Israel And Lebanon By Numbers

Two weeks into the latest conflict in the Middle East, the casualty figures make interesting reading. US-sponsored Israel has sent 422 Lebanese to an early grave while Hezbollah (brought to you by Iran and Syria) has killed 42 people.

In other words, the Jewish state, armed and backed by the world’s richest country, has maintained a ten-to-one kill ratio in the first fortnight of fighting. This disparity in human suffering is the single defining characteristic of this war and must be acknowledged in any honest commentary on the conflict.

But the bald figures tell only half the story. Of the 42 people killed by Hezbollah, 24 (57%) were soldiers and 18 (43%) civilians. This relatively low per centage of civilian casualties seems strange. The Shia militia makes no distinction between an Israeli soldier and an Israeli child - they are both Zionist occupiers of Muslim land. The Party of God has demonstrated no qualms about taking innocent life.

So, the fact that more than half the Israeli dead were soldiers is probably a result of military rather than moral considerations. Obviously, Hezbollah’s guerrilla war against the IDF in southern Lebanon has been more effective than the hundreds of Kaytushas it has fired on northern Israel.

What then of the IDF’s pattern of killing? Well, unlike Hezbollah, Israel’s military proudly boasts that it is the most moral army in the world, that no other fighting force on the planet goes to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Logically then, you would expect the Israeli army to have killed significantly fewer civilians proportionally than Hezbollah.

Not so. Of the 422 people killed by the most moral army in the world, 27 were Hezbollah, 20 were Lebanese soldiers and 375 - a whopping 88% - were civilians. All these numbers can get a bit confusing so let me distil them all into one sentence: Israel has killed more than twice as many civilians as a per centagethan Hezbollah.

Remind me again who the good guys are.
45,879 views 110 replies
Reply #1 Top
"In other words, the Jewish state, armed and backed by the world’s richest country, has maintained a ten-to-one kill ratio in the first fortnight of fighting."


Huzzah. When a nation embraces a terrorist group as their "National Resistance", life can start sucking when that organization starts kidnapping and killing people. Lebanon took the arrogant step of refusing to disband Hezbollah and ceded the border area to them to "resist" in. Lahoud isn't a fundamentalist Muslim, he's Christian politician who embraced Hezbollah so that they would fight battles that he didn't have to accept responsibility for.

The numbers are asinine, anyway, given the fact that Hezbollah fighters ARE civilians, and are counted as such more often than not. The only ones that get counted as Hezbollah are the ones that can't possibly be denied as such. They also soil their neighborhoods with their weapons and use their families as human shields. You get what you ask for.

Just because they suck at what they do doesn't make them morally superior. The winner in a war often kills far more civilians than the loser, simply because winning entails entering into their territory to subdue them. According to your standard, the vast majority of wars were won by the moral bad-guy.
Reply #2 Top
I see, so the good guys aren't allowed to be the superior fighters. To be a 'good guy' you also have to be the underdog and have more casualties? Bullshit! That's trully far kukt logic.
Reply #3 Top
but yet, OG, you conviently forget to mention the 15-20 civilian Israeli's here, the 25-30 civilian Israeli's there...and the 45-50 civilian Israeli's here and there, killed by suicide attacks nearly every day.

This is war...at least Israel had the guts to go to war....the terrorists just hide behind their "innocent" civilians to avoid war, but yet continue their cowardly attacks on civilians of Israel
Reply #4 Top
Hi, O G San. Hope that you are well.

Today's fighting told a different story, with 8 Israeli soldiers killed and 22 more wounded in Bint Jbeil, a stronghold near the border. See link http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.main/index.html

The same story noted that Hezbollah has not released casualty figures since the fighting began, so we really don't know.

Israel's stated intention was to destroy Hezbollah's capacity to continuously launch Katyusha rockets across the border from both Gaza and Lebanon, so they have largely targeted the infrastructure. Of course, they have also targeted known headquarters, training camps and bases. Israel has continuously leafleted areas, warning the civilians ahead of time. The Katyusha rockets were developed by the former Soviet Union for use during WW II. They were notoriously inaccurate even then. They are not a military weapon of choice, but make an excellent terror weapon if you don't care what (or who) you hit. See Link for details.

The most unfortunate death of the four UN soldiers show the difficulty of trying to hit small, maneuverable and often camouflaged targets in a region that is mostly desert.

Reply #5 Top
God, I don't know where to start.

Mythical Mino,

I am not forgeting suicide bombs in the least. They are appaling. But it is simply untrue to say that dozens of Israelis are being killed in this manner "nearly every day." The most recent suicide bombing which I could find was the Islamic Jihad attack in southern Tel Aviv in April.

UBoB,

My point is that there are no good guys.

Larry,

Southern Lebanon is not a desert.

Today's fighting did not tell a different story, it told the same story but more so. The proportion of Israeli military dead as a whole is even higher after the battle at Bint Jbeil.

Ehud Olmert stated when this war started that the aim was not just the destruction of the Katyushas but the disarming of Hezbollah.
Reply #6 Top
As for the point about Hezbollah "cowardice", wind your necks in.

Hezbollah is hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by the IDF. If, as some of Israel's friends seem to want, Hezbollah were to act like a conventional army and engage the IDF in pitched battle, it would be all over in five minutes.

Instead Hezbollah plays to its strenghts by enagaging in guerilla war, which means ambush and retreat. That's what the IRA did, what the PLO did, what the Stern Gang did. It's got nothing to do with courage or cowardice and everything to do with tactics.
Reply #7 Top
One final thing which is pissing me off. What's all this crap about "Lebanon took the arrogant step of refusing to disband Hezbollah"?

Even assuming that the Lebanese government wanted to disband Hezbollah, how would this be achieved? The Lebanese army is not exactly a great fighting force. The IDF had 18 years to "disband" Hezbollah and couldn't do it. So how can an infinitely weaker army get the job done?

The reason that Hezbollah has not been disbanded is because it has a lot of support among the people. Again, guerilla armies are different from conventional ones, they can not simply be surrounded en masse and forced to throw down their weapons.
Reply #8 Top
Hmmm, not sure that I agree about the geography part. I know that Tyre and Bint Jbeil are there, but from the comments of the UN commander who had been stationed there about the difficulties faced, my impression was that there was little else.

The UN forces had been stationed there to monitor compliance with UN Resolution 1559 which required "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." The government of Lebanon refused to do so. The UN forces were a joke. Hezbollah accumulated more than 10,000 missiles in the area. The UN forces first stated that the geograhpy made this almost impossible (hence the desert issue) and then said that it was not their mandate. (Huh? Not your mandate to enforce your own resolution?)

Lebanese MP Walid Jumblatt made the "protection of the resistance" a party plank during the last election, giving official recognition to the support of Hezbollah. Syria only left Lebanon after ensuring the continued support of Hezbollah.

Last night, Al Queda announced their support of Hezbollah, making official what has always been the case. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah received his training at schools in Iraq and Iran. Iran, of course, founded and supports Hezbollah.

I don't want to hijack your post, but given evidence that there is an internationally funded terror organization operating openly on Israel's borders, that the government of Lebanon refused to comply with a UN resolution to disarm that organization and in fact proposed to make it part of the Lebanese army, that Hezbollah crossed the border to attack and take hostage Israeli soldiers (usually deemed a cause of war)...what action would you have proposed instead?

Link to UN Resoltion 1559: Link

Link to Hasan Nasrallah's bio: Link

Hezbollah overview: Link
Reply #9 Top
"The reason that Hezbollah has not been disbanded is because it has a lot of support among the people. Again, guerilla armies are different from conventional ones, they can not simply be surrounded en masse and forced to throw down their weapons."


God you make me sick, OG San. Hezbollah is a 'guerrilla army' as much as the beloved IRA was. You can't argue with people who don't live in reality. Guerrilla armies have something to fight for. Hezbollah hates the Palestinians almost as much as they hate the Israelis. Syria believes that not only does Lebanon belong to them, but Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories, too.

So, I'm glad you admit that Lebanon didn't want to accept UN Security Council Resolution 1559, but refused it not because they couldn't, but because they didn't want to. In so doing they made themselves a terrorist state, and are reaping the benefits of it. Seeing the cesspool of European opinion these days, I fear we'll be seeing the rise of terrorist states there eventually.
Reply #10 Top
Seeing the cesspool of European opinion these days

Actually, we have quite a range of opinions. It goes with the territory of having democracies, functioning civil societies with unfettered discussion and a free press expressing diverse opinion. All things which America claims to believe in too - to the extent of believing the recipe can be exported universally.

You're usually smarter than this, but I suppose something must have touched a nerve and sent you off the right-wing deep end. There is something just a little bit histrionic in the way right-wing Americans reserve exactly the same degree of bile and venom for other western democracies as they do for Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. Now, take a deep breath...
Reply #11 Top
Larry,

I'm fine thanks for asking, hope you are well also.

"the government of Lebanon refused to comply with a UN resolution to disarm that organization"

Once again, explain the modalities of this to me. How exactly is the Lebanese army supposed to achieve this? The IDF couldn't achieve it.

Do you support all UN resolutions or just the ones which are in Israel's interests? I would very much like to see 1559 being implemented, but I'd like to see 242 implemented also.
Reply #12 Top
There's no one thing that has set me off, Chak. This week has been a constant stream of condemnation from European bobbleheads towards Israel. Like the EU human rights guy that decided Israel is violating humanitarian law, and who never bothered in the last few weeks to make a statement about Hezbollah's constant infractions of such.

A swedish newspaper ran a cartoon likening Olmert to the Nazi featured in Schindler's List. Hezbollah in the last few days has been compared to the Dutch resistance of Nazi Germany. My position isn't the deep end of the Right wing, not by a long shot. People who consider it such are usually viewing it from so far to the left that they have no concept of where center is.
Reply #13 Top
BakerStreet,

"God you make me sick, OG San. Hezbollah is a 'guerrilla army' as much as the beloved IRA was."

I very much hope you are not implying that I support the IRA. Anyone who knows me will tell you this is emphatically not the case.

"So, I'm glad you admit that Lebanon didn't want to accept UN Security Council Resolution 1559, but refused it not because they couldn't, but because they didn't want to."

Actually, I admitted no such thing. Lebanon is a deeply divided society. I'm sure there are many non-Shia who would gladly be rid of Hezbollah. But there is sure to be more support for Hezbollah across all communities in Lebanon than there was three weeks ago.

If, as I contend, the Lebanese government is unable to disarm Hezbollah, then the issue of whether or not it wishes to disarm them is entirely moot.

Yet again, I await your suggestion as to how the Lebanese army is supposed to disarm Hezbollah given that the IDF couldn't do it.

I would also echo the remarks of our esteemed colleague, Chakgogka, and suggest that you display less anger in your posts.
Reply #14 Top
"Once again, explain the modalities of this to me. How exactly is the Lebanese army supposed to achieve this?"


Again, it is the doublespeak we constantly get. Somehow "diplomacy" will make the whole thing go away so long as people don't drop bombs, but somehow it would be impossible for Lebanon to foster an end to the attacks on Israel. Bullshit, frankly. They not only provide government resources to Hezbollah, but praised them as a national resistance and ceded the protection of their southern border to them.

As to 242 and the rest you'll find that in almost every circumstance Israel is asked to allow the international community to see to their security, and they never do. They are supposed to just sit back and tolerate the treatment they get from their neighbors and living under constant threat. Then, when they strike back, they are condemned.

Look at a friggin map. Israel isn't the huge nation imposing their will on all the poor stubby little Irelands of the Middle East. What technology they do have prevents the hateful nations around them, who vastly outnumber them, from crushing them. Nevertheless people will embrace any form of hate or terrorism to validate their anti-Israel position.
Reply #15 Top
P.S. About the anger in my posts, there's no more anger there than the inflammatory crap you foist above. Condemning kill ratios and pretending that Hezbollah is 'resistance' instead of terrorists isn't any better than pointing out Lebanon's stated love of Hezbollah.

When I see any sort of neutrality in the anti-Israel rhetoric, I'll gladly tone it down. Until then, people who knowingly misrepresent murderers just because they don't like the murdered will draw ire.
Reply #16 Top
"Again, it is the doublespeak we constantly get. Somehow "diplomacy" will make the whole thing go away so long as people don't drop bombs, but somehow it would be impossible for Lebanon to foster an end to the attacks on Israel. Bullshit, frankly."

No, the only thing that is happening "again" is that you are refusing to answer a simple question. How can the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah?

"Condemning kill ratios and pretending that Hezbollah is 'resistance' instead of terrorists isn't any better than pointing out Lebanon's stated love of Hezbollah."

I have not used the word "resistance" in this blog.

"When I see any sort of neutrality in the anti-Israel rhetoric, I'll gladly tone it down."

You may think of me as "anti-Israel", fair enough, but I see no reason why I should be "neutral" about this subject, or indeed any other. I am a blogger, not a broadcaster, I have no duty to be neutral and neither do you.


Reply #17 Top
"No, the only thing that is happening "again" is that you are refusing to answer a simple question. How can the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah? "


The same way Israel is supposed to. Either by negotiations with the parties in question, by international intervention, or by force with international help if necessary. Your point is patently dishonest considering THEY DON'T WANT HEZBOLLAH REMOVED FROM THE SOUTH AND HAVE SAID SO OPENLY.

You act like it is impossible to diffuse this situation without military strength, and then pretend Israel should find a way without using force?

"I have not used the word "resistance" in this blog."


No, you refer to it as a guerrilla war. Lahoud has referred to them as their national resistance, and you admit there's nothing to make us thing they even want to. Both of you want to paint a terrorist organization as something far more noble.

I mentioned the IRA because that was the same excuse the bleeding hearts used in terms of Ireland. Oh, the Irish authorities are powerless, or that they were really fighting a guerrilla war and weren't terrrorists, blah, blah. It's a shame that people can make such moral equivalences just because they have an irrational bias.

"You may think of me as "anti-Israel", fair enough, but I see no reason why I should be "neutral" about this subject, or indeed any other. I am a blogger, not a broadcaster, I have no duty to be neutral and neither do you. "


But when you make the kind of point you are trying to make above, you're posing the idea that there is an objective condemnation of Israel's behavior. I mean, look at the numbers, right? Obviously Israel is quantitatively proved to be in the wrong, outside of the bias and passion of the argument.

No, you just adopt a 'reasonable' tone to hide an unreasonable opinion. Hezbollah is an agent of the Lebanese government, and they crossed the Israeli border, kidnapping and killing Israelis. That can't be seen as anything other than an act of war, and war is what they have. Now you're surprised you are seeing casualties? You aren't that ignorant of history. Find me a war without civilian casualties.

The Israeli Defense minister just made a great statement. He said that sovereignty and responsibility go hand in hand. Lebanon wants to be a sovereign nation, but they don't want to take responsibility for what their "national resistance" undertakes. If Lebanon didn't want war, they shouldn't have behaved in a warlike fashion. Sucks to be them, I guess.
Reply #18 Top
Actually, we have quite a range of opinions. It goes with the territory of having democracies, functioning civil societies with unfettered discussion and a free press expressing diverse opinion. All things which America claims to believe in too - to the extent of believing the recipe can be exported universally.


Can you give some documentation as to the extent of this wide range of opinions? And how popular such divergent attitudes may be? I'm a little skeptical. Is the range between left and far left?
Reply #19 Top
"No, you refer to it as a guerrilla war. Lahoud has referred to them as their national resistance,"

I am not Emile Lahoud, the president of Lebanon. If you're upset with a word he's used to describe Hezbollah, I suggest you take it up with him.

"The same way Israel is supposed to. Either by negotiations with the parties in question, by international intervention, or by force with international help if necessary."

My point is that guerilla armies can't be disarmed by force, it's just not practically possible. The IDF proved that in Lebanon for 18 years. So did the Brits for 30 years with the IRA. Or the Brits with all those Zionist "terrorists" in the 1940s for that matter. It's no good banging on and on about Lebanon disarming Hezbollah when the Lebanese army can't compel Hezbollah to decommission.

"But when you make the kind of point you are trying to make above, you're posing the idea that there is an objective condemnation of Israel's behavior. I mean, look at the numbers, right?"

I am using facts to back up my argument. What's wrong with that?

"No, you just adopt a 'reasonable' tone to hide an unreasonable opinion."

And what exactly is "an unreasonable opinion"? One which does not coincide with your own?

And what exactly is wrong with a "reasonable tone"? I am trying to maintain a level of civility and I would advise you to do likewise. Writing a sentence in caps does not help your case.


Reply #20 Top
Good Point,

My paper of choice, The Independent, is generally left-wing and pro-Palestinian. However, it has run several pro-Israeli columns and letters this week, as well as reporting from northern Israel. This is as it should be.

I'm quite sure that the other English "qualities" - The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times - have also been running pro and anti-Israel pieces this week.

In terms of diversity of viewpoint, I'm sure that the English papers would easily outstrip their American counterparts.
Reply #21 Top
"My point is that guerilla armies can't be disarmed by force, it's just not practically possible. The IDF proved that in Lebanon for 18 years. So did the Brits for 30 years with the IRA. Or the Brits with all those Zionist "terrorists" in the 1940s for that matter. It's no good banging on and on about Lebanon disarming Hezbollah when the Lebanese army can't compel Hezbollah to decommission. "


So I guess the only way to deal with Hezbollah is to surrender? Give in to their demands? You realize that once you admit they can't be disarmed, and that they can't really be dealt with by negotiation, there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left.

You can say that for every one you kill there'll be x number who step up, but frankly people don't breed that fast. Eventually that little Darwinian thing in your brain clicks and you say to yourself that maybe a guaranteed death isn't the way to go. The problem in both cases you mention is that they didn't have the stomach to really make war on the peasantry that supported the IRA and Hezbollah.

Eventually the backward wretches in the Middle East will make the same decision other backward nations have made and choose to join the rest of the world in the 21st century. They'll see to their prosperity and safety instead of wasting their lives out of hate for Israel.

"I am using facts to back up my argument. What's wrong with that? "


No, numbers aren't facts, they're numbers. The fact you are promoting is that the numbers of civilians is accurate, and because of that Israel is somehow morally in the wrong. If that were true no one who ever won a war was morally in the right.

"And what exactly is "an unreasonable opinion"? One which does not coincide with your own? And what exactly is wrong with a "reasonable tone"?"


A reasonable question is one that uses reason. People who act as though a war shouldn't have civilian casualties are either deranged, or are dishonestly using such a unreasonable standard to oppose the idea of war altogether.

I wrote it in all caps because you continually ignore it, and you refuse to even acknoledge that Hezbollah acts as an agent for the civil authority you mourn for. It's no surprise that Israel hit civilian targets when the civilian authority is responsible for attacks on them.

A reasonable tone is fine, but when it is used to camouflage radical or even hateful dogma it becomes dishonest. Like the EU "humanitarian", if people really worried about civilian casualties they'd have been lamenting the losses when the balance was on the other side. People pose themselves as being simply interested in peace, but then they only address half the aggression.
Reply #22 Top
My paper of choice, The Independent, is generally left-wing and pro-Palestinian. However, it has run several pro-Israeli columns and letters this week, as well as reporting from northern Israel. This is as it should be.

I'm quite sure that the other English "qualities" - The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times - have also been running pro and anti-Israel pieces this week.

In terms of diversity of viewpoint, I'm sure that the English papers would easily outstrip their American counterparts.


I'm not defending the quality or diversity of opinion in American papers...not by a long shot. We're all slaves, American and European, to the state religion of liberlism. I'm more interested in how popular such divergent attitudes are.
Reply #23 Top
"So I guess the only way to deal with Hezbollah is to surrender? Give in to their demands? You realize that once you admit they can't be disarmed, and that they can't really be dealt with by negotiation, there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left."

I never said that they can't be negotiated with. In fact if you want guerilla armies to give up their guns, negotiation is the only way, as in Ireland.

Speaking of which:

"The problem in both cases you mention is that they didn't have the stomach to really make war on the peasantry that supported the IRA and Hezbollah."

If you look at the history of Northern Ireland, you will see that the IRA, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist when the Troubles started in 1969. Their membership sky-rocketed when the British started to "crack down" on them in the early 1970s.

This is why asymetirc warfare is such a bitch for the conventional army involved - military actions are frequently counter-productive in the long-term regardless of their short-term benefit.

"People who act as though a war shouldn't have civilian casualties are either deranged, or are dishonestly using such a unreasonable standard to oppose the idea of war altogether."

No, my entire point is that war doeshave civilian casualties and it is precisely for this reason that it should be avoided if at all possible. I don't believe in the concept of "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs".

"It's no surprise that Israel hit civilian targets when the civilian authority is responsible for attacks on them."

First of all, I don't think anyone is claiming that Lebanon is responsible for Hezbollah. But even if the Lebanese government was responsible for Hezbollah that does not make the entire country a "legitimate target". When you talk about civilian targets you're talking about apartment blocks, hospitals, schools, power plants and ultimately women and children.

"A reasonable tone is fine, but when it is used to camouflage radical or even hateful dogma it becomes dishonest."

And who exactly do I hate?
Reply #24 Top
Surely everyone has to admit that it is a complex situation and one where neither side are in the right.

The kidnap and killing of soldiers should not lead to the bombing of a whole country. As O G said in another post, what would the reaction have been if Britain started launching missiles into the Republic of Ireland in the mid 70s? If you compare it to that (and if you are a native of Ireland, north or south) it seems clearly absurd.

Similarly, there were undoubtedly sympathisers for the IRA present in the Irish government but when it became more and more of a dirty, terrorist campaign it was impossible for the government to act and disarm them. The will needs to come from within the organisation and they have to be brought to that descision by negotiation, not just by banging their heads together.

I know that the bombing is not indescriminate but it is obviously errant enough to cause havok. Is Israel's foreign policy "If you're making an omlette, you have to break some eggs"?

O G is right that the explosion of support for the IRA came during the "crack down", such as internment, and through the percieved mistreatment of the prisoners who went on hunger strike and were allowed to die by Maggie Thatcher.

This conflict will be adding support to Hezbollah in great numbers within Lebanon, and no doubt around the middle east.

Baker Street, I don't quite get your logic of "there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left" and "You can say that for every one you kill there'll be x number who step up, but frankly people don't breed that fast" because it shows a great deal of ignorance. One because its just not possible and two, have you seen Iraq recently?
Reply #25 Top
The only ones that get counted as Hezbollah are the ones that can't possibly be denied as such. They also soil their neighborhoods with their weapons and use their families as human shields


This is the justification that Israel uses to underplay civilian casualities. Israel has not spared hospitals, children wards at that, residential appartments, roads, civilian infrastructure ect. In fact the number killed in Lebanon stands closer to 620 and Israel has been using cluster minitions against civilians. US supplied 155mmM483 A1 artilery howizers are fired into Lebonese territory. To say that such shells are aimed at Hizbollah fighters alone is meaningless as these cluster munitions dissapte the 88 to 100 grenades over a wide area using the centifugal force of the shell itself. I think USA has lost the high ground it seeks to hold when it allows its client state to indulge in carnage. Tell me what strategic objectiveIsrael is setting itsel to achieve; 1 15 mile sanitised zone. This even the Israeli generals are saying is beyond the capacity of the IDF short of a full scale ground invasion for which there i s no political consensus. 2 Disarming the Hizbullah. This goal is now beyon what Israel can realiticallly hope for because the Hizbollah has become more powerful than ever before. 3 The carnage in the middle east unleashed by Isreal will make all Arab and Moslem state get military parity through detterance. The violence against Lebanon will ignite the real need for Arab states to get out of the clutches of USA and get military parity by going nuclear.