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

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

We, as in Europeans.

And Irishmen were part of the armies of Britain, the US and France that committed genocide against various indigenous people around the globe. If you do not believe the Irish capable of atrocity I suggest you do some research. Start with Ballyseedy and Scullabogue.

The socialist/communist anthem The Red Flag was written by an Irishman, from Meath. I suppose that means that Ireland, and Meath in particular, was socialist/communist does it?

(OT I know but I hate this politically correct guilt rubbish)

freddyfreeload

ROTFLMAO!

I give up!

Done repeating myself!

Might have recovered by tomorrow.

ff

Mick86

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The socialist/communist anthem The Red Flag was written by an Irishman, from Meath. I suppose that means that Ireland, and Meath in particular, was socialist/communist does it?

(OT I know but I hate this politically correct guilt rubbish)

You misunderstand me. I don't feel the slightest shred of guilt over Ireland's history. I was just pointing out that we, as a people, are as capable of committing atrocities as the next nation. That led on from pointing out to somebody else that Israel acts just like a cultured European nation by slaughtering it's enemies in great numbers.

I could also have pointed out that while the Lebanese have Quana we have Omagh. Just in case any republican peaceniks have forgotten.

MiddleE

Mick86
You misunderstand me. I don't feel the slightest shred of guilt over Ireland's history. I was just pointing out that we, as a people, are as capable of committing atrocities as the next nation. That led on from pointing out to somebody else that Israel acts just like a cultured European nation by slaughtering it's enemies in great numbers.

I could also have pointed out that while the Lebanese have Quana we have Omagh. Just in case any republican peaceniks have forgotten.

Chalk and cheese comes to mind as does any connection between the Irish government with Omagh as against Israel with Quana. The reaction of the Irish people to Omagh as against the Israeli people's reaction to Quana is what is interesting. This should not need explaining to any reasonably cultured European without some Middle East loyalties.

MiddleE

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

So what. Many Irish took part in slave rebellions, labour struggles and wars of independence too. It is ignorant to pretend that Ireland was a colonial power at any stage in history.

Yes.

Irish liberators played a big part in freeing South America.

Do Irishmen in the ranks make the Irish responsible now for the colonies so that we become third hand colonists?

fly_agaric

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

So what.

Just tried to explain what he was getting at - but you probably knew what that was already. I wasn't saying I agreed with his logic of "let him without sin cast the first stone" (applied directly to recent events like the Iraq war) or bringing in the White Guilt Trip (sins of the past) to argue that Europeans in general can't criticise Israel.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

It is ignorant to pretend that Ireland was a colonial power at any stage in history.

I didn't.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

If you’ve got some evidence of bunkers being intentionally built in residential areas, show me. My mind is genuinely open on this one. It’s just that all I’ve seen so far is the usual stock bull**** of military blunderers.

Well I must apologise. I haven't found any evidence to prove it, nor any real details about them. Totally wrong on this area. I can't even find any evidence (apart from the official Israeli sites) which refer to bunker locations in South Lebanon (beyond saying they're in S.Lebanon)

Who’s been doing this? And how do you mean? Would an anti-aircraft battery in a city be wrong? Is it okay to defend a town/village against being taken over by opposing military forces? Or do you mean launching rocket attacks against your opponent from within city boundaries? If the latter - cite me some examples.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/Incident+in+Qana+-+IDF+Spokesman+30-Jul-2006.htm - admittedly from the Israel Ministry. The video's supposedly show rockets being fired with within the village of Kafr Qana.

Again, no decent reports beyond the Israel Gov's official reports which state that missiles have been launched from civilian areas, and villages like Qana, or towns like tyre. Guess, it was all made up by israel, and Hezbollah haven't placed their launch sites near civilians.

Your grasp of political reality bemuses me! They didn't have a choice! Hezbollah (technically a paramilitary group) were widely considered instrumental in expelling Israel six years ago. What’s the deal, “thanks lads now drop your guns and get in jail?” This would have been suicide!

Didn't have a choice? Come on. Resolution 1559 called upon the Lebanese government to ensure that it was the only authority in Lebanon.

On October 7, 2004 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council regarding the lack of compliance with Resolution 1559. Mr. Annan concluded his report by saying: "It is time, 14 years after the end of hostilities and four years after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for all parties concerned to set aside the remaining vestiges of the past. The withdrawal of foreign forces and the disbandment and disarmament of militias would, with finality, end that sad chapter of Lebanese history."[4]

On January 28, 2005 UN Security Council Resolution 1583 called upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of sufficient numbers of Lebanese armed and security forces, to ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it.[6]

On December 27, 2005 Katyusha rockets fired from Hezbollah territory smashed into houses in the Israeli city of Kiryat Shmona wounding three people [5]. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Lebanese government "to extend its control over all its territory, to exert its monopoly on the use of force, and to put an end to all such attacks" [6].

The Lebanese government could have called upon the UN at any stage during any of those resolutions or earlier for aid in disarming Hezbollah. Even requesting Hezbollah to disarm would have been a step in the right direction. Instead, they allowed Hezbollah complete freedom within their borders, and along the Blue Line.

Again I'll mention it, cause I think its important. Many posters here often refer to israel ignoring the UN resolutions. However they turn a blind eye when its someone else that ignores them, or creates excuses for them. For Israel there are no excuses, but for others? Sure there are. Go Figure.

No. I think they should try diplomacy instead of war crimes.

Diplomacy instead of war I would suggest. War crimes came later during the conflict. The first act was war. I agree though. Diplomatic movement should have been made with the Lebanese government with the aim of Lebanon resolving this issue since it occured on their territory.

Diplomacy with Hezbollah though would have been useless.

you think everything is exactly how it looks on Fox!

Have I insulted you? no? Then don't start with me.

truly separate all these issues? Can you not see that they are all squares on the same geo-political chess board? If you don’t, Washington certainly does.

Keep them separate? Not in the broad scheme of things, but in the incidents that cause the major conflicts, yes.

What single Israeli action within the last few weeks caused Hezbollah to kidnap Israeli troops, which in turn caused Israel to retalitate? And I'm not asking about 5 or 10 years ago.

I think history has now overtaken you here. Hezbollah is now Lebanon’s de facto army. And all because Israel attempted an immoral and disproportionate response to an incident they could have tackled diplomatically.

They're still an illegal force. Until they're absorbed into the military they're an independent armed force. They do what they want, not what the Lebanese government decide.

You mean by diplomatically they could have caved to a cowardly kidnapping of two Israeli troops who served on the border of Lebanon protecting their own people from Hezbollah terrorist attacks?

Hezbollah resorted to force to achieve their aims. The only real problem here is not that Israel responded with force, but rather that that force killed so many civilians.

Quite so. The point is that the Arab world had believed Israel invulnerable. They don’t now. Another disservice dealt the people of Israel by their bombastic leadership. Do you think the people of Israel feel safer now than they did in June?

Nope. I doubt they'll feel safer with a ceasefire with an armed Hezbollah either. Or just about any other option, beyond their neighbours actually declaring peace. And Israel is still the best conventional army in the region. For invasion purposes, Israel would still destroy any attacking army. Its been weak to terrorist actions for decades as have most countries. This is well known.

Let's go back to the crux: Was Israel right?

Yes. A response was required. The manner of the response was wrong, but no response wasn't allowable.

Another question that should be asked. Was Hezbollah Right?

At home: They have failed the Israeli people & worsened their domestic security situation.

Yup. Agreed. However, the IDF will analyse where they went wrong and attempt to fix those issues.

Regionally: They have worsened relations with their neighbours and exposed new vulnerabilities.

Yup. Agreed. However which neighbours relations have been worsened to the point of trouble?

Internationally: It's been a PR disaster from beginning to end.

Yup. Agreed. Once civilians started sying, Israel lost all the support it could have received. Before that point, it was seen as justifiable to respond to the kidnapping.

Militarily: They have failed to achieve their military objectives.

Yup. Agreed. Bad strategy all round.

Morally: Well, I consider all war immoral. But Israel's blatant disregard for civilians during this escapade is truly abhorent.

Morally? They attempted to defend their people from attacks. They failed. Not attempting would have been just as bad.

No, Israel was not right.

Your opinion. Mines different. Some agree with you. Others disagree. I've seen many discussions about this, and its a very mixed bag.

P.S. And no, before you ask, I don't think Hizbollah were right to kidnap those two soldiers either, where ever they might have been. Having said that, it seems pretty likely Israel would have found some other pretext to have launched this attack anyway.

And Again I'll say it. Hezbollah attempted a number of kidnappings in previous weeks/months all of which could have been used as a pretext for a retalitation.

But then they'd been watching Hezbollah build up their forces on the border for months, so its likely that they would have indeed found a pretext to attack, from some Hezbollah attack. After all, nothing was going to stop Hezbollah from attacking israel. Strange that Hezbollah doesn't need any pretexts for their own attacks....

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

The Lebanese government could have called upon the UN at any stage during any of those resolutions or earlier for aid in disarming Hezbollah. Even requesting Hezbollah to disarm would have been a step in the right direction. Instead, they allowed Hezbollah complete freedom within their borders, and along the Blue Line.

I wonder what aid do you think that the UN would have given in disarming Hezbollah? Which country would have agreed to do send in troops? Remember the IDF didn't manage to disarm them in the many years that they where in Lebanon. And if the Lebanese army tried to take the arms by force, it would have ended in a civil war, as I am sure you are awear.

I think the only way this is going to be sorted is by the Hezbollah fighters/terrorists either being brought into the regular armies control (thus under the goverements controll) or by dialog in a simalar way that the IRA started to disarm.

It did look like Lebanon where moving in the right direction before the resent flare up, with the removal of the syrian troops etc, but I wonder if this has just given Hezbollah new momentum...

Jimboo_Jones

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I wonder what aid do you think that the UN would have given in disarming Hezbollah? Which country would have agreed to do send in troops?

They could have given the Lebanese government the logistical, and military support to aid their existing military to remove those weapons from Hezbollah. The existing troops along with further detachments from other countries would have been enough, with the main force consisting of Lebanese troops.

What was the level of UN commitment in 2000 when Israel withdrew?

Remember the IDF didn't manage to disarm them in the many years that they where in Lebanon.

The IDF went in there as foreigners, and didn't have the support of the locals. The Lebanese government represents the local people, and contains Hezbollah representatives.

And if the Lebanese army tried to take the arms by force, it would have ended in a civil war, as I am sure you are awear.

A civil war that would have removed any support that Hezbollah may have had with the local population, since they would be fighting the very country that they had been formed to protect. Nah. By not speaking out against Hezbollah, by ignoring their movements, by ignoring their arming, by ignoring their actions across the Blue line, by almost ignoring their very existance, they gave unvoiced approval to Hezbollah to continue the war against Israel.

Had the Lebanese government spoken out against Hezbollah, they would have removed this belief that Hezbollah were acting for the good of Lebanon, and would remove the support of the majority of people in Lebanon for hezbollah. Hezbollah would no longer be able to advertise itself as defenders, but rather would be seen terrorists that operate without the support of Lebanon. Cause for the last few years they've received unvoiced support.

I don't think a civil war would have occured. Following the last civil war, the government and the electoral system had been shaken up to make it fairer across the the board. The Lebanese people themselves have faith in their government, and would look to badly on any attempt to involve themselves in another civil war. Hezbollah wouldn't last very long if they decided to take a war against their own people.

I think the only way this is going to be sorted is by the Hezbollah fighters/terrorists either being brought into the regular armies control (thus under the goverements controll) or by dialog in a simalar way that the IRA started to disarm.

Agreed. But even if they're absorbed by the legal military, the government will need to take a hardline stance against independent decisions and attacks.

It did look like Lebanon where moving in the right direction before the resent flare up, with the removal of the syrian troops etc, but I wonder if this has just given Hezbollah new momentum...

Yup. Maybe that was their whole idea. Everyone points that it was Israel that wanted to invade Lebanon. Maybe they did. But nobody seems willing to consider whether this was what Hezbollah were looking for by firstly kidnapping those troops, and later by launching those attacks. Just as plausible.

Its not in the interests of Hezbollah for Lebanon to be at peace with Israel. War is their air, and without conflict (or a reason for conflict) they'd whither away and die.

tallus

I dont think Hezbollah will be withering away anytime soon if war is indeed their air, as long as the state of Israel keeps up their over agressive stance towards it's neighbours. Also Wasn't also mentioned earlier on this thread that Israeli soldiers kidnapped a doctor and his brother from Lebanon prior to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers?

tallus

tallus wrote:

I dont think Hezbollah will be withering away anytime soon if war is indeed their air, as long as the state of Israel keeps up their over agressive stance towards it's neighbours

I'm going to call on this. Which neighbours, and what aggressive stance, other than retalitating to attacks made across their borders?

Also Wasn't also mentioned earlier on this thread that Israeli soldiers kidnapped a doctor and his brother from Lebanon prior to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers?

You wouldn't happen to know which page of the thread this was mentioned or a link that describes the event?

slinky

Quote:
Also Wasn't also mentioned earlier on this thread that Israeli soldiers kidnapped a doctor and his brother from Lebanon prior to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers?

You wouldn't happen to know which page of the thread this was mentioned or a link that describes the event?

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

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14462.htm

slinky

slinky wrote:

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

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14462.htm

So nothing to do with Hezbollah or Lebanon at all, beyond angering Arabs as a whole. It doesn't relate directly to the Israel-Lebanon conflict, and not a reason for Hezbolah to initiate a kidnapping of their own. Nor was Hezbollah's demand in return for the two Israeli soldiers, the release of these two people, was it?

MiddleE

Deleted User wrote:

So nothing to do with Hezbollah or Lebanon at all, beyond angering Arabs as a whole. It doesn't relate directly to the Israel-Lebanon conflict, and not a reason for Hezbolah to initiate a kidnapping of their own. Nor was Hezbollah's demand in return for the two Israeli soldiers, the release of these two people, was it?

Everything to do the arrest/abduction/kidnapping of Hamas/doctors/students/Arab.

The occupier defines justice
By Amira Hass ..Wed., August 23, 2006

For the last several weeks the army has again forbid young men under age 32 from leaving Nablus. But people have to make a living, and thousands are looking for hidden routes. An offense punishable by death, so it seems. The soldiers acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner.

Every Palestinian prisoner's personal history is an expression of the freedom Israel allows itself in the implanting of an extreme subculture of double standard, discriminating blood from blood, human being from human being, nation from nation.

Given that both conflicts were triggered by the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers to be traded for Arab prisoners, Israel must now realize that holding Arabs indefinitely in prison can only beget violence. Israeli National Security Adviser Giora Eiland appeared to have recognized this even before the violence began. In May, he is said to have advised Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel should hand over the disputed Sheba Farms area on the border with Lebanon and Syria, as well as return Lebanese prisoners.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Olmert reportedly did not see the need. But holding the Lebanese and nearly 10,000 Palestinians has proven to be a major source of irritation to the Arab peoples of the region.

The men behind the wire. Internment without trial. Israeli justice?

Important as they are, however, the prisoners are not the crux of the matter. The real issue is the unilateralism that has been adopted by the major parties that have ruled Israel. Both the uncoordinated withdrawals from South Lebanon (by the Labor Party after 22 years of occupation) and from Gaza (by Likud after 39 years of occupation) proved that you can't simply evacuate an area and forget about it. The population left behind must have secure governments and institutions in place. On the most basic level, for example, the people of South Lebanon needed maps of where Israel had laid mines, but these were never provided.

Lebanon, a warning against the use of brute force
By Daoud Kuttab ...Wednesday, August 16, 2006

MiddleE

Deleted User wrote:

So nothing to do with Hezbollah or Lebanon at all, beyond angering Arabs as a whole. It doesn't relate directly to the Israel-Lebanon conflict, and not a reason for Hezbolah to initiate a kidnapping of their own. Nor was Hezbollah's demand in return for the two Israeli soldiers, the release of these two people, was it?

Hizbullah is widely blamed for starting the war by capturing two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12th, though there is evidence both sides began preparing for this war years ago. Hizbullah supporters are convinced the two soldiers were a pretext. They point out that Israel has been making raids into Lebanon to kidnap Lebanese people for decades. But our sense of indignation kicks in only when Hizbullah does the kidnapping.

If any other country did what Israel has done in Lebanon for the past 33 days, it would be labelled a terrorist state. Yet politicians, diplomats and media bosses so fear being called "anti-Semitic" that they continue to chant the mantra that "Israel has the right to defend itself".

What happened in Lebanon between July 12th and yesterday was not self-defence. It was mass murder. © The Irish Times

Israel's actions add up to mass murder
IRISH TIMES ...Tuesday, August 15, 2006

democrates

I suspect Hezbollah leaders eyeing Hamas and the IRA may be using this conflict as an instrument to get themselves into positions of political power in the long term. The cash handouts also fit.

MiddleE, your links and quotes are fine, but they don't address the kidnapping that was refered to in Gaza. Which my response was to. Which has no direct relation to lebanon or Hezbollah. None of your points link the reason that Hezbollah launched its attack to that of the Gaza kidnappings, nor the state of the Palestinians.

Hezbollah didn't demand the release of Palestinians. It didn't demand a change in Israeli occupation laws. It was in regards to the prisoners taken from Lebanese territory. Or am I wrong here? Was that not their demand?

Post up the articles by all means, but don't quote to something i've said that has no relation to the points. Unless you're going to link them as being relevent.

As I've asked before. Since a number of posters believe that Israel did something to cause Hezbollah to commit itself to the kidnapping, what did Israel do in Lebanon within few weeks prior to the attack?

sovtek

democrates wrote:

I suspect Hezbollah leaders eyeing Hamas and the IRA may be using this conflict as an instrument to get themselves into positions of political power in the long term. The cash handouts also fit.

Unlike the PLO and the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas have a reputation for incorruptibility (is that a word?).
That's probably why they are so popular.

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

As I've asked before. Since a number of posters believe that Israel did something to cause Hezbollah to commit itself to the kidnapping, what did Israel do in Lebanon within few weeks prior to the attack?

Hezbollah do not have the same capablity to attack as quickly as IDF though (other than lob a few missles in their general direction) Its not as if they can fly a load of helicopters into Isreal everytime that they have been attacked. I would imagine that they have to pick their moments.

*Actually it would be good if someone could find a timeline of attack done on Lebanon in the last couple of years.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

I'm going to call on this. Which neighbours, and what aggressive stance, other than retalitating to attacks made across their borders?



You wouldn't happen to know which page of the thread this was mentioned or a link that describes the event?

I've already provided a link showing how the Israeli's have constantly breached the soveriegnty of Lebanon since 2000.
Nevermind kidnapping and illegally detaining thousands of Lebanese. And nevermind that you cannot kidnap soldiers in a battle.

johnthesavage

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

*Actually it would be good if someone could find a timeline of attack done on Lebanon in the last couple of years.

Lengthy read here on the UNIFIL website:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

So nothing to do with Hezbollah or Lebanon at all, beyond angering Arabs as a whole. It doesn't relate directly to the Israel-Lebanon conflict, and not a reason for Hezbolah to initiate a kidnapping of their own. Nor was Hezbollah's demand in return for the two Israeli soldiers, the release of these two people, was it?

Hezbollah did offer to release the soldiers for Lebanese prisoners immediately after taking them. That disproves the notion that you can't deal with Hezbollah diplomatically as well.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Hezbollah did offer to release the soldiers for Lebanese prisoners immediately after taking them. That disproves the notion that you can't deal with Hezbollah diplomatically as well.

So Hizbollah mooted a one for one swap then? Because asking for all female prisoners to be released is as realistic and 'diplomatic' as asking for Israel to be disbanded...

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

So Hizbollah mooted a one for one swap then? Because asking for all female prisoners to be released is as realistic and 'diplomatic' as asking for Israel to be disbanded...

That says more about Israel than it does Hezbollah.

Hogmeister B

Deleted User wrote:

So Hizbollah mooted a one for one swap then? Because asking for all female prisoners to be released is as realistic and 'diplomatic' as asking for Israel to be disbanded...

Perhaps not realistic, given Israel's record, but utterly legitimate. The fact that the IDF had taken Lebanese civilians prisoner at all is a far greater and more serious violation of international law than the subsequent taking by Hizb-Allah of Israeli troops. In fact, it utterly legitimises the taking of those troops.

Note that the kidnapping of these civilians did not result in Lebanon or Hizb-Allah occupying northern Israel, blockading the country, bombing civilian infastructure, or pounding suburbs of Tel Aviv. Whereas the smaller action by Hizb-Allah apparently permits Israel to do the converse of the above to Lebanon in 'self-defence'.

IrishAirCorps

Just after seeing this post.

Israel are right to defend themselves, Hezbollah started it by kidnapping those troops they walked ino it, Hezbollah and all them terrorists should be eradicated. Would you stand idly by if Hezbollah were dropping rockets down on your territory considering Israel didnt start this they did.

sovtek

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Just after seeing this post.

Israel are right to defend themselves, Hezbollah started it by kidnapping those troops they walked ino it, Hezbollah and all them terrorists should be eradicated. Would you stand idly by if Hezbollah were dropping rockets down on your territory considering Israel didnt start this they did.

Considering the thousands of posts already in this thread...i gotta say that's a well articulated argument you have there.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Hezbollah did offer to release the soldiers for Lebanese prisoners immediately after taking them. That disproves the notion that you can't deal with Hezbollah diplomatically as well.

You believe that because Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and then offered them back for Lebanese prisoners means that they could be negotiated with? Sure, they can be negotiated with.

However have you looked at the person they want back? -

Samir Kuntar shot and killed the father at close range in front of his daughter, and then murdered the four-year-old girl by smashing her head with the butt of his rifle against a rock, crushing her skull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

But there have been prisoner exchanges in the past between Hezbollah & Israel. Its just that it didn't happen that Hezbollah entered the Blue line to get the bargaining chips to make the exchange before.

Added to which Israel's main ally and major backer, the US, has a major policy against negotiating with Terrorist demands. Israel would be influenced greatly by this, and probably wouldn't be able to do so, because of US pressure. (In addition it would open pandora's box considering the number of Terrorist style groups that they're fighting)

I've mentioned this a number of times, and yet its always something else in my post thats answered/questioned. Hezbollah, at the end of the last war, refused to disband. Israel had left Lebanese lands, and was certified by the UN as doing so. So Hezbollah's main aim had been achieved. Israel leaving Lebanon. So at that stage they could have disbanded their forces, per the UN resolution and settled into peace. No more skirmishes across the border. No more Israeli retalitations. Then came the claim about the "Sheeba Farms" which had been Syrian territory for decades, and suddenly this becomes a reason for Hezbollah to maintain their war with Israel (which is strange since they never felt the need for war with Syria over the very same land).

Why would Israel believe anything that hezbollah may claim willing to do, as long as they are armed, and unwilling to actually stop their war?

Secondly I would ask why do you believe that Israel should obey all UN resolutions but, Hezbollah and Lebanon don't need to?

Thirdly, if Hezbollah are this wonderful group whose first concern is its own people, why then does it continue a war against Israel which is unwinable by either side, and Hezbollah's original objectives have been met? (Again, the Sheeba Farms being Syrian lands).

Fourthly. Where do you believe Hezbollah's funds come from?

Last. Since the Official lebanon government is unable to pay for the reconstruction of the country, without Foreign Aid, and Hezbollah has jumped in immediately while telling people that this Aid is from Hezbollah and not from the Lebanese government, do you believe that Hezbollah are making a play to take control of the country?

Hogmeister B

Hogmeister B wrote:

Perhaps not realistic, given Israel's record, but utterly legitimate. The fact that the IDF had taken Lebanese civilians prisoner at all is a far greater and more serious violation of international law than the subsequent taking by Hizb-Allah of Israeli troops. In fact, it utterly legitimises the taking of those troops.

Hezbollah aren't constrained by international law. You don't expect them to follow International Law, so you don't complain when they don't. However you expect Israel to follow International law, and thus complain when they don't. (In spite of a few decades of being quite selective of what to follow. )

Its the same with the UN resolutions. Israel is expected to follow them, and yet their opponents aren't.

In broad terms, the action legitimises the kidnapping, like you say. However, Hezbollah are not an army. They're not covered under the Geneva convention. They don't follow any laws. They're an independent force operating within Lebanon's borders. They're illegitimate and anything they do is illegitimate.

Note that the kidnapping of these civilians did not result in Lebanon or Hizb-Allah occupying northern Israel, blockading the country, bombing civilian infastructure, or pounding suburbs of Tel Aviv. .

Ok. So the 3000 plus missiles launched from lebanon into Israel and the subsequent indiscriminate damage that they did to buildings and insfrastructure was nothing? I doubt the Israeli's that spent hours each day in their bomb shelters would agree with you. All those lovely ball bearings thrown around with each missile hit.

And I doubt Hezbollah would hesitate to occupy northern Israel if they could, considering they've already kept this conflict going for the last few years.

Whereas the smaller action by Hizb-Allah apparently permits Israel to do the converse of the above to Lebanon in 'self-defence'

Smaller action? Hezbollah has asked for the return of a man who smashed in the head of a 4 year old girls head, after she watched her father being shot before her eyes.

And the responses by both Israel and Hezbollah also seem quite similiar, except that Israel's missiles/bombs are more accurate than Hezbollah's. The only real difference is that Israel has killed more civilians than Hezbollah. Its not as if Hezbollah weren't trying hard enough.

And whereas Israel is held to some higher ideal because they're a nation, Hezbollah isn't because they're a paramilitary organisation (who happens to be represented in the Lebanese government). Hezbollahs actions are expected and dismissed, and yet apparently they're not terrorists. And are lauded by the Lebanese government for their actions over the last few years.

Lebanon isn't innocent in any of this. Its approved of Hezbollahs incursions across the Blue line on a number of occasions, and have failed to curtail Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. Nevermind that they've failed to disarm/disband Hezbollah, which a number of UN resolutions apply to, and repeated requests/reminders by the UN that they be enforced..

But then UN resolutions only really ever should be applied to Israel. :rolleyes:

IrishAirCorps

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Israel are right to defend themselves,

Totally agree.

Hezbollah started it by kidnapping those troops they walked ino it,

Yup, but you won't get much agreement here.

Hezbollah and all them terrorists should be eradicated.

Nope. Don't agree with this one. Eradication is unrealistic. Removal of their support is a better option. Forcing Lebanon to commit itself to the resolutions and the disarming of Hezbollah. This is what should have been enforced 6 years ago, and had it been enforced, there would at least be a chance for peace.

Killing off Hezbollah is an impossibility. Its not going to happen. The only real option is to remove their support from the Lebanese people, have the Lebanon govenment enforce its authority, and Hezbollah would disappear.

But even now, the newest resolution is likely only going to be pushed on Israel, rather than Hezbollah. And judging by many of the posters here, its going to happen without too much protest. And in a few weeks/months we'll be back where it began with an Hezbollah action across the border, and Israel retalitating. And Israel will be in the wrong once more.