2006-08-10 20:07:57 · 21 answers · asked by yolok 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
G'day Yolok,
Thanks for the question.
It might have difficulty in doing so.
Israel invaded again four years later in 1982, forcing PLO forces out of Lebanon (mostly to Tunisia), and Israel occupied the southern part of the country. A US brokered peace treaty was ratified by the Lebanese parliament in 1983, but President Amine Gemayel decided against signing in 1984. In 1985, Israel withdrew its forces from parts of Lebanon and remained in a 4–6 kilometre (2.5–3.75 mi) deep strip of southern Lebanon, described by Israel as a "security zone" which it justified as a protective measure to defend its northern towns against Hezbollah attacks. This occupation lasted until 2000. On 24 May 2000 after the collapse of the South Lebanon Army and the rapid advance of Hezbollah forces, Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon.
The SLA's equipment and positions in South Lebanon largely fell into the hands of Hezbollah, which has put considerable effort into fortifying the former security zone and establishing new firing positions. Since then, Hezbollah has repeatedly attacked Israeli military positions, whilst Israel has carried out numerous attacks aimed at striking Hezbollah bases.
On September 2, 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 calling for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias, among other things, and an armed Hezbollah in South Lebanon is seen by many to be a contravention of the resolution, though the Lebanese government differs on its interpretation, and the United Nations has not ruled on this matter.
In its recent fighting Hezbollah has offered stiff resistance. On 9 August 15 Israeli soldiers were killed in the worst yet loss in a single day. Nine of these were killed when a rocket slammed into a building occupied by them .
Hezbollah also engages in ground combat with the IDF, especially guerilla-type hit-and-run tactics by small, well-armed units have caused more of an ongoing nuisance and created additional casualties for the IDF than any serious military defeat.
Hopefully, the issue will be resolved shortly in a way that secures Israel's safety.
I have attached some sources for your reference.
Regards
2006-08-10 20:28:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think so. The problem is Hezbollah can't be destroyed, only restrained. Even if the IDF killed a lot of Hezo fighters and disarmed the rest, they would start to regroup the day after the IDF left Lebanon. So Israel would end up with an interminable occupation again.
The army that should move into the area is the Lebanese Army. If they need help from the international community in the initial phase they should receive it.
2006-08-10 20:11:24 · answer #2 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lol in response to some dude who already answered above me.
Israel is the terrorist wing of the U.S. American smart bombs should not be used to kill miles away from the battlefield. Israelis need to man up and stop hiding behind U.S. support because they are afraid of a couple of rocks from a Palestinian kid.
Lol also, I have yet too see a dude with an eight year old child strapped to his chest doing combat maneuvers and fighting the Israelis so send me the video that everyone seems to be watching.
I wanna see how long Israel would survive if we cut off military funding.
2006-08-10 20:46:57 · answer #3 · answered by Ignorant_American 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How it is possible? Israelies are little in number. How can they move in with a large amount of troops and destroy Hezbollah.
If all the Israelies take risk and move in Lebenon, it is likely that all the Israeilies will die and some Lebenonese will also die.
2006-08-10 20:16:19 · answer #4 · answered by bharathghf 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they are trying ...but they are fleeing before Hezbulla brave fighters on the borders .... thet's why we have 70 dead soldiers (almost all were killed while fleeing).
Therefore, the Israelis are targetting the children in the far north (about 300 miles away from the real battlefield.)
The Israeli jet pilots are just discharging the american smart bombs over civilians, so as to get home soon.
SEE: even in the sky they are cowards.
2006-08-10 20:17:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Should the British have sent more troops to crush those pesky AMerican colonialists?
Should the Germans have sent more troops to crush the uprisning in the Warsaw ghettos?
Should the US have sent more troops to crush the Vietnamese?
The question answers itself.
2006-08-10 20:14:18 · answer #6 · answered by Andrew L 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes they are sworn to destroy Israel, they will not accept peace and it will give control of Lebanon back to the Lebanese
2006-08-10 20:22:53 · answer #7 · answered by brinlarrr 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hezzbelah is a terrorist wing of Irans army. If you want to kill of Hezzbelah you must kill off Iran. If any group is being cowards it is Iran for hiding from behind their whacko terror group, and Hezzbelah fighters are brainwashed with BS, and they are cowards for using civilian homes to fight from. I say it is Hezzbelah that should be taking the blame for the civilian deaths not Isreal.
2006-08-10 20:32:42 · answer #8 · answered by nucknuck 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes and finish it once and for all then we don't have to send our troops in costing tax payers £millions plus the loss of our boys lives
2006-08-10 20:25:02 · answer #9 · answered by craignxn 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, or at least the best that they can.
Why screw around any longer with a group whose very constitution calls for the end of your nation?
No other Western nation would tolerate such attacks.
2006-08-10 20:16:02 · answer #10 · answered by Brad 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋