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

freddyfreeload

Wow, there are too many holes in your thinking to know where to begin. But just a few quick points of order.

1. This crisis is taking place in Lebanon, not Gaza.

2. Yes, the Palestinians did vote Hamas in. But Israel has been fighting Hizbollah in Lebanon, not Hamas.

3. So it therefore follows that Hamas did not capture any Israeli soldiers. Hizbollah did.

4. And it's worthwhile mentioning that Hizbollah is a legal entity within Lebanon, with an electoral mandate. You may not like this, just as many people did not like the fact that Sinn Fein was a legal entity with an electoral mandate during the troubles, but it is so. And yes, Hizbollah are paramilitaries, as are the Israeli Militia.

ff

freddyfreeload

As I understand it the problem with the Shebaa farms goes something like this:

1. The people who live there consider themselves Lebanese.

2. It has technically been declared Syrian territory by the UN (who relied on out of date maps to make this determination) in 2000.

3. Despite this, Syria has agreed that the territory belongs to Lebanon, but...

4. Syria can't transfer the land to Lebanon because it is "occupied" by Israel.

5. This occupation is in contravention of a unanimous Security Council resolution calling Isreal's annexation null and void.

It seems clear, therefore, that the power to end a large part of Hizbollah's raison d'etre, rests with Isreal. If they withdraw from the Shebaa Farms area, Syria could transfer the land to Lebanon. Job done for Hizbollah. Problem over for Isreali civilians.

Sadly, I think the root of the problem is that the last thing the Isreali govt wants is for the Hizbollah threat to go away. Just like the US needs the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And N.I. Unionists need the threat of Republican violence.

Without these threats, all that's left is dialogue, which allows logic to take over, and logic dictates outcomes none of these groupings want.

ff

The Saint

The UN recognises the Shebaa farms as being Syrian. The Syrians have implicitly stated that they are Lebanese but have not done so officially. It's quite irrelevant whether Israel holds them or not. Syria could give over the rights of the Sheeba farms to Lebanon and then they would be seen as occupied Lebanese territory in which case Israel would probably be more likely to withdraw in return for full recognition and full peace. However, I believe that Syria wants to keep them as leverage against the Lebanese. Since the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon they've had little direct leverage over the country except the issue of the Shebaa farms. If Syria gives the Sheeba farms to Lebanon there is nothing to stop Lebanon from formally recognising and normalising relations with Israel for withdrawl from the Shebaa farms therefore weakening the Syrian position with regards to the rest of the Golan Heights.

Hobbes

The Saint wrote:

It's quite irrelevant whether Israel holds them or not.

I would of thought the reverse. If it was legally Syrias as you say then Israel should withdraw and let Syria take the land then work it out with Lebanon.

You don't get to sit on land just because its contested.

The Saint

Hobbes wrote:

I would of thought the reverse. If it was legally Syrias as you say then Israel should withdraw and let Syria take the land then work it out with Lebanon.

You don't get to sit on land just because its contested.

It's not me who says they're legally Syria's, it is the UN. Israel will not withdraw from the Sheeba farms because it is currently part of the Syrian Golan Heights which Israel has also occupied and partly settled. Israel will not give a damn thing to Syria. Israel would be more likely to give over the unoccupied Sheeba farms to Lebanon for full peace and recognition. It would not do so with Syria as it has no intention of giving up all of the Golan Heights. Syria has asked for talks to resume on the Golan Heights but Israel has refused.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

As I understand it the problem with the Shebaa farms goes something like this:

1. The people who live there consider themselves Lebanese.

So? I'm sure some people that live there consider themselves to be Syrian. In Wales, some people consider themselves to be Welsh and some British. It doesn't change the fact that it is British territory.

2. It has technically been declared Syrian territory by the UN (who relied on out of date maps to make this determination) in 2000.

Not quite. The UN refers to maps which show the area as being Syrian territory created by Syria themselves. The only map provided that showed the area as being Lebanese what determined to be a forgery, due to the number of other maps from both Syrian & Lebanese sources from the same period (Mid-60's) which showed the area as being Syrian. They could only be considered out-dated if you would also consider the map provided as proof as also being outdated.

In any case, there were commissions by Syria & Lebanon before Israel took the land, which never agreed upon who owned the land. At the time that Israel occupied the territory, it was an area administrated by Syria with Syrian troops there, not Lebanese.

Also as far as I can tell from searching online, the first claim from Lebanon to Israel or the UN for those lands, came in 2000, rather a long time after Israel occupied the territory. [Maybe you can find references to previous Lebanese claims, but I couldn't]

3. Despite this, Syria has agreed that the territory belongs to Lebanon, but...

Syria has still yet to officially recognise the lebanese claim. They have yet to offically confirm this with the UN or with Israel. They've postured and spoken about it, but they have not taken a pernament stance on the topic, despite repeated requests from the UN to do so. The opportunity for them to make this decision has been with them for years.

4. Syria can't transfer the land to Lebanon because it is "occupied" by Israel.

And Israel can't transfer the land, because Syria won't acknowledge ownership, or transfer the right of that original ownership to Lebanon, thus opening the possibility of negotiations to transfer the land. At this time Israel is occupying Syrian land, which Syria refuses to acknowledge as their own.

But even then the first step would be to claim or deny ownership of the land as being Syrian. Transfer could be organised once they knew who actually owned the territory.

(If it was determined that it was Lebanese territory rather than Syrian, I daresay Israel would move quick enough, with some assurances that Hizbollah would cease its war. Unfortuently, no such assurance is likely to be kept by Hizbollah)

5. This occupation is in contravention of a unanimous Security Council resolution calling Isreal's annexation null and void.

Agreed.

It seems clear, therefore, that the power to end a large part of Hizbollah's raison d'etre, rests with Isreal. If they withdraw from the Shebaa Farms area, Syria could transfer the land to Lebanon. Job done for Hizbollah. Problem over for Isreali civilians.

Not really, since Hizbollah are firstly fighting over Syrian land rather than Lebanese lands already (which you must consider to be Syrian land, in order for them to transfer it), despite Hizbollah's claim that the only reason they fight is that Israel is still in Lebanon.

And secondly, Hizbollah have claimed that returning the Sheeba farm territory will not stop their war, e.g.

However, Hezbollah's spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin had this to say about the Farms: "If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.”[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

Personally I would consider the onus on Hizbollah to provide a measure of trust before Israel could believe that the transfer of the Sheeba Farms would generate peace. After all, Hizbollah are refusing to lay down their arms in direct opposition of the very cease-fire agreement made recently. Israel has no reason to trust Hizbollah or Lebanon on this, whereas at least Israel has obeyed the cease-fire, and some previous UN resolutions. Hizbollah has failed to follow any of those resolutions.

Sadly, I think the root of the problem is that the last thing the Isreali govt wants is for the Hizbollah threat to go away. Just like the US needs the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And N.I. Unionists need the threat of Republican violence.

Not really since they still have to deal with Hamas and a number of other threats from their current neighbours. Israel has plenty of enemies to contend with already. Before this current conflict with Hizbollah, there were still attacks on Israeli's from other areas. And while this conflict has been occuring, there has been attacks from other groups. Israel has trouble with or without Hizbollah.

Without these threats, all that's left is dialogue, which allows logic to take over, and logic dictates outcomes none of these groupings want.

Actually I would consider the only groups that don't want peace are the "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". They're the ones that will no longer have purpose should peace occur, and be maintained.

Israel's forces on the other hand is made up of its very citizens. These people have their own professions & lives to go back to, and peace benefits countries more than it does factions like Hizbollah. Israeli's and members of the IDF live under threat all their lives, so they appreciate peace all the more, because they get so little of it.

Peace would benefit the Israeli economy (and its citizens) more than war would. Do you think peace or war would help Hizbollah?

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Israel's forces on the other hand is made up of its very citizens. These people have their own professions & lives to go back to, and peace benefits countries more than it does factions like Hizbollah. Israeli's and members of the IDF live under threat all their lives, so they appreciate peace all the more, because they get so little of it.

Being that Hezbollah formed AFTER Israel invaded Lebanon that's quite a jump in logic.
Hezbollah is made up of it's citizens' as well.
Those poor little IDF kittens, they are so weak and defensless against the brown people.

Peace would benefit the Israeli economy (and its citizens) more than war would. Do you think peace or war would help Hizbollah?

Yes peace would greatly benefit both sides and their respective economies.
Its telling how you quote Hezbollah rhetoric but seem to be ignoring Israeli rhetoric which has a longer history of calling for more expansion and the "Arab problem". What makes you think that the Israeli government and its militants wants peace when it has consistantly attacked it's neighbors since before it's inception as a nation.

Hobbes

The Saint wrote:

It's not me who says they're legally Syria's, it is the UN. ....

So as I understand it they are illegally on land they don't own and will refuse to give it back unless they get a bribe in return?

Like I said they shouldn't be on the land to begin with.

The Saint

Hobbes wrote:

So as I understand it they are illegally on land they don't own and will refuse to give it back unless they get a bribe in return?

Like I said they shouldn't be on the land to begin with.

Yip, that's essentially it. Although UN242 calls for peace for withdrawl so if Syria were to give the Sheeba farms to Lebanon and Israel withdrew then Lebanon would be compelled to make peace with Israel. I couldn't see Israel giving it back without peace, recognition and security guarantees from Lebanon.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Being that Hezbollah formed AFTER Israel invaded Lebanon that's quite a jump in logic.

Not really since while Israel from Lebanon retreated per the conditions of the UN resolutions, and were certified in doing so, Hezbollah never disarmed despite that being part of the resolution that caused Israel to withdraw.

Hezbollah is made up of it's citizens' as well.

Indeed they are. However do you disagree that peace benefits Israel more than war, and that peace benefits Hezbollah not at all?

Those poor little IDF kittens, they are so weak and defensless against the brown people.

Which brown people? The civilians or Hezbollah? And I never mentioned anything about being weak and defenseless, so take your sarcasm elsewhere. I spoke about the IDF and Israel being under threat all the time, which is the truth, considering the number of attacks made on their country over the decades.

Its telling how you quote Hezbollah rhetoric but seem to be ignoring Israeli rhetoric which has a longer history of calling for more expansion and the "Arab problem". What makes you think that the Israeli government and its militants wants peace when it has consistantly attacked it's neighbors since before it's inception as a nation.

Well, provide some details then. I used a reference about Hezbollah in regards to their reason for continuing the war against Israel, regardless of Israel leaving Lebanese lands. I haven't addressed Hamas or Palestine in this. I've been talking about Lebanon & Hezbolla.

But go ahead, and post them, and I'll respond to you.

Hobbes wrote:

So as I understand it they are illegally on land they don't own and will refuse to give it back unless they get a bribe in return?

Like I said they shouldn't be on the land to begin with.

And Syria shouldn't have gone to war with them in the first place.

And the "Bribe" if the land was given to Lebanon would be for Hezbollah to finally lay down their arms. As for a Bribe from Syria I guess they feel they're entitled to it, considering the war they fought with them, and the belief that Israeli's have that Syria have supported and provided Hezbolla with an excuse to continue their war for them.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Not really since while Israel from Lebanon retreated per the conditions of the UN resolutions, and were certified in doing so, Hezbollah never disarmed despite that being part of the resolution that caused Israel to withdraw.

Israel partially withdrew and still incurred into Lebanese terroritory. Thats ignoring the other resolutions Israel defies.

Indeed they are. However do you disagree that peace benefits Israel more than war, and that peace benefits Hezbollah not at all?

Considering the decades old rhetoric and actions coming from the Israelis, yes I disagree

Which brown people? The civilians or Hezbollah?

All of the them that have been attacked by the IDF/Israeli militants since before 1948

And I never mentioned anything about being weak and defenseless, so take your sarcasm elsewhere. I spoke about the IDF and Israel being under threat all the time, which is the truth, considering the number of attacks made on their country over the decades.

I think that a military that constantly attacks its neighbors for decades should probably be under some kind of threat. Unfortunetly they aren't weak and defenseless which otherwise the region would be more likely to be peaceful.
You need to turn that whole quote on it's head and it would well describe the Israelis and the threat they pose to all their neighbors
You can't expect Hezbollah to disarm whilst the IDF constantly threatens them and their allies.

Well, provide some details then. I used a reference about Hezbollah in regards to their reason for continuing the war against Israel, regardless of Israel leaving Lebanese lands. I haven't addressed Hamas or Palestine in this. I've been talking about Lebanon & Hezbolla.

But go ahead, and post them, and I'll respond to you.

Google zionism, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan (spelling), Stern Gang...etc as I've posted them many times before.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Israel partially withdrew and still incurred into Lebanese
terroritory. Thats ignoring the other resolutions Israel defies.

Israel obeyed in full the UN resolutions regarding the withdrawal of their
forces. The Sheeba farms were exempt from the resolutions since they were
considered as Syrian lands, not Lebanons. So they withdrew to behind the
blue line, which was agreed upon. In the area of Lebanon, Israel has obeyed
the UN resolutions concerning them.

Israel incurred across the Blue line into Lebanese territory, in response in
part to actions by Hezbollah. You make it sound like Israel has had no
justification to cross the border, when the original resolutions that caused
them to withdraw from lebanon hadn't been met on the side of Lebanon/Hezbollah.

Hezbollah didn't disarm. Hezbollah didn't cease their attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah haven't ceased their war. I'm not saying that Israel is innocent.
It has indeed crossed the border, and has caused much damage in the past,
however,Israel has also been taunted into taking action by Hezbollah.

The other resolutions that Israel have defied relate to its dealings with
Palestine & Syria. Unless you can tell me which resolutions that Israel
defies regarding Lebanon, beyond the UN ruling that the annexation of the
Sheeba Farms is illegal (which I still consider Syrian lands, since I've
seen no evidence to show otherwise) ?

Klaz wrote:

Indeed they are. However do you disagree that peace benefits
Israel more than war, and that peace benefits Hezbollah not at all?

Sovtek wrote:

Considering the decades old rhetoric and actions coming from
the Israelis, yes I disagree

How does war benefit Israel more, considering the "rhetoric/actions coming
from israeli's"? I'd like some examples. Also you don't mention anything to
do with Hezbollah.....

All of the them that have been attacked by the IDF/Israeli militants
since before 1948

As you said Hezbollah was created in response of the Israeli invasion, so Hezbollah couldn't have been attacked prior to 1948, since it didn't exist yet. As for attacks on Lebanon prior to 1948 by Israeli militants, could you provide some details (unless you refer to the PLO use of Lebanon as a base of attack)? And you didn't answer my question. Who are these "brown people" you refer to?

I think that a military that constantly attacks its neighbors for
decades should probably be under some kind of threat. Unfortunetly they
aren't weak and defenseless which otherwise the region would be more likely
to be peaceful.

Yup. More peaceful, because israel would have ceased to exist, after being
occupied by either one Arab country or a number of them. Even that aside,
the region has hardly been peaceful, considering the actions of the PLO in
Jordan.

As for a military that constantly attacks its neighbours, in each instance
you'll easily be able to find provocation by those very same neighbours
either directly through their own military (The Liberation Army for
example), or by allowing factions to use their territories for strikes
against Israel despite requests for them to stop the attacks (i.e. attacks
that were launched from Lebanon both recently and in the past.).

You need to turn that whole quote on it's head and it would well
describe the Israelis and the threat they pose to all their
neighbors

Indeed you could turn that on its head, and it could indeed describe the
Israeli's threat to its neighbours. But to be honest i'd like to hear how
they're a threat to all their neighbours... especially considering Israel
didn't invade Lebanon until it was attacked itself by Hezbollah.

You can't expect Hezbollah to disarm whilst the IDF constantly
threatens them and their allies.

Actually I can expect them to disarm, since that is one of the main
conditions that Israel agreed to the cease-fire.

I'm constantly amazed by this kind of attitude. You complain about
Israel failing to meet UN resolutions, and then justify why Hezbollah
shouldn't obey those very same resolutions. - One of the main reasons that
we've had this newest conflict is that Hezbollah failed to disband after the
previous war, despite it being stipulated in the UN resolution that forced
Israel to withdraw.

And how does the IDF threaten Hezbollah, if Hezbollah actually follows what
they agreed to, by disbanding, and leaving the protection of lebanon to the
Lebanese government and a foreign task force. Without Hezbollah to provoke
Israel, there is no reason for Israel to cross the border.

As for their Allies, who would they be? Syria? Iran? Hamas? the Lebanese
government? Who are these allies you refer to and how does Israel directly
threaten them currently? Also once you name the allies, could you tell me
how Hezbollah helps these allies and in what roles?

Google zionism, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan (spelling), Stern
Gang...etc as I've posted them many times before.

I know you have. Most people that criticise Israel will post some details
about them. Hell, I've posted about them in the past also. I'm well aware of
the hardliners within Israel, and the quotes they make. However I was
curious about any dedications towards an unending war with Lebanon or a
desire to conquer Lebanon completely.

As I said, I posted that quote in regards to Hezbollah's pledge to continue the war regardless of whether Israel was in Lebanon or not. Rather the borders of Lebanon they desire rather than the ones prior to the war.

freddyfreeload

My apologies for not responding point by point, too busy I'm afraid. But suffice it to say, it really all boils down to Isreal's illegal occupation.

Syria and Lebanon could probably trundle along indefinitely without resolving this border issue, and the few people living there probably wouldn't care too much as long as they could carry on farming.

If Isreal withdrew from the Shebaa Farms, and ultimately the Golan Heights, one of the greatest causes of insecurity within the region could be settled, and popular support for Hizbollah's wider objectives would certainly drain away. (Incidentally, it looks highly likely Israel may well withdraw from the Shebaa Farms fairly shortly).

A quick question before I go though: why do you feel the onus to show good faith should rest on Hizbollah, whom I think you consider a terrorist organisation?

My expectations of terrorists are not so high. I expect terrorists to behave like terrorists, i.e. baddly, violently, improperly, immorally.

However, I expect modern democratic governments to behave like modern demotractic government, not like terrorists, which Israel has been doing for decades.

Yes, I'm sure the people want peace, but I really doubt the Isreali government does. Isreal is the USA's client. The US demands a quo for its quid. Literally. They don't fund Israel merely to promote internecine strife with the Palestinians, they do so to destabalise the entire region.

If you don't believe destabalisation is the US's goal, try reading Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Mick86

MiddleE wrote:

Do you seriously believe this? Any evidence? Have you ever spoken with Irish troops that served in the Lebanon? They'd tell you of the IDF, the small men with big guns....

I served in Lebanon with UNIFIL on four six month tours and it was part of our mission statement. Irish soldiers have no high opinion of Hezballah either by the way.

MiddleE wrote:

This is untrue! Note Shaba Farms. Please supply some/any evidence.....

It is quite true. The UN verified the Israeli withdrawal. The UN does not accept that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese territory. It was part of Syria until 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_(Lebanon)

MiddleE wrote:

You appear to take delight in the destruction of the Lebanese economy! May be you should declare your interest honestly. Can you? ...

I am not delighted that Lebanon has been ruined once again. I do however support Israel's right to defend itself against Hezballah aggression. Israel was quite justified in attacking Lebanon which harbours the terrorists. They should however have taken greater care to minimise non-combatant deaths.

MiddleE wrote:

Do you see anything wrong with my making a contribution to the Lebanon. How do you feel, if at all, to the deaths of those innocent children. Your contribution will be going to ...

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with your contributing to Lebanon. That isn't the issue. It's your casual attitude to the suffering of Lebanese citizens that I take issue with given that you won't be suffering with them. Personally I wish that wars could be conducted in a manner that makes the deaths of non-combatants impossible. Since this has never been the case and will never be the case innocent lives will always be lost in war. Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists have killed thousands of innocent Israelis, men women and children. Do Arab children matter more than Israeli children?

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

My apologies for not responding point by point, too busy I'm afraid. But suffice it to say, it really all boils down to Isreal's illegal occupation.

Actually I'd consider it all boils down to the majority of the countries and militant factions in the region not valuing peace enough. I place the occupation of those lands on the same level as going to war and loosing.

Syria and Lebanon could probably trundle along indefinitely without resolving this border issue, and the few people living there probably wouldn't care too much as long as they could carry on farming.

Agreed. And I daresay Israel would probably allow them the ability to farm if the attacks on them stopped.

If Isreal withdrew from the Shebaa Farms, and ultimately the Golan Heights, one of the greatest causes of insecurity within the region could be settled, and popular support for Hizbollah's wider objectives would certainly drain away. (Incidentally, it looks highly likely Israel may well withdraw from the Shebaa Farms fairly shortly).

I disagree. Israel transfering control of those lands would solve nothing. Until the factions that seek the continuing war with Israel decide that its no longer worthwhile, Israel will continue to hold on to those lands. The Sheeba farms may be given to Lebanon, with the aim of generating peace, because they haven't built up the area much in the intervening years. The Golan heights on the other hand are a real security issue, and won't be given back because Israel faces no guarantee that it would generate peace.

A quick question before I go though: why do you feel the onus to show good faith should rest on Hizbollah, whom I think you consider a terrorist organisation?

I consider them a terrorist organisation, but I've seen many posts here and on other boards that try to legitimise both their existance and also their goals. They try to show that Hizbollah are just acting out of self-defense for Lebanese lands, and yet I've repeatedly shown that the Sheeba Farms aren't Lebanese territory. (i know they're not checking my posts )

I consider the onus on Hizbollah because Israel has shown some good faith in seeking peace with Lebanon in the past. They withdrew per the UN resolutions, and were proven to do so. Hizbollah didn't disarm. For each instance of Israel crossing the border, you'll be able to find a reference to Hizbollah crossing aswell. And it was Hizbollah's actions in Kidnapping these soldiers, and launching rockets that caused this most current of conflicts. Usually the onus is on the aggressor to prove themselves.

I guess because Israel is judged more heavily because its a nation. Hizbollah on the other hand, despite people pointing out their position in the Lebanese government, offhandily throw away any responsibility when it choses them.

My expectations of terrorists are not so high. I expect terrorists to behave like terrorists, i.e. baddly, violently, improperly, immorally.

Fine, however as mentioned before Hizbollah apparently are more than terrorists. Let them prove that they are.

However, I expect modern democratic governments to behave like modern demotractic government, not like terrorists, which Israel has been doing for decades.

Again Hizbollah were voted into the Lebanese government. Why is it that nobody expects them to behave accordingly, rather than starting a fresh conflict?

As we've seen so far from this cease-fire Israel has withdrawn, stopped its attacks, and yet there have been incidents where Hizbollah has broken the cease-fire, and refused to lay down their arms. 1-0. Israel has already proven itself more interested in peace than Hizbollah.

Yes, I'm sure the people want peace, but I really doubt the Isreali government does. Isreal is the USA's client. The US demands a quo for its quid. Literally. They don't fund Israel merely to promote internecine strife with the Palestinians, they do so to destabalise the entire region.

Nice speculation, but destabilising the region doesn't provide the US with anything beyond a training ground for terrorist groups. For myself, the US supports Israel because its seen as the only real connection the "West" has with the M.East on a good footing. The US foreign policy heavily supports their allies, and the US has been supporting Israel right back to when there was a fear of communist influence in the M.east.

As for teh Israeli Government, I think some do and some don't. Every so often a military mind comes along that wants glory at the expense of his/her own people. For the most part I think they would be content with one war at a time. They still have plenty of issues with Hamas/Palestine without having a second front against Hizbollah.

If you don't believe destabalisation is the US's goal, try reading Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I'll take a gawk, but despite my own distrust of the US, I don't believe they want the goal of a destabilised M.East, and a continuing drain on their resources.

freddyfreeload

Sorry, short of time again!

Looks like we're going to have to beg to differ on a whole host of small points here though.

There's nothing you've said that changes my basic belief that Israel's illegal occupations and internal ethnic cleansing/segregation politics are more than security measures. They are blatant provocations designed to ensure the perpetuation of low level conflict with their Arab neighbours.

Financial and military support actually goes back to the origins of the modern Israeli state itself. The US destabalisation policy began there and then. It's good old fashioned divide and conquer tactics. In fact it was already stated British policy in the region. The US merely took over when the Brits lost the will for Empire.

I genuinely believe a proper peace deal based on the rights of both Israeli and Palestinian states to co-exist, and which resolved all other border disputes in accordance with all UN resolutions is possible. But for this to happen, the US destabalisation policy would first have to end.

Without an aggressive and provocative Israeli state/govt, there would be a genuine threat that Arab nations would a). normalise relations with Isreal, b). form closer economic and social ties with each other (and possibly Isreal too over time), c). assume complete control of the vast majority of the planet's remaining oil reserves, and d). become a major economic rival to the US.

This would be disastrous to the US domestic economy, and would bring its stated foreign policy of pre-eminent power projection to a grinding halt.

On the other hand, by funding Isreal and in counter-balancing this with equivalent financial support for Saudi Arabia, the US maintains an ugly status quo of irresolvable small disputes and conflicts.

Try reading Robert Fisk, Edward Said and of course Noam Chomsky on the subject.

And incidentally, while Hizbollah (which might hold a few seats but is not in government) might be in contravention of 1 UN resolution, Israel remains the world record holder in that department. Or perhaps two dozen Israeli breaches add up to 1 Arab breach?

One last point. You say you support Israel's response to Hizbollah's kidnapping of two soldiers. Well, the IRA once kidnapped a British SAS captain near Crossmaglen, took him across the border and shot him. Does this mean you would have supported Britain's "right" to launch RAF bombing raids and artillery attacks on Dublin, Dundalk, Monaghan and Letterkenny, followed by an invasion of counties south of the border with 30,000 British troops?

And had this happened, and had the Irish Army sat on its hands while it took place, would you have been happy or dismayed, had the IRA have tried to defend Ireland as effectively as Hizbollah did Lebanon?

ff

freddyfreeload

Sorry, that last one was for you!

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Hezbollah didn't disarm. Hezbollah didn't cease their attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah haven't ceased their war. I'm not saying that Israel is innocent.
It has indeed crossed the border, and has caused much damage in the past,
however,Israel has also been taunted into taking action by Hezbollah.

Just quickly, more responses when i have time...
Its simply not reality, just as in Israel's conflict with every other nation that surrounds it it blames the victim.
But one example:

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

"Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored 'blue line' on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and after that "persistently" including in 2006. They report that these incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas."

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

Sorry, short of time again!

Looks like we're going to have to beg to differ on a whole host of small points here though.

There's nothing you've said that changes my basic belief that Israel's illegal occupations and internal ethnic cleansing/segregation politics are more than security measures. They are blatant provocations designed to ensure the perpetuation of low level conflict with their Arab neighbours.

I must admit that I don't expect to change your point of view. We differ on this, and I don't really mind. Personally I think their Arab neighbours look to any excuse to have conflict with israel, with the exception of those neighbours that have achieved peace, and have learnt to enjoy that peace.

Financial and military support actually goes back to the origins of the modern Israeli state itself. The US destabalisation policy began there and then. It's good old fashioned divide and conquer tactics. In fact it was already stated British policy in the region. The US merely took over when the Brits lost the will for Empire.

Again we differ. After WW2, I believe the US wanted to see the end of colonial powers like the British had across the world. They encouraged Britain to release those colonies for benefits closer to home. As for the US interaction with Israel, that was far from pure support until the 1967 war.

I genuinely believe a proper peace deal based on the rights of both Israeli and Palestinian states to co-exist, and which resolved all other border disputes in accordance with all UN resolutions is possible. But for this to happen, the US destabalisation policy would first have to end.

I agree, however, I don't look to the US to cause this. I look to Israel and Palestine to achieve this themselves. Once I see Palestinians no longer supporting attacks on Israel, and Israel sticking to ceasefires, then I'll believe that peace in that region is possible.

Without an aggressive and provocative Israeli state/govt, there would be a genuine threat that Arab nations would a). normalise relations with Isreal, b). form closer economic and social ties with each other (and possibly Isreal too over time), c). assume complete control of the vast majority of the planet's remaining oil reserves, and d). become a major economic rival to the US.

All of which could occur regardless of a conflict with Israel. Prior to this current conflict in Lebanon, Israel only had true bad relations with two main states. Palestine & Syria. Lebanon was fairly quiet with the exception of Hezbollah, Iran postured and maybe supplied their enemies but remained out of the loop, and their other neighbours had fairly cordial relations with Israel.

The ability for the Arab nations to combine has always been there, and moreseo because of their onetime focus on Israel. However the peace agreements that israel has made with some of its neighbours after the 1967 war, and into 2000 has generated a rift where some Arab nations hate Israel, while others see the benefits of peace.

For me, this isn't about Israel as such. If the Arab nations wanted to be a power like your points above, they would do it. However, they've got their own agendas, and that is what separates them. Not Israel or the US.

On the other hand, by funding Isreal and in counter-balancing this with equivalent financial support for Saudi Arabia, the US maintains an ugly status quo of irresolvable small disputes and conflicts.

Its possible I suppose. Don't they supply Egypt with 2 Billion in support each year? And a number of other countries including palestine receives other funding (sorry, Aid) from the US aswell.

However israel would still be able to continue as they are without US backing. It makes it easier, and decreases the deaths of their own people, but without that aid they managed to defeat two Arab armies. That ability is still there.

And incidentally, while Hizbollah (which might hold a few seats but is not in government) might be in contravention of 1 UN resolution, Israel remains the world record holder in that department. Or perhaps two dozen Israeli breaches add up to 1 Arab breach?

We're talking about Lebanon here. Israel's ignorance about UN resolutions regarding Palestine & Syria have no bearing on this in relation to Hizbollah. If we're comparing Hamas and Israel, then Israel flouts many more resolutions.

However, in the case of lebanon & Hizbollah, Israel has obeyed more UN resolutions than Hizbollah has to date, and has shown more faith than Hizbollah since the current ceasefire has been agreed.

One last point. You say you support Israel's response to Hizbollah's kidnapping of two soldiers. Well, the IRA once kidnapped a British SAS captain near Crossmaglen, took him across the border and shot him. Does this mean you would have supported Britain's "right" to launch RAF bombing raids and artillery attacks on Dublin, Dundalk, Monaghan and Letterkenny, followed by an invasion of counties south of the border with 30,000 British troops?

I support that a response had to be made, I just don't support the way they did it. Israel has the right to defend itself.

And had this happened, and had the Irish Army sat on its hands while it took place, would you have been happy or dismayed, had the IRA have tried to defend Ireland as effectively as Hizbollah did Lebanon?

Dismayed that they chose to goad Britain into attacking civilian areas, as a way of gaining support. I don't support the Air campaign in any shape or form. neither do I support the use of civilian areas as cover for launching attacks.

And regardless of what the IRA do, I'm against their involvement. We have our own Army, as does lebanon which are the lawful defenders of our country. Let them fight the war. There is no valid reason for having a militant organisation outside the law, to fight your battles for you, when you have your own army.

I also wouldn't have much time for the IRA had they been meant to disband, and refused in direct violation of the previous agreements, and current ones.

You can use the IRA as an example if you want, however, I don't think its a similiar case.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Just quickly, more responses when i have time...
Its simply not reality, just as in Israel's conflict with every other nation that surrounds it it blames the victim.
But one example:

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

"Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored 'blue line' on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and after that "persistently" including in 2006. They report that these incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas."

One Question: Did Hezbollah disband after Israel withdrew behind the Blue Line, and were certified by the UN as doing so?

mrhydeandseek

Hezbollah has my full support. :cool:

**** "Israel" and the USA.

whatever :rolleyes:

mrhydeandseek

mrhydeandseek wrote:

Hezbollah has my full support. :cool:

**** "Israel" and the USA.

In response I would say Israel has my full support, as does any country seeking to protect its citizens from terrorists backed by Muslim fundamentalist fanatics.

I wouldn't normally say that because I don't think it advances the debate one jot, but I feel it's an apt response for your post.

oscarBravo

In response I would say don't feed the trolls.

mrhydeandseek, stop trolling.

banaman

once again the "debate" sinks to name calling and tit-for-tat.
As a dyed-in -the-wool humanitarian I believe that no progress will be made until the US and thertefore Israel realise that military might does NOT confer security in situations that involve nationalism or religious strife.
The ONLY hope of peace is to build a genuine and coherent system of trust and dialogue.
In order for this to happen Israel is going to have to learn to talk to its neighbours as equals NOT as despised inferiors.
I agree that for their part Hamas and Hezbollah will have to drop their insistance on the destuction of the state of Israel.
I also agree this will be difficult, but as NI has shown over time it IS possible.
However none of this will happen while the situation in Gaza remains as it is and while the US effectively bankrolls whatever israel does.

As an illustration I used to know 2 brothers the elder was ok but a bit of a Psycho when provoked (and he didn't take much provoking). His younger brother could have been a really decent bloke but because his big brother pulverised anyone who upset "baby bro", "baby bro" became a right plonker and everyone avoided him.

Mick86

banaman wrote:

As a dyed-in -the-wool humanitarian I believe that no progress will be made until the US and thertefore Israel realise that military might does NOT confer security in situations that involve nationalism or religious strife.

Military might has conferred security for hundreds of years. It does not provide immunity from attack but it provides the means to defeat the attackers.

banaman wrote:

The ONLY hope of peace is to build a genuine and coherent system of trust and dialogue.

Impossible. Peace must come first. Then trust and dialogue are possible. The Arabs have been attacking Israel for decades and then painting Israel as the aggressor when it defends itself. The rest of the world then starts breast-beating and demanding that Israel trust the attackers and talk to them.

banaman wrote:

I agree that for their part Hamas and Hezbollah will have to drop their insistance on the destuction of the state of Israel.

Don't hold your breath.

banaman wrote:

However none of this will happen while the situation in Gaza remains as it is and while the US effectively bankrolls whatever israel does.

Without US support Israel could not possibly survive. Without support from the Islamic world Hezbollah and Hamas could not possibly survive either. While those countries fund terrorism, I see no problem with a democratic country supporting another democracy.

banaman wrote:

As an illustration I used to know 2 brothers the elder was ok but a bit of a Psycho when provoked (and he didn't take much provoking). His younger brother could have been a really decent bloke but because his big brother pulverised anyone who upset "baby bro", "baby bro" became a right plonker and everyone avoided him.

Good analogy. Of course Iran could be seen as the big brother and Hezbollah as the little brother too. Except in that case little brotehr does all the fighting on behalf of the elder.

MiddleE

BlackWizard 02-07-2006, 17:53
They are not in land that they do not own. They forced their way onto it and took it over. This has been going on for 1000's of years, but in this day and age it something that modern society has problems comprehending.

But Israel have really put their foot in it this time. Its really hard to take anyones side on the issues in that region. Religion really complicates things. Sometimes there are more than just the intentions of just one government at hand also. Ever since

{I've just got started on this thread}

How right you turned out to be. How about...

Liberally Salted: Death in Qana
By Stephen Olson ...Fri, 8/18/2006 ...BELFAST

The saddest aspect of all this is the enmity between Muslim and Jew is not age-old. The Arabs and the Sephardic Jews used to co-exist pretty well. The bitter conflicts arose when the Ashkenazi Jews arrived from Europe, intent on creating a Jewish state on land that belonged to Arabs.

There's a lot about the USS Liberty incident in this article and...

All of the talk by Israel, President Bush and Condoleezza Rice about putting an international force into Lebanon are pure idiocy. Israel will attack anyone that gets in its way, whether that's the United States, the United Nations, or the United Arab Emirates.

One troublesome aspect would be providing air support. Without building a full-scale military airfield, an international force would either have to rely on the Israeli air force, American planes flying from Iraq, or carrier-based planes. Only Russia and the United States have carriers large enough to fly full squadrons, and it's hard to imagine the Russians getting involved in bombing Lebanon. So air support would come from Israel or the U.S. This would hardly be reassuring to any commander of a supposedly independent international force.

Sgt. Sensible

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5265934.stm

Israel mounts fresh Lebanon raid

Israel carried out an overnight raid inside Lebanon aimed at disrupting an arms transfer, the Israeli army says.

One soldier died and two were injured in the Bekaa Valley operation, it said. Lebanese sources earlier told Reuters agency that three militants also died.

Looks like the ceasefire is broken and Israel is trying to provoke Hezbollah into retaliating.


Question for those who agreed with the war: What exactly has been achieved apart from an enormous amount of damage to Lebanon and over a thousand innocent men women and children dead on each side.

tallus

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5265934.stm



Looks like the ceasefire is broken and Israel is trying to provoke Hezbollah into retaliating.


Question for those who agreed with the war: What exactly has been achieved apart from an enormous amount of damage to Lebanon and over a thousand innocent men women and children dead on each side.

Most of the dead seem to be on the Lebanese side, and non combatants.

Frederico

What am I missing here: I am hearing on the news and reading on different news sites that the Israelis have attacked Hezbelloh..

The words "ceasefire".. that means no firing, Israel are the attackers, they are therefore BREAKING the "ceasefire", yet the main newssites are reporting this as..

Sky News: "Israeli action in Lebanon"
CBSNEWS: "Israeli commandos strike in Lebanon"
BBC: "Israel mounts fresh Lebanon raid"
and so on and so forth..

How about

"Israel breaks ceasefire"?

Why is no media outlet saying that? its a ceasefire and they are firing..

Am I missing something here?