Re: RE: Israel breaks ceasefire with raid
I guess they must have been hiding them under the runways at Beruit airport too.
Toro said:
I guess they must have been hiding them under the runways at Beruit airport too.
Israel breaks ceasefire with raid
- Thread starter elevennevele
- Start date
Toro said:
Please provide a link proving Hezbollah agreed to those terms. How valid is a deal if one side never agreed to it? So show me the link about what Hezbollah agreed to.
I have such a bleak perspective on the UN and its troops. On most of the world's horror stages for the last 25 years the UN has moved in and the first thing many of the group's troops did was patronize hastily erected local brothels . Our international saviours were having sex with the locals' kids. And they're supposed to have our trust?
Re: RE: Israel breaks ceasefire with raid
haha...hiding it @ Beirut Airport?...haha...I think they bombed it because more weapons might be smuggled in from Iran...by plane...
earth_as_one said:
haha...hiding it @ Beirut Airport?...haha...I think they bombed it because more weapons might be smuggled in from Iran...by plane...
blugoo said:
The statement that they were re-arming when Israel attacked again is coming from the Israelis. What proof that you have other than what Israel is saying?
Secondly if true, it is not up to the Israelis to enforce the ceasefire. They are only expected to live up to their side of the agreement.
blugoo said:
Your sense of moral equivalence shows no fairness towards any sense of justice. Both sides are deserving of not being attacked. Both sides are deserving of not having to live in fear. Both sides are deserving of being treated fairly under International Standards. Both sides are made up of Human Beings. Yes, human beings.
If you think justice is about two different standards for two different people then you are advocating nothing more than racism based on your own prejudices. Nobody can honestly tell me that Israel has acted in the world with a greater moral standard than that of Hezbollah giving the longest list of UN violations.
And yes, Israel has killed innocent children.
Just the Facts said:
The disarming of Hezbollah was not part of the ceasefire agreement. There was also no agreement to return the two Israeli soldiers. These issues were to be argued for with regards to a peace agreement. This is a ceasefire agreement.
The ceasefire is an agreement set for by the international community and agreed upon by both sides in the conflict.
“UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the operation a violation of the UN truce.”
So now were are back to what I’ve originally said. Israel has violated the terms of the ceasefire. They can say whatever they want. You people here can regurgitate whatever Israel says. From the outside looking in, Israel has violated the terms of the ceasefire.
“UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the operation a violation of the UN truce.”
So now were are back to what I’ve originally said. Israel has violated the terms of the ceasefire. They can say whatever they want. You people here can regurgitate whatever Israel says. From the outside looking in, Israel has violated the terms of the ceasefire.
Re: RE: Israel breaks ceasefire with raid
Of course.
Cut the supply lines.
Isn't that obvious?
sine000 said:
Of course.
Cut the supply lines.
Isn't that obvious?
elevennevele said:
Surely you can't be naive enough to believe Hezbollah isn't re-arming. I understand Kofi and Amnesty International aren't publicly declaring it to be true, but that doesn't make it false. With Iran and Syria having clear motives in supplying arms, and Hezbollah being all too eager to use them, this is so very likely, that I believe Israeli intelligence when they say so. I'm not sure anyone else is even in a position to credibly confirm or deny it, anyway. I understand you are deeply suspicious of Israel in general, and therefore won't accept what it says. But the probability of this being true is much greater than being false. Believe what you will.
And who said anything about Israel enforcing the ceasefire?
elevennevele said:
Fine speech. Even a tad eloquent. Eloquently wrong, though. The two sides are not the same. Not even close. One is a nation and a people. The other is a terrorist group. Hezbollah does not deserve to live in comfort and security, afforded the same level of recognition and acceptance as Israel by the international community.
Hezbollah is an organization intent on the terror, destruction and murder of a sovereign nation and its citizens. It's not a race, a people or an ethnic group. It doesn't deserve to be held up to the same standard as a country and its people. The fact that you evidently do believe so, indicates either a lack of understanding, or a disturbing show of support for the goals of Hezbollah.
And your trotting out the old racism charge is laughable. This has nothing to do with different standards and judgements for different races or peoples. (At least not in my case)
I don't want anyone, whether Lebanese, Israeli, or anyone else suffering or dying over there. I want peace to be possible in the Middle East. But peace does not include Hezbollah, and everyone needs to understand that.
elevennevele said:
Because the UN, made up of in no small part by tin-pot dictators, is so impartial when it comes to Israel, right? So let's see....the longest list of UN violations...Israel must be the worst nation on the face of the earth. Or does something seem wrong with this picture?
And there have been unconscionable acts perpetrated by many different people of many different sides in that region of the world. Certainly Israel doesn't have a perfect record, (nor does Canada or the US, for that matter) and I in no way condone anything like what you posted.
But ask yourself this: Does Israel, as a matter of general policy, attempt to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, many of them women and children?
Does Hezbollah?
You know the answer, if you are honest with yourself.
elevennevele said:
Yes, it was. Read it again. The disarming of Hezboallah is the very backbone of the agreement. Hezboallah agreed to the terms of the ceasefire, then later turned around and said "disarmament is not on the agenda". That, my friend, is a violation. As were the 4 mortars fired (even if they were in Lebanese territory), and as is the flow of arms to Hezboallah from Syria.
Based on this precedent, Israel could be well within it's rights to say "not firing at Hezboallah is not on the agenda".
Just the Facts said:
Exactly!
France is refusing to take a significant role in the UN force because it is NOT going to be able to enforce the ceasefire......by disarming Hezbollah. France has experience with Hezbollah, she lost 58 soldiers in the same blast that killed 241 US Marines.
The UN force is going to be another layer of "untouchables" for Hezbollah to hide behind.
The ceasefire agreement has de facto changed DRAMATICALLY since Israel
signed on.
Hezbollah broke it by firing on Israelis, by publically refusing to disarm, and by bringing in new weapons.
BTW, my computer is down, I am at a friend's.
I'll be up and at 'em again ASAP.
blugoo said:
Israel kills the children of it’s neighbours at a much higher percentage than any deaths of children they have suffered in retaliation. One can look at the Palestinian side as an example. I'll provide two sources.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4294502.stm
3,218 killed by Israeli security forces in the West Bank and Gaza including 657 aged under 18, 187 killed in extrajudicial executions and 296 (including at least 29 aged under 18) killed in the course of assassination operations.
444 civilians killed in Israel
including 80 aged under 18
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html
121 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 763 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
blugoo said:
Paranoia is an excessive anxiety or fear concerning one's own well-being which is considered irrational and excessive, perhaps to the point of being a psychosis. This typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a likely threat. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) means simply madness (para = outside; nous = mind) and it is this use which was traditionally used in psychiatry to describe any delusional state. However, the exact use of the term has changed over time in medicine, and because of this, modern psychiatric usage may vary.
I always try to be as honest as possible on these forums and as objective as possible. I will come out with a correction to my earlier statement. In rereading the text, disarmament is mentioned as part of the long-term solution in relation with the ceasefire. This however corresponds with a complete withdrawal of Israelis forces which still have to be met.
I attributed the disarmament as per a peace plan because I remembered it as a condition of something down the road. However, regardless of it still referenced as such, I have to give correction to my earlier statement because it does have mention in the text.
I attributed the disarmament as per a peace plan because I remembered it as a condition of something down the road. However, regardless of it still referenced as such, I have to give correction to my earlier statement because it does have mention in the text.
I doubt the Beirut airport was busy unloading cargo planes full of Hezbollah missiles when Israel bombed it. How would the missiles get through customs?
Most likely Hezbollah gets its missiles from international arms merchants who smuggle them overland into Lebanon from Syria.
It remains unproven that Iran and Syria directly arm Hezbollah. Likely Iran and Syria are careful not to violate international law or get caught. Realistically, Syria and Iran have a legal right to manufacture, buy and sell arms, just like Israel and the US. They don't have to violate international law to arm Hezbollah indirectly.
Most likely Iran and Syria sell arms cheaply to international arms merchants they know will transfer them to Hezbollah while providing financial support to Hezbollah to buy these arms. Technically international arms dealers arm Hezbollah, not Iran or Syria. Stopping these arms merchants from delivering their goods to Hezbollah would be like trying to stop drug smugglers and bombing Beirut airport would have no effect.
Since bombing Beirut airport had little strategic or tactical military value, it was a war crime. All it did was strand thousands of tourists in Lebanon and gave them front row seats to watch the rest of Israel's war crimes.
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF WAR
http://www.lebanonembassyus.org/Photos.html
Talk about a PR disaster!
>>>>
If the question is did Israel violate its agreement with France/Lebanon, then the answer is yes. But so what, that agreement is meaningless.
But if the question is did Israel break its agreement with Hezbollah, the answer is no, because Hezbollah and Israel agreed to nothing.
Israel and the US imposed a ceasefire agreement on France and Lebanon. Israel then violated that agreement. Hezbollah on the other hand, was not consulted and agreed to nothing with Israel.
An agreement between two parties in conflict, requires consultation with both parties. Neither France, nor Lebanon can speak for Hezbollah.
The reality is that Hezbollah by virtue of it being one of the belligerents in the conflict and having a greater military strength than the Lebanese army or UN forces in the region, has the right to make its own agreements.
Hezbollah cannot be expected to respect the terms of an agreement Israel and the US imposed on France and Lebanon. That would be ridiculous.
Hezbollah is obligated only by what they agreed to.
Hezbollah did not agree to disarm.
Hezbollah did not agree to an arms embargo.
Hezbollah did not agree to leave southern Lebanon.
All Hezbollah agreed to is a limited truce, with the right to attack Israeli soldiers as long as Israeli soldiers occupy Lebanese soil. It implies that Hezbollah will not target civilians as long as Israel does the same. Nothing more.
So far Hezbollah has kept its word.
>>>
A point of logic:
Since Hezbollah reserved the right to attack IDF soldiers, IDF soldiers also have the right to attack Hezbollah militants.
Israel would have more credibility if they were honest. When Hezbollah stated the terms of their limited truce, Israel should have declared their intention to remain in Lebanon and attack Hezbollah until they are crushed. Instead they said one thing and did another.
>>>
Basically this battle is still on until either Hezbollah is crushed by Israel/US or Israeli soldiers leave Lebanon or a real agreement is reached between Israel and Hezbollah.
What is in the news right now is propaganda and PR by both sides and international organizations trying to keep a lid on this.
>>>
From a strategic viewpoint, Hezbollah has fortified positions in southern Lebanon. If they disarmed and exposed themselves, Israel would not hesitate to annilhilate them, regardless of its agreements. Israel's recent raid on Hezbollah makes that obvious.
Therefore Hezbollah has no choice but to remain entrenched in southern Lebanon and fight any organization intent on disarming them or removing them.
>>>
I may be a pacifist, but I am also a realist. All the UN can do realistically is observe this conflict.
Peacemaking requires the presence of a greater military force than either of the belligerents. Since the world lacks the resolve or resources to make that commitment, peacemaking is not achievable. It takes more than a cork to plug a volcano.
Peacekeeping only succeeds when both sides want peace. Hezbollah/Sryia/Iran and Israel/US want war.
Therefore the only achievable objective of such a small and pitiful UN force is to document "international law, treaty and convention violations" for post conflict war crimes trials.
Most likely Hezbollah gets its missiles from international arms merchants who smuggle them overland into Lebanon from Syria.
It remains unproven that Iran and Syria directly arm Hezbollah. Likely Iran and Syria are careful not to violate international law or get caught. Realistically, Syria and Iran have a legal right to manufacture, buy and sell arms, just like Israel and the US. They don't have to violate international law to arm Hezbollah indirectly.
Most likely Iran and Syria sell arms cheaply to international arms merchants they know will transfer them to Hezbollah while providing financial support to Hezbollah to buy these arms. Technically international arms dealers arm Hezbollah, not Iran or Syria. Stopping these arms merchants from delivering their goods to Hezbollah would be like trying to stop drug smugglers and bombing Beirut airport would have no effect.
Since bombing Beirut airport had little strategic or tactical military value, it was a war crime. All it did was strand thousands of tourists in Lebanon and gave them front row seats to watch the rest of Israel's war crimes.
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF WAR
http://www.lebanonembassyus.org/Photos.html
Talk about a PR disaster!
>>>>
If the question is did Israel violate its agreement with France/Lebanon, then the answer is yes. But so what, that agreement is meaningless.
But if the question is did Israel break its agreement with Hezbollah, the answer is no, because Hezbollah and Israel agreed to nothing.
Israel and the US imposed a ceasefire agreement on France and Lebanon. Israel then violated that agreement. Hezbollah on the other hand, was not consulted and agreed to nothing with Israel.
An agreement between two parties in conflict, requires consultation with both parties. Neither France, nor Lebanon can speak for Hezbollah.
The reality is that Hezbollah by virtue of it being one of the belligerents in the conflict and having a greater military strength than the Lebanese army or UN forces in the region, has the right to make its own agreements.
Hezbollah cannot be expected to respect the terms of an agreement Israel and the US imposed on France and Lebanon. That would be ridiculous.
Hezbollah is obligated only by what they agreed to.
Hezbollah did not agree to disarm.
Hezbollah did not agree to an arms embargo.
Hezbollah did not agree to leave southern Lebanon.
All Hezbollah agreed to is a limited truce, with the right to attack Israeli soldiers as long as Israeli soldiers occupy Lebanese soil. It implies that Hezbollah will not target civilians as long as Israel does the same. Nothing more.
So far Hezbollah has kept its word.
>>>
A point of logic:
Since Hezbollah reserved the right to attack IDF soldiers, IDF soldiers also have the right to attack Hezbollah militants.
Israel would have more credibility if they were honest. When Hezbollah stated the terms of their limited truce, Israel should have declared their intention to remain in Lebanon and attack Hezbollah until they are crushed. Instead they said one thing and did another.
>>>
Basically this battle is still on until either Hezbollah is crushed by Israel/US or Israeli soldiers leave Lebanon or a real agreement is reached between Israel and Hezbollah.
What is in the news right now is propaganda and PR by both sides and international organizations trying to keep a lid on this.
>>>
From a strategic viewpoint, Hezbollah has fortified positions in southern Lebanon. If they disarmed and exposed themselves, Israel would not hesitate to annilhilate them, regardless of its agreements. Israel's recent raid on Hezbollah makes that obvious.
Therefore Hezbollah has no choice but to remain entrenched in southern Lebanon and fight any organization intent on disarming them or removing them.
>>>
I may be a pacifist, but I am also a realist. All the UN can do realistically is observe this conflict.
Peacemaking requires the presence of a greater military force than either of the belligerents. Since the world lacks the resolve or resources to make that commitment, peacemaking is not achievable. It takes more than a cork to plug a volcano.
Peacekeeping only succeeds when both sides want peace. Hezbollah/Sryia/Iran and Israel/US want war.
Therefore the only achievable objective of such a small and pitiful UN force is to document "international law, treaty and convention violations" for post conflict war crimes trials.
Just the Facts said:
When did Hezbollah do this? Can you post a link to a statement made by a senior Hezbollah representative authorized to speak on behalf of Hezbollah which supports your statement.
Hezbollah agreed to a limited truce and reserved the right to attack Israeli soldiers while Israeli soldiers occupy any part of Lebanon. Nothing more.
earth_as_one said:
Well then what are you guys doing pining about Israel's violations. If there's no cease fire agreement, then bombs away!
Who are "you guys"?
As a Canadian, I take what I believe to be Canada's side in all disputes. My advice to Canada and Canadians is to steer as clear of this conflict as we can.
This will be a big war. Israel and the US don't need any help from anyone. The US as the world's sole superpower doesn't need any military support in this conflict. Even if they did, we are bogged down in Afghanistan. All the US seeks from Canada is legitimacy.
Canada shouldn't give it.
As for bombs away? Haven't you been reading the news? When Israeli commandos showed up at the gates posing as members of the Lebanese army, the Hezbollah guards got suspicious. The commandos had to fight a retreat back to their helicopters, supported by attack helicopters. Even though lots of bombs were dropped probably by both sides, it didn't sound too successful for Israel to me, unless Israel's objective was to stir up a hornet's nest.
What both sides can do, and neither side can stop is bombing the other sides civilians. If either side uses that tactic, it will be in plain sight of the world.
So when you say bombs away are you talking about Hezbollah or Lebanese civilians, because Israel has already dropped bombs on Hezbollah.
That's why Canada should stay out of this. I don't want my country to be complicit in war crimes.
Later when its over, hopefully Canada will be in a position to help in the recovery phases. Until then Canada should stay out of this conflict.
As a Canadian, I take what I believe to be Canada's side in all disputes. My advice to Canada and Canadians is to steer as clear of this conflict as we can.
This will be a big war. Israel and the US don't need any help from anyone. The US as the world's sole superpower doesn't need any military support in this conflict. Even if they did, we are bogged down in Afghanistan. All the US seeks from Canada is legitimacy.
Canada shouldn't give it.
As for bombs away? Haven't you been reading the news? When Israeli commandos showed up at the gates posing as members of the Lebanese army, the Hezbollah guards got suspicious. The commandos had to fight a retreat back to their helicopters, supported by attack helicopters. Even though lots of bombs were dropped probably by both sides, it didn't sound too successful for Israel to me, unless Israel's objective was to stir up a hornet's nest.
What both sides can do, and neither side can stop is bombing the other sides civilians. If either side uses that tactic, it will be in plain sight of the world.
So when you say bombs away are you talking about Hezbollah or Lebanese civilians, because Israel has already dropped bombs on Hezbollah.
That's why Canada should stay out of this. I don't want my country to be complicit in war crimes.
Later when its over, hopefully Canada will be in a position to help in the recovery phases. Until then Canada should stay out of this conflict.