Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

Sgt. Sensible

Gordon wrote:

Cool, no prob, just curious. Thanks.

Guardian article about Greece's relationship with the Serbs. There's a lot more detailed stuff around but it's off topic. I just mentioned it to show what an difficult job the UN has.

In a step repeated in no other country, Archbishop Serafeim invited the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to visit Athens in 1993. At a mass rally attended by prominent politicians, the indicted war criminal proclaimed: 'We have only God and the Greeks on our side.'

Last year, in a 7,000-page report that the Dutch authorities commissioned into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, Greece was revealed to have sent shipments of light arms and ammunition to the Bosnian Serb army between 1994 and 1995. The report describes how Greek volunteers were implored, in intercepted army telephone conversations, to raise the Greek flag after the town fell. In one, General Ratko Mladic asked that they record the scene on video for propaganda purposes.

lostexpectation

its not just intelligence the UN seems to actively pretend that things arn't going on when they know they are...

on another point former foreign affairs higgens was on skynews taking about the
United for peace and justice rule that can be used to overide the need for unaniimity and vetos on the UNSC, and he quoted the Suez Canal crisis as a time it was used... by the US, who Im guessing didn't do it for peace and justice but it curry favour with Egypt... am I right?

Manic Moran

Gordon wrote:

This is probably off-topic but have you got a link to proof of Greece arming the Serbs? I'm asking as I live in Greece and I find it crazy to think that they are arming anyone as they seem to have no arms whatsoever! Sure, their military consists of forced conscription for all men, doing a roughly one year sentence, and all they do is drink coffee and play backgammon afaik! I'm not saying it's not possible, just surprising.

I love backgammon and Greek coffee. Uncle seved in the Greek Air Force, I used to go there frequently...

However, Greece had a serious upgrade of weaponry by taking advantage of the East German Army's Closing Down Sale, and would have had some to spare. Indeed, Greece has repeatedly been in the top ten arms importers in the world in recent years. (Turkey's also been running up there)

NTM

Gordon

Wow, interesting stuff, thanks guys. Maybe that'll explain why the wages are so low and cost of living so high over here!

Sorry to the mods for being off topic.

Akrasia

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

One area where the UN fails is in intelligence. It needs its own intelligence service. This was one of the things that rendered it so useless in the Balkans. States were up to all sorts of skullduggery, (the west arming and and supporting the muslims (with help from Iran, Hezbollah and Afghan mujahadeen as it happens) and Israel, Russia and Greece arming and supporting the Serbs) and the UN was completely outmanouvered.

it's not a problem with intelligence, they knew all that was happening in the Balkans, but they couldn't do anything because the two opposing sides both had a veto in the Security council.
The Veto system is the single biggest problem with the U.N, and it is also the single most unsolvable problem (no vet o wielding country is going to vote to remove their own veto, especially not russia or the USA)

Rock Climber

bonkey wrote:

Not quite the point I'm making.

I'm saying that anyone claiming to be objective should not lament that the UN doesn't have the teeth to enforce resolutions that one side is flouting. They should lament that the UN doesn't have the teeth to enforce all resolutions flouted by either side, they should lament nothing, or they should openly admit partisanship and bias/prejudice before shedding crocodile tears that only one side in the fight doesn't get what they deserve for something that both sides are guilty of.

Thats exactly the point I was making(though I accept Gandalf's different point separately as being the case).

I cant accept or understand the prevailence of the attitude by some in this thread, that its ok for all [effectively] to ignore what are accepted by most as the rules,just because one side(or a combination of allies) blatantly sidesteps the rules.Expressing those opinions is expressing a partisan opinion or as good as one.It doesnt even look subtle to me anyhow.One should come right out and say one is partisan and then face the music.

I'll openly say to anyone on this thread,I've no time at all for the maniacs that mostly make up the ranks of Hamass,hezbollah and exclusively Al Q'ueda.
I'll make that point without even as much of a hint that its a recognition of Israels right to carry on in the so OTT fashion that they are doing.
Israel are agressive defensive,they wear that nature on their sleeves.
Recognising that they are like that isnt a recognition of a right for them to go Ape like they have been doing.
However theres no doubt in my mind that the current mahem is instigated by those in my opinion who have a vested interest in seeing it carry on [I'm looking at you Mr Bush and you (Plural) Arab Extremists].

Wouldnt it be a better state of affairs if those opposed to Israel recognised the nature of them and worked around that? I suppose that is actually asking a bit much now given that Israel have enflamed the situation [exactly probably what their hawks and Bushes halks wanted to do imho] - I cant help but think this would not have been allowed to progress like this if Clinton or someone like him was still in the Whitehouse-but hey, we'd probably not have had an Iraq war either.

redspider

Today I read that Israel has killed 7 in Gaza, including a 10-year old boy. Hamas aren't even firing rockets at Israel, yet Israel are still 'defending themselves' in this case !?!

There is no point in looking for logic in this war, as there is none!

This whole region is a quagmire, a mess, and its been messed up for a very long time. This latest chapter, with Israel killing people at will and according to reports, has effectively invaded Lebanon, as that's what putting 10,000 soldiers over the border, and bombing airports, hospitals, etc, constitutes. If that is 'self-defence' I dont know what attack would look like !

Of course, all of this shows how toothless the world is at large. How ineffectual the EU is as a power, etc. And how useless the UN is - not the individual people there, for most of them are genuinely trying to help the world at large, but the UN structure, its system and the support it gets from nations.

Akrasia wrote:

The Veto system is the single biggest problem with the U.N, and it is also the single most unsolvable problem

The UN is badly flawed. It always has been since its creation. The world needs an effective 'global police/military' force. It has never had one. Until it does, problems like Israel, the middle East, Iraq, etc, wont go away. Its like a school playground with bully's without any teachers. It just goes on and on and on. I am afraid that the human psyche is too weak on a global scale to change things otherwise. Rich people just wanna stay rich. If its not in your backyard, its not a problem. very evident from 9/11 and 7/7. They were atrocities. 100,000 in Iraq is but a number. Hmmmm.

Perhaps Europe needs to use its only main strength on the global bargaining table, and that is not military strength, as it is not unified on that front, but economic strength.

If the EU immediately withdrew trading (and movement of people and communications!) with all countries that opposed an immediate ceasefire (and that includes intra-EU trade as well, such as to the UK), it would make countries either put-up or shut-up with their rhetoric.

Countries such as the US and the UK dont care about individual lives. Their inaction in demanding an immediate ceasefire is resulting in giving Israel a 'green light' for continued death and destruction. The western countries, Ireland included, were more concerned with taking out its own citizens and leaving behind the people who unfortunately dont have a choice, than anything else. The US military airlifted out US citizens who were in potential danger. Why doesnt it airlift out Lebanese citizens who are in the same danger?

The answer, it doesnt care. Bush is more interested in his summer holiday in Texas than in people's lives. Israel is 'happy to accept an international peace-keeping force', because Olmert and his cohorts know that it will take the UN weeks and indeed months to get that set-up on the ground. In that time Israel will have inflicted more damage on what it sees as its enemies. But it will be damaging Israel in the hearts and minds of people around the globe. Israel is betting that the latter wont matter. They will be right if we allow it to be and are lazy about it.

The first place to stop the killings is to think about what each of us as an individual has done today to try and stop it.

redspider

bonkey

redspider wrote:

Of course, all of this shows how toothless the world is at large. How ineffectual the EU is as a power, etc. And how useless the UN is -

Whereas nations like Iraq and Afghanistan show the wisdom of the "non-toothless" approach....

The world needs an effective 'global police/military' force.

No, it doesn't.

For the world to be able to put such a force together, that didn't represent the interests of the most powerful nations etc. would require that the world already be in a situation where it would no longer need such a force.

Rich people just wanna stay rich.

And its not just rich people. The average Joe in a developed nation won't be willing to sacrifice much (mostly on the grounds that the rich should sacrifice first), but the world can't sustain its current population living like these average Joe's.

So we're caught in a position where we want things to be better and want everyone worse off to have what we have...even though its not possible. And we're sure as hell not gonna give up 1/2 or 2/3 of what we have to meet them at a sustainable point of equality.

Perhaps Europe needs to use its only main strength on the global bargaining table,

Europe is no more altruistic in its wants than any other nation. It simply has decided on a different set of values that it is willing to uphold/discard in order to obtain its wants.

If the EU immediately withdrew trading (and movement of people and communications!) with all countries that opposed an immediate ceasefire (and that includes intra-EU trade as well, such as to the UK), it would make countries either put-up or shut-up with their rhetoric.

It would also bankrupt many EU economies. Are you willing to lose your job to send a message to the US and Israel, in the knowledge that they aren't likely to bow to pressure any time soon?

The US military airlifted out US citizens who were in potential danger. Why doesnt it airlift out Lebanese citizens who are in the same danger?

Why doesn't the EU? Why doesn't Switzerland?

The answer, it doesnt care.

Then nor does anyone else...not when it comes to taking the burden of another nation onto its own shoulders and paying the cost. And then answering the critics who asked why we care about them but not about <other nation in dire straits>.

Sooner or later, every nation must draw a line and that line will be drawn somewhere short of taking care of all the ills in the world. Does that mean no nations really cares about anyone? Does it mean the populaces of said nations don't really care? Or does it perhaps suggest that the notion that we could fix all these problems if only we cared is perhaps an over-simplification?

jc

Sgt. Sensible

Rock Climber wrote:

I cant accept or understand the prevailence of the attitude by some in this thread, that its ok for all [effectively] to ignore what are accepted by most as the rules,just because one side(or a combination of allies) blatantly sidesteps the rules.Expressing those opinions is expressing a partisan opinion or as good as one.It doesnt even look subtle to me anyhow.One should come right out and say one is partisan and then face the music.

Name and shame!

Me, I think it's absurd that Israel demands the implementation of UN resolutions while ignoring 60 of them and murdering UN staff.

uberpixie

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/index.htm

Human rights watch report of Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians.

"[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]Israel at times gave assurances to officials at UNIFIL that civilian cars traveling north on the main roads would not be attacked.91 However, as documented in a number of examples below, Israel repeatedly attacked both individual vehicles and entire convoys of civilians who heeded the Israeli warnings to abandon their villages. The attacks on civilian vehicles were so fierce that, according to the Lebanese Red Cross, one ambulance driver witnessed three separate attacks while driving from Tebnine to Tyre with wounded civilans: first he witnessed the car in front of the ambulance get hit and fall into a ravine near Kafra; then a van got hit in Siddiquine, the blast of the explosion throwing the car into the air and hitting the ambulance on its side; and then a motorcycle got hit on the road near Hanaouay.92"

"[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]Human Rights Watch is hardly asserting that all Israeli strikes have targeted civilians. There are obviously many cases in which Israeli forces attacked legitimate military targets, such as rocket launchers and dug-in military positions. However, in the cases documented below, no apparent military objective existed in the civilian houses that Israel attacked. Villagers interviewed privately in one-on-one settings stated credibly and consistently that Hezbollah was not present in their homes or the vicinity when the attacks took place, and Human Rights Watch found no other evidence to suggest that Hezbollah had been there."

Interesting reading, still picking through it myself.

Not sure if this link was not already posted, but worth a look if this link was posted and you missed it.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

bonkey

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Name and shame!

Me, I think it's absurd that Israel demands the implementation of UN resolutions while ignoring 60 of them and murdering UN staff.

Whereas neither Hezbollah nor anyone other "unfriendly" in the region has ever demanded Israel live up to its obligations whilst ignoring that they themselves don't?

Sgt. Sensible

bonkey wrote:

Whereas neither Hezbollah nor anyone other "unfriendly" in the region has ever demanded Israel live up to its obligations whilst ignoring that they themselves don't?

Can you be more specific. Sorry, I don't buy both sides are as bad as each other liberal claptrap.

uberpixie

uberpixie wrote:

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/index.htm

Human rights watch report of Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians.

Interesting reading, still picking through it myself.

Not sure if this link was not already posted, but worth a look if this link was posted and you missed it.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

The Human rights watch reports make interesting reading no doubt about that all, but there is something about their reports that bother me. For example, here's two reports, firstly on Israel & the second on Hezbollah.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

"(Beirut, August 3, 2006) – Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes."

Seems to completely prove Israel's targeting of civilians, and I have no problem with that at all.

However when you read the second report about Hezbollah:

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/18/lebano13760.htm

"(New York, July 18, 2006) – Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on Sunday and Monday were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today."

Does nobody else see the difference. How, is it we don't see the same level of language used about both Hezbollah & Israel? Regardless of the level of casualties created, its the actions that these reports are focused upon.

Rock Climber

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Can you be more specific. Sorry, I don't buy both sides are as bad as each other liberal claptrap.

I see so you are partisan in this dispute[not that you were leaving much doubt]
Thats ok,you're entitled to be, but why dont you just out and out say that,rather than couching in such tones?

I suppose your only answer to that again wil be what about , what about, what about those Israeli no goods and all the bad they are doing?? Such a standpoint (the anti Israel one) is very justifiable but I havent seen one ounce of justifiability of the not so subtle stance taken that oh the Israeli's are at it so lets all be at it [read: breaking recognised UN codes of conduct/resolutions etc] in response.

Not one ounce of course other than thinly veiled partisanship.
Theres nothing wrong with being partisan you know ergo theres no need to couch it in thin veils.
Couched or not,you should expect inteligent posters to take you up on it when the veil is as thin as it is appearing here.

uberpixie

"[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]While not the focus of this report, Human Rights Watch has separately and simultaneously documented violations of international humanitarian law by Hezbollah, including a pattern of attacks that amount to war crimes.

Between July 12, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight, and July 27, the group launched a reported 1,300 rockets into predominantly civilian areas in Israel, killing 18 civilians and wounding more than 300.

Without guidance systems for accurate targeting, the rockets are inherently indiscriminate when directed toward civilian areas, especially cities, and thus are serious violations of the requirement of international humanitarian law that attackers distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians.

Some of these rockets, Human Rights Watch found, are packed with thousands of metal ball-bearings, which spray more than 100 meters from the blast and compound the harm to civilians."

I can see what you are saying Klaz. Use of language in reports is an important issue.
(what you have highlighted there does look dodgy to say the least)

This extract was taken from the report on Israel's indiscriminant attacks.

It does state that what the Hezbollah is doing does amount to a war crime and highlights the indiscriminate nature of their attacks on Israel.

To be fair from what I have seen from the report so far, is that it is pretty well balanced.
(I have not yet looked at the other reports and will do so when i get the chance)
[/SIZE][/FONT]

bonkey

Sorry, I don't buy both sides are as bad as each other liberal claptrap.

And clearly you can'/won't express this opinion without insulting anyone who does "buy it".....

...which begs me to question why anyone of such an opinion (or indeed anyone who doesn't just agree with you) would be interested in discussing the topic with you.

To be honest, I have no real issues with the content of the reports themselves. It confirms many of my own opinions about Israel's actions, however, when you look at the language, there exists a certain bias, that makes me wonder about the rest.

I would have thought launching a rocket into a city obviously indescriminate just as launching an unguided bomb from a plane would be. Both are launched into the city without regard for civilians in the way.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

it's not a problem with intelligence, they knew all that was happening in the Balkans, but they couldn't do anything because the two opposing sides both had a veto in the Security council.

In the case of Srebenize (sp?), the Dutch apparently said that if the air support they had been promised they would have was actually made available, they would probably have made a fight of it instead of just allowing the Serbs to waltz in. There have been various accusations flying around on that issue, most seem to blame the French Air Force who were supposedly the top-cover guys for that area at the time, and declined to participate for whatever reason. I need to hunt around a bit for references though, this is recollection.

NTM

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

I would have thought launching a rocket into a city obviously indescriminate just as launching an unguided bomb from a plane would be.
Both are launched into the city without regard for civilians in the way.

Yes, but whether or not its acceptable depends somewhat on your point of view. Let me explain...

Take the US today. They have the most accurate missiles and guided bombs on the planet. For them to drop unguided bombs on a city to take out specific targets would be utterly indefensible.

However, 30/40 years ago, they didn't have anything better than unguided bombs, and so their use at that time was defensible - it was the best they could.

In another 30-40 years, whoever is top dog will presumably have weapons with even greater accuracy than today, and the thought of using weapons which cause as much collateral damage as today's weapons do will be indefensible. Does this mean that we must refuse to use any of today's weapons today? I doubt you'll find many who support military action who will say yes.

But not everyone has what the top dog has. Most nations are still working with tech which is comparable to what the US had 30-40 years ago. So if it was ok for the US to use this stuff back then cause it was the best they had...why is it not ok for other nations to use it today when its the best they have and the best they can get?

Either we can set definitive standards which all sides must meet which isn't predicated on anyone's current tech and we don't accept the "best we can do...bad things happen in war" excuses from anyone, or we accept that no-one can do better than their technology will allow them to and that this is hte only standard we can meaningully apply.

In this latter case, we must also accept that a disparity of capability will ultimately lead to a disparity in the standards each side must attain.

What you'll generally find is the case, however, is that whoever has the better tech will argue that they can't be expected to do better than their tech will allow, but that the other side should be held to the same absolute standard.

cik

Number 50!


HRW do invaluable work but of course they could be better (read Anne Bayefsky's criticism here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#Criticism)
I think you'll find given a long enough time line any organisation that isnt independently audited or accountable is doomed to become very flawed.

War Crimes are unimaginably bad and they may be the best reason why wars should always be avoided.

Bonkey didnt give his opinion on which standard vis a vis technological capabilities he would use if he was setting the rules for HRW, probably because he knows it its irrelevant to the victims

On a related note - is a war crime still a war crime if the victims are happy to be victims?
The Fatah member related that local residents cheered when they heard the rocket fall and saw the resulting flames. “Even if it were to fall on our heads, it wouldn’t have spoiled our joy. All of us here are praying for Hizbullah’s success and victory," he said
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3285259,00.html
of course it still would be

peace, slainte, salam and shalom

bonkey

cik wrote:

Bonkey didnt give his opinion on which standard vis a vis technological capabilities he would use if he was setting the rules for HRW, probably because he knows it its irrelevant to the victims

I didn't give my opinion because I don't believe its relevant to the point I was making which is that both sides should be held to the same standard. It is hypocritical for one side to define their standard on a sliding-scale of "the best we can do today" and then insist that this is some absolute standard for today that the other side should meet.....but that this is what happens.

If you want to set an absolute standard, set an absolute standard. There is no reason why it should include any civilian deaths.

If you want to say "best you can do with what you got", then accept that it applies to both sides, and that you accept the deaths of civilians based on the quality of the hardware that is being used.

Of course it doesn't matter to the dead. They're still dead either way. But thats not what I was talking about.

On a related note - is a war crime still a war crime if the victims are happy to be victims?

In my eyes, yes. I judge a crime by the intent and actions of the perpetrator, not by the reaction of the victim.

peace, slainte, salam and shalom

Indeed...although it should probably be siochan more than slainte.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Yes, but whether or not its acceptable depends somewhat on your point of view. Let me explain...

Take the US today. They have the most accurate missiles and guided bombs on the planet. For them to drop unguided bombs on a city to take out specific targets would be utterly indefensible.

So Israel uses precision bombs in a city which take out their target killing civilians in the process (intentional or not), whereas Hezbollah just aim at the city in the minutely possible chance that they'll hit a military target?

Is that not the same?

Cause I would have considered Hezbollah's actions to be the same as Israel in this case, regardless of the technology involved.

On a side note, does anyone know if Israel get the US's best precision weaponry, or stuff similiar to what other advanced countries (UK, Germany, etc) are manufacturing themselves? Just curious.

g-punkteffekt

I know it's the daily mail, but this is just unbelievable what he's writing...
check it out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=399003

Bookee

Outrageous. Did the Editor even read it before Publication... ?

county

everyone is intitled to there opinion i suppose

Rock Climber

Threads merged

uberpixie

g-punkteffekt wrote:

I know it's the daily mail, but this is just unbelievable what he's writing...
check it out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=399003

I honestly don't know which turns my stomach more, the article it's self or some of the most ignorant, blind and hateful comments made in supporting the article.

gandalf

Just commented on it. Absolutely pathetic and disgusting article but then again what do you expect from Richard Littlejohn (Sky TV's version of a shock jock!).

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

So Israel uses precision bombs in a city which take out their target killing civilians in the process (intentional or not), whereas Hezbollah just aim at the city in the minutely possible chance that they'll hit a military target?

Is that not the same?

If you're on the receiving end, sure.

If you're judging from an external view, it depends on what basis you have for judgement, and there is no clear-cut unquestionably-right basis to use. This is all I was trying to say. It may or may not be the same, depending on your point of view.

Cause I would have considered Hezbollah's actions to be the same as Israel in this case, regardless of the technology involved.

I've never said you're wrong.

The only thing I said which would be wrong is defining the standard for one side on "they're doing the best they can with what they have" and the other side on "they're not doing the best the other side is capable of, even though that would be impossible given what they have"....which is typically what I see behind assertions that Hezbollah are showing less care than Israel.

gandalf

gandalf wrote:

Just commented on it. Absolutely pathetic and disgusting article but then again what do you expect from Richard Littlejohn (Sky TV's version of a shock jock!).

Well they published most of my comment. They left out the part where I said Syria and Irans influence had to be dealt with as well.

This is what they published of my comments.

What a pathetic effort at justifying the carnage that Israel is visiting on Lebanon. To trivialise the death of civilians and then claim it is justified is sickening.

By your logic the UK would have been right to bomb Dublin for the actions of the IRA instead of taking the correct approach which was to help marginalise them and eventually make them an irrelevance to the majority of the population they claimed to represent. Thanks to Israel's actions Christians in the Lebanon are supporting Hezbollah.