Middle East crisis: Facts and Figures

DEAD

Israel
116 soldiers
(Israeli Defence Force)
43 civilians
(Israeli police)

Lebanon
1,109
(Lebanese government)
28 Lebanese soldiers (not in conflict with Israelis)
(Agence France Presse, 6 August)

Hezbollah - there are no reliable figures
Israeli military estimate more than 530
Hezbollah and fellow Shia militant group Amal say 55 fighters have been killed
(Agence France Presse, 5 August)


<snip>

DAMAGE

Israel
More than 300 buildings, including houses and factories.
(Israeli police)

Lebanon
15,000 houses/apartments
900 factories, markets, farms and other commercial buildings

32 airports, ports, water- and sewage-treatment plants, dams and electrical plants

25 fuel stations

78 bridges

630km of roads
(Lebanese government)

Environment - It is estimated that the initial clean up of a huge oil spill caused by the Israeli bombing of a power plant will cost $64m (£34m)
(UN)

<snip>

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Israel
70% of businesses closed in northern Israel
(Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce)
Tourism - expected to reach NIS 1bn ($230m)
(Governor, Bank of Israel)

Total cost of war (includes military spending and lost GDP) - up to NIS 23bn ($4.8bn)
(Israeli Ministry of Finance, Haaretz newspaper 13 August)

Direct and indirect damage - NIS 5 billion (US$1.1bn)
(Israeli Ministry of Finance, Haaretz newspaper 13 August)
Lebanon
Repairs to buildings and infrastructure and rebuilding expected to reach $4bn
(Lebanese government)
Tourism - Lebanon's tourist industry has been decimated. Tourist is estimated to earn

Lebanon $2.5bn (£1.3bn)
(Lebanese government)



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5257128.stm

n/t

able to answer. How does anyone know whether or not the figures for dead or injured Lebanese adult males are civilians or Hezbollah? It seems certain to me that some, perhaps many, of the 1,109 Lebanese 'civilians' are actually Hezbollah part-time or full time fighters. (And is a Lebanese who is not a formal member of Hezbollah, but is a sympathizer who allows Hezbollah to use his home or business to store Kassams considered a 'civilian' or a Hezbollah casualty?) It also seems obvious that only Hezbollah knows for sure (in respect to adult males) who is a Hezbollah fighter and who is not. It seems equally obvious that Hezbollah has a strong incentive to lie and minimize the number of Hezbollah casualties and maxmimize 'civilain' casualties.

Why should anyone believe the figues we are given in respect to the breakdown between Hezbollah and Lebanese 'civilian' casualties?

(Note, this is not to dispute that many hundreds of Lebanese civilians were killed or injured. Only, that, for all we know, 300, 400, or 500 of the Lebanese casualties identified as civilians were in fact Hezbollah.)

However, I find the notion that an adult male who allows weapons to be stored in his home a member of Hezbollah, a bit of a leap. How do we know if he is supporting them voluntarily, or simply is pressured into allowing it. Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell. I have seen reports since the war where some Lebananese have expressed anger towards Hezbollah for just such action. Given the power they held in the south, it's possible they would risk the lives of their families to refuse.

Just saying it's possible.

That a decent proportion of "co-operation" with Hezbollah is the result of coercion, by now more implied than express, sufficient examples having been made already to establish the point.

Unfortunately, once the matter reaches the pitch of open war, the distinction is of little practical importance. It is the munitions, or the armed men, present in a location, that constitute the target of a military operation, not its owner or other inhabitants. Combatants who take up positions in which, should they be assailed in them by their foe, it is likely that non-combatants will also be injured, commit themselves a crime of war, something that is often over-looked in commentary on this matter. That is unfortunate, particularly when it is engaged in by figures of some authority, moral or otherwise, since it greatly devalues the very concept of laws of war, making them seem to many people mere tools of propaganda rather than neutral regulations all must comply with. It is quite certain that a situation in which one side is held to the law, and the other not only is not held to it, but takes as a leading perational tactic its violation, cannot be long sustained, but will only lead in the long run to the overthrow of the very concept of law itself applying to the matter at all.

we are referring to the number of casualties and trying to determine how many were fighters, after the fact. We aren't disputing Israel's targets or justifications.

Just trying to sort out the casualties. And wouldn't it be in Israel's interests to inflate the number of casualties that were Hezbollah, thereby reducing the civilian casualties they killed? Just as it would be in Hezbollah's interests to keep that number low - make it seem like Israel has less of an impact on them.

It is in one party's interest to maximize claims of non-combatant casualties, and in one party's interest to minimize them. Even worse, there is unlikely ever to be an honest accounting of the proportions, and material to provide an accurate one probably does not exist.

It seems to me, too, that it is difficult to discuss the question, at least for any length of time, without engaging in consideration of the questions of targeting and the practices of the combatants in the course of the fighting. One people certainly suffered many more casualties, combatant or otherwise, than the other, but that fact is of little interest and no signifigance in itself. Those who make much play on it generally are attempting to erect something or other upon it, ranging from the "morality of simple arithmetic" which holds that those who suffered the most are necessarily in the right, to the proposition that one side was engaged in nothing but simple murder of peaceable persons, and is accordingly an exemplar of evil incarnate. Neither comes close to actually matching the circumstances, though it is certainly true that a considerable number of peaceable Lebanese paid the forfeit for the actions and failings of many others, most noteably the polictical leadership of their own country, and Hezbollah, and of Israel.

Thank you for your comments.

and Hezbollah are Lebaonese.. What's make you believe there is a difference between the two??

It is true enough that Hezbollah members are Lebanese, though not all their training cadre is, but it hardly follows from that that all Lebanese are Hezbollah. There are Moslem and non-Moslem elements in Lebanese society that not only are not constiruents of Hezbollah, but openly hostile to it. Were Hezbollah even a majority in the country, it would have a much greater share in the government of the place than it does, even making allowances for some gerrymandering of the political proces there against the Shia of the south. Statements of support for Hezbollah in the heat of the violent moment mean very little; the social divisions of Lebanon are very deep and longstanding.

All chickens are birds does not mean that all birds are chickens.

Today, there is general consensus that Muslims constitute a solid majority of the population; the CIA world factbook estimates their share to be 60% <2>. Still, there is no single sect constituting a majority of the population by itself. The Shi'a is the largest community, thought in 1990 to be about 35% of the population. Since then, their numbers have increased even more, while other communities have decreased due to emigration, and some sources indicate they may be close to 50% of the population. There is no consensus on this number, and the Shi'a proportion of Lebanon's population is among the most widely disputed figures of Lebanese demographics. The Shi'a has, as the traditionally poorest community, had a high birth rate, and they have had no natural emigration outlet (while most Christians had extensive contacts with Europe, the United States and Latin America; and the Sunnis could easily relocate to any neighbouring Arab country, since they constitute a majority in most of the Arab world).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon

according to Juan Cole the latest elections rolls confirm a 40/60% between the Christians and Muslims

http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/lebanon-realignment-and-syria-it-is.html

the Hezbollah recruits EXCLUSIVELY among Shiites. So in the "worst" case (counting that 100% Shiites are members of the Hezbollah, which of course isn't true) there is only 40% of the Lebanese that ACTIVELY support the Hezbollah. The fact that they have only 2 deputies in the parliament shows that it is otherwise, maybe the true support is in reality down to 25%. Remember that the Sunnis (about 20%) can't stand the Shiites, because of their acceptance of certain rites. They call them "little Christians". And the Druze don't like them either.

Once again there are maybe 30-35% of the Lebanese population that support the Hezbollah, which leave at least 60% that DON'T. OUT OF THOSE 30% there are maybe 5% that could be trained as a professional fighter or are in arms.

The Hezbollah's active militia has been assessed to be about 2000 trained fighters. The Israeli killed maybe 500 of them and lost 120 of their own. Which is a rather poor performance considered the size of the Israeli forces (30000) and their weaponry. If the Israeli are right (which can be put in question) it means that the body count has been down in blown up bunkers and not in Beirut.

so all this "theory" of "they are all Hezbollah" is sheer racism. The 1200 dead civilians are civilians, even if their sympathy for a part of them went to the Hezbollah.

When Iraqi dies they are all of a sudden "all insurgents". When Germans died in aerial bombings over Dresden in WWII (25-35000) they were of course "all nazis" according to that kind of prejudice.

or since every Israeli in good health and of normal age is a reservist, does that make every Israeli a target ?
So if it doesn't apply to Israelis it doesn't apply to Lebanese either.

Lebanese, but not all Lebanese are Hezbollah. When we hear reports of Lebanese 'civilian' casualties a distinction is being made. I am only questioning how anyone knows whether or not a Lebanese adult male casualty, characterized as 'civilian' is in fact a civilian and not a Hezbollah fighter.

Or rather, deliberate misreprensentation by "the media." I have been sent several links in emails - I can't be bothered reading "blogs" except the occasional post that I link to from here - but read one out of curiousity:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Personally, I don't judge Israel's actions by whether the civilian dead are 500 or 1000, but by the general conduct, which sure seems to me to fit the phrase "collective punishment." But I am getting an impression that there is a concerted effort by some in the "blogosphere" to claim concerted "media fraud" over the destruction and death in Lebanon.

to me knowledge. I don't think there is anything to that one.

There has been some element of selective focus, and some exaggeration in initial reposrts of particular instances. An example of the first would be the close concentration on the area of southern Beirut being bombed, sometimes presented as a general level of destruction over a wide area, which it in fact was not. An example of the second would be several instances in the immediate wake of the Qana bombing, in which initial reports from Lebanese government sources claiming many dozens of people were killed dissolved into much smaller numbers being reported within hours. things liek the latter, of course, cannot be necessarily taken as deliberate lies: initial reports and first impressions are very frequently erroneous despite the best intentions of accuracy on the part of those making them.

Nor is the claim mine. I find the premise absurd - there are plenty of powerful interests, including the WH, which would have any reality-based such accusations on the front page of every major news outlet, seems to me.

I am familiar with the Qana incident, and agree with you that the expectation of accurate accounts in the immediate wake of such horror is ridiculous.

As for Beirut, the actual destruction seems to me to be quite adequate to evoke horror.

I am merely curious as to how widespread or widely believed are such claims.

Off topic - you are, of course, free to use any form of discourse you choose, but I personally dislke - even "detest" is not too strong a word - being addressed as "ma'am." I am not a Queen, a Royal Princess, nor a female grand personage. I consider all honorifics and Titles pretentious and undemocratic, and the usage of "ma'am" and "Sir" outside of BDSM to be a groveling relic of caste/class based social norms.