Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

shamrock_uk · 06-10-2004, 12:32 PM

The lebanese war was actually on a rather massive scale, certainly far larger than that needed to look for terrorists.

It all started with the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London by the Fatah Revolutionary Council so Israel decided to invade Southern Lebanon with the aim of pushing back the PLO to a distance of 40km. So yes, the aim was to combat terrorists.

It's one of the few examples where the civilian government has lost control of the military actually, Sharon and his Chief of Staff (i think it was Eitan at that time) witheld information from the cabinet and the Knesset and basically went off on a bit of a rampage.

Two major cities in the south of Lebanon (Tyre and Sidon) were completely flattened by the IDF and the capital Beirut was shelled for ten weeks causing considerable civilian loss of life.

It's probably fair to say that this was the start of real opinion solidifying against Israel in the West, not only for the devastation caused, but for a couple of other reasons as well. The IDF used UN-outlawed phosphorous shells which are just plain nasty, especially in civilian areas, and there was also a massacre of 1,000 Palestinians in refugee camps by the Lebanese Christian Militia who were Israel's allies. Not strictly Israel's fault, but they were in control of Beirut at the time and the impression is that not much was done to stop it.

There was actually widespread opposition within the senior ranks of the Israeli military on both moral and political grounds concerning the tactics that the IDF used in Lebanon. Generally speaking though, this protest was muted, with the rather notable exception of Colonel Eli Geva.

When he was given the mission of leading the army in its attack on Beirut, he asked to be relieved of his command because of the scope of civilian casualties he knew would occur. This is either insubordination or a morally correct decision to do with conscience, take your pick. Whatever your thoughts, he was released from further service despite having an outstanding military record.

That's pretty much it.

[ 06-10-2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

06-10-2004, 12:32 PM	#45
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 42 Posts: 3,092	The lebanese war was actually on a rather massive scale, certainly far larger than that needed to look for terrorists. It all started with the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London by the Fatah Revolutionary Council so Israel decided to invade Southern Lebanon with the aim of pushing back the PLO to a distance of 40km. So yes, the aim was to combat terrorists. It's one of the few examples where the civilian government has lost control of the military actually, Sharon and his Chief of Staff (i think it was Eitan at that time) witheld information from the cabinet and the Knesset and basically went off on a bit of a rampage. Two major cities in the south of Lebanon (Tyre and Sidon) were completely flattened by the IDF and the capital Beirut was shelled for ten weeks causing considerable civilian loss of life. It's probably fair to say that this was the start of real opinion solidifying against Israel in the West, not only for the devastation caused, but for a couple of other reasons as well. The IDF used UN-outlawed phosphorous shells which are just plain nasty, especially in civilian areas, and there was also a massacre of 1,000 Palestinians in refugee camps by the Lebanese Christian Militia who were Israel's allies. Not strictly Israel's fault, but they were in control of Beirut at the time and the impression is that not much was done to stop it. There was actually widespread opposition within the senior ranks of the Israeli military on both moral and political grounds concerning the tactics that the IDF used in Lebanon. Generally speaking though, this protest was muted, with the rather notable exception of Colonel Eli Geva. When he was given the mission of leading the army in its attack on Beirut, he asked to be relieved of his command because of the scope of civilian casualties he knew would occur. This is either insubordination or a morally correct decision to do with conscience, take your pick. Whatever your thoughts, he was released from further service despite having an outstanding military record. That's pretty much it. [ 06-10-2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]