[goMac]

Let's see how long it is until Hezbollah fires back and the cease fire is really broken. I don't think Hezbollah will take this very well, as both sides are looking for an excuse to start fighting again.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...e-C1-topNews-3

[analogika]

How has the ceasefire NOT been broken yet?

[stevesnj]

Just because Hezbollah didnt fight back doesn't mean the cease fire wasn't broken, Israel broke the cease fire and this is a violation of the cease fire agreement, Lets see Bush defend Israel now.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by analogika

How has the ceasefire NOT been broken yet?

Here's the reason the ceasefire hadn't been broken yet.

All the Israelis want is peaceful co-existence and with their retaliatory strikes in Lebanon they were successful in introducing a different exigency for the Hizb Allahns and supportive Lebanese to deal with instead of attacking Israel.

Day to day survival.

But even still, the process of preparing to attack Israel had commenced.

That explains today's raid.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Just because Hezbollah didnt fight back doesn't mean the cease fire wasn't broken, Israel broke the cease fire and this is a violation of the cease fire agreement, Lets see Bush defend Israel now.

You are misinformed.

The Israelis have always asserted the right to take pre-emptive action if they found Hizb Allah trying to gear up for new attacks on Israel.

They did and so they did.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You are misinformed.

The Israelis have always asserted the right to take pre-emptive action if they found Hizb Allah trying to gear up for new attacks on Israel.

They did and so they did.

NO NO NO...even Kofi Annan said it was a clear violation, You know better than the UN?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

NO NO NO...even Kofi Annan said it was a clear violation, You know better than the UN?

I know better than you, apparently. Kofi has yet to say anything about it (from what I can tell).

Israel said the raid was launched to stop arms smuggling from Iran and Syria to the militant Shiite fighters, while Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called the operation a “flagrant violation” of the UN truce. An Israeli officer was killed during the raid, and two soldiers were wounded, one seriously.

[...]

The Israeli military said the raid was launched “to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah.’’

The Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the characterization of the raid as a truce violation, saying the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers must take control of Lebanon’s border with Syria to ensure arms don’t reach Hezbollah.

“But in the interim, of course, we can’t have a situation where endless amounts of weaponry arrive for Hezbollah, so we are forced to act in response to this violation,” he said, warning that further incursions could occur.

The White House declined to criticize the raid, noting that Israel said it acted in reaction to arms smuggling into Lebanon and that the UN resolution calls for the prevention of resupplying Hezbollah with weapons.

“The incident underscores the importance of quickly deploying the enhanced UNIFIL,” White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said.

Roed-Larsen said earlier the Lebanese army has deployed more than 1,500 soldiers in three sectors of the south where Israeli forces have left, and the 2,000 peacekeepers of UNIFIL have set up checkpoints and started patrolling the areas.

The broad outlines of the UN cease-fire plan call on Hezbollah to halt all attacks and for Israel to stop offensive operations. It gives Israel the right to respond if attacked, but the commandos were flown in by helicopter and the raid took place far from Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Israel did not identify the officer killed in the raid. Hezbollah issued a terse statement saying guerrillas “ambushed’’ the commando force and suffered no casualties. Lebanese security officials said three guerrillas were killed and three wounded.

The security officials said the commandos flew in by helicopter to a hill outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, about 17 miles from the Syrian border. Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the fighting.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school but they had no other details.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I know better than you, apparently. Kofi has yet to say anything about it (from what I can tell).

Fox News

Annan: Israeli Commando Raid Violated Cease-Fire
Saturday, August 19, 2006

Arab Nations Seek New Mideast Peace Initiative
BEIRUT, Lebanon — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that an Israeli commando raid deep in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley on Saturday violated the U.N. brokered cease-fire deal, putting the six-day cease-fire with Hezbollah guerrillas to a critical test.

cnn

U.N.: Israeli raid violates cease-fire
Israel says mission into Lebanon aimed at halting arms shipment

Saturday, August 19, 2006; Posted: 7:26 p.m. EDT (23:26 GMT

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is "deeply concerned" about Israel's commando raid in eastern Lebanon Saturday, which he said violated the cease-fire resolution concerning Israel and Hezbollah, his spokesman said in a written statement.

The statement also cited the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon as saying there have "also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Fox News

cnn

I stand corrected. Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by mojo2

The Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the characterization of the raid as a truce violation, saying the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers must take control of Lebanon’s border with Syria to ensure arms don’t reach Hezbollah.

[mojo2]

If the IDF was going to allow them to re-arm, what's the point of their agreeing to a cease fire at all???

The idea is to PRVENT FURTHER VIOLENCE!

Hezbollah's rearming only promises more violence.

[Spliffdaddy]

Israel is about to finish the job they didn't finish last week.

Watch and learn.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If the IDF was going to allow them to re-arm, what's the point of their agreeing to a cease fire at all???

The idea is to PRVENT FURTHER VIOLENCE!

Hezbollah's rearming only promises more violence.

Do you actually understand what a cease fire is?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Israel is about to finish the job they didn't finish last week.

Watch and learn.

Then maybe they shouldn't have agreed to a cease fire.

[Big Mac]

They agreed to end only "offensive" measures, not defensive ones, so in my opinion it wasn't a violation. Hezballah was being rearmed, so Israel took defensive action to prevent that from occurring. Of course the U.N. and the media will regard it as a violation of the cease fire, and it will be used as a pretext by the terrorists. It really doesn't matter, though. Those who hate the Jews will continue to hate us, no matter what Israel does or does not do.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

They agreed to end only "offensive" measures, not defensive ones, so in my opinion it wasn't a violation. Hezballah was being rearmed, so Israel took defensive action to prevent that from occurring.

Simply re-arming yourself doesn't demonstrate clear intent to attack. That justification isn't good enough. It's historically kind of a risk that you run when you agree to a cease fire.

[Big Mac]

Hezballah immediately runs to rearm rather than disarm as international "law" called for. Hezballah's stated intention is the destruction of Israel. Moreover, informed people know of the Islamic "hudna" which is a false cease fire agreed upon with a stronger power until the Islamic force can overwhelm said power. Anyone with a degree of sense and appreciation for the truth can predict what Hezballah's rearming means.

Israel certainly knows far better than you what the implications are. Those in command there obviously think the threat is grave enough to justify risking certain denouncement from the U.N. and others in the international community as a result of this latest defensive measure. So I disagree with you that Israel did not have sufficient justification to take that action it did. A well-established doctrine of international law states sovereign countries have both the right and the duty to their citizens to defend themselves when they are under reasonable threat of future attack. Sovereign countries need not wait for the aggressor to strike before defending themselves.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Hezballah immediately runs to rearm rather than disarm as international "law" called for. Hezballah's stated intention is the destruction of Israel. Moreover, informed people know of the Islamic "hudna" which is a false cease fire agreed upon with a stronger power until the Islamic force can overwhelm said power. Anyone with a degree of sense and appreciation for the truth can predict what Hezballah's rearming means. Israel certainly knows far better than you what the implications are. Those in command there obviously think the threat is grave enough to justify risking denouncement from the U.N. and others in the international community. So I disagree with you that Israel did not have sufficient justification to take that action it did. A well-established doctrine of international law states sovereign countries have both the right and the duty to their citizens to defend themselves when they are under reasonable threat of future attack. Sovereign countries need not wait for the aggressor to strike before defending themselves.

Then why did they agree to a cease fire in the first place? Implied in a cease fire is, in fact, a responsibility to wait for the aggressor to strike before defending yourself.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Then why did they agree to a cease fire in the first place? Implied in a cease fire is, in fact, a responsibility to wait for the aggressor to strike before defending yourself.

According to which source? And again, take a look at the cease fire document that says Israel must only abstain from offensive acts.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And again, take a look at the cease fire document that says Israel must only abstain from offensive acts.

washingtonpost.com

Registration probably required, but here's the interesting section:

The U.N. resolution also calls for the Lebanese army and a bolstered U.N. force to move into southern Lebanon as Israeli forces withdraw and leaves the disarmament of Hezbollah and a dispute over the Shebaa Farms area to a future settlement.

Again, simply re-arming yourself does not justify a pre-emptive attack.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Simply re-arming yourself doesn't demonstrate clear intent to attack. That justification isn't good enough. It's historically kind of a risk that you run when you agree to a cease fire.

Only three kinds of people would say what you have.

1. Islamic apologists.

2. Those who are ignorant as to the Muslim methods of war spelled out in the Koran and practiced frequently by the Palestinians even within your personal frame of historical reference.

3. The naive.

You speak of history? You give historical referencing a bad name.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

2. Those who are ignorant as to the Muslim methods of war spelled out in the Koran and practiced frequently by the Palestinians even within your personal frame of historical reference.

I repeat, then WHY did Israel sign a cease fire in the first place, if they had no intention of holding themselves to it?

If you are serious about negotiating for a pause in hostilities, you cannot attack your enemy on the whim that he MAY be PREPARING to attack you. Of course he is preparing to attack you--it's a cease fire, not a peace treaty.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

washingtonpost.com

Registration probably required, but here's the interesting section:



Again, simply re-arming yourself does not justify a pre-emptive attack.

How many times does Israel have to pay the price it's enemy's broken promises?

As long as there are new generations of apologists & those who are ignorant ("Islam’s Best Soldiers") of the history of Israel's attempts to do just what might otherwise be called for here, giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt.

Useful Idiots: Islam’s Best Soldiers
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=23947

The Israelis have given the benefit of the doubt over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again only to be stabbed in the back or smacked in the face and spit on each time.

It is YOU who needs to understand why the reasonable, rational and long-suffering Israelis will not stand still for this standard tactic ONE MORE TIME from the Muslim playbook (the Koran).

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

How many times does Israel have to pay the price it's enemy's broken promises?

As long as there are new generations of apologists & those who are ignorant ("Islam’s Best Soldiers") of the history of Israel's attempts to do just what might otherwise be called for here, giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt.

The Israelis have given the benefit of the doubt over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again only to be stabbed in the back or smacked in the face and spit on each time.

It is YOU who needs to understand why the reasonable, rational and long-suffering Israelis will not stand still for this standard tactic ONE MORE TIME from the Muslim playbook (the Koran).

Then Israel shouldn't be negotiating cease fires. But they are--so maybe they know something that you don't.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I repeat, then WHY did Israel sign a cease fire in the first place, if they had no intention of holding themselves to it?

If you are serious about negotiating for a pause in hostilities, you cannot attack your enemy on the whim that he MAY be PREPARING to attack you. Of course he is preparing to attack you--it's a cease fire, not a peace treaty.

In American law if you draw your hand back in preparation to hit someone in the face that is considered grounds to take defensive action. I think it's called assault.

assault - a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped

assault and battery
n.
An assault upon a victim that is carried out by striking the victim, knocking the victim down, or otherwise doing violence to the victim.

The defensive action you might take once you know the punch is forthcoming is legally defensible to prevent battery.

Your arguments betray a hatred for Israel. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you make it difficult to ignore it.

You are more than an unwitting tool. You simply support jihad.

Why not admit it?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

In American law if you draw your hand back in preparation to hit someone in the face that is considered grounds to take defensive action. I think it's called assault.

In negotiation of international hostilities, American law has no relevence.

A cease fire is pause in hostilities, with the full realization that hostilities may resume at some point in the future. Thus, re-equipping, re-training, planning of operations, etc., are expected by both sides unless it is specifically prohibited by the terms of the cease fire. These actions are typically not seen as provocations, and, of course, they can't be, because then no cease fire would ever hold.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Your arguments betray a hatred for Israel. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you make it difficult to ignore it.

You are more than an unwitting tool. You simply support jihad.

Why not admit it?

I liked you better when you used to read The New Yorker. Now you're just in hysterics all the time. It's not as fun.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

In negotiation of international hostilities, American law has no relevence.

A cease fire is pause in hostilities, with the full realization that hostilities may resume at some point in the future. Thus, re-equipping, re-training, planning of operations, etc., are expected by both sides unless it is specifically prohibited by the terms of the cease fire. These actions are typically not seen as provocations, and, of course, they can't be, because then no cease fire would ever hold.

"Gotcha sukka!"

With "full realization that hostilities may resume at some point in the future."

Yes. They resumed this morning. And why? Because Hezbollah was re-equipping, re-training, planning of operations.

So what was the purpose of the cease fire, indeed? What's the purpose of the UN sending troops in there?

Definitely NOT so Hezbollah can resume attacking.

What kind of fool would argue that silliness?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

"Gotcha sukka!"

With "full realization that hostilities may resume at some point in the future."

Yes. They resumed this morning. And why? Because Hezbollah was re-equipping, re-training, planning of operations.

So what was the purpose of the cease fire, indeed? What's the purpose of the UN sending troops in there?

Definitely NOT so Hezbollah can resume attacking.

What kind of fool would argue that silliness?

I meant with the expectation that hostilities will resume at some point in the future, by mutual agreement. Now you're just being deliberately thick-headed. Again, cease fires typically allow both sides to re-arm, because they carry the expectation that a time to resume fighting will also be negotiated in the future. They resumed this morning because Israel broke the cease fire, not because both sides agreed to start fighting again.

EDIT: Never mind that, as the Washington Post article I supplied pointed out, the question of disarming Hezbollah was specifically excluded from the current cease fire agreement.

[mojo2]

Here's what the Koran recommends in the best way to wage war.

Ibn Hudayl (see p.40), a 14th century Granadan author of an important treatise on jihad, elucidated the allowable tactics facilitated the violent, chaotic jihad conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and other parts of Europe:

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him…[being] suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him. Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.

And these repeated attacks, indistinguishable in motivation from modern acts of jihad terrorism, like the horrific 9/11/01 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, and the Madrid bombings on 3/11/04, or those in London on 7/7/05, were in fact designed to sow terror. The 17th century Muslim historian al-Maqqari explained (see p.40) that the panic created by the Arab horsemen and sailors, at the time of the Muslim expansion in the regions subjected to those raids and landings, facilitated their later conquest,

Allah thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.

FrontPage magazine.com :: The Global Jihad by Andrew G. Bostom

[Spliffdaddy]

The UN already issued a mandate for the removal of Hezbollah - I'd say Israel is merely helping the UN enforce its own mandate.

The 'ceasefire' was between Israel and Lebanon - not Hezbollah.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I meant with the expectation that hostilities will resume at some point in the future, by mutual agreement. Now you're just being deliberately thick-headed. Again, cease fires typically allow both sides to re-arm, because they carry the expectation that a time to resume fighting will also be negotiated in the future. They resumed this morning because Israel broke the cease fire, not because both sides agreed to start fighting again.

You are not arguing for understanding or clarity. You are proposing we buy the Islamic point of view.

Speaking of which...

It has been quite an effort to prevent Infidels from getting the wrong (that is to say, the right) impression of Islam, at least until such time as Muslims in the West currently singing the praises of “pluralism” no longer have need for Infidel good will and tolerance.

To date, the twin techniques of “Taqiyya” and Tu-Quoque have been relied on. “Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.”

An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse -- “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses.

In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims. The “compulsion” for Muslims comes from the treatment of apostasy as an act punishable by death. And though “dhimmis” are allowed to practice their religion, they do so under conditions of such burdens and restrictions that many, not as an act of conscience but rather as a response to inexorable Muslim pressure, have converted (or “reverted”) to Islam.

“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”

Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Islam for Infidels, Part One

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Here's the reason the ceasefire hadn't been broken yet.

All the Israelis want is peaceful co-existence and with their retaliatory strikes in Lebanon they were successful in introducing a different exigency for the Hizb Allahns and supportive Lebanese to deal with instead of attacking Israel.

Day to day survival.

But even still, the process of preparing to attack Israel had commenced.

That explains today's raid.

We ALL know that Israel had a REASON for attacking. Whether or not we agree with this reason is completely irrelevant.

THE CEASE-FIRE HAS BEEN BROKEN.

Israel signed a contract, and they violated its terms.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You are not arguing for understanding or clarity. You are proposing we buy the Islamic point of view.

I'm writing from my understanding of how cease fires have operated between mostly European armies, so I have no idea where you're getting that I'm arguing for the "Islamic point of view." Unless you think that anything anti-Israeli is pro-"Islamo-fascist," in which case you have bigger problems here.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Just because Hezbollah didnt fight back doesn't mean the cease fire wasn't broken, Israel broke the cease fire and this is a violation of the cease fire agreement, Lets see Bush defend Israel now.

Don't you just love how conditioned we've gotten to Israel = good guy / Arabs = bad guy? that we don't even consider the bombing of Lebanon after the cease fire to be a "violation of the cease fire"???


Here is what our "Friend and Ally" Israel has been up to in the mean time back here in the US: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspo...raeli-spy.html

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, they aren't bombing our Marine barracks like Hezbollah.

Israel is our greatest ally. Who do you think is going to take care of Iran's nuclear weapon program? The UN? lol. Nah, Israel will.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well, they aren't bombing our Marine barracks like Hezbollah.

Israel is our greatest ally. Who do you think is going to take care of Iran's nuclear weapon program? The UN? lol. Nah, Israel will.

We wouldn't have to worry about Iran, or anyone else in that region were it not for Israel..

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

We wouldn't have to worry about Iran, or anyone else in that region were it not for Israel..

If we're going to play the blame game - let's do it right.

Israel wouldn't be there if it weren't for the UN.

The UN wouldn't have had to create a Jewish nation if Europeans had been tolerant of Jews.

Looks like we can place the blame squarely on the Europeans.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Looks like we can place the blame squarely on the Europeans.

Sign me up! Where do I go to vote for reparations from Europe for WWI, WWII and Israel???

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

We wouldn't have to worry about Iran, or anyone else in that region were it not for Israel..

I guess you're unhappy the Final Solution wasn't a complete success. But even if there were no Jews on the planet, the Islamic countries would still be at war with the West. The ultimate goal of radical Islam is to place the entire planet under Sharia.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I guess you're unhappy the Final Solution wasn't a complete success. But even if there were no Jews on the planet, the Islamic countries would still be at war with the West. The ultimate goal of radical Islam is to place the entire planet under Sharia.

yeah.. shucks the damn nazi's were too slow!

GIVE ME A BREAK!! Can't anyone be critical of Israel without being anti-Jew???

As for Islam, I'm not a friend of Islam either... I'm a Opus Dei Roman Catholic myself, and have a view of the world that wouldn't sit well with them either... but from a geopolitical and secular standpoint.. Israel is the reason the middle east is at war with us.. That and our desire to control the energy output of the world.

I'm outta here..

[Big Mac]

You may want to think that since it makes it easier for you to blame Israel, but it simply isn't true. If it were, why is it that Iran pledges to destroy both the U.S. and Israel, and the U.S. is referred to as the bigger evil?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by analogika

Israel signed a contract, and they violated its terms.

Which is not surprising to me at all. This is par for the course with Israel. Israel almost never abides by agreements it has signed.

Just to set some things straight here. Israel is obliged to withdraw from Lebanon. This attack happened way beyond the line that Israel has withdrawn to. Therefore, Israel has not only violated the cease fire, it has violated it's agreement to withdraw. The argument that Israel did not sign the cease fire agreement with Hezbollah and is entitled to take defensive measures does not hold water because this attack was a violation of Lebanese sovereignty (so it does affect Lebanon), and because this attack is not recognised under international law as being in self-defense. Preemptive self-defense is not a legal form of the use of force. Israeli troops can defend themselves against attacks and Israel can defend itself within its own borders but there is nothing in international law or the ceasefire agreement that allows Israel to conduct raids in Eastern Lebanon.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Israel is our greatest ally.

What has Israel EVER done for the US?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll

Which is not surprising to me at all. This is par for the course with Israel. Israel almost never abides by agreements it has signed.

Prove it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Prove it.

LOL! You're seriously going to argue that Israel honours its agreements? Israel hasn't complied with the Road Map has it? How about the agreement between Egypt, the PLO and Israel in October 2000 where Barak agreed to take steps, including Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, to end the violence? Is Israel still in the Palestinian territories? Israel habitually goes back on agreements whenever there's a change of governments.

And how about looking at international law in general. Who's at the top of the list of countries that have failed to comply with UN Resolutions? That's right Israel. Which ones? Well, here's a list of just some of them: GAR194, SCR242, SCR446, GAR3236, SCR1397, GAR181 etc. etc.

Anyway, back on the topic, it's indisputable that Israel has violated the ceasefire. They had no right at all to go into Lebanese sovereign territory in Eastern Lebanon. None at all. Israel lost the war and now they're losing the peace.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I guess you're unhappy the Final Solution wasn't a complete success.

asshole.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll

LOL!

The beginning of a weak argument always starts with a guffaw. I trust you'll be ready to do the honorable thing and retract your lies and misstatements after I teach you a bit of contemporary history and law.

You're seriously going to argue that Israel honours its agreements? Israel hasn't complied with the Road Map has it?

Israel never adopted the Road Map as articulated by the international chorus. Israel only agreed to implement the Road Map if a number of conditions were met, the most important of which was that the PA would fight terrorism rather than incite and direct it. Since the PA never followed through and was shown to be thoroughly corrupt, Israel rejected the Road Map and chose instead its disengagement policy.

How about the agreement between Egypt, the PLO and Israel in October 2000 where Barak agreed to take steps, including Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, to end the violence? Is Israel still in the Palestinian territories?

The Camp David Accords never produced an agreement. Barak got close to giving Arafat, YM"SH, 90% of what he wanted, but Arafat thought he could achieve more through terrorism than through negotiations. He walked away from the table and launched the second "intifada." President Clinton placed the blame squarely on Arafat for the failure of the talks: "At the close of Camp David, a frustrated Clinton blamed Arafat for missing a chance for a historic deal."

Israel habitually goes back on agreements whenever there's a change of governments.

False. The Arabs have violated the agreements made with Israel, not the other way around. Look, for example, at the responsibilities the PA accepted at Oslo, and you'll see they broke each one of those pledges.

And how about looking at international law in general. Who's at the top of the list of countries that have failed to comply with UN Resolutions? That's right Israel. Which ones? Well, here's a list of just some of them: GAR194, SCR242, SCR446, GAR3236, SCR1397, GAR181 etc. etc.

You said that Israel violates the agreements it signs on to, and I asked you to prove it. You respond with U.N. resolutions that Israel never signed on to. Secondly, I automatically discount and ignore any General Assembly resolution since the General Assembly is a worthless forum for airing hatred of the west in general and hatred for Israel and America in specific.

Regarding SCR242, the truth is that Israel has not violated it at all. You lack the capacity to grasp the truth, along with so many others, given your pathetically shallow understanding. People claim Israel violates 242, and I'm betting you take them at their word and parrot their claims instead of bothering to do even a small amount of research into the topic yourself. Israel has not violated 242 because a) 242 only requires Israel to withdraw if secure borders are guaranteed to it b) 242 is a Chapter VI resolution, which means it is not legally binding on Israel. 242 is only binding on Israel if Israel signs a treaty in which it pledges to implement 242.

All UNSC Resolutions against Israel (including 242) are Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter is entitled "Pacific Settlements of Disputes." Chapter VI resolutions are unenforceable and are used only as guidelines for potential peaceful negotiations. Israel has never been subjected to Chapter VII resolutions, which are binding and enforceable by the U.N. and member states. Moreover, most, if not all, Chapter VI resolutions against Israel pertain to the disputed Israeli territories. Israel never had a partner to negotiate a true peace over the disputed territories, and as a such Israel cannot be expected to follow those international guidelines. Try to put your Jew-hatred aside for a moment and follow me here - you don't have to be a genius to understand such things. You only have to be fair.

Anyway, back on the topic, it's indisputable that Israel has violated the ceasefire. They had no right at all to go into Lebanese sovereign territory in Eastern Lebanon. None at all. Israel lost the war and now they're losing the peace.

The Arabs lost the war. It was the Arabs (and Iran), not Israel, begging for the ceasefire. The ceasefire was imposed upon Israel. The only thing Israel failed to do was route Hezballah, and that's because Hezballah is an ignominious terrorist group that has to hide amongst civilians to wage war against Israel. And you, sir, are yet another ignorant Jew-hater.

Originally Posted by analogika

asshole.

Good argument.

[UnixMac]

Big Mac.... quit drinking the Israeli coolaid, and wake up.. 90% of the mess we're in today with the world is rooted in one word: Israel

If GW, and his "born again" crowd that talk to God daily didn't believe that the Risen Lorn himself would not return until Israel was a nation again, there would be little or no support for them. I say this as a believing Catholic. The Bible is interpreted VERY differently by most Protestants and Catholics on this subject, and the belief that Israel is the Chosen people, rather than the truth, which is that The New Israel, which is the Church is the "chosen" is the fuel behind our blind support for them. The only other support Israel gets from the US is from US Jews (not all mind you) who are obviously not Christians (duh).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

Big Mac.... quit drinking the Israeli coolaid, and wake up..

You accuse me of drinking coolaid, but I contend you're the one who is deluded and snoozing.

90% of the mess we're in today with the world is rooted in one word: Israel

Yes, as the prophets of Israel fortold. . . So?

If GW, and his "born again" crowd that talk to God daily didn't believe that the Risen Lorn himself would not return until Israel was a nation again, there would be little or no support for them.

Certainly false. But even if I were to grant you that point for the sake of argument, so what? You can argue the whos and the whys of America's support of Israel all you want, but that does not change the reality of the situation.

I say this as a believing Catholic. The Bible is interpreted VERY differently by most Protestants and Catholics on this subject, and the belief that Israel is the Chosen people, rather than the truth, which is that The New Israel, which is the Church is the "chosen" is the fuel behind our blind support for them. The only other support Israel gets from the US is from US Jews (not all mind you) who are obviously not Christians (duh).

I realize that Fundamentalist Christians support Israel chiefly because of their eschatological beliefs, which also happen to be hostile to the Jewish people. If Jews could afford to pick and choose their friends in this world, that point would be far more important to me. What matters to me is truth and justice. Fundamentalist Christians are entitled to their religious beliefs as long as they do not actively try to harm others as a consequence of those beliefs.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Israel never adopted the Road Map as articulated by the international chorus.

Nonsense. The Israeli Cabinet voted in favour of the implementation of the roadmap on 25 May 2003. Please show me proof of the conditions that were attached to it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Israel only agreed to implement the Road Map if a number of conditions were met, the most important of which was that the PA would fight terrorism rather than incite and direct it. Since the PA never followed through and was shown to be thoroughly corrupt, Israel rejected the Road Map and chose instead its disengagement policy.

16 days later, Israel violated the terms and the spirit of the Roadmap by attempting to assassinate Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Two Palestinians were killed in the attack. This was the first bit of violence between the sides since Israeli approval of the Roadmap. The next day, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up on an Israeli bus and in the following few days, Israel continued its targeting of Hamas leaders. Sure Israel says that it was the PA that didn't comply with the Roadmap - it would say that wouldn't it. The truth of the matter is that when Sharon said that the "occupation" of Palestinian territories was "a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians" and "can't continue endlessly," many in Israel were deeply shocked and tremendous pressure was put on Sharon to undo this statement. The reason Israel is now dealing with withdrawal from occupied territories on ITS terms is because the government doesn't have the political clout to comply with the Roadmap and withdraw from all occupied territories.

Israel also violated the Roadmap by building the wall and by refusing, despite a UN resolution say that the wall should be built in Israeli territory, to tear it down. Finally, a unilateral decision by Israel to redefine for the umpteenth time its own borders is evidence of a flagrant disregard for international law. The "unilateral withdrawal" also includes a massive "unilateral incorporation of territory" - it is simultaneously a withdrawal and an annexation of territory.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Camp David Accords never produced an agreement.

I'm not talking about Camp David; I'm talking about the agreements reached in Egypt!

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You said that Israel violates the agreements it signs on to, and I asked you to prove it. You respond with U.N. resolutions that Israel never signed on to.

Obviously you can't read. AFTER I supplied you with evidence of Israel not complying with agreements it signs on to I then said, "how about looking at international law in general." Read and comprehend, my friend. That's what it's about.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Regarding SCR242, the truth is that Israel has not violated it at all. You lack the capacity to grasp the truth, along with so many others, given your pathetically shallow understanding. People claim Israel violates 242, and I'm betting you take them at their word and parrot their claims instead of bothering to do even a small amount of research into the topic yourself. Israel has not violated 242 because a) 242 only requires Israel to withdraw if secure borders are guaranteed to it

I actually know a little more about this than you imagine. Vmarks and I have had the debate about resolution 242 before. The resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 6 day war. It isn't up to Israel to decide when secure borders have been created. The finding of the UN was that the occupation of Southern Lebanon and Shebaa Farms was in violation of the Resolution.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

b) 242 is a Chapter VI resolution, which means it is not legally binding

You're forgetting Resolution 338 which made 242 binding. Besides, whether Israel agreed to be bound or not makes no difference to the question as to whether it is in violation.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Try to put your Jew-hatred aside for a moment ... ignorant Jew-hater

Go f*ck yourself! This has nothing to do with religion and the fact that you bring it up shows us what you're about. You evidently know nothing about my background or how I feel about Jewish people but since this thread has nothing to do with religion, I won't justify your comment with a rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Arabs lost the war. It was the Arabs (and Iran), not Israel, begging for the ceasefire. The ceasefire was imposed upon Israel. The only thing Israel failed to do was route Hezballah, and that's because Hezballah is an ignominious terrorist group that has to hide amongst civilians to wage war against Israel.

Hold on, Israel was fighting "the Arabs"? That's weird because Israel thought it was fighting Hezbollah.

The only person who thinks Israel won the war is George Bush. The Israelis themselves think that Israel lost the war (Public believes IDF not winning the war - Haaretz - Israel News) and Olmert has already admitted that he made mistakes.

As for Hezbollah hiding among civilians, what do you expect them to do? Go out into a field with their 50 year old Russian guns and wait for the F-16's to come and try to shoot them down? Israel is the 4th most powerful army in the world and it's backed by the world's only superpower. A superpower that was helping Israel fight the war by feeding it high resolution satellite photos and helping Israel with targetting. Of course Hezbollah fighters have to hide away. They too have wives an children and dependents and they too want to survive. They are not going to commit suicide just to make it easy for Israel. The fallacy that you try to perpetuate with your nonsense is that Israel's existence is threatened by Hezbollah and Hamas and that there is some kind of moral equivalency between what Israel does in Lebanon and what Hezbollah does with its rocket attacks against Israel. That couldn't be further from the truth.