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

Pink Bunny

I just saw this link on another site and thought it was interesting
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

I know it's from a Jewish site and I'm not going to get into this discussion, it's just a good reminder that things aren't always as they appear and "facts" can be relative depending on who has the best spin on any given day.

IrishAirCorps

Deleted User wrote:

they can be negotiated with.

If you negotiate then your their Bicth, simple as, never negotiate with Terrorists.

Bookee

IrishAirCorps wrote:

[HTML]Hezbollah started it by kidnapping those troops[/HTML] /QUOTE]

....Think you should read back quiet a few pages... ! Especially the one where it's documented that Israel abducted two civilians the day before Hisbollah abducted 2 soldiers.... ! Alot of reading to be done....
Good luck

En...Nice signature, btw, and "Good" ? publicity.....!

Diogenes

IrishAirCorps wrote:

If you negotiate then your their Bicth, simple as, never negotiate with Terrorists.

Er what was the good friday agreement then?

Do terrorists attack civilian targets, use weapons which kill indiscrimately, and breach international law on countless ocassions?

Yes. And thats a pretty accurate description of Israeli's actions and behaviour.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I've already provided a link showing how the Israeli's have constantly breached the soveriegnty of Lebanon since 2000.

I already know about Lebanon. I already know about Palestine. I know they have bad relations with Iran and Syria. What other nations was he refering to, and what aggressive stance did Israel display to them?

And look at the link provided by johnthesavage above. There is quite a bit of movement by both sides on that border. Notice how they repeatedly requested Lebanon to enforce its authority, and to deploy more troops to prevent such border crossings from happening by either party?

Nevermind kidnapping and illegally detaining thousands of Lebanese.

Thousands of Lebanese?

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/Analysis/tabid/75/newsid395/2946/Lebanese-prisoners-in-Israel/Default.aspx
(and this is a pro-arab site)

And nevermind that you cannot kidnap soldiers in a battle.

What are you on about? You cannot kidnap soldiers in a battle? Explain that one......

Bookee

Bookee wrote:

IrishAirCorps wrote:

[HTML]Hezbollah started it by kidnapping those troops[/HTML] /QUOTE]

....Think you should read back quiet a few pages... ! Especially the one where it's documented that Israel abducted two civilians the day before Hisbollah abducted 2 soldiers.... ! Alot of reading to be done....
Good luck

En...Nice signature, btw, and "Good" ? publicity.....!

Aye, two civilians from Gaza. They weren't Lebanese, nor were they taken from Lebanon territory, unless there were a different two civilians kidnapped by Israel at that time? Nobody has shown how this directly relates to Hezbollah or Lebanon, beyond saying that all arabs were angry about it.

Read the UNIFIL website, and that'll give you some interesting points leading up to this conflict.

democrates

IrishAirCorps wrote:

If you negotiate then your their Bicth, simple as, never negotiate with Terrorists.

Like Maggie Thatcher with the hunger strikers, didn't really work though did it. Distasteful and imperfect as it is, negotiation framed within the democratic will of the people has delivered benefits.

Hogmeister B

Deleted User wrote:

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. )

Says who I don't expect them to follow international law?

Deleted User wrote:

However, Hezbollah are not an army.... They're illegitimate and anything they do is illegitimate.

Actually the Lebanese government has described them as a legitimate organisation. Also, any body, official or otherwise, is legally entitled to forcibly oppose an invasion so no, "anything they do" is not illigitimate. Hence, for instance, the actions of the Free French and Maquis during the Occupation were legitimate even though they went against the policy of the elected government (which had decided to surrender in June 1940).

Deleted User wrote:

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.

No, they were not nothing. I never said they were. These attacks are irrelevant to what i was talking about- the rockets were in retaliation for the Israeli airstrikes and invasion, which came later. I was discussing the justification for Hizb Allah's initial attack on July 12.

Sgt. Sensible

Deleted User wrote:

Aye, two civilians from Gaza. They weren't Lebanese, nor were they taken from Lebanon territory, unless there were a different two civilians kidnapped by Israel at that time? Nobody has shown how this directly relates to Hezbollah or Lebanon, beyond saying that all arabs were angry about it.

Everything that happens in the middle east is connected Klaz.

If Hezbollah was disarmed and incorporated into the Lebanese army proper, I doubt whether Israel would just lay off and let Hezbollah's political wing's influence grow in Lebanon. They see Hezbollah quite rightly as a proxy of Iran.

slinky

Seymour Hersh - New Yorker 21-08-06 on Israel's pre-planning for the war

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks.

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact


The last time Hezbollah captured Israelis a prisoner exchange was agreed

Israel has exchanged prisoners with Hezbollah before, most recently in 2004 when Israel handed over more than 400 Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab prisoners for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast/index.html

Still, the intensity of the Israeli bombing campaign appears to have taken Hizbullah aback. Mahmoud Komati, the deputy head of Hizbullah's politburo told the Associated Press, "the truth is - let me say this clearly - we didn't even expect [this] response ... that [Israel] would exploit this operation for this big war against us."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html


Israel says it will do everything to avoid civilian casualties

And we have been very, very careful. In fact, you know, we are using a fraction of our firepower because we do not want to cause any undue damage. We are going specifically after Hezbollah targets.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205517,00.html

The Israeli position (as of 29 July) is that `All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbollah` (Israeli Justice Minister, Haim Ramon). The Telegraph: `the area would now become effectively a free-fire zone and that anyone found in it would be regarded as a target.` (28 July, p. 16)

The mass-circulation Yedioth Aharonoth headlined a quote from an unnamed military commander: `Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed.

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=15503

Israel's army chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, said his military would target infrastructure and "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" if the soldiers were not freed.

Hizbullah said it would exchange the two captured soldiers for Arab security prisoners in Israeli jails, backing a similar demand by Hamas and other Palestinian militias holding a third soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, in Gaza.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1819123,00.html

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, said: “To those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You’re damn right we are.

On 24 July, it was reported that Army Chief of Staff Halutz, according to a "senior officer", had issued orders to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in southern Beirut for every rocket fired on Haifa. The same day the IAF/IDF confirmed it had destroyed ten buildings in Beirut

It was reported on 26 July that "at least 10 Lebanese ambulances bearing the emblem of the international red cross have [...] become targets in Israeli air strikes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

When asked what he felt dropping a one-ton bomb on a residential neighbourhood General Halutz declared that this causes him to feel only "a slight bang on the wing" and does not prevent him from sleeping soundly.

http://www.eutopic.lautre.net/coordination/article.php3?id_article=1033


Bombing of UN post (UN couldn't even condemn the killing of their own men)

The Irish Republic filed an official protest with Israel, in which it said that Lieutenant-Colonel John Molloy, its senior Lebanon peacekeeper and a key UN figure liaising with the Israel Defence Forces, had given six specific phone warnings about the Khiam post.

“He warned the Israelis that they were shelling in very close proximity to the post, and his warnings were very specific, explicit, detailed and stark,” said Suzanne Coogan, a spokeswoman for Willie O’Dea, the Irish Defence Minister. “Obviously those warnings went unheeded.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2287599,00.html


Human Rights' Organisations

The Israeli government has blamed Hezbollah for the high civilian casualty toll in Lebanon, insisting that Hezbollah fighters have hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. However, in none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in the report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or prior to the attack.

“Hezbollah fighters must not hide behind civilians – that’s an absolute – but the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong,” Roth said. “In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.”

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

New York-based group Human Rights Watch accused Israel of committing war crimes by carrying out what it called an indiscriminate bombing campaign in Lebanon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5230192.stm

Amnesty says Israel committed war-crimes by targeting "supermarkets, water pumping stations and water treatment plants, which may have broken a prohibition in humanitarian law against targeting objects crucial to civilian survival.

The report lists Israeli statements - such as comments made by Israeli Chief of Staff Lt Gen Dan Halutz that "nothing is safe [in Lebanon], as simple as that" - to support its claims."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5276626.stm


The End Result

The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines.According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead.

The latest poll by the Beirut Center found that 8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

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

...and many of the people they want back are completely innocent. Who knows the background of the two soldiers...who may very well have been in Lebanon when captured.

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.

You are ignoring Israel's repeated crossing of the blue line and their crossing of the blue line to kidnap people.

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)

That's not an excuse not to negotiate.

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.

Israel have not completely left Lebanon nor have they stopped attacking Lebanon.

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?

Israel has shown no good faith towards Lebanon nor any of their neighbors in the region. To call Hezbollah terrorist and not Israel is the height of hypocracy.
I'm gonna add that I've seen no evidence of Hezbollah's deliberate targeting of civilians.

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

They both should. However Israel is a recognized state...it should act like one (an aggressor one at that). Nor is "terrorists don't obey intl law why should we" a legitimate defence legally nor morally.

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).

Please show where the Sheeba Farms have been "excluded"?
As well Israel have continued to attack and breech Lebanese sovereignty

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

Where do Israel's?

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?

I don't know one way or the other nor does it matter in regards to this war.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Removal of their support is a better option.

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.

More than likely the government fighting Hezbollah will just lead to civil war...which isn't going to make Israel any more secure.
You are wrong that this is the only "real" option. The Lebanese are going to support Hezbollah as long as they are seen to be protecting them from Israeli aggression and providing economic support.
Another real option (and more likely successful, if Israel is indeed concerned about it's security) would be for Israel to demilitarize and make amends for the latest atrocity committed against the Lebanese people. That would dry up support for any supposed "terrorist" actions of Hezbollah. That would be a start...Israel might find it need not have to fight anyone should it apply that to the rest of its neighbors.

But even now, the newest resolution is likely only going to be pushed on Israel, rather than Hezbollah.

The latest resolution is doomed to failure because it's onus is on Hezbollah and Israel has already started to interprit it as allowing it to attack Hezbollah, which they have already done.

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.

Israel have already broken the ceasefire and attacked Hezbollah with provocation.

slinky

slinky wrote:

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact

As I've said before Israel would inform the US and take their advice because they're their closest ally, and the worlds' superpower. It doesn't prove that the US & Israel had some dasterdly plan to occur Lebanon, or such. All it suggests is that Israel sought the approval of the US in its responses.

Still, the intensity of the Israeli bombing campaign appears to have taken Hizbullah aback. Mahmoud Komati, the deputy head of Hizbullah's politburo told the Associated Press, "the truth is - let me say this clearly - we didn't even expect [this] response ... that [Israel] would exploit this operation for this big war against us."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html

Exploit this attack? Lol. Its not as if he left the door to his house open, and someone robbed him. His organisation launched an attack on Israel. What? He didn't believe that israel would respond? Hezbollah had been crossing the Blue line to attack Israel for 6 years since Israel withdrew from lebanon. It was only a matter of time before Israel decided to "try" end things. I suppose he expected Israel to sit there, launching minor retalitory raids and take it forever. :rolleyes:

Israel says it will do everything to avoid civilian casualties

-And we have been very, very careful. In fact, you know, we are using a fraction of our firepower because we do not want to cause any undue damage. We are going specifically after Hezbollah targets.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205517,00.html

I don't think Israel has done everything in their power to avoid civilian casualties (the air campaign being proof of that). I doubt they've really done all that much beyond the Leaflets being dropped and the Radio announcements.

Israel's army chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, said his military would target infrastructure and "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" if the soldiers were not freed.

So why not free the Israeli troops? I find it amazing that so many people are pointing out how unreasonable Israel have been, ignoring that Hezbollah initiated this conflict, and refused to return the soldiers at every stage of this conflict.

Hizbullah said it would exchange the two captured soldiers for Arab security prisoners in Israeli jails, backing a similar demand by Hamas and other Palestinian militias holding a third soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, in Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...819123,00.html

I'm not going to repeat myself. Look above at the person Hezbollah want released. Then, tell me its a reasonable demand. Their request is calculated for refusal by israel. They already know that Israel won't release this guy.

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, said: “To those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You’re damn right we are.

Well, at least he's honest.

On 24 July, it was reported that Army Chief of Staff Halutz, according to a "senior officer", had issued orders to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in southern Beirut for every rocket fired on Haifa. The same day the IAF/IDF confirmed it had destroyed ten buildings in Beirut

ten buildings or ten multi-story buildings were destroyed. Since you've provided links for everything else, can I get a link for this one aswell. I'm curious to know what buildings were destroyed, and who made this report.

It was reported on 26 July that "at least 10 Lebanese ambulances bearing the emblem of the international red cross have [...] become targets in Israeli air strikes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeti...banon_conflict

So that would be this incident:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Which I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss after the last set of faking. Quite an bit of evidence, and he presents it quite well.

No real problem with the rest though. Israel has committed atrocites. Israel has committed indiscriminate bombing. Israel did respond heavily to the Hezbollah attack.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

More than likely the government fighting Hezbollah will just lead to civil war...which isn't going to make Israel any more secure.

Don't you mean Hezbollah fighting the government, since they would be resisting their lawful government? And allowing Hezbollah to keep their weapons and their freedom won't make either of Israel or Lebanon secure. The only chance for peace is if Hezbollah surrender their arms or are absorbed into the Lebanese military.

You are wrong that this is the only "real" option. The Lebanese are going to support Hezbollah as long as they are seen to be protecting them from Israeli aggression and providing economic support.

Fine, so Hezbollah continue to exist within Lebanon. Either Hezbollah or Israel restarts the conflict (which will happen, since Hezbollah have not renouced their war), and we're back to war once more. Yup, that a really good option.

Another real option (and more likely successful, if Israel is indeed concerned about it's security) would be for Israel to demilitarize and make amends for the latest atrocity committed against the Lebanese people. That would dry up support for any supposed "terrorist" actions of Hezbollah. That would be a start...Israel might find it need not have to fight anyone should it apply that to the rest of its neighbors.

Unlikely. Israel withdrew to behind the Blue line, and the attacks continued unchecked. Israel will not lower itself without some belief/trust that Hezbollah can
be curtailed, or restrained. Its unrealistic because Hezbollah have shown zero desire for peace to date. At least Israel has.

[quoteThe latest resolution is doomed to failure because it's onus is on Hezbollah and Israel has already started to interprit it as allowing it to attack Hezbollah, which they have already done. [/quote]

Aye. Doomed because Hebollah will once more fail to disarm. And will refuse to allow the Lebanese government to be the only authority in all of Lebanon.

Israel have already broken the ceasefire and attacked Hezbollah with provocation.

Without provocation? Lets see... 4 hours after the ceasefire occured there was a skirmish between Hezbollah forces and an Israeli force.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ceasefire-broken-in-less-than-four-hours/2006/08/14/1155407739692.html

Or the possibility that they were correct and they attacked the transfer of weapons to rearm Hezbollah, which is a violation of the ceasefire..

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

...and many of the people they want back are completely innocent. Who knows the background of the two soldiers...who may very well have been in Lebanon when captured.

Fine. Provide some background to prove their crimes. You're approving/defending the release of a convicted murderer.

Secondly, they might have been in Lebanon, considering Hezbollah don't recognise the Blue Line or the existance of Israel (and its borders) at all.

You are ignoring Israel's repeated crossing of the blue line and their crossing of the blue line to kidnap people.

Actually I'm not. I've mentioned Israel crossing the border on a number of posts earlier in this thread.

That's not an excuse not to negotiate.

Sure it is. The worlds superpower doesn't negotiate with Terrorists. Israel's only real ally has a policy against any negotiation with terrorists, especially since Sept 11.

Israel have not completely left Lebanon nor have they stopped attacking Lebanon.

Firstly per UN inspection they have obeyed the Blue Line borders, and obeyed the Resolutions that govern the Blue Line. They also removed the listening posts which violated the Blue line.

Secondly, they have responded to Hezbollah attacks, which Hezbollah respond to, and Israel responds to. The Onus is not on Israel to stop reponding. Its on Hezbollah to stop attacking, and give the UN resolutions a chance to work.

Israel has shown no good faith towards Lebanon nor any of their neighbors in the region. .

Details please. Where has Israel not shown good faith with its neighbours? You're making a broad statement, when Israel has held peace with a number of former enemies.

To call Hezbollah terrorist and not Israel is the heighth of hypocracy

I've never said that anyone was wrong to call Israel a terrorist.

Deleted User wrote:

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

They both should. However Israel is a recognized state...it should act like one (an aggressor one at that). Nor is "terrorists don't obey intl law why should we" a legitimate defence legally nor morally.

You can't have it both ways. Hezbollah aren't terrorists. They're not an illegal organisation. They're a recognised organisation with links to the Lebanse government. If they're not a disreputable organisation, then they should be held accountable for both their actions and their lack of following the resolutions. As should the Lebanese government for their own lack of action in enforcing the Blue Line.

I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't obey UN resolutions. In Lebanon, they've managed to obey them quite well. However if you expect Israel to follow the Resolutions, it would be "the heighth of hypocracy" not to expect the same from Lebanon & Hezbollah.

Deleted User wrote:

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).

Please show where the Sheeba Farms have been "excluded"?

Read back a few pages. I've repeatedly shown how the Sheeba farm area was Syrian territory before Israel occupied it. Even prior to the occupation there were talks between Syria and Lebanon for over two decades, which never acknowledged Lebanon's claim.

As well Israel have continued to attack and breech Lebanese sovereignty

In Response to Hezbollah attacks. Have you looked at the link provided earlier (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html)?

Deleted User wrote:

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

Where do Israel's?

Israel? Funds come from their own fragile economy, donations from organisations across the world and the majority comes from the US. But can you answer my question?

Deleted User wrote:

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?

I don't know one way or the other nor does it matter in regards to this war.

Actually it does matter. There's a tendacy to paint Hezbollah as a knight in shining armour, protecting Lebanon from Israel. If Hezbollah is making a play for power, do you believe that the Lebanese people will benefit from the continued war that Hezbollah would bring?

Added to this there's also a tendacy to look to the present rather than considering how the situation will be in a few months time. Just say that the ceasefire holds, Israel stays behind the border, and Hezbollah continues its reconstruction with all its current arsenal of weapons. Will Hezbollah seek to make peace? I doubt it. Do you think they will? Will they launch more raids across the border, and then cry out to the world about how Israel is breaking the ceasefire by responding? I would think so.

Hogmeister B

Hogmeister B wrote:

Says who I don't expect them to follow international law?

Grand. You do expect them to follow international law, but you keep your criticism of them unvoiced.

Actually the Lebanese government has described them as a legitimate organisation. Also, any body, official or otherwise, is legally entitled to forcibly oppose an invasion so no, "anything they do" is not illigitimate. Hence, for instance, the actions of the Free French and Maquis during the Occupation were legitimate even though they went against the policy of the elected government (which had decided to surrender in June 1940).

They still resist the UN resolution which prescribes the Lebanese government to be the only authority bearing arms in Lebanon. Also if they're a legal organisation then there shouldn't be any problems hitting them for war crimes, and breaking the geneva convention on many occasions..

Also if they're a legal organisation the Lebanese government should have no problem getting them to disarm, and to not act independently of them in attacking Israel.

No, they were not nothing. I never said they were. These attacks are irrelevant to what i was talking about- the rockets were in retaliation for the Israeli airstrikes and invasion, which came later. I was discussing the justification for Hizb Allah's initial attack on July 12.

Irrelevent? Hezbollah launched the kidnapping and launched attacks across the border before Israel started its air strikes.

July 12 Hezbollah
# Hezbollah launches Katyusha rockets across the Lebanese border with Israel as a diversionary tactic, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area in Lebanon. Hezbollah claims its objective is to free 10,000 Arabs captured by Israel.[1]
# Hezbollah's military wing staged a cross-border attack in northern Israel on two Israeli Humvees. Three Israeli soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped, with several civilians deliberately injured. "Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the Arab prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev) at the border with occupied Palestine," Hezbollah said in a statement.[2]

IDF
# in attempt to pursue the Hezbollah force and release the captured soldiers, an Israeli Merkava Mark II tank is hit by a 200-300 kilogram mine. All 4 crew members are killed.[2]
# In an attempt to recover the bodies of the soldiers from the burnt tank, another Israeli soldier is hit by Hezbollah fire and killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

It wasn't until July 13 that Israel started its air attacks, and started its air & sea blockade.

So give me another justification, since your first one was incorrect.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

As I've said before Israel would inform the US and take their advice because they're their closest ally, and the worlds' superpower. It doesn't prove that the US & Israel had some dasterdly plan to occur Lebanon, or such. All it suggests is that Israel sought the approval of the US in its responses.

But it proves that Israel isn't just defending itself nor that it attacked for two soldiers.

It was only a matter of time before Israel decided to "try" end things. I suppose he expected Israel to sit there, launching minor retalitory raids and take it forever. :rolleyes:

Israel has been trying to "ending things" this way for almost 60 years. What's the definition of insanity again?

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

But it proves that Israel isn't just defending itself nor that it attacked for two soldiers.

Explain this one to me. Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists because its closest ally has taken a hardline stance against terrorism since Sept11, and this somehow translates into a reason as to how Israel isn't just defending itself? Nah. I don't get it.

You seem to be missing one vital component in all this, despite it being said so much. Hezbollah attacked first. Israel defended, and then launched a (out of proportion) counter attack.

Israel has been trying to "ending things" this way for almost 60 years. What's the definition of insanity again?

60 Years? Where are u getting this from?

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

In Response to Hezbollah attacks. Have you looked at the link provided earlier (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html)?

Yup I read it and the first fighting after the ceasefire was Israel killing civilians that were protesting.

who failed to stop moving towards the blue line despite warnings. And an attack by Hezbollah a few hours later across the border.

Can't really see the sense of protesting and marching towards their positions on a new border full of tense soldiers where their enemy has no uniforms.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Explain this one to me. Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists because its closest ally has taken a hardline stance against terrorism since Sept11, and this somehow translates into a reason as to how Israel isn't just defending itself? Nah. I don't get it.

Because they were planning it and getting approval before the battle with Hezbollah and the capturing of the Israeli soldiers.
Israel hasn't been negotiating with "terrorists" since well before 9/11, it wouldn't deal with the corrupt/terrorist Arafat (who acknowledged Israel) and now it won't deal with the incorruptible/democratically elected Hamas (who doesn't acknowledge Israel unless it gives back the Occupied Territories) nor incorruptible/democratically elected Hezbollah (who may or may not be calling for it's destruction).

You seem to be missing one vital component in all this, despite it being said so much. Hezbollah attacked first. Israel defended, and then launched a (out of proportion) counter attack.

No you seem to be missing that Israel attacked Lebanon first (as it has all it's neighbors) and continues to attack as well as kidnap and illegally detain thousands of it's citizens. Hezbollah merely stuck back hard in retaliation this time around.

60 Years? Where are u getting this from?

Stern gang, IDF attacks against the indigenous people of Palestine pre-1948, immediate attacks after 1948, attacks Egypt 1967, invades Lebanon 1978/1982, continues to attack Lebanon since "pullout" in 2000.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

who failed to stop moving towards the blue line despite warnings. And an attack by Hezbollah a few hours later across the border.

Are you excusing the killing of civilians?

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Because they were planning it and getting approval before the battle with Hezbollah and the capturing of the Israeli soldiers.

I don't see the problem here. Any plan that concerns Israel combating an enemy would be shared with the US. Simply because the US supplies them with so much, israel would be obliged to do so. The US holds its allies quite close especially if they have so much invested in them. The M.East being a melting pot of factions, and history, the US would want to be kept in the loop in all decisions, and be able to put its own input to keep their own interests protected.

It was Hezbollah that decided to make this action. It was Hezbollah that kidnapped and then fired on Israel. Regardless of whether a plan was in place or not, it was Hezbollah that set everything into motion. Without Hezbollah attacking there wouldn't have been any invasion.

You're focusing on the wrong thing here. You consider Israel to have plans regarding Lebanon/Hezbollah being bad. What about Hezbollah setting the whole conflict ablaze?

Israel hasn't been negotiating with "terrorists" since well before 9/11, it wouldn't deal with the corrupt/terrorist Arafat (who acknowledged Israel) and now it won't deal with the incorruptible/democratically elected Hamas (who doesn't acknowledge Israel unless it gives back the Occupied Territories) nor incorruptible/democratically elected Hezbollah (who may or may not be calling for it's destruction).

How did the Palestinian Authority come into being? How did Palestine even get an authority without Israel negotiating?

Neither the PA nor Hamas have been able to enforce its own promises to restrict attacks on Israel. You complain about Israel so much, that you fail to recognise one major factor. In each instance attacks on israel have not been stopped. The core element for most treaties is that attacks would be stopped and they haven't. But hey, that doesn't really matter. Just as it doesn't matter that hezbollah didn't disband 6 years ago.

No you seem to be missing that Israel attacked Lebanon first (as it has all it's neighbors) and continues to attack as well as kidnap and illegally detain thousands of it's citizens. Hezbollah merely stuck back hard in retaliation this time around.

Prove it. Really, prove how Israel has attacked all its neighbours first.

Stern gang, IDF attacks against the indigenous people of Palestine pre-1948, immediate attacks after 1948, attacks Egypt 1967, invades Lebanon 1978/1982, continues to attack Lebanon since "pullout" in 2000.

In each instance I can point to attacks made on israel prior to this.

Are you excusing the killing of civilians?

Yup. I guess I am. There's no excuse for stupidity. Marching (protesting, so I assume lots of shouting, angry chanting etc) towards a recently formed border which israeli troops manned who were fighting an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms, isn't the most intelligent thing to do. They were foolish. Being a civilian doesn't excuse you from having the intelligence not to place yourself in harm.

Sgt. Sensible

Deleted User wrote:

Yup. I guess I am. There's no excuse for stupidity. Marching (protesting, so I assume lots of shouting, angry chanting etc) towards a recently formed border which israeli troops manned who were fighting an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms, isn't the most intelligent thing to do. They were foolish. Being a civilian doesn't excuse you from having the intelligence not to place yourself in harm.

Some nasty little prejudices revealed in that post.

And Hezbollah do wear uniforms actually, but that makes your justification of murder a little more difficult so best ignore it.

Sgt. Sensible

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Some nasty little prejudices revealed in that post.

prejudices? Not really. Nothing I said was in any way about a race, or such. It was about approaching a new border, directly after a war, where the enemy is one that doesn't wear uniforms, and attacks from civilian groups or areas. This is about common sense. If it was the case whereby they protested months after the war and there was relative peace, then I would feel differently. However this was during a tense period, and those protestors should have known better.

And Hezbollah do wear uniforms actually, but that makes your justification of murder a little more difficult so best ignore it.

Really? Care to prove it? Have you any evidence to show that Hezbollah wears uniforms during combat? They operate on a guerilla style combat where uniforms are a liability, and defeat the purpose of the style of fighting they've chosen to use.

Hogmeister B

Deleted User wrote:

Yup. I guess I am.

Then you should be ashamed of yourself. Utterly ashamed.

Deleted User wrote:

There's no excuse for stupidity. Marching (protesting, so I assume lots of shouting, angry chanting etc) towards a recently formed border which israeli troops manned who were fighting an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms, isn't the most intelligent thing to do. They were foolish. Being a civilian doesn't excuse you from having the intelligence not to place yourself in harm.

I would have thought that Israelis would not be going on the lack of uniform to identify their enemies, but on whether the people were armed. These people were not armed. Therefore there is no excuse whatsoever to shoot at them, regardless of the dress habits of Hizb Allah.

mike65

Interesting little wrinkle in this saga today. The leader of Hezzbolah has noted some negative feedback in the border areas of Lebanon and has said he was'nt expecting the kidnappings of the Israeli troops to have such an impact!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5291420.stm

Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war/"We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude," Sheikh Nasrallah said.

"Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping?

"I would say no, definitely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons.

Well next time he'll know then! Kinda makes Hassan Nasrallah look foolish, its not like the IDF approach is'nt well known.

I can only imagine the Israelis are quietly happy with this statement.

Mike.

bk

mike65 wrote:

I can only imagine the Israelis are quietly happy with this statement.

Yes, I'd say they are absolutely delighted. I'm very surprised, it is a very bad pr blunder by Hezbollah.

It just reminds everyone who started this conflict and makes Hezbollah look weak and stupid.

I'd say Hezbollah must be under massive pressure from the rest of Lebanon to have made a statement like this, it basically seems like Hezbollah are apologising to the rest of the Lebanese people for their stupidity. I'd say Hezbollah are very afraid that the Lebanese government will use their weakened state to disarm them and retake control of Southern Lebanon.

Bookee

mike65 wrote:

Kinda makes Hassan Nasrallah look foolish

Actually refreshing to see a little Honesty from one side. If he looks so foolish, why are Israel negotiating .... !
That's all they had to do previously

Hogmeister B

Hogmeister B wrote:

Then you should be ashamed of yourself. Utterly ashamed.

Below is the incident per the UNIFEL link:

A serious incident occurred on 7 October. In the context of the tension in the Occupied Territories and Israel, about 500 Palestinians and supporters approached the line south of Marwahin to demonstrate against Israel. As the crowd attempted to cross the Israeli border fence, Israeli troops opened fire, killing three and injuring some 20.

They were shot at as they tried to cross the fence. You don't believe they had a responsibility to chose how to protest? This isn't civilians protesting in front of their positions calmly. They decided to goad the Israel's into action by crossing a zone they had no right to be in, and with a large crowd.

Kind of hard to maintain a secure border if you allow roughly 500 palestinians to cross your security fence. Would you attempt to cross an Israeli border fence in protest, full knowing that the Israeli's have to keep the area secure?

I believe people have to have the responsibility to choose when and how they protest. This wasn't the manner to do it, and they caused this as much as the Israeli's that pulled their triggers.