It's also interesting how the BBC tries so obviously to spin this into making it sound like this is a "weakness" that keeps the Israelis from being effective against Hezbollah.
Hezbollah took higher casualties in most every battle. They were able to kill rather small numbers of IDF members through guerrilla tactics and then fleeing and using civilians for cover, however Israel won every engagement and even though Hezbollah had the home field advantage, the advantage of using civilians for cover and the advantage of booby trapping many areas beforehand their effectiveness against the IDF was minimal.
The Israeli government hampered the IDF by allowing them to only use relatively small ground forces, and overly restricting where they could go.
Under those horribly unbalanced rules of engagement which gave immense artificial advantages to Hezbollah, the IDF still could not be stopped or contained, and won every battle.
It doesn't matter how successful the IDF is, or how ineffective Hezbollah is. The BBC and similar groups will always spin things to indicate that the IDF is ineffective and comitting atrocities, and Hezbollah is achieving their goals and that Israel is somehow to blame for whatever harm befalls anyone in the conflict.
The BBC should pay more attention to one of the spoken rules of modern warfare. When a force must fight to defend themselves, the level of civilian casualties that are considered acceptable is mostly dependent on how much risk the rules of engagement create for those fighting under them.
If Hezbollah shows itself to be a viable threat to the IDF because of RPGs, Israel will be forced to re-evaluate it's rules of engagement, and do more to clear areas before moving into them.
When Israeli tanks have little to fear, Israel can much more easily afford to root out Hezbollah on the ground.
If Hezbollah is effective at taking out those tanks, Israel must then do much more to reduce or remove that threat before moving in.
It is the civilians that are going to suffer.
So maybe the BBC should quit telling the Israelis that they can't afford to continue to be so cautious in their targeting, because that is what they are telling them.
Do you think that the tank casualties played any part in giving in to a ceasefire that was IMO premature?