-
-
-
I disagree entirely. It still has a huge presence not only in South Lebanon but also is now part of the government
.
Hezbollah has no stable military presence in the south. It's bunkers still lie in ruins and it has retreated north to the Bekaa valley, which was one of Israel's goals during the war. It allso achieved another of its goals, which was the stationing of the LA in South Lebanon. Thus, not only is it impossible to claim that the IDF was 'defeated', its allso arguable if it's military goals were a failor since some of them are clearly a success.
Failed. Whilst it has a presence in most of South Lebanon it has virtually no control in the Hezbollah stronghold.
Hezbollah cannot act with impunity in the south. It has retreated north and all it has in the south are non-uniformed intelligence personell.
-
(Original post by Axes)
.
Hezbollah has no stable military presence in the south. It's bunkers still lie in ruins and it has retreated north to the Bekaa valley, which was one of Israel's goals during the war. It allso achieved another of its goals, which was the stationing of the LA in South Lebanon. Thus, not only is it impossible to claim that the IDF was 'defeated', its allso arguable if it's military goals were a failor since some of them are clearly a success.
Hezbollah cannot act with impunity in the south. It has retreated north and all it has in the south are non-uniformed intelligence personell.
Read the article I posted before this post which shows that Hezbollah has complete control of the south. Hardly surprising considering they won all the seats from the southern districts forming part of a united government.
-
(Original post by davidjones90)
Read the article I posted before this post which shows that Hezbollah has complete control of the south. Hardly surprising considering they won all the seats from the southern districts forming part of a united government.
I read the article, and I've read dozens of articles regarding S.Lebanon since 2006. Despite having a 'presence' in South Lebanon, its Bunkers are empty, its ammunition stores moved north, its heavy equipment and Katyusha's are allmost all in the Bekaa valley, and so are most of its fighters. The Presence of Hezbollah is mostly limited to un-uniformed intelligence personell, nor has it dared fire a bullet in Israel's direction since 2006.
-
Tried reading the end of the article and watching that video clip
-
-
Yesterday a Hezbullah weapon storage exploded in a Lebanese village.
******* clowns, don't they know not to smoke near weapons?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
-
Yesterday a Hezbullah weapon storage exploded in a Lebanese village.
******* clowns, don't they know not to smoke near weapons?
Oh wait, I thought there were no Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, that misson was accomplished when Israel won the last war, no? 
-
(Original post by just4friends)
Oh wait, I thought there were no Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, that misson was accomplished when Israel won the last war, no?
As you could see, Hezbollah has to conduct its operations underground, and its presence is covert, at best. It prevents it from re-establishing its fortifications, or sending in any meaningfull amount of heavy equipment, training its soldiers in the area, or deploying in mass if Israel ever choses to return.
-
I was just browsing and a blogger drew my attention Palestinian press reporting the findings of a 'Near East Consulting' study on Palestinians. It's based on 949 Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (random sample). The results (if correct, I'll be waiting for Near East to publish it in english) are very interesting [I've had to make sense of it because Google Translate isn't good, if you want to interpret it in another way, go ahead]
(Original post by Palestine Press)
The results showed the proportion of support for Abu Mazen, fixed by 37% and the rate of 12% to Ismail Haniyeh, while 51% pointed to the lack of confidence in any of the two leaders. Similarly, 46% believe that the Fayyad government is the most legitimate was 20% that the government of Hamas is the most legitimate, in spite of that, 34% do not see any of the legitimacy of the two departments.
Meaning that 37% support Abbas and 12% for Haniyeh. 46% legitimacy for Fayyad government and just 20% for the Hamas government
The proportion of respondents 90% of the Palestinians were in favor of holding legislative and presidential elections. The survey showed that if elections were held today, the 33% would not participate in the elections, 46% would vote for Fatah, Hamas 11% and 10% for other factions.
The sample showed that the favored candidate in the event the holding of presidential elections, Mahmoud Abbas, is 35%, followed by Marwan Barghouti with 24% and 12% to Ismail Haniyeh
In general, the sample showed that 70% of those in favor of the demilitarization of the hands of the factions, however, and put the security services only.
The disarmament of all fractions is requested by 70% and only the security serivices should have that power
70% believe that the Fayyad government is working very well for the imposition of security in the West Bank, while 45% believe that Haniyeh's government is working in the Gaza Strip.
Source.
I think that if this is true, then it obviously shows the decreasing popularity of Hamas. And for what reason is this? It may be Cast Lead, it may be that people are seeing what Gazans are going through and not just blaming Israel, but Hamas also. Any thoughts, anyone?
-
(Original post by Folderol)
I was just browsing and a blogger drew my attention Palestinian press reporting the findings of a 'Near East Consulting' study on Palestinians. It's based on 949 Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (random sample). The results (if correct, I'll be waiting for Near East to publish it in english) are very interesting [I've had to make sense of it because Google Translate isn't good, if you want to interpret it in another way, go ahead]
Source.
I think that if this is true, then it obviously shows the decreasing popularity of Hamas. And for what reason is this? It may be Cast Lead, it may be that people are seeing what Gazans are going through and not
just blaming Israel, but Hamas also. Any thoughts, anyone?
Sounds good to me if true but I'm skeptical.
-
(Original post by PeeWeeDan)
Sounds good to me if true but I'm skeptical.
I'm most skeptical about the 70% wanting the disarming of all other "fractions" 
-
(Original post by Folderol)
I'm most skeptical about the 70% wanting the disarming of all other "fractions"
Me too, the gap in numbers is a little bit interesting although I'd be interested to see the Gaza/WB data individually.
-
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Can anybody explain what's the purpose of this provocation?
What the **** do they want?
And why involve children in it? What if there was some insane IDF soldier that opened fire on them?
-
I doubt anything will happen out of this, It's barely an incident. Hezbollah are just one of those groups which, can't be reasoned with.
-
(Original post by manwithaplan)
I doubt anything will happen out of this, It's barely an incident. Hezbollah are just one of those groups which, can't be reasoned with.
Yeah I know but what's the ******* point?
It's just pathetic.
-
(Original post by borismor)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Can anybody explain what's the purpose of this provocation?
What the **** do they want?
And why involve children in it? What if there was some insane IDF soldier that opened fire on them?
Screams of a bunch of attention seeking *****, tbh. There isn't enough evidence to suggest it was an official Hezbollah move.
I guess it could have been more serious if the IDF had shot them but I guess it's no biggie at the moment.
-
It says there wasn't a fence so the civilians crossed. Probably just some over-enthusiastic supporters with some hezbollah flags.
-
Could you find an any more biased source? Even Haaretz would be better than the JP. 
(Not that I'm disagreeing, but come on.)
-
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Could you find an any more biased source? Even Haaretz would be better than the JP.
(Not that I'm disagreeing, but come on.)
Biased sources only become problematic when writing opinion articles. JP may be biased, but it doesnt write propaganda.
One last thing, you don't do justice to Haaretz. It is one of the most Liberal, fair, and high quality papers in the world, with regards to this region.
-
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Could you find an any more biased source? Even Haaretz would be better than the JP.
(Not that I'm disagreeing, but come on.)
Biased on what? They stated a fact, not an opinion.
.jpg)
