Israel and Lebanon

Carl. · Aug 24, 2006

Am I the only one to think that all this "[pick a side] is justified / at fault for what happened" debating is as useful as my appendix is, if not less?

Questions I'd ask are:

- What exactly has Israel gained with their retaliation?
- What the hell did they thought they'd gain with that kind of response?
- Who exactly expected Lebanon to take care of Hezbollah by itself, without going back to a civil war, you know, as in the good old times... a few years back, when Israel, with all of its might and support from the west, hasn't been able to deal effectively with the same effin problem on its own soil in 50 years??? :dunce:

- Of all the things that happened to Israeli civilians, the event that triggered this all out war was.... an attack on Israeli soldiers. WHY???
- What do you think "spreading democracy" will solve in the Middle East, if the majority of the population there is mighty pissed about Israel and the US (or better yet, in coutries where a large part of their population are people who fled away from Palestine because of the ongoing conflict with Israel)??
- Do you think actions such as what Israel just did help in any way to get the moderate Muslims to help us fight against radicalism within their religion?
- How likely do you think this will end in the biggest bloodbath we've seen since WW2?
- I know you'd all like to punch a terrorist in the face. So do I. Now, how about the assholes who thought that they had a God given right to some land because they're the chosen ones? (Note: Sionism != Judaism)

Now please don't get me the "I'm biased against Israel" bullcrap. These are questions for you since the majority here seems to support Israel. I had a whole different set of questions, for example, when I had a discussion with a (atheist, with Muslim parents) lawyer that just moved out from Syria to Canada a few days ago. I just think it's more productive to harshly look at what "your side" is doing than comforting yourselves about how much evil the other side is. If you want to keep on that sort of intellectual masturbation, just tell me, and I'll step out to let you guys enjoy yourselves.

///M-Spec · Aug 24, 2006

Carl.
- What exactly has Israel gained with their retaliation?

What Israel was hoping to gain was deterrence, first and foremost. They wanted to prove to their enemies that further attacks against Israel in any form would bring a reprisal so overwhelming the cost would be too high for them to pay.

What they ended up getting will take a little longer to discover. Most analysts have begun to conclude they haven't succeeded. (note I said analysts, not people who are pissed off over what they've done, and therefore want them to fail at anything regardless of the facts) In fact, most analysts believe Hezbollah and militant Islam in general benefited from the war, the former will probably enjoy a strong political upsurge and consolidate their power in south Lebanon even further.

Meanwhile, the IDF has lost a certain sense of their 'mystique' if you will, for failing to utterly crush it's opponents. And certainly the civilian toll has cost the Israeli nation any remaining international goodwill it had sitting in the bank.

But let's not confuse failure to achieve with the righteousness of the goal. The execution was flawed. The aims were not.

Carl.
- What the hell did they thought they'd gain with that kind of response?

Deterrence. And justice.

Carl.
- Who exactly expected Lebanon to take care of Hezbollah by itself, without going back to a civil war, you know, as in the good old times... a few years back, when Israel, with all of its might and support from the west, hasn't been able to deal effectively with the same effin problem on its own soil in 50 years???

The question isn't really what can be reasonably expected, but where the responsibility lies for any expectation whatsoever.

It was unreasonable for us to expect President Bush to personally lead 20,000 rescue personnel to New Orleans the minute the levees broke, and not to have let a single soul lose his/her life.

But yet the world expected him to do it anyway.

Carl.
- Of all the things that happened to Israeli civilians, the event that triggered this all out war was.... an attack on Israeli soldiers. WHY???

Not sure. My personal guess is that soldiers of the IDF hold a special, almost sacred status amongst the Israeli. After all, without their vaunted armed forces, they would have been wiped out as nation at least 3 times over by now.

Also a central credo in most armed forces is ‘never to leave a soldier behind’. So that’d be my guess.

Carl.
- What do you think "spreading democracy" will solve in the Middle East, if the majority of the population there is mighty pissed about Israel and the US (or better yet, in coutries where a large part of their population are people who fled away from Palestine because of the ongoing conflict with Israel)??

After 3 years in Iraq and almost 5 in Afghanistan, I’m beginning to think the Arab world isn’t ready for democracy. They’re probably better off as a whole repressed by Islamic theocracies, authoritarian monarchies or petty warlords. Sadly I say that with half a sense of sarcasm and half a sense of utter and complete honesty.

Carl.
- Do you think actions such as what Israel just did help in any way to get the moderate Muslims to help us fight against radicalism within their religion?

Nope. Good intentions. Bad execution.

Carl.
- How likely do you think this will end in the biggest bloodbath we've seen since WW2?

Not likely. But anything can happen. I grew up thinking the Cold War was going to end in the biggest bloodbath since ..well.. since ever. But I was happy to have been wrong about that.

Carl.
- I know you'd all like to punch a terrorist in the face. So do I. Now, how about the assholes who thought that they had a God given right to some land because they're the chosen ones? (Note: Sionism != Judaism)

I think the Knesset needs to get it’s act together and keep the crazies in line. But it also needs to get it’s act together and return Israel to it’s 1967 borders.

Which of course, they would have done by now except the other side wants them all dead.

Carl.
Now please don't get me the "I'm biased against Israel" bullcrap. These are questions for you since the majority here seems to support Israel. I had a whole different set of questions, for example, when I had a discussion with a (atheist, with Muslim parents) lawyer that just moved out from Syria to Canada a few days ago. I just think it's more productive to harshly look at what "your side" is doing than comforting yourselves about how much evil the other side is. If you want to keep on that sort of intellectual masturbation, just tell me, and I'll step out to let you guys enjoy yourselves.

You sound really cranky today. What’s up?

M

ledhed · Aug 24, 2006

///M-Spec
What Israel was hoping to gain was deterrence, first and foremost. They wanted to prove to their enemies that further attacks against Israel in any form would bring a reprisal so overwhelming the cost would be too high for them to pay.

What they ended up getting will take a little longer to discover. Most analysts have begun to conclude they haven't succeeded. (note I said analysts, not people who are pissed off over what they've done, and therefore want them to fail at anything regardless of the facts) In fact, most analysts believe Hezbollah and militant Islam in general benefited from the war, the former will probably enjoy a strong political upsurge and consolidate their power in south Lebanon even further.

Meanwhile, the IDF has lost a certain sense of their 'mystique' if you will, for failing to utterly crush it's opponents. And certainly the civilian toll has cost the Israeli nation any remaining international goodwill it had sitting in the bank.

But let's not confuse failure to achieve with the righteousness of the goal. The execution was flawed. The aims were not.

Deterrence. And justice.

The question isn't really what can be reasonably expected, but where the responsibility lies for any expectation whatsoever.

It was unreasonable for us to expect President Bush to personally lead 20,000 rescue personnel to New Orleans the minute the levees broke, and not to have let a single soul lose his/her life.

But yet the world expected him to do it anyway.

Not sure. My personal guess is that soldiers of the IDF hold a special, almost sacred status amongst the Israeli. After all, without their vaunted armed forces, they would have been wiped out as nation at least 3 times over by now.

Also a central credo in most armed forces is never to leave a soldier behind. So thatd be my guess.

After 3 years in Iraq and almost 5 in Afghanistan, Im beginning to think the Arab world isnt ready for democracy. Theyre probably better off as a whole repressed by Islamic theocracies, authoritarian monarchies or petty warlords. Sadly I say that with half a sense of sarcasm and half a sense of utter and complete honesty.

Nope. Good intentions. Bad execution.

Not likely. But anything can happen. I grew up thinking the Cold War was going to end in the biggest bloodbath since ..well.. since ever. But I was happy to have been wrong about that.

I think the Knesset needs to get its act together and keep the crazies in line. But it also needs to get its act together and return Israel to its 1967 borders.

Which of course, they would have done by now except the other side wants them all dead.

You sound really cranky today. Whats up?

M

Nice response , in fact very well done.

Carl. · Aug 24, 2006

///M-Spec
[... up to]
Deterrence. And justice.

I can understand them for seeking justice, but how on earth could they believe that it would actually be effective as a deterrent, especially looking back at the last 50 years or so?

///M-Spec
The question isn't really what can be reasonably expected, but where the responsibility lies for any expectation whatsoever.

It was unreasonable for us to expect President Bush to personally lead 20,000 rescue personnel to New Orleans the minute the levees broke, and not to have let a single soul lose his/her life.

But yet the world expected him to do it anyway.

The difference in these situations lies in having the choice on how to respond. With Katrina, there wasn't much choice but to try to coordinate rescue efforts as quickly and effectively as possible. Now a full scale offensive on South Lebanon wasn't the only option in our case. And in the end, It actually seems to have made things worse.

///M-Spec
Not sure. My personal guess is that soldiers of the IDF hold a special, almost sacred status amongst the Israeli. After all, without their vaunted armed forces, they would have been wiped out as nation at least 3 times over by now.

Also a central credo in most armed forces is ‘never to leave a soldier behind’. So that’d be my guess.

Yes, but I do find it much worse when civilians are targeted. At least soldiers are expected to risk their lives while in duty, and as stupid as Hezbollah's move was, for once, that wasn't a cheap shot at defenseless civilians. To me, such reaction sends a weird message...

///M-Spec
After 3 years in Iraq and almost 5 in Afghanistan, I’m beginning to think the Arab world isn’t ready for democracy. They’re probably better off as a whole repressed by Islamic theocracies, authoritarian monarchies or petty warlords. Sadly I say that with half a sense of sarcasm and half a sense of utter and complete honesty.

I honestly believe that this is somewhat true, or at least it seems like the lesser of two evils. Revolution must come from within their own population, and right now I believe a lot of Israel's/our actions are not encouraging that to happen.

///M-Spec
Nope. Good intensions. Bad execution.

...along with very bad foresight, poor planning, and way too much optimism.

///M-Spec
Not likely. But anything can happen. I grew up thinking the Cold War was going to end in the biggest bloodbath since ..well.. since ever. But I was happy to have been wrong about that.

The main difference I see is that this is an asymetric war, and one side doesn't seem to care about their own civilian casualties. Where do you retaliate after Tel Aviv, NY or London is blown up?

///M-Spec
I think the Knesset needs to get it’s act together and keep the crazies in line. But it also needs to get it’s act together and return Israel to it’s 1967 borders.

Which of course, they would have done by now except the other side wants them all dead.

How much of the "other side" wants them dead remains to be seen. There's quite a bit of difference between being pissed at their leader's actions, and wanting to exterminate all of them. Not all Arabs are bloodlusting religious freaks eager to eat Jewish babies. But a lot of what happened in the past years just gave a stronger voice to those on that end of the spectrum.

///M-Spec
You sound really cranky today. What’s up?

Don't know. I'd like not to have such a pessimistic view on how this will end. And I just wanted to make sure the discussion would be around these few questions, not their "bias level" (or mine). Hence the :grumpy:

PMSish tone. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

ledhed · Aug 24, 2006

Carl.
I can understand them for seeking justice, but how on earth could they believe that it would actually be effective as a deterrent, especially looking back at the last 50 years or so?

its the only deterrent they have other than packing up and leaving ..they are at WAR , this is a CEASE FIRE..the war started in 1948 and never ended.
Its a deterrent and if they can keep Hezbollah from being re-armed , they have learned what they need to know to do better next time .
the Israeli response was half hearted and stupid IMO..they fought this with one hand tied behind their backs when they should have gone in with overwhelming and irresistable force ..a huge mistake for them...then time ran out . But they know better for the next time from this skirmish .

The difference in these situations lies in having the choice on how to respond. With Katrina, there wasn't much choice but to try to coordinate rescue efforts as quickly and effectively as possible. Now a full scale offensive on South Lebanon wasn't the only option in our case. And in the end, It actually seems to have made things worse.

Your premise that this was a " full scale offensive " is VERY wrong..it was at best a half hearted effort and did not seem the Israeli's could make up their minds what they wanted to do..I imagine the next round will be different .
Did it make things worse ? that remains to be seen ...but next time around DO NOT expect the Israel's to trust the U.N.A cease fire will be a long time comming if ever..unless something good comes from the EU and U.N. involvement . A full scale offensive would have driven the Hezbollah out and had Israel in Sothern lebenon AGAIN as an occuping force....something they seem loath to do AGAIN . I suspect they deliberately tried to do it in a different way and it did not work out as expected..it seems both sides underestimated the other and thats nothing new when it comes to wars throughout history .

Yes, but I do find it much worse when civilians are targeted. At least soldiers are expected to risk their lives while in duty, and as stupid as Hezbollah's move was, for once, that wasn't a cheap shot at defenseless civilians. To me, such reaction sends a weird message...

The message could be " move away from where Hezbollah is firing rockets at us or you will be bombarded" . Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of any civilians killed because of their actions and its important for the military to fire back even when civilians are being used as shields if only to prove to the CIVILIANS it doesn't work . If the tactic always succeeds or even has a prospect of working it will be used all the time and you wouldn't have a thousnd person or less death toll from a war and a heavy bombardment that lasted a month .

I honestly believe that this is somewhat true, or at least it seems like the lesser of two evil. Revolution must come from within their own population, and right now I believe a lot of Israel's/our actions are not encouraging that to happen.

Not supporting moderates or not standing behind groups that want change will prevent any revolution , imagine what will happen to any thoughts of change if the US pulls out of Iraq ? history has proven that as long as you do not threaten or attack Israel you are as safe as can be...can you say that about the rest of the countries in that region ? The people who live there can't be that dense . They must know its their leaders that are causing this mayhem.

...along with very bad foresight, poor planning, and way too much optimism.

Without a doubt .

The main difference I see is that this is an asymetric war, and one side doesn't seem to care about their own civilian casualties. Where do you retaliate after Tel Aviv, NY or London is blown up?

I would start with Iraq and work my way west to Syria ...and see what happens .

How much of the "other side" wants them dead remains to be seen. There's quite a bit of difference between being pissed at their leader's actions, and wanting to exterminate all of them. Not all Arabs are bloodlusting religious freaks eager to eat Jewish babies. But a lot of what happened in the past years just gave a stronger voice to those on that end of the spectrum.

The history of the region and the fact there are still countries that refuse Israel the right to exist proves you wrong . If they do notb want them dead then why does Hezbollah even exist ?
hezbollahs whole reason for being is the destruction of Israel and a return of Islam to palestine ..read their charter . In fact don't bother count the missiles they have aimed at Israel .

Don't know. I'd like not to have such a pessimistic view on how this will end. And I just wanted to make sure the discussion would be around these few questions, not their "bias level" (or mine). Hence the PMSish tone.

Sad to say I see no reason for optimism either.

Its hard to have diplomacy with a group of nations and organizations that refuse you the right to exist and recognise no peace aggreements or treaties.

magburner · Aug 24, 2006

ledhed
Nice response , in fact very well done.

I have to agree also, very balanced. 👍

carl.
I can understand them for seeking justice, but how on earth could they believe that it would actually be effective as a deterrent, especially looking back at the last 50 years or so?

There was a point at the start of the conflict where much of the Arab world (including much of the wider world) denounced Hezbollah for initiating the conflict with Israel. If the Israeli's had seized that opportunity, and limited thier actions, they could of come out of the whole situation smelling of roses.

There is going to have to be a point where Israel has to reconcile its differences with Lebanon. It will have to be done or events like the ones we have witnessed recently will keep occuring. IMO if Sharon, and not Olmet was in charge throughout this conflict, the whole situation would of been handled much differently - Sharon was a statesman (and a decorated general), Olmet is just a politician.

There has been a nagging doubt in my mind over the motives of Hezbollah when it captured the two Israeli soldiers. I know that a terrorist organisation rarely needs a motive for its actions, but theirs still seemed out of place. Why wait until now? Lebanon was prospering, it was finally getting itself back on its feet after years of civil war and a bloody occupation.Also, Hezbollah has a record of providing social programs etc in Lebanon, why did they suddenly feel the need to lash out like that?

Does anyone think that maybe it was a ploy to test the mettle of the Ehud Olmet? Maybe they thought he would capitulate? They have gone on the record saying that they never anticipated Israels response. So maybe they wanted to see what sort of leader he really was?

///M-Spec · Aug 24, 2006

Carl.
I can understand them for seeking justice, but how on earth could they believe that it would actually be effective as a deterrent, especially looking back at the last 50 years or so?

Maybe it is because of the last 50 years or so that allowed them to arrive at this conclusion. I honestly don't know.

Carl.
The difference in these situations lies in having the choice on how to respond. With Katrina, there wasn't much choice but to try to coordinate rescue efforts as quickly and effectively as possible. Now a full scale offensive on South Lebanon wasn't the only option in our case. And in the end, It actually seems to have made things worse.

You misunderstand my analogy. You had questioned if expecting the government of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah was reasonable, correct?

After all, they would have risked another civil war if they tried to, no?

My point is that just because it is a very difficult problem to solve doesn't make the Lebanese government any less responsible for solving it. I think our friend The Great Indigo One spelled out Lebanon's responsibilities very clearly early on in this thread.

Yeah, it was/is a tough pill to swallow. But sometimes countries get handed the crappy end of the stick and it's leaders are expected to deal with it. Katrina was just one random example.

Carl.
Yes, but I do find it much worse when civilians are targeted. At least soldiers are expected to risk their lives while in duty, and as stupid as Hezbollah's move was, for once, that wasn't a cheap shot at defenseless civilians. To me, such reaction sends a weird message...

I think Israel was waiting for pretext for a major assault. The kidnappings merely provided it. They had been hinting about it for months.

Carl.
I honestly believe that this is somewhat true, or at least it seems like the lesser of two evil. Revolution must come from within their own population, and right now I believe a lot of Israel's/our actions are not encouraging that to happen.

Agreed.

Carl.
...along with very bad foresight, poor planning, and way too much optimism.

I concur.

But it's very easy for us to sit here and pooh-pooh the IDF after the fact. If they had managed to do it with a minimal amount of collateral damage, we'd probably be praising them right now.

Which is why I maintain that their goals were just. They just screwed the pooch when time came to execute.

Carl.
The main difference I see is that this is an asymetric war, and one side doesn't seem to care about their own civilian casualties. Where do you retaliate after Tel Aviv, NY or London is blown up?

I wouldn't know. I'd like to. But don't.

Carl.
How much of the "other side" wants them dead remains to be seen. There's quite a bit of difference between being pissed at their leader's actions, and wanting to exterminate all of them. Not all Arabs are bloodlusting religious freaks eager to eat Jewish babies. But a lot of what happened in the past years just gave a stronger voice to those on that end of the spectrum.

Of course not. C'mon man; I ain't that way.

(Although I did see that guy down at the corner 7-Eleven burp out a kippah last Thursday.. I swear I did)

When I say the "other side", I mean Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad (and their benefactors, Iran and Syria) : There is absolutely no question what these people want.

Carl.
Don't know. I'd like not to have such a pessimistic view on how this will end. And I just wanted to make sure the discussion would be around these few questions, not their "bias level" (or mine) - which isn't something I would expect from you, by the way. Hence the PMSish tone.

I got into a discussion about someone's bias when they made an issue of someone else's biases but could not see their own. I despise hypocrisy on any level, so I took issue with it. I'm sorry if you think the topic is not worthy of discussion, but I didn't instigate it.

EDIT: Thanks to the two gentlemen (led and mag) for the kind words.

M

Carl. · Aug 24, 2006

///M-Spec
I got into a discussion about someone's bias when they made an issue of someone else's biases but could not see their own. I despise hypocrisy on any level, so I took issue with it. I'm sorry if you think the topic is not worthy of discussion, but I didn't instigate it.

My first remark was not directed at you at all, or in reference of your exchange with magburner (but after revisiting that thread I clearly understand why you thought so :ouch:

), and the "I didn't expect this of you" wasn't a negative remark, but rather meant as a (poorly worded, hence the edit) compliment.

You're one of the people for which I have the most respect on these forums, regardless of the issues we agree/disagree on. Also, the wording in my first post was a bit strong and uncalled for, given the maturity of most of the regular posters here (as seen in the last replies 👍), which is far from being the norm in other places I visit (and never post). Must be ballstruation week I guess. That or bad memories from a while back.

That said, I have quite a bit to reply to, which will be done either after Pirates of the Carribeans 2 later tonight (dubbed, we're going with the kids :grumpy:

), or after the safari park visit tomorrow.

KSaiyu · Aug 25, 2006

Swift
Um....Well since we would have to go back a few thousand years to see who's really "wrong" I would say it would be best to look at each situation as it occurs. Infact, that's the way you say you determine what's right and wrong.

Exactly, and looking at the current situation I concluded that both were in the wrong.

ledhead
the Israeli response was half hearted and stupid IMO..they fought this with one hand tied behind their backs when they should have gone in with overwhelming and irresistable force

And what good would that do. As I've explained so many times before, Hezbollah isn't just based in Lebanon. You expect Israel gunning down the Palestinian settlements, Iran and Syria would be acceptable?

mspec
My point is that just because it is a very difficult problem to solve doesn't make the Lebanese government any less responsible for solving it. I think our friend The Great Indigo One spelled out Lebanon's responsibilities very clearly early on in this thread.

The problem is that there was no reason to clear them out in the eyes of the Lebanese, including their President. Imagine the recriminations from other arabs as well as the prospect of a civil war by ridding the country of their shi'ite brothers and defenders against Israel.

Emile Lahoud
But it wasn't the army that freed the occupied south of the country, rather it was the resistance which achieved that. Without this resistance Lebanon would still be occupied today.

The other issue is that Israel has hardly lived up to all UN resolutions past against them, and the fact that they have been doing virtually the same thing years before in capturing Lebanese "suspects" only strengthens the Lebanese and arab view on the double standards shown towards Israel.

Swift · Aug 25, 2006

KSaiyu
Exactly, and looking at the current situation I concluded that both were in the wrong.

Actually, Hezbollah was the only one that was "wrong". Israel simply should've went in full force off the bat and taken them out. But that's just my opinion. Them trying to be "nice" is what Israel did wrong. It's not possible to be nice and win a war.

///M-Spec · Aug 25, 2006

KSaiyu
The problem is that there was no reason to clear them out in the eyes of the Lebanese, including their President. Imagine the recriminations from other arabs as well as the prospect of a civil war by ridding the country of their shi'ite brothers and defenders against Israel.

There wasn't?

What about United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 issued in September of 2004, and Resolution 1680 issued in May 2006 that called for the "disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias"?

And also "calls upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of sufficient numbers of Lebanese armed and security forces, to ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it;"

Or are you advocating that Lebanon should only follow Security Council Resolutions when it suits them and ignore them when it doesn't?

In addition -legal matters aside- what about the moral responsibilities of the Lebanese government for disarming Hezbollah? Do they have none?

Resolution 1701, approved on August 11 also calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed. Lebanon accepted the terms on August 12. Should they disarm Hezbollah now? Or should they blow it off because "there's no clear reason"?

KSaiyu
The other issue is that Israel has hardly lived up to all UN resolutions past against them and the fact that they have been doing virtually the same thing years before in capturing Lebanese "suspects" only strengthens the Lebanese and arab view on the double standards shown towards Israel.

Ah. And here we get into the heart of the matter. The circular argument.

"It's okay for country XYZ to violate Security Council Resolution 5678 because ABC doesn't live up to Resolution 1234."

Then country ABC comes back and says, "the hell with Resolution 9999 because XYZ never followed 5678".

Sorry, but this simply doesn't fly. Walk into a store and take a liter of milk without paying. If someone firmly stops you, try using "I just saw a bloke walk out with a bag of cookies and he didn't pay either". See how far that gets you. Just because one person gets away with breaking the rules doesn't mean the rules suddenly don't apply to you.

Israel should follow resolutions. Lebanon should follow resolutions. Period. End of story. What Israel does or doesn't do has no relation to Lebanon's legal obligations under the UN Charter. If Lebanon doesn't lift a finger to implement 1701, Israel is still responsible for 242 (and 338), even after all these years.

And as a side note, I've seen Arab double standards that are just as bad as anything Israel or the West has come up with.

M

ledhed · Aug 25, 2006

Well Israel went and bought two nuke capable subs to ensure if attacked by anyone they would be able to respond ..even if the entire country was destroyed..

The countdown to armeggedon again ?

So much for reducing the nuclear threat to the world and so much for " trusting " the ability of the UN and others to come to a diplomatic solution .

Swift · Aug 25, 2006

ledhed
So much for reducing the nuclear threat to the world and so much for " trusting " the ability of the UN and others to come to a diplomatic solution .

It's impossible for diplomacy to succeed when parties on both sides do not recognize the authority of the diplomatic body.

ledhed · Aug 25, 2006

Swift
It's impossible for diplomacy to succeed when parties on both sides do not recognize the authority of the diplomatic body.

Swift if that was true why did Israel aggree to a cease fire called for by the UN ? it wouldn't be in their best interest if they didn't recognize the U.N. had authority . hezbollah on the other hand has in their charter that they " recognize NO treaties concerning Israel and are swornb to its destruction as a nation " Thats why the U.N. had to address Lebanon and put the onus on them to disarm the miltia in their own country .

You can't have it both ways either Israel recognises the UN or they fdo not.

in fact if you like you can go through the list of resolutions that Israel has not come through on and you can see it was for mostly , 'security of Israel as a nation under attack " that prevents them from GIVING BACK the land the resolutions call for...look what happens every time THEY DO give back land...with the notable exception of the Siani ..they are worse off and are attacked from the land they give up..DESPITE the U.N. guarantees that come with it ....when you look at it closely you can easily come to the conclusion that Israel would not only be stupid but suicidal to follow the U. N. demands in the current climate .

dont forget they LEFT Lebanon under a U.N. madate and the UN had peacekeepers on the border...what happened? Hezbollah turned southern Lebanon into a fortress ..imported arms and Rockets and missiles by the thousands and INVADED Israel and bobbarded it with rockets...

So if you had the history of the U.N . to deal with and you were the leader of Israel ...what would you do ?

I would buy more subs and produce more nukes and missiles and target every arab capital that did not recognise my country and offer an Ultimatum .
get hezbollah off my border or you start losing capitals ..starting with Tehran .

But I am a bit insane and lucky for them not in charge . But I would fix the problem .

Swift · Aug 25, 2006

ledhed
Swift if that was true why did Israel aggree to a cease fire called for by the UN ? it wouldn't be in their best interest if they didn't recognize the U.N. had authority . hezbollah on the other hand has in their charter that they " recognize NO treaties concerning Israel and are swornb to its destruction as a nation " Thats why the U.N. had to address Lebanon and put the onus on them to disarm the miltia in their own country .

You can't have it both ways either Israel recognises the UN or they fdo not.

They agreed to the cease-fire because of international pressure. They amassed that incredible ground force just to get into a cease fire? Nah, but they decided that it's better to agree to a cease fire(though they offered one from the start) then to continue the radically bad press they were getting.

///M-Spec · Aug 25, 2006

ledhed
... dont forget they LEFT Lebanon under a U.N. madate and the UN had peacekeepers on the border...what happened? Hezbollah turned southern Lebanon into a fortress ..imported arms and Rockets and missiles by the thousands and INVADED Israel and bobbarded it with rockets...

This point is so good, I just wanted to quote it.

ledhed
... dont forget they LEFT Lebanon under a U.N. madate and the UN had peacekeepers on the border...what happened? Hezbollah turned southern Lebanon into a fortress ..imported arms and Rockets and missiles by the thousands and INVADED Israel and bobbarded it with rockets...

Twice.

ledhed
get hezbollah off my border or you start losing capitals ..starting with Tehran .

Certifiably insane. I have to admit it appeals to me... On a certain level.

M

KSaiyu · Aug 27, 2006

Swift
Actually, Hezbollah was the only one that was "wrong".

By capturing soldier's and firing rockets, yes. Was Israel in the wrong as well for the "arresting" of Lebanese people as well? Yes.

Israel simply should've went in full force off the bat and taken them out. But that's just my opinion. Them trying to be "nice" is what Israel did wrong. It's not possible to be nice and win a war.[/QUOTE]

Again, the "well if Israel was let off the leash" argument. They weren't "nice" in the war. An even harsher campaign in Lebanon would have led to only more trouble for Israel. Is it that hard to see?

Mspec
What about United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 issued in September of 2004, and Resolution 1680 issued in May 2006 that called for the "disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias"?

I know about the resolutions passed, what I showed was the President of Lebanon's view on Hezbollah which includes many of his countrymen.

Mspec
Or are you advocating that Lebanon should only follow Security Council Resolutions when it suits them and ignore them when it doesn't?

What of Israel? They have been doing this for years yet the average news-reading person in the west will have heard of resolution 1559 but not the numerous resolutions past against Israel. Why should we expect Lebanon to comply with this (which I outlined in my previous post) when Israel has had an equally, if not more poor record with the UN??

Mspec
Israel should follow resolutions. Lebanon should follow resolutions.

Exactly. There's even been a resolution passed against Israel specifically for arab detainees held who were ABDUCTED from Lebanon, yet when two soldiers are taken at the border people are willing to justify Israel's retaliation, either ignoring or without knowing that Hezbollah has just done what Israel has done for years in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon.

GT4_Rule · Aug 27, 2006

Isn't the abduction of Arab detainees from Lebanon based on a reason? Like they were terrorists plotting an attack against Israel. If that's the case then I believe the abduction is justified.

Remember Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers simply because they wanted to cause a war and get some attention.

KSaiyu · Aug 28, 2006

GT4_Rule
Isn't the abduction of Arab detainees from Lebanon based on a reason?

They can be held without charge and without trial though and it's hard to believe that all the arrests from Lebanon fall under one blanket statement. If these abductions are all justified, why has their been a UN resolution put against them just concerning those taken from Lebanon? (It doesn't include the thousands of Palestinians held without a charge against them).

Vtwin · Aug 28, 2006

Isreal is being allowed to commit war crimes it seems. Isreal just kills hundreds of lebanese civilians and goes unoticed.And guess whos doing the peacekeeping, Isreal so the can kill more. Why ? Well because America and the UN are behind them so no 🤬 .But if someone like North Korea were to do this and commit all these WAR CRIMES then everybody would be jumping on them !

Now i'm sure i'm gonna get lots of people saying " Oh but lebanon has an Isreali soldier ! " But Isreal had 1000 lebanese prisoners before that. ANd what, youre saying it's alright to kill hundreds of civilians and get away with that. Yeah Whatever :irked:

GT4_Rule · Aug 28, 2006

Israel isn't doing the peacekeeping - its the NATO and UN.

FoolKiller · Aug 28, 2006

Vtwin
Isreal is being allowed to commit war crimes it seems. Isreal just kills hundreds of lebanese civilians and goes unoticed.And guess whos doing the peacekeeping, Isreal so the can kill more.

Either you are severly misinformed or things changed drastically while local news coverage was talking about a hurricane and a local plane crash.

If you have a source for this I would like to see it.

Oh, and welcome to the Opinions forums.

///M-Spec · Aug 28, 2006

KSaiyu
I know about the resolutions passed, what I showed was the President of Lebanon's view on Hezbollah which includes many of his countrymen.

And I showed you why that view is flawed. Lebanon has responsibilities to regional stability. It should live up to them.

KSaiyu
What of Israel? They have been doing this for years yet the average news-reading person in the west will have heard of resolution 1559 but not the numerous resolutions past against Israel.

Why should we expect Lebanon to comply with this (which I outlined in my previous post) when Israel has had an equally, if not more poor record with the UN??

I already addressed this.

///M-Spec
"It's okay for country XYZ to violate Security Council Resolution 5678 because ABC doesn't live up to Resolution 1234."

Then country ABC comes back and says, "the hell with Resolution 9999 because XYZ never followed 5678".

Sorry, but this simply doesn't fly. Walk into a store and take a liter of milk without paying. If someone firmly stops you, try using "I just saw a bloke walk out with a bag of cookies and he didn't pay either". See how far that gets you. Just because one person gets away with breaking the rules doesn't mean the rules suddenly don't apply to you.

Please refrain from ignoring the portions of my posts you have no reply for. Either discuss my statements in their entirety or don't address them at all.

As for 1559, I had actually never heard of it until I began researching the situation shortly before I entered the discussion in this thread.

However, I do hear constantly about Israel's violations of past resolutions because some posters around here apparently love to present one-sided arguments against the country. ...Probably because they are as biased and hypocritical as they claim Israel and the West are when it comes to the Middle East.

KSaiyu
Exactly. There's even been a resolution passed against Israel specifically for arab detainees held who were ABDUCTED from Lebanon, yet when two soldiers are taken at the border people are willing to justify Israel's retaliation, either ignoring or without knowing that Hezbollah has just done what Israel has done for years in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon.

Israel's actions are not specifically justified by the abduction, but by Hezbollah's past history, current actions and their stated aim of destroying them.

Justifying their response is NOT an implicit approval of any Israeli actions that violate any international laws that may apply to Israel.

Additionally, any wrongdoing committed by Israel does NOT automatically validate wrongdoings perpetrated by Hezbollah or any other militant group.

Now, if you want to picky about who follows UN resolutions and who doesn't, let's start back at the beginning. (you know, since we're keeping score now)

November 1947. The U.N. General Assembly approves the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. The resolution called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state within Palestine, with Jerusalem placed under U.N. administration.

Arabs and Arab states refused to accept the plan and widespread protests and rioting broke out almost immediately. Rioting escalates into armed fighting between Arabs and Jews.

The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948.

Almost immediately afterwards, it was invaded by an Arab army. The army was composed of troops from Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Lebanon .

I love the irony. Let's complain about how Israel violates U.N. resolutions, but ignore the fact that the Lebanese, by attacking Israel in 1948 (and again in 1964..), was in fact, ignoring one of the very first U.N. resolutions.

Sorry, but this whole utter nonsense about who violates what needs to stop. Every party involved is reponsible for peace. Israel, Lebanon, the US, Syria, Iran, etc.

Accept it.

It is exactly this sort of attitude, where one side blames the other for everything and refuses to admit or acknowledge responsibility in the peace process, that prepetuates the cycle of violence.

M

///M-Spec · Aug 28, 2006

Carl.
My first remark was not directed at you at all, or in reference of your exchange with magburner (but after revisiting that thread I clearly understand why you thought so ), and the "I didn't expect this of you" wasn't a negative remark, but rather meant as a (poorly worded, hence the edit) compliment.

You're one of the people for which I have the most respect on these forums, regardless of the issues we agree/disagree on. Also, the wording in my first post was a bit strong and uncalled for, given the maturity of most of the regular posters here (as seen in the last replies 👍), which is far from being the norm in other places I visit (and never post). Must be ballstruation week I guess. That or bad memories from a while back.

That said, I have quite a bit to reply to, which will be done either after Pirates of the Carribeans 2 later tonight (dubbed, we're going with the kids ), or after the safari park visit tomorrow.

NP 👍 I get it now. Hope you enjoyed the movie. It made me really, really want some sushi afterwards. :lol:

M

Swift · Aug 28, 2006

///M-Spec
And I showed you why that view is flawed. Lebanon has responsibilities to regional stability. It should live up to them.

*snip*

Sorry, but this whole utter nonsense about who violates what needs to stop. Every party involved is reponsible for peace. Israel, Lebanon, the US, Syria, Iran, etc.

Accept it.

It is exactly this sort of attitude, where one side blames the other for everything and refuses to admit of acknowledge responsibility in the peace process, that prepetuates the cycle of violence.

M

Well said! 👍

KSaiyu · Aug 28, 2006

///M-Spec
And I showed you why that view is flawed. Lebanon has responsibilities to regional stability. It should live up to them.

Yes, you showed me the regional stability obligations of Lebanon under 1559, which I already know of, and I showed why they don't see a need to.

I already addressed this.

Please refrain from ignoring the portions of my posts you have no reply for. Either discuss my statements in their entirety or don't address them at all.

I thought I covered this whole section when I said "exactly" in reference to how both sides can't expect the other to obey resolutions when they don't themselves. It seems to me that you don't have a reply to this conundrum either - you're willing to point out that it's no excuse for Lebanon to disobey UN resolutions because of Israel's past defiance, yet you seem to not direct this attitude towards Israel.

As for 1559, I had actually never heard of it until I began researching the situation shortly before I entered the discussion in this thread.

However, I do hear constantly about Israel's violations of past resolutions because some posters around here apparently love to present one-sided arguments against the country. ...Probably because they are as biased and hypocritical as they claim Israel and the West are when it comes to the Middle East.

I'm saying is that in this thread at least, people are quick to point out 1559, and the support from southern Lebanese against it, yet I don't see many instances of other resolutions against Israel. This applies to newsreports, papers etc, at least in my case.

Israel's actions are not specifically justified by the abduction, but by Hezbollah's past history, current actions and their stated aim of destroying them.

So you can't say the same for Hezbollah, and their view on Israel's "past history, current actions"? As long as their Israli aggresion, arabs will feel the need to defend themselves, and that's where in many of their minds Hezbollah slots in.

Justifying their response is NOT an implicit approval of any Israeli actions that violate any international laws that may apply to Israel.

Thankyou.

Additionally, any wrongdoing committed by Israel does NOT automatically validate wrongdoings perpetrated by Hezbollah or any other militant group.

Likewise, the other way around applies too, hence the cycle of violence in the region....

Now, if you want to picky about who follows UN resolutions and who doesn't, let's start back at the beginning. (you know, since we're keeping score now)...

Yes, yes, and go further back past the 1948 resolutions and you get to the Jewish terrorists targeting in much the same vein as Hezbollah now, and further back still you get to arab aggression against jews, and on, and on....

Sorry, but this whole utter nonsense about who violates what needs to stop. Every party involved is reponsible for peace. Israel, Lebanon, the US, Syria, Iran, etc.

Accept it.

Yes, each side, which is why I've admitted Lebanons shortcomings yet no-one else seems to be accepting Israel's responsibilities. That is what's so annoying.

It is exactly this sort of attitude, where one side blames the other for everything and refuses to admit or acknowledge responsibility in the peace process, that prepetuates the cycle of violence.

Exactly the same thing I've been saying earlier.

///M-Spec · Aug 28, 2006

KSaiyu
Yes, you showed me the regional stability obligations of Lebanon under 1559, which I already know of, and I showed why they don't see a need to.

..And to which I replied that they would be wrong, morally and legally. I am not interested in going in circles. Please make a point or move on.

KSaiyu
I thought I covered this whole section when I said "exactly" in reference to how both sides can't expect the other to obey resolutions when they don't themselves. It seems to me that you don't have a reply to this conundrum either

I never claimed I had an answer for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But I did state in numerous other posts that all parties involved had a responsibility to live up to their obligations. See below.

KSaiyu
- you're willing to point out that it's no excuse for Lebanon to disobey UN resolutions because of Israel's past defiance, yet you seem to not direct this attitude towards Israel.

Oh really?

///M-Spec
I think the Knesset needs to get it’s act together and keep the crazies (meaning Jewish extremists) in line. But it also needs to get it’s act together and return Israel to it’s 1967 borders.

///M-Spec
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that they conducted themselves poorly in Lebanon. While I have no problem with their strategic action against Hezbollah, I DO have a problem with their execution on a tactical level. They failed to pick their targets more carefully and thus failed to live up to their moral obligations --not only to the Lebanese people, but to their own.

///M-Spec
Israel should follow resolutions. Lebanon should follow resolutions. Period. End of story. What Israel does or doesn't do has no relation to Lebanon's legal obligations under the UN Charter. If Lebanon doesn't lift a finger to implement 1701, Israel is still responsible for 242 (and 338), even after all these years.

///M-Spec
Every party involved is responsible for peace. Israel, Lebanon, the US, Syria, Iran, etc.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

In your first post directed at me, you quoted a small portion that I wrote about Lebanon and questioned it. The passage came from a much larger post where I also took issue with Israel as well. Doing this is fine, but you picked ONLY the part about Lebanon to focus on and now you act as if I have been unfair and only chose to pick on Lebanon when in fact I took issue with Israel in the same post.

I see this as a clear misrepresentation of my position and I resent your manipulation. Don't do it again, please.

KSaiyu
I'm saying is that in this thread at least, people are quick to point out 1559, and the support from southern Lebanese against it, yet I don't see many instances of other resolutions against Israel. This applies to newsreports, papers etc, at least in my case.

And this has any bearing on what we're talking about ... how?

KSaiyu
So you can't say the same for Hezbollah, and their view on Israel's "past history, current actions"? As long as their Israli aggresion, arabs will feel the need to defend themselves, and that's where in many of their minds Hezbollah slots in.

No, I can't.

Hezbollah INITIATED the current conflict with Israel by attacking a military position and nearby settlements with rocket fire, then crossing into Israel and abducting two soldiers, killing three others.

Hezbollah has stated publicly the soldiers taken were to be exchanged for Arab prisoners in Israeli jails. This is hostage taking and is a war crime. The indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel can be considered a war crime as well.

Now you tell me; How was Hezbollah justified in a) hostage taking and b) putting the lives of civilians at risk for their own political goals?

The answer is they are not.

Hezbollah was not defending anyone. They were picking a fight. Even the Arab world agrees on this.

KSaiyu
Yes, yes, and go further back past the 1948 resolutions and you get to the Jewish terrorists targeting in much the same vein as Hezbollah now, and further back still you get to arab aggression against jews, and on, and on....

We were talking about U.N. Mandates, General Assembly Resolutions and Security Council Resolutions and the track record of countries in the Middle East that followed them. Don't change the subject.

The U.N. did not exist before 1945, so there is no point in going any further back.

KSaiyu
Yes, each side, which is why I've admitted Lebanons shortcomings yet no-one else seems to be accepting Israel's responsibilities. That is what's so annoying.

Hogwash. I have called Israel on numerous of it’s own responsibilities in my posts here. I just listed four above.

If you have a beef with the other posters in this thread, take it up with them. I don't speak for them.

M

KSaiyu · Aug 29, 2006

///M-Spec
..And to which I replied that they would be wrong, morally and legally. I am not interested in going in circles. Please make a point or move on.

This all came from the comment:

KSaiyu
The problem is that there was no reason to clear them out in the eyes of the Lebanese, including their President.

to which you replied there was "morally and legally" a reason, citing the UN resolutions against them. The point is this is of no relevance to Lebanon - they're just going to look after their own in the same way as the Israelis will look after themselves, which as I tried to explain before, is stated by the President of Lebanon and the past actions (or lack of) of both countries.

I never claimed I had an answer for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But I did state in numerous other posts that all parties involved had a responsibility to live up to their obligations. See below.

Yes, to which I agreed.

Oh really?

I wasn't clear enough, I meant your opinion pertaining to the current crisis and how you only criticised Lebanon for not following 1559 to try and prevent/end the conflict, yet didn't mention the resolutions passed against the Lebanese who were abducted by the Israelis.

In your first post directed at me, you quoted a small portion that I wrote about Lebanon and questioned it. The passage came from a much larger post where I also took issue with Israel as well. Doing this is fine, but you picked ONLY the part about Lebanon to focus on and now you act as if I have been unfair and only chose to pick on Lebanon when in fact I took issue with Israel in the same post.

In part that was because I argued in previous posts against Ledhead and Swift primarily and I didn't want to break down all of your points as well, and also because I couldn't really see anything else in that post to debate against.

I see this as a clear misrepresentation of my position and I resent your manipulation. Don't do it again, please.

I hope above explains it was a misunderstanding.

And this has any bearing on what we're talking about ... how?

KSaiyu
They have been doing this for years yet the average news-reading person in the west will have heard of resolution 1559 but not the numerous resolutions past against Israel.

It was really a reference to how many times people would keep showing resolution 1559 as justification for Israeli actions in Lebanon.

No, I can't.

Hezbollah INITIATED the current conflict with Israel by attacking a military position and nearby settlements with rocket fire, then crossing into Israel and abducting two soldiers, killing three others.

So the past instances of cross border abductions by Israelis and air-strikes in violation of the 1966 accords before Hezbollah fired into Israel don't justify Hezbollah, yet the reverse can be used to justify Israel?

Hezbollah has stated publicly the soldiers taken were to be exchanged for Arab prisoners in Israeli jails. This is hostage taking and is a war crime. The indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel can be considered a war crime as well.

True, you already know what I'll say about how this applies to Israel too, and I'm aware you accept that as well.

Now you tell me; How was Hezbollah justified in a) hostage taking and b) putting the lives of civilians at risk for their own political goals?

The answer is they are not.

I know they're not, but you tell me how can Israel be?

Hezbollah was not defending anyone. They were picking a fight. Even the Arab world agrees on this.

Yes and no. They were trying to free arab prisoners, but any chance for attacks on Israel usually won't go missed by Hezbollah.

We were talking about U.N. Mandates, General Assembly Resolutions and Security Council Resolutions and the track record of countries in the Middle East that followed them. Don't change the subject.

The U.N. did not exist before 1945, so there is no point in going any further back.

The point in going further back was to show WHY they violated, and in turn why Israel has and so on. In fact, I didn't see the reason why you showed who was first to be imposed on by the UN, since I already acknowledge both sides don't have a great reputation with the UN.

Hogwash. I have called Israel on numerous of it’s own responsibilities in my posts here. I just listed four above.

If you have a beef with the other posters in this thread, take it up with them. I don't speak for them.

Accepting Israel's responsibilities in THIS WAR and maybe its prevention, or just it's failures in the past with upholding UN resolutions? That's what I meant.

///M-Spec · Aug 29, 2006

KSaiyu
to which you replied there was "morally and legally" a reason, citing the UN resolutions against them. The point is this is of no relevance to Lebanon - they're just going to look after their own in the same way as the Israelis will look after themselves, which as I tried to explain before, is stated by the President of Lebanon and the past actions (or lack of) of both countries.

And just because they see it a certain way doesn't make it right. Nor am I obligated to agree with them.

I don't care how they see it. How they see it doesn't change how I see it. Get it?

KSaiyu
I wasn't clear enough, I meant your opinion pertaining to the current crisis and how you only criticised Lebanon for not following 1559 to try and prevent/end the conflict, yet didn't mention the resolutions passed against the Lebanese who were abducted by the Israelis.

I'm getting a little tired of how you only read what you want to read. Go back and read my post in it's entirety.

Find me the section where I state Lebanon is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for preventing or ending the current 2006 conflict. Find it, please. Take your time.

KSaiyu
In part that was because I argued in previous posts against Ledhead and Swift primarily and I didn't want to break down all of your points as well, and also because I couldn't really see anything else in that post to debate against.

Then don't take a single section of text from a large post and misrepresent it as my sole position.

KSaiyu
I hope above explains it was a misunderstanding.

We'll see.

KSaiyu
It was really a reference to how many times people would keep showing resolution 1559 as justification for Israeli actions in Lebanon.

Excuse me. I am not "people". I don't really care what sort of statements other posts have made in past threads. You are speaking to me now. Address the posts that I have made, please.

Israel was justified in fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon because that is where they live. Israel was not justified in causing the degree of civilian casualties that it did, nor was it justified in the choice of some targets which are 'dual use' in nature.

Israel had responsibilities in choosing legitimate military targets and to minimize civilian deaths.

KSaiyu
So the past instances of cross border abductions by Israelis and air-strikes in violation of the 1966 accords before Hezbollah fired into Israel don't justify Hezbollah, yet the reverse can be used to justify Israel?

It is NOT the reverse. Hezbollah did not target airfields or prisons. If the goal was to free prisoners of war, Hezbollah should have attacked the prison with a commando raid. If the goal was to stop Israeli aircraft, it should have attacked an airfield, fuel or ammo depo. At the very least, it should have attacked a military target of some type.

A settlement is not a legitmate military target. Also, taking a soldier prisoner is a legitmate military objective, but not for the sole use of using him as a hostage.

Also, please cite the specific incidents you are refering to. It far too easy to distort the picture by taking them out of context.

KSaiyu
True, you already know what I'll say about how this applies to Israel too, and I'm aware you accept that as well.

Please find any evidence that Israel arrests suspected militants for the sole purpose of their use as hostages.

And also, please find me any text where I justified civilian deaths as a result of indiscriminate Israel artillery or airstrikes.

KSaiyu
I know they're not, but you tell me how can Israel be?

Please find where I stated Israel is justified in hostage taking and risking civilian lives.

Take your time.

KSaiyu
Yes and no. They were trying to free arab prisoners, but any chance for attacks on Israel usually won't go missed by Hezbollah.

This doesn't mean anything. Once again you've taken my statement far out of context as to make any response to it meaningless.

KSaiyu
The point in going further back was to show WHY they violated, and in turn why Israel has and so on. In fact, I didn't see the reason why you showed who was first to be imposed on by the UN, since I already acknowledge both sides don't have a great reputation with the UN.

Showing "why" they did it doesn't justify anything. You weren't telling me anything new.

KSaiyu
Accepting Israel's responsibilities in THIS WAR and maybe its prevention, or just it's failures in the past with upholding UN resolutions? That's what I meant.

I didn't talk about Israel's responsiblities in this 2006 conflict because THE TOPIC DIDN'T COME UP IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

Carl asked about Lebanese responsibilities. I told him how I felt about them. If I don't TALK about Israel's responsiblities, it doesn't mean that I think THERE ARE NONE.

Wait. OMG! I didn't make any posts condemning the Sudanese military for attacking civilians Darfur this week! That must mean I condone it :dunce:

M

KSaiyu · Aug 30, 2006

///M-Spec
And just because they see it a certain way doesn't make it right. Nor am I obligated to agree with them.

I don't care how they see it. How they see it doesn't change how I see it. Get it?

Yes, but if you look at my original reply to your comment, my point was showing how the Lebanese and their President feel about their responsibilities and the risk they weren't willing to take - not criticising you for holding that view.

I'm getting a little tired of how you only read what you want to read. Go back and read my post in it's entirety.

Find me the section where I state Lebanon is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for preventing or ending the current 2006 conflict. Find it, please. Take your time.

You didn't, but then you didn't either show in any posts that Israel had any responsibility in preventing or ending the conflict, only showing Lebanon's responsibility in the possible prevention of the war and Israel's past with the UN and it's failure in it's obligation to minimize civilian damage. I don't understand what you mean by reading only what I want to - I'm sure I covered every single point from your last post.

Then don't take a single section of text from a large post and misrepresent it as my sole position.

It wasn't recognising your position, it was compring your opinion to the view taken by the President of Lebanon and a lot of his people who ultimately control the country's actions:

KSaiyu
The problem is that there was no reason to clear them out in the eyes of the Lebanese, including their President.

Excuse me. I am not "people". I don't really care what sort of statements other posts have made in past threads. You are speaking to me now. Address the posts that I have made, please.

So you can say:

MSpec
However, I do hear constantly about Israel's violations of past resolutions because some posters around here apparently love to present one-sided arguments against the country.

Israel was justified in fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon because that is where they live. Israel was not justified in causing the degree of civilian casualties that it did, nor was it justified in the choice of some targets which are 'dual use' in nature.

Israel had responsibilities in choosing legitimate military targets and to minimize civilian deaths.

Yes, I agree.

It is NOT the reverse. Hezbollah did not target airfields or prisons. If the goal was to free prisoners of war, Hezbollah should have attacked the prison with a commando raid. If the goal was to stop Israeli aircraft, it should have attacked an airfield, fuel or ammo depo. At the very least, it should have attacked a military target of some type.

They were counting on being able to bargain with Israel for the release of the prisoners, as far as I know they thought it would lead more releases than just a jail break.

Also why is it not the reverse? Note I'm not justifying Hezbollah, I just want to know how you can justify Israel. (example below)

A settlement is not a legitmate military target. Also, taking a soldier prisoner is a legitmate military objective, but not for the sole use of using him as a hostage.

I agree with that, but if your saying that all the people abducted from Lebanon where Hezbollah soldiers, that's untrue. (If you were implying that, I can't tell if you're just referring to Hezbollah capturing the Israeli soldiers)

Also, please cite the specific incidents you are refering to. It far too easy to distort the picture by taking them out of context.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9909/lebanon.html is an instance, although the other I used in the post was from a documentary on TV.

Please find any evidence that Israel arrests suspected militants for the sole purpose of their use as hostages.

I can't, but I never said they were and neither did Hezbollah. I'm sure the abducted persons from Lebanon who are held without charge would constitute a crime, in fact the UN thinks so to. I never referred to any hostages in my posts. What I said was:

KSaiyu
you already know what I'll say about how this applies to Israel too

it was meant to show you what I think of the Israeli equivalent to what you said "This is hostage taking and is a war crime. The indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel can be considered a war crime as well.

If we're going into litarary quotations and semantics then I suppose I should have equated hostage to abductee, but I presumed I wouldn't have needed to....

And also, please find me any text where I justified civilian deaths as a result of indiscriminate Israel artillery or airstrikes.

Click to expand...

Read the end of my sentence

KSaiyu

....and I'm aware you accept that as well.

Click to expand...

Please find where I stated Israel is justified in hostage taking and risking civilian lives.

Take your time.

Click to expand...

Thankyou, so you too feel they weren't justified in these activities - but then you justify Israel for it's actions against an enemy who does the same thing against them, but say (as quoted from your previous post) It is NOT the reverse. when I pointed out the past instances of cross border abductions by Israelis and air-strikes.

This doesn't mean anything. Once again you've taken my statement far out of context as to make any response to it meaningless.

Click to expand...

How was this taken out of context. I was merely saying that you were right and wrong in that statement and particularly regarding the arab worlds viewpoint on it.

Showing "why" they did it doesn't justify anything. You weren't telling me anything new.

Click to expand...

I know it didn't, just like you weren't showing me anything knew by showing the earliest UN resolutions passed regarding the region.

I didn't talk about Israel's responsiblities in this 2006 conflict because THE TOPIC DIDN'T COME UP IN THE POST YOU QUOTED.

Carl asked about Lebanese responsibilities. I told him how I felt about them. If I don't TALK about Israel's responsiblities, it doesn't mean that I think THERE ARE NONE.

Click to expand...

KSaiyu

....yet no-one else seems to be accepting Israel's responsibilities.

Click to expand...

Meaning no one else, including you had brought up the responsiblities of Israel regarding the prevention of the war and keeping the peace yet brought up Lebanon's obligations to the prevention in the guise of it's failings following 1559. I accepted you acknowledged BOTH sides responsibilites in other affairs, as noted in my other post.

Click to expand...

Israel and Lebanon

Ultraextreme sanity

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Don't be a fool.

GT Sport is looking good...

Similar threads