[Troll]

Israel has not yet lifted the naval blockade of Lebanon and they are starting to come under pressure to comply with UN Resolution 1701 which creates the ceasefire. Olmert's response, inter alia, is that Israel will not do so until the 2 Israeli soldiers captured on 12 July are freed. He said the UN resolution "cannot be considered as fully implemented" until they have been released.

Thing is, this is all UN Resolution 1701 says about prisoners:

Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel;

There is no reference in the resolution to the release of the Israeli captives. Israel knows it isn't in there because the reference to this was removed from the draft they proposed.

So, what we have is a bait and switch. Not only did Israel break the spirit of the ceasefire agreement almost immediately after it was signed, not only did they break it soon after it came into force, not only do they continue to break the ceasefire by imposing the blockade, but they have indicated that they don't intend to comply with the ceasefire on its terms.

The BBC Article
The Text of the UN Resolution

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

In other words, UN resolutions are for the most part meaningless. We knew that.

There is no reference in the resolution to the release of the Israeli captives.

Then the resolution is one-sided. (Not that that isn't typical). I can't really fault Israel for considering a one-sided resolution incomplete, and so acting in their best interests.

It just goes to prove, Israel isn't playing Hezbollah's game: start a cowardly war, just to get the UN to force concessions you haven't earned from Israel. It'd be a travesty if Israel allowed it to work as planned.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Then the resolution is one-sided.

No, the resoltion was made to demand peace between the two factions. The Israeli soldiers don't enter into this. An invasion of a country because of a few soldiers is not acceptable.

That's the spirit of the resolution.

Israel overreacted big time, now that there is peace and their overreaction is more or less out of the picture, they can try and get their soldiers back.

The resolution is therefore not one-sided, it simple has nothing to do with those soldiers.

V

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No, the resoltion was made to demand peace between the two factions. The Israeli soldiers don't enter into this. An invasion of a country because of a few soldiers is not acceptable.

Attack a country with missles (as Hezbollah did) and you'll get invaded. If it's "not acceptable" then don't attack Israel.

The resolution is therefore not one-sided, it simple has nothing to do with those soldiers.

Then it should have nothing to do with: "encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel" either.

It's one-sided, as usual.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

In other words, UN resolutions are for the most part meaningless. We knew that.

Because Israel signed the agreement, their word is only as meaningful as the agreement.

Seriously, if the agreement was so crappy, why did Israel sign it and say they would comply with it? If Israel thought it was a dumb agreement, they shouldn't have signed it and said they would comply.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Troll

Thing is, this is all UN Resolution 1701 says about prisoners:
There is no reference in the resolution to the release of the Israeli captives. Israel knows it isn't in there because the reference to this was removed from the draft they proposed.

Hmm, that didn't sound right, so I double-checked. What about this paragraph in the resolution, directly above the one you quoted?

Emphasising the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasising the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No, the resoltion was made to demand peace between the two factions. The Israeli soldiers don't enter into this. An invasion of a country because of a few soldiers is not acceptable.

Neither is kidnapping soldiers.

The resolution is therefore not one-sided, it simple has nothing to do with those soldiers.

If it has nothing to do with the soldiers, then it is one-sided.

Israel does indeed seem to have broken the spirit of this agreement. However, it does no good to pretend that they're the only ones, or even the first, to have done so.

[deomacius]

When is Lebanon supposed to disarm Hezzballah again? I think THAT was part of the resolution also.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Troll

Israel has not yet lifted the naval blockade of Lebanon and they are starting to come under pressure to comply with UN Resolution 1701 which creates the ceasefire. Olmert's response, inter alia, is that Israel will not do so until the 2 Israeli soldiers captured on 12 July are freed. He said the UN resolution "cannot be considered as fully implemented" until they have been released.

There is no reference in the resolution to the release of the Israeli captives. Israel knows it isn't in there because the reference to this was removed from the draft they proposed.

So, what we have is a bait and switch. Not only did Israel break the spirit of the ceasefire agreement almost immediately after it was signed, not only did they break it soon after it came into force, not only do they continue to break the ceasefire by imposing the blockade, but they have indicated that they don't intend to comply with the ceasefire on its terms.

As usual, U.N. resolutions do not go far enough to assure a lasting peace, they therefore set up a situation for future conflicts. As mentioned by BRUSSEL, apparently the resolution does cover the release of the prisoners albeit with very dubious language. Seems like Hezbollah continues to break the ceasefire by keeping these hostages as well. Since this is the case, why do you criticize what Israel is doing while completely ignoring the actions of Hezbollah?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Attack a country with missles (as Hezbollah did) and you'll get invaded. If it's "not acceptable" then don't attack Israel.

Hezbullah didn't fire any missiles into Israel afaik until after Israel invaded Lebanon. If they did could please provide a link so I can read about it?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hmm, that didn't sound right, so I double-checked. What about this paragraph in the resolution, directly above the one you quoted?

You're right. I only noticed that after I'd posted and then "The Server is too busy" ad nauseum. Apologies.

Both of these quotes are part of the preamble and they both talk about agreements outside of the resolution. So at best, the resolution calls for both sides to resolve the prisoner disputes outside of the resolution. There is no actual decision on prisoners. Whereas there is a decision that Israel must end all offensive operations such as the blockade. If Israel thinks that the soldiers need to be released under the resolution, then it holds equally that all of the "causes that have given rise to the current crisis" have to be addressed and that's rather a long list. In addition, the Lebanese prisoners that Israel is holding would have to be released too. Israel and Hezbollah need to sit down and arrange a prisoner swap. It's not a one-way street where Hezbollah releases the soldiers and Israel maintains the blockade. Not only is continuing to blockade Lebanon over this issue not solving anything, it's a breach of the resolution.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Neither is kidnapping soldiers.

I don't think "kidnapping" is the appropriate word for capturing military targets during an armed conflict. In any event, Israel goes into the Occupied Territories every second day and "kidnaps" militants and non-militants alike. They've "kidnapped" practically the entire elected leadership of the Palestinians.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Hezbullah didn't fire any missiles into Israel afaik until after Israel invaded Lebanon. If they did could please provide a link so I can read about it?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Day-by-day: Lebanon crisis - week one

WEDNESDAY 12 JULY

Hezbollah fighters based in southern Lebanon launch Katyusha rockets across the border with Israel, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area.

In a cross-border raid, guerrillas seize two Israeli soldiers before retreating back into Lebanon, insisting on a prisoner exchange and warning against confrontation. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert describes the capture of the soldiers as "an act of war".

In response Israeli planes bomb Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and troops cross into southern Lebanon for the first time since the military withdrawal of 2000.

However, the troops encounter heavy resistance - eight are killed and two others are injured during fighting with Hezbollah. Israel calls up reserve troops as it pledges a swift and large-scale response to the Hezbollah attack.

[yakkiebah]

Oops!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

Seriously, if the agreement was so crappy, why did Israel sign it and say they would comply with it? If Israel thought it was a dumb agreement, they shouldn't have signed it and said they would comply.

Well, now that we know the agreement includes the "the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers" until that happens, then Isreal is correct to state that it: "cannot be considered as fully implemented."

Seems to me Hezbollah is in no place to complain about broken agreements, when they haven't complied with it themselves.

[goMac]

CRASH HARDDRIVE:

You're twisting the facts. Hezbollah didn't fire back until after Israel fired rockets at them. Israel didn't cross the border until well into the conflict.

[Big Mac]

You're saying that Hezballah was provoked by an Israeli attack before it fired those thousands of rockets? Source?

And goMac, why didn't you ever apologize for your glaring error in this thread?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Attack a country with missles (as Hezbollah did) and you'll get invaded. If it's "not acceptable" then don't attack Israel.




Then it should have nothing to do with: "encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel" either.

It's one-sided, as usual.

Don't get me wrong, I usually side with Israel, but I think they overreacted.

V

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You're saying that Hezballah was provoked by an Israeli attack before it fired those thousands of rockets? Source?

And goMac, why didn't you ever apologize for your glaring error in this thread?

I'm sorry, second or third most holy site. You can take a gold star if that makes you feel better.

I didn't even see your post in that thread. Work, life, and all.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You're twisting the facts. Hezbollah didn't fire back until after Israel fired rockets at them. Israel didn't cross the border until well into the conflict.

Untrue. First of all, Hezbollah has been randomly firing rockets at Israel (along with kidnappings, mortar attacks, terror raids, etc.) since the withdrawal in 2000. It’s a testament to the Israelis' remarkable restraint that they haven’t gone after Hezbollah long before now. I don’t believe any other country on earth would take as much **** from its shitty neighbors and not respond with full military force, as Israel puts up with regularly.

This current conflict was sparked on July 12th, after Hezbollah’s kidnappings and rocket attacks, as sourced above. If that fact flies in the face if Hezbollah’s propaganda, tough.

And Hezbollah isn't supposed to have any friggen rockets or other arms to begin with, according to the impotent and useless UN itself.

Did Hezbollah or Lebanon comply with Resolution 1559 (pdf link) that called for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militants, and the area maintained by legitimate Lebanese forces? Of course not!

Where's Troll bitching about Hezbollah, Lebanon and the usual suspects NEVER honoring UN agreements, and where is he misusing terms like "bait and switch" to describe their actions?

No, you people only bitch and whine about Israel, and never have the facts straight while doing it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Well, now that we know the agreement includes the "the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers" until that happens, then Isreal is correct to state that it: "cannot be considered as fully implemented."

It doesn't though. I concede that I overstated it when I said it does not refer to the Israeli prisoners at all. I was wrong about that.

But it does not say that they must be released, it emphasises the need to address all of the causes of the conflict including the unconditional release of the soldiers. It also is mindful of the need for Israel to release its Lebanese prisoners. Neither of those are binding parts of the resolution - they merely form its backdrop. So are we looking at a Mexican standoff? Israel won't release Lebanese prisoners until Hezbolllah releases the soldiers? Maybe so. All Hezbollah has left is those two soldiers so I don't see them releasing them until Israel agrees to release some Lebanese prisoners. An uneven standoff too since Lebanon isn't Hezbollah but in the interim there are binding obligations contained in the resolution (as opposed to the non-binding preamble) and one of those is that Israel ceases offensive operations like the blockade. Those obligations are not conditional on Hezbollah releasing the soldiers so for Israel to say that it won't comply until Hezbollah releases the soldiers is a breach.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No, you people only bitch and whine about Israel, and never have the facts straight while doing it.

The reasoning is quite simple. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. We know it will act like one. Israel is a civilized country participating on the international stage. So we expect them to act as such. If both groups fall to the same level most liberals don't want to support either side. It's not that we want Israel to lose. It's that we want them to win, but honestly, they've been going about it the wrong way. If we wanted Israel to loose, why would we express our opinions on how we think they could better win the war?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Don't get me wrong, I usually side with Israel, but I think they overreacted.

Considering this latest conflict was actually only the latest chapter in an ongoing pattern of Hezbollah initiated violence against Israel, it would seem they under-reacted.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Considering this latest conflict was actually only the latest chapter in an ongoing pattern of Hezbollah initiated violence against Israel, it would seem they under-reacted.

So the party of god has been taking potshots at Israel for an indefinite amount of time and Israel hasn't retaliated until now and now they've had enough?

V

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Troll

But it does not say that they must be released, it emphasises the need to address all of the causes of the conflict including the unconditional release of the soldiers. It also is mindful of the need for Israel to release its Lebanese prisoners. Neither of those are binding parts of the resolution - they merely form its backdrop. So are we looking at a Mexican standoff? Israel won't release Lebanese prisoners until Hezbolllah releases the soldiers? Maybe so. All Hezbollah has left is those two soldiers so I don't see them releasing them until Israel agrees to release some Lebanese prisoners. An uneven standoff too since Lebanon isn't Hezbollah but in the interim there are binding obligations contained in the resolution (as opposed to the non-binding preamble) and one of those is that Israel ceases offensive operations like the blockade. Those obligations are not conditional on Hezbollah releasing the soldiers so for Israel to say that it won't comply until Hezbollah releases the soldiers is a breach.

This is all cart-before-horse bullshit, Troll. Hezbollah isn't even supposed to be in Lebanon, isn't supposed to be armed –let alone with long range rockets- and Lebanon is supposed to have control over its own territory- all according to the same UN that you now want to cite only against Israel.

The tactic is so transparent. Hezbollah and any foe of Israel gets to violate all the agreements they want, yet you only bitch and whine at Israel.

Clearly, in your mind, and in the mindset of Hezbollah et al, the only purpose of UN resolutions are as battering rams against Israel, and nothing to do with any real attempts at resolving anything. It's always one-sided- Israel must capitulate, while we ignore what the other side does.

You're only upset that Israel refuses to play this game, and instead holds defending itself as a higher priority.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This is all cart-before-horse bullshit, Troll. Hezbollah isn't even supposed to be in Lebanon, isn't supposed to be armed –let alone with long range rockets- and Lebanon is supposed to have control over its own territory- all according to the same UN that you now want to cite only against Israel.

Lebanon doesn't have the troops or strong enough of a government.

So what was Israel response? Weaken the Lebanese military and cripple the government.

Genius.

[Spliffdaddy]

Remember that money Hezbollah was handing out to the Lebanese citizens after Israel blew everything up?

It was American currency. One-hundred dollar bills.

All of it counterfeit...missing the security thread.

The funniest part is that the Lebanese are accepting it as legal tender.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

The reasoning is quite simple. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. We know it will act like one. Israel is a civilized country participating on the international stage.

Lebanon wants to be treated as a civilized country also, yet isn't held accountable for allowing terrorists groups to operate and attack Israel from within its borders. If you wanted to appear as unbiased as you let on, you'd hold the Lebanese government accountable for failing miserably to hold up its end in keeping Hezbollah in check, and taking charge of their own damned country.

So we expect them to act as such. If both groups fall to the same level most liberals don't want to support either side.

Sorry, but I notice that whenever it's clear that the terrorist side is at fault, then the old line "both sides are equally responsible" gets trotted out. Virtually EVERY time.

Classic example: in the other thread where it was clear the ambulance and ship "sinking" incidents were propaganda clearly perpetrated by Hezbollah, rather than just say "Yeah, that sucks that Hezbollah tried to pull that," it's "Oh, both sides use propaganda." In other words, don't own up, just try and play it off being dead wrong with a brain dead moral equivalence non-argument.

Every single time, that's the fall back pattern. So you'll pardon me if I get wary of hearing the old "both sides" bullshit trotted out every time Hezbollah cheerleaders have egg all over their faces after getting suckered by their propaganda.

Time after time it's clear that the terrorist side is at fault, for perpetrating and continuing the conflict.

It's not that we want Israel to lose. It's that we want them to win, but honestly, they've been going about it the wrong way. If we wanted Israel to loose, why would we express our opinions on how we think they could better win the war?

Getting basic facts straight, not being quite so eager fall for and promote the terrorist side’s blatant propaganda, and holding Israel's enemies up to a more human-like standard of behavior (terrorist groups and their sponsors or not –it’s not an excuse) would go a lot further toward showing no bias against (let alone support for) Israel winning. Actions speak louder than un-backed statements in my book.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm sorry, second or third most holy site. You can take a gold star if that makes you feel better.

Yeah, I see the truth doesn't really make too much of a difference to you. You make one ridiculous assertion after another about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and when you're nailed on them you either ignore the corrections or make snide remarks trivializing your error. Shameful, utterly shameful. Your intellectual dishonesty sickens me.

Btw, the Temple Mount is a distant third holy site, according to Islamic propaganda. Jerusalem is never mentioned by name in the Koran. The Koran only speaks obliquely of a night journey to the "farthest mosque." There is nothing to indicate that that "farthest mosque" was in Jerusalem. (And it's especially strange for the Koran to say Mohammed went to the "farthest mosque" and then to claim that was the Temple Mount, because there was no mosque there - Al Aqsa was not built until decades after Mohammed's death.) Truly the only reasons why a mosque is on top of the ruins of the Holy Temple are a) because of Islam's supersessionist doctrine of co-opting the holy sites that predated its existence b) in order to preclude rebuilding of the Holy Temple. An Egyptian scholar even wrote in an Egyptian government newspaper that the true "farthest mosque" was a mosque near Medina. Note, Colin, that I'm not writing this for your benefit since you do not care; I'm writing this so that hopefully others won't be deluded by your wanton disregard for the truth.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

Lebanon doesn't have the troops or strong enough of a government.

So what was Israel response? Weaken the Lebanese military and cripple the government.

Genius.

And once again, there's ALWAYS an excuse. The Middle East swims in oil money and every other rag-tag terrorist group has money for rockets and bombs and guns and everything else, but so-called "legitimate" ME governments can't even control their own damned borders.


I call bullshit. Iran, Syria, or any other ME nation can lift a finger to help Lebanon help itself, but can magically supply militants with whatever weapons they need to start useless wars against Israel.

It's long past time to stop floating excuses for this bullshit, and hold the Lebanese responsible for what they fully allow inside their borders.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Did Hezbollah or Lebanon comply with Resolution 1559 (pdf link) that called for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militants, and the area maintained by legitimate Lebanese forces? Of course not!

Thanks for the link above. Although it doesn't give much details about the rocket attacks it at least mentions them.

But for the quoted part. Do you expect Lebanon's so called military to be able to complete a job that the 4th strongest military/army in the world can't do? If so, how are they supposed to do that?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I call bullshit. Iran, Syria, or any other ME nation can lift a finger to help Lebanon help itself, but can magically supply militants with whatever weapons they need to start useless wars against Israel.

Of course they can. No one is debating that. The problem is the weaker Lebanon becomes, the more Syria runs the show, and liberals don't want Syrian influence to be stronger in Lebanon. We're angry because Israel shot themselves in the foot and allowed Syria to make more inroads into Lebanon to fuel terrorism.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

But for the quoted part. Do you expect Lebanon's so called military to be able to complete a job that the 4th strongest military/army in the world can't do? If so, how are they supposed to do that?

Who says Israel can't do it? Israel hasn't been allowed to do it.

And now we see the pattern as to why. Every time they'll go back and take on Hezbollah (which is inevitable, since Hezbollah will do what it always does- regroup and start attacking again) the same propaganda tactics will get dragged out, until Israel is forced to stop short. The worse Hezbollah gets beaten, the more we'll be treated to propaganda nonsense about missile struck ambulances, and every Hezbollah casualty being counted as civilian, until pressure forces Israel to stop doing what needs to be done. So rather than get this crap over with once and for all, it'll just be dragged out through one useless "ceasefire" after another, and will end up killing ten times the number of people as one decisive war to defeat Hezbollah would.

In this last conflict, if Lebanon wasn't far deeper in cahoots and support of Hezbollah than people are letting on, it could have been responsible for getting as many non-combatants out of the war zone as possible, and then letting Israel take on the task of routing Hezbollah for them.

[Big Mac]

Lebanon wasn't just in cahoots with Hezballah - the country's PM openly praised the group for taking on Israel, and he called them Lebanon's national resistance.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Who says Israel can't do it? Israel hasn't been allowed to do it.

They did what they wanted, no one stopped them. But they still failed. The problem is, terrorists can't be defeated with war, and in fact, war is exactly what the terrorists want, and builds popular support for them. It's the same lesson we need to learn - this has to be fought as a war against guerillas, as a counter-insurgency.

[Big Mac]

And if there is no counter-insurgency, as in this case, what then? I suppose according to you we simply say, "okay, you barbarians, terrorize us and we will sit back passively, shaking our fingers at you while our civilians perish and our socio-economic base disintegrates"?

Terrorist forces must be actively opposed with law enforcement and warfare if the threat is not otherwise neutralized. America learned that lesson on 9/11.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

They did what they wanted, no one stopped them. But they still failed.

Gee, 34 whole days to stop a terrorist force that's been amassing strength for 6 years.

The problem is, terrorists can't be defeated with war, and in fact, war is exactly what the terrorists want, and builds popular support for them. It's the same lesson we need to learn - this has to be fought as a war against guerillas, as a counter-insurgency.

This belief is like some silly reverse psychology argument taken to its bizarre extremes. "They want to get stomped... so don't stomp them!" Yeah, sure.

Being killed in droves, having their hideouts reduced to rubble, being disarmed, having their assets seized, and being basically stomped into the dust by Israel and everyone else involved in fighting terror is most assuredly not what terrorists want, nor is it their favored recruiting tool.

What they do want, however, is for enough useful idiots in the west to believe they are invincible, and that they gain greater support for being fought... so let's not fight them. They want to use this belief to hold out just long enough to for the UN to force concessions for them that they aren't entitled to, then claim victory (as they did in this conflict.)

That kind of stupidity is what grants them more and more converts. Those who would be swayed to join terror groups now see that if they want to be treated like they've earned some kind of legitimacy, and want to be thought of as invincible by folks like you, then just attack Israel, run and hide, propagandize enough to force an unearned ‘ceasefire’ and get all these wishes granted.

What the hell do you think that is, other than the greatest recruiting tool for more terrorism as could be imagined? This nonsense, as opposed to truly fighting them, only proves to the terrorists and their sympathizers that their tactics work, and that their foes are too spineless to stop them.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You're only upset that Israel refuses to play this game, and instead holds defending itself as a higher priority.

I'm not upset about this incident in isolation. I'm upset about the fact that Israel constantly promises to do x and then does y or does nothing at all. It is not an honest partner. I'm fully aware of the fact that Israel does not always have honest partners on the other side, but behaving the way Israel is behaving is doing nothing to resolve the conflict between Palestinians and Israel.

If Israel does not intend to abide by agreements. If it thinks the UN is a waste of time, then say so in advance. Don't sign the ceasefire resolution if you don't intend to abide by it. But agreeing to something and then immediately breaking the agreement and constantly shifting the goal posts is not the way to make peace. No one will believe Israel when it makes commitments in the future.

In real politic terms, what's happening here is that Olmert is trying to make the best of the Israeli defeat because of the political pressure he is under at home.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Lebanon wants to be treated as a civilized country also, yet isn't held accountable for allowing terrorists groups to operate and attack Israel from within its borders.

Hezbollah isn't JUST a terrorist organisation. I know, this is hard for a binary mind to comprehend, but dismantling Hezbollah completely would be a bad idea for everyone including Israel.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Who says Israel can't do it? Israel hasn't been allowed to do it.

Yeah, dream on. Israel lost the war if you judge them by what they planned to achieve. Even the Israelis acknowledge that. The Israeli army is one of the strongest in the world for very short periods of time. Because of its reliance on reserves, military conflict cripples its economy. This war went on for as long as Israel could handle. There was no sense in carrying on because they were having no effect and because it was obvious that a clear victory was not going to come within the time that Israel could reasonably afford to pursue the war. Obviously if it had been about Israel's survival, they would have continued but it wasn't. It was supposed to be a quick operation to nullify the threat Hezbollah posed. They failed to achieve that and couldn't just turn around and go home because that would encourage Hezbollah. So they agreed to sign a ceasefire that was a compromise for them. Israel had to end the war.

[Kevin]

Israel Lost the war? AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Man Troll you get funnier and funnier everyday.

Seriously, get a grip.

[analogika]

Kevin, where have you been?

Even Israel thinks so.

And they should know.

[vmarks]

Israel lost the war.

Israel lost the war because Israel caved to political pressure.

Israel could have continued fighting for a longer period of time without crippling the economy, in part because Israel didn't officially declare this a war, and therefore did not have to pay reparations to the citizens who had to live in shelters rather than their apartments.

Had the Fraudulent-Qana-Tragedy not been overblown with faked photography and 'aid workers' maniipulating corpses and inflating numbers of deaths, had the World Leaders not fallen for the fakery, the pressure would not have been as great, and Israel might have gone on to fight stronger.

Had Israel had the will to fight stronger here, and not tried to only do an air offensive at first, Israel might have been more successful. As it was, political pressure to avoid the appearance of an all out invasion (ground forces as well), political pressure to stop defending themselves from the invasions into Israel by HizbAllah and the repeated, unceasing rocket attacks that HizbAllah had been doing since 2000 when Israel complied with UN425 and was certified by Annan as having done so.

HizbAllah wanted a prisoner exchange and thought they would get one, and maintain the status quo of continuing rocket fire week in week out as they had for years.

They were surprised, but the lesson should have been that things don't get better unless you change the status quo. Unfortunately for Israel, for Lebanon, and for the hope of a lasting peace, Israel gave in to political pressure.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Had the Fraudulent-Qana-Tragedy not been overblown with faked photography and 'aid workers' maniipulating corpses and inflating numbers of deaths

How callous! The initial report was that 50 civilians had been killed. The number was later reduced to 28 - of which 16 were children. The killing of 28 civilians including 16 children would not have evoked any less of a reaction in the rest of the world. The killing of 16 innocent children cowering from bombing is a tragedy in itself.

I don't know why you put aid workers in inverted commas. The guy you're referring to is an employee of the Red Cross. Sure, he had a child's body brought out of the ambulance and displayed to the cameras. That's reprehensible. But does it change what happened? No it doesn't. And can you imagine where the guy is coming from. The is the second time in his life that he has gone digging in the rubble of a building destroyed by the Israelis to haul out the bodies of children. Don't you think that in that situation you might also want to turn to the world and say, "Look what these bastards have done?" I think it was wrong of him to do what he did but it changes nothing. 28 innocent people including 16 children were killed. That is a tragedy any which way you cut it.

It also wasn't the only incident. There were over a thousand deaths and more people continue to be maimed and killed by Israel's use of cluster bombs (potentially a war crime in itself). 1 million people were displaced. A whole country was being collectively punished. That is why there was international pressure on Israel. But it's not why the war ended. Israel wasn't achieving anything. It had pounded Hezbollah for weeks and the rockets kept raining down. Israel had to find a way to get out of a war that would have lasted years. They had hoped to do that with a crushing victory but failed. They had to accept a less than favourable ceasefire.

[iREZ]

israel not honoring their side of the treaty makes them just as irresponsible as hezbollah, not better...not worse...THE SAME. the fact that hezbollah is a terrorist unit and israel is a nation makes it pretty pathetic on their part, israel that is.

[natnabour]

Let's take a step back.

We're all viewing this from a safe distance. 90% of us haven't seen war nor lived in a country in constant destruction, fear, or paranoia. We simply haven't. So we all basically look like a bunch of idiots who find it so easy to say, ''Well Isreal did this, Hisbollah did that....I think they should both adhere to the UN agreements.''

Its not that effin simple.

Imagine, just for a second that you're a Palestinian who took refuge in Lebanon in the 1950s. Generation upon generation, your family grows. Throughout the years, a resistence is born under the name Hisbollah. Year 2006 brings the bombing of Isreal - the Hisbollah are strong and well equipped fighting against the goverment who displaced you. Are you happy?
OF COURSE YOU ARE. Do you support Hisbollah? YES. Why? Because someone is finally fighting back AND doing a good job of it.

This all unfortunately takes place in your backyard.

Lebanon has been caught in the crossfire for decades. Years upon years. That poor country has rebuilt itself over and over only to be torn down again. And some of you blame Lebanon for this conflict, that they didn't their job to detain and disarm Hisbollah. How do you expect them to do that when half their country is in favor of Hisbollah? To Lebanese-Palestinians, the Hisbollah aren't terrorists - they're heros! To Hisbollah - Isreal is the terrorist (and they're a nation!) People don't seem to understand the mentally behind all of it.


A simple UN ceasefire isn't going to stop any of it. There will always be a conflict on hand. Whether it begins with two kidnapped soldiers here, a few political leaders there - both sides will find a way instigate one another.

What really grieves me is the fact that NO ONE has tried to proactively fix this problem. Its always a UN resolution, some peace treaty, and we're ok for a few years. Lets sit both parties down and have them EDUCATE their people.

Your grandfather killed my grandfather. Your goverment took my father away. That suicide bomber killed my mother. Everyone's lost someone. Lets get on with our lives already.


/rant

[vmarks]

Hi Nat.

The fact is this: Israel has been willing to work with Lebanon, and HizbAllah in the past. There's a history there of Israel negotiating a prisoner exchange with HizbAllah through a third party in the past.

HizbAllah, for its part, sees only elimination of Israel and Jews through violence. That pretty much makes them a terrorist organization, and many nations recognize it as such. Given Israel's willing to negotiate with them in the past, I don't know that Israel needs the education you're recommending it.

Israel is content with HizbAllah disarming, ceasing attacks, and releasing the soldiers captured. And this was never about ONLY two soldiers- this was about HizbAllah's repeated threats and regular frequent bombings on north Israel since 2000.

So rather than continue the status quo, the same unchanging routine of being bombed by HizbAllah, something must change, and negotiations didn't do it the last time around.

What, then, is your answer?

[Troll]

I've already told you what my answer is so I won't go over that again but Nat makes a very valid point. The point is what would I NOT do in Israel's position.

If Israel were genuinely interested in peace, it would seek to make more allies in the region and minimise the number of enemies it has. This retaliation was completely disproportionate. They used CLUSTER BOMBS for God's sake - a weapon that many classify as an illegal munition. And they are now refusing to supply maps of the areas that cluster bombs may still be lying around in. Israel sacrificed an ally (Lebanon) for 2 soldiers for Hezbollah being taken captive; something Israel does to Palestinians every other day. Surely someone in the Israeli Knesset realised that after you invade Lebanon, that is the last time you will ever have the possibility of having the Lebanese in your camp? Surely they realised that the Lebanese population would hate Israel even more than they did before and surely they realised that a war on the scale they waged it, would destabilise the country such that it would become a hotbed for militant groups?

That was the best-case scenario. What actually happened is far worse because Israel not only lost an ally but it lost the war. Not only do they now have to deal with Lebanese hatred and conditions that are ripe for the expansion of militant groups, but those groups are emboldened by Hezbollah's performance.

Now those who support the war will say, "Yes but the Lebanese already hated Israel so Israel lost nothing." Aside from the fact that this is not true, it reveals what I think is one of the primary motivators of conflict in the region - Israeli paranoia. Israel, the fourth military power in the world, thinks it's existence is under threat from a loose band of combatants with 50 year old rifles and some inaccurate, mildly explosive rockets. Hezbollah's strength is that they pop up, shoot a few rockets and disappear again. This is not a group that would be able to sustain the kind of open military conflict that would be required to remove Israel from the map!! And yet, listen to Olmert and Bush and others - that's what they are saying! I've said before that this is a ridiculous notion but the Israeli population has this psychosis and the Israeli leadership seems to encourage it. Why? I think because as long as Israelis and the world think that the state of Israel might disappear, the leadership think the world will turn a blind eye to their violence against Palestinians and against their neighbours. They think Israelis themselves will continue to check in for conscription duty and continue to blindly support their military.

The apartheid South African government did the same thing hyping "Die Swart Gevaar" (the black danger), making the white population of the country believe that only the military was keeping blacks from coming into the suburbs and killing the whites. It seems to me that this is what Israel is doing too - it's the Arab Danger which has lead to the ghetto mentality that prevails in Israel. Leaders of Israel need to start persuading Israelis that Israel is a permanent feature of the Middle East, that it is not going to disappear ... ever, that the Israeli Army backed by the world's only superpower and the rest of the West will ensure that Israel always exists. Once Israelis understand that they are relatively safe (for a country that has occupied its neighbours for 50 years) and that they could be even safer if something concrete were done to improve Palestinian lives and end the occupation, then I think Israelis will be prepared to make the kinds of sacrifices that need to be made on their end. At the moment, their insistence on responding disproportionately to every act of resistance (which is based on their fear that Israel might be wiped off the map) dooms the entire peace process and only guarantees them one thing - mounting international pressure.

[natnabour]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Hi Nat.

The fact is this: Israel has been willing to work with Lebanon, and HizbAllah in the past. There's a history there of Israel negotiating a prisoner exchange with HizbAllah through a third party in the past.

HizbAllah, for its part, sees only elimination of Israel and Jews through violence. That pretty much makes them a terrorist organization, and many nations recognize it as such. Given Israel's willing to negotiate with them in the past, I don't know that Israel needs the education you're recommending it.

Israel is content with HizbAllah disarming, ceasing attacks, and releasing the soldiers captured. And this was never about ONLY two soldiers- this was about HizbAllah's repeated threats and regular frequent bombings on north Israel since 2000.

So rather than continue the status quo, the same unchanging routine of being bombed by HizbAllah, something must change, and negotiations didn't do it the last time around.

What, then, is your answer?

Hello there.

Rereading my previous post, I realize I may have sounded Pro-Hisbollah. I just want to say I have nothing against Isreal, nothing against Jews. In fact, I can relate to Jews because my people were also once persecuted. The recent fighting, Tel-aviv, Gaza strip, they're all diversions to the root problem

That said.....I have a friend who recently moved to the States from Isreal. I love her to death. She's intelligent, bright, funny, etc. 22 years old, just finished her duty in Isreal's army over a year ago. Now, she thinks that Palestine does not exist, that Palestine NEVER existed. And she says almost most of her family and friends back home have been brought up to believe that as well.

That's the kind of education I'm talking about.

This is what she grew up with. I'm not saying that every Isreali thinks that way, but I can vouche that most Isrealis are not fond of Palestinians AND vice versa. It has to start somewhere. Its a shame that everyone in those regions (which I see you are from as well) cannot live life peacefully.

[vmarks]

Well, she's right.

Palestine as an independent entity has never existed. Palestine was the name the Romans gave Israel to oppress the Jews by taking away the country's name.

Then after the Romans it was ruled by the Turks. Then the Brits. Then the Israelis regained it.

In the nineteenth and twentieth century pre-1948, the Arabs who lived there declared that the land was part of southern Syria (see 1937 peel commission), and the Jews called themselves Palestinians. The Arabs at that time rejected that name, saying it was the name for the Jews.

That the Arabs were fine living under Turkish empire is consistent with their later behavior- they didn't protest occupation when Gaza was governed by Egypt, and didn't protest Jordan until 1969-1971ish when Arafat tried to establish a state within Jordan (Black September.) So really, the Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinians) have only ever had a problem with not being self-governed when under non-Arab rule. And even that isn't wholly accurate because Israel has elected Arab members of Parliament.

Israel is content to live life peacefully. Arab (Palestinian) citizens, elected members of government, repeated attempts to negotiate peace, all show it.

It is a shame that Palestinians are brought up to believe they will 'get their rights' when they kill Israelis. That's where the re-education effort needs to go.

So she's correct. There never was a Palestine as an independent nation. It existed most recently as the name the Jews had for pre-state-of-Israel.

Re-educating for a kinder, more pleasant history is a nice idea, except when it's fictional history.