Six days that shook the world

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
My point is, people commented on how the Beirut Airport is a legitimate target, pointed out flaws in your logic. Then one person says "lets commit genocide" in some form of trolling, you ignore all the valid logical points about your statement.

Example: Syria is at war with Israel, it has refused to make peace. Thus Israel and Syria can carpet bomb each other every day of the week. If Syria doesn't want to be at war, it can make peace.

For the rest of your conclusions being answered, please see the posts above. Ignoring the "genocide is good" trolling comment.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
35 dead from bombing raids in a third world nation from attacks from a first world powers are a clear indication (clear as possible) Israel did not choose to hit civilians. If a first world power targeted civilians, the death toll would be in the tens of thousands from a single days bombing.

But wait? Didn't Hezbollah only Kill 2? Yep, thats doesn't mean they weren't trying to kill civilians. They are an outnumbered third world nation (with blind weapon systems) firing at a first world nation (with proper bomb shelters and the worlds best medical system).

So far all I see in that report is that transportation hubs used by Hezbollah (as it did not create an use a second set of military airports, ports and roads but instead chose to use civilian ones). Those are legitimate military targets.

I could be wrong, show me the seperate bridges, ports and airports Hezzbolla used to move its fighters around to combat zones? The ones it used to ship weapons to the front? Please, show some.

I think you are referring to the above post.

That was 35 dead Lebanese civilians on the day Israel escalated the fight to include civilian targets like the Beirut Airport and before Hezbollah gave the order to hit Israeli civilian targets.

In total Israel killed about 1000 Lebanese civilians during this conflict. Obviously Israel wasn't trying to kill as many civilians as possible. It would be more accurate to say that since Israel was getting their butts kicked by Hezbollah in a real fight between soldiers, they decided to collectively punish all of Lebanon by cowardly hitting soft civilian targets uses like airports, power plants, water treatment facilities... Civilians themselves weren't deliberately targeted, but Israel did deliberately attack civilian targets, and that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths.

I have already posted links to AI and HRW which investigated Israel's attacks and they concluded that Israel deliberately attacked civilian targets which clearly had no military purpose. Would you like me to repost them? Seems like you never read them.

As far as Beirut airport is concerned, I was not aware Hezbollah had an airforce or used Beirut airport to launch warplanes at Israel. Or maybe you are suggesting that Hezbollah has an airline it operates out of Beirut international which it runs for profit to support its militant activities. I did a search for Hezbollah Airlines but I couldn't find it.

I was not aware that Hezbollah used the Beirut airport for much except maybe to travel internationally like hundreds of thousands of civilians who use Beirut international airport each year. All bombing Beirut airport did to Hezbollah was maybe strand a few militants of them at the airport. But far more Hezbollah militants were likely fighting Israel in the south then waiting to get on a plane. How many Hezbollah militants do you estimate had to cancel their travel plans as a result of Israel bombing Beirut international?

Likely tourists were the people most affected by Israel bombing Beirut International. Likely a few airport workers were also killed and it definitely had an effect on Lebanon's economy. Likely the Lebanese government also picked up the tab for repairs. But I still don't see anything here which affects Hezbollah. They don't get any funding from the Lebanese government. As far as I know, they don't get any funding from Lebanon's tourism industry either.

Sorry Z, I can't follow you logic. I can't see a single strategic or military benefit coming from bombing a Beirut international, especially when Israel had complete control of Lebanon's airspace and could easily shoot down any Hezbollah Airlines flight taking off. But if Israel's intent was to kill civilians working at the airport and piss off thousands of tourists, then I would say "Mission Accomplished!"
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Beirut International Airport is not and never was Hezbollah base. No aircraft departing this airport have ever attacked Israel. Hezbollah did not launch any rockets from here. Israel's attack on Beirut airport in northern Lebanon had no impact on Hezbollah operations along Lebanon's southern border with Israel. Unless someone has some proof that Beirut International Airport was a military base of some sort, then you will have to admit this incident is yet another example of Israel attacking civilian targets.

Straw man. Nobody said Hezbulla had an airforce.


An army spokeswoman expressed regret for the Lebanese deaths, saying the army had 'no intention whatsoever to harm innocent civilians, but the Hezbollah organization establishes its headquarters where it is amassing arms in the midst of populated areas.'
Responsibility for any civilian deaths therefore lies with Hezbollah, she told dpa.
She said the Beirut airport was targeted because the Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to use it unhindered for transporting arms and equipment to its armed wing.

Link


Israel's purpose in attacking purely civilian targets across Lebanon last year was an attempt to collectively punish Lebanese civilians and destroy their economy. Those actions are war crimes.

They blew up runways. No one was injured. Wow, serious war crimes. Funny how it's OK to shoot missiles at civilians as long as your missiles are inaccurate and likely to miss, but bomb some asphalt and it's a war crime. Hmmm.

Israel didn't leave Lebanon willingly. They retreated from Lebanon because of Hezbollah guerilla warfare tactics were a constant source of casualties and a drain on their military. Leaving most of Lebanon was a strategic decision, not a goodwill gesture. Also there is no agreement that Israel's retreat would end hostilities by either side. Technically and legally, Israel and Lebanon are at war with each other. The agreement between Israel and Hezbollah is that neither side would attack civilian targets as per this understanding:

http://www.answers.com/topic/israeli-lebanese-ceasefire-understanding

Did you read your own link?

1. Armed groups in Lebanon will not carry out attacks by Katyusha rockets or by any kind of weapon into Israel.


I have referenced AI and HRW documents which describe in detail Israel deliberately attacking Lebanese civilians in response to Hezbollahs successful July 12, 2006 attack on Israeli military targets.

Another example of bias may be found in HRW's insinuation that Israel is not permitted to target the Beirut airport because, according to HRW, it is "at best debatable" that the Beirut airport "constitutes a station for the transport of arms and infrastructure used by Hezbollah" and a possible means of transporting kidnapped Israeli soldiers to another country. Contrary to HRW's suggestion, it is indisputable - except perhaps by HRW - that Hezbollah has no capability within Lebanon for fashioning weapons such as Katyusha rockets, Raad and Zilzal longer-range missiles, and anti-ship Silkworm missiles that have been used in the fighting of the last few weeks. Since this weaponry cannot be spontaneously generated, the airport is without doubt an important potential way station for transport of war materiel and also hostages. Indeed, Western (including Israeli) intelligence suggests that the airport has already been used in the past for such purposes if HRW has any contrary evidence, or even any ability to obtain contrary evidence, HRW has yet to identify it. Airports and other ports of entry, as well as other means of transportation like roads and bridges are well-recognized in customary international law as legitimate targets in war.

http://ngo-monitor.org/archives/infofile/hrw_avibell_230706.html

Just google "HRW bias israel" if you want the truth.

I have also referenced documents which show that Hezbollah claims they did not target Israeli civilians during that July 12, 2006 raid.

Israel makes the same claim.

I have referenced Israeli newspapers which admit the alleged injuries to Israeli civilians resulting from Hezbollah's raid were minor. Our news reported these minor injuries in such a way as that people could believe they were serious even though they weren't.

Why highlight the irrelevent, civilain areas were targeted. It said quite clearly in the references in my previous post that targetted were communities, villages and towns. You've been schooled repeatedly on the irrelevance of the effectiveness of those attacks. The fact is they occured. On day one. The fact that they failed to inflict their intended damage is meaningless.

As far as Israel being a victim of attacks, you are obviously unaware that more often than not, Israel is the instigator of these border skirmishes. After Hezbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, Israel kept bombing and shelling Lebanon.

I don't know enough about this to comment. I'll have to get back to you.

Israel's goal is to conquer all of Palestine, ethnically cleanse it of non-Jews and turn this area into a pure Jewish state. With assistance from the US and other world powers, Israel is well on its way to achieving that goal. How unfortunate for the millions of non-Jews who have become nationless refugees as a result. What a shame and disgrace that the world allows this injustice.

Ummm...you are aware that the "non-Jewish" population of Israel has been steadily increasing since 1948, are you not? At the same time the Jewish population of all Arab lands has dwindled to negligible numbers. Who's cleansing who here?

BTW, Israel continues to violate the terms of its recent ceasefire with Lebanon.

http://tadamon.resist.ca/index.php/?p=246

The terms of the ceasefire had been violated by Hezbulla within minutes of it going into effect. Has Hezbulla been disarmed? Not even close, arms flow from the Airport (you know, that civilian target?) unabated by the UN. The UN is not allowed within half a mile of airport road or something like that. Is the government of Lebanon in control of it's southern border...not a chance. Hezbulla is using the ceasefire to rearm and retool. It's meaningless.
 
Last edited:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
No wonder, I was searching under the wrong name.

:)

I could just imagine what kind of a reception Israel would have given that flight, if they tried to land at Beirut International.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Actually Earth as One, im refering the Giant post on quoted on the top of this page, the one the nutball preaching genocide THAT YOU QUOTED , himself quoted.

Hezbollah does not need to use the Airport to launch warplanes, it uses it to ship men and materials. You yourself admit they used the airport. Guess what, once they set foot on it and use it to ferry themselves around it became a legit target.

Thats why you don't use Ambulances to ferry around combat ready soldiers, its why its a warcrime, as you have just made ambulances a valid target. Same deal.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Straw man. Nobody said Hezbulla had an airforce.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

An army spokeswoman expressed regret for the Lebanese deaths, saying the army had 'no intention whatsoever to harm innocent civilians, but the Hezbollah organization establishes its headquarters where it is amassing arms in the midst of populated areas.'
Responsibility for any civilian deaths therefore lies with Hezbollah, she told dpa.
She said the Beirut airport was targeted because the Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to use it unhindered for transporting arms and equipment to its armed wing.

Link

Score a point for JTF. But to put the ball back in your court:

Israel doesn't claim it was being used at the time for that purpose. A re-supply operation on a scale to have an effect on the outcome of the conflict would involve many aircraft. By bombing Beirut airport, Israel missed a chance to score a major propaganda and diplomatic victory if Hezbollah attempted to use it for resupply. If Israel suspected a civilian flight was resupplying Hezbollah, they could easily intercept it and force it to land at one of their own airports where it could be searched thoroughly. But given Israel's absolute domination of Lebanese airspace since the beginning, I seriously doubt Hezbollah would have risked moving anything through Beirut International. It would be far safer and secure to use a Syrian airport and transport over land.

Personally I think the Israeli explanation is a load of BS. The main people affected by bombing Beirut International were civilians, not Hezbollah.

They blew up runways. No one was injured. Wow, serious war crimes. Funny how it's OK to shoot missiles at civilians as long as your missiles are inaccurate and likely to miss, but bomb some asphalt and it's a war crime. Hmmm.

Israel did more than bomb Beirut airport. They bombed sewage and water treatment plants, power generation stations, supermarkets and stores...

But it was Israel's decision to escalate the fighting to include civilian targets which was a war crime. Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime.

As far as Beirut airport is concerned, Israel bombed runways, fuel depots and strafed the area with macine gun fire and missiles. That these attacks didn't add to the 30-50 civilians Israel killed the first day (July 13, 2006) was luck. It wasn't until the next day (July 14, 2006) after Israel had levelled parts of Beirut, killing more civilians that Hezbollah ordered its militants to strike Israeli civilian targets.

Did you read your own link?

1. Armed groups in Lebanon will not carry out attacks by Katyusha rockets or by any kind of weapon into Israel.

Read the April Understanding closer. Both sides agreed not to target civilians.

3. Beyond this, the two parties commit to ensuring that under no circumstances will civilians be the target of attack and that civilian populated areas and industrial and electrical installations will not be used as launching grounds for attacks.

The border between Israel and Lebanon is not recognized by a treaty between Israel and Lebanon. According to Lebanon, the part of Palestine Israel occupies beyond the UN partition belongs to Palestinians. That was clear when this agreement was signed and subsequent attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli military targets within the occupied part of Palestine were never considered violations of the April Understanding.

Israel escalated a routine (as in similar to previous Hezbollah attacks) attack on Israeli military targets and began attacking civilian targets (resulting in 30-50 civilian deaths) on July 13, 2006, they violated the terms of the April Understanding. On July 14, 2006 when Israel levelled several Beirut neighborhoods, Hezbollah still hadn't given the order to attack Israeli citizens.

Seems to me Hezbollah wanted to keep civilians out of this fight, but Israel's actions against Lebanese civilian targets gave them little choice. Once one side violated the April Understanding, the other side is not obligated to respect it.

Another example of bias may be found in HRW's insinuation that Israel is not permitted to target the Beirut airport because, according to HRW, it is "at best debatable" that the Beirut airport "constitutes a station for the transport of arms and infrastructure used by Hezbollah" and a possible means of transporting kidnapped Israeli soldiers to another country. Contrary to HRW's suggestion, it is indisputable - except perhaps by HRW - that Hezbollah has no capability within Lebanon for fashioning weapons such as Katyusha rockets, Raad and Zilzal longer-range missiles, and anti-ship Silkworm missiles that have been used in the fighting of the last few weeks. Since this weaponry cannot be spontaneously generated, the airport is without doubt an important potential way station for transport of war materiel and also hostages. Indeed, Western (including Israeli) intelligence suggests that the airport has already been used in the past for such purposes if HRW has any contrary evidence, or even any ability to obtain contrary evidence, HRW has yet to identify it. Airports and other ports of entry, as well as other means of transportation like roads and bridges are well-recognized in customary international law as legitimate targets in war.

http://ngo-monitor.org/archives/infofile/hrw_avibell_230706.html

Just google "HRW bias israel" if you want the truth.

You can't prove a negative. There is no way Hezbollah could prove they weren't using Beirut Airport for military/strategic purposes. The onus is always on the accuser to prove guilt rather than the accused to prove innocence. That type of flawed logic is how US President George Bush was able to use Iraq's non-existant WMDs and links to al Qaeda to justify an unprovoked attack/invasion.

I still haven't seen any proof that Hezbollah used Beirut airport to move arms into Lebanon. The Lebanese government controls Beirut airport and they certainly would not officially allow it, since they would also like to see Hezbollah disarmed. But since drugs can be smuggled through airports so can weapons. But I see no evidence which proves the Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to use Beirut Airport to move arms.

Israel makes the same claim.

Israel also claims that Hezbollah's targets were purely military as per the April Understanding? Look at it this way, the absence of Israel raising the April Understanding after Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli civilians in clear violation of that agreement, speaks volumes. If Hezbollah had violated the April Agreement first, I'm sure Israel would have raised the issue. The fact that Israel didn't suggests Israel knew they violated that agreement first.

Also our pro-Israel news media has never raised the April Understanding either. Instead our news twisted events to make it sound like Hezbollah escalated this conflict when in fact, it was common for both sides to attack the other within the limits of the April Understanding.



Why highlight the irrelevent, civilain areas were targeted. It said quite clearly in the references in my previous post that targetted were communities, villages and towns. You've been schooled repeatedly on the irrelevance of the effectiveness of those attacks. The fact is they occured. On day one. The fact that they failed to inflict their intended damage is meaningless.

You missed my point. I'm saying that Hezbollah's attacks on Israel on July 12, 2006 were in accordance with the limitations set out in the April understanding. The April Understanding doesn't say that civilians can't be injured or even killed. The agreement says civilian targets can't be attacked deliberately. Given the minor to non-existant nature of Israeli civilian casualties and the significant nature of Israeli military casualties that day, that is a pretty good indication that Hezbollah only deliberately attacked military targets on July 12, 2006. Some civilians may have sustained minor injuries unintentionally, but that is not a violation of the April Understanding.

Again the onus is on the accusers to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. What evidence do you have that Israeli civilians which were lightly injured were the deliberate targets of Hezbollah's attack that day?

I have posted a statement by Hezbollah where they say civilians were not the intended targets of their July 12, 2006 raid. I also have posted statements by Israeli generals after that raid in which they admit their intentions to deliberately attack civilian targets:

"We will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years"

and

"Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hizbullah posts."

That doesn't sound like they intended to defeat Hezbollah militarily, but punish Lebanese civilians to me. How do you inerpret these statements?

BTW, those statements were made before Hezbollah fired a single rocket at a civilian target. Therefore, Israel's generals made a decision to violate the April Understanding from the beginning. Their actions on July 13 and 14 show they kept their word to attack civilian targets.


I don't know enough about this to comment. I'll have to get back to you.

Just follow the links. Its pretty obvious that sometimes Israel hammers Hezbollah and sometimes Hezbollah hammer the IDF. Its been going on for since 2000, and over all Israel has given more than they recieved.

Ummm...you are aware that the "non-Jewish" population of Israel has been steadily increasing since 1948, are you not? At the same time the Jewish population of all Arab lands has dwindled to negligible numbers. Who's cleansing who here?

Yes, poor people with high unemployment rates often have a higher birthrate than wealthy people with jobs. What is the non-Jewish immigrate rate for Israel. I suspect they don't allow non-Jews to immigrate into their Jewish state.

The majority of non-Jews in the area known as Palestine were forced out of their homes by acts of terror. The armed thugs which later formed the Israeli military used rape, torture and murder to "encourage" the majority of non-Jews to leave. The minority of non-Jews who managed to stay behind are second class citizens in Israel. They do not have the same rights. They do not have the same rights regarding property ownership, many of their communities still lack basic services, and they are not entitled move as freely as Jewish citizens. Non-Jewish Israelis cannot sponsor relatives to immigrate to Israel. If they leave their homes vacant even for an afternoon they risk their home being declared abandoned and confiscated by the state. Their children go to segrated schools were they recieve substandard education.

Read these interviews of Jewish Israeli Historians. They claim what Palestinians claimed all along and what the world has tried to ignore.

Survival of the Fittest - Benny Morris Interview
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

Power and History in the Middle East - A Conversation with Ilan Pappe
http://www.logosjournal.com/pappe.htm

As far as the "Jewish Exodus" from Arab countries is concerned, that more Israeli BS propaganda.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]'Arab Ethnic Cleansing'?[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]F[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]irst let us recall the chronology. The ethnic cleansing of 600.000 to 720.000 Palestinians from Israel preceded the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. The exodus of some 125.000 Iraqi Jews to Israel started in 1949; that of about 165.000 North-African Jews took place as late as 1955-1957. It is therefore somewhat awkward to claim that Israel had deported its Arabs because of the exodus of Arab Jews that occurred years later. There is no doubt, however, that the establishment of the State of Israel played a major role in the deplorable deterioration of living conditions for Jews in many Arab countries.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Whereas Jews had been living in the Arab and Muslim world for more than a millennium, for better and for worse but under generally more favourable terms than under Christianity (and with nothing even slightly comparable to the atrocities of the Crusaders or the Holocaust), Israel’s ethnic cleansing coincided with the Jewish State’s birth. And not by chance: the 600.000 Jews living in Palestine in 1948 could not have achieved a solid majority in the areas they occupied without getting rid of a similar number of Arabs. Unlike the Arab countries, that can show a long tradition of coexistence with Jews (notwithstanding discrimination though), and for which getting rid of the Jews had no demographic significance whatsoever, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was both historically and demographically the constitutive event of the Jewish State.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Moreover: even though Jews were indeed harassed (by the people and/or regimes) in Arab countries following the 1948 war, blaming the Arabs of ethnic cleansing is shamefully cynical when it is imputed by the very Zionists who demanded "let my people go", or by the same Israel that did all it could to force those very countries to let their Jews leave. The global Zionist pressure on each and every country, from the Soviet Union to Syria, to let its Jewish citizens go, was part of Israel’s efforts to consolidate its Jewish majority; that is why Israel always urged Western countries not to let those Jewish immigrants in, lest they fail to make Aliya.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]So oriental Jews were pushed out of Arab countries as a result of the conflict with Israel, and at the same time pulled by Israel, to consolidate its Jewish majority, and by Zionism, that regarded the Jewish state as the only proper place for Jews to live in. It is a major case of hypocrisy to compare those Jewish immigrants to Palestinians who fled or were driven out of Israel to other countries during a war, people for whom Palestine was their only homeland and who found themselves against their will as refugees in foreign and hostile Arab states, people who were willing but not allowed to return home, and whose property was dispossessed by Israel.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Furthermore, this hypocrisy is symptomatic of the way the Israeli establishment treated the oriental Jewish immigrants. They were lured to come to Israel by promises of equality and welfare. They were zionistically indoctrinated to see Israel as their new homeland, in spite of their systematic discrimination compared to Jewish immigrants from European countries. Those who refused this zionisation were outcasts; those who did become Zionist and consider themselves as people returning home from a long exile, now have to take the insult of being described as foreign refugees, just like Palestinians in Kuwait.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The cynicism of the Israeli establishment reached its highest peak when Israel raised the claim that the property of the Palestinian refugees, confiscated by Israel after 1948, was "balanced" by Jewish property left behind in Arab countries. This is a further development of the same manipulative analogy, in which the oriental immigrants are assigned the role of wretched pawns. The masses of oriental Jews, who lost their home and property as a direct result of the establishment of Israel, and then came to Israel and were housed here in poor slums hired to them by the State, never got any compensation for their lost property; Now they hear that the State that they see as their homeland considers them to be mere refugees, and that their lost property is bargained off by this State against some Palestinian property it confiscated, of which they themselves have not seen a cent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The State of Israel produces a lot of propaganda which is refuted by the slightest critical analysis. The analogy drawn between the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and the Jews from Arab countries is an especially repulsive example of this. It reveals not only how absurd Israel’s propaganda can be, but how humiliating, scornful and dangerous it is for many Israelis. A State that has been unable to grant its own citizens a day of peace in more than 50 years cannot be expected to treat them any better in its propaganda. Supporting Israel’s propaganda and war machines is definitely not the right way to help both peoples of Israel/Palestine to peaceful coexistence.[/FONT]


For non-Jews living under Israel military occupation, the ethnic cleansing continues.

For Non-Jewish Israelis who managed to avoid being ethnically cleansed for until now, face discrimination. They don't have the same opportunities or rights as Jewish citizens. They constantly risk their property being declared abandoned and seized by the state under the "Absentee Property Law".

Israelis use barrier and 55-year-old law to quietly seize Palestinians' land
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1485

Injustice and Stupidity in Jerusalem
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/inj-stup.html

Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel's Laws
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0198/9801088.html

Also if certain Israeli politicians and interest groups get their way, non-Jewish Israeli citizens will be ethnically cleansed from Israel.

Johann Hari: Ethnic cleansing returns to Israel's agenda
The silence over Lieberman's appointment is a bleak sign of how far Israel has drifted to the right

...Avigdor Lieberman has joined the governing coalition in Israel - in the lofty position of Deputy Prime Minister...

...His party, Yisrael Beytenu (Israel, Our Home), has campaigned on two ugly issues. The first is the claim that Israel's two million Arab citizens are "a danger to the country", to be dispensed with, in part, by ethnic cleansing. Lieberman wanted to bus thousands of released Palestinian prisoners to the Dead Sea and drown them....

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article1963583.ece


The Logistics of Transfer

E. Israel's Actions in Yesha and the relocation itself

...the first step is the destruction of Arafat's regime and the annexation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Arabs must be led to understand that these lands are an inseparable part of the Jewish state forever....

...The word "erased" very precisely reflects the force of Israel's response. The Arabs residing there will be evicted without compensation, all houses and buildings completely demolished, and the settlement itself, with the help of bulldozers and any other necessary equipment, will be leveled into a large field...

...any attempts by Arab countries to militarily interfere with Israel's actions will be considered by the Jewish state to be acts of aggression, and will be followed by a massive Israeli military response, as well as the immediate expulsion of all the Arabs from western Eretz Yisrael...

...For Israel, the goal is her own long-term stable survival as a Jewish state, for which she must be guaranteed a perpetual Jewish majority as well as secure borders...

...The only realistic way to achieve all these goals is to resettle the Palestinian Arabs out of western Eretz Yisrael into other Arab states...

...the transfer solution is not just the only possible solution, but is also substantiated by the Torah...

...Eretz Yisrael is God's bedroom where He interacts with the Jews, His chosen people, and where others do not belong. They have no business being involved in the relationship between God and the Jewish people...

http://gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/july/b1e.htm

The terms of the ceasefire had been violated by Hezbulla within minutes of it going into effect. Has Hezbulla been disarmed? Not even close, arms flow from the Airport (you know, that civilian target?) unabated by the UN. The UN is not allowed within half a mile of airport road or something like that. Is the government of Lebanon in control of it's southern border...not a chance. Hezbulla is using the ceasefire to rearm and retool. It's meaningless.

No doubt Hezbollah has been rearmed. But aren't you forgetting about this incident:

Israel launches fresh raid



[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Staff and agencies[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Saturday August 19, 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Observer.co.uk[/FONT]


[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Unifil troops from France arrive in Lebanon. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP [/FONT]

Israel launched a raid deep inside Lebanon overnight, in what the Lebanese Prime Minister called a 'flagrant violation' of the UN-brokered ceasefire between the sides.
The Israeli army reported that one Israeli soldier was killed in the ensuing clash with Hizbullah, while Lebanese sources told Reuters that three Hizbollah fighters were killed. A Hizbollah spokesman denied that there were any deaths among his fighters.
Israel said the pre-dawn assault outside the eastern town of Baalbek was aimed at disrupting arms smuggling to Hizbollah from Iran and Syria.
Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid - the first such air strike since the ceasefire began.
The Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, described the commando raid as a 'flagrant violation' of the ceasefire, and said he would take the issue up with UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Under the ceasefire terms, Israel has said it will conduct defensive operations if its troops are threatened. But the raid took place far from positions of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1854066,00.html
How about something we can agree on? This conflict isn't over, not by a long shot.

I'll even go out on a limb and predict the next conflict will initiated by Israel and escalated to include civilians by Hezbollah. Probably this summer.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
You do know, that in warfare, proximity to troops and threat level have nothing to do with each other?

Ideally, you stop threats long before they hit the front lines, thats the whole point of airpower in modern warfare, hence the hitting of a bridge.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
You do know, that in warfare, proximity to troops and threat level have nothing to do with each other?

Ideally, you stop threats long before they hit the front lines, thats the whole point of airpower in modern warfare, hence the hitting of a bridge.

Sure I agree with this Z. Isolating Hezbollah militants fighting in the south makes sense tactically/strategically. But compare your viewpoint with that of Israeli generals:

"We will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years"

What does that have to do with a strategy or tactics? That sounds to me like an intent to collectively punish Lebanese civilians and hit civilian targets.

"Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hizbullah posts."

That comment also tends to indicate a lack of discrimination between civiliam and legitimate military targets.

What's your opinion?
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Sure I agree with this Z. Isolating Hezbollah militants fighting in the south makes sense tactically/strategically. But compare your viewpoint with that of Israeli generals:

"We will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years"

What does that have to do with a strategy or tactics? That sounds to me like an intent to collectively punish Lebanese civilians and hit civilian targets.

"Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hizbullah posts."

That comment also tends to indicate a lack of discrimination between civiliam and legitimate military targets.

What's your opinion?

Actually these comments were intended to convey that there would be no discrimination between Hezbulla and the Lebanese government. They were meant to convey that Lebanon's failure to control criminal militias within it's borders would be interpreted as complicity with those elements.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I would have to agree, nothing about either statement shows an intention to target civilians. Quite frankly, the greatest indicator is that if Israel had wanted to target civilians, they could have undertaken death tolls in the hundreds of thousands with the munitions they expended. More if they switched to "blind" weapons and just carpet bombed.

Maybe they even are bloodthirsty monsters who want to muder babies and the elderly, even is such blatantly baseless accusations were true, they didn't do any such thing. And it would not benefit them to do so, as their weapon imports are dependant upon them NOT doing such actions. Racking up the body count of their own civilians is Hezbollah's best weapon against them.

If you are looking for motiff, the greatest victories hezbollah can achieve (firing some rockets have no real chance of toppling Israel or doing lasting damage) is to goad Israel into shooting at them, and then standing next to an orphanage.

Hezbollah has everything to gain from Civilian casualties and Israel has everything to lose from them. No matter how evil you think Israel is, it is not stupid, nor is Hezbollah.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Israel did more than bomb Beirut airport. They bombed sewage and water treatment plants, power generation stations, supermarkets and stores...
Fair enough, I got fixated on the airport.
But it was Israel's decision to escalate the fighting to include civilian targets which was a war crime. Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime.
Crippling the enemy's infrastructure is not a war crime. Setting up headquarters in the basement of a hospital, on the other hand, may be.
As far as Beirut airport is concerned, Israel bombed runways, fuel depots and strafed the area with macine gun fire and missiles. That these attacks didn't add to the 30-50 civilians Israel killed the first day (July 13, 2006) was luck. It wasn't until the next day (July 14, 2006) after Israel had levelled parts of Beirut, killing more civilians that Hezbollah ordered its militants to strike Israeli civilian targets.
No, Hezbulla attacked civilians with it's opening salvo. That these attacks didn't add more to the Israeli civilian death toll is a miracle.
Seems to me Hezbollah wanted to keep civilians out of this fight, but Israel's actions against Lebanese civilian targets gave them little choice. Once one side violated the April Understanding, the other side is not obligated to respect it.
I can refute it as often as you can repeat it. No they didn't, they attacked civilians with the first shot fired. It is clear the Hezbulla intentionally attacked civilians. They celebrated their attacks on civilians, they boasted about their attacks on civilians.
It is not at all clear tha Israel intentionally targeted civilians.

You can't prove a negative.
They don't need to prove anything. No one is asking Hezbulla to prove they weren't using the airport. It's known they were using the airport. Even if that intelligence was wrong, the fact that they COULD have used the airport is enough justification.
Look at it this way, the absence of Israel raising the April Understanding after Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli civilians in clear violation of that agreement, speaks volumes.
Actually, you're the only person I've ever seen raise the "April Understanding" (and then ignore the understandings selectively) on either side of pool. Maybe there's fewer volumes there than you may think.
Again the onus is on the accusers to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. What evidence do you have that Israeli civilians which were lightly injured were the deliberate targets of Hezbollah's attack that day?
What's the matter, your google broken? I already gave you plenty of evidence. If you want more, google it yourself.
I also have posted statements by Israeli generals after that raid in which they admit their intentions to deliberately attack civilian targets:
That's not remotely what those generals said. Not remotely. You can probably work for HRW if you wanted to.
BTW, those statements were made before Hezbollah fired a single rocket at a civilian target.
No, they weren't. Hezbulla attacked civilians with it's opening salvo on July 12.
For non-Jews living under Israel military occupation, the ethnic cleansing continues.
Still, the non-Jew population of Israel steadily increases, and the Jew population of greater Arabia is near extinction. Funny that. Not very good at ethnic cleansing, these Jews. Non-Jews in Israel have their own political party, have freedom to vote, and are members of the Knesset.
Jews in the territories live under 24 hour military protection.
Hmmm.
No doubt Hezbollah has been rearmed. But aren't you forgetting about this incident:
No not forgetting at all. Nazrallah declared Hezbulla will not be disarmed within moments of the ceasefire being announced. Disarming Hizbulla was a condition of the ceasefire. Ergo, there never really was a ceasefire for the Israeli's to violate the terms of. It was null and void before the ink was dry. That's what I remember.

Still, Israel withdrew anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EagleSmack

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Let's recap what happened here:

Early on July 12 Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was probably a foolish violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting, Hezbollah killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as “diversionary tactics" not "attacks on Israeli civilians." But as a result, five Israelis were “lightly injured," with the most serious injury described as shock, according to Haaretz.

Israel’s immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolish violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a landmine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.

Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day.

The next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummelled. According to reports in the US media, the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year and its likely Hezbollah's raid just caused Israel to attempt what it was already planning to do: Invade southern Lebanon and neutralize Hezbollah.


You appear to believe is that Israeli civilians were the target of Hezbollah's July 12, 2006 raid rather than Israeli soldiers. If that was true, then I would have expected more civilian injuries. I would have also expected the injuries to be more severe than psychological shock. Over the next month after the raid Hezbollah proved it was capable of inflicting far more serious injuries than just shock. It also seems implausible that Hezbollah could have accidentally or unintentionally captured and killed Israeli soldiers while carrying out their intended attack on Israeli civilians. A more likely scenario is one that Hezbollah stated at the time. Hezbollah said that they intended to capture Israel soldiers in order to exchange them for some of the thousands of militants Israel captured previously and holds as bargaining chips for prisoner exchanges.

You appear to believe that Israel pounded Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began attacking Israeli civilians. I can find links which show that on July 12-13, 2006, the Israeli military threatened they would "turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years" unless Hezbollah to released the Israeli soldiers they captured. They also said "Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hizbullah posts". At the time the Israeli generals made these statement, no Israeli civilians had been seriously harmed, nor did the generals link their threats to Hezbollah attacks on civilians.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but while Hezbollah kept telling the world they wanted to return the captured Israeli soldiers in a prisoner swap, Israel kept refusing to talk directly or indirectly with Hezbollah. Seems to me if Israel really wanted to get their soldiers back, they would have accepted Hezbollah's offer for a prisoner swap by now.

Instead of releasing prisoners in a peaceful swap as offered by Hezbollah, Israel instead chose to kill more than a thousand civilians, severely injure many thousands more and create more than a million refugees. That seems unreasonable and irresponsible to me.

In contrast to the image you seem to have of Hezbollah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel and drive Jews into the sea, Hezbollah held off from serious retaliation in response to Israel's bombardment of Lebanon for a day and a half. You would think blood thirsty terrorists intent on murdering as many Israeli civilians as possible would have shown less restraint. While Hezbollah limited their strikes to the northern borders areas related to battling Israeli invasion forces, Israel bombed water and sewage treatment facilities, power stations, factories, pharmaceutical companies, grocery stores and many other purely civilian targets.

In fact Hezbollah waited until late on June 13 before firing their first rockets on Haifa, even though they could have targeted Israel’s third largest city from the outset. The small volley of rockets Hezbollah directed at Haifa on July 13 caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation.

It was another three days of constant Israeli bombardmeent of Lebanon, destroying the country and injuring countless civilians -- before Hezbollah hit Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.

Hezbollah did exactly what they had threatened to do if Israel refused to negotiate and chose the path of total war instead. Although the international media frequently quoted Hezbollah leader Nasrallah stating that day that “Haifa is just the beginning," they usually omitted the fact his threat was conditional on Israel’s continuing strikes against Lebanon. In the same speech he warned: “As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the confrontation without limits and red lines.”

Seems to me, the Israel government had many opportunities to avoid dragging civilians into this conflict or reducing the harm to civilians but instead chose to recklessly endanger the lives of Lebanese and Israeli civilians.

Another implausible story you apparently believe is that, while Israel tried to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah preferred to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

It is amazing that anyone could believe this. One need only look at the casualty figures from this conflict to see that if Israel targeted only Hezbollah fighters and military targets as you believe, then it made some disastrous miscalculations. About a third of casualties from Israel's bombardment were children. From the images which came out of Lebanon’s hospitals, many more children survived but with terrible burns or disabling injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Casualties

During this conflict, Hezbollah killed far more Israeli soldiers than Israeli civilians, while Israel killed far more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah millitants.

How is it possible that Hezbollah, while targeting Israeli civilians could have accidentally killed mostly Israeli soldiers?

How is it possible that Israel while targeting Hezbollah militants could have accidentally killed mostly Lebanese civilians?

The above figures imply that most of Hezbollah’s attacks were directed at strategic targets and resulted in mostly military casulaties, while most of Israel's attacks were directed civilian targets and resulted in mostly civilian casualties.

Another story you seem to believe is that Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as human shields. You seem unaware that Hezbollah’s fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, but mostly Lebanese citizens. Most are Shiites who are strongly supported by Lebanon's Shiite community. Hezbollah fighters have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country’s south and the neighborhoods of Beirut. Most Shiites believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel’s regular onslaughts.

Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah’s resistance, it makes sense that these Lebanese citizens would try to reduce the risk of harm to their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally.

If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and airforce. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, cars, ambulances, and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_beirut_destruction/html/1.stm
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Ya, in your own words:

Israeli sovereignty is violated. This isn't some tit for tat game with peoples lives. If you violate a nations sovereignty you have asked them to bring their full weight to bear on you.

That is the nature of modern peace movements. You don't have "small fights" you dont' fight or you get destroyed.



This makes me laugh:

During this conflict, Hezbollah killed far more Israeli soldiers than Israeli civilians, while Israel killed far more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah millitants. How is it possible that Hezbollah, while targeting Israeli civilians could have accidentally killed mostly Israeli soldiers? How is it possible that Israel while targeting Hezbollah militants could have accidentally killed mostly Lebanese civilians?

Do you honestly not understand how this works out? Israel was winning, thats how victory looks. It brought the fight to Hezbollah, how many of those Israeli soldiers hezbollah killed were on Israeli land? I bet if you only include Israeli soldiers killed on Israeli land to Israeli Civilians killed, the numbers aren't so favourable to Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah does not evacuate the cities it stages attacks from. So accordingly, it has commited warcrimes as for all legal purposes:

Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of civilians (even if killed by Israeli weapons) when it stages from a city it has not evacuated.

I put it in red. I mean, seriously, I don't think you understand how a war works. You act like war is some kind of a high noon shoot out in a deserted street and no one gets hurt in the crossfire. Read a book on modern war, hasn't been that way since the invention of the airplane.

Im not sure which mythical army you are holding Israel to meet the standards of.


 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Early on July 12 Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was probably a foolish violation of Israeli sovereignty.

Yeah, probably. :happy7:

Your post is nicely formatted and eloquently presented, but for the most part, factually incorrect. There's nothing there that hasn't already been addressed previously in this thread.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
This dispute should have been settled in a fair and just way a long time ago. But Israel's adversaries have been waiting 60 years for freedom and justice and they still don't have it. These people have legitimate disputes with Israel.

On the battlefield last summer, Israel's adversaries proved a small number of them can hold their own against the best Israel has. Expensive tanks and helicopters are vulnerable to cheap RPGs and MANPADs.

Sure Israel dominates the skies and can still level cities at will. But Israel's collective punishment of civilians and poor showing in the battlefield made many of Israel's adversaries realize that staying home may not be much safer than fighting on the front line.

Imagine what that realization did for recruitment...
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Yes, Expensive tanks are vulnerable to RPGs and MANPADS, providing the firer has a healthy dose of civilian body bags Israel is worried about hurting.

Airpower 70 years ago could ignore anything Hezbollah has, all you have to do is not care about harming civilians (which really Israel doesn't have to, but it does try to not harm civilians).


Place hezbollah away from human shields and bombs from 60,000 feet level them long before they could fire at anything.

And thats why they use human shields, because if they didn't they would lose. But rather than using that as a hint to stop trying to go for military solution and finally accepting peace offers stretching back decades, they use their own neighbours as hostages, hoping they will die.

Brave guys those hezbollah, realising they are pooched they decide to take hostages from their own children.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Israel claim Hezbollah used civilians as human shields. No doubt Israel has expertise in this subject:

8 March 07: Israeli soldiers use two Palestinian minors as human shields
Testimonies taken by B'Tselem reveal that during the army's operation in Nablus in late February, soldiers used two Palestinian children, a fifteen-year-old boy and a eleven-year-old girl, and a twenty-four-year old man as human shields....
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20070225_Human_Shields_in_Nablus.asp
There are hundreds of stories like the above. Not only does the IDF use Palestinians as human shields, but they have fought in court to try to legalize the practice:


IDF to appeal human shield ban

The practice of using human shields is against international law


The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said.
Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials added.
Human rights groups have frequently condemned the use of human shields...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4333982.stm
Even thought the Isreli courts recognize the illegality of using human shields, its well documented that the IDF routinely does this anyway.

Definition of Human Shield
The crime of “shielding” has been defined as intentionally using the presence of civilians to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military attack. Taking over a family’s house and not permitting the family to leave for safety so as to deter the enemy from attacking is a simple example of human shields. Using human shields is a war crime. While it may be unlawful, as noted above, to place forces, weapons and ammunition within or near densely populated areas, it is only shielding when there is a specific intent to use the civilians to deter an attack.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm#21

HRW investigated Israel's claims about Hezbollah using human shields:
The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/2.htm

There is a huge difference between soldiers abducting civilians at gunpoint to use as human shields like the IDF does routinely and soldiers evacuating an area of civilians of civilans before turning it into a base of operations like Hezbollah does.

But one reason why Israel's claims about Hezbollah using human shields are clearly false is that in order for human shields to be effective they have to have a deterrant value. That's why IDF soldiers use Palestinian civilians as human shields when attacking Palestinians. But Lebanese civilians have no deterrant value against Israel.

...He said that in order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops moved in.

He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter.

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5219360.stm

That doesn't sound to me that Lebanese civilians would have a deterrant effect against Israel.

If Hezbollah used the abducted IDF soldiers as human shields, or forced civilians to remain near a Hezbollah base of operations, that would be illegal. But HRW found no evicence that Hezbollah did either of these things. What they found is that Hezbollah as a rule, evacuated civilians first before turning an area into a base of operations. They also provided medical aid to civilians and later helped civilians rebuild.


Here is a video of an IDF soldier using human shields
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3387356,00.html
 
Last edited: