Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?

[jimmoyer]

Dexter Sinister wrote:
I don't often agree with Barbara Amiel, but in her column in last week's Maclean's magazine she remarked that it seems everybody will agree that Israel has a right to defend itself until it actually does so. Then it gets vilified for over-reacting, killing civilians, and all the rest of it. But the basic facts are unchanged since 1949: Israel is surrrounded and infiltrated by people sworn to destroy it, and Israel's reaction to such people and the groups they belong to is entirely predictable: kill 'em off. That's exactly what I'd do in the same circumstances. Israel's neighbours haven't figured out yet one of the facts of life: the Arab-Israeli wars are over, the Arabs lost, it's time to move on. Israel exists, and will continue to exist; get over it.

George Bush, in a rare moment of comprehension, got it right: Israel's enemies just have to stop doing this shit. If outfits like the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah, would just stop attacking Israel, there would be peace. There's some legitimate bitterness over the original creation of Israel and the displacement of the people who lived in the territory that became Israel, but a little hard-nosed realism and a willingness to accommodate could fix that. All that prevents a solution is stupidity and short-sightedness
-------------------------Dexter Sinister------------------------


Great post Dexter.

Well said.

Imagine too the newest and greatest threat to
humanity is the evil of states like North Korea or
Pakistan in the Black Market selling to individuals nuclear weaponry.

...especially to a group like Hezbollah or Hamas.

I guess the UN should allow seats in their General Assembly
to organizations who are more powerful than the failed nation-state
in which they reside.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

All that prevents a solution is power, those who believe otherwise are mistaken.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se

All that prevents a solution is power, those who believe otherwise are mistaken.

All that the exercise of power has achieved so far is an endless series of little wars. Forced solutions don't work.

 

[athabaska]

Clearer heads are prevailing in Iran.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8602483019158148765

 

[gopher]

Every nation has a right to defend itself. But no nation has the right to cross a border and to terrorize another as Israel has repeatedly done to Lebanon and has been documented above.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: RE: Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?

Every nation has a right to defend itself. But no nation has the right to cross a border and to terrorize another as Israel has repeatedly done to Lebanon and has been documented above.

Lebanon also has a right & obligation to police it's borders, which they have proved incapable of doing. They have given Hezbollah a free reign in Southern Lebenon which has contributed greatly to this mess. They have no one to blame but them selves.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?

Every nation has a right to defend itself. But no nation has the right to cross a border and to terrorize another as Israel has repeatedly done to Lebanon and has been documented above.

Then tell Hezbollah to grow a pair and to stop hiding amongst the general population.

 

[para-dice]

<snipped> Please keep it civil. Cosmo

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

Re: RE: Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?

Every nation has a right to defend itself. But no nation has the right to cross a border and to terrorize another as Israel has repeatedly done to Lebanon and has been documented above.

Then tell Hezbollah to grow a pair and to stop hiding amongst the general population.

Its funny the illusion that Hezbollah is hiding amongst the population -- they ARE in Lebanon you know.

Hezbollah -- fighting Israeli terrorism one day at a time.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

Collateral damamge? you must be kidding right?


Do you know what it needs to be considered as wars crimes? You need to destroyed civilians infrastructure, with heavy artillerie, or airforce, something hezbollah, doesnt have.

A word of advice Logic. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't pretend you do. That just leaves you open to being publically shot down by someone that does. Like i'll do now.

A war crime is NOT soley so because of the destruction of civilian infrastructure. When fighting a war, especially an urban war, the destruction of civilian infrastructure is UNAVOIDABLE. Furthermore the means by which said infrastructure is destroyed does not play ANY role. even though you deem is must be done so with either artillery or air power. A few examples of war crimes logic:

1. Bataan Death March (1942): 95,000 captured Filipino, British, Canadian, Australian and U.S. soldiers became a burden on the Japanese Army which was forced to accept emaciated captives outnumbering them. The captives (taken at Bataan and all throughout the Philippines) were force-marched about 100 kilometers north to Nueva Ecija to Camp O'Donnell, a prison camp. Prisoners of war were beaten randomly and denied food and water for several days. Those who fell behind were executed through various means: shot, beheaded or bayoneted. Over 10,000 of the POWs were murdered on the march.

2. The Holocaust (1939-1945): Do I really need to explain that one?

3. Srebrenica Massacre (1995): 8,200 Bosnian men were seperated from their women and murdered over a period of seven days by the Serbian Army.

Those are war crimes logic. There was no artillery, and no air force involved. It was brutal, systematic, MURDER. Suicide bombings, rocket attacks on a civilian populace for the sole purpose of terror, executing prisoners, those are war crimes logic. Israel dropping a bomb in Lebanon and killing civilians is not (while indeed tragic) a war crime.

There's many difference in compairing WW2 with the current conflic.

1. Germany invaded our allies of which we had treaties with.
2. Germany attacked other sovereign nations. Isreal is actually an aggressor here as they occupy Golan Heights, Palestine and parts of Lebanon.
3. Canada has no treaty with Isreal saying we will join them in an aggressive war against it's nabours.
4. Isreal is highly armed with a modern arsenal of American tech, there foes are using tech which is over 60 years old now.
5. Isreali has the most modern and largest air force in the region.
6. Isreal is bombing civilian targets with guided weapons.
7. Canada's responce to the invasion of Poland by Germany a hostile power which had been annexing left right and centre in Europe was a messured responce to the threat to Canada's greatest ally, the UK. Isreal is at much at fault for the current conflic as Lebanon or Hezbollah is.


If anything, if the right wing has learned anything from the lessions of WW2 which it appears it has not, the responce should come from the United Nations, and we should stand beside this dession and be ready to support it completely. Harper who supports a UN manadate stated two weeks ago Canada would not take part in peace keeping missions in the region.

Both sides, both Isreal and Hezbollah are doing this out of Revenge and self defence, and both sides will not listen to each other.

1. We never had a treaty with any of the Nations invaded by Germany. So we did we go to War Finder?
2. That's your point of view. Many argue that the Israeli occupation of the Golan is a sound defensive tactic
3. Don't see what that has to do with any thing.
4. The scope of the technology has to relevence on the conflict. Is Israel to be blamed to equiping itself? Also the IDF uses largely made-in-Israel weapons. But i'm sure you knew that.
5. *sigh*, I hate when people pretend they know something. First, Israel isn't the only Nation in the region with a modern air force. Syria flies MiG-29's, Su-24's, and Su-27's. Egypt flies F-16's (over 200, therefore the 4th largest F-16 operator in the World). As for size, yes, Israel is the largest in the region, however I would be remiss if I didn't point out the bulk of the 900 IAF aircraft are helicopters (many transport). Also, as i'm sure you're UNAWARE the IAF has in its possesion a large number of capture aircraft. Those aircraft are factored in to their overall numbers (even though they're not flown and kept in case of all out war). Examples of such captured aircraft are MiG-17's, MiG-21's, and Mi-8 (Hip 8).
6. No, they're bombing Hezbollah targets and hitting civilians. There's a big difference.
7. Actually while Lebanon is not at fault (well they could be for letting Hezbollah exist), Hezbollah started the conflict and Israel is finished it. Their measured response is akin to the one you claim Canada took. Instead in this case, Israel is fighting a hostile entity who's chief purpose is the death of Israel. Logical to me.

We have gone over this several times but it's worth repeating: it was Israel who threw the first punch and did so more than once ---

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html

Yea, people are too lazy to read a thread, hence the required repition. Love your posts gopher, keep up the fight for truth!

Get off his dick....

Just for your own information, hezbollah has killed more soldiers than civilians, which isnt the case with israel-governement.

And you know this how?

Pretext and context escapes the Gopher.

There had to come a time when Israel had to do
something about the 30,000 rockets of all varieties
amassed by Hezbollah.

You think Hezbollah was not planning a surprise ???

Just for your own information, hezbollah has killed more soldiers than civilians, which isnt the case with israel-governement.

That wouldn't be the case if they could help it. Put it this way...Hezboallah TRIED to kill more civilians, while Israel TRIED to kill less civilians. That's the ultimate difference. They don't deny it. In fact they boast about it.

You sure about that JTF. Got source? Also, can someone find the newest numbers of soldier deaths to civilian ratios for both sides? This should piss your TRIED statement under the carpet.

Whatsamatter, your google broken? Too easy.

[/i]

Funny thing about Google JTF...it's not academically sound. Face it, you're grasping for air with your Israeli terrorist apologist posts.

That's not how it works. You asked him if he had source. He posted several, you don't get to pick and choose what sources are acceptable and where they come from. You asked, he provived, and were therefore proven wrong for the second time in this thread.

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

CIA = the biggest terrorists in the world. Hezbollah and Al Queda on their payroll. I hate hypocrites.

 

[jimmoyer]

Hypocrisy is a sin best left for children to hate.

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se

Collateral damamge? you must be kidding right?


Do you know what it needs to be considered as wars crimes? You need to destroyed civilians infrastructure, with heavy artillerie, or airforce, something hezbollah, doesnt have.

A word of advice Logic. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't pretend you do. That just leaves you open to being publically shot down by someone that does. Like i'll do now.

A war crime is NOT soley so because of the destruction of civilian infrastructure. When fighting a war, especially an urban war, the destruction of civilian infrastructure is UNAVOIDABLE. Furthermore the means by which said infrastructure is destroyed does not play ANY role. even though you deem is must be done so with either artillery or air power. A few examples of war crimes logic:

1. Bataan Death March (1942): 95,000 captured Filipino, British, Canadian, Australian and U.S. soldiers became a burden on the Japanese Army which was forced to accept emaciated captives outnumbering them. The captives (taken at Bataan and all throughout the Philippines) were force-marched about 100 kilometers north to Nueva Ecija to Camp O'Donnell, a prison camp. Prisoners of war were beaten randomly and denied food and water for several days. Those who fell behind were executed through various means: shot, beheaded or bayoneted. Over 10,000 of the POWs were murdered on the march.

2. The Holocaust (1939-1945): Do I really need to explain that one?
''
3. Srebrenica Massacre (1995): 8,200 Bosnian men were seperated from their women and murdered over a period of seven days by the Serbian Army.

Those are war crimes logic. There was no artillery, and no air force involved. It was brutal, systematic, MURDER. Suicide bombings, rocket attacks on a civilian populace for the sole purpose of terror, executing prisoners, those are war crimes logic. Israel dropping a bomb in Lebanon and killing civilians is not (while indeed tragic) a war crime.

According to the geneva convention it is a war crime, by destroying necessity for the civilians


''The 1949 Geneva Conventions state, in article 54 of their additional protocol: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”. It is also “prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”''


that means the latest offensive in gaza and lebanon were war crimes, however,since israel, china and united states turn a blind eye on hague international court, it means absotly nothing at all.

 

[earth_as_one]

Israel's response to Hezbollah's minor border skirmish wasn't self defense or revenge. It was murder plain and simple.

The message Israel intended to send Hezbollah was, mess with us and we'll kill your friends and family.

The UN Human Rights Commision is currently investigating Israel for war crimes:

...The UN Human Rights Council [official website] in an emergency special session [materials; JURIST report] in Geneva Friday adopted by majority vote a resolution [draft, PDF text] condemning Israel for violating international human rights laws in the ongoing Middle East conflict [JURIST news archive] involving Lebanon....

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/08/un-rights-council-rebukes-israel-for.php

Also

...Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians...

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

 

[Hotshot]

I hate hypocrites.

Then you must hate all Yankees.

 

[Graeme]

I hate hypocrites.

Then you must hate all Yankees.

and himself

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

I hate hypocrites.

Then you must hate all Yankees.

and himself

Good one Gram! Find where before making such asinine statements.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

According to the geneva convention it is a war crime, by destroying necessity for the civilians


''The 1949 Geneva Conventions state, in article 54 of their additional protocol: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”. It is also “prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”''


that means the latest offensive in gaza and lebanon were war crimes, however,since israel, china and united states turn a blind eye on hague international court, it means absotly nothing at all.

That's not what you originally said logic. You said:

Do you know what it needs to be considered as wars crimes? You need to destroyed civilians infrastructure, with heavy artillerie, or airforce, something hezbollah, doesnt have.

There is a big difference between civilian infrastructure and the necessities of life. If Israel blows up a bridge, or road way, or rail line, that isn't a war crime (even though that is civilian infrastructure). If they target (on purpose) humanitarian convoys, water stations, hospitals, those are war crimes.

I am well versed in the 3rd Geneva Convetion of 1949 logic. That said, what you quoted isn't happening in Gaza and/or Lebanon. There is no forced starvation (Israel has let aid trucks through), there was no attacks on "objects indispensable to the survival of civilian population". Your claim that Israel is conduction war crimes in the Middle East is missing one crucial piece of the puzzle logci; evidence.

Perhaps the blind eye you speak of is seen as such by you because there is no war crimes occuring for The Hague to act upon? Just an idea.

 

[gc]

RE: Israel's Response: Se

Hezbollah's leader says that if he could do it all over, he wouldn't have captured the Israeli soldiers:

"You ask me, if I had known on July 11 … that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not,"

and

"We did not think, even one per cent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude," Nasrallah said.

and

Nasrallah also said he did not think fighting would break out soon in Lebanon. "The current Israeli situation, and the available givens tell us that we are not heading to another round," he said.

I must admit that I thought this war would only strengthen hezbollahs determination to wipe out Israel, but if he's telling the truth then I guess that's not the case. It's also good news...if it's true.

Here is the full story: Link

 

[Zzarchov]

''The 1949 Geneva Conventions state, in article 54 of their additional protocol: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”. It is also “prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”''

Notice the word Useless. Bombing a grocery store with gunmen in it is valid. Dropping Agent orange on all the farms in lebannon is a war crime.

Bombing a power plant is valid, bombing a generator hooked up only to a hospital is a war crime.

Bombing a bridge, even the only one out of the city (and needed for food) is valid, it cuts troop movement (and is thus not useless) , bombing a ferry full of refugees is a war crime.

I also heard someone mention that Israel is purposely targetting civilians, and if not, how much worse could it be if they didn't try not to.

Israel is buying expensive laser guided munitions, it is not obligated to do under international law. If Hezbollah puts soldiers in a city, under international law, IT is the one commiting a war crime by endangering civilians.

If Israel wanted to cause civlian casualties it would use carpet bombing or firebombing like Dresden and Tokyo saw, a single day of such can kill tens, even hundreds of thousands. Israel even still wouldn't be commiting a warcrime, it is not its duty to evacuate civilians near enemy fighters.

War is a terrible thing for a reason.


And the worst part is, sometimes , some people make it neccecary.

Example: Hezbollah has admited that if it had known Israel would respond this strong it wouldn't have attacked Israel.

Thus Israel won, now that Hezbollah knows what will happen if it insists on attacking Israel it will not attack.

Thus diplomacacy (or at least simply a cold war) will replace the constant trickle of death thats been going on for 6+ years.