Israel's War on Lebanon: The Facts

Following are questions and answers to just about anything you need to know about the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, with links to more detailed documents on the AMW website.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation?

·         Hezbollah is a multi-faceted organisation whose military arm was established in the 1980s to resist Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said that "had the enemy [Israel] not taken this step, I do not know whether something called Hezbollah would have been born. I doubt it."

·         In the country's 2005 democratic elections, Hezbollah's bloc became the second-largest in parliament (35 out of 128), and took all 23 seats in the south. The elections resulted, for the first time, in Hezbollah's representation in Lebanon's cabinet, with two members.

·         Its civilian arm runs hospitals, charities, news services and educational facilities. Its social services programmes are very popular with the Shia community (40% of Lebanon’s population).

·         The EU and UN do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation.

·         While the US does, a 2002 Congressional Research Service report and the most recent State Department report on international terrorism (2005) say that no acts of terrorism have been attributed to Hezbollah since 1994.

·         Although it has been accused of attacks on civilian targets abroad, there is no evidence of this.

·         The common characteristic of a terrorist attack is that it indiscriminately targets civilians for political reasons. Thus during the present conflict, attacks by both Israel and Hezbollah can be described as terrorism (the former on a much larger scale).

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/Hezbollahisaterroristorganisation/tabid/314/Default.aspx

Are Israel's attacks a response to Hezbollah capturing two soldiers and firing rockets?

·         Hezbollah started firing rockets only after Israel attacked Lebanon by air, ground and sea. Hezbollah's first target was a military post, and it hit Haifa only after warning that it would do so if Israel bombed Beirut, which it did. Note that Hezbollah's initial targets, including the captured soldiers, were military in nature. The same cannot be said of Israel.

·         There are more and more credible media reports (for example in the New Yorker, the Independent, the Guardian, the BBC, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New Statesman, and the Daily Mail), quoting various Israeli, American and British sources, that Israel planned its invasion of Lebanon more than a year before Hezbollah's capture (which served as a convenient excuse), and that the US and UK governments were aware of the plan.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/Invasion/tabid/330/Default.aspx

Was Hezbollah's capture intended to provoke conflict with Israel?

·         Hezbollah says it intended to trade the two soldiers for Lebanese prisoners in Israel, of which there are up to four remaining (one of whom is Jewish and another Christian). The two sides have carried out such trades before.

·         Hezbollah has said it was "surprised" by Israel's reaction to the capture, and its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said he would not have ordered it had he foreseen the severity of Israel's response.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/Prisoners/tabid/321/Default.aspx

Is Israel's war against Hezbollah, and is it proportionate?

·         Israel has shattered an entire nation through collective punishment and war crimes resulting in a humanitarian disaster, terms used by human rights groups and governments worldwide.

·         The vast majority of targets in Lebanon have been civilian and infrastructural. 1,301 people have been killed in Lebanon, almost all of whom are Lebanese civilians, of which a third are children.

·         Despite Israel's precision weaponry, less than 5% of deaths (63) are Hezbollah.

·         The UN and Lebanese army have also been targeted, despite Israeli demands for the army to reign in Hezbollah, and despite the fact that the army has not attacked Israel. 44 Lebanese troops have been killed.

·         4,097 Lebanese civilians have been wounded, including about 1,000 children (25%).

·         The casualty figures continue to rise after the ceasefire began on August 14, due to Israeli attacks and unexploded cluster bombs, whose use in populated areas is a clear and grave violation of international humanitarian law because they kill indiscriminately. Several children are among the 14 killed and at least 50 wounded by cluster bomb explosions since the ceasefire began. "Every day we hear about casualties. It's a large number," said Dalya Farran, media officer for the UN Mine Action Coordination Center in southern Lebanon.

·         Almost a million Lebanese civilians were displaced, including half a million children (more than a quarter of the population). As of 5 September, "there are thousands of Lebanese who have not been able to return to their homes – in areas around Beirut there are an estimated 12,000 displaced who have not returned after the war," said UN High Commissioner for Refugees spokesman Ron Redmond. "In Beirut itself, the charity Caritas estimates there are 35,000. These people have lost their source of income. Older people and those with disabilities have chronic medical needs."

·         160 Israelis have been killed, of which 73% (117) are military and almost half of the civilian deaths are Arab.

·         30 times as many Lebanese civilians have been killed than Israeli.

·         130,000 homes have been destroyed or damaged in Lebanon (including 50,000 in southern Beirut, 6,000 destroyed and 13,000 damaged in the south of the country, and thousands more in the Bekaa Valley), making hundreds of thousands homeless. For example, in southern Beirut entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed, in the village of Tayyabah 80% of homes have been destroyed, 50% in Markaba and Qantarah, and 30% in Mays al Jabal.

·         A quarter of Lebanon's road bridges and flyovers (80 bridges and 94 roads) have been destroyed or damaged.

·         "The damage is such that the last 15 years of work on reconstruction and rehabilitation...are now annihilated," said Jean Fabre, spokesman for the UN Development Programme.

·         "I have never seen destruction like this," said UN Children's Fund water and sanitation specialist Branislav Jekic.

·         The people of southern Lebanon "have suffered severe destruction, some say worse than seen in Bosnia," and the area is "severely handicapped because of a lack of electricity and water, the destruction of infrastructure and the presence of cluster bombs," said Andrew Duggin, UN High Commissioner for Refugees engineer in the southern city of Tyre.

·         "The livelihoods of a large part of the populace are at risk due to displacement, disruption of transport and other infrastructure, unexploded ordnance, and social problems caused by the conflict; significant environmental damage is being reported," the UNDP said in a fact sheet.

·         More than 350 Lebanese schools were destroyed or severely damaged by Israeli forces, and about 150 others suffered "considerable wear and tear" after temporarily housing about 150,000 internally displaced people. "This plainly presents a massive challenge for the government and its partners," said Unicef spokesman Simon Ingram.

·         "Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong. Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks," said Kate Gilmore, executive deputy secretary general of Amnesty International. "The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy. The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was 'collateral damage', simply not credible."

·         Israel's Foreign Ministry has reportedly established a legal team to deal with efforts by groups - in France, Belgium, Denmark, Morocco, Britain and other countries - to arrange the prosecution abroad of Israelis involved in the war against Lebanon and the Palestinians. A ministry memo censured one official who called for Israel to respond to Hezbollah rockets against the city of Haifa by "getting rid of a village in Lebanon."

·         Estimated economic losses for Lebanon are at least $15 billion, and the war and blockade have increased its public debt to $41 billion.

·         Companies laid off thousands of workers after Israel launched its offensive. 2,000 were jobless because the companies they worked for were wiped out, according to Fadi Abbud, president of Lebanon's industrial federation: "Eighty to 90 industrial firms were destroyed by Israeli attacks. Their employees were not fired for economic reasons but owing to force majeur because the companies cannot function any longer."

·         The bombing of Lebanon resulted in up to 85% of the country's 195,000 farmers losing all or some of their harvest at a cost of $135-$185 million, according to initial estimates from the Lebanon government and the Lebanese Farmers Association. Government initial estimates put livestock loss at 1 million poultry, 25,000 goats and sheep, and 4,000 cattle. "The destruction of Lebanon's roads, bridges and buildings is evident but beyond the piles of bricks and mortar lies the less visible tragedy of acres of ruined farmland and rotting crops," said Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam International's executive director. Some 35% of people in Lebanon are either directly or indirectly dependent on farming. In many areas, farmers still cannot go back to their fields due to unexploded bombs.

·         Israel has caused Lebanon and Syria environmental disaster by striking an electric power plant, causing a massive spill of up to 15,000 tonnes of oil into the Mediterranean Sea. The UN Environment Programme says the clean up operation will take "several years," and UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown describes the situation as an "emergency." The oil slick is considered the worst environmental catastrophe ever to befall Lebanon, and has already polluted up to three quarters of its 200-kilometre (124-mile) coastline. Its cleanup was prevented for almost two months by Israel's blockade of Lebanon. "The more time that passes, the more the slicks are dispersed by the wind and the currents," said Greenpeace Lebanon's spokesman Omar al-Naim. According to Rick Steiner, an American expert sent to the region by the World Conservation Union at the request of the Lebanese non-governmental group Greenline, "the longer pollution lasts, the more dangerous it becomes."

·         All this for two captured soldiers?

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/AwaragainstHezbollah/tabid/332/Default.aspx

What is the situation regarding Israel's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon?

·         The casualty figures continue to rise after the ceasefire began on August 14, due to Israeli attacks and unexploded cluster bombs, whose use in populated areas is a clear and grave violation of international humanitarian law because they kill indiscriminately.

·         UN officials have condemned Israel's use of such weapons in Lebanon, as have human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the latter calling on Israel "to cooperate in a full and impartial investigation into their use of such munitions during the recent conflict."

·         The Association for Human Rights in Israel has called on Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to "open an investigation into the circumstances of the use of cluster bombs in southern Lebanon," including "the examination of the personal involvement of all those who were implicated in dropping these bombs, including the political echelon." ACRI also asked Mazuz to "instruct all relevant bodies on their duty to hand the UN a map of the areas where cluster bombs were dropped in order to prevent future civilian casualties." The use of cluster bombs in inhabited areas, ACRI said, "is a flagrant violation of the principle...of distinguishing between civilians and fighters."

·         Several children are among the 14 killed and at least 50 wounded by cluster bomb explosions since the ceasefire began. "Every day we hear about casualties. It's a large number," said Dalya Farran, media officer for the UN Mine Action Coordination Center in southern Lebanon. "We're in an emergency situation."

·         Hundreds of Israeli artillery shells containing nearly 200 explosive rounds each were fired into southern Lebanon during the fighting, landing in villages and towns dozens of kilometers beyond the border. At each impact zone, hundreds of tiny bomblets burst from the shells, creating a huge killing field of shrapnel.

·         The UN estimates that a dangerously high percentage of these failed to explode, leaving their targets strewn with deadly sub-munitions that are "extremely dangerous," according to the UN Mine Action Coordination Center. "Not all of these, a majority maybe, failed to go off," Farran said, adding that those intact bomblets are hard to find amid the rubble, and when they are spotted, "people assume that because of their small size that they are harmless." The result, according to Human Rights Watch military analyst Marc Garlasco, are "minefields in peoples' homes. The Israelis were using Vietnam-era stock with an extraordinarily high dud rate. We've seen some ordnance that was dated March 1973." Garlasco said "whole villages have been contaminated" by bombs, adding that "unexploded ordnance is a huge problem. It's getting worse, certainly as far as cluster bombs are concerned. There are kids playing with them and getting hurt, killed." The UN has warned: "civilian casualties are mounting."

·         As of 5 September, 10 UN teams operating in Lebanon have identified 434 cluster bomb strike locations and destroyed 112 unexploded bombs and almost 14,000 cluster sub-munitions.

·         The UN has estimated that it would take at least two years to clear the unexploded bombs.

·         Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland, the top UN aid official, has warned that up to 100,000 deadly bomblets and 20,000 other ordnance still lie unexploded across vast areas of southern Lebanon, and that around a quarter of a million Lebanese returnees who fled their homes during the fighting are unable to return "because they are destroyed or because of unexploded ordnance. What is shocking and I would say to me, completely immoral, is that 90% of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict when we knew there would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end of this. Cluster bombs…have affected large areas, lots of homes, lots of farmland, lots of commercial businesses and shops, and they will be with us for many, many months, possibly for years. Everyday people are maimed, wounded and are killed by these ordnance. It shouldn't have happened."

·         Steve Goose, director of the arms control division of Human Rights Watch, also said Israel appeared to have stepped up use of cluster bombs in the final days of its offensive, leaving clearance teams with an uphill task. "The situation is much more severe than what we encountered in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo," Goose said. "As civilians return, they are encountering many of these duds. It's going to get much worse. It's going to be a much bleaker picture."

·         "Their widespread use in Lebanon by the Israeli military is already taking a heavy toll on the hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children returning to their homes," said Amnesty's Executive Deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore. "The US, which is the main supplier of arms to Israel, and other countries, should not provide such weapons and commit to a worldwide moratorium on their use...It is outrageous that, despite official requests from the United Nations, Israel has still not provided maps for the areas it targeted with cluster bombs. This failure is further endangering the lives of Lebanese civilians, particularly children."

·         HRW has also called on Israel to provide such information, adding that it "should also provide technical, financial, material and other assistance to facilitate the marking and clearance of cluster duds and other explosive remnants of war."

·         Six states - Austria, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and the Vatican - have formally called for cluster bombs to be banned following Israel's use of them in Lebanon. The call  was made during an international review conference on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which ended in Geneva on 7 September. The Convention restricts or outlaws the use of designated types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering, or to affect civilians indiscriminately. Since 2003, an optional protocol to the Convention obliges signatories to ensure the clearance of any unexploded munitions they used during a conflict. If a country is unable to carry out the operation itself, it must provide assistance, including finance. Of the 100 states that have ratified the Convention, only 23 have signed up to the protocol on the "explosive remnants of war." Israel has not subscribed to the protocol.

·         The Israeli military is believed to have fired around 2,000-3,000 rounds of heavier ammunition a day - not only cluster bombs but also artillery shells and more conventional bombs - in the early stages of its campaign, rising to 5,000-6,000 rounds in the final days of the fighting.

·         In addition, southern Lebanon is littered with around 400,000 landmines, many of which were left by Israel's previous occupation, which ended in 2000.

·         Israeli military bulldozers used in the latest conflict to destroy Hezbollah positions on the border have spread previously marked minefields, hampering ongoing clearance efforts, said Chris Clark, head of the UN Mine Action Service in southern Lebanon.

Is this conflict one of 'Western civilisation' versus 'Islamic or Shia extremism'?

·         Lebanese Christians have also been victims of Israel's aggression, whether among the dead, wounded or displaced.

·         Christian areas have been attacked by Israel. For example, the bombing of Qaa resulted in the highest single death toll along with that of Qana.

·         Lebanese Christians have given refuge to their Muslim compatriots.

·         Christians in Lebanon and worldwide have demonstrated against and condemned Israel's actions.

·         According to a 26 July poll by the Beirut Center for Research and Information (the country's main polling institute), Hezbollah's approval rating among Lebanese runs as high as 86.9%, including the majority of Christians (54.7%).

·         Lebanon's Christian president has been highly critical of Israel's onslaught, as has Michel Aoun, leader of Lebanon's opposition parliamentary bloc and Hezbollah's main Christian political ally.

·         On 1 August, Lebanese Christian religious leaders – including the patriarchate of the Maronite church, the country's largest Christian community – denounced Israel's "war crimes," called on "the international community to halt the aggression...and lift the unjust [Israeli] blockade," and "hailed the resistance, mainly led by Hezbollah which represents one of the sections of society."

·         On 3 August, the Geneva-based World Council of Churches – which brings together 348 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican churches representing about 560 million Christians in 110 countries – condemned Israel's "disproportionate acts of violence of immense magnitude" that "can have no justification," and the international community's "shocking and disgraceful" lack of action.

·         A petition signed by 35,000 Britons, urging Tony Blair to call for a ceasefire to allow aid to Lebanese civilians, was backed by Christian Aid, among other international humanitarian organisations.

·         It is preposterous to portray Hezbollah as part of an axis of 'Shia extremism' including those in Iraq and Iran, since support for the group in Lebanon and beyond transcends sectarian lines.

·         It is equally absurd to draw a link between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups, as there is simply no evidence for this.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/AwaragainstIslamicextremism/tabid/334/Default.aspx

Is Israel ensuring that UN Security Council resolution 1559 is implemented where Lebanon has failed, specifically regarding the disarmament of militias?

·         The Lebanese government was recently praised by the international community for gaining its sovereignty from Syria, thereby implementing a major part of 1559.

·         It was in the process of holding a national dialogue to implement the rest of the resolution, namely disarming remaining militias in Lebanon. This not only takes time, as the UK government knows all too well with its struggle with the IRA, but also cannot be achieved with force, especially given Lebanon's history of civil war.

·         Israel's invasion has caused Hezbollah's popularity in Lebanon and the region to sky-rocket, and convinced many of the need for its military ability to resist Israeli attacks, particularly as Israel has also battered Lebanon's already weak army. This has made Hezbollah's peaceful disarmament infinitely more difficult, and Israel has failed to destroy it militarily.

·         Lebanon's government on 7 August said it is ready to deploy 15,000 troops to the border with Israel once it pulls out of the south. Asked about the military presence of Hezbollah, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said: "Where the army will be, it will be on its own." The decision was adopted unanimously, including Hezbollah cabinet members.

·         It is hypocritical for Israel to talk of implementing UN Security Council resolutions when it is in violation of dozens of them dating back decades (with impunity), regarding protection of civilians, occupation, Jerusalem, settlements, nuclear weapons and refugees.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/UNresolutions/tabid/203/Default.aspx

Are Israel's actions due to Hezbollah menacing its neighbour since its withdrawal in 2000?

·         The Israeli-Lebanese border has been much quieter since the withdrawal, and this has been confirmed regularly by UN observers.

·         Then-Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, now prime minister, said in February 2005 that Hezbollah has "never, never, never used missiles against Israel on the northern border since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000."

·         The UN has consistently condemned Israel's "persistent", "provocative" and "unjustified" violations of Lebanese airspace with warplanes that often create sonic booms and panic among the population.

·         Israel almost went to war over a peaceful project in October 2002 to install a new pumping station in Lebanon that draws on a river within the country, well within its rights.

·         Hezbollah's actions have been mainly centred on the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/HezbollahthreateningIsraelpostwithdrawal/tabid/326/Default.aspx

What is the status of the Shebaa Farms?

·         The Farms have been occupied by Israel since 1967.

·         The media often describes the land as "disputed". However, the Israeli government's own Foreign Ministry website explicitly says it is not Israeli territory: "The Shebaa Farms area is not, and should not be, considered disputed territory...The United Nations views the Shebaa Farms area as Syrian territory."

·         However, Lebanon and Syria both consider the Farms to be Lebanese. According to Israeli scholar Asher Kaufman, French mandatory records clearly show the Farms as Lebanese in the 1920s and 1930s. Since the days of the mandate, the owners and residents of the 14 farms have all been legally Lebanese. Likewise, the town of Shebaa, from which the Farms derive their name, is universally accepted as part of Lebanon. The residents insist their land has been Lebanese for generations. Since at least the 1950s, taxes collected in the area were paid to the Lebanese government, and a large amount of documentary evidence dating as far back as the 1930s places the farms legally under Lebanese jurisdiction. This evidence includes bills of sale, title deeds, and documents from Syrian customs agencies.

·         Whether one considers the territory Lebanese or Syrian, the fact is that even Israel acknowledges that it has no sovereignty over it, and the UN recognises it as occupied Arab territory, so either way Israel should withdraw.

·         Asked about whether the Farms would form part of a deal to end the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in an interview with the Times on 3 August 2006, responded: "As far as I am concerned it is entirely off the table."

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/TheShebaaFarms/tabid/173/Default.aspx

Are Israeli warnings to Lebanese civilians to leave areas prior to attack justification for killing them?

·         Human rights groups have said civilians have not been given enough time to evacuate.

·         Many civilians have nowhere to flee and no one to take them in, especially as they tend to be large families.

·         The sick and poor are financially or physically unable to leave their homes.

·         As well as a sea blockade, countless roads and bridges have been bombed and destroyed, not just within Lebanon but also those leading to Syria, making it almost impossible for civilians to travel within the country or leave it.

·         There have been many media reports, eye-witness accounts and allegations by human rights groups of Israel deliberately bombing cars and convoys transporting civilians away from areas threatened with attack, causing them to be too scared to flee. This is a war crime.

·         The bombing of cars, trucks and vans, and the shortage of fuel, have made it difficult for civilians to transport belongings, thus making them reluctant to leave without basic necessities, particularly for large families. Fuel shortages have also made taxi fares too expensive for many.

·         While southern Lebanon has taken the brunt of Israeli attacks, bombardments have taken place throughout the country, so it is impossible to call any part of the country safe, especially when Israeli military and government officials have said as much. For example, Israel's army chief Dan Halutz has said that "nothing is safe" in Lebanon. What incentive, then, for civilians to leave their homes?

·         Many civilians are staying put because they believe Israel does not have the right to force them to leave. It is too much to bear to leave homes they have lived in all their lives, for an uncertain future, not knowing whether they will return to a standing house, how long they will be refugees, or even whether they will be able to return at all.

·         Those who do not evacuate are still fully protected by international law, and Israel is forbidden from targeting them. Nevertheless, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon has said: "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

·         International humanitarian law prohibits calls to evacuate areas for reasons other than people's safety. Consider, then, the statement by Israeli Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter that "tens of thousands of Lebanese who will flee towards the north will create the right pressure on Hezbollah."

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/PriorWarningsandKillingCivilians/tabid/323/Default.aspx

Can Israel's newly conquered territory in Lebanon be considered a "security" or "buffer" zone?

·         Such territory should be considered occupied, as Human Rights Watch says the zone will make Israel an occupying power again under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm#19

Can Israel's actions in Lebanon be considered self-defence?

·         Any country has a right to self-defence, but it has to be targeted and proportionate. Israel's actions are neither, and so it has gone far beyond this right.

·         Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University, says: "To treat border incidents, involving a few casualties from rockets and the abduction of a single Israeli soldier by a Gazan militia and two by Hezbollah in south Lebanon, as if it were an occasion of war is a gross distortion of well-accepted international law and state practice. To justify legally a claim of self-defense requires a full-scale armed attack across Israeli borders. If every violent border incident or terrorist provocation were to be so regarded as an act of war, the world would be aflame."

·         Lebanon also has a right to self-defence, perhaps more so given the scale of Israel's attacks against it.

·         By Israel's logic, Syria would have the right to wage all-out war against it for killing dozens of its civilians in Lebanon, particularly farmers at Qaa.

·         Israel could and should have used peaceful measures first, such as asking the Lebanese government to resolve the issue. Instead, it resorted immediately to overwhelming and indiscriminate force.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/Selfdefenceandinternationallaw/tabid/324/Default.aspx

Are allegations that Hezbollah uses civilians as "human shields" true?

·         International human rights organisations (such as Amnesty International, Save the Children, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and Unicef) and British journalists on the ground in Lebanon (including the pro-Israel Daily Telegraph) say they have seen no evidence of this.

·         This is an attempt to absolve Israel of civilian deaths and de-humanise Arabs. Such tactics have been used in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon in the 1980s.

·         The idea of civilians being unfortunate collateral damage is implausible given the pinpoint accuracy of Israel's advanced weaponry.

·         Hezbollah draws most of its support from the people in the areas it is based. Using them as human shields would be suicide for the group.

·         Even if Hezbollah were to use civilians as human shields, human rights groups say this would not release Israel of its legal obligations with respect to the welfare and safety of civilians. The intentional launch of an attack without regard to the civilian consequences is a war crime, as is treating an entire area as a military target just because there is military activity taking place there.

·         Israel is long known to use Arabs as human shields, in Palestine and in Lebanon during the 1980s, which is a war crime. The most recent accusations come from Oxfam and Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem in July 2006, regarding Israeli attacks in Gaza.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/HumanShields/tabid/322/Default.aspx

Is Hezbollah a stooge of Syria and Iran?

·         Hezbollah vehemently denies this. Abdallah Safieddine, its Tehran-based envoy, said recently that both countries' support is political and moral, and neither will decide the future of his movement.

·         Hezbollah enjoys popular support and electoral legitimacy not only for its role in forcing the Israeli withdrawal of 2000, but also for the social, educational, healthcare and welfare services it provides.

·         With regard to allegations that Syria and Iran knew of Hezbollah's plan to capture 2 Israeli soldiers, its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said: "Syria and Iran did not know. No Syrian or Iranian knew. They did not know, and I did not consult any of them."

·         Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told CNN in July that while his country takes "very seriously" allegations of Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah attacks, "we have not seen any proof," adding that "Hezbollah is a Lebanese phenomenon. It is not an imported product."

·         The Los Angeles Times reported that US officials have "declined to offer specific evidence of Iranian or Syrian involvement," and an Israeli official admitted that "I don't have evidence that there were direct instructions."

·         Wayne White, a senior official in the US State Department's intelligence arm until 2005, has said it would be an overstatement to say Hezbollah is a "pawn" of Iran. 

·         Robert Malley, special assistant to former US President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli issues and director of the Near East and North Africa programme for the International Crisis Group in Washington, says: "I think there's more local autonomy, a greater degree of local decision-making, than people give credit for."

·         Even the State Department's 2006 report on terrorism admits that Hezbollah "can and does act independently."

·         The Syrian regime is vehemently secular, while Hezbollah has a religious ideology.

·         One can argue that with billions of dollars a year in US military, economic and political support for Israel, what is wrong with Hezbollah receiving support?

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/HezbollahSyriasstooge/tabid/331/Default.aspx

Is Israel the lone democracy in the Middle East?

·         Being democratic does not make a country right in disputes. There are countless examples of democracies committing aggression, human rights abuses and violations of international law. Such crimes are no less condemnable than if they are done by non-democratic states. Absolution simply because of democracy is no defence.

·         Israel is not a true democracy. Its electoral law states that for a party to be eligible to run in elections, it must accept Israel "as the state of the Jewish people," so for an Arab party to run, it must accept the second-class status of its Muslim and Christian constituents, who make up one-fifth of the population.

·         Even if you accept Israel as a democracy, it is not the only one in the region. There have been a string of elections (presidential, parliamentary and municipal) over the last few years in the Arab world that have been deemed free and fair by international observers, including Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Algeria, the Comoros Islands, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Djibouti and Kuwait.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/MediaMyths/IsraelthelonedemocracyintheMiddleEast/tabid/327/Default.aspx

Is Israel fighting for its existence?

·         Israel was always militarily more powerful than the Arab states. Its expansions, attacks, invasions and occupations of Arab land since its establishment are testament to this.

·         It is an even stronger position today, given that Israel is at peace with its neighbours Jordan and Egypt (historically the strongest Arab military opponent of Israel), and it is not actively engaged in combat with any other Arab country (its neighbour Syria is widely acknowledged on both sides as being unable to challenge Israel militarily).

·         Currently, it is only fighting Palestinian militants and those of Hezbollah. In effect, the region's only nuclear power, with one of the most sophisticated armies in the world consisting of hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers, backed militarily, economically and politically by the world's only superpower to the tune of billions of dollars a year, is fighting against a few thousand militants armed with rudimentary weapons.

·         Palestine has no army (or state) and is cut off from the outside world by Israel. The Lebanese army, which is not even fighting Israel, is more symbolic than anything else. Hezbollah's arsenal consists mainly of rockets dating back to the 1970s. If one looks objectively at the level of destruction currently inflicted by Israel on Palestine and Lebanon, and vice versa, it is the latter two fighting for their survival.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/MediaMyths/Israelisfightingforitsexistence/tabid/329/Default.aspx

Do the Arabs reject peace with Israel?

·         The momentous Arab peace proposal of 2002, which was endorsed unanimously by the 22-member Arab League (including the Palestinians) and resurrected since, calls for a "comprehensive peace" and "normal relations" with Israel, "security for all the states of the region," and "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem" in accordance with UN resolution 194, in return for a full withdrawal from Arab lands occupied in 1967.

·         "We envision a relationship between the Arab countries and Israel that is exactly like the relationship between the Arab countries and any other state," said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal, whose country proposed the plan. "All the neighborhood...will be at peace with Israel, will recognise their right to exist. If this does not provide security for Israel, I assure you the muzzle of a gun is not going to provide that security."

·         This totally just proposal, in accordance with international law, was rejected by Israel, and the US predictably refused to endorse it. Dore Gold, adviser to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said the plan "does not offer anything hopeful to Israel."

·         The Arab peace offer brings to mind former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's famous words: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country...There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

·         Who, then, are the rejectionists?

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/MediaMyths/Arabsarerejectionists/tabid/335/Default.aspx

What is Britain's stance on the conflict?

·         Tony Blair's political support for Israel's actions, refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire, and agreement for US military flights destined for Israel to stop over in Britain, are at odds with the opinions of the majority of Britons, and has caused uproar in his own Labour Party and cabinet, reportedly including Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.

·         The parliamentary chairwoman of Labour, Ann Clywd – herself a Blair loyalist – has said the "vast majority" of backbench lawmakers are critical of Israel and want an immediate ceasefire.

·         Labour MP Jim Sheridan has stood down as the parliamentary private secretary to the defence minister and his deputy, in protest at the government's stance.

·         37 Labour members in Beckett's constituency have defected to the Liberal Democrats, including a ward chairman and an ex-city and county councillor from the Derby South constituency. Mohammed Rawail Peeno, who was chairman of the Arboretum branch of Derby's Labour Party, said: "When Margaret Beckett refused to back a ceasefire and instead sided with George Bush it was the breaking point for us. New Labour has abandoned the beliefs that led me and thousands of others to join Labour in the first place." Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell called their decision "significant", adding: "The government's position on the Middle East and Iraq shows just how out of touch it is with many in its party and the majority of the general public."

·         Some 150 MPs have called for the lower house of parliament, currently on summer recess, to be recalled to debate the war.

·         The Guardian published an ICM poll revealing that 61% think Israel has "over-reacted," while only 22% think its response is proportionate. 63% think "London is too close to Washington," with only 30% believing Blair has "the right sort of relationship" with the US.

·         Tens of thousands of Britons have demonstrated against Blair's stance.

·         Nevertheless Blair, who claims that "absent from so much of the coverage is any understanding of the Israeli predicament," asks people to "just for a moment put yourself in Israel’s place," and in so doing, stands almost alone in the international community.

·         There are credible reports that Blair knew of Israel's plan to attack Lebanon before Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. See the second question of this fact sheet.

·         Blair's staunch support of Israel has crippled his chances of seeking peace in the region. Hundreds of Palestinian intellectuals and political groups signed a petition ahead of his visit to Ramallah on 10 September, saying he "is not welcome at all" because "he is coming to visit us in order to wash his Lebanese-bloodstained hands with Palestinian water." The petition accused him of using the visit to "present himself as a man of peace after the heavy criticism he endured at home and throughout the world for refusing to work for a ceasefire in Lebanon so as to give Israeli generals time to finish their destructive operation."

·         Lebanon's leading Shia cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah on 10 September said: "Blair...is not wanted in Lebanon...We are not so naive as to welcome him when he has contributed to killing us and slaughtering our children."

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/Britainsstance/tabid/336/Default.aspx

What happened during Israel's self-declared 48-hour ceasefire?

·         Israel's supposed 48-hour ceasefire did not last a day. On the same day it came into effect (31 July), Israel killed a Lebanese soldier by naval fire and its warplanes struck the village of Taibe.

·         That same day, Hezbollah fired only two mortars and no rockets, as opposed to 156 rockets the previous day. AFP newswire said the Hezbllah lull was in "reciprocation" to Israel’s brief ceasefire.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/MediaMyths/Twodayceasefire/tabid/340/Default.aspx

Is UN Security Council resolution 1701 fair, and is it likely to be successful?

·         Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres has openly said the resolution is "favourable to Israel" and "justifies the stance Israel has adopted since the start."

·         "This resolution actually oppresses Lebanon. It defends Israel's interests," Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr told the Russian daily Kommersant.

·         It accepts Israel's claim that Hezbollah started this round of violence, not the underlying issues such as occupied territory, Lebanese prisoners, and regular Israeli military flights over Lebanon, or the increasing number of media reports alleging that Israel had been planning to attack Lebanon for over a year, and that the US and UK knew about it.

·         The resolution does not specify that the vast majority of the deaths, injuries, infrastructural damage and internally displaced persons are Lebanese.

·         There is no criticism of Israel for its disproportionate actions and war crimes that have resulted in a humanitarian disaster in Lebanon.

·         It says the captured Israeli soldiers must be released unconditionally, but talks simply of "encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel."

·         It calls vaguely on Israel to withdraw "at the earliest," not immediately. Israel is only required to withdraw once Lebanon and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) deploy, but Lebanon and Unifil can only deploy once hostilities end in full. This leaves the possibility of a prolonged Israeli presence in Lebanon. For example, though the Lebanese government on 7 August unanimously agreed to deploy 15,000 troops to the south, UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown told the BBC it might take a month before a joint UN-Lebanese force was fully in place, and the secretary-general's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said that as of 15 August, "we have no formal specific commitments from any troop contributors."

·         While Lebanon has deployed troops to the south, as well as along the Syrian border in the north and east, and while UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen said it has done so "in a forceful and massive way," Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz has said his country will prevent the Lebanese army from deploying to the Israeli-Lebanese border until an international force arrives. His justification strangely implies that Lebanon's army and Hezbollah are one and the same: "Under no circumstances will we allow Hezbollah to approach the border."

·         Israel has said it will not accept troop contributions from countries with which it does not have diplomatic relations, such as Indonesia and Malaysia (which have tentatively offered troops for Unifil), or those "whose governments supported Hezbollah." Indonesia has rightly responded that Israel has no right under the resolution to dictate the composition of the international force.

·         The resolution aims to increase the Unifil force to 15,000, no small feat given that it currently stands at just 2,000. EU member states have said they will not send troops until there is a stable ceasefire, but this is unlikely as long as Israel continues to violate it. For example, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said: "We cannot send our soldiers to Lebanon while the Israeli armed forces continue to fire."

·         Hezbollah is required to cease all attacks, but Israel is only required to cease those that are "offensive". This is open to interpretation and abuse. Israel has broken the ceasefire several times by killing several civilians, and killing and wounding several Hezbollah fighters. The Hezbollah casualties were "all…acts of self-defence," says an army spokesman, even though according to him, his soldiers shot first. The Hezbollah fighters simply "tried to approach." Israel can, and has, attempted to justify just about anything under the pretext of self-defence, and this resolution allows it to do so.

·         It calls for "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon." Without guarantees of security for Lebanon, which this resolution does not provide, it is dangerous to disarm the only military apparatus capable of defending the country.

·         The resolution does not detail Unifil's role in the event of an Israeli attack, and proposes nothing to stop Israeli territory being used for hostile actions. Indeed, countries worldwide have been asking for clarifications on the scope of the international force. "If Turkey is asked to disarm any group in Lebanon, we will not stay there, we will pull our soldiers out immediately," said Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, whose country is contributing to the force. "We are going there to protect peace."

·         The disarmament of Hezbollah also holds the spectre of civil war, especially as Hezbollah's popularity is much higher now than before Israel's onslaught, and the issue of its disarmament has always been deeply divisive in Lebanon. A poll published on 28 August showed Lebanese split down the middle on the issue. 

·         However, a poll published by the Daily Star on 7 September showed that 78.7% of Lebanese thought Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah demonstrated a good or excellent performance during the war; 57% approved of Hezbollah's action in snatching the Israeli soldiers while 34% were against it; 59% said Hezbollah and Lebanon won the war, with some 30% saying no one had; and among politicians' approval ratings, Nasrallah was followed by parliament speaker Nabih Berri at 71.2% and Christian former general Michel Aoun at 58.1% (both Hezbollah allies), while Prime Minister Fuad Siniora came in fourth with only 49.1%.

·         Nonetheless, Siniora said on 29 August that the army has been seizing Hezbollah weapons, including "heavy weapons." A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official has said that if Hezbollah is not disarmed, his country "will return to war."

·         For its part, Syria is to deploy an army batallion along its border with Lebanon in response to international calls for it to enforce an arms embargo on Hezbollah.

·         As Palestinian militias are also implicitly called on to disarm, the resolution leaves Palestinian refugees vulnerable to Israeli aggression or Lebanese instability, as they have been in the past.

·         The resolution takes "due note of the proposals made in the [Lebanese government's] seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area." What does this mean? Also, the resolution gives Israel a say over territory that it acknowledges is not its own.

·         Actions on the ground do not bode well for the resolution's success. The day after it was passed (two days before the ceasefire began), Israel said it tripled the number of its troops in Lebanon to 30,000, and warned that the expanded ground operation could last for weeks and extend to the strategically important Litani River, which runs up to 30 kilometres from the border.

·         Two days after the ceasefire took effect, Israeli army chief Dan Halutz said his troops could remain in Lebanon for months.

·         Israel had maintained a blockade of Lebanon from 14 July until 8 September. Lebanon, the UN, and governments and human rights groups worldwide had demanded its lifting. This was another problem with the resolution: it did not explicitly call for the lifting of the blockade, but simply "reopening airports and harbours." On 7 September Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said her country "will implement the embargo along the Syrian-Lebanese border."

·         Israel had also banned car travel in southern Lebanon.

·         Israel has killed six civilians, and killed and wounded several Hezbollah fighters, since the ceasefire began. The only Israeli to be killed since the ceasefire began was a soldier by an Israeli landmine during an "operation" in south Lebanon.

·         On 19 August, Israel raided the Baalbek region of eastern Lebanon and clashed with Hezbollah fighters. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called this a violation of the resolution, and said such raids "endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation and undermine the authority of the Government of Lebanon." UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen added: "The incident does not help maintain the fragile ceasefire, and will not encourage potential participants in the new international force to contribute with soldiers."

·         Israel has insisted it will not hesitate to carry out more raids, Defence Minister Amir Peretz has said his country would prepare for the "next round" of war, and Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said her country reserves the "right" to attack suspected Hezbollah arms convoys along the Lebanese-Syrian border. 

·         Meanwhile, Hezbollah has vowed to respect the ceasefire and accept UN peacekeeping forces, but to resist any continued Israeli presence or violations in Lebanon. It has already shut down and demolished 14 frontline positions facing the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms in southern Lebanon, including all its positions in the Arqub mountain area, in a region where UN forces are due to monitor the truce. Hezbollah has also moved out missiles, artillery and other weapons, as well as military equipment, furniture and power generators. However, its leader says it will keep its weapons, and "will only use its rockets in case of an Israeli attack and war against Lebanon."

·         Unifil says that in less than a week of the ceasefire taking effect, "there have...been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft." Despite this, "the Israeli army will not stop its flights in the region," said Israel's Environmental Minister Gideon Ezra, considered close to the prime minister. Indeed, the day after the Baalbek raid, Israeli warplanes flew over Lebanon's Bekaa Valley and the Lebanese-Syrian border, and the day after that, they violated Lebanese airspace four times, prompting protests from the Lebanese prime minister.

·         As of 30 August 2006, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has blamed Israel for most of the violations of the truce. Lebanon's government has urged the Security Council to force Israel to cease such violations.

·         The resolution calls on Israel to provide "all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon." Amnesty International has described Israel's failure to do so as "outrageous", adding: "This failure is further endangering the lives of Lebanese civilians, particularly children."

·         Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Knesset (parliament): "I know that the leaders of this organisation will go underground and disseminate. These people will not be left alone. We will continue pursuing them anywhere, all the time, and we do not intend to apologise or ask anyone's permission."

·         The resolution "is only a beginning. If the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is not relaunched, we will not see any lasting stability in Lebanon," said Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja. "The Europeans understand this. One can however ask oneself whether the US shares this opinion. There is a tendency over there to consider the situation (in Lebanon) as another element in their war on terror. You cannot defeat terrorism if you do not resolve the conflicts and humiliations that the people involved have suffered."

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/UNSC1701/tabid/339/Default.aspx

What is the situation regarding Israel's blockade of Lebanon?

·         Israel maintained its blockade of Lebanon for almost two months, from 14 July until 8 September. However on 7 September Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said her country "will implement the embargo along the Syrian-Lebanese border" and reserves the "right" to attack suspected Hezbollah arms convoys along the border.

·         The UN and governments and human rights groups worldwide had demanded the lifting of the blockade, Lebanon had threatened to file a complaint with the UN Security Council, its MPs had been staging a round-the-clock protest since 2 September, and international airlines had begun to defy the blockade at the urging of the Lebanese government. It has been reported that Israel knew it could not keep up the blockade as it could not shoot down civilian aircraft.

·         UN Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Margareta Wahlström had called for "an immediate lift of the continuing sea and air blockade on Lebanon," which UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen described as "of course totally unhelpful." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeated this call, describing the blockade as a "humiliation and infringement on [Lebanon's] sovereignty" that was not allowing the country to "go on with normal commercial activities and also rebuild its economy." UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown warned that the blockade "severely hinders relief efforts. Aid when there is a blockade is like putting someone on life support when there is a foot on their wind pipe. We need an immediate end to the blockade."

·         Lebanon imports 85% of its consumer goods.

·         Lebanese Finance Minister Jihad Azour said his country lost about $40 million daily in customs and tax revenues, and commercial business, due to the blockade. He added that the war and blockade have increased Lebanon's public debt to $41 billion.

·         In less than two weeks since the resolution's passing, 18,000 shipping containers filled with vital imports were turned away from the port of Beirut by Israel, strangling Lebanon's industrial capacity, said Elie Zakhour, president of the International Chamber of Navigation.

·         Factories "are operating at 20% of capacity because of a loss of manpower and petrol price increases" due to petrol shipments being turned away, said Ghazi Koreitem, president of the Beirut Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture.

·         This was another problem with the resolution: it did not explicitly call for the lifting of the blockade, but simply "reopening airports and harbours." Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr said: "The economic blockade of Lebanon you see now is in some sense the result of this resolution."

How has the war affected the popularity of Hezbollah in Lebanon and beyond, and those opposed to it?

·         Many predicted that Hezbollah's popularity would fall during and after the war, but the opposite has happened.

·         A poll published by the Daily Star on 7 September showed that 78.7% of Lebanese thought Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah demonstrated a good or excellent performance during the war. 57% approved of Hezbollah's action in snatching the Israeli soldiers, while 34% were against it. 59% said Hezbollah and Lebanon won the war, with some 30% saying no one had. Among politicians' approval ratings, Nasrallah was followed by parliament speaker Nabih Berri at 71.2% and Christian former general Michel Aoun at 58.1% (both Hezbollah allies), while Prime Minister Fuad Siniora came in fourth with only 49.1%.

·         A poll published on 28 August showed Lebanese split down the middle on the issue of Hezbollah's disarmament.

·         A poll published on 26 July by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, the country's main polling institute, showed that 70.1% of Lebanese agree with the capture of the Israeli soldiers: 96.3% of Shiites (the country's largest community), 73.1% of Sunnis, 54.7% of Christians and 40.1% of Druze (the smallest of the aforementioned communities). 86.9% of Lebanese believe Hezbollah was right to fight the Israeli offensive, while 63.3% believe Israel will never defeat Hezbollah.

·         A poll published on 7 August by the Near East Consulting Group showed that 97% of Palestinians support Hezbollah, compared with just 3% who are opposed. 93% of Palestinians thought the two captured Israeli soldiers should not be released unconditionally. 6% said the soldiers should not be released under any circumstances, and just 1% said they should be freed without conditions.

·         Contrast this with the great discontent among the Israeli public against the performance of their own political and military leaders, and the unpopularity among Britons of Blair's support for Israel during the conflict. An ICM poll for the Guardian showed that 61% think Israel has "over-reacted," while only 22% think its response is proportionate. 63% think "London is too close to Washington," with only 30% believing Blair has "the right sort of relationship" with the US.