- #351
desA
- 90
- 0
So, if Hizbollah is *not* a terrorist organisation, then why is it shooting rockets into Israel, under no provocation, other than the existence of the State of Israel?
desA said:So, if Hizbollah is *not* a terrorist organisation, then why is it shooting rockets into Israel, under no provocation, other than the existence of the State of Israel?
We have this rule here that says to making claims like that you need to be able to back them up. Eluding to proof doesn't cut it.Yonoz said:A UNIFIL officer admitted it in an interview to an Israeli newspaper.
Less than perfection isn't failure, it is reality.Yonoz said:...and has failed even at that task.
Israel is guilty of what you said, sitting back and waiting.Yonoz said:I'll quote the relevant part since you seem unable to find it:
BTW, that's some wonderful logic there. So Israel is guilty of Hizbullah attacking it now. I guess it's all part of some grand conspiracy.
You are the one that said "more than fair offers"; now you want to chastise me for asking for elaboration on your claim? Negotiation doesn't work with less than fair offers.Yonoz said:All Israel can do at this stage is make an offer that would get Hamas to the table. Then, Hamas will demand more - what will Israel do then? Negotiations don't start and end with a single offer. Israel has made more than fair offers to the Palestinians numerous times and every time they continued the terrorism. Israel's policy is that it does not negotiate with those actively participating in terrorism. I think that it's only fair to demand the cessation of terrorism and recognition of our right to exist before beginning negotiations. Then a broader agreement can be reached.
kyleb said:You said the green line is far, I agree; so when did Israel ever show the intention to make that fair offer, let alone more?
Yonoz said:More? So now you want more than a fair offer? And you want Israel to offer it to someone who does not even stop attacking its civilians? This is why it's never offered UNTIL THE NEGOTIATION ACTUALLY BEGINS. Get it into your head.
Oh please. Why don't you bear the burden of proof this time and show me one instance where UNIFIL has stopped aggression.kyleb said:Less than perfection isn't failure, it is reality.
I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.kyleb said:Israel is guilty of what you said, sitting back and waiting.
You can refer to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1043650&postcount=344" for elaboration. If both sides made fair offers at the start there would be no need for need for negotiations, no?kyleb said:You are the one that said "more than fair offers"; now you want to chastise me for asking for elaboration on your claim? Negotiation doesn't work with less than fair offers.
Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon. When Hizbullah attacked, Israel was not occupying Lebanese territory. Maybe, Hizbullah is claiming that the Israelis are occupying Israel?abdo375 said:Since when is resisting occupation a terrorist act ?
AFAIK, Israel was not bombing Hizbullah. Hizbullah attacked Israel and kidnapped two soldiers. What was the provocation?If they did that, they would be giving up their only bargaining chip. Even if they did release the prisoners, that would not stop Israel from bombing them. Israel has even said this themselves, so I see no reason why it would be in their interests to do so.
Yonoz said:I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.
Two months ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel surprised many when he announced that his government would accept the 1978 U.N. resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Lebanon.
What's your point? kyleb asked me to present the Israeli appeals to the UN to avoid this crisis. Now you're criticizing that too? Do you think Israel should have sat quietly while Hizbullah arms itself and attacks it?cyrusabdollahi said:So, does the UN only apply when Israel wants it to? I guess UNSC425 does not apply to Israel?
I hadn't read Astronuc's complete post that was partly quoted by abdo. I thought he was referring to Hamas because of his argument about resisting occupation.cyrusabdollahi said:Actually, only the US and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hamas is in palestine, not Lebanon.
Edit: Excuse me, and by Canada and Uk.
What are they bargaining for? The end of some illegal occupation or the release of imprisoned militants? To the best of my knowledge, Israel is not an occupier as far as any Hizbullah controlled territory is involved. Ergo, Hizbullah is not (today) resisting any occupation. So, for abdo to say so is setting up a strawman (unless I'm mistaken, and Israel has not completely pulled out of Lebanon).If they did that, they would be giving up their only bargaining chip.
Perhaps my history is lacking. Didn't Israel completely pull out of southern Lebanon in accordance with UNSC425?cyrusabdollahi said:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/lebwith.html
So, does the UN only apply when Israel wants it to? I guess UNSC425 does not apply to Israel?
Morning Edition, July 21, 2006 · Judith Palmer Harik, a retired political science professor at the American University of Beirut, assesses U.S. diplomatic options in the region. She tells John Ydstie that few officials in the Middle East are willing to reign in Hezbollah, or have the influence to do so.
------------------------------------------------Weekend Edition - Saturday, July 22, 2006 · Israeli forces confronted Hezbollah guerillas inside Lebanon on Saturday with limited but fierce engagements. At the same time, both sides continued trading aerial bombardments on the conflict's 11th day.
The return of the bodies comes as the U.N. Security Council accused Hezbollah of starting this week's attacks. In a statement on Wednesday, the council appealed for restraint.
But Lebanon's government, of which Hezbollah is a coalition partner, backed the guerrillas despite the international pressure.
Gokul43201 said:Perhaps my history is lacking. Didn't Israel completely pull out of southern Lebanon in accordance with UNSC425?
Yonoz said:What's your point? kyleb asked me to present the Israeli appeals to the UN to avoid this crisis. Now you're criticizing that too? Do you think Israel should have sat quietly while Hizbullah arms itself and attacks it?
Whatever path Israel takes, it will always be blamed, even when it is being attacked. Perhaps you should ask yourself what are the real reasons for your criticism.
Hizbullah is not the Lebanese defence force. In its current form it has no place in a sovereign country. The Israeli occupation ended 6 years ago. Hizbullah has initiated attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets on Israeli soil countless times since then. By your logic no conflict can ever end. You're also forgetting there's one more country that has occupied Lebanon and was removed after assasinating an elected Lebanese head of state. I don't see anyone firing rockets on their civilians. I think you should take Hizbullah's declarations with a grain, or perhaps even an entire bag of salt.cyrusabdollahi said:Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?
It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task. Israel is actually demanding that the Lebanese military be deployed across the border.cyrusabdollahi said:Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again with UN support? Of course they are going to arm themselves.
That's good but I think you should examine every party's motives with a little more scrutiny. Astronuc has posted some insightful interviews a few pages back, I suggest you listen to them and do some research.cyrusabdollahi said:I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.
so you think it's still Hizbullah's right to launch rockets on israel civilians and capture israeli soldiers even after israel has withdrawn from lebanon? (which they occupide only to stop the fire in the first place by the way...)cyrusabdollahi said:Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?
Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again without UN support?
You are the one who claimed they failed, which puts a huge burdon of proof on you to show their guard doesn't stop any majorty of illegal boarder crossing.Yonoz said:Oh please. Why don't you bear the burden of proof this time and show me one instance where UNIFIL has stopped aggression.
And in doing so you have effectively admitted that Isarel did not pursue reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack. What you showed was Israel signing on to statements that the job wasn't getting done rather than presenting a plan for the job to get done.Yonoz said:I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.
Fair offers are needed to start negotiations, from there good negotiations can lead to both sides coming to an agreement that they find more than fair. The contentious lowballing with no displayed intent to ever make a fair offer is what is keeping such an agreement from being reached.Yonoz said:You can refer to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1043650&postcount=344" for elaboration. If both sides made fair offers at the start there would be no need for need for negotiations, no?
As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:Yonoz said:It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task.
What sort of perspective were you going for? Were you just trying to remind us of the militants' attitudes, or arguing that this really is part of the bigger picture?cyrusabdollahi said:I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.
Are you responding to "it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task", or "It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon ... it is the Lebanese government that should do this"?kyleb said:As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:Yonoz said:It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task.
I've shown that they failed to prevent at least 3 major escalations. That's 3/3, which is pretty much a failure in my book. If you wish to contend that, all I ask is that you find one single instance in which UNIFIL has done anything short of failure. Just one. Should prove an easy task.kyleb said:You are the one who claimed they failed, which puts a huge burdon of proof on you to show their guard doesn't stop any majorty of illegal boarder crossing.
Perhaps Israel should also supply the troops with uniforms, weapons and training?kyleb said:And in doing so you have effectively admitted that Isarel did not pursue reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack. What you showed was Israel signing on to statements that the job wasn't getting done rather than presenting a plan for the job to get done.
Article 37
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
That's been covered already, and you seem to conveniently ignore the facts that Israel has made some widely recognised genuinely generous offers, as well as unilateral withdrawls and acts of good faith and in return the other parties never ceased to undermine Israel's right to exist in peace by actively pursuing terrorism against its civilians.kyleb said:Fair offers are needed to start negotiations, from there good negotiations can lead to both sides coming to an agreement that they find more than fair. The contentious lowballing with no displayed intent to ever make a fair offer is what is keeping such an agreement from being reached.
I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion from the article. Have you even read it?kyleb said:As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060303-lebanon-military.htm
Yonoz said:Hizbullah is not the Lebanese defence force. In its current form it has no place in a sovereign country. The Israeli occupation ended 6 years ago. Hizbullah has initiated attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets on Israeli soil countless times since then. By your logic no conflict can ever end. You're also forgetting there's one more country that has occupied Lebanon and was removed after assasinating an elected Lebanese head of state. I don't see anyone firing rockets on their civilians. I think you should take Hizbullah's declarations with a grain, or perhaps even an entire bag of salt. It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task. Israel is actually demanding that the Lebanese military be deployed across the border.
That's good but I think you should examine every party's motives with a little more scrutiny. Astronuc has posted some insightful interviews a few pages back, I suggest you listen to them and do some research.
Hurkyl said:What sort of perspective were you going for? Were you just trying to remind us of the militants' attitudes, or arguing that this really is part of the bigger picture?
That's highly flawed reasoning. If I decide my military isn't strong enough, can I buy rockets and launch them at civilian targets without provocation? No, that's my government's role. Israel shouldn't pay the price for the Lebanese government's internal affairs. Furthermore, Israel has no interest to attack Lebanon out of the blue - I'm not sure you're in on this little secret so I'm letting you know now.cyrusabdollahi said:Sure, I agree that Hezbollah is not their defense force and that the Lebanese government should play that role. But the Lebanese military simply does not have that capability. So without Hezbollah, who is going to stand up to defend the country? There in lies one of the problems with Israel's solution, they want to leave Lebanon practically defenseless.
It certainly doesn't seem so.cyrusabdollahi said:Trust me, I do.
You're pretty much legitimizing Hizbullah's terrorist attack. I never said Israel has always done it's best to find peace, but as far as this conflict is concerned, I'm convinced it has.cyrusabdollahi said:I am not for support of Hezbollah, but at the same time I won't stand here before you and say that Israel has always done it's best to find peace. It has not.
Yonoz said:That's highly flawed reasoning. If I decide my military isn't strong enough, can I buy rockets and launch them at civilian targets without provocation? No, that's my government's role. Israel shouldn't pay the price for the Lebanese government's internal affairs. Furthermore, Israel has no interest to attack Lebanon out of the blue - I'm not sure you're in on this little secret so I'm letting you know now.
It certainly doesn't seem so.
You're pretty much legitimizing Hizbullah's terrorist attack. I never said Israel has always done it's best to find peace, but as far as this conflict is concerned, I'm convinced it has.
Sure, a quick Google search makes it an easy task; old examples they are are, but 150 strong in showing that the UNIFIL's job involves much more than the 3 instances you criticize them for:Yonoz said:I've shown that they failed to prevent at least 3 major escalations. That's 3/3, which is pretty much a failure in my book. If you wish to contend that, all I ask is that you find one single instance in which UNIFIL has done anything short of failure. Just one. Should prove an easy task.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/HomePage2...C12-4C5A-8B40-5732F02635A0}&NRCACHEHINT=Guest...UNIFIL stopped some 40 major infiltration attempts, involving 140 terrorists. By contrast, paragraph 36 of the Secretary-General's report for the period from June to December 1979, document S/13691 of 14 December 1979, mentions 110 infiltration attempts involving almost 800 terrorists...
I said a plan. The UN charter doesn't restrict you from presenting a plan, and a plan is what could have went towards preventing this current conflict.Yonoz said:Perhaps Israel should also supply the troops with uniforms, weapons and training?
Please do some research before making silly claims like that, Israel is not the executive branch of the United Nations, and has no authority nor responsibility for planning multinational forces - there's plenty of overpaid UN personnel that are meant to come up with a plan. Since you expect me to spoon-feed you with basic research to support each and every sentence, here it is straight from the horse's mouth (0.5 seconds on google):
From the http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/"
I'm standing by the fact that the widely reported "generous offers" are less that what you claimed and I agreed is fair.Yonoz said:That's been covered already, and you seem to conveniently ignore the facts that Israel has made some widely recognised genuinely generous offers, as well as unilateral withdrawls and acts of good faith...
Not just the other parties, your continuing occupation and expansion undermines the Palestinian right to exist and you have some extremists on your side who engage in terrorism on Palestinian civilians as well.Yonoz said:...and in return the other parties never ceased to undermine Israel's right to exist in peace by actively pursuing terrorism against its civilians.
Ahem:Yonoz said:I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion from the article. Have you even read it?
As I said, they weren't in the postion to deal with the problem.Yonoz said:"The larger question is: Who is their enemy? Are they looking at Israel? Al-Qaida? Syria? ... In our minds, this is the army that sooner or later will have to stand up to the armed branch of Hezbollah. ... And right now, it's a military (whose equipment) may be too large and too heavily armored for the threats around them," Kimmitt said.
Then what did you mean by this:cyrusabdollahi said:What!? No, I never said they could buy rockets and launch them at civilan targets! Far from it, they have no right to do that. And for that reason, as I said before, I have no problem with Israel acting in response. I just do not like the method they chose to use.
Again, when did I ever say their attacks were acceptable? I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth.
cyrusabdollahi said:Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?
It is if there are weapons hidden inside those buildings that will be used to attack civilians.cyrusabdollahi said:As for this conflict, bombing civilian buildings is not the best way to achieve peace, no?
The only thing needed to disarm Hizbullah is a decision by the Lebanese government that it will not allow anyone to hijack its decision making. The world will be more than happy to help them.cyrusabdollahi said:Edit: Perhaps I was not clear. I was saying that Hezbollah is the only real force to defend Lebanon. Their military can do some, but not a whole heck of a lot. That's not the same thing as saying Hezbollah can launch offensive attacks.
Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?
It is if there are weapons hidden inside those buildings that will be used to attack civilians.
The only thing needed to disarm Hizbullah is a decision by the Lebanese government that it will not allow anyone to hijack its decision making. The world will be more than happy to help them.
Oh, I agree - and I've said this before - that the UN has been way lax in holding Israel's feet to the fire. But they've been way lax with holding anyone's feet to the fire.cyrusabdollahi said:The resolution was passed in 1978, they withdrew in 2000 only because the occupation was not going so well.
Perhaps they were relevant back in 1980, the year that document saw light. Hizbullah was 2 years old back then. I still contend that they're irrelevant today.kyleb said:Sure, a quick Google search makes it an easy task; old examples they are are, but 150 strong in showing that the UNIFIL's job involves much more than the 3 instances you criticize them for
You fail to see the point. UN peacekeeping forces are formed de-facto. How can Israel come up with a plan without the authority to divert budgets, provide supplies and most of all - when it hasn't been decided where the troops will come from? Should Israel provide those as well?kyleb said:I said a plan. The UN charter doesn't restrict you from presenting a plan, and a plan is what could have went towards preventing this current conflict.
You can keep standing there. I'll be right here with all the others that have achieved the amazing feat of grasping the difficult concept of N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.kyleb said:I'm standing by the fact that the widely reported "generous offers" are less that what you claimed and I agreed is fair.
I don't know how much more proof you need that Israel recognises the Palestinian's right for an independent state alongside Israel, but that doesn't matter since apparently you know better than I the inner workings of the Israeli borg-like conscience.kyleb said:Not just the other parties, your continuing occupation and expansion undermines the Palestinian right to exist and you have some extremists on your side who engage in terrorism on Palestinian civilians as well.
Do you believe an array of ground to ground rockets that are too inaccurate to fire at anything short of a population center to be a defensive weapon?cyrusabdollahi said:Ah, perhaps that is not clear.
They have the same right to stand up and defend their homeland. Note, I said to defend, not to go out and start wars.
I've already posted a link to one movie showing a vehicle used to launch rockets hidden in a mosque. Here's another http://video.nrg.co.il/lib/wmv/558/082.wmv" . About 8m 45s into the video you can see an example of some of the tedious intelligence work needed for this campaign. It shows a room in several stages of construction, used to hide a medium range rocket. It's hard for anyone with no experience in analyzing aerial photographs to identify the rocket and the picture quality isn't great (it's a live recording of a projected image) but it only serves as an example. Pardon me if I can't show you more specific details of intelligence work. If anything else shows up on the media I'll be sure to post it here.cyrusabdollahi said:Well, I for one would like to see these weapons. So far, I have only seen peoples houses being destroyed.
Yonoz said:Do you believe an array of ground to ground rockets that are too inaccurate to fire at anything short of a population center to be a defensive weapon?
I've already posted a link to one movie showing a vehicle used to launch rockets hidden in a mosque. Here's another http://video.nrg.co.il/lib/wmv/558/082.wmv" . About 8m 45s into the video you can see an example of some of the tedious intelligence work needed for this campaign. It shows a room in several stages of construction, used to hide a medium range rocket. It's hard for anyone with no experience in analyzing aerial photographs to identify the rocket and the picture quality isn't great (it's a live recording of a projected image) but it only serves as an example. Pardon me if I can't show you more specific details of intelligence work. If anything else shows up on the media I'll be sure to post it here.
Well, let's think it through.cyrusabdollahi said:Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?
Incidentally, I don't know what sort of damage a tactical strike does these days. Do you know where I could find info on that?