What happened to the Israeli soldiers that were captured prior to the war?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Hueij

Ah, I see. The two guys still in Hezbollah's hands, lots and lots of civillians ending up dead, Hezbollah more popular then ever in Lebanon...

Way to go, Israel

Interesting, you agree with the right wing Washington Times that Israel failed.

They also discount the insertion of the Leb Army into S. Leb, and laugh at the UN forces. I take it you do as well?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so, now that Israel is withdrawing in accordance with UNSC 1701, do y'all think that the international community should press for the release of the Israeli soldiers?

Absolutely. The "international community" should have pressed for it in the first place.

-Arrian

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Arrian
Let's face it - any sort of large scale military operation, whether by air or land, was not likely to bring the soldiers back. Unless they had really good intel and could send in some special ops guys to take them back.

Israel could've achieved a strategic victory over Hezbollah such as the one they wanted (but apparently did not get) and they still wouldn't have rescued the soldiers.

-Arrian

So if I understand correctly, Israel gambled on destroying Hezbollah and lost.

I heard a Dutch radio reporter stationed in South Lebanon this morning who said that Hezbollah already started rebuilding civillian infrastructure in the south. Together with all the social work they already do in Lebanon convinces me that they are stronger than ever.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Interesting, you agree with the right wing Washington Times that Israel failed.

They also discount the insertion of the Leb Army into S. Leb, and laugh at the UN forces. I take it you do as well?

I don't know about the Lebanese army. I do know that Hezbollah is the power that be in the South, so I doubt that the Leb army will make much of a difference. About the UN troops? It all depends on the mandate they get.

Washington Times? Never even heard about it

[SlowwHand]

I laugh at the U.N. constantly. Just a bunch of monkeys ****ing footballs.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Hueij

So if I understand correctly, Israel gambled on destroying Hezbollah and lost.

I heard a Dutch radio reporter stationed in South Lebanon this morning who said that Hezbollah already started rebuilding civillian infrastructure in the south. Together with all the social work they already do in Lebanon convinces me that they are stronger than ever.

I think that's rather simplistic.

I think they wanted to do as much damage to Hezb as they could before outside forces made them stop. And I gather they didn't do as much damage as they'd have liked.

That being said, if the UN resolution is actually implemented, Israel will be better off than before vis-a-vis security along its northern border. Huge if, though.

-Arrian

[Datajack Franit]

The UN

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
They also discount the insertion of the Leb Army into S. Leb, and laugh at the UN forces. I take it you do as well?

What good will the insertion of the Leb army do? Where do you get the sense that they have either the ability or even the willingness to do what the IDF could not?

Re UNIFIL: I'm somewhat curious why you see the contiuation of UNIFIL as a good thing given the sordid history it has wrt Hezbollah and kidnapped IDF soldiers.

[Arrian]

Re: your link, Dino, what ever happened with all that?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What good will the insertion of the Leb army do? Where do you get the sense that they have either the ability or even the willingness to do what the IDF could not?

Re UNIFIL: I'm somewhat curious why you see the contiuation of UNIFIL as a good thing given the sordid history it has wrt Hezbollah and kidnapped IDF soldiers.

at a minimum, the leb army will hold onto some strategic locations that previously Hezb held, and that they would have returned to otherwise. Note that prior to this war Hezb opposed the presence of the Leb Army south of the Litani. Why do YOU think they did so?
I think the Leb army presents some problems for Hezb. To attack the Leb army represents a political complexity for hezb that attacking the IDF does not. This does not mean the Leb army necessarily can disarm Hezb now - but it can do things that the IDF may not be able to do. Also theres no time limit on the Leb army presence, as there inevitably is on the IDF.

what does the leb army do? at first, it simply gets people in S leb used to the idea that they are part of the Leb state. with the Leb army around will Hezb be able to act a state within a state, punishing its local enemies by force? Unless you beleive that Hezbs militarly presence had no bearing on its political strength, that has to matter.

As for the Leb army will, I dont know. It seems fairly clear that at least some Leb pols, notably again the younger Hariri, Jumblatt, and most of the Maronites are quite aware of how much they have to gain from the weakening of Hezb. Of course they will be cautious. This is a chess game. Moving the Leb army in is moving a pawn into better position. It doesnt take the king, it doesnt even knock down another pawn. at best it gives control of a key square or two.

[Arrian]

To answer my own question about the 2000 incident:

On July 6, 2001, the U.N. finally admitted that they possessed the tape as of 18 hours after the incident occurred.

Some believe the denial was intentional. They believe that UNIFIL workers in the area had prior knowledge of the kidnapping plot, but did nothing to prevent it. Hizbullah crossed through a U.N. patrolled area to get to the Israeli soldiers.

Others believe the U.N. denial was due to misjudgement and miscommunication. They claim that Jean-Marie Guehenno, the U.N.dersecretary General for Peacekeeping Operations responsible for UNIFIL, never informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the videotape existed.

In early July, Annan ordered an internal U.N. investigation into the handling of the videotape. U.N. undersecretary-General Joseph Connor led an eight-person investigation.

According to Connor's 18-page report, the U.N. possessed two more videotapes related to the kidnapping as well as more than 50 items (seven with bloodstains) that were found in the Hizbullah's getaway cars. The report also included a senior UNIFIL officer's assessment that the kidnapped soldiers died from their wounds.

Connor concluded that the U.N. was guilty of lapses in judgment and failures in communication, but there was no indication of collusion with Hizbullah or of deliberate attempts to mislead the Israeli government.

Annan apologized to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and the U.N. publicly acknowledged that "serious errors in judgment were made, in particular, by those who failed to convey information to the Israelis, which would have been helpful in an assessment of the condition of the three abducted soldiers." (U.N. Wire)

U.N. Refuses to Give the Videotape to the Israeli Government

Immediately after the U.N. admitted to possessing the tape, Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer demanded that the videotape be handed over to Israel and condemned the U.N. for withholding evidence that may have helped lead to the soldiers' safe return to their families.

The U.N. refused to turn over the tape, citing a desire to remain neutral in the region.

Israel argued that the tape should be given to Israel because:
Israel was the victim of the kidnapping, which was an act of aggression and an international crime.
Israel is a U.N. member State, and the kidnapping was orchestrated by a terrorist group.
In their role as peacekeepers, it was the duty of UNIFIL to prevent the kidnapping in the first place.
On July 30, 2001 the U.S. Congress voted (411-4) for a resolution calling on the U.N. to release the tape.

U.N. Edits Videotapes and Establishes Viewing Conditions

The U.N. agreed to allow Israel to view the videotapes under certain conditions:

The tapes would be edited in order to obscure the faces of the kidnappers.
The first viewing of the tapes, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, would be for an Israeli team, which included Israeli military officers and Israeli ambassador to the U.N. David Lancry
A second viewing session, in Vienna, would be for the families of the three kidnapped soldiers
Only some of the 51 items taken from the cars used to kidnap the soldiers will be given to the Israelis.
Israel initially rejected these terms and demanded to receive an uncensored and unaltered version of the videotapes. However the U.N. insisted these conditions were in the interests of U.N. neutrality. The U.N. did not want to be accused by one party in the conflict of providing intelligence to another party. In the end, the Israelis accepted the U.N.'s editing and viewing conditions of the tapes.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said that the UN wanted to emphasize the humanitarian aspects that could help Israel in the search for the captured soldiers without providing what appeared to be intelligence on the kidnappers.

Some peacekeeping force. Feh, I say.

-Arrian

[Joseph]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I laugh at the U.N. constantly. Just a bunch of monkeys ****ing footballs.

Be careful, those words got Howard fired from Monday Night Footbball.

[SlowwHand]

If I get that cushy job, I'll be careful.

[Dinner]

Those soldiers are still being butt raped by Arab terrorists.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit

the Arabs will not kill them unnecissarially. They still want their terrorist brothers released.