Ban Ki-Moon: Hezbollah in clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.

[Flabbergasted]

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006916557

U.N. Demands Halt To Lebanon Allowing Arms Smuggling Through Its Borders; Lebanon Denies It Occurs

April 1, 2007 8:46 a.m. EST


Ryan R. Jones - All Headline News Middle East Correspondent
Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned on Saturday that continued arms shipments to Hezbollah via Lebanon's border with Syria threatens to undermine the ceasefire agreement that ended last summer's war between the terror group and Israel.

Ban visited U.N. forces deployed to southern Lebanon as part of the truce. While there he held talks with Lebanese leaders in Beirut, the Associated Press reported.

Ban told his hosts that during talks in Jerusalem last week, he was presented with compelling evidence that arms continue to flow through the Lebanese-Syrian border en route to Hezbollah in clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.

Lebanon's prime minister and defense minister both vehemently denied that illicit arms are passing through their border. They also blasted Israel for continuing to conduct aerial reconnaissance missions over Lebanon.

The U.N. also sees the Israeli over flights as a violation of the ceasefire. Ban urged all sides to comply with the agreement before the situation deteriorates.

[whistle]

1. Hopefully they will comply before April 6, 00:40 hours of 2007

[Flabbergasted]

3. Fat chance. I think you mean 04:00? I'm not sure how credible the intelligence is?

[MADem]

2. Wow, how shocking.....not. NT

[bemildred]

4. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Those UN resolutions sure come in handy *sometimes* don't they? n/t

[kaal]

6. The threat of more Israeli attacks....

...still hangs over the heads of the Lebanese... Should they just sit there and hope the next time Israel doesn't kill as many children and women!?!


So where is this "compelling evidence"... More BS if you asked me. It would have been flashed all over the news media if it were true.


Why aren't Israeli over flights also condemned as a violation of the ceasefire?

[Shaktimaan]

7. The overflights were criticized

What, you don't think Hezbollah is rearming from Syria? Get real. Nasrallah's been bragging about it.

[pelsar]

8. how about really dumb idea...

lebanon should guard its border like jordan and egypt do?.....gosh do you think it might work?......they guard, israel then doesnt have to fly recon missions to find the missles?

perhaps lebanon should ask jordan and egypt how to do it.

[breakaleg]

9. Since Israel is also in violation, they are hardly in a position to throw stones.

Well, they can throw them, but they won't be taken seriously.

[pelsar]

10. of course we're in violation...

6 years of attacks by hizballa and they're missles on israeli cities, and nassrallas "we're going to bomb tel aviv"...has made if very very clear the importance of those recon flights.

it was that info that destroyed the longer range missles meant for beyond haifa.

the balls in lebanons court....and it has been since israel pullled out in 2000......or is there somehow a problem with lebanon guarding their own border and securing their own country as do the egyptians and jordanians and syrians?

hey i got a great idea: they shouldnt cross the intl border attack israel!! (as they've been doing since 2000)

[Shaktimaan]

11. Does Israel have much of a choice,

unless the UN, Lebanon or anyone else sticks to their responsibilities and doesn't allow hezbollah to rearm?

France is very harsh when it comes to criticizing Israel's infractions, for example, but when the ball is in their court to disarm Hezbollah and put some teeth behind the UN resolution they opt to put their heads in the sand. And now when Hezbollah attacks Israel again and Israel responds they will not hesitate to slam Israel for something that France had a chance to prevent from happening in the first place. Hypocrites.

[breakaleg]

12. Sure they do. And they'd be taken more seriously if they didn't point a finger when they are doing

the very same thing.

[Shaktimaan]

13. OK,

what are their other options?

[breakaleg]

14. So, in order to agree that they are in violation of an agreement I have to provide them other

options? I don't think so.

[Shaktimaan]

15. No.

You have to provide ME with other options because you insisted that they exist. So, knock yourself out. Let's hear 'em.

[kaal]

16. Hizbulla would be idiots to disarm

Firstly, Hizbulla did not attack Israel first! Get your facts right. We now all know that Israel had been planning that attack many months prior to the offensive against Lebanon. The kidnappings were a convenient excuse.

It was a completely disproportional attack.... An attack in which civilian infrastructure was targeted and civilians were not spared.

Why would Hizbulla in their right mind disarm?? Moreover, why would the rest of the world insist Hizbulla disarm knowing full well that Israel would use the opportunity to attack Lebanon again and again and again....

The issue is not "disarming Hizbulla"... Israel needs to be restrained.


Israel has been playing the "fear" factor to justify its aggression and transgression for years. In fact the Bush Admin did exactly the same thing, using 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq. America is waking up, but Israel is still a long way from realizing that Arabs do not want to drive them into the sea.



Israel does indeed have a choice, it must genuinely engage the Arabs in "land for peace" talks. Enough is enough... When I'm an old man, I want this Israel/Palestine issue to be history.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. You need the "fact check!"

Firstly, Hizb'allah DID attack Israel first! The rest of your "facts' are propagandist opinion.

As for it being a "completely disproportional attack", that too is opinion.

Why would Hizb'allah disarm? They won't, that's the problem! You seem to fail to grasp that Hizb'allah is NOT the Lebanese army. NO ONE is calling for Lebanon to disarm her military.

More propagandist opinion with the "Israel needs to be restrained."

"Playing the 'fear factor?'" Do you understand what is happening in that region of the world?!

"{Arabs do) indeed have a choice, it must genuinely engage the (Israelis) in "land for peace" talks." Furthermore, they (the Arabs) must realize they may not get everything they ask for, any more than the Israelis will.

[kaal]

23. A completely disproportional attack......

.... if an eye 4 an eye is considered proportional. Your view is certainly not an opinion shared by many. (I wish I could understand how you reached that opinion, which I could probably respect, but cannot understand!)


The recent Israeli attack on Lebanon would be considered childs play if Hizbullah disarmed! And YES, Israel must be restrained, because all the violence it has instigated has resulted in the situation getting worse. No different to Iraq. Can you see Iraq getting better with US presence??

When Israel disengaged from Gaza I thought it was truly a courageous way forward toward a lasting peace, but I was shocked to later hear, it still had a controlling hand in Gaza. Will the Palestinians ever submit to brutality and suppression? The UN now calls it "Controlled Strangulation"..... a new word for the same old hate policies.

Why doesn't Israel seriously engage the Arabs in their recent peace overtures? It was Israel after all that first put forward it's intention to consider the Saudi Peace initiative along with the road map.


The least I'd expect is unabated and non-stop talks. The biggest problem I see is a resignation on making greater efforts toward a peaceful settlement with Arabs. Since Israel claims it wants peace, it should lead the way.


I'm not sure where the current stand off in Lebanon is heading, I just wish Israel and Lebanon could engage in talks, through a third party if they must, to end hostilities. Everybody wants peace with their neighbor.


Living with a fearful assumption that Arabs want to drive Israel into the sea is unhealthy and unrealistic.

[pelsar]

18. 2000-2006

Hizballa attacks Israel across the intl border:


27 May 2006 - An IDF soldier was wounded when Katyushas were fired at an army base at Mt. Meron in the upper Galilee.

27 Dec 2005 - A branch of a Palestinian organization connected to Al-Qaida fired 6 Katyushas, damaging a house in Kiryat Shmona and a house in Metulla. In response, the IAF attacked a training base of the Popular Front, south of Beirut.

21 Nov 2005 - An attempt to kidnap an IDF soldier was foiled when paratroopers patrolling near Rajar village discerned a Hizbullah unit approaching. Private David Markovitz opened fire, killing all four. In a heavy attack of mortars and Katyusha rockets that ensued, nine soldiers and and two civilians were injured.

29 June 2005 - More than 20 mortars were fired from across the border. Cpl. Uzi Peretz of the Golani Brigade was killed and four soldiers wounded, including the unit's doctor. Fire was exchanged and helicopters and planes attacked five Hizbullah outposts in the Reches Ramim area.

7 Apr 2005 - Two Israeli Arabs from the village of Rajar on the Israel-Lebanon border were kidnapped by Hizbullah operatives and held in captivity for four days in an attempt to obtain information on Israel.

9 Jan 2005 - An explosive device was detonated against an IDF patrol at Nahal Sion. One Israeli soldier was killed, and a UN officer was killed.

20 July 2004 - Hizbullah sniper fired at an IDF post in the western sector of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Two IDF soldiers were killed.

7 May 2004 - Fire in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Dennis Leminov was killed, and two other soldiers were severely wounded. The IDF returned fire.

19 Jan 2004 - An anti-tank missile was fired at IDF D9 while neutralizing explosive charges near Zari’t. An IDF soldier, Yan Rotzenski, was killed and another soldier was severely wounded.

6 Oct 2003 - Staff Sgt. David Solomonov was killed when Hizbullah fired at an IDF force south of the Fatma Gate in the eastern sector. In addition, the Hizbullah fired missiles and rockets at an IDF post in the Reches Ramim area.

10 Aug 2003 - Haviv Dadon, 16, of Shlomi, was struck in the chest and killed by shrapnel from an anti-aircraft shell fired by Hizbullah terrorists in Lebanon. Four others were wounded.

20 Jul 2003 - Hizbullah snipers fired on an Israeli outpost near Shtula, killing two Israeli soldiers.

7 May 2003 - Hizbullah attacked IDF positions in the Sheba farms with heavy rocket, mortar, and small arms fire. One Israeli soldier was killed and five others were wounded in the attack.

29 Aug 2002 - Fire at an IDF post in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Ofer Misali was killed, and two other soldiers were lightly wounded.

12 Mar 2002 - Infiltration: In a shooting attack on the Shlomi- Metzuba route. Six Israelis civilians were killed, among them IDF officer Lt. German Rojkov.

14 Apr 2001 - Fire at an IDF post in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Elad Litvak was killed.

16 Feb 2001- Fire at an IDF convoy on Mt. Dov. IDF soldier Elad Shneor was killed, and three other soldiers were wounded.

26 Nov 2000 - A charge was detonated near an IDF convoy. IDF soldier Khalil Taher was killed and two other soldiers were wounded.

7 Oct 2000 - Kidnapping: Three IDF soldiers: Adi Avitan, Omer Soued and Binyamin Avraham were kidnapped by the Hizballah from the Mt. Dov sector.

comment?
or is this the part where you "disappear'?

[kaal]

19. fewer Israelis killed by Hizbullah....

....than Israel killed in a few weeks during their offensive...


There is no denying that Hizbullah has continued their attacks unabated, but we need to know what is required for them to stop. Surely they don't aim to drive Israel into the sea.... They just don't have the means.

Hizbullah was formed after the first Invasion of Lebanon and has continued to fight because it's lands were occupied. You told me that Israel had departed from all Lebanese lands, but there's still a strip of land they have not given back.

Why is Israel keeping that small strip of land.

[Lurking Dem]

20. Because every map in the world

shows that strip of land belongs to Syria but Syria won't take it back because then they can't say Israel did not completely withdraw from Lebanon and use that excuse to arm Hezbollah?

[pelsar]

21. because the UN...

and syria and lebanon said it belonged to syria.....the only one disagreeing is a miltia called hizballa......you seem to think they represent the Lebanese govt in international affairs....

so far you wrote:
Firstly, Hizbulla did not attack Israel first! Get your facts right...which has been shown to be wrong.

now you claiming that sheba farms are lebanese even though syria, the UN and lebanon dont seem to think so
(you will note that syria has not signed any papers in the UN giving up their claim on the sheba farms, which israel took from syria in 67)

Both military and civilian Lebanese maps produced after 1951 locate the Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border. Lebanese army maps published in 1961 and 1966 specifically pinpoint several of the Shebaa Farms, including Zebdine, Fashkoul, Mougr Shebaa and Ramta, all of which are designated as being located inside Syria. Lebanese Ministry of Tourism maps also show the Lebanese-Syrian border running west of the Shebaa Farms. Timur Goksel, a spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) told the BBC that "on all maps the UN has been able to find, the farms are seen on the Syrian side

http://www.meib.org/articles/0105_l1.htm


which is also shown to be wrong.....your running out of excuses for hizballa attacks..got any others?.......or will we not hear from you?

[kaal]

24. No, they are elected representatives

of the Southern Lebanese....


That explains it. Didn't know it was claimed by both Syria and Hizbullah, whom shouldn't have the right to just decide land belongs to them. That's definitely the Lebanese governments right. I need to read on this, or should I take your word Pelsar....



No, I was right about Hizbullah not attacking Israel first, because I believe Israels response was disproportional. You don't and so you feel it was a justified response.

[pelsar]

26. read some of this....

http://www.meib.org/articles/0105_l1.htm

just look up sheba farms.....


Damascus has declared that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon. But it has never attempted to formally ratify the sovereignty of the mountainside with the Lebanese to gain UN recognition and acceptance of the new border.

every article has more or less the same explanation......
____________

lebanon doesnt have geographical representation, Hizballa was voted in by the whole country and does not represent any geographic area:

fruthermore hizballa controlled s. lebanon as in a police state.....(just do some reading)

[Shaktimaan]

27. Why do you consider

Israel to have attacked first just because you find their attack disproportionate? One has nothing to do with the other. You can say that you find Israel's response inappropriate or immoral, but Hezbollah coordinated an attack involving the cross border raid killing and kidnapping soldiers with a simultaneous rocket attack on Israeli border towns (civilian) to distract them from the real objective. There's no question that Hezbollah struck first.

As for Shebaa farms, the UN ratified the border after Israel's withdrawl in 2000, declaring Israel to be fully withdrawn. No one except Hezbollah feels that Shebaa Farms is Lebanon. And besides, have you seen it? It's a tiny patch of barren land, nothing worth fighting for. Hezbollah is using it as a pretense for attacking Israel. Their mission statement calls for Israel's total destruction, it has little to do with the Israeli occupation of Lebanon at this point.

Moreover, why would the rest of the world insist Hizbulla disarm knowing full well that Israel would use the opportunity to attack Lebanon again and again and again....

The UN Security Council issued a resolution calling for Israel to withdraw and Hezbollah to disarm. Read the OP, it is about Hezbollah ignoring the resolution. They are expected to disarm because they are an unaccountable military, not under the direct control of the Lebanese Government but are a seperate organization. (The fact that they have some representatives in government does not validate them as a seperate military operating outside of the Lebanese chain of command.)

When the Lebanese government asked Israel not to retaliate against Lebanon it was because they can't control Hezbollah's actions, meaning they are a rouge military who can initiate conflicts, like the one with Israel, but have no accountability with the international community or the Lebanese government. They dragged Lebanon into a war that Lebanon didn't want and was basically powerless to end on their own.

What makes you think Israel would use the opportunity of a de-militarized Hezbollah to attack Lebanon? Israel has NEVER attacked Lebanon except in self-defence. And it has always been only after weathering many, many unyeilding attacks over a period of months and all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. Lebanon never made an effort to reign in Hezbollah's unilateral attacks on Israeli cities. The UN border police never did anything either. What other options does Israel have but to attack?

[breakaleg]

28. Syria also considers them as belonging to Lebanon according to the articles

I found this morning on it.

[Shaktimaan]

29. OK, I actually remember that come to think of it.

But even if it still was occupied Lebanon, (and they never even mentioned anything about it until after the UN ratified the border and left) the tiny piece of uninhabited land that is Shebaa Farms is no excuse for continuing rocket strikes against Israel. There are legal mechanisms that can be utilized if Lebanon REALLY felt that Shebaa Farms was important to them. But since its "occupation", even under the worst case scenario, doesn't impinge on anyone's rights or any kind of economic, social or religious issues, Hezbollah doesn't wield the same kind of moral authority to attack them that they had when Israel occupied the whole entire security zone.

Israel totally withdrew from Lebanon and they have absolutely nothing to show for it in terms of a decrease in attacks from Hezbollah. Shoudln't Israel be rewarded for withdrawing, meeting every requirement of the international community's regarding Lebanon? Is this what Israel can expect when/if they withdraw from the territories? Why bother then?

They have no right to keep attacking Israel now, no matter what anyone thinks about who Shebaa Farms belongs to. Did they even bother to register a complaint over it or try a diplomatic route? No. It seems pretty obvious to me that Shebaa Farms is not really a burning issue for the Lebanese people and only serves as an excuse for Hezbollah to claim their attacks are justified. Do you disagree?

[breakaleg]

30. Rewarded? Come on.

What consequences does Israel get for their 20 year occupation?

[Shaktimaan]

31. So you think that Hezbollah was right in attacking

so as to punish Israel?

Generally when someone loses a war and the victor agrees to a peace treaty and ends an occupation, (even a long one), there isn't talk of the losing nation having the right to "punish" them afterwards. Israel agreed to peace. If Lebanon would like to re-start the conflict they will not benefit from the result.

During the occupation Hezbollah issued requirements to Israel outlining what they needed in order to cease hostilities, right? So then it stands to reason that when Israel fulfilled those requirements Hezbollah would hold up their end of the bargain and stop attacking her. If Israel does not derive any benefit from meeting the expectations made of them then it will better serve their interests to not meet them at all.

The point of a peace treaty is not to "even up the score." It is to end the fighting no matter who has more points. Do you get how peace treaties work? After you agree to them you are NOT SUPPOSED TO ATTACK ANYMORE. If Lebanon has a problem and wants compensation they can go to the UN or the ICC or the Hague and ask for restitution.

[breakaleg]

32. Never said that. But to "reward" them for stopping the occupation is laughable.

Reward someone for stopping something they should never have done in the first place?

[Shaktimaan]

33. So, if I understand you correctly,

Lebanon is not under any obligation to cease attacking Israel? You consider it wrong for Israel to be "rewarded" with a normalized situation once she remedies the thing (occupation) that supposedly caused the attacks to begin in the first place, right? Even if Israel turns off the faucet, the water keeps on coming because Israel should never have ever opened that damn faucet to begin with.

So then when should Lebanon be expected to cease their hostilities if it isn't when Israel has ceased their own?

[breakaleg]

34. You never seem to understand me correctly and this case is no different.

You said: "Shoudln't Israel be rewarded for withdrawing, meeting every requirement of the international community's regarding Lebanon? Is this what Israel can expect when/if they withdraw from the territories? Why bother then?"

I'm saying someone shouldn't be "rewarded" for stopping an action they never should have engaged in in the first place.

If you'd like to go off and re-write my words, you are on your own.

[Shaktimaan]

35. I'm not trying to rewrite your words.

In the context of this conflict, I see the "reward" as being the cessation of violence. When I talk about Israel being "rewarded" what I am talking about is that Hezbollah stops attacking them. I took your post to mean that Israel should not expect the rocket attacks to stop.

Did you mean something different?

[msmcghee]

36. I think breakaleg just let something slip.

He forgot just for a minute and now we get to see the truth.

What he just said is exactly what Israel's enemies will say when and if Israel ends the occupation in Palestine and a treaty is signed.

As soon as the first rockets start flying into Israel - Israel will say wait, we just signed a peace treaty and you agreed to stop the attacks if we end the occupation.

And then the PA (and breakaleg) will say, just like he did just now, "Reward someone for stopping something they should never have done in the first place?"

Of course we all knew this is how Israel's enemies see it based on the fact that not one agreement any Palestinian government has signed agreeing to stop attacking Israel has been honored. But their supporters are not supposed to say that until after the treaties are signed - like Hizb'allah waited until after Israel stopped the attacks last summer and had withdrawn from Lebanon to say they had no intention of disarming or not attacking Israel again.

[breakaleg]

37. What exactly did I let slip? I read your post and you didn't complete your thought/accusation. nt

[msmcghee]

40. OK - I'll pretend you don't get it too.

If Israel and Palestine sign a treaty establishing final borders and the PA agrees to halt all attacks on Israel - but they do what they did after Israel made some major concession such as sign a peace treaty or leave a disputed area to the Palestinians - that is, resume hostile activities against Israel like Hisb'allah did last summer - then you'll say what you just said.

After the first rockets fly into Israel you'll justify it as why should the PA . . "Reward someone for stopping something they should never have done in the first place?"

The reason of course, is that they agreed to, not because anyone considered it a "reward".

[breakaleg]

44. I'm not the one who introduced "reward" into this converstation. So don't attribute it to me.

[breakaleg]

38. Again, you took it wrong. So I suggest you stop. nt

[Shaktimaan]

39. took it wrong?

I explained what I meant by my post, specifically what "reward" entailed when I first mentioned it. How can I get that wrong?

see...
Israel totally withdrew from Lebanon and they have absolutely nothing to show for it in terms of a decrease in attacks from Hezbollah. Shoudln't Israel be rewarded for withdrawing, meeting every requirement of the international community's regarding Lebanon?

Now, why don't you tell me what you meant.

[breakaleg]

41. It's the word "reward" that I find outrageous. Why should someone be rewarded for stopping doing

something they should never have done it the first place?

So, let's say someone steals my car. And a year later he returns it. Should I reward him for returning it or should I charge him with theft? Yes, it's nice to get it back, but that doesn't erase the crime or get him off the hook for stealing it in the first place.

You'll notice that I'm not discussing, disputing or addressing anything else in your many posts except for the word "reward". Now, if you are going to continue to ignore what I AM saying and subsitute that with things you THINK or would like to pretend I've said, then go ahead.

How was that porn?

[Shaktimaan]

42. Okay, so forget the word "reward." *sheesh*

Do you believe that Israel should have the right to remain free of attacks from Hezbollah following their pullout of Lebanon?
Or do you think that Hezbollah is justified in continuing their attacks?

[breakaleg]

43. Of course I think Hezbollah should stop their attacks on Israel. Why would you think otherwise?

[Shaktimaan]

53. It seemed like you were saying that

Israel should not expect a cessation in violence from Hezbollah despite their having left Lebanon. Things like your analogy of having your car stolen made me think that you saw further attacks by Hezbollah warranted as a sort of punishment against Israel, (calling the police and pressing charges in your metaphor,) as a consequence of their having invaded and occupied Lebanon to begin with.

The reward I was describing was only peace, not some extra incentive. I meant it in the same way Israel's sanctions against the PA would be lifted if Hamas agreed to recognize them and obey previous treaties. Since Israel left Lebanon they were entitled to peace. And if they did not receive peace even though they pulled out, I postulated that it could be seen as a bellweather for what may happen should Israel meet the PA's expectation of pulling back to the 67 border. If the PA acts in the same way as Hezbollah did, and does not end attacks against Israel even after she fulfills the expectations made of her then Israel has very little incentive to consider doing so.

Land for peace is an exchange. In Lebanon's case, Israel relinquished the land but Hezbollah has not provided the peace, which was their end of the bargain. So my original statement here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171513&mesg_id=171798

...was a condemnation of the idea that Hezbollah has any justification whatsoever in attacking Israel now. They are not under occupation. Israel was not seeking to control their borders. The UN ratified the border. If they have a dispute, they can go to the UN. But there is no excuse (and no point even) in attacking Israel now. What could they possibly be hoping to accomplish?

[pelsar]

46. syria has never formally....

gone to the UN and given the little piece of paper that says: sheba farms is lebanese.....thats all they have to do, and they've never done it.

i.e. it remains syrian, just as the maps show, just as the UN declared

[kaal]

25. I'm not justifying attacks, I'm looking for reasons....

There must be a mutually acceptable solution to all this mess.. Absolutely no attack on the other is justified in my opinion.


I'd rather see excuses for peace talks, than excuses for war and continued fighting.


Instead of Israel jumping to launch a disproportional attack to flatten Lebanon, I'd like to see Israel rushing to find a suitable position to get peace talks with the Saudis on track....

Although I do find the Saudis the most extreme fundamentalist among the Arabs, a peace accord with Saudi Arabia will bring all the rest in line.

[pelsar]

45. you just lost me...

Hizballa is controlled by iran...it is they who have been attacking israel for over the last 6 years with israel not responding and receiving even more attacks. (Saudi Arabia has no control nor influence over iran-they are now infact rivals)

now that we've established that hizballa has no "reason" to attack israel, other than their belief as the 'party of god', that israel has no right to exist, and that israel has pulled back to the intl border....

what is your suggestion as far as hizballa is concerned?...just let them keep on killing israelis?...stopping the farmers from farming their land?

(and if your going to used the word disproportional, perhaps explain what is proportional?- a definition if you will

[Violet_Crumble]

47. That's a strange question to ask...

what is your suggestion as far as hizballa is concerned?...just let them keep on killing israelis?


Seeing as how the poster had already said in the post you replied to: 'Absolutely no attack on the other is justified in my opinion.', it looks like yr question was answered even before you asked it :)

[pelsar]

48. its called clarification....

i just want to make sure i understand that the poster is saying that hizballa may attack when and as they feel like it and according to the poster, israel has no right to respond.

I want to make sure that I understood correctly......hence the question. (its considered a reasonable request in most conversations and discussions that i've held throughout my life).

(It maybe that you have understood, hence i'm not really sure why your commenting on my lack of comprehension.)

[Violet_Crumble]

49. That's the strangest request for clarification I've ever seen...

There was nothing the slightest bit ambiguous about someone stating they see no justification for either side attacking the other. Asking them straight after that 'what is your suggestion as far as hizballa is concerned?...just let them keep on killing israelis?' isn't in any way an attempt to clarify what the poster had already said. It's a few other things, but it's definately not asking for clarification...

I'm not sure what in the statement 'Absolutely no attack on the other is justified in my opinion.' needs clarification or would be hard to understand. It's a very clear comment with no wiggleroom anywhere in it, but maybe you can explain what you didn't understand about it?

[msmcghee]

50. Well, then let's deal with the ideas . .

. . in his post and not with pelsar's request for a clarification - because I'm curious too. I'll help you out here.

Simply saying that the attacks by either side are wrong misses the point. If one side continues those attacks and Israelis continue dieing as a result - then what do you think the side that is being attacked should do about them?

(This is an opportunity to put yourself in Israel's place and try to imagine how you would deal with such an intractable and deadly problem.)

I think that was pelsar's question. Do you have an answer to it?

[Shaktimaan]

51. It's pretty simply

asking for an opinion on how Israel SHOULD respond to Hezbollah's attacks if he feels a military response isn't justifiable. Just because Israel chooses to not respond does not mean that Hezbollah will not keep sending rockets over, as they've done in the past. So then if Israel, who is the main focus of Kaal's criticism in this thread, chose to follow his advice what would he advise them to do about the constant stream of Katshuyas?

Allowing Israelis to be killed through a recommended policy of inaction is different than CONDONING the attacks against them. Kaal said that neither side is justified in attacking the other. He said nothing about what one side SHOULD do in the event that they are the victim of such attacks, other than not retaliating. Doing nothing is a possibility, and while it's different from actively SUPPORTING Hezbollah's attacks the end result is not very different than if he had.

[kaal]

58. The Katshuyas problem....

....needs to be eliminated, but it's not happening with another war or 10 wars for that matter.


Firstly, you need to understand that being on either side of the I/P conflict, does not immediately mean that you CONDONE attacks on the other side or that you are activity SUPPORTING or justifying attacks.

Your false assumptions or reaction when faced with opposition to your views takes the discussion toward an unintended direction that is clearly not stated. I'm looking for Roads leading to a final peaceful settlement.


You said: "he feels a military response isn't justifiable" - it may be justifiable, but certainly not the extent of the attack we witnessed. In this particular case, I don't think a military response was necessary, it would have been better for Israel to negotiate the release of the captured soldier instead.

You said: "So then if Israel, who is the main focus of Kaal's criticism in this thread, chose to follow his advice what would he advise them to do about the constant stream of Katshuyas?
"

The problem posed by the stream of Katshuyas goes well beyond those launched by Hizbullah..... If a peace accord to end the hostilities is never signed between Israel and its surrounding neighbors, how can it end the fear of being a target of future Katshuyas or Nukes being launched into Israel.

Will peace with the Palestinians, Iran and Lebanon eliminate the fear of that problem? I find all the justified military responses leading us further away from peace talks.

[pelsar]

52. actually i find this rather amusing...

it is I that doesnt understand...not you....which is why i am asking for further information. (it could be that my comprehension isnt as fast or good as other posters here....)


but since you asked what i dont understand.....is if the poster means israelis should be shot at, bombed, kidnapped by hizballa as they have been doing and attempting to do for the last 6 years and israel should do nothing about it.

is the poster a pacifist?.....his initial posts were that israel attacked hizballa, then that israel was on lebanese land....the poster is a bit confused about some facts, and if the poster hasnt dissappeared it would interesting to know if the opinion has changed as well.

lots of questions to ask.....i like asking direct questions and getting clarifications on ones stance..and lots of time one question leads to another.....and another and another.......

and what does proportionate mean anyway?...i've never been given an example or real definition even though i've asked.....nobody seems to want to go there either.

[kaal]

54. How should Israel respond to Hizbullah.....

This is probably the 3rd time you assume I have disappeared... I have not and have no intention to disappear. I do hope my opinion doesn't disturb you?

I also trust DU is not in the business of silencing members with opinions that do not fall in line to a common denominator. The rules are truly fantastic as they seem to be set to keep out the hate that is generally prevalent in these discussions..... Personally, I'd like to see similar rules set-up to get Israel and Arabs talking to settle this mess. That is my over-riding concern in the I/P conflict, which I will repeat until ears drums burst! So long as Israel is not talking to Arabs, the likelihood of a peaceful settlement is remote.

The assumptions made on the intentions of the other side are shocking, but what more can be expected when they refuse to sit down and at least discuss the problem and understand the other sides true concerns. The Status quo just can't continue.


Yes, I probably am a little confused about some of the facts and thank you for the articles you posted. I am indeed a human and my opinion can change when faced with facts. As far as Hizbullah not having the "right" to attack Israel, on the basis of what you've shown me regarding Sheeba farms, I'll hold back on an opinion, until I see what the other side is claiming.

For now it would seem that Syria and Hizbullah have concocted a way of justifying continued attacks. I'd like to know why from the other side. I'll let this rest (for now) until I read more.



How should Israel respond to Hizbullah?

Can we at least agree that the attack on Lebanon was the wrong response? I say it was disproportional, because it completely diverts from the very simple principle of an eye-for-an-eye, that has very much been the norm of exchanges between Israel and Hizbullah.... The attack on Lebanon changed that reality, because it "escalated" the conflict.


And I'm not saying an eternal tit-4-tat response is justified either, I'm against any and all violent responses.

An escalation in my opinion is not in any way what-so-ever a path toward a peaceful settlement. Likewise, I do not believe the current "escalation" in Iraq is the right direction toward a peaceful end. The GOP call it a "surge" to cloud the very clear and apparent "escalation"... Many that support Israel will never knowledge that the attack on Lebanon was disproportional to Hizbullas actions, because they want to put the blame on the terrorist Hizbulla organization for the escalation.

Forget the fact that Israel had been planning the attack for many months prior to attempting to destroy Hizbulla in Lebanon...... Did Israel have a right to attack Hizbullah positions in South Lebanon in order to destroy the capability to launch Katyushas? YES. Did Israel have a right to attack Lebanon's infrastructure, bridges and factories in Beirut, many of which were very clearly for civilians? NO. (I'm not even going to start on the number of dead civilians).


How should Israel respond to Hizbullah?

It surely should not sit back and do nothing when bombed or when its citizens are kidnapped by Hizbullah, but justifying a forceful response gives Hizbullah an equal right to also respond to Israel. And it's that cycle that needs to be broken.

The only argument for justifying a disproportional attack against Lebanon is if you believe Hizbullah is a Terrorist organization and Israel the only Democratic Government in the Middle East.

Hizbullah is a party that was elected into the Lebanese Government. Labeling them terrorists is farcical as it just stops the possibility of talks/negotiations. Hamas is also labeled a terrorist organization, another attempt to place a barrier or hold to peace talks with Palestinians. Can you imagine Britain refusing to recognize a Northern Ireland Government because of the inclusion of Sein Fein! I'm glad Norway recognized the Hamas lead Government, dealing a blow to Israels unrealistic and rigid stance.

The same pattern is been used to respond to the Saudi peace offer, whereby Israel will only talk with "Moderate" Arab States!


Israel needs to talk to Hizbullah. There is NO other option if peace is the intended end result.

[pelsar]

55. and a response...

first i do respect thoughtfull responses that contain a level of logic and belief (as belief is part of this conflict)..of which you had here.

let me make an initial correction:
how should Israel respond Hizbullah?

Can we at least agree that the attack on Lebanon was the wrong response? I say it was disproportional, because it completely diverts from the very simple principle of an eye-for-an-eye, that has very much been the norm of exchanges between Israel and Hizbullah.... The attack on Lebanon changed that reality, because it "escalated" the conflict.

there was in fact no "eye for and eye"...in the last 6 years....it was all one way.....israelis being killed with no response other than defense upon being attacked (which almost always results in dead defenders, kidnapped soldiers etc since the initiative is on the "other side.").

but here is the problem your philosophy faces:
It surely should not sit back and do nothing when bombed or when its citizens are kidnapped by Hizbullah, but justifying a forceful response gives Hizbullah an equal right to also respond to Israel. And it's that cycle that needs to be broken.

israel left lebanon, thereby 'breaking the cycle"....israel did not respond to 6 years of attacks by hizballa....now what?...the attacks continued......

your also saying that hizballa is part of the lebanese govt...so are you saying that the lebanese govt is also responsable for attacking israel?

You mention that israel should "talk" to Hizballa.....about what?...israel is already at the intl border

You seem to make statements that dont really touch the reality of the situation.

(and a small bit of info: the IDF has been planning the attack on lebanon for at least 2 years that i know of, and probably before that as well)

[kaal]

56. It's easy to live different realities

Israel should have talked with Hizbullah after the kidnapping of its soldier.

The fight with Hizbullah did not start with that specific event. That's a reality that was completely void in the US media after Israels attack against Lebanon.

Israel continues to hold Hizbullah fighters in its jails captured well before the recent war. Solving the issue of detained fighters with an exchange of prisoners, would have been the perfect de-escalation after Israels withdrawal to International Borders.


I'm sorry, but I find it hard to agree that all the attacks by Hizbullah justified the extent of damaging and death caused by Israel during it's attack.

The Lebanese Government is very diverse as we've seen with the current internal problems it is facing with Hizbullah. Would you like the Lebanese Government to be more culpable for Hizbullah attacks against Israel? I would, because it could end Hizbullah attacks. It can only happen if Israel holds peace talks with the Lebanese Government, effectively recognizing Hizbullah as a legitimate political organization.

[pelsar]

57. backup...

the first question ...is why is hizballa attacking israel in the first place?

secondly are you aware that hizballa has "no go areas" for the lebanese govt? police force and armies? (their area of beruit today).....they are in effect their own mini govt.

I'm just curious as to what would the peace talks with the lebanese govt be about.
______________

seriously ..where do you even get your info from?...is it some kind of P/C where you have to find israel guilty of something

so far you've been wrong about israel starting the war, israel attacking in a 'tit for tat, israel holding lebanese land and now this?
srael continues to hold Hizbullah fighters in its jails captured well before the recent war

The prisoner that hizballa "wants" is palestinian, named Kuntar who actually crushed a childs head (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2740-2003May17?language=printer).....why on earth should he be freed?

and this is really weird:
It can only happen if Israel holds peace talks with the Lebanese Government, effectively recognizing Hizbullah as a legitimate political organization
israel is now guilty of the lebanese govts/country's internal divisions?.......how does israel have anything to do with lebanese internal politics?

[kaal]

59. What would peace talks be about....!

That about says it all. I'm shock by your question.


Kindly clarify exactly what you mean. Are you insinuating that peace talks are not required or unnecessary?

[Shaktimaan]

61. I get the feeling

that you are looking at this situation between Israel and Hezbollah and making a basic assumption, which is that despite their vastly differing goals, at the end of the day both Israel and Hezbollah both want peaceful co-existence with each other. While I am reluctant to label any attempted peace negotiation as "a meaningless waste" there has been at least one historically accurate bellweather used to determine when peace talks would yield truly useless or even harmful results, and it's evident here in spades. Talks with Hezbollah are pointless as long as Hexbollah would rather have constant war over a world with Israel existing peacefully.

This is not rhetoric, it is part of their mission statement. (The main part, in fact.) Hezbollah's leaders' speeches are clear on the matter, and their actions reflect their stated intentions. When Pelsar asks you "what would they discuss in a peace talk?" you are shocked because you likely assume that they share at least one goal in common, enabling them to sit across from each other and agree on at least one thing... "How can we end the violence that exists between us?"

Of course, we already have Hezbollah's answer on this one. The violence will end when Israel ceases to exist. (Actually, this probably wouldn't end it.) To give the soldier back to Israel, Hezbollah requires the freeing of at least one truly vile and dangerous criminal. Clearly these are requirements that Israel is unable to meet. So any peace negotiations would, at best, be a waste. Worse, they may commit Israel to making concessions with no guarantee of Hezbollah fulfilling whatever would be asked of them. Of course no one expects Hezbollah to hold up their end of any deals, they are a terrorist group after all. When they screw Israel on an agreement no one is surprised. However, as a democratic, western-type state, we still would expect Israel to meet all of the committments she made in that same treaty, because... (insert reason here.)

This happens often throughout history. Russia had a pact with Nazi Germany after all which ended up amounting to bupkis in the end. Think of the lives that may have been saved had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact never been signed and Russia had gone to war with Germany immediately instead. Who knows how much earlier the war might have been won? Perhaps the Holocaust could have been averted. Perhaps Germany would have lost a year or two earlier and Einstein wouldn't have needed to write that fateful letter pressing Roosevelt to create the Manhattan Project, thus ensuring that Japan could not have been nuked. With no dire cause to unite them in such a horrible task, why would humanitarian physicists like Einstein or Feinman ever even built such a weapon? Just imagine, a world without nuclear weapons... undone by a peace treaty foolishly signed with people who did not actually desire peace.

[kaal]

67. Yes, most of what you've written is indeed rhetoric ...

"..... repeated so many times that it's now stuck in many peoples ears as the truth and nothing but the whole truth."

I find that you too are attempting to label peace negotiations as "meaningless waste", which is disappointing. It's actually becoming the norm. All sides work harder to find any justification to place barriers to peace.

You are wrong: Hizbullah would NOT rather have constant war over-a-world (that's adding a new dimension, sounds like Bush) than coexisting with Israel peacefully. Yes, Hezbollah's leaders' speeches are definitely clear on the matter, but you'll most likely pick what suits you to show the negative issues, without touching on any of the positive points. Speeches are always taken out of context and they are not policy.

So according to you, Hizbullah have stated their one answer: "The violence will end when Israel ceases to exist". To me it sounds like the Violence Israel has brought to the Middle East will never end until Israel (in it's current form) ceases to exist.... From what I see Hizbullah is not planning to destroy Israel. It doesn't have the means nor the capability.


Your comments are just so telling, let me quote you:

When they screw Israel on an agreement no one is surprised. However, as a democratic, western-type state, we still would expect Israel to meet all of the commitments she made in that same treaty, because... (insert reason here.)


You obviously found it hard to think of a reason to insert, because although it is never stated, Israel feels it is a Regional Superpower with the backing of a World Superpower, which gives it the right not to abide by any commitments made.

Hizbullah are more likely to hold up to a peace deal than Israel in my opinion. Hizbullah are not a terrorist group, they are a group that formed as a resistance to Israels invasion of 1982 and are purely there to protect the Southern Lebanese people and lands. They are more than a simple terror organization. Saying they are a terrorist force will not make them disappear.


Do you seriously believe that Israel alone has set peace as a goal it wants to achieve??

[pelsar]

62. what would they discuss?

israel has pulled back to the intl border....israel has a few lebanese drug dealers in its prison and a violent palestinian killer in its jail that came from lebanon. The lebanese govt as far as I know has no "demands upon israel, nor do they want him.

the israeli soldiers that hizballa took may or may not be dead. The last two they took were dead or died of their wounds in captivity. The previous one, a navigator named ron arad was taken alive and never seen again. History of israeli prisoners is that they usually end up dead.

so perhaps my initial question that i asked, and you didnt answer....perhaps you can try now?...why is hizballa attacking israel?

_________


and i repeat the question....what would the negotiations be about?..the subject matter, what would be demanded of israel to induce the lebanese govt to declare peace with israel?

the only thing i can think of is that israel stop the recon flights over lebanese territory.....maybe you know something else?

[kaal]

66. I'll also repeat my self, since you're repeating your self...

As far as Hizbullah not having the "right" to attack Israel, on the basis of what you've shown me regarding Sheeba farms, I'll hold back on an opinion, until I see what the other side is claiming.

For now it would seem that Syria and Hizbullah have concocted a way of justifying continued attacks. I'd like to know why from the other side. I'll let this rest (for now) until I read more.

So until I get time to read sources from the other side, I'll assume hizbullahs attacks are unjustified.



You paint a nice picture of lebanese drug dealers and a violent palestinian killer in Israel prisons, yet the IDF soldier are angelic beings with no blood on their hands! Both side are guilty as hell as far as I'm concerned.....



Any negotiations with the Lebanese govt would be to end the hostilities and bring about a peaceful end to the violence. Peace can only come about if the two sides talk. Inroads have been achieved with Egypt and Jordan, why not Lebanon?

The manner in which you ask "what would they talk about" clearly reflects the Israeli position of not having any talks to change the status quo. That's what I find difficult to understand. How will any peace come about if there aren't any talks between the various waring sides. Is there truly "nothing" to talk about.

I'd be very interested to know what demands will be made from both the Lebanese and Israel to each other for a peaceful end. Don't you at least find it sad such elementary issues are not discussed?

[pelsar]

68. you not answering the questions....

israel has a very simple demand from lebanon:
stop attacking us.... (same demands made to egypt and jordan and syria)

what is lebanon demanding from israel that is preventing lebanon from making a peace treaty with israel?...simple question.

you ask if there is truly nothing to talk about?.... sure there are lots of things, trade, open borders etc....none of those can come about until lebanon decides to stop attacking (or at least the part of the govt that is called hizballa) across the intl border that israel pulled back to.

as far as my "picture goes"..i notice your having a problem relating to the original question: why is hizballa attacking israel?, your saying they're "unjustified" but thats not the question.

without understanding that, one doesnt really understand what the "negotiations" would be about

_______________________
your examples of egypt and jordan are good ones: both decided to patrol their borders and stop as much as they can infiltration (not 100% successful, but they try)....after that israel simply stopped incursions-air and ground. Both still have massive anti semitism, anti israeli press and anti jew laws, but they attempt to keep their borders peaceful..and thats enough).

[kaal]

60. Hizbullah is not controlled by Iran

Just as much as Israel is not controlled by the US.

Last I hear Hizbullah was controlled by Syria! They may be supported by both Syria and Iran, but not controlled.


As I suggested below, Israel needs to talk with Hizbullah. It can start with negotiations to free the captured soldier.

[pelsar]

63. please....do some reading...

you've been wrong so many times on this subject already........

almost all of hizballas military equipment is iranian or came via iran, Hizballas income is via iran...they pay the saleries.

funny thing about talking to hizballa.....that would be interfering with lebanons internal politics...they are not the lebanese govt. So am i right i understanding that you are for israel interfering and circumventing the lebanese govt?

(you do realize that lebanon is now in the middle of a major crises, where the subject matter is the influence of hizballa, and you want israel to interfer with that.....)

[kaal]

64. No, it wouldn't interfere in Internal politics....

Israel will remain the enemy, regardless of who she speaks to in Lebanon.

It can initially be done through a third party. Can see why Israel would even care about circumventing the lebanese govt. It's only talking to Abbass instead of the elected Palestinian Government..! Why would Israel have such a hypocritical position. Circumventing the Palestinian Govt, but refusing to circumvent the lebanese govt.......


As I mentioned Iran DOES NOT control Hizbullah. Israel gets a lot more support in comparison from the USA, be it financial, political or moral support. Regardless, America does not control Israel. It's exactly the same with Hizbullah, they are a party elected by non-Iranian people in an area far detached from Iran.

[pelsar]

65. israel is not seen as the enemy by many of lebanese...

those who support hizballa see israel as such.....(i guess you dont know that until 2000 many lebanese worked in israel-among everything else you didnt know)

i guess you seem to be ignoring little facts about hizballa, in that iran actually pays the saleries, sends the weapons, trains them etc....your attempts to compare israel and america to hizballa and iran fall a bit short. Hizballa is a militia whos armed wing is not part of the lebanese army, whos urban center is a "no go area" for the lebanese security and armed forces...but these seem to mean nothing to you.

if you really want to learn about hizballas "state within a state" perhaps you should hit the lebanese blogs. It seems most of them see hizballa as the enemy far more than israel. (but hey, what do they know about lebanese politics...).

i just find it interesting that you think israel should circumvent the lebanese govt...do you believe this for all govts and their internal militias as well?.....should the KKK have a foreign policy?... the white knights?

and you have avoided my questions 2x already:

what would any peace talks with lebanon consist of?

what would negotiations with hizballa be about?....(what does israel have that hizballa/lebanon demands?)

and why was hizballa attacking israel for the last 6 years?

[pelsar]

22. double n/t