cited the kidnappings and months of sporadic rocket attacks by Hezbollah into northern Israel.
In an interview Sunday that lasted more than 80 minutes, Nasrallah again declared "victory" in the monthlong war with Israel.
He called it a "bigger" victory than Hezbollah had achieved in 2000, when Israel withdrew after 18 years in Lebanon -- and many throughout the Arab world credited Hezbollah's resistance efforts.
After 2000, questions remained as to whether Hezbollah could resist Israel if it chose to re-enter southern Lebanon, he said. The fact that the group withstood Israel's military onslaught, he argued, represented "a huge victory."
Nasrallah expressed no regret for the deaths of Israeli civilians, saying Lebanon was the victim of Israeli aggression.
He said he did not expect major fighting to re-emerge soon, saying indications were that Israel was not gearing up for such action.
Nasrallah also said negotiations aimed at prisoner swaps had begun, with Nabih Berri -- a Lebanese parliamentarian who frequently serves as a go-between with Hezbollah -- as the group's negotiator.
Despite Israel's reports that many Hezbollah fighters and officials were captured or killed, Nasrallah said, "the public leadership of Hezbollah -- they're all well, thank God. If the war had happened in October, it would not be like that."

​

How credible is this? Two things though, stand out.

1. Israel's initial response to the kidnappings were geared towards disrupting Hezballah's ability to resupply. It's hard to describe taking out airports and naval blockades as related to hostage rescue.
2. Israel had to call up its reservists once the fighting was underway.

Politicians start wars or play up threats also to manage public opinion. The Falklands war and Fujimori's anti insurgency in campaign are recent examples.


var clickExpire = "-1";

 

[Grand Danois]

How credible is this? Two things though, stand out.

1. Israel's initial response to the kidnappings were geared towards disrupting Hezballah's ability to resupply. It's hard to describe taking out airports and naval blockades as related to hostage rescue.
2. Israel had to call up its reservists once the fighting was underway.

Politicians start wars or play up threats also to manage public opinion. The Falklands war and Fujimori's anti insurgency in campaign are recent examples.

IIRC Nasrallah got it from a New York paper - New York Times perhaps (?). So now we know that he reads papers. We also know that Nasrallahs "lieutenants" has probed how the admission of Hezbollah abducting the soldiers would go down in the Lebanese public.

Of course Israel had an OPLAN for a situation like this. And it could be true that Washington put pressure on Israel to respond as harshly as possible, who knows.

This might just as well be the result of poor political handling, as of "dark and secret" scheming.

But this is interesting. Hezbollah has to point toward this in order to deflect from their initiation of hostilities. The argument is: "This would have come either way and we just precipitated the war." Well, that is correct and it doesn't require any deep insight that a Israeli-Hezbollah war would happen at some point.

The presentation is just the local flavour.

Now, lastly, Hezbollah must be in quite a mess, since they need to explain themselves in this manner. Has Hezbollah gotten unpopular even among the Shiites in Lebanon?

 

[Gollevainen]

After our presidental elections in 1999 the looser candinate, Esko Aho launched a comment which came quite legendary aftermahts and really suites to this discussion; "Who won, what it won, and how much?"

...And my honest obinion is that Israel is now in the same situation as Esko was back then...


I've often come agross these statements like "military victory" or "we shouls led the soldiers decide...". Like Swerve said politcal goals are linked with the militaryones. Remember war is continity to political means. In modern day with modern states, all wars and fightings have some bigger political reasons behind. There is no longer any rivaling armies with are up to themselves and not controlled by any authority. So without politics, no wars would be fought and no war is free form political aspects.

We can however discuss political victories and purely military victories, but whats the point when they are so closely and undisputetly linked together? It's like saying we ruled the gamehappenings in the field but lost the actual mach 1-0...

But lets look the issue first purely on military point of view and then more generally.

Regardless of what the orginal motivation of Israel was, they launched an operation which was massive and the level of it's actions indicates that the main goal was to destroy Hezbollah, sort of "breake their spine". The capture of the two soldiers was merely an excuse and justification to launch the attack but all the actual operational happenings indicates that the this operations goal was much more than release the soldiers. In fact some of the IDFs actions even suggest that they weren't counting on the soldiers being alive any longer. For example why conduct massive bombings agaisnt alledged hezbollahs positions when the soldiers might be held captive in of of those thousends of houses destroyed? This operation had nasty smell of being nothing more than a revence.

We now have the goal, destroy Hezbollah, get them pay for their actions. Was it accomplised? Thousands of civilians where killed and among few hunderd Hezbollah soldiers as well. The scale of the attacks was so huge that it requires clear achivements in order to be called succesfull. Was there any? If I would have been the leader of that assault I would have set goals to be somewhat the following:

1. Main objective: Destroy Hezbollahs structual and organisational "spine" eg. cut their logistical support and universal ability to wage war.

2. Kill the political and militaryleadership of Hezbollah and inflict enough damage that the whole movement is unable to continue after the war is done

3. Change the hearts of the local people from supporting Hezbollah. make them see the IDF doing them a favour and show Hezbollah in bad light.

I think these are somewhat the main goals that are related to the military victory of this conflict. Here's my obinion of how they where ahcived:

1. Hezbollah was able to fight back and launch it's rockets troughout the whole conflict. There was no indications of any lag of moral or other symptons of logistical support being cut down. The news and rumours indicates that in fact IDF had much bigger proplems to provide it own troops enough suplyes and the moral of certain reserve troops was considerable low. So it can be said without doupt that the main militaryobjective failed. IDF managed to cause damage to Hezbollah, but not enough to brake it's ability to fight back.

2. No need to deeper explanation, we all have our eyes and TV so it's pretty clear that this goal failed as well.

3. 1100 civilians dead, about half million people left homeless, huge infrastructual damages not to mention about damages to the enviroments. I think this objective was the biggest failure of Israel. They failed to show the people of Lebanon that they where fighting against Hezbollah, not them. It can be easily predict (touhg little generalizing and perhaps exaggerating) that for every killed civilians there is about 5-10 new supporters of Hezbollah. Normal people, like Lebanese, Israelians and you and me, what matters in the end isen't talks about policans but the everyday facts of life. If your home is destroyed and relatives dead what do you do? You might argue that they can blame Hezbollah as they brought this upon Lebanon but I think thats don't stand. Are Israelians saying when suecide bombers attack them that it's their fault as they opress the palestinians? I doupt it. So in the eyes of those Lebanese whose lifes are ruined, Hezbollah is the hero as they where the only ones fighting against those dropping the bombs...So in fact IDF did exactly the opposite what their goal should have been. Hezbollah is much more stronger in the hearts of the lebanese.

So in purely miltary point of view was this a victory to Israel? What did they accomplish?

We already paginated the bigger scale but lets look this conflict form the political aspect.

Israel boasted in their own declarations that they where going to eliminate the thread of Hezbollah once and for all. Also at the first days of the conflict they said the war will end when they say so eg. when the objectives where accomplished. They said they would go all the way with this. Well did they?
First they rejected all peace offers but when the war wnet on the bell started to ring a different tone. Eventually Israel agreed on peace resulotion which was pretty much against all that it had said in the early days of the war. The UN troops would take control of the southern Lebanon and that Israel have to withdraw from there. The disarming of the hezbollah was left to the Lebanese army. Does this sound a truce dictated by the Israel which would have been able to do so if it had the upperhand in the war? If Israel would have accomlished what it said it was doing, The disarming of Hezbollah should have been left to the IDF as we all know Lebanese army nor the UN troops are not able to do it.

I've said in other occasions that the this war went on strickingly similar tracks as our Winterwar. First a big country attacks smaller one under accustions that they had fired first, then they boast that this is going to be piece of cake and that they would go all the way of "dismissing the thread" possed by this smaller country. When the actual fightings starts the bigger country founds out that the smaller is much more tougher nut to crack. They make mindless bombings against civilian targets and achive this by nothing else than hatred and support to the smaller country.
In the battlefiled the bigger country suffers unexpected damages and founds out that it's methods are totally unsuited for this type of war. And in the end the bigger country bends over and agrees to a peaceterms which it achives nothing from it's orginal objectives. Only difference is that Soviet Union actually managed to get some land from us, Israel didn't get anything (modernday substitute for territorial claims)

So who won? Tarja Halonen What it won? Presidency of Finland and who much? the head of the state...

Israel and Esko Aho really have to learn who to be bit less sore loosers...

 

[Scorpius]

I think wtachman here thinks Islam motivates us to kill Jews.and that the one who wants the destruction of the United States is more Islamic than another devout Muslim.

for future info:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions

sorry to hijack the thread.

Isn't Syria secular?and Bashar Al-Assad is an Alevi Muslim.

 

[steve33]

The head of Hezbollah just come out saying if they had known what was going to happen they wouldn,t of done it.

That doesn,t sound like the talk of someone who achieved victory,that is someone who has taken a beating and will think twice before they do it again.

Israel will also think twice because they failed too,the bottom line is nobody won.

 

[Gollevainen]

Well I think he mainly ment that if he had known what Lebanon had to suffer in the hands of Israel, he wouldn't done it...

 

[KGB]

The strategic bombing certainly keeps Lebanon poor. Perhaps that is part of the strategy of IDF. I read that in the west bank they raze orchards owned by palestinians, citing their potential as sniper spots. Plus they do have a policy of bulldozing the houses of suicide bombers.