PDA

View Full Version : Israel: Hezbollah plans to move abducted IDF soldiers to Iran


BoogyMan
07-13-2006, 11:50 AM
Link Here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738310.html)

By Amos Harel and Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondents

Israel has concrete evidence that Hezbollah plans to transfer the two Israel Defense Forces soldiers abducted Wednesday to Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Thursday.

"We have concrete evidence that Hezbollah plans to transfer the kidnapped soldiers to Iran. As a result, Israel views Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran as the main players in the axis of terror and hate that endangers not only Israel, but the entire world," AFP quoted Deputy Director General of the Foreign Ministry Gideon Meir as saying.

An Al-Jazeera correspondent said Thursday that he had evidence that the two soldiers - identified Thursday as Ehud Goldwasser, 31, of Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, of Kiryat Motzkin - were alive during the abduction. He said they were transferred to a Shi'ite mosque in a nearby town, where the abductors changed clothes. According to the report, one of the soldiers was transferred in a cab, to make it difficult for Israeli intelligence to locate him. The Al-Jazeera correspondent stressed that he had received the information from a source close to Hezbollah, and that members of the organization refuse to disclose more information with nothing in return.

Eight IDF soldiers were also killed in a series of Hezbollah assaults on the northern border Wednesday. Another five soldiers and five civilians were wounded in the attacks.

Israel responded with massive aerial attacks on targets throughout Lebanon.

The fighting began at about 9:00 A.M., when a group of reserve soldiers in two armored jeeps was conducting a routine patrol of the border. As the jeeps passed between Moshav Zarit and Moshav Shtula, Hezbollah attacked.

An initial inquiry revealed that the Hezbollah operatives had crossed the border earlier via a "dead zone" in the border fence not visible from any of the IDF observation posts. There are dozens of similar "dead zones" along the northern border, though the IDF said that observation cameras to cover this particular spot were due to be installed next week. The assailants may have used a wheeled ladder to climb over the fence.

The operatives hid themselves in an overgrown wadi about 200 meters on the Israeli side of the fence and waited until the IDF troops arrived, whereupon they attacked, apparently with a combination of explosives and anti-tank missiles.

Three soldiers were killed during the initial assault, while one soldier was seriously wounded, another lightly wounded and a third suffered a shrapnel scratch. In addition, the assailants kidnapped the two soldiers. According to the IDF, Hezbollah probably had an escape vehicle waiting on the other side of the fence. The entire incident took no more than 10 minutes, and the Israeli soldiers apparently never fired a shot.

Ambush and diversionary attack
Simultaneously with this ambush, Hezbollah also launched a diversionary attack: a barrage of mortar shells and Katyusha rockets on communities and IDF outposts in the western part of the border area. That assault wounded five civilians, though none seriously: Some were lightly wounded, and the others suffered from shock.

As soon as this barrage began, the Galilee Division conducted a routine check to ensure that all army outposts and vehicles were still in contact with headquarters, and quickly discovered that contact had been lost with the two jeeps patrolling near Zarit. Both jeeps had been damaged in the Hezbollah assault. A rescue force was summoned to the scene, and when it arrived, about half an hour after the attack, it found the two damaged jeeps and the dead and wounded soldiers. The rescue force soon realized that two of the soldiers had been kidnapped and sent out an alert.

Due in part to the lessons learned from the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit less than three weeks earlier, a force of tanks and armored personnel carriers was immediately sent into Lebanon in hot pursuit. It was during this pursuit, at about 11:00 A.M., that the second deadly incident occurred: A Merkava tank drove over a powerful bomb, containing an estimated 200 to 300 kilograms of explosives, about 70 meters north of the border fence. The tank was almost completely destroyed, and all four crew members were killed instantly.

Over the next several hours, IDF soldiers waged a fierce fight against Hezbollah gunmen as the soldiers tried to extricate the damaged tank, in order to recover the bodies and to keep Hezbollah from stealing it. During the course of this battle, at about 3:00 P.M., another soldier was killed and two were lightly wounded. As of press time Wednesday night, however, the tank had still not been extracted.

Due to the force of the bomb, only bits and pieces of the soldiers' bodies are likely to be found inside.

The damaged tank did not have armored plating on its belly; most tanks with such protection are stationed on the Gaza border. However, tank officers said that due to the size of the bomb, such plating would still not have saved the soldiers' lives.

The fighting continued throughout the day, with Hezbollah gunmen repeatedly trying to attack army outposts along the border. At the Oranit outpost near Rosh Hanikra, soldiers killed one Hezbollah operative; other Hezbollah gunmen were apparently killed during an assault on the Dvoranit outpost. The IDF suffered no casualties during these battles.

In response to the Hezbollah onslaught, the IDF attacked dozens of targets throughout Lebanon, including Hezbollah outposts and several bridges over the Awali River. According to the IDF, all Hezbollah outposts along the border were destroyed. The bombing, which included targets in central and northern Lebanon, apparently caused multiple Lebanese casualties.

According to GOC Northern Command Udi Adam, the IDF had no intelligence warnings of the Hezbollah attack. After Shalit was kidnapped, he said, the army decided to up the alert level in the north for fear of a similar attack, but a few days ago, the alert was lowered again.

Old Corps Gunny
07-13-2006, 02:41 PM
Not surprising since Hezbollah has always been considered a largely Iranian sponsored terrorist organization that also receives funding from Syria. Israeli F-16s buzzed the Syrian Presidential palace when these soldiers were kidnapped; I wonder what will happen if Israel determines that they have actually been moved into Syria.

CheesyMuslim
07-13-2006, 04:15 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But if they move these men to Iran, this will give Israel a reason to smash Iran.
2. I don't know if these Arabs are that dumb.
3. We will see I suppose.
4. I see it as a positive reaction, which would open the door on this War on Iran.
5. Iran needs a Texas boot rammed up its a$$, IMHBO.
6. We would have no problem defending Israel.
7. We got some F-16's in the area.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

PittsburghAfterDark
07-13-2006, 05:08 PM
I suspect we have a hell of a lot more than a few F-16's in the area.

Not only that but a conflict with Iran would show the world the capabilities of our newest toy in the inventory.Â*Â*The F-22A Raptor.

The Raptor has bested the F-15C when being outmatched 5-1 and the Eagle drivers didn't even know where the thing was when they were they were just "dead" by the ROE of engagement exercises.

Two squadrons are operational as of June 2006 with the next one coming on line starting in September.

The Iranian air force, if stupid enough to go up in the air with Raptors in the region, wouldn't last 5 minutes.Â*Â*A squadron of 24 Raptors would be armed with 144 AMRAAM AIM-120c's fully loaded for air superiority combat.Â*Â*The Iranian air force is estimated to contain 450 modern combat aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm); their operational strength could easily be halved within an hour of combat and eliminated completely within 24 hours.

If both operational Raptor squadrons were in the region no Iranian aircraft would ever leave Iranian airspace alive.

In air force parlance this is known charitably as an "overmatch".

Realisticly one squadron alone would be enough to to best the entire Iranian air force within 48 hours. It would just be a matter of how fast you can reload, refuel and continue to have targets to shoot at.

Those 450 aircraft, figure an estimated $30 million each, would effectively be $13.5 billion worth of target drones with human pilots.

Of course no sane commander after losing 1/3rd of his aircraft in an hour would continue to send increasingly less capable aircraft up against an adversary in this scenario. Once the MiG-31's, SU-30's and remaining F-14's were destroyed you're not going to start sending up F-4's and F-5's hoping to get a lucky shot in. You're not even talking a suicide mission here. Suicide missions have a chance of inflicting casualties, this would just be a death wish.

A conflict with F-22A's and the Iranian air force would make the "highway of death" a school picnic. Iran would have nothing left with which to fight.

lily
07-13-2006, 06:56 PM
chesswarsnow


Sorry bout that,

[quote]1. But if they move these men to Iran, this will give Israel a reason to smash Iran.

6. We would have no problem defending Israel.

You stated that it would give Israel a reason to smash Iran, then you state we would have no problem defending Israel.

Um.....sorry about that, but why is Israel's war our problem? Israel has an army, an air force and a navy, lots of soldiers too! We're rather busy at the moment.

PittsburghAfterDark
07-14-2006, 06:11 AM
Our navy and air force are not busy at the moment. In fact, they're not doing much of anything these days.

We also have roughly 1.5 million Marines and Army personnel that are not busy as well.

Nathan Brazil
07-14-2006, 02:56 PM
Frankly, if Israel carries their war to either Syria or Iran, the US will be involved eventually. Conflict with those two holes is exactly the reason why we took Iraq in the first place.

At a minimum, we would work to forbid passage between Syria and Iran through the northern part of Iraq. Divided from Iran, Syria wouldn't last long in a fight with Israel.

lily
07-14-2006, 07:54 PM
At a minimum, we would work to forbid passage between Syria and Iran through the northern part of Iraq. Divided from Iran, Syria wouldn't last long in a fight with Israel.
That sounds like a really good plan........almost good enough to have implemented already, so that Syria couldn't smuggle in terrorists or weapons/explosives into Iraq. :rolleyes:

lily
07-14-2006, 07:55 PM
Our navy and air force are not busy at the moment.Â*Â*In fact, they're not doing much of anything these days.

We also have roughly 1.5 million Marines and Army personnel that are not busy as well.


We already fund Israel, why should we go fight their battles?

Nathan Brazil
07-14-2006, 08:07 PM
Cleaning out Syria and Iran is on our to-do list. If we can get Isreal to do the work on Syria, more's the better, since, like you say, we're financing them anyway.

lily
07-14-2006, 08:18 PM
Ah.........but you see, Syria and Iran have nothing to do with this mess. I really dobt that they would be so stupid. While I'm on the subject, neither does Lebonnon or Syria.

I ususally don't get into the Israel/Palestine debates, to me they are both idiots and equally wrong. But in this case Israel over-reacted. IMO.....and I see no use in adding fuel to the flame. We can not afford it both militarily or monetarily.

Nathan Brazil
07-14-2006, 08:22 PM
Iran, home of Hezbollah, and Syria, home of Hamas,have nothing to do with suicide bomb attacks of Israeli shopping malls and random rocket attacks on Isreali towns and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers?:rolleyes:

AlonzoMourning23
07-14-2006, 09:31 PM
How do you kidnap an armed soldier on duty? Isn't that more of capturing the enemy?

Nathan Brazil
07-15-2006, 03:40 AM
How do you kidnap an armed soldier on duty? Isn't that more of capturing the enemy?Â*Â*


Sure, if you're part of an organized military group. Okay, since you concede that Hamas is a military group, then it stands to reason the state harboring that group is liable for acts committed by that group, and retaliation upon that state is a perfectly valid response to capture of one's soldiers.

AlonzoMourning23
07-15-2006, 01:43 PM
Not necessarily. It must be proportionate. Attacking everything in the country because a group, one which is not acting for the government, and one which the government is not able to control (as in lebanon), is not proportionate. And, in terms of Gaza, hamas did nothing that Israel doesn't do regularly. It's harmful for palestinians and the peace process, but it's what Israel routinely does.

If people from Operation Rescue decided to bomb a canadian clinic we they wouldn't hold us personally responsible, it would be the group. The state harboring the group is liable when it acts as an arm of the state, or when the state can actually control it, is aware it can control it, and chooses not to. The political wing of Hamas often cannot control the militants, as they operate separately and often under the control of exiled leaders. Fatah is opposition to Hamas. Neither group has the power to disarm the extreme factions, they must be starved of support and moderated.

Nathan Brazil
07-15-2006, 02:06 PM
Why must it be proportionate? The goal of war is to end the enemy's ability to be a pain in the ass. It's not to make sure some arbitrary score card is in balance so that the spectators can see a good exciting match.

As far as Hamas goes, who gives a shit about them? They're animals, no more deserving of pity or compassion than a hog being slaughtered for meat. Worse, even, because pork's edible and valuable, where the members of Hamas would sterilize any field their corpses are sown in. To claim moral parity in the actions of Hamas, and the reaction of their victims, is to declare your personal moral bankruptcy.

Do the operation rescue people operate with the concurrence of any government? No, but Hamas and Hezbollah certainly do. And the only way to convince Lebannon to stop sheltering them is to make the price

Lebannon has to pay for what is best their criminal neglect of a significant terrorist faction in their midst, and at worst their possible support of the terrorists. Either way, if you want the country of Lebannon to act against terrorism, you have to make the alternative far worse. That's what's Israel's doing, and it's a good thing.

AlonzoMourning23
07-15-2006, 02:14 PM
Lebanon is not militarily powerful enough to move against Hezbollah, and Israel's actions only weaken their ability and the authority of the democratic government. If you turn public sentiment further against Israel, then it becomes even harder since acting as an agent of a foreign power, one that has a history of invading, is unpopular to say the least.

Hamas and Hezbollah are in the government on some levels. Hezbollah is an opposition party, but the government has no more control over them than the u.s. government does on the actions of the libertarian party. They operate and essentially autonomous region, and the government is too militarily weak to do anything about disarming them.

The political leadership of Hamas is a separate organism from the military wing, and doesn't have much control on it. It has zero control when outside forces start ordering the military wing around.

If you want to show me where Israel's military actions have ever lead to long term decreases in extremism, or destroyed major militant groups, then fine. Otherwise, I'm done.

Nathan Brazil
07-15-2006, 02:50 PM
If you want to show me where Israel's military actions have ever lead to long term decreases in extremism, or destroyed major militant groups, then fine. Otherwise, I'm done.


If the government is not strong enough to limit the unlawful activities of groups in it's territories, then it's not really a government, but simply a ruling faction of a sub-region.

The region already uses it's own children to carry bombs to blow up Israeli chidlren, so what if the "public sentiment" becomes less favorable? The Israelis should have engaged Hamas and Hezbollah militarily and directly long long ago. If that confrontation happens to spill into the nations sponsoring those organizations, good. That's who deserves to get bombed.

If Lebannon is standing aside and letting those governments use their territory as staging areas for attacks on a third country, Isreal, they don't have any claim to neutrality, and if they're so ineffectual that they can't control their own territory, they should be replaced.

It's that simple. Government's have defined proper functions, and prevention of assualt by one person on another is one of the most important. Hiding behind incompetence should never be accepted, for anything at all.

Care to point out where appeasement ever convinced the agressor to stop his aggression? Munich led to Warsaw. Evacuating Jewish settlements and turning control of land over to the PA in the face of suicide bombings and other murders has now led to soldiers getting kidnapped and random rocket attacks on Israel.

Pretending to be a rug only encourages people to roll you back or walk over you.

BoogyMan
07-15-2006, 08:20 PM
How do you kidnap an armed soldier on duty? Isn't that more of capturing the enemy?Â*Â*


Is there anything you won't become an apologist for Alonzo? This is mind boggling.

BoogyMan
07-15-2006, 08:22 PM
Not necessarily. It must be proportionate. Attacking everything in the country because a group, one which is not acting for the government, and one which the government is not able to control (as in lebanon), is not proportionate. And, in terms of Gaza, hamas did nothing that Israel doesn't do regularly. It's harmful for palestinians and the peace process, but it's what Israel routinely does.


Go look at how many Lebanese cabinet members are members of Hizbollah and then come back here and tell me the group isn't working at the behest of the Lebanese government.

lily
07-15-2006, 09:10 PM
How do you kidnap an armed soldier on duty? Isn't that more of capturing the enemy?Â*Â*


Is there anything you won't become an apologist for Alonzo?Â*Â*This is mind boggling.


How is that being an apologist? I think it's a damned good question....I see you have no answer for it, though.

AlonzoMourning23
07-15-2006, 11:30 PM
Is there anything you won't become an apologist for Alonzo? This is mind boggling.

Then it should be easy to answer.

(Hezbollah) has become a social/political movement, holding 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese parliament, according to the parliament's Web site.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/hezbollah/index.html

So am I to believe that a party that doesn't even hold 12% of seats in the parliament is in control of the government? The behavior of the lebanese government does not suggest that they are. They are part of Lebanon, they have supporters, and they helped get rid of Israeli occupation. They did not oppose syria, unlike the anti-syrian government and the majority of citizens. They are a minority party, they are not part of the ruling government. They have a place in lebanon, they have done good things (schools, hospitals, kicking out Israel) along with all the bad things. But they are not part of, or acting for, the lebanese government.

If I remember correctly, even Bush had the same assesment on the relationship between government/hezbollah. He seems to think democratic lebanon is a good example, and something we need to strengthen.

CheesyMuslim
07-16-2006, 10:05 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. But I say if Hezbollah moves those Jews to Iran, then this gives the Jews the right to start bombing Iran too.
2. I am sure the Jews feel the same way as I do.
3. Let them transport the Captured Military men of Israel to Iran and see what transpires.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas