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

The Saint

While it might be true to say that if in 1948 the Palestinians accepted partition they might have more than they have now I'd prefer to ask why the indigionous population would accept their own disenfranchisement and ethnic cleansing from their own land to facilitate immigrants especially when it was forced upon them without their consent or even their consultation. Anyway, this is all off topic so back to the matter at hand.

I think it's quite relevant to place the current event into some context to get a clearer picture of the whole situation.

The power station that was bombed by the Israelis provided 60% of the power to the Gaza strip and is essential for the distribution of water. This power station will be out of commission for between 3-6 months. This amounts to collective punishment under the fourth Geneva convention where it states that civilians are not to be targetted in retribution for the actions of a military force. The use of sonic booms as a method of intimidation against the civilian population can also be percieved as a violation of international humanitarian law which states that "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

Since the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza last year the IDF have fired 7000-9000 rockets into the Gaza strip. In the last 6 months alone more than 80 Palestinians have been killed by such attacks. On the other hand Palestinian militants have fired 1000 qassam rockets into Israel from the Gaza strip in the same timeframe. In the last five years 8 Israelis have been killed by qassam rockets.

Now for prisoners. The Palestinian militants currently hold one Israeli prisoner. There are around 9000 Palestinian prisoners currently being held in Israeli jails. Around 800 of these are administrative detainees which means they are being held without charge or without trial. Eight thousand are being held after being convicted by military tribunals of which many were probably convicted due to confessions made under torture which is effectively legal in Israel.

Below are some links from B'Tselem with some more interesting statistics that might help to put the whole situation into some context.

Stats on detentions:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Detainees_and_Prisoners.asp
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Minors_in_IDF_Detention.asp
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Minors_in_IPS_Detention.asp
http://www.btselem.org/English/Administrative_Detention/Statistics.asp

Stats on casualties:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Frederico

"The destruction of a power station, the attack on the offices of the Palestinian prime minister, the arbitrary arrests of a large number of democratically-elected representatives of the people and ministers... cannot be justified." - Switzerland (Geneva convention, that thing, you know)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5145654.stm

bonkey

Frederico wrote:

Switzerland (Geneva convention, that thing, you know)

I'm at a loss as to why the connection is being suggested, both in the BBC article or by Frederico here.

This was a statement by Switzerland, as a neutral nation.

Where the GC was signed has nothing to do with it.

If anything, the Swiss are making more of these comments than before because they see it as their duty now that they've actually joined the UN, but I guess second-newest member of the UN doesn't carry quite the same "oomph".

The Saint

Sorry to drag this off topic but I want to address the idea that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to drive her into the sea or wipe her off the map. If you look at Israels borders you will see that it has border with five countries. Israel already has normalised relations with Egypt and Jordan. In 2002 Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia made a proposition at an Arab League meeting. This proposition stated that Israel would gain full recognition and normalisation of relations if it withdrew to the pre-1967 borders as is required of them under UN 242 anyway. Throughout the 1990's Israel and Syria were conducting negotiations for peace. Syria offered full reconition of Israel and her sovereignty and territorial integrity for return of land aquired by Israel from Syria in 1967. Israel refused. The talks collapsed after the begining of the current intifada. Syria has continualy asked for a continuation of negociations based on land for peace.

It doesn't seem, like others say, that Israel is surrounded by rabid bloodthirsty neighbours. If Israel did what was required of them under international law they would more than likely be living in peace, stability and prosperity with its neighbours. Until international law is adhered to Israels neighbours have no reason to normalise relations with Israel.

The Saint

The Saint wrote:

Until international law is adhered to Israels neighbours have no reason to normalise relations with Israel.

There is no doubt but that the paranoia about their neighbours to some extent fuels Israel's position. But, as that old line goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Israel has had a fractious border with the Lebanon and it is pretty clear that that the South Lebanon has been used down through the years as a base from which to launch attacks by Hezbollah against Israel. Furthermore, I can appreciate why Syria would ask for their land back, but they lost it in a war when they tried to crush the newish state of Israel and were soundly beaten. Furthermore, the links between Syria and the assination of the Lebanese PM are under investigation so they clearly 'have issues' - can you imagine what would happen if Israel killed the leader of the Hamas government? Syria have questions to answer about their intermeddling in the area, and I don't think the Israelis would trust any peace overtures when Syria are merely seeking the return of lands. Syria certainly can't suggest that any other country should adhere to 'international law'.

It is fair to say that Jordan and Egypt have a more normalised relationship with Israel, again after trying to take that country on before and losing. The comments from Iraq, admittedly a non-neighbour, about wiping Israel/Jews out/away/off the map (depending on the translation) and that the Jews must go back to where they came from won't have improved the goodwill in the area.

The Saint

Israel has had a fractious border with the Lebanon and it is pretty clear that that the South Lebanon has been used down through the years as a base from which to launch attacks by Hezbollah against Israel.

True but Lebanon is hardly a threat. Hezbollah launch rockets into the Israeli occupied Sheeba farms which are under international law owned by Syria. The Lebanese government is also trying to get Hezbollah to disarm. Lebanon are also unlikely to agree to normalisation of relations with Israel before Syria given Syria's political influence in the country still.

Furthermore, I can appreciate why Syria would ask for their land back, but they lost it in a war when they tried to crush the newish state of Israel and were soundly beaten.

Yes but Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt after Camp David even though Egypt had also been one of the beligerent powers to attack Israel and the one that actually did Israel more damage. This is probably why Israel was so willing to do a deal with the Egyptians even when Egypt made more demands of Israel than they had before the 1973 war. Israel knows that Syria is in no position to harm her. It couldn't even win against Israel in three wars with the help of it's partners. For god sake they can't even do anything about Israeli jets flying around the presidents summer home.

Syria have questions to answer about their intermeddling in the area, and I don't think the Israelis would trust any peace overtures when Syria are merely seeking the return of lands. Syria certainly can't suggest that any other country should adhere to 'international law'.

True but Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon in accordance with the Security Council resolution which is more than Israel has done and is co-operating with the Harriri probe. I can't imagine any other country accepting an international investigation into it's affairs even to the point of interviewing it's president. Israel certainly wouldn't. They wouldn't even allow an independent inquiry into Sabra and Shatilla, Jenin, the beach explosion. Aquiring land in war or through force is also against international law. Syria is no longer controlling parts of another country which the Israelis are. Syria has also never settled the land that it has controlled also in violation of international law. Israel has settled areas of the Golan Heights again against international law.

The comments from Iraq, admittedly a non-neighbour, about wiping Israel/Jews out/away/off the map (depending on the translation) and that the Jews must go back to where they came from won't have improved the goodwill in the area.

I presume you mean Iran. I'd be surprised if the Iraqi government hasn't already recognised Israel or will do so soon. I agree the rhetoric coming from Ahmedinijad is disturbing even if Iran has never attacked Israel. However what that has to do with its relations with Israels neighbouring countries I can't quite grasp. Surely Israel normalising relations with her neighbours would make her more secure from potential agression from Iran. I'm sure Iran wouldn't be so inclined attack Israel if all other countries in the region had diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

Sand

Both sides are wrong.

I would hazard that most of those objecting to Israeli actions here would agree with that, but whether or not thats true doesn't really matter.

I would hazard a guess otherwise. I read much more about understanding the plight of the Palestinians than I do about understanding the plight of the Israelis. One sides apparently forced by their circumstances to do evil things...the others are just plain evil I guess.

Either way - doesnt really matter. Everyones impressions differ.

Cliche it may be, but its true.

Whats true about it? Its meaningless. Evasion of having to form an opinion. And a cliche.

^Now that's what a post should look like and bang on the money to boot IMO. Sorry if praise is off topic, but the above echoes my sentiments exactly.

Agreed - quality post. But it will be drowned out. Should be stickied imo.

However they may have good reason to not recognise Israel, as it's very legality as a sovereign nation state is open to question.

As Sceptre noted, who cares? Its very reality as a sovereign nation state isnt open for question.

Syria has continualy asked for a continuation of negociations based on land for peace.

Israelis might be slightly wary given that Gaza doesnt exactly demonstrate a clear correlation between peace and handing over land.

In terms of Israelis overriding and very understandable priority - its security - land for peace is not the basis for a deal. Why hand over land to an unfriendly, potentially hostile neighbour? I can see why the Arab powers would like it, but what does Israel get out of it?

bonkey

Sand wrote:

but what does Israel get out of it?

A potential improvement in the prospects for a lasting peace, and another potential improvement in overall international relations?

Its not like they couldn't / wouldn't re-occupy if it all went south and while it would be no more in keeping with international agreements than the current occupation it would at least have a somewhat higher moral ground.

I accept its a risk, particularly while the opposition it faces is not (officially, at least) government-controlled. I also accept that the neighbouring nations may have to accept some uncomfortable pre-conditions, but the current stance of "solve all the problems we face, and then we can talk" is a tired old formula that I honestly can't recall working anywhere for anyone and which certainly has a record dominated with failure.

The Saint

The Saint wrote:

I presume you mean Iran.

Sorry, my mistake.

The Saint wrote:

Surely Israel normalising relations with her neighbours would make her more secure from potential agression from Iran. I'm sure Iran wouldn't be so inclined attack Israel if all other countries in the region had diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

Good point. Hadn't really thought about it in that manner, was thinking with more of a 'siege mentality' but accept the logic of the point you make.

Sand

A potential improvement in the prospects for a lasting peace, and another potential improvement in overall international relations?

Potential and prospects...When were talking about something as vital as security, I doubt the Israelis will be swayed by words like potential and prospects. The Israelis would be giving something concrete and solid for practically nothing.

And at the end of the day Syria and co could continue to turn a blind eye to terrorism launched from its territory into Israel, and claim that theyre doing everything they can to stop it without actually doing anything at all - it would afterall involve confronting a dangerous foe that could topple their regimes. Could you see world support for an Israeli incursion into handed over territory that was used for launching rocket attacks on Israel?

Judging by the reaction to the Gaza handover (rocket attacks on Israeli towns near the Gaza border, either official support or official fear of confrontation from the Hamas/PLO) and the Israeli incursion in response (the soldier is just a catalyst imo), I sincerly doubt it.

Israel can be rightly blamed for a lot of things - but lets not blame them for not being completely stupid in terms of land for peace. It doesnt work in the absence of peace...

yomchi

sceptre wrote:

No right minded human could condone the idiocy on either side. There are few people with half a brain with the ability to type so we could probably do without the exaggerated sense of whimsy. Personally I tend to think that anyone who says that either side is just plain right could do with a labelled drawing of an arse and an elbow for reference but then I've pretty high standards.

I'm a little more sympathetic, as a moderator, to people who take the time to explain and develop their own views on-site rather than just dedicate a majority of their posts in one thread merely telling someone that "your (sic) uneducated" without bothering to take the time to illustrate how their own view is comparatively more valid. Please remember that when replying. I'm fine with short constructive replies from people. The key word is "constructive". Obviously I have my own views on this topic, I've explained them before with a nice declaration of tea invites so I probably won't bother to do so again but merely telling somenoe else that they don't know what they're talking about isn't worth a hill of tea in this world, which most contributors on both sides of this discussion (and those in the middle) appear to realise.

No offence oh mighty moderator.. but yawn..

I stated what I believed to be true. I've been to Palestine, I've seen it for myself first hand and annoys me that anyone would say that Israel is right in what they are doing, and clearly anyone that thinks it is not 'up to speed' (is that better for you rather than uneducated?) on the whole conflict.

And to be honest I find your attitude of - if anyone thinks that anyside is just plain right doesn't know thier arse from their elbow - also shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality on the ground in Gaza.
So with respect you can keep your pompous knuckle rapping for someone who cares.

Shall I await banning?

sceptre

Jon wrote:

Shall I await banning?

Doubt it, in my ordinary user mode, you're effectively highlighting that you're just posting with vague vagueness, in my moderator mode you're sort of doing the same thing. If you really didn't care you wouldn't have bothered replying, even if it was just to effectively say "hey, man, you're you know, like, so wrong".

yomchi

hey, man, you're you know, like, so wrong

yomchi

ok vague vagueness... and you didn't? Your analogy was arse and elbow..very good!

What exactly do you want me to post? the entire history to the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

sceptre

Jon wrote:

ok vague vagueness... and you didn't?

Nope, I've a longish post on the previous page to explain my views and I've only managed to briefly cover six month's worth of developments in the region. Rather than waste everyone's time posting the same stuff repeatedly without development, you can choose to do likewise or stop posting. I can only help you with the latter.

bonkey

Jon wrote:

I've seen it for myself first hand and annoys me that anyone would say that Israel is right in what they are doing, and clearly anyone that thinks it is not 'up to speed' (is that better for you rather than uneducated?) on the whole conflict.

It amazes me that you think Israelis are either uneducated or not up to speed about what they themselves are up to.

Because, see, they (at least some of them) believe they are right, and by your comment above, that can only be because they don't know what they're talking about.

The absolute belief of both sides in their correctness / righteousness is part of the problem...not some indication that people do or do not know what they are talking about.

yomchi

It amazes me that you think Israelis are either uneducated or not up to speed about what they themselves are up to.

Bonkey, if you read over the previous posts you will find that this is quite clearly NOT what im talking about.

bonkey

Jon wrote:

Bonkey, if you read over the previous posts you will find that this is quite clearly NOT what im talking about.

Anyone who thinks Israel is right doesn't know what they're on about.

This is what you said. You didn't offer any ifs, buts or maybes. It may not be what you meant, but I can't be expected to know what that would be when its something other than what you actually wrote.

(Some) Israeli's think Israel is right. By your original claim which I quoted, they cannot know what they're on about. Your response to me is suggesting that you don't believe this at all, despite it being an inevitable conclusion from what you actually stated.

Once you accept that some people can believe in Israel's correctness and be clued in, then your previous assumption that someone mustn't know what they're talking about because they supoprt Israel is without basis.

Now, if you'd like to reword your belief as to what is the giveaway in terms of someone not being educated, thats entirely your perogative, bit while you insist that what you wrote is correct, then logically my argument is also correct despite you disagreeing with it.

The Saint

Israelis might be slightly wary given that Gaza doesnt exactly demonstrate a clear correlation between peace and handing over land.

And the Egyptians and the Jordanians might argue conversely. Syria is a state and has a greater ability to deal with what is happening within in borders unlike the Palestinian army and police which are effectively useless. Also those in Gaza would still argue that the majority of their land is still under Isreali control and still have the right to resist. The Syrians wouldn't have this excuse. The Golan heights could be declared a demilitarised zone and be monitored by UN peacekeeping forces as is the case with a small part of the Golan Heights since 1974. Obviously details would need to be worked out but thats what negotiations are for.

Potential and prospects...When were talking about something as vital as security, I doubt the Israelis will be swayed by words like potential and prospects. The Israelis would be giving something concrete and solid for practically nothing.

I wouldn't call peace, recognition, security, diplomatic and economic relations nothing. It was good enough to do a deal with Egypt and Jordan, why not Syria. Maybe if Syria was more militarily powerful and more of a threat then a deal would be more likely the same as happened with Egypt in Camp David. Again Israels occupation of the Golan Heights and all the other occupied land is illegal so abiding by international law would also make it a good world citizen.

And at the end of the day Syria and co could continue to turn a blind eye to terrorism launched from its territory into Israel, and claim that theyre doing everything they can to stop it without actually doing anything at all - it would afterall involve confronting a dangerous foe that could topple their regimes. Could you see world support for an Israeli incursion into handed over territory that was used for launching rocket attacks on Israel?

See point above. Obviously agreements would have to be made before such a withdrawl took place.

Judging by the reaction to the Gaza handover (rocket attacks on Israeli towns near the Gaza border, either official support or official fear of confrontation from the Hamas/PLO) and the Israeli incursion in response (the soldier is just a catalyst imo), I sincerly doubt it.

Also see point above. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Also look at the casualties from Qassam rockets and the casualties from Israeli air strikes.

Israel can be rightly blamed for a lot of things - but lets not blame them for not being completely stupid in terms of land for peace. It doesnt work in the absence of peace...

As I said above, why did it work foir Egypt and Jordan? Also there have been no military conflict between Isreal and Syria for 23 years. It's not exactly what you'd call all out conflict is it.

I'm not saying that Israel should up and leave without conditions. Of course Syria would have to agree to no allow attacks on Israel from its territory. It would have to stop harbouring and funding terrorists also. It would have to recognise Israel and normalise relations with Israel. But Israel is unwilling to withdraw from all of the Golan Heights and that is where the negotiations in the 1990's collapsed.

Anyway, all of this is way off from the original topic. Thee threads always go into the history of things which is fairly irrelivant to the topic at hand.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

Anyone who thinks Israel is right doesn't know what they're on about.

This is what you said.

Maybe he/she meant to say any objective neutral who thinks Israel is morally right here (versus doing the right thing to acheive their goals of keeping Palestinian violence in check for the short term and longer term making sure the security-threat of a viable independent Palestinian state never happens) doesn't know what they are on about?

Just trying to help.

yomchi

bonkey wrote:

Anyone who thinks Israel is right doesn't know what they're on about.

This is what you said. You didn't offer any ifs, buts or maybes. It may not be what you meant, but I can't be expected to know what that would be when its something other than what you actually wrote.

(Some) Israeli's think Israel is right. By your original claim which I quoted, they cannot know what they're on about. Your response to me is suggesting that you don't believe this at all, despite it being an inevitable conclusion from what you actually stated.

Once you accept that some people can believe in Israel's correctness and be clued in, then your previous assumption that someone mustn't know what they're talking about because they supoprt Israel is without basis.

Now, if you'd like to reword your belief as to what is the giveaway in terms of someone not being educated, thats entirely your perogative, bit while you insist that what you wrote is correct, then logically my argument is also correct despite you disagreeing with it.

You should be a politician bonkey, you certainly know how to use semantics

yomchi

fly_agaric wrote:

Maybe he/she meant to say any objective neutral who thinks Israel is morally right here (versus doing the right thing to acheive their goals of keeping Palestinian violence in check for the short term and longer term making sure the security-threat of a viable independent Palestinian state never happens) doesn't know what they are on about?

Just trying to help.

Thank you for trying, and its good to know someone copped what I meant

New_Departure06

Israelis might be slightly wary given that Gaza doesnt exactly demonstrate a clear correlation between peace and handing over land.

Maybe that would have worked out better had Israel not continued endless airstrikes on Gaza after withdrawl. I also fail to see what killing 19 Palestinians on a beach had to do with Israeli security.

johnthesavage

kaiser1 wrote:

I think Isreal is dead right in thier choice of dealing with the kidnapping of one of thier soldiers.With fanatical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad there is no reasoning with them.....there for Isreal needs to show that when you mess with them the consequences are going to be devestating. Its this show of force and a strong will by Isreal thats needed.I have alot of respect for Isreal...they know thier own mind and is a country that will not under any circumstances be intimidated or terrorised into accecpting suituations that will endanger its people and its standard of living.

Do you think Israel is right to indiscriminately murder civilians? to terrorise an entire population with sonic booms? How about a blockade cutting off supplies of fuel, food and medicines? Or imprisoning hundreds of people indefinitely without trial? Or bombing the only power station in the Gaza strip?
These are the actions of a terrorist organisation, not of a legitimate government. There can be no justification for collective punishment.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

I think Israel is right. And so far, on this particular matter, they have shown some restraint. If there is no real attempt to find and hand back the soldier, they should escalate military action.

If you forget that Hamas were recognizing a ceasefire prior to Israel shelling a beach and killing whole civilian families at once. My what restraint
Then Hamas attacked the Israeli MILITARY in retaliation and took a IDF soldier prisoner. Israel "in retaliation" are collectively punishing the civilian population...a war crime. Still Hamas tries to negotiate the illegal detention of thousands of its citizens for ONE IDF soldier.

Chakar

Okay we don't know the situation what Israel are facing they might know information that we don't aka intelligience, incoming attacks that were averted.

We can't pass judgement as we can't possibly know the full story.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Agree with a lot of your post. Except the bit about the founding of the state being as simple as 'post WWII guilt' and that it was almost accidental that they settled on the area we now call Israel. Furthermore huge numbers who moved to Israel were Jews expelled from other Arab countries.

After the Stern gang and the newly created Israeli military sent loads of Palestinian refugees into their countries.

sovtek

Chakar wrote:

Okay we don't know the situation what Israel are facing they might know information that we don't aka intelligience, incoming attacks that were averted.

We can't pass judgement as we can't possibly know the full story.

It doesn't matter because it doesnt' justify war crimes against civilians. It's also a huge leap of faith.

Chakar

sovtek wrote:

It doesn't matter because it doesnt' justify war crimes against civilians. It's also a huge leap of faith.

I agree there's a lot of questions surrounding the circumstances.I don't know why they're not providing a more clearer set of reasons to assault the Gaza.

Ah well..

New_Departure06

Chakar wrote:

I agree there's a lot of questions surrounding the circumstances.I don't know why they're not providing a more clearer set of reasons to assault the Gaza.

Ah well..

It's obvious that besides rescuring Gilad Shalit, they also want to bring down the Palestinian Hamas govt - which was democratically elected. This is wrong and taking soldiers prisoners is surely part of war? He is a POW. Israel only gave Hamas 1 day to get him released before they went in.

Originally Posted by Conor74
I think Israel is right. And so far, on this particular matter, they have shown some restraint. If there is no real attempt to find and hand back the soldier, they should escalate military action.

1 day waiting before invading Gaza is hardly restraint. They should have given diplomacy a chance. Escalating military action? It's like saying that the Brits would have had a right to bomb Derry over a British soldier going missing. Which is of course an outrageous proposition and an example of collective-punishment.