Israelis kill 54 Civillians in Lebanon.

[Shahed]

Any comments on this topic ?
Legitimate collateral damage or ... ?




Israel halts fire for Qana probe
Israel has agreed a 48-hour suspension of air strikes over southern Lebanon to investigate the killing of more than 54 civilians on Sunday, the US says.
The announcement came after talks between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and senior Israeli officials.

More than 30 children died in the Qana attack - the deadliest Israeli raid since hostilities began on 12 July when two Israeli soldiers were seized.

The UN Security Council has agreed a statement deploring the loss of life.

The strike has drawn strong international condemnation and, correspondents say, given a new urgency to diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.

But the US is still resisting calls for an immediate ceasefire.


Why have they attacked one- and two-year-old children and defenceless women?
Qana survivor


Hezbollah militants who captured the Israeli soldiers in a cross- border raid have vowed to retaliate.

Several Katyusha rockets hit the Israeli border town of Kiryat Shemona on Sunday, wounding several people, in what residents described as the worst day so far.

Lebanon's health minister says about 750 people - mainly civilians - have been killed by Israeli action.

A total of 51 Israelis, including at least 18 civilians, have been killed in the conflict.

'Heinous'

The Israeli strike killed displaced civilians sheltering in the basement of a three-storey house.

Old people, women and children were among those killed.





Reporters spoke of survivors screaming in grief and anger, as some scrabbled through the debris with bare hands.

"Why have they attacked one- and two-year-old children and defenceless women?" said a man who lost family members.

Israel said it had warned civilians to flee, but the BBC's Jim Muir, in Qana, says many did not have the means - or were too frightened - to flee.

As well as suspending the air attacks, Israel says it will work with the United Nations to allow a 24-hour period of "safe passage" for civilians who wish to leave the area, the US state department spokesman, Adam Ereli added.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora denounced Israel's "heinous crimes against civilians".


HAVE YOUR SAY
Surely the lives of the innocent should take precedence
Nikki, Warwickshire


He said his government would not conduct any talks until Israel had halted its attacks - prompting the US secretary of state to cancel a visit to Beirut.

Correspondents say Qana holds bitter memories for the Lebanese.

It was the site of an Israeli bombing of a UN base in 1996 that killed more than 100 people sheltering there during Israel's "Grapes of Wrath" offensive, which was also aimed at destroying Hezbollah.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow talk about a biased title. Lets ignore the fact that Hezbollah has been firing rockets from all around that building and that everyone was warned to leave.

[Shahed]

HAHA !

I love you Gawain.. you are THE man ! :D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I love you Gawain.. you are THE man. 11k posts to prove it too

Well that was my first in quite a spell. You bring out the best in me:laugh4:

Wow you did some quick edditting, As to the very senior member that refers to my age,

[Quietus]

Any comments on this topic ?
Legitimate collateral damage or ... ?
It's a savage attack. If they really want to disarm Hezbollah by force, they have to use ground troops. But no, they just withdrew from Bint Jbail then continue indescriminately blasting civilians by airstrikes. :skull:

Apparently they've just halted the bombings for 48 hours.

[Shahed]

Gawain: HAHA ! Well these are a few random ones from me.

Maybe it's biased.. or is it ?

How about these trashy propaganda, convert to my religion titles:
"Muslim buys condoms in Walmart"... or "Muslim kills 2 Jews in Istanbul" or "Muslims believe in 72 (??lol??) virgins in Paradise".

How many Muslims died today at the hands of Jews ?

Foolish question of course.
Of course we all only care for our own. Humanity as a whole isn't considered our own. It's "they, them etc.." and "us".

So Gwain, in urban lingo that would be:

How's it homey ? My brotha from another mutha !

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How many Muslims dies today at the hands of Jews ?


Far less than die at the hands of other Muslims.

Gee its fun being back :laugh4:

[Joeokar]

Air strikes wont win this for Israel they went at this the wrong way should have use more land force and less air power. ihmo

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Air strikes wont win this for Israel they went at this the wrong way should have use more land force and less air power. ihmo


Yes theve made quite a few mistakes. Such as not giving the civilian population enough warning and time to evacuate.

[Shahed]

Far less than die at the hands of other Muslims.

Gee its fun being back :laugh4:

Remarkable similarity there between Muslims and "blacks". They also killl each other far more than the Christians or Jews kill them right ?

BS... no they don't, they don't have the majoprity of the guns. Who's got the most firepower, that's the man with the most kills.

Now back to readying those MK-84s, airman !
You don't get paid tax dollars to think soldier.

[Productivity]

Wow talk about a biased title. Lets ignore the fact that Hezbollah has been firing rockets from all around that building and that everyone was warned to leave.

As opposed to

"Muslim Shoots Jews in Seattle, USA".

While I don't take a side either way in regards to the titling (call it what you want, I can work out what you mean either way), this is not exactly without precedent. Both are designed to provoke, but are also both factual, I see little wrong with either of them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Remarkable similarity there between Muslims and "blacks". They also killl each other far more than the Christians or Jews kill them right ?

BS... no they don't, they don't have the majoprity of the guns. Who's got the most firepower, that's the man with the most kills.


What world are you living in? How many Muslims have been victims of terrorist attacks? Far more then the Jews. 3000 this month alone in Iraq.

[Shahed]

3000, no way ? Where did you get that figure from.. if it's the Playboy I want a copy too..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

3000, no way ? Where did you get that figure from.. if it's the Playboy I want a copy too..


I forget where I heard it, But its vertainly a lot more than the number of Jews who have been killed. Even the attacks on Israel have killed a number of Muslims.

[Xiahou]

It's always a shame to see innocents die in warfare- but when your enemy deliberately hides behind civillians and stores weapons in their houses, it's pretty much unavoidable.

[Samurai Waki]

Maybe it'll teach Civilians not to harbour fighters of any sort...food for thought.

[Pannonian]

It's always a shame to see innocents die in warfare- but when your enemy deliberately hides behind civillians and stores weapons in their houses, it's pretty much unavoidable.
There's a thought that Hezbollah don't deliberately hide behind civilians or store weapons in their houses, and indeed try to separate themselves from them as much as possible, but set up and store weapons reasonably near civilian areas because that's where the transport and storage infrastructure is. If you don't have the resources to set up a dedicated camp, then you're going to park your weapons where there are buildings for storage and roads to travel on.

[Fragony]

I guess this is Israel's way of explaining that when they say it's time to leave you better do it.

[Duke John]

Very good point, Pannonian. Perhaps something too difficult for some to cope with that just accepting civilian deaths as collateral damage seems like a good solution for that.


Legitimate collateral damage or ... ?
No. The bigger the ratio of deaths of Israelian and Lebanon civilians gets the more I am despising Israel. They are quickly using up sympathy points.

[Bar Kochba]

so then should we let hizbullah kill a few hundred israelis to even it out earn back your sympathy. what an ignorant thing to say

[scotchedpommes]

I guess this is Israel's way of explaining that when they say it's time to leave you better do it.

However when you try to leave, you are bombed. Anything moving seems to be
a target, as could be seen on the footage from the news crew caught in a strike.

[Fragony]

However when you try to leave, you are bombed. Anything moving seems to be
a target, as could be seen on the footage from the news crew caught in a strike.

A great gesture to the world, Israel is saying they will get away with everything, this will have no consequences, and neither will the attack on the UN post. Israel is not a western country in the middle east, Israel is the middle east. I wish my family was prosecuted, it must be fun to be able to hit someone and then start crying yourselve. Ah, all way to complicated for me, Israel does need to defend themselve from boomski's, and the boomski's do want them dead. Arabs, jews, all nuts, they deserve eachother.

[Duke John]

so then should we let hizbullah kill a few hundred israelis to even it out earn back your sympathy. what an ignorant thing to say
Yes, of course that is what I want. :rolleyes:
How about Israel risking the lives of their soldiers a bit more to reduce civilian casualities on the Lebanon side? Their current way of fighting is pathetic.

[Bar Kochba]

compare this to iraq please israel are extremely careful with civilans compared to america and britan. and also why should israel risk the loss of the soldiers for a country they are effectivly at war with. i have a cousin in that army i would prefer israel to be catious with there own soldiers then with the citzens of another country

[Ironside]

As I mentioned in this thread Random Scenario (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67193) doing stash removal this way is highly ineffective.

Let see now:
Giving people a warning to leave will probably make most of the terrorists flee beforehand as they're usually more mobile than the civilians. So you cannot warn if you want to kill terrorists (unless it's a ruse to flush them out, but that requires control of whom is escaping).
Shooting on fleeing people won't exactly encurage the population to flee.

The use of warnings is then either to punish the population or to remove stashes. As stashes is usually quite well-protected (underground), using airstrikes to take them out requires excessive bombing of the area in a way that also doubles as punishment for the population who will get thier homes totally destroyed.
And people likes when someone stands up against a bully, even if it's on the principle "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Using ground troops only gives better control, better evacuation, less damage and better stash removal.

So exactly what was the Israeli command thinking???
Even if the operation would be highly successful it's still a failure in the current situation and getting this has a way too high probabillity.

[Fragony]

compare this to iraq please israel are extremely careful with civilans compared to america and britan. and also why should israel risk the loss of the soldiers for a country they are effectivly at war with. i have a cousin in that army i would prefer israel to be catious with there own soldiers then with the citzens of another country

Hmmmm, I wouldn't call it the silk gloves treatment, but I think Hezbollah cheers for every civilian casualty the Israeli army makes. If Hezbollah for some devine reason knew where a rocket on a set date at a set date would drop, they would build a school or a mosk at that very spot.

[Bar Kochba]

but think about it in these terms if your country was fighting another one you were a genral who would you rather protect your soldiers or there civilians

[Fragony]

but think about it in these terms if your country was fighting another one you were a genral who would you rather protect your soldiers or there civilians

I would try to keep my own losses to a minimum, even if civilian casualties are a possibility. Any general would.

edit, I do think that this wasn't an accident, nor do I think the attack on the UN post was.

[Ronin]

compare this to iraq please israel are extremely careful with civilans compared to america and britan. and also why should israel risk the loss of the soldiers for a country they are effectivly at war with. i have a cousin in that army i would prefer israel to be catious with there own soldiers then with the citzens of another country

then I must had been alucinating when I saw that Israely army official statin on sky news over and over again that they were not at war with lebannon or the lebanese people...just with hezbolah.....


then start acting like it!.....stopping indiscriminate bombings of houses full of kids and of people trying to get away from the area would be a good first step.

[Duke John]

The civilised nations made a difference between the military and the civilian population. If our army is such an impotent body that it cannot attack without having a ratio of 1:5 of military targets:civilian casualities then it shouldn't be fighting.

I cannot grasp how one can justify a way of fighting that results in hundreds of civilian deaths and "only" losing tens of soldiers on your side. With such a disrepect of life I cannot see how Israel could ever hope to "integrate" in the Middle East.

Imagine living in some neighbourhood. Some teenagers kill your son and you retaliate by setting fire to the houses where you suspect the teenagers live, killing the parents and brother and sisters along. And to protect the lives of your other kids you flatten the houses near your own to create a no-mans land that is easier to control.
Not something a sane person would do, after all those teenagers killed your son, not the rest of the neighbourhood, and in the end you want a nice neighbourhood.

Israel is in a neighbourhood that contains quite a few people that want her swept from the face of the earth. Yet it should realize that the majority of the neighbourhood is still only concerned with going to their jobs and taking care of their families. Israel has little respect for the lives of Palestinian and now also Lebanon civilians. Why did Israel ever go living into that neighbourhood if it doesn't like any its neighbours?

[Somebody Else]

Using ground troops only gives better control, better evacuation, less damage and better stash removal.

Not that I condone what happened, but if an armed force wants to stay in a built-up area, and they can't be bombed out, they are very difficult to dislodge. So, if going in with ground troops is not an option, what option is there?

If you want them shifted, unless they walk out on their own, there will be blood.

Makes for some very tricky decisions up at the top.

[Geoffrey S]

Neither side of this conflict has the civilians' interests at heart. Hezbollah hides behind civilians, Israel calls their bluff. It's no longer a matter of who's wrong and who's right, more a matter of which side is doing the worst things.

I think Israel made a big mistake in not allowing more time for civilians to evacuate properly before launching their air raids, and in persisting in such raids over ground assaults when it became apparent they were hurting the civilians more than Hezbollah. It wastes their credibility when they say they care about civilians in Lebanon, while it's entirely unnecessary.

Several hundred innocent people, like you and me, have died, yet the world waits. :no:

[Duke John]

How far has civilization gotten when the lives of children have become mere statistics, when their deaths are a little more than an unfortunate side-effect?

[Dutch_guy]

Several hundred innocent people, like you and me, have died, yet the world waits. :no:

What exactly would you have the world do, send a peaceforce ?

:balloon2:

[caravel]

Israel's approach is way too heavy handed, and always has been, their "counter terrorism" almost always take the form of some kind of severe retaliation/revenge, with numerous civillian casualties, to me this makes them no better than the terrorists they're fighting. They also make themselves extremely unpopular, but don't seem to care. The Israeli administration seem safe in the knowledge that whatever they do, the US, and some of it's allies such as the UK, will support them no matter what. As long as this cylce of retaliation and hate persists how can any attempt be made at peace?

[Pannonian]

So exactly what was the Israeli command thinking???
Even if the operation would be highly successful it's still a failure in the current situation and getting this has a way too high probabillity.
Israel was fighting stupid, as usual. Secure in the support of their American sponsors, they think that firepower is the best anti-terrorism tactic there is. Actually, from what I've seen, I would say their American counterparts are far more sensitive and sensible in the art of counterinsurgency. The US army has a reputation of being a bull in a china shop, but they are veritable ninjas compared to the Israelis.

[Geoffrey S]

What exactly would you have the world do, send a peaceforce ?
Not necessarily instantly, but yes, that is what I'd like to see quite soon. Right now, until there's some kind of ceasefire, that is however impossible.

But mainly what I was referring to was that shambles that they called talks in Rome. However much I disagreed with the reasoning behind the Israeli statement that the inability to reach any kind of consensus or condemnation means the present nations condone their strikes into Lebanon, that is the exact message sent out by their inability to come up with a firm policy or condemnation.

What I would have the world do is put pressure on the Israelis and Hezbollah (possibly through Syria/Iran) and force a ceasefire; then work out with both the Israeli and Lebanese government how best to use a UN peaceforce to disarm Hezbollah. However, until such pressure is applied there is no real reason for either side to start fighting.

[x-dANGEr]

Hmmmm, I wouldn't call it the silk gloves treatment, but I think Hezbollah cheers for every civilian casualty the Israeli army makes. If Hezbollah for some devine reason knew where a rocket on a set date at a set date would drop, they would build a school or a mosk at that very spot.

That's throwing it over the edge.

but think about it in these terms if your country was fighting another one you were a genral who would you rather protect your soldiers or there civilians

Israel says that Lebanon is conqered by Hezbullah, so let's frame it this way: If you were a general trying to free a country, who would you rather protect, your soldiers or the civilians you're going to free? If the answer is your soldiers, then Israel shouldn't even attack Lebanon.

P.S. Nice interpertation, Duke John.


And about the warning/evacuation matter.. Have you ever watched a movie when the bad guy gives the good guys 2 minutes till the bombs explode? In this case, the good (Innocent) guy isn't a movie star, and so isn't Arnold. Go figure.

[Tribesman]

Wow talk about a biased title. Lets ignore the fact that Hezbollah has been firing rockets from all around that building and that everyone was warned to leave.

Welcome back Gawain .
They were warned to leave right , you mean just like the inhabitants of Tyre were told to leave , and what did the IDF tell the inhabitants in that city on Friday when they were leaving ?
Go back or you may be killed .
The Australians who were organising a convoy objected , IDF says tough go back to Tyre , people are still dying because the IDF is bombarding tyre , it tells them to leave but then tells them they cannot leave .
So what relevance whatsoever does an Isreali warning to leave have ?
Absolutely none at all .

So exactly what was the Israeli command thinking???

Well Ironside the main problem is that the Israeli command and politicians are not thinking .
They have given hezbollah a complete victory , with 80% of the Lebanese Christian population now supporting them and 60%of the Lebanese Druze .
Now that is some damn turnaround isn't it .
Isrel set itself objectives that would be very very difficult to attain , and then went about it in a manner that made them impossible .
The same deal is on the table now as was on the table on day 1 , and that is the only deal that will ever be on the table .

[Pannonian]

It's a savage attack. If they really want to disarm Hezbollah by force, they have to use ground troops. But no, they just withdrew from Bint Jbail then continue indescriminately blasting civilians by airstrikes. :skull:

Apparently they've just halted the bombings for 48 hours.
So much for the 48 hour ceasefire.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1834225,00.html

Israeli air force jets bombed southern Lebanon this morning, despite a 48-hour suspension of air strikes negotiated by US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice yesterday after an attack that left more than 60 dead.

The strikes, near the village of Taibe, were carried out in support of ground forces operating in the area and did not target anything specific, the Israeli army said.

But they called into question the 48-hour suspension that was the most significant outcome of Ms Rice's aborted visit to the Middle East at the weekend.

However, Israeli military officials today said it would not apply to strikes launched in retaliation for Hizbullah rocket attacks, or to stop the importation of weapons from Syria.

"If we identify a rocket launch there will be an air strike, or if we identify a truck loaded with weapons there will be one too," an army spokesman told Israel Radio.

Given the accuracy of intelligence so far, one wonders how accurately the Israelis will be able to identify trucks loaded with weapons, or will yet more minivans ferrying the civilian population out be hit.

[kataphraktoi]

so...will Hezbollah give the captured soldiers back or do they prefer to wait for the civilian casualties to mount up to their benefit (sympathy for them and boo-hisses to the Israelies)?

[Don Corleone]

Israel's making terrible mistakes with this whole mess, but they really didn't have any good options to start with....

A lot of folks on this board are saying that Israel should have just released all the Hezbollah prisoners at the onset. Maybe the 2 soldiers would have been released, maybe they wouldn't. But the rocket attacks from southern Lebanon would have continued, and one thing is for damn sure... IF Israel had met Hezbollah's demands, you can count on kidnappings galore from that day forward.

Listen to what Hezbollah is saying people.... any cease fire will be a unilateral cease fire. Yes, Israel is fighting to wipe out Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has openly declared that they too are fighting to wipe out Israel. They're not interested in treaties or 1967 boundaries or anything else. They want every last Jew in the Middle East dead, then Europe and the Americas. I don't hold out much hope for Christians or atheists either. We're khafir to them, and nothing short of a global caliphate will satisfy them.

How exactly does a unilateral cease fire by Israel solve that problem?

[x-dANGEr]

Don, I believe if Israel had released all the prisoners, given back the "in-southern-Lebanese-opinion-conquered-Lebanese-terrorities", those rocket attacks (Which btw mostly existed for a reason.. Not just to make damage! Hezbullah can't afford wasting missiles without a political effect anyway)
would've stopped.

[Don Corleone]

Don't take my word for it, X-danger , take Hezbollah's. They openly declare that the state of Israel is an abomination that cannot stand. They will not live in a world where folks are not muslim without doing something about it. These aren't my words, they're theirs. The political goal you speak of is there: the end of Israel and the death or explusion of all Israeli Jews.

[Tribesman]

Listen to what Hezbollah is saying people
Can you provide some full direct quotes there Don , or is it the same as you did with the Hamas charter ?

.... any cease fire will be a unilateral cease fire. unless.........
they will not disarm unless..........
they will not release the hostages unless...........

When you fill in the full statements you will find that they say exactly the same as their government says .
So when Condi is blethering on about a meaningfull ceasefire and a lasting peace settlement , what exactly is she on about ? All the conditions are clearly laid down by both the government and the militia , and they have been laid down for a long time .
The conditions are exactly the same as they were last time they captured Israelis , when Israel reneged on part of the deal they were told what would happen , it happened (on the second attempt) and the same deal is still on the table .
Israel is gonna have to take it eventually , it cannot win militarily , the only reason they are taking the current line of action is due to the Israeli governments weak domestic position , but the damn idiots are further weakening their position domesticly and internationaly.
You would have thought they should have learnt from last time , or from their peace deal with Egypt .

[Don Corleone]

Glad you asked Tribesman. Maybe when Hezbollah or Hamas decide to act on their pledges of universality, they'll start in your local pub...


"As the imam (Ayathollah Khohemeni) said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad October, 2005 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php)


"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Hasran Nasrallah October 23, 2002 (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/archives.asp)

"It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on Earth (http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=10439) Official Hezbollah Statement, 1992


And while you brought up the Hamas Charter...

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory) (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)

Also from the charter, on the followers of other religions
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other.Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact. (emphasis mine)



On the Universality of their call for Islamic rule:

As a result of the fact that those Moslems who adhere to the ways of the Islamic Resistance Movement spread all over the world, rally support for it and its stands, strive towards enhancing its struggle, the Movement is a universal one. It is well-equipped for that because of the clarity of its ideology, the nobility of its aim and the loftiness of its objectives.

On this basis, the Movement should be viewed and evaluated, and its role be recognised. He who denies its right, evades supporting it and turns a blind eye to facts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, would awaken to see that events have overtaken him and with no logic to justify his attitude. One should certainly learn from past examples.

The injustice of next-of-kin is harder to bear than the smite of the Indian sword.

"We have also sent down unto thee the book of the Koran with truth, confirming that scripture which was revealed before it; and preserving the same safe from corruption. Judge therefore between them according to that which Allah hath revealed; and follow not their desires, by swerving from the truth which hath come unto thee. Unto every of you have we given a law, and an open path; and if Allah had pleased, he had surely made you one people; but he hath thought it fit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which he hath given you respectively. Therefore strive to excel each other in good works; unto Allah shall ye all return, and then will he declare unto you that concerning which ye have disagreed." (The Table, verse 48).
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

I still cannot believe that somebody I respect (and times even admire) as much as you Tribesman would be so foolish as to declare that Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran would ever accept an Israel in pre-1967 boundaries. The problem is you don't take them at their word. The best you've ever been able to come up with is "they don't really mean it" or "That's just an unfair translation". I really don't think the Yale University Law School or the Lebanon Daily Star are out to paint Hezbollah and Hamas in an unfair light to help Israel and the Bush administration. Try again.

[Tribesman]

Can you provide some full direct quotes there Don
Glad you asked Tribesman
So no full direct quotes then:inquisitive:

And while you brought up the Hamas Charter...

And can you remember what you claimed the charter said Don:laugh4:

I still cannot believe that somebody I respect (and times even admire) as much as you Tribesman would be so foolish as to declare that Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran would respect an Israel in pre-1967 boundaries. The problem is you don't take them at their word.
Who says I take them at their word Don ? however I don't take them at their rhetoric either which is what many focus on .
Their word will be given as part of a full peace deal , when that happens then you can screw them if they break it , until then ......

Edit to addI really don't think the Yale University Law School or the Lebanon Daily Star are out to paint Hezbollah and Hamas in an unfair light to help Israel and the Bush administration. Try again.

Do you know the Daily Stars political affiliation in Lebanon Don ? Lebanese politics are such fun , and very very complicated .

[Big_John]

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=150725

well, at least the ceasefire fits into the surreal "leave or we will bomb you... and if you leave, we will bomb you" paradigm. consistency is a thing..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Their word will be given as part of a full peace deal , when that happens then you can screw them if they break it , until then ......


How many times must we go through this process, They make a deal then they break it. Lets do it again.

[Tribesman]

How many times must we go through this process, They make a deal then they break it. Lets do it again.
In this case Gawain it was the Israelis that broke the deal , the terrorists said straight away at the time that they would kidnap more Israelis until Israel fully complied with the deal they struck in exchange last time .
Though really they shouldn't be bargaining over maps of minefields , Israel was supposed to have already handed them over to either the UN or the Lebanese government .
It just shows some people don't stick to their word doesn't it .

[Xiahou]

There's a thought that Hezbollah don't deliberately hide behind civilians or store weapons in their houses, and indeed try to separate themselves from them as much as possible, but set up and store weapons reasonably near civilian areas because that's where the transport and storage infrastructure is. If you don't have the resources to set up a dedicated camp, then you're going to park your weapons where there are buildings for storage and roads to travel on.

It's a thought, but I dont know that there's much evidence to support it. There are accounts of Hezbollah using UN bases as cover to launch missiles and it's known they store weapons in homes. For Hezbollah, civillian deaths are a good thing- the more civillians that die, the more popular opinion turns against Israel and the more sympathy Hezbollah seems to get from the populace. I suspect they do everything they can to blur the lines between military targets and civillian structures.

Here's an investigation of Hezbollah impersonating UN vehicles/personell to perpetrate kidnappings:

12. Two hours later, two vehicles, about 100 meters apart, were discovered by a UNIFIL patrol at the side of the road, near Kafar Hamam, approximately seven kilometers from the scene of the abduction. UNIFIL troops posted a guard on them. The vehicles were a white Nissan Pathfinder, which had been in an accident, and a dark blue Range Rover. Neither was a United Nations vehicle. Both vehicles' engines were running. Two imitation UNIFIL number plates, a UN flag, a false antennae and United Nations stickers were found inside the Nissan Pathfinder. Among other items in the vehicle were United Nations uniforms, overalls, and berets, AK magazines, civilian clothing and a radio set. A rucksack and radio set were seen inside the Range Rover and a full AK magazine was recovered nearby. Three explosive devices were observed in the car. The presence of blood was observed in the rear of the vehicle.

...

As UNIFIL was towing the vehicles to the Indian sector base for further investigation, armed Hizbollah personnel stopped the convoy and demanded that the vehicles be handed over. The convoy was detained for over one hour. Under instruction from the Force Commander, the recovered vehicles were handed over to Hizbollah in order to defuse an armed confrontation and possible loss of life.link (http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/videorpt.htm)

[Don Corleone]

Can you provide some full direct quotes there Don
Glad you asked Tribesman
So no full direct quotes then:inquisitive:

And while you brought up the Hamas Charter...

And can you remember what you claimed the charter said Don:laugh4:

I still cannot believe that somebody I respect (and times even admire) as much as you Tribesman would be so foolish as to declare that Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran would respect an Israel in pre-1967 boundaries. The problem is you don't take them at their word.
Who says I take them at their word Don ? however I don't take them at their rhetoric either which is what many focus on .
Their word will be given as part of a full peace deal , when that happens then you can screw them if they break it , until then ......

Edit to addI really don't think the Yale University Law School or the Lebanon Daily Star are out to paint Hezbollah and Hamas in an unfair light to help Israel and the Bush administration. Try again.

Do you know the Daily Stars political affiliation in Lebanon Don ? Lebanese politics are such fun , and very very complicated .

I posted a link to the entire charter. How much more full or direct do you want? Do you want Nasrallah's entire speech? I don't speak Arabic.

I said the Hamas charter called for forcibly converting everyone to Islam and a return to the Caliphate. Hmm, amazing because that's pretty much what I got out the document, even just from the paragraphs I posted.

I said you don't take them at their word, not that you do. I agree with you, you don't. Apparently, if I waved a gun at you and said I was going to blow your f-ing head off, you'd chuckle and say "that kooky Don, he really means he wants me to go get him a glass of water".

As for political alliances in Lebanon, give me a freaking break. If you need me to go find the same quotes in a paper other than the Daily Star, which by the way is published by the same people who publish Al Hayat and, surprisingly, the International Herald Tribune (yep, there's two pro-Bush rags if ever there were any), forget it. I'm tired of your silly little game of "Go find more quotes. Nope, don't like that source either, go find more. Nope, not those sources either, go find more" Apparently, until you read it in the Socialist Worker, it just didn't happen.

. It's times like this that I really lose respect for you. You say Hezbollah has nothing against Jews or Israel. I post quotes where Nasrallah says "I like Jews coming to Israel, saves me the trouble of having to go round them up later" and your best answer is "biased source" !?!?! That lame argument can only take you so far amigo.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In this case Gawain it was the Israelis that broke the deal

Yes it was they who crossed the border and killed 8 hezbollah soldiers and kidnapped 2


Israel was supposed to have already handed them over to either the UN or the Lebanese government .


And Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed. And how many Lebonese prisoners do they have 3? Please give me a link that backs up your claim .

[Big_John]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/31/mideast.main/index.html

israel announces, 'jk about ceasfire, sry. kthxbye.'

[ShadesWolf]

I have a question

Who is worse ?

A group of 'What ever you want to call them' who select a town/ city etc to attack another country from, or the country that returns the fire.

I find it hard to agree with how Israel is dealing with this. But I find it even harder that a group, will locate itself in a built up area, where they know Children and Women are located and attack another.

Over time Israel has shown how it wil react. So nobody can say this is not expected. As far as Israel is concerned anywhere firing at them is a target.

I cant help but feel, we only see one side of this. All the news articles always show dead people from Lebanon. We all know what Israel will do, so for me it is quite simple, and a lot of people wont like me for saying this.

I feel there are two groups who are to blame for this.

1/ Hezbollah militants these are far as im concerned are terrorists, they are no different to the IRA, or Bin Laden lots. They have a political wing which has been elected, no arguments about that, but you cant hold a gun and expect to do politics.

2/ The UN
UN resolution 1559, passed in 2004, which called for the disarming of militias as well as the withdrawal of foreign (i.e about 14,000 Syrian) forces from Lebanon.

As long ago as 2000, after Israel's withdrawal, Hezbollah was under pressure to integrate its forces into the Lebanese army and focus on its political and social operations.

But, while it capitalised on its political gains, it continued to describe itself as a force of resistance not only for Lebanon, but for the region.
The UN are tooth-less and a waste of time. The resolutions they create are not worth the paper they are wrote on, as they wont follow them through. How many more places must people die in before the UN gets up and sorts things out.
- Iraq
- Afghanistan
- Zimbabwe
- Sudan
Need I go on. :wall:

We would not have been having these problems in Lebanon today if the UN had sorted out the situation. What is the use of resolution 1559 if it is ignored by one of the parties. If they wont follow it throught the UN must sort it out. SIMPLE.

[Tribesman]

Yes it was they who crossed the border and killed 8 hezbollah soldiers and kidnapped 2

Which they said they would do when Israel broke the deal ........And how many Lebonese prisoners do they have 3exactly Gawain , plus the rest of the maps .

And Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed.
Yes and the government has said it will disarm them , as part of a full peace deal . And remember Israel breaks the conditions of the resolution that calls for militias to be disarmed on a regular (often daily) basis , so pot meet mr. kettle . If Israel doesn't keep with the conditions then why should Lebanon ?
How can you moan about only one side breaking the deal whenboth sides do it . Condemn both or condemn neither .

I posted a link to the entire charter. How much more full or direct do you want?
No you didn't (you did for the Hamas Charter) you posted a speech by some nutter in Iran repeating what some other nutter in Iran said 30 years ago .
Then you posted a short quote from a speech and another source quoting the previous short quote from a speech .
I said the Hamas charter called for forcibly converting everyone to Islam and a return to the Caliphate
So you don't remember what you claimed , but thats OK since at the time you made the claim you had not read the charter had you .

As for political alliances in Lebanon, give me a freaking break.
Surely political alliances in Lebanon are very important Don , given the context of this issue and the fact that they have been fighting each other for decades .:idea2: Soooooo.........Do you know the Daily Stars political affiliation in Lebanon Don ? Lebanese politics are such fun , and very very complicated .

Apparently, if I waved a gun at you and said I was going to blow your f-ing head off, you'd chuckle and say "that kooky Don, he really means he wants me to go get him a glass of water".

That would require some ability to seperate empty threats , propoganda and empty rhetoric , which was it Don ?
Apparently, until you read it in the Socialist Worker, it just didn't happen.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which they said they would do when Israel broke the deal .......

What deal? And since when does Israel have to bow to terrorist demands?


And how many Lebonese prisoners do they have 3exactly Gawain , plus the rest of the maps

Please interpret this as I dont understand it.


Yes and the government has said it will disarm them , as part of a full peace deal .

Oh please theve had how many years to do this? You and I both know they cant.


And remember Israel breaks the conditions of the resolution that calls for militias to be disarmed on a regular (often daily) basis , so pot meet mr. kettle . If Israel doesn't keep with the conditions then why should Lebanon ?


Where does it say Israel must disband its militia?


How can you moan about only one side breaking the deal whenboth sides do it . Condemn both or condemn neither .


Because I fail to see where Israel has broken it.

[Don Corleone]

You've not offered evidence to dispute a word I've said. You keep throwing up smoke and mirrors and claim that Hezbollah and Hamas are just a victim of bad propaganda. Fair enough. I think folks reading this thread will just have to weigh the evidence I have provided and then balance that with all the evidence you have contradicting me (oh wait, just your own hot air, I believe), and make up their own minds. I consider the discussion settled, as I have provided evidence why I believe Hezbollah and Hamas are intolerant of Israel, Jews in general and non-mulsims at large. If you'd care to offer some disputing evidence, I'd be happy to consider it, but "it's all lies meant to disparage Hezbollah because I say so" doesn't really hold a lot of weight and it seems that's where you're holding out. But the smilies, oh wait, cute smilies are better than facts or quotes any day of the week. You got me there.

[Pannonian]

I still cannot believe that somebody I respect (and times even admire) as much as you Tribesman would be so foolish as to declare that Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran would ever accept an Israel in pre-1967 boundaries. The problem is you don't take them at their word. The best you've ever been able to come up with is "they don't really mean it" or "That's just an unfair translation". I really don't think the Yale University Law School or the Lebanon Daily Star are out to paint Hezbollah and Hamas in an unfair light to help Israel and the Bush administration. Try again.
1. Hamas were about to accept the existence of Israel and Palestine as parallel states along 1967 borders after Abbas' threat to take it to a referendum. Even after the current conflict started, Haniyeh has stated in a WaPo editorial that he sees both states as having equal rights of existence.
2. Just because someone denies you your right of existence doesn't mean they're going to wipe you out. The political wing of the IRA, Sinn Fein, still explicitly aims to drive out the British from Northern Ireland. But they now do so exclusively via political means, and now they're in government in many councils, they are more concerned with domestic issues like schools, roads, and other social services.

If Israel were smart, they would have tried to use Northern Ireland as the model for peacefully and conclusively resolving conflict. After all, their way has been proven to be ineffective. Instead, they persist with the theory of peace through firepower.

[ShadesWolf]

2. Just because someone denies you your right of existence doesn't mean they're going to wipe you out. The political wing of the IRA, Sinn Fein, still explicitly aims to drive out the British from Northern Ireland. But they now do so exclusively via political means, and now they're in government in many councils, they are more concerned with domestic issues like schools, roads, and other social services.

If Israel were smart, they would have tried to use Northern Ireland as the model for peacefully and conclusively resolving conflict. After all, their way has been proven to be ineffective. Instead, they persist with the theory of peace through firepower.

We will have to see !
How many weapons do they still have, and if they make the choice to use them again.

So far it is quiet, but only time will tell

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hamas were about to accept the existence of Israel and Palestine as parallel states along 1967 borders after Abbas' threat to take it to a referendum. Even after the current conflict started, Haniyeh has stated in a WaPo editorial that he sees both states as having equal rights of existence.


Baloney. When they were first elected Israel asked them to remove the part of their charter that called for the destruction of Israel and they were told to go take a hike.


Just because someone denies you your right of existence doesn't mean they're going to wipe you out

It only means they will try.

[LeftEyeNine]

Is the media too biased or Israeli invasion is not all about eliminating only Hizbullah ? Why do I hear about civilian casualties everyday? Anyone care to explain?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why do I hear about civilian casualties everyday? Anyone care to explain?


You have to be kidding.

[Somebody Else]

Quick question... does Hezbollah have a uniform that is worn at all times? Dog-tags? Anyway to identify its dead as anything but civilian?

If they can melt into the crowds when alive, why not when dead?

*And before anyone jumps on me for neglecting the fact that 37 of the dead were children, I'm posing this question as more of a generality. We are humans, we ***k up sometimes.

[Don Corleone]

1. Hamas were about to accept the existence of Israel and Palestine as parallel states along 1967 borders after Abbas' threat to take it to a referendum. Even after the current conflict started, Haniyeh has stated in a WaPo editorial that he sees both states as having equal rights of existence.

That's right Pannonian. Nice, friendly, misunderstood Hamas were about to state that maybe all Jews don't have to die. I'd like to ask for a link to the Haniyeh editorial, but doesn't he have control of the political wing only? Wouldn't it be nice to get one of the guys blowing up schoolbusses to actually sign on to the fact that Jewish kids have a right to live too? Or is that too much to ask for?



2. Just because someone denies you your right of existence doesn't mean they're going to wipe you out. The political wing of the IRA, Sinn Fein, still explicitly aims to drive out the British from Northern Ireland. But they now do so exclusively via political means, and now they're in government in many councils, they are more concerned with domestic issues like schools, roads, and other social services.

If Israel were smart, they would have tried to use Northern Ireland as the model for peacefully and conclusively resolving conflict. After all, their way has been proven to be ineffective. Instead, they persist with the theory of peace through firepower.

I'm not arguing that Israel has handled the past few weeks well. I agree they haven't, but that's not what we're discussing. I said that Hizbollah and Hamas are out to destroy Israel and any cease-fire would have to be unilateral. Hizbollah has said they will not stop fighting under any circumstances until Israel is gone. In light of that, it's going to be a tough one to solve, because I don't know how long Israel is supposed to be in a 'cease-fire' while Hezbollah continues to fire at them. To answer your analogy about Northern Ireland, yes, kowtowing to terrorists and giving them what they ask for to make the violence stop is one way. Fortunately for the British, the IRA was not calling for an end to the UK at large or the death of all British people around the globe. Israel unfortunately faces an enemy with decidedly larger aims.

[Pannonian]

We will have to see !
How many weapons do they still have, and if they make the choice to use them again.

So far it is quiet, but only time will tell
Canary Wharf was the last spectacular they staged on the mainland, and Omagh scared them out of ever using force again. From top to bottom, they know that violence makes for bad PR, and since Sinn Fein are on the up, bombs will only hinder that rise. And there's the case of Robert McCartney's family, who turned down the IRA's offer of the summary shooting of the perpetrators in favour of civil justice.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1319821.htm

The Catholics of Northern Ireland trust the state more than they do the IRA. So Sinn Fein are doing all they can to make themselves part of that state.

[x-dANGEr]

Don, I don't know how recent your sources are, but hear this, ideas and goals change through time.

Now, I believe in the most recent interview with Nasrullah, which was around 3 years ago, if I remember correctly, he clearly stated the the goal of Hezbullah is to retrieve the captives, and free Sheba'a farms.

I believe there are 2 ways to clarify the situation:

Israel is a conquering state, Hamas is the resistance. Israel has the right to wipe of Palestine, and Arabs muslims/chirstians/jews have the right to wipe out Israel. Since, at the time Israel was founded, all the closing and furthering Arab countries were united, and by that, Israel basically controlled/conquered a part of it, and all the left parts/regions have the right to resist, till one finally controls the other. <---- Can justify any organization goal being the destruction of Israel, but same goes for Israel destroying all Arab countries. Of course, Israel only has the right to do so if it is first attacked, because it aknowledges not all these resistance foundations.


The other basic perfect typical one: Peace. <---- Israel is using it as a justification to all the bloodsheds it is making.. Too bad.


A group of 'What ever you want to call them' who select a town/ city etc to attack another country from, or the country that returns the fire.

I find it hard to agree with how Israel is dealing with this. But I find it even harder that a group, will locate itself in a built up area, where they know Children and Women are located and attack another.

Over time Israel has shown how it wil react. So nobody can say this is not expected. As far as Israel is concerned anywhere firing at them is a target.

I cant help but feel, we only see one side of this. All the news articles always show dead people from Lebanon. We all know what Israel will do, so for me it is quite simple, and a lot of people wont like me for saying this.

I feel there are two groups who are to blame for this.

1/ Hezbollah militants these are far as im concerned are terrorists, they are no different to the IRA, or Bin Laden lots. They have a political wing which has been elected, no arguments about that, but you cant hold a gun and expect to do politics.



If they can melt into the crowds when alive, why not when dead?

*And before anyone jumps on me for neglecting the fact that 37 of the dead were children, I'm posing this question as more of a generality. We are humans, we ***k up sometimes.

To clarify some things. Israel started the attack on civilian targets, infsastructure, cars, hospitals, whatever they could shoot. It even shot Ambulances, and UN camps. Now, were Hezbullah millitants hiding their weapons, ammo and all their stuff in such places? In fact, Al Manar (Hezbullah media) says that their weapons are all stashed underground, in 40 metre deep tunnels.. Maybe there is some theory about Ambulances that go down 40 metres and deposit weapons Israel needs to tell?


Quick question... does Hezbollah have a uniform that is worn at all times? Dog-tags? Anyway to identify its dead as anything but civilian?
Maybe because they are all busy at "military" stationary/mobile positions, like busy moving Rocket Launchers, or for instance busy at the front..:juggle2:

[Don Corleone]

P.S. The puppetmaster :iran: has come out way ahead on this. Uhm folks, remember 3 weeks ago... they're due to get the bomb any day now and were telling the UN to pound sand, they'll build as many as they like. China and Russia were helping them stall....

Also doing well in all of this :syria: Tell us to take our troops out of the country will you? Look at what happens to you when we tell Hezbollah to start it up with Israel. Kick us out again and you'll get more, twice as bad.

And Kofi Annan wants to let these two countries dictate the terms of the cease fire. Yep, that man's on the take :yes:

[Tribesman]

What deal?

The deal where they exchanged prisoners and handed over some maps .

And since when does Israel have to bow to terrorist demands?

It doesn't have to , but when it says it is , then doesn't , you can see what happens .

Please interpret this as I dont understand it.

Oh sorry gawain , when you mentioned the 3 people I thought you knew one part of the deal that Israel reneged upon .

Oh please theve had how many years to do this?
Really , so when did they sign a full peace deal ? perhaps I missed it .
If they say they will not do it until they get the deal then how is the fact that they havn't done it relevant in the slightest .

Where does it say Israel must disband its militia?

Israel already disbanded its militia in Lebanon , they had turned out to be a bit of an embarrasment , but thats what happens when you choose the Lebanese nazi party as an ally .

Because I fail to see where Israel has broken it.
Really , are you in someway blind then ? If you don't want to read Januarys 6 monthly list of Israeli /Lebanese/Syrian violations you can get the new ones today when they are issued (the mandate renewal is out on the website but they havn't published the list of violations yet, give it a few hours) .

[x-dANGEr]

Don, I don't know how recent your sources are, but hear this, ideas and goals change through time.

Now, I believe in the most recent interview with Nasrullah, which was around 3 years ago, if I remember correctly, he clearly stated the the goal of Hezbullah is to retrieve the captives, and free Sheba'a farms.

I believe there are 2 ways to clarify the situation:

Israel is a conquering state, Hamas is the resistance. Israel has the right to wipe of Palestine, and Arabs muslims/chirstians/jews have the right to wipe out Israel. Since, at the time Israel was founded, all the closing and furthering Arab countries were united, and by that, Israel basically controlled/conquered a part of it, and all the left parts/regions have the right to resist, till one finally controls the other. <---- Can justify any organization goal being the destruction of Israel, but same goes for Israel destroying all Arab countries. Of course, Israel only has the right to do so if it is first attacked, because it acknowledges not all these resistance foundations.


The other basic perfect typical one: Peace. <---- Israel is using it as a justification to all the bloodsheds it is making.. Too bad.


A group of 'What ever you want to call them' who select a town/ city etc to attack another country from, or the country that returns the fire.

I find it hard to agree with how Israel is dealing with this. But I find it even harder that a group, will locate itself in a built up area, where they know Children and Women are located and attack another.

Over time Israel has shown how it wil react. So nobody can say this is not expected. As far as Israel is concerned anywhere firing at them is a target.

I cant help but feel, we only see one side of this. All the news articles always show dead people from Lebanon. We all know what Israel will do, so for me it is quite simple, and a lot of people wont like me for saying this.

I feel there are two groups who are to blame for this.

1/ Hezbollah militants these are far as im concerned are terrorists, they are no different to the IRA, or Bin Laden lots. They have a political wing which has been elected, no arguments about that, but you cant hold a gun and expect to do politics.



If they can melt into the crowds when alive, why not when dead?

*And before anyone jumps on me for neglecting the fact that 37 of the dead were children, I'm posing this question as more of a generality. We are humans, we ***k up sometimes.

To clarify some things. Israel started the attack on civilian targets, infsastructure, cars, hospitals, whatever they could shoot. It even shot Ambulances, and UN camps. Now, were Hezbullah millitants hiding their weapons, ammo and all their stuff in such places? In fact, Al Manar (Hezbullah media) says that their weapons are all stashed underground, in 40 metre deep tunnels.. Maybe there is some theory about Ambulances that go down 40 metres and deposit weapons Israel needs to tell?


Quick question... does Hezbollah have a uniform that is worn at all times? Dog-tags? Anyway to identify its dead as anything but civilian?
Maybe because they are all busy at "military" stationary/mobile positions, like busy moving Rocket Launchers, or for instance busy at the front..:juggle2:

Seems many have by-passed my post, as I was editing it when they posted after me. I'm re-posting it here to make it visible, or noticed. I'd appreciate it if a mod would delete the one above. Thanks.

[Don Corleone]

Don, I don't know how recent your sources are, but hear this, ideas and goals change through time.

Now, I believe in the most recent interview with Nasrullah, which was around 3 years ago, if I remember correctly, he clearly stated the the goal of Hezbullah is to retrieve the captives, and free Sheba'a farms.

I believe there are 2 ways to clarify the situation:

Israel is a conquering state, Hamas is the resistance. Israel has the right to wipe of Palestine, and Arabs muslims/chirstians/jews have the right to wipe out Israel. Since, at the time Israel was founded, all the closing and furthering Arab countries were united, and by that, Israel basically controlled/conquered a part of it, and all the left parts/regions have the right to resist, till one finally controls the other. <---- Can justify any organization goal being the destruction of Israel, but same goes for Israel destroying all Arab countries. Of course, Israel only has the right to do so if it is first attacked, because it acknowledges not all these resistance foundations.


The other basic perfect typical one: Peace. <---- Israel is using it as a justification to all the bloodsheds it is making.. Too bad.



Hezbollah and Hamas have both, in writing on various occassions, called for the destruction of Israel and in the case of Hezbollah, Jews worldwide. That's not like saying "Don't care much for Israel", it's a pretty forceful statement. You don't get to just say "well, we kinda sorta don't really think that anymore, maybe". You have to come out and actually state something to to affect of "Okay, yeah, you have a right to exist". Haven't seen where anyone from Hezbollah or Hamas in an official capacity has said anything even remotely close to that.

<Israel is a conquering state: Hamas is the resistance> If you're arguing for a two-state solution, I might understand this, but Hamas is avowedly NOT. They have stated there is no two-state solution. The joke in fact is on them, as were Israel to cease, there would be no Palestine either. Syria considers Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon all to be theirs (as this was the original Syrian province in the Ottoman empire). Does Israel have a right to go into Lebanon after Hezbollah to make the attacks stop? I don't know, but I do know occupying it for a long stretch was a mistake. I do find it funny that the same people in the Backroom that are advocating Israel should stop airstrikes (not precise enough) and should send ground troops in to go after Hezbollah would be the first to cry bloody murder if they actually did.

As far as I know, Israel has not called for the destruction of Iran, Syria or any other Arabic country. Plenty of heads of Arabic states, all the way back to Nasser, have indeed called for the destruction of Israel. You ever ask yourself why Israel never bothers Egypt, even though Hamas sometimes operates out of Egyptian territory? Because Egypt has publicly announced that they believe Israel has a right to exist. Ditto for Jordan. That's all the Israelis want. People to publicly say "Yeah, I guess you don't have to die". Doesn't sound like a tall order to me.

[Pannonian]

That's right Pannonian. Nice, friendly, misunderstood Hamas were about to state that maybe all Jews don't have to die. I'd like to ask for a link to the Haniyeh editorial, but doesn't he have control of the political wing only? Wouldn't it be nice to get one of the guys blowing up schoolbusses to actually sign on to the fact that Jewish kids have a right to live too? Or is that too much to ask for?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html

You'll note the call to withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967 and dealing with problems from 1948 (right of return). Note also the statement that, if Israel will not allow the Palestinians peace, Palestine will not allow the Israelis peace. Corollary to that is the reverse, if Israel allows the Palestinians peace, Palestine will allow the Israelis peace.

As for his control of the political wing only - as Banquo/Haruchai has said, the British strategy in NI was to reach out to the moderates in the IRA and strengthen them at the expense of the extremists. If there are moderates in Hamas, and they're only in control of the political wing, then the thing to do is to build up their credibility so they can deal internally with these extremists. Israel can't deal with these extremists as effectively as the moderates in their own party can, that's the nature of things.



I'm not arguing that Israel has handled the past few weeks well. I agree they haven't, but that's not what we're discussing. I said that Hizbollah and Hamas are out to destroy Israel and any cease-fire would have to be unilateral. Hizbollah has said they will not stop fighting under any circumstances until Israel is gone. In light of that, it's going to be a tough one to solve, because I don't know how long Israel is supposed to be in a 'cease-fire' while Hezbollah continues to fire at them.

However, the intensity of the fighting had greatly decreased prior to the current episode, to the point where it was mostly an exchange between the military and the paramilitary. The first stage would have been to ritualise the fighting, so that maximum damage to the other side would not necessarily be the ideal outcome. In Britain, we arrived at an understanding with the IRA that we would not send our strength in full to seek retribution against their communities, but the IRA would also try to minimise civilian loss of life, if not civilian damage. Parallel to this would be the acceptance that the military and paramilitary would be fair targets, but not civilians. Unfortunately, the Israelis seem to think that the Hezbollah armed wing are fair game, but not the IDF.

If you don't want to distinguish between military and non-military, further de-escalation is not possible. If the Israelis thought Hezbollah's targeting was a bit too cavalier, they should have made that point. Instead, they escalated the situation over 2 captured soldiers, something that should have been accepted as part of the game.



To answer your analogy about Northern Ireland, yes, kowtowing to terrorists and giving them what they ask for to make the violence stop is one way. Fortunately for the British, the IRA was not calling for an end to the UK at large or the death of all British people around the globe. Israel unfortunately faces an enemy with decidedly larger aims.
So you deal with that with naked firepower? That strategy has been proven ineffective for decades. If you think that Britain has given in to the terrorists, you should look at what they wanted, and what they achieved. What they wanted was unification. They didn't get that, and they've accepted that they never will. What we gave them was a prosperous Northern Ireland whose citizens are treated equally without distinction. We would have done that anyway, regardless of any terrorist campaign. There have been prisoner amnesties, but they have been incidental to the whole picture (even the victims' families accept it as part of the price for peace). Have we kowtowed to the terrorists?

[Don Corleone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html

You'll note the call to withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967 and dealing with problems from 1948 (right of return). Note also the statement that, if Israel will not allow the Palestinians peace, Palestine will not allow the Israelis peace. Corollary to that is the reverse, if Israel allows the Palestinians peace, Palestine will allow the Israelis peace. If Prime Minsister Haniyeh has the authority to guarantee peace and security for Israel and an end to attacks, why hasn't he had the charter ammended? Why hasn't he stated that he personally at the very least recognizes Israel's right to exist? You could drive a truck through the holes he left in that editorial. What's more, in the article, he himself says, Gaza and the West Bank aren't enough...
Israel's unilateral movements of the past year will not lead to peace. These acts -- the temporary withdrawal of forces from Gaza, the walling off of the West Bank -- are not strides toward resolution but empty, symbolic acts that fail to address the underlying conflict. What might that underlying conflict be in the PM's eyes? Israel's very existence? He says, right there, leaving Gaza and the West Bank isn't enough. It's an empty gesture as far as he's concerned.

You'll note that no where does Prime Minister Haniyeh actually recognize an Israel in the peace solution. His exact words were:
But there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun. Recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people... historical Palestine. One state. Reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967 is a reference to returning the Golan Heights to Syria, not a 2 state solution.


As for his control of the political wing only - as Banquo/Haruchai has said, the British strategy in NI was to reach out to the moderates in the IRA and strengthen them at the expense of the extremists. If there are moderates in Hamas, and they're only in control of the political wing, then the thing to do is to build up their credibility so they can deal internally with these extremists. Israel can't deal with these extremists as effectively as the moderates in their own party can, that's the nature of things.
At some point, as I pointed out in my post, you have to stop drawing such a strong corollary to the Middle East. The IRA were never interested in the destruction of Britain and the death of British people everywhere. That does make a difference in terms of negotation. I agree with you that you do need to reach out to moderates on the other side, but to continue your analogy... how tolerant do you think Britain would have been if the real-IRA had ever really gotten going, beyond Omgah? What if they went over and bombed a few more underground stops even after Sinn Fein had gotten what they wanted?


However, the intensity of the fighting had greatly decreased prior to the current episode, to the point where it was mostly an exchange between the military and the paramilitary. You and I have very different ideas about exchanges between military/paramilitary units. Hezbollah launches rockets into towns and villages repeatedly for weeks and you call it an inter-military action? The one point you make that I might agree with you on in your entire post is Israel is acting a bit too naive to think that after all the times they've entered Lebanon that somebody wasn't going to cross the border in reverse and keep a souveneir or two in the process. Here, we agree, but at the end, it only drives us to the conclusion that the soldiers were a pretext... the Israelis wanted to hit Hizbollah to make the shelling stop and this gave them an excuse.

[Tribesman]

You'll note that no where does Prime Minister Haniyeh actually recognize an Israel in the peace solution. His exact words were:
Really , whats this then........ Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun.

[Don Corleone]

Again, show me where in the entire editorial he actually acknowledges the existence of a state of Israel. If anything, he says the opposite, referring to the historical state of Palestine. If he wants to say Israel as a state should exist, he should come right out and say it, not hint at it.

As for the "Right of Return", I have a silly question about this, because I (truthfully) don't understand and would like somebody to enlighten me. Even were such a thing to be granted, what sort of deeds/platts exist to confirm the claims of the returners? If some guy claims his grandfather had an olive farm on the land that's know the Knesset building but he doesn't have the deed anymore, how can we possibly verify his claim?

[Red Peasant]

Prisoner exchanges:

"A History of Israeli-Palestinian Prisoner Exchanges
By SAMAR ASSAD

Israeli-Hizballah Prisoner Exchanges

To date, there have been three prisoner exchange deals between Israel and Hizballah, the details of which follow.

In July 1996, Hizballah released the remains of two Israeli soldiers, Joseph Fink and Rahamim Alsheich, in exchange for the remains of 123 Lebanese soldiers. On the same day, Hizballah released 25 members of the South Lebanon Army (SLA), an army loyal to Israel. In exchange the SLA released 25 Lebanese prisoners from the Khima Prison in south Lebanon.

In June 1998, Hizballah returned the remains of Sergeant First Class Itamar Ilya in exchange for the remains of 40 Hizballah soldiers, among them the body of Hizballah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's son who was killed in 1997. The deal also included the release of Lebanese prisoners. The bodies of the Hizballah soldiers were transported by a French aircraft.

In January 2004, in the largest prisoner exchange, Israel released a total of 436 prisoners including 400 Palestinians; 23 Lebanese; two Syrians; three Moroccans; three Sudanese; a Libyan; and a German Muslim. Israel also returned the remains of 59 Lebanese soldiers. Israel received the remains of three Israel soldiers and the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum who Hizballah claimed was an Israeli intelligence officer. Sheikh Abdel Kareem Obaid, who Israel kidnapped from Lebanese territory in 1989, and Sheikh Mustafa Dirani, kidnapped in 1994, were among those released by Israel in exchange for its three soldiers and intelligence officer."


Well Tribey, it seems to me as though the Muslims/Arabs do a whole lot better out of these prisoner exchanges than the Israelis have ever done. Yeah, they are really sneaky and untrustworthy, eh? Israel has a right to defend itself against these psychos, end of argument. I just can't see how you can defend Hamas/Hezbollah/Syria/Iran etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He refers to "law abiding Isreal" thats "Isreal" as an entity.

Red Peasant, for Staters the Isrealis are holding a whole lot more Palastinians et al. than Hamas or Hezbollah.

How can you defend a State that has been in violation of UN resolutions since 1948 and continues to occupy the land of what is legally another soverign country, who's people they oppress.

Everybody in this mess stinks but right now Isreal smells the worst by a mile.

[Pannonian]

If Prime Minsister Haniyeh has the authority to guarantee peace and security for Israel and an end to attacks, why hasn't he had the charter ammended? Why hasn't he stated that he personally at the very least recognizes Israel's right to exist? You could drive a truck through the holes he left in that editorial. What's more, in the article, he himself says, Gaza and the West Bank aren't enough... What might that underlying conflict be in the PM's eyes? Israel's very existence? He says, right there, leaving Gaza and the West Bank isn't enough. It's an empty gesture as far as he's concerned.

A gesture backed by the president, the prime minister, the political wings of Fatah and Hamas, Fatah and Hamas prisoners, and if necessary the Palestinian people (if Abbas carried through with his threat of a referendum).



You'll note that no where does Prime Minister Haniyeh actually recognize an Israel in the peace solution. His exact words were: Recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people... historical Palestine. One state. Reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967 is a reference to returning the Golan Heights to Syria, not a 2 state solution.

He doesn't actually recognise Israel in the editorial because it's taken as given. If Israel has committed aggression against Palestine with its latest attacks, then it has to be an entity that is capable of committing said aggression. If it has crossed borders to attack Palestine, then by definition it must have borders to cross.



At some point, as I pointed out in my post, you have to stop drawing such a strong corollary to the Middle East. The IRA were never interested in the destruction of Britain and the death of British people everywhere. That does make a difference in terms of negotation. I agree with you that you do need to reach out to moderates on the other side, but to continue your analogy... how tolerant do you think Britain would have been if the real-IRA had ever really gotten going, beyond Omgah? What if they went over and bombed a few more underground stops even after Sinn Fein had gotten what they wanted?

There have been a few occasions when the IRA did indeed step over the line. We didn't respond with overwhelming violence. When we did use violence, it was reciprocal violence, either an ambush by the SAS or targeted assassination by one of the unionist groups, the message being to remind the IRA that we had our eye on them. We were able to do this because we had taken care to heavily inflitrate the IRA (an estimated third of the IRA were reckoned to be British agents). Given Israel's vaunted intelligence service, why can't they do this?



You and I have very different ideas about exchanges between military/paramilitary units. Hezbollah launches rockets into towns and villages repeatedly for weeks and you call it an inter-military action?

My impression was that most of the rocket strikes have been on IDF positions, with some accidentally deliberately falling in towns. The appropriate response would have been to pointedly do the same. Perhaps even buying in katyushas from somewhere to make the point.



The one point you make that I might agree with you on in your entire post is Israel is acting a bit too naive to think that after all the times they've entered Lebanon that somebody wasn't going to cross the border in reverse and keep a souveneir or two in the process. Here, we agree, but at the end, it only drives us to the conclusion that the soldiers were a pretext... the Israelis wanted to hit Hizbollah to make the shelling stop and this gave them an excuse.
On the Lebanon front, Lebanon and north Israel is the equivalent of Afghanistan in the Great Game, the proxy battleground for various regional powers. Even if there is lasting peace to be had, the game of war is just too much fun to relinquish.

Separately on the Palestine front, Israel are determined to keep down the Palestinians, to deny them any legitimacy. While coverage of the area concentrates on the physical attacks, it mostly ignores the most common cause of war in history, land disputes. In this, Israel is, and has been, a constant aggressor for the last 50+ years since the UN established the legal borders of the Israeli and Palestinian states. The PLO government under Arafat was willing to recognise the reality of Israeli conquests and sign over some of the land, but Israeli settlers continued eating into what Israel had recognised as Palestinian land in talks. It is increasingly clear that Israel wants much, perhaps even all of the West Bank, whatever they may concede in negotiations. IMHO if they're going to do this they should at least stop being duplicitous and make it open, make it clear Palestine will never exist except in the Gaza strip, and if they misbehave, Israel will take that as well. If they openly state their aims thus, I will have no quarrel.

[Don Corleone]

That's a really interesting take on things you have there Wigferth. How do you know that "law abiding Israel" isn't Israel, outside the middle East, in his book?

And hey, you can pick Israel as the worst party if you want to. I repeat, they aren't the ones that challenge their neighbors' right to exist. Those neighbors that don't dispute that simple right, such as Egypt and Jordan, don't have any problems with them. So you tell me who causes the trouble.

[Pannonian]

As for the "Right of Return", I have a silly question about this, because I (truthfully) don't understand and would like somebody to enlighten me. Even were such a thing to be granted, what sort of deeds/platts exist to confirm the claims of the returners? If some guy claims his grandfather had an olive farm on the land that's know the Knesset building but he doesn't have the deed anymore, how can we possibly verify his claim?
These kinds of things are usually dealt with by compensation. Recognising the right of return doesn't necessarily mean evicting the current Israeli occupant and reinstalling the original Palestinians, but can also mean paying them off in return for waiving that claim. So a possible solution might be to recognise verifiable individual claims, but also come to an overall agreement with the PA giving them a lump sum to deal with less verifiable claims as they see fit. It might mean paying twice for the same plot of land, but it's probably cheaper to shut up and pay up than to continue fighting on this count.

[Don Corleone]

He doesn't actually recognise Israel in the editorial because it's taken as given. If Israel has committed aggression against Palestine with its latest attacks, then it has to be an entity that is capable of committing said aggression. If it has crossed borders to attack Palestine, then by definition it must have borders to cross.

Really? It's taken as a given by whom? The Republican party in the US has it as a plank in their party platform that they want to end all elective abortions. In order for a Republican politician to distance himself (or herself) from the assumed position, he must explicitly, on the record, state that he does not share those views. Nobody is willing to 'take it as a given'. I'm sorry, when you call for somebody's destruction, if you want people to treat you as though you don't hold that view, you have to explicitly state that you don't.

And again, the IRA was never out to destroy every last Brit. The solutions you employed worked, because once they got what they wanted from you, namely you out of Northern Ireland, they were defanged. Well, to defang Hamas, Israel must cease to exist. To defang Hezbollah, every last Jew around the world must cease to exist. Not quite the same situation.

[Pannonian]

Really? It's taken as a given by whom? The Republican party in the US has it as a plank in their party platform that they want to end all elective abortions. In order for a Republican politician to distance himself (or herself) from the assumed position, he must explicitly, on the record, state that he does not share those views. Nobody is willing to 'take it as a given'. I'm sorry, when you call for somebody's destruction, if you want people to treat you as though you don't hold that view, you have to explicitly state that you don't.

And again, the IRA was never out to destroy every last Brit. The solutions you employed worked, because once they got what they wanted from you, namely you out of Northern Ireland, they were defanged. Well, to defang Hamas, Israel must cease to exist. To defang Hezbollah, every last Jew around the world must cease to exist. Not quite the same situation.
Erm, no. The IRA want us out of Northern Ireland, but they didn't get that. They didn't get anything close to that. We defanged them because we won over their support, we gave Northern Ireland prosperity and a fair state. If Israel wanted to try the same thing, they would have offered the Palestinians Arafat's preferred solution, a share of the state of Israel with targeted investment to bring them up to the living standards of the rest of Israel. That would be an exact parallel of the British strategy in Northern Ireland, sidestepping the terrorists' demands and neutralising them by winning over their support. Does that sound good to you?

[Don Corleone]

It sounds wonderful. It sounded even better back in mid 2000 when Ehud Barak actually offered it to Arafat, who promptly told him to kiss his ass and restarted the intifadah.

[Tribesman]

I just can't see how you can defend Hamas/Hezbollah/Syria/Iran etc.

Defend or condemn Peasant, it makes no difference both sides are at fault .
If people only condemn one side then I will defend that side , especially if they use falsehoods as part of that condemnation .
for example.....Because I fail to see where Israel has broken it.

Since you did a nice cut a paste about exchanges , let me draw your attention to a few words in it.......Sheikh Abdel Kareem Obaid, who Israel kidnapped from Lebanese territory in 1989, and Sheikh Mustafa Dirani, kidnapped in 1994
oh look someone exchanges kidnapped people .
Screw both sides , they are as bad as each other .


To defang Hezbollah, every last Jew around the world must cease to exist.
Nope , to defang hebollah you have to get a peace deal with the Lebanese government and erode the groups popular support .
Bombing the hell out of Lebanon isn't going to ever do that , it does the opposite .

It sounded even better back in mid 2000 when Ehud Barak actually offered it to Arafat, who promptly told him to kiss his ass and restarted the intifadah.

Thats an interesting take on what was offered in 2000 , quite inaccurate , but interesting none the less Don .
You do know why the deal fell apart don't you ? perhaps not .

[Pannonian]

It sounds wonderful. It sounded even better back in mid 2000 when Ehud Barak actually offered it to Arafat, who promptly told him to kiss his ass and restarted the intifadah.
The above sounds different from what I remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

[Don Corleone]

Barak offered Arafat 100% of Gaza and 75% of the West Bank, going to 95% within 15 years. He offered right of return, and control of Jersusalem. The two things he didn't offer were: 1) complete sovereignty of Temple Mount (right to refuse access to Jews and others) 2) unlimited right of return for those who could not provide verification of their residence within Israel proper prior to 1948. I'd say that's pretty generous, but even if Arafat didn't think so, he could have made a counter-proposal. Instead, he went home and had his Minister of Information, Imad Falouji, start the propaganda on TV and let the Intifada fly.

Tribesman, you do know that even prior to the Israeli air strikes, let's say July 5th, the Lebanese prime minister was stating that he didn't agree with the resolution to disarm Hezbollah and wouldn't have any parts of it. Not "I can't", "I won't". Doesn't sound like the Lebanese, even those outside of Hezbollah, were all that interested in seeing Hezbollah stop rocketing northern Israel.

[Pannonian]

Barak offered Arafat 100% of Gaza and 75% of the West Bank, going to 95% within 15 years. He offered right of return, and control of Jersusalem. The two things he didn't offer were: 1) complete sovereignty of Temple Mount (right to refuse access to Jews and others) 2) unlimited right of return for those who could not provide verification of their residence within Israel proper prior to 1948. I'd say that's pretty generous, but even if Arafat didn't think so, he could have made a counter-proposal. Instead, he went home and had his Minister of Information, Imad Falouji, start the propaganda on TV and let the Intifada fly.

What I suggested was the one state solution as a parallel of the British strategy in Northern Ireland, giving the Palestinians a share of Israel and actively bringing their living standards up to that of the rest of Israel.

[Don Corleone]

What I suggested was the one state solution as a parallel of the British strategy in Northern Ireland, giving the Palestinians a share of Israel and actively bringing their living standards up to that of the rest of Israel.

So the PA would get all of Palestine, AND a share of control in Israel? Sounds great for the Israelis. :dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The deal where they exchanged prisoners and handed over some maps

Link please. And who was this deal between? Besides under no circumstanes does hezbollah have the right to invade any nation. Thats what their incursion into Israel really was. People talk of Israels disprportionate response. What do you call killing 8 soldiers and kidnapping two over a prisoner exchange?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, you do know that even prior to the Israeli air strikes, let's say July 5th, the Lebanese prime minister was stating that he didn't agree with the resolution to disarm Hezbollah and wouldn't have any parts of it. Not "I can't", "I won't".
Yes Don I have posted the governments position previously .
Would you like to elaborate on his full statement , you know a little something about any moves having to be part of a full and comprehensive peace deal , which funnily enough sounds remarkably like what Condi was calling for as a condition for a ceasefire .
And while you are at it could you provide some more accurate details about those right of return conditions offered in 2000 as well as the other major sticking points .

[Don Corleone]

Actually, no. I'm tired of jumping through hoops for you. You go look something up if you think I'm being inaccurate.

[Don Corleone]

Yes Don I have posted the governments position previously .
Would you like to elaborate on his full statement , you know a little something about any moves having to be part of a full and comprehensive peace deal , which funnily enough sounds remarkably like what Condi was calling for as a condition for a ceasefire.

I'm not talking about Condi's visit on the 24th. I'm talking about Lebanon's continued refusal for the past several months to intervene in Southern Lebanon and put an end to Hezbollah's rocket attacks. Even prior to Israel's response over the kidnapping, Fouad Sinniora was saying that he didn't see any point in asking Hezbollah to comply with 1559, and wouldn't. So what full and comprehensive peace deal are you talking about?

[Tribesman]

Actually, no. I'm tired of jumping through hoops for you. You go look something up if you think I'm being inaccurate.
Come on Don , you can do better , for starters the talks didn't end in 2000 , they even managed to issue a non-paper a year later , detailing further progress , still unresolved issues and each sides proposals on the sticking points , including all the options on right of return and/or compensation , for both Palestinain refugees and Jewish refugees from arab countries/territory .
It then goes on at length about delineation , guardianship and acces to holy sites , followed up by the carve up of different neighbourhoods of Jerusalem .

A far cry from ....It sounded even better back in mid 2000 when Ehud Barak actually offered it to Arafat, who promptly told him to kiss his ass


What do you call killing 8 soldiers and kidnapping two over a prisoner exchange?

Errrrr.....thats called an act of war Gawain , what do you call it ?
If the two countries want an end to acts of war then they must end the war .
That means a full comprehensive peace deal between Lebanon and Israel .
Its about time for one don't you think ?
After all they have been at war since 1948 .

Link please.

Come on Gawain you should know better than that by now .~;)
If you do not even know the simplest basic details about deals between Israel , hezbollah and lebanon then what are you writing about ?
It does explain stuff like this though ......
What deal?

Please interpret this as I dont understand it.

And since when does Israel have to bow to terrorist demands?

It would be an idea to try and get a hold of a few basics first before you start .
perhaps then you wouldn't come out with ....Because I fail to see where Israel has broken it.

[Red Peasant]

He refers to "law abiding Isreal" thats "Isreal" as an entity.

Red Peasant, for Staters the Isrealis are holding a whole lot more Palastinians et al. than Hamas or Hezbollah.

How can you defend a State that has been in violation of UN resolutions since 1948 and continues to occupy the land of what is legally another soverign country, who's people they oppress.

Everybody in this mess stinks but right now Isreal smells the worst by a mile.

What sovereign country are you wittering on about? As soon as the British Mandate ended, 5 Arab countries invaded to kick the Jews out, or probably to exterminate them.

So, Israel has no right to hold and detain terrorists who they've caught fighting against them, just because they are Muslims. Get real, Israel will always have Islamic prisoners as long as this thing lasts, criminals get arrested - fact. Funny, but I just witnessed a crowd of Palestinian kids on TV making a public vow to basically destroy Israel, which is apparently something they do every year, and always have done. The Palestinian school had posters all over its walls with many references to the Holocaust and swastikas. Yup, they are willing to do deal with Israel. I think not.

[Don Corleone]

You're a real piece of work, Tribesman. You really are. Couldn't find any good links to dispute my view of the collapse of the Camp David talks, eh? I'll give you credit though... claiming that they went on for a full year longer (don't forget old boy, Sharon was in power by then) is magical. The Al-Aqsa intifadah started in September 2000. If that was Arafat's counteroffer, I guess I'm just not as sophisticated as you in recognizing peace overtures. :dizzy2:

[Pannonian]

So the PA would get all of Palestine, AND a share of control in Israel? Sounds great for the Israelis. :dizzy2:
The one state solution envisages an Israel-Palestine that covers all of Israel and all of Palestine, no distinction made. All citizens of that entity have equal rights in the rump state, which would be Israel, which would not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians gain access to all of Palestine and all of Israel, and likewise with the Israelis. The equivalent of the Union between England and Scotland. And like the Union between England and Scotland, sweetened with a massive lump sum from the richer partner.

Israel doesn't want this because of the birthrate difference. Such a state would contain more Jews than Arabs at present, but at current growth rates Arabs would be in the majority in around 20 years time, and would thus be in a position to vote away the Jewish state (see Meir Kahane's argument). Here in the UK, Protestants also face the difference in birth rates. However, we British do not care since our state doesn't distinguish between Catholics and Protestants, and neither do the people.

[Tribesman]

I'm not talking about Condi's visit on the 24th. I'm talking about Lebanon's continued refusal for the past several months to intervene in Southern Lebanon and put an end to Hezbollah's rocket attacks. Even prior to Israel's response over the kidnapping, Fouad Sinniora was saying that he didn't see any point in asking Hezbollah to comply with 1559, and wouldn't. So what full and comprehensive peace deal are you talking about?
Several months Don ?
Its been several years .
The peace deal would be the one that is needed between Israel and Lebanon to end the state of war that has existed for many decades .
You know , similar to the ones they did with Egypt and Jordan , then perhaps they can do one with Syria , then Iraq .......perhaps they may even get one with Iran , but for that to happen Iran would have to recognise the state of war , which means they would first have to recognise the State of Israel , which they have never done .

You're a real piece of work, Tribesman. You really are. Couldn't find any good links to dispute my view of the collapse of the Camp David talks, eh?
Don I previously sent you a PM link to a very comprehensive impartial database covering every aspect of the middle-east , did you ever bother to read any of it ?

[Don Corleone]

I wouldn't really have expected Lebanon to have done diddly squat to disarm Hezbollah while they were a puppet government for Syria. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and starting my timeline from the moment they were actually free enough to actually act on their own.... since the June 2005 elections. Thus far, their decision to allow Hezbollah unfettered access to fire on Israel has shown (me at least) that Lebanon isn't really interested in peace with Israel. How would you explain it?

Edit: MidEastWeb? Yes. But despite your claims that they're run by a former Israeli intelligence officer, I've never seen independent verification of who runs them or what their aims are. Interestingly enough, they're not exactly defending Hezbollah with the same vigor you are.

[Tribesman]

MidEastWeb? Yes. But despite your claims that they're run by a former Israeli intelligence officer,:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Thats MEMRI that is run by the intelligence officer , well him and a failed stand up comedian , thats the bunch who trawl through news articles and see what funny translations they can circulate round the world .

Interestingly enough, they're not exactly defending Hezbollah with the same vigor you are.
No they are severly critical of both sides , it goes with them being impartial , though you do see lots of descriptions on blogs of Azeroff as a self-hating Jew because he criticises Israel as well as others .


Thus far, their decision to allow Hezbollah unfettered access to fire on Israel has shown (me at least) that Lebanon isn't really interested in peace with Israel. How would you explain it?


Well last months UN reports noted good progress on the government acting against hezb'allah , they even had the army and the UN siezing rockets .
But the main issue the government has is trying to keep the country together without plunging into another civil war .
There is a rather nice man in the government , well he doesn't really attend government meetings , just sits in his fortress surrounded by his militia (who also were supposed to be disarmed) . A hell of a lot of the locals want to string him up , something to do with him slaughtering the inhabitants of 50 villages .
So you see the government does have its hands a little full as it is without them attempting to secure their southern border until they get it in writing that their southern border is secure .
So you see the rational behind the prime ministers statements , they will not act as border police for Isreal until Isreal agrees to a full peace settlement .

[Don Corleone]

And do you see how people, such as myself, see that as blackmail by the Lebanese prime minister.... give us everything we ask for in the peace treaty or Hezbollah will keep shooting?

[Tribesman]

And do you see how people, such as myself, see that as blackmail by the Lebanese prime minister.... give us everything we ask for in the peace treaty or Hezbollah will keep shooting?
Yep , and thats why Israel should have signed years ago from a position of strength , they made the same mistake with Egypt and ended up getting a worse deal than they were offered originally .
Israel knows it cannot win , it cannot sustain the occupation to call it a draw , it really is up the creek without a paddle .
It has done exactly what Syria and Iran wanted it to do , Olmert is a bloody idiot . But at least he has had the sense to not attack Syria .

[Big_John]

I wouldn't really have expected Lebanon to have done diddly squat to disarm Hezbollah while they were a puppet government for Syria. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and starting my timeline from the moment they were actually free enough to actually act on their own.... since the June 2005 elections. Thus far, their decision to allow Hezbollah unfettered access to fire on Israel has shown (me at least) that Lebanon isn't really interested in peace with Israel. How would you explain it?june 2005. so.. giving a newly independent nation about a year to disarm a powerful subnational movement sounds reasonable to you?

let's say it is reasonable (by some politikal slight of hand).. now is collective punishment of the lebanese, many of which hated hizbollah and actively worked to moderate the fanatics in the south, also reasonable? what is the goal of destroying lebanon, for israel? what is the goal of bombing roads, cars, tv stations, airports, etc, etc?

does israel wish to destroy any hope for lebanese to disarm hizbollah? by bombing lebanese civilians and civil infrastructure, israel is directly destroying

1) lebanon's ability to disarm hizbollah
2) the lebanese will to get rid of hizbollah
3) any perceived moral highground once held by israel in the eyes of the rest of the world

a democratic lebanon, regional friend of the US, is burning now. from the ashes, what can arise but a stronger hizbollah and an augmentation/extension of iranian and syrian interests on israel's northern border?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would seem that most of what they're asking is fairly reasonable. A lot of what the Prime Minister said, I don't know if its translated or not, sounds a bit like, "Hezbollah? What do you want me to do about it, they don't belong to me."

Which is a fair point, prior to the war they weren't popular or really well supported.

Tribesman, while I agree with your position here 100% you could try and develope some tollerence for people less well informed. You obviously take an interest in world affairs but many of us have neither the time nor resources to be so up to speed on everything.

I've always felt that the end result of an arguement should be both parties agreeing, with that in mind you could provide your sources so that people can see that your arguements are well founded. Disarming them with their own ignorance is fine but if you don't make an effort to justify your own position then the arguement is doomed to be repeated.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Errrrr.....thats called an act of war Gawain

And what act of war did Israel commit to deserve this. And what nation did the attacking?


Come on Gawain you should know better than that by now

Yes better than to expect you to do like everyone else and give a link to back up what they say. You give some obtuse answer and then expect everyone to do tricks for you. Either put up or shut up.

[orangat]

Barak offered Arafat 100% of Gaza and 75% of the West Bank, going to 95% within 15 years. He offered right of return, and control of Jersusalem. The two things he didn't offer were: 1) complete sovereignty of Temple Mount (right to refuse access to Jews and others) 2) unlimited right of return for those who could not provide verification of their residence within Israel proper prior to 1948. I'd say that's pretty generous, but even if Arafat didn't think so, he could have made a counter-proposal. Instead, he went home and had his Minister of Information, Imad Falouji, start the propaganda on TV and let the Intifada fly.

Tribesman, you do know that even prior to the Israeli air strikes, let's say July 5th, the Lebanese prime minister was stating that he didn't agree with the resolution to disarm Hezbollah and wouldn't have any parts of it. Not "I can't", "I won't". Doesn't sound like the Lebanese, even those outside of Hezbollah, were all that interested in seeing Hezbollah stop rocketing northern Israel.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14055.htm
http://www.passia.org/index_pfacts.htm

The Barak offer of a 'generous settlement' is a myth. Barak proposed to hand over to the Palestinians the existing fragmented and isolated cantons with no contiguous access still under the thumb of Israel. These cantons will continue to be criss crossed with a spiderweb of Israeli controlled bypass roads and checkpoints. And Israel would control virtually all water resources.

The 95% figure is closer to 88% and it also includes areas in east Jerusalem and the Red Sea are which the new Palestine has no contiguous access to (being totally cut off by Israeli territories).

It was a Bantustan offer no Palestinian could accept but had gimmicky elements like 95% which made it seem magnanimous.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The 95% figure is closer to 88% and it also includes areas in east Jerusalem and the Red Sea are which the new Palestine has no contiguous access to (being totally cut off by Israeli territories).


The Palestinians are far better off now arent they? 88% seems to me to be a good starting point. Then if they behaved like civilised people Im sure Israel would have given them more. Again until the latest intafatah the Palestinians were some of the better off arabs in the region.

[Tribesman]

Yes better than to expect you to do like everyone else and give a link to back up what they say. You give some obtuse answer and then expect everyone to do tricks for you. Either put up or shut up.
No Gawain , I put forward a position using my own words , if you wish to contest any of the words or the position I put forward it is up to you to counter them if you so wish , you can do it using your own words or by posting a link , that is up to you .
If you cannot counter it by "putting up" then it is up to you to do just what you suggest so eloquently .

And what act of war did Israel commit to deserve this. And what nation did the attacking?

Errrr....they made a deal , then welched on it .
Hey anyone can welch on a deal , but don't go crying when it backfires on you , as you should expect to go back to stage one , though of course due to the lack of trust from failing to deliver you should expect to go further back than stage one .



88% seems to me to be a good starting point.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Really , pity it wasn't put as a starting point then isn't it , it was put as a finishing point in a 10-25 year time scale , a time scale that didn't inolve full soveriegnty ever over that portion of land .

[Beirut]

Then if they behaved like civilised people...

There are times, Gawain, that I would delight in tearing off the Frontroomish robes of Modetorial moderation and engage you in the most vibrant of debates. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There are times, Gawain, that I would delight in tearing off the Frontroomish robes of Modetorial moderation and engage you in the most vibrant of debates

You know what I mean. Stop the terrorism.

By the way this must be really hard on you. Your beautiful namesake is taking quite a pounding.

[Beirut]

By the way this must be really hard on you. Your beautiful namesake is taking quite a pounding.

T'is sad but true. :shame:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No Gawain , I put forward a position using my own words

You claimed a deal was made but cant even tell me between who or any of the details.


Errrr....they made a deal , then welched on it .


Again I ask what deal? If this is so then didnt Israel have the same right to attack Lebanon for not upholding their end of a deal?


Really , pity it wasn't put as a starting point then isn't it , it was put as a finishing point in a 10-25 year time scale , a time scale that didn't inolve full soveriegnty ever over that portion of land .

88% is still far better than 0.

[Tribesman]

You claimed a deal was made but cant even tell me between who or any of the details.

Try government resolutions 606 and 645 Gawain , the Israeli government has all the details you could wish for at their ministry of Foriegn affairs .
It really is very interesting stuff , especially their attempt to link a captive taken by a group they were not negotiating with to the deal with the group they were negotiating with .

If this is so then didnt Israel have the same right to attack Lebanon for not upholding their end of a deal?

errrrr.....no , the prisoner that Israel didn't get back was not taken by the group it negotiated with , if it wants to attack that other group or negotiate with that group then that is a seperate matter .
If for example they did a deal with the PFLP would that have any relevance to a non-existant deal with Hamas ? Nope

[x-dANGEr]

As far as I know, Israel has not called for the destruction of Iran, Syria or any other Arabic country. Plenty of heads of Arabic states
Yea, it didn't call for that, it just did it. :juggle2:

[Tribesman]

Yea, it didn't call for that, it just did it.
Nope , Israel has not , some nuts within Israeli society , and indeed within Israels parliament have called for it , but Isreal has not done it .

[x-dANGEr]

Oh, I must be watching news about another planet then..

(Has Israel called for the destruction of Lebanon? No. Did it destroy it? I think yes, and it still is. Has Israel called for the destruction of Jenin? No. Did it destroy it? I think yes. Has Israel called for the destruction of Ghaza? No. Did it destroy it? I think yes. And believe me, the clock is ticking and the queue is moving.)

[Tribesman]

Oh, I must be watching news about another planet then..

Must be , since last time I looked Lebanon Gaza and Jenin were still there .

Now you could say they aim to destoy elements or authorities in those areas , but their aim is generally very bad , and even when their aim is good they end up screwing it up even worse .
Like for example their rubbish about hamas and not being able to deal with them extremists in negotiations , and how oh so better it would be if Abbas was doing the negotiating as he is an acceptable moderate , yet when Abbas was doing the negotiating he was the unacceptable extremist who couldn't be dealt with and it was his organisation that had to be bombed to hell .

Or you could just focus on the real nuts within Israeli society and parliament who do actually do call for the destruction of other nations and the establishment of a mono-religeous state across the whole mid-east .
They are just as easy a target for condemnation as the extreme Muslim nuts

[Ironside]

I do find it funny that the same people in the Backroom that are advocating Israel should stop airstrikes (not precise enough) and should send ground troops in to go after Hezbollah would be the first to cry bloody murder if they actually did.

Possibly (that's if they did it early, currently I would almost cheer at them), but that would have been a more competent move, with a good chance of actual success. I'm not against alternative solutions, only the incompetent (IMO) ones.
Taking out the electricity (and a whole lot more infrastructure) in Beirut when attacking terrorists in another part of the country makes sooo much sence, especially if you state that it is only the terrorists you're at war with.


Not that I condone what happened, but if an armed force wants to stay in a built-up area, and they can't be bombed out, they are very difficult to dislodge. So, if going in with ground troops is not an option, what option is there?

If you want them shifted, unless they walk out on their own, there will be blood.

Makes for some very tricky decisions up at the top.

Let see now, controling all movement out of the town (as there's no in) will prevent the terrorists from leaving as terrorists and after initial hostilities they'll have considerble problems leaving at all. As the main problem with terrorists is that they won't stay long enough to be pinned down.

If they stay they'll die. Sure they'll take out more Israeli soldiers than usual, but victory isn't always achived by getting the best kill/loss ratio.

And if Hizbollah is starting to force people as human shields than the propaganda value is through the roof for the Israeli. A vorried dad asking Hizbollah for releasing his wife and children in live television...

[x-dANGEr]

Oh, I must be watching news about another planet then..

Must be , since last time I looked Lebanon Gaza and Jenin were still there .

Now you could say they aim to destoy elements or authorities in those areas , but their aim is generally very bad , and even when their aim is good they end up screwing it up even worse .
Like for example their rubbish about hamas and not being able to deal with them extremists in negotiations , and how oh so better it would be if Abbas was doing the negotiating as he is an acceptable moderate , yet when Abbas was doing the negotiating he was the unacceptable extremist who couldn't be dealt with and it was his organisation that had to be bombed to hell .

Or you could just focus on the real nuts within Israeli society and parliament who do actually do call for the destruction of other nations and the establishment of a mono-religeous state across the whole mid-east .
They are just as easy a target for condemnation as the extreme Muslim nuts
When was the last time you looked at Jenin's camp?

Isn't all the destruction in Ghaza enough for you to call it destroyed?

[DukeofSerbia]

How many Christians is killed by Israely bombings. As I know 39% of Lebanese are Christians (mostly Orthodox) and as I know they have nothing with Hezbolah who are shiia militia or whatever they are.

[Shaun]

How many Christians is killed by Israely bombings. As I know 39% of Lebanese are Christians (mostly Orthodox) and as I know they have nothing with Hezbolah who are shiia militia or whatever they are.

None, you see Isreal have these new fangled "magic" bombs that can only kill an innocent Muslim civilain, the odd hezbollah fighter and people in UN outposts.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

New tangent:

According to gun control activists, should the thread title be, "Missile kills 54 Civilians in Lebanon"?

[Ironside]

New tangent:

According to gun control activists, should the thread title be, "Missile kills 54 Civilians in Lebanon"?

Uh, nope. Weapons are force multipliers, it's easier to kill with a good weapon, but they haven't made thinking weapons yet.

Are you warming up for a new gun thread or something? :boxing:

[x-dANGEr]

I think the thread should be titled: "Israel kills 54 Civilians in Lebanon"

[Shaun]

Meh, some people try anything to avoid the cold, harsh truth. The fact is that Isreal killed 54 civilians in Lebanon, and dont care about it either. Simply saying "Jews" is a bit of a braod statement granted, but its the truth.

[Tribesman]

Simply saying "Jews" is a bit of a braod statement granted, but its the truth.
Nah it could have been Bedouins , other muslim arabs , christian arabs , druze circassians .......
Though only the Druze are mandatorily conscripted , and Circassians only conscripted if they are male , African Jews are exempt from conscription as are certain "religeous" Jews .
Israel may be a "jewish"State , but not all of its citizens are Jewish , and neither are its armed forces .

To be honest I am quite surprised the moderators have allowed the topics title to remain as it is .
It is both inaccurate and inflamatory .

[x-dANGEr]

Agreed Tribesman. Which is why I insist on reminding people am not against Jews, just against Israel, the goverment that's described and essenced into it's actions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

AtPG has a very good point. Twas the fault of the missiles, left carelessly unlocked and not securely stored by the UN, that led to these deaths.

Crazed Rabbit

[Vladimir]

I'm gonna pull a Tribesman and tell you that Human Rights Watch cut the number of dead down to about half. No link for you guys, I'm tired.

[Xiahou]

To be honest I am quite surprised the moderators have allowed the topics title to remain as it is .
It is both inaccurate and inflamatory .
I actually agree with that.

[orangat]

The Palestinians are far better off now arent they? 88% seems to me to be a good starting point. Then if they behaved like civilised people Im sure Israel would have given them more. Again until the latest intafatah the Palestinians were some of the better off arabs in the region.

Of course they are not better off. Did you not see the documentary in my post?

Palestinians are being suffocated in all spheres of their lives. They suffer heavy repression of their social and civil rights and economic sabotage. And even in Israel proper, when you consider that the Israeli govt practices systematic discrimination against its Arab minority and spends basically nil on public construction in Jerusalem-Arab areas, I wonder what you mean by 'civilised'.

And the 88% (or 95%) figure is a gimmick as I've explained. Besides 88% represents the portion of the remaining 22% of Palestinian territory after 1967 (when Israel annexed Jerusalem and took 78% of Palestinian land). Why is it necessary for Israel to grab furthur than the 78% they already took?

Why is the fact that the problem of 300-400,000 settlers in illegal settlements continuously being ignored? Why is the continuous destruction of Palestinian homes, property and agricultural fields under 'administrative' pretenses being ignored?

Settler violence against Palestinians is also frequently ignored by the media.
You can see the lackadaisical attitude of the police and soldiers.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fPXpL-Nydx4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FqvLtoWBpTU - Israeli settlers starting fights at Pali school
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zkVDyfuvhDE - Settler riot
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O3JI-axaRF4 - Rachel Corrie interview
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jhvE1YkbdPU - Settler violence, 4:23

[Ironside]

I'm gonna pull a Tribesman and tell you that Human Rights Watch cut the number of dead down to about half. No link for you guys, I'm tired.

link 28 confirmed dead and 13 still missing (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13899.htm)

Well occationally I give links to Tribesman's comments too. :book:

[Tribesman]

I actually agree with that.
Stop that at once Xiahou , or I will have to change my position .:laugh4:

Well occationally I give links to Tribesman's comments too.
Damn I should have read this topic before I bothered responding to his identical post in the other thread , but since its working on double topics , any comment about the use of the words systematic and war crimes in the report ?

[DukeofSerbia]

I watched CNN this morning and they said that so far Lebanese Christians weren't target of Israeli air attacks, except Israelies destroyed bridge in north Beirut and that bridge used Christians from Eastern Beirut.