Who won? (Israel and Hezbollah)

[Pangloss]

Who won the Israel-Hezbollah conflict?

[bascule]

The only way to win is not to play

[mooeypoo]

Winners in war are judged by history.

 

 

Only time will tell. Hopefully, both lebanon and Israel won by stopping Hizbullah terrorists.

 

With the current cease fire, we will just have to wait and see.

 

 

~moo

[Jim]

Winners in war are judged by history.

 

 

Only time will tell. Hopefully' date=' both lebanon and Israel won by stopping Hizbullah terrorists.

 

With the current cease fire, we will just have to wait and see.

 

 

~moo[/quote']

 

Israel won because a different dynamic might come into play the next time Iran & Syria pull Hizbollah's strings.

[Sisyphus]

If, as I've heard convincingly hypothesized, the real goal of Hezbollah is to prevent the liberalization of Lebanon, they've done very well for themselves. This has been a major economic and cultural setback for Lebanon.

[silkworm]

Um... Who said it's over? Wait til tomorrow, this may even have more to do with strategy than peace.

[Tetrahedrite]

Who won the Israel-Hezbollah conflict?

It hard to say there is a clear winner, but I'd be leaning heavily in favour of Hezbollah. Israel's stated aim was to destroy Hezbollah's ability to attack civilians from the northern border. In that aim, they failed convincingly. Hezbollah continued firing rockets into Israel during the whole of the conflict, and even increased the intensity of attacks over the last couple of weeks. This would suggest that Hezbollah is still largely intact. Add to this Israel has been portrayed as brutal and nasty towards civilians and has gained the condemnation of many international bodies. It has destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure and housing, which is sure to alienate much of the population against Israel. And it gives the rest of the Islamic world a perfect recruiting ploy. Getting the UN off side is never good either. IMO the conflict will probably create more terrorists and strengthen the resolve of countries like Iran and Syria.

[abskebabs]

I think both Lebanon and Israel will win only if Hezbollah is disarmed(south of the Litani at least), and the process is not stalled, like it is being now by Hezbollah ministers in the Lebanese cabinet.

[budullewraagh]

Who won? Nobody ever wins in a war. All parties lose but the war usually ends on terms more favorable to one side.

 

Let's assess:

 

Israel: lost some civilians, lost more soldiers. Also lost plenty of support due to tactics. Bothered the UN and everyone else AGAIN. Came to a ceasefire but is still as susceptible to Hezbollah attacks as they were before should such attacks resume.

 

Lebanon: Destroyed. Lebanese civilians? Extremized in support of Hezbollah. The government? With even less power than before.

 

Hezbollah: Lost some militants but is now able to exploit the damage caused by Israel and use their success in fighting to recruit more members.

 

Make your own calls on this one. Fascinating how this one turned out.

[Skye]

I think both sides did ok. Israel forced the UN into action and Hezbollah looked like gritty freedom fighters.

[Jim]

I think both sides did ok. Israel forced the UN into action and Hezbollah looked like gritty freedom fighters.

 

If the peace holds, Lebanon and Israel won.

[Pangloss]

I agree with Skye, and more: My opinion is exactly the opposite of Bud's. I think it's possible that not only has someone won this war, but in fact two entities have: Israel and Lebanon. This may be the best thing that could have happened to Lebanon.

 

This isn't addressed at anyone here, but how can someone who insists that terrorism can have a positive outcome be blind to the positive outcome of war? I guess it's better to be politically correct than to be logical? That seems to be the tone of many observers as this thing ends. "Oh no! War is horrible! Nobody benefits, it's ALL bad! There is no price for freedom, it should be free, just like money and healthcare!"

 

Welcome to the Real World. The blue pill was tasty, wasn't it?

[Bettina]

Israel won hands down. To say that terrorists won anything is (censored by me).

 

Bee

[Severian]

Irrespective of any views about who is right and who is wrong, I fail to see what Israel has gotten out of this. Their bombings have set back the westernization of Lebanon by decades.

 

Lebanon was finally managing to attract western tourists and businesses - its economy was doing well and its people were becoming richer. Now, all the investment has fled and southen lebanon is in ruins. All this is going to do is force the Lebanese into a more anti-Israel stance than they previously were, giving more supporters to Hezbollah and terrorist organisations.

 

Surely the best way to will peace in the middle east is to show the people how much better off they will be if they embrace western freedom and democracy. The best case for Israel would be to have a wealthy, liberal, western Lebanon to its north rather than a battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that this invasion and the new buffer zone is going to stop Hezbollah targeting Israel?

[doG]

No one, both sides lost....

[Pangloss]

Irrespective of any views about who is right and who is wrong' date=' I fail to see what Israel has gotten out of this. Their bombings have set back the westernization of Lebanon by decades.

 

Lebanon was finally managing to attract western tourists and businesses - its economy was doing well and its people were becoming richer. Now, all the investment has fled and southen lebanon is in ruins. All this is going to do is force the Lebanese into a more anti-Israel stance than they previously were, giving more supporters to Hezbollah and terrorist organisations.

 

Surely the best way to will peace in the middle east is to show the people how much better off they will be if they embrace western freedom and democracy. The best case for Israel would be to have a wealthy, liberal, western Lebanon to its north rather than a battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that this invasion and the new buffer zone is going to stop Hezbollah targeting Israel?[/quote']

 

Of course not, Hezbollah will break the cease fire when it decides to, but next time the perception of that breaking will be different. Just as it was slightly different this time than the time before. Each time Hezbollah loses a little more.

 

The idea that Lebanon was having a glorious renaissance was false. It was a purile illusion fostered by agendized extremists who were experts on bread and circuses (or in this case, bread and flu shots).

 

What has Israel gotten out of this? Well let's see. Prior to this engagement Hezbollah had outposts right on the Israeli border. Those outposts are now GONE. They are destroyed, and their rebuilding is forbidden by international treaty. Might they try to sweep in and build them again? Sure. But now the very act of building them puts them in violation -- actually shooting rockets is one step farther into violation than it was before.

 

It may seem like a minor difference, but it gives Israel one more piece of political ammunition short of shooting. Isn't that what we all want?

 

Even more interesting is the fact that while Hezbollah as a terrorist organization may be unaffected, Hezbollah as a political organization is now in a struggle for its very existence. They've LOST the territory that was providing its with its base for elected office-holding. LOST it. Mind you, the people in those areas can still vote however they like, but those regions were controlled by Hezbollah in an absolutist fashion, policing the streets, silencing dissent, and preventing non-Hezbollah Lebanese government officials from even entering those regions! All of that, at least in the affected region of Southern Lebanon, which was most of Hezbollah's power center, has stopped, initially due to the bombardment, but now it will continue to be stopped because of the treaty. How will those people vote, once they actually have a choice?

 

Pretty conclusive if you ask me. I don't see how Hezbollah can be seen as having won anything. There was no possible outcome in which Hezbollah could have been destroyed -- that just wasn't going to happen -- we all agreed on that in the other discussion, it's just the nature of terrorist organizations. Israel got the most it could possibly have gotten from this conflict. Realistically, it could not have hoped for a more positive result.

[Pangloss]

Here's another aspect of victory by Israel: Lebanon is having a "national dialog" about disarming Hezbollah! That was inconceivable before this conflict began. And better still, Hezbollah is actively engaged in that dialog, and actually OPEN to the possibility.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aofH9TN7uv4I&refer=home

 

Hezbollah's disarmament is ``part of a national dialogue that is taking place right now,'' Hussein Hajj Hassan, who represents Hezbollah in the Lebanese Parliament, said in a telephone interview today. Discussions are ``serious and positive,'' he said.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure it was inconceivable. Hezbollah was already a minority, just a loud and violent one. The majority of Lebanese already resented Syria at least as much as Israel. It's unclear whether there are more or less Lebanese sympathetic to Hezbollah now, but at least those who are anti-Hezbollah have gotten angrier and are more likely to do something about it.

[Jim]

Of course not' date=' Hezbollah will break the cease fire when it decides to, but next time the perception of that breaking will be different. Just as it was slightly different this time than the time before. Each time Hezbollah loses a little more.

 

The idea that Lebanon was having a glorious renaissance was false. It was a purile illusion fostered by agendized extremists who were experts on bread and circuses (or in this case, bread and flu shots).

 

What has Israel gotten out of this? Well let's see. Prior to this engagement Hezbollah had outposts right on the Israeli border. Those outposts are now GONE. They are destroyed, and their rebuilding is forbidden by international treaty. Might they try to sweep in and build them again? Sure. But now the very act of building them puts them in violation -- actually shooting rockets is one step farther into violation than it was before.

 

It may seem like a minor difference, but it gives Israel one more piece of political ammunition short of shooting. Isn't that what we all want?

 

Even more interesting is the fact that while Hezbollah as a terrorist organization may be unaffected, Hezbollah as a [i']political[/i] organization is now in a struggle for its very existence. They've LOST the territory that was providing its with its base for elected office-holding. LOST it. Mind you, the people in those areas can still vote however they like, but those regions were controlled by Hezbollah in an absolutist fashion, policing the streets, silencing dissent, and preventing non-Hezbollah Lebanese government officials from even entering those regions! All of that, at least in the affected region of Southern Lebanon, which was most of Hezbollah's power center, has stopped, initially due to the bombardment, but now it will continue to be stopped because of the treaty. How will those people vote, once they actually have a choice?

 

Pretty conclusive if you ask me. I don't see how Hezbollah can be seen as having won anything. There was no possible outcome in which Hezbollah could have been destroyed -- that just wasn't going to happen -- we all agreed on that in the other discussion, it's just the nature of terrorist organizations. Israel got the most it could possibly have gotten from this conflict. Realistically, it could not have hoped for a more positive result.

 

 

I couldn't agree more Pangloss. Well argued.

[mooeypoo]

The moment Lebanon will be open to IMPLEMENT the disarmament of Hizbullah (talking is nice, but implement is what makes the difference) I might start being calmer and more optimistic.. :\

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

Realistically, it could not have hoped for a more positive result.

I don't think anyone in Israel (specifically the military forces) expect anything more than to kick the rocket launchers further away from the border.

 

As I said, Israel continued the peace-talks.. it was obvious that the war itself will not bring to massive changes in the area in terms of peace, but the war was intended to get the missile attacks receded, and it mostly succeeded.

 

So I agree Pangloss.

 

~moo

[Severian]

The idea that Lebanon was having a glorious renaissance was false. It was a purile illusion fostered by agendized extremists who were experts on bread and circuses (or in this case' date=' bread and flu shots).

[/quote']

Really? That doesn't seem to be the view expressed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lebanon

 

Nor for that matter, the view expressed by the BBC:

 

Beirut has been pulling in record numbers of visitors. The tourism ministry says there were 1.2 million tourist arrivals in the first 11 months of 2004, a 30% rise on the same period of 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4265565.stm

 

has changed to:

 

Much of the $50bn that has been injected into the country during the last decade to rebuild it after the 1975-1989 civil war may have been wasted if the onslaught also brings about the collapse of Lebanon's still fragile democracy, along with any faith in the nation's new beginning...

 

Consequently, Lebanon will find it increasingly hard to service its $35bn debts, and the government will probably have to shelve its plans for economic reform, which were supposed to include the privatisation of its power and telecoms sectors, tax rises and tighter government purse strings.

 

"Forget reforms for the moment," says Mr Karam of BLC Bank. "We will not be in the mood for a while, possibly not for a long time to come."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209502.stm

You really think this is a positive step?

[Pangloss]

I'm aware of the numbers, but I could have expressed my position more clearly. I was trying to make the point that, in my opinion, Lebanon's success was illusory because it was based on false premises, or a kind of "house of cards" due to the existence and fostering of Hezbollah. I think this is a valid point, though I respect disagreement in this area. It's just my two bits on it.

 

I don't relish death and destruction, and as I've said before I sympathize with the plight of the Lebanese. They've suffered a fall that they didn't ask for, and it's a shame to see it.

 

But it's not the first time in human history that a civilization has fallen which had achieved a level of success based on false, illusory or exploitative pretenses. So yes, if they are successful in removing Hezbollah from power, in recognizing the dangerous of supporting violent terrorists, and in achieving peaceful coexistence with their neighbors, then I think this will eventually be a positive step for Lebanon. How can it not be?

[gcol]

There was no winner in this skirmish, although each side will claim a victory for domestic political purposes. It settled nothing. It was a minor conflict in a larger battle in a larger war.

 

It took WW2 to settle WW1, and the cold war to settle WW2. The Arab Israeli conflict began in Biblical times, continues, and will continue for generations at different scales.

 

Dissenters wearing rose tinted specs are invited to scan the skies for flying pigs.

[budullewraagh]

Each time Hezbollah loses a little more.

Not this time.

 

Please refer to:

 

http://roguestatesmen.blogspot.com/

 

Actually I'll just copy my post:

 

Sometimes I really think that the world should elect me to be their Supreme-Dictator-For-Life.

 

From the beginning of Israel's attacks against Hezbollah I've criticized the effectiveness of their actions as well as their motives. In response, I've been asked the question: "Well then, what should Israel have done? Should they have just sat back and been continuously attacked?" My response: "No, but that would have been better than attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon."

 

One step forward, 6 or 7 steps back. What did I say? I said that Hezbollah would gain support from the Lebanese population and that even if Israel thought they had a good chance at damaging Hezbollah and gaining territory they would only be encouraging the growth of Hezbollah's power and would ultimately suffer great losses. Josh said that if Israel really thought they would be able to bring about positive change, they did the right thing. I doubted the goodness of Israel's intentions, citing their apparent urgent need for cluster bombs and their everyone-in-Southern-Lebanon-is-a-terrorist policy.

 

So, what happened? Well, Israel made no progress in a month of attacks in Lebanon. They did, however, destroy 15,000 homes (refer to article) and kill 789 Lebanese, most of whom were civilians. What did this do? It created a vacuum, a l'Iraq, that made it so easy for Hezbollah to claim even more dominance over the Lebanese government. Did I call this? Yes. Put my name on the ballots for Israel's next PM election. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, after being offered a signed blank check from Iran, did not only offer to help those Lebanese need, he offered to rebuild Lebanon as a whole, offering $10,000 to every Lebanese family whose house was destroyed. Already Hezbollah has begun efforts to clear paths through the rubble. And one would ask the question: Where is the Lebanese government?

Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr put it best:

"The (Lebanese) army is not going to the south to strip the Hezbollah of its weapons and do the work that Israel did not."

 

No, the Lebanese government lacks both the money required to rebuild Lebanon and the support required to challenge Hezbollah.

 

The bold moves Nasrallah has made indicate that he has effectively staged a coup d'etat, according to political analyst Jad al-Akjaoui. What has happened in Lebanon shows the achilles heel of a neoconservative foreign policy. It's high time for us to consider other options before the Western world destroys another fledgling democracy.