Re: Responsibilities toward peace
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.
……..
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.
Why did you form an expectation that I would bring up Israel's responsilbities?
Did you ask me if I thought Israel had any responsibilities towards peace? No.
Did anyone ask me if I thought Israel had responsibilities towards peace? No.
Have I made statements that implies Israel is free of responsibilities towards peace? No. IN FACT, I have made statements in the opposite. I have stated that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders. I have implied that Israel’s government should control the expansion of Israeli settlements (the ‘crazies’
.
And since we’re talking about settlements, let me state here and now that I think most of them should be abandoned and the land given to the Palestinian Authority. (Because if I miss any opportunity to criticize Israel, it must mean that I condone everything that they do
)
All this amounts to what I consider the most mealy type of nit-picking. You may as well have written a whole post correcting my spelling or grammar. Why don't you just drop it? Or maybe
just ask me what I think Israel should do to promote peace in the region? 💡
Re: Abductions, POWs
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.
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)
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:
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....
The taking of a prisoner expressly for the sole purpose of demanding ransom is a war crime. This is what’s legally known as a hostage. Hezbollah is never at any time justified in taking hostages.
If you define the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel as a war, then prisoners may be capture by either side so long as they are properly identified as a combatant.
A Prisoner of War is defined as:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
---that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
---that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
---that of carrying arms openly;
---that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
POWs do not need to be charged with any crime.
However, if either Hezbollah or the IDF detains, abducts or imprisons a person who does not fit any category above, then they must be charged with some crime or released.
Re: What is justified and what is not
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)
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.
The difference is the target.
In an armed conflict either side is justified any time it conducts military operations against a military target, unless it has agreed to some other type of agreement that limits what targets are legal and what is not.
At no time, under any circumstance, should a non-combant be targetted. In addition, both sides of the conflict should take great measures to ensure this doesn't happen by accident.
In the case of airstrikes, artillery, rockets or other area-effect weapon, Hezbollah frequently targets Israeli settlements. Targetting means shooting at civilians with the intent to kill them. This type of military action is by definition prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstance. Does Hezbollah always attack settlements? No, not always. Sometimes they do attack IDF military positions. These are valid and legal targets.
The IDF frequently targets positively identified or suspected militant positions, including support facilities such as a arms supply warehouse. This type of military action is justified when reasonable care is taken to ensure non-combatants are will not be harmed. Does the IDF always take reasonable care? No, not always. There is a fair amount of evidence to the contrary. In these cases, the attacks are NOT justifiable.
Thus to reiterate my position: Israel is always justified in attack armed militants within it's territory and surrounding regions, where they operate and stage attacks. It is when innocent by standers are killed in a strike that I find unacceptable. The primary difference between the IDF and Hezbollah is that the IDF tries not to aim for civilians.
I have already addressed the issue of what consitiutes a POW and a hostage in the previous paragraph. To reiterate, hostage taking is never justifiable.
Re: "FAIR"
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.
I have two signifgant problems with this report. (Other than the name of this group makes me snicker in the same way I do when I read that Sudan was on the UN Human Rights Commision)
1- This organisation lists no sources for the information it presents. I searched around a little (I didn't have time to look very hard) and could find no alternate sources that corraberate their information. Sorry, but anyone can put up a website and claim they are telling the truth and that everyone else is lying.
2- The article complains about how major media outlets distort the truth and selectively ignores information to purposely manipulate their readers. However, in this very article you post, it says
"But this round of violence in fact began on Wednesday [June 23] when Israel's proxy 'South Lebanon Army' militia fired several mortar rounds into the Lebanese Shia Muslim village of Qabriqa, in violation of the 1996 cease-fire accords. Four civilians--including Fatima Yassin, a 45-year old housewife--were wounded."
So the IDF's proxy army attacked a village... for no reason? It tries so hard to uncover the true order of events, but seems to gloss over this very important issue. Were the morter rounds fired because the army units were taking fire? Were they fired because of a mistake?
Why? The article doesn't say. It lays the blame squarely at the foot is Israel and is happy to let you make the assumption that this proxy army was shooting at civilians.
So much for being "fair".
Re: Tit for tat
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.
I correlated the statement as a reponse to a different statement. My fault.
Re: The Inane
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.
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:
I made a statement in which I thought Lebanon has responsibilities toward peace in the region.
You then replied to my original statement by presenting what you thought were the Lebanese government’s attitudes about their responsibilities.
I stated how I felt their position on the matter was wrong.
You continue to reiterate their view point.
This line of dialogue also stopped being productive several posts ago. How about we drop this too?
Re: Misc. complaining
So you can say:
///M-Spec
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.
Apparently, I can and already have. What of it? I asked you to address my points only, not what points other posters have made. I asked this because we're gone for two pages where it appears you have confused me with other people. You could have done the same at any time... except you wouldn't have needed to... with the exception of that one flippant remark, all of my posts have been based on exactly the things you've posted.
M