My understanding of the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

[tongodeon]

I intended to post this a week or two ago, but the Syria/Lebanon/Israel/iran issue is rather complicated. It's taken me a lot of reading to untangle the threads and make sense of what's going on over there. Incidentally that's my major problem with almost every opinion piece I've seen written about the issue: there are many uncomfortable truths

Comments

[tongodeon]

To be technical about it, Hezbollah *are* civilians. They're not the Lebanese Army, they are criminal civilians. If you started shooting Russian rockets at Tijuana you'd be that sort of criminal civilian too, and it would be OK for the Mexican military to shell your house as long as they don't shell the surrounding eight blocks, which Israel seems to be doing.

Your article claims that "Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians like the plague." That seems to be in line with what sploof's co-worker said - Hezbollah only got 11% of the popular vote and people who don't side with Hezbollah don't like them very much. At the same time Hezbollah's support is mostly in the South (where most of the attacks are) and the people who don't support Hezbollah are getting out of Dodge - you're more likely to stick around and even lend a hand if you're a sympathizer or supporter. Sticking around does not prove their guilt, of course.

The biggest bit of evidence that convinces me that Hezbollah are attacking Israeli civilians from Lebanese civilian neighborhoods is that they're an irregular civilian militia, they've got to be storing their 13,000 rockets, cruise missles, bombs, and launchers *somewhere*, and I've never seen a picture of a legitimate Hezbollah military base where those things could be stored.

[veep]

Either I don't understand you or you don't understand the article. Many of your main conclusions seem to be based on the idea that Israel reluctantly (or at least justifiably) bombs civilian areas because rocket attacks against them are coming from those areas.

The salon.com article seems to state clearly that Israel is simply bombing non-fighting sympathizers/supporters/members of Hezbollah when they attack civilian areas. The fighters (with their rockets) stay the heck away from all the civilians so they can't be ratted out.

As the original comment pointed out, you said "they're operating in and attacking from civilian neighborhoods using civilian buildings as cover and storage", and the Salon article seems to say that the exact opposite is the case. I think this is a key distinction.

Also, your biggest bit of "evidence" for ignoring the Salon writer's conclusions isn't evidence at all, just as my having never seen Idaho is no evidence of its non-existence.

[tongodeon]

Many of your main conclusions seem to be based on the idea that Israel reluctantly (or at least justifiably) bombs civilian areas because rocket attacks against them are coming from those areas.

Yes, that's my idea and conclusion.

The fighters (with their rockets) stay the heck away from all the civilians so they can't be ratted out.

That's the part that I don't believe. Maybe they're staying away from lawful civilian *persons* when it's practical for them to do so, but they're still taking cover in civilian areas and structures - specifically, the southern area of Lebanon where their civilian support base is strongest and least likely to "rat them out". (To who? Does the IDF have a tip line? Would you call a famously indiscriminate air strike into your own neighborhood because you saw drug dealers there?)

Hezbollah are storing weapons in civilian storage areas. They're digging tunnels with entrances disguised as civilian houses. They're supported by the civilians who comprise their popular base in the south. And I can see why they'd be doing these things: because it is a practical and effective way to leverage the home field advantage. They'd be fools not to.

I've also read that Hezbollah also have weapons storage tunnels and caves, and I'm not claiming that those were civilian tunnels and caves. I'm not claiming that Hezbollah *exclusively* make use of civilian cover, I'm just claiming that using civilian cover is one of their tactics.

Also, your biggest bit of "evidence" for ignoring the Salon writer's conclusions isn't evidence at all, just as my having never seen Idaho is no evidence of its non-existence.

Practically, since Israel has total air superiority, I don't see how Hezbollah could survive exclusively using formal military bases like Israel does. I also don't see how these military bases could be effective while distanced from the towns that Hezbollah are claiming to "protect": you'd want to build those bases close to keep the enemy far away. You'd want to build fortifications inside the town to prevent the enemy from fortifying there if they breached the perimeter.

The whole concept seems not only impractical and not corroborated by anything I've read. If you told me that the state of North Idaho, which I've never seen, was suspended from the clouds by cotton candy I'd probably doubt your claim, even if Salon had written an article about it, *especially* if all major news organizations for the last month had been denying that it existed.

[tongodeon]

Also, to be nitpicky, Hezbollah *are* civilians. They can't "stay the heck away from civilians" by definition. Since Hezbollah has entire towns in the south where their legitimate government provides legitimate social services and enjoys popular support they can call these towns and their municipal facilities "hezbollah bases" when they're shooting from them and "civilian neighborhoods" when Israel is shooting at them because both terms are correct.

The real problem is that Hezbollah is not Lebanon's legitimate army, and when an illegitimate army fights an organized band of well-armed civilians on their own turf you end up with a lot of gotchas and difficult-to-distinguish shades of grey that both sides will end up using to their advantage at their convenience.