Azure:
"July 12, 2006 - Hezbollah launches rockets across the Lebanense border, targetting several Israeli border towns, and then stages an attack in which three Israeli soldiers are killed and two more kidnapped."
ZN:
"So the reason Hezbollah crossed into Israel killed 8 soldiers and took two hostage as they were shelling the Israeli town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms is simply to exchange prisoners."
Have you been saving up that post all week, accumulating links to articles that confirm what in your historical ignorance you hope will be confirmed?
To begin with, the Palestinians who captured an Israeli soldier did so in response to Israel's kidnap of two Palestinian civilians. And, see, that's the difference between "capture" and "kidnap" - one involves combatants, the other civilians.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76854
Now to those infamous "guest star rockets".
I see the "evidence" you use for these claims that Hezbollah was firing rockets at Israeli towns and citizens comes from various journalists and news outlets...CNN...BBC...etc who do not site their sources (one can guess of course)....."from a random search on Google" as you inform us.
The question therefore arises: why have you left out the main and most authoratitve report on Hezbollah actions during this period, that being the UN Secretary General`s based on reports from UN Observers at the border? Yes, from people actually on the ground there. Guess it didn`t occur to you to look for the UN Observer`s reports eh, in your "random search on Google"? Maybe you are unaware that UN Observers have been observing...in which case I ask what the hell you are doing debating about the Middle East if you didn`t.
quote (from Lebanon War Question and Answer by by Stephen R. Shalom ):
"Here is the complete list of Katyusha and other rockets launched from Lebanon against civilian areas of Israel between May 2000, when Israel announced its withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and July 12, 2006, as derived from reports of the UN Secretary General based on reports from UN observers at the border.(4)
31 March 2002
3
no damage or casualties mentioned
probably launched by Palestinians
2 April 2002
at least 1
no damage or casualties mentioned
unknown elements
6 April 2002
4
5 civilians wounded in divided border village of Ghajar
"suspected Palestinian shooters"
7 October 2003
3
2 landed in Lebanon killing a child; 1 landed in Israel causing no damage or casualties
"unidentified elements"
7 June 2004
3-4
none hit Israel
"unidentified elements presumed likely to be Palestinians"
9 Oct. 2004
1
no casualties or property damage
"generally believed to be Palestinian militants"
28 Oct. 2004
1
no casualties or property damage
"generally believed to be Palestinian militants"
15 Nov. 2004
1
no casualties or property damage
"generally believed to be Palestinian militants"
11 May 2005
1
property damage, no casualties
"unidentified armed elements"
12 May 2005
2
"no impact reported by UNIFIL. While UNIFIL was unable to verify this claim, local residents reported hearing explosions."
IDF[c] claimed Hezbollah responsible
25 Aug. 2005
2
no casualties
Hezbollah denied
responsibility; Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility
27 Dec. 2005
4
some damage, no casualties
those responsible not identified, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in Iraq claimed responsibility.
28 May 2006 a.m.
at least 8
3 landed in IDF position, wounding one [unclear where others aimed; no other casualties or injuries mentioned]
Hezbollah denied involve-ment. Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Lebanon initially claimed responsibility in retaliation for the killing of a leading member in Lebanon and his brother on 26 May. The claim was retracted later that day.[d]
28 May 2006 p.m.
rocket fire
no Israeli civilian casualties mentioned
"unidentified armed elements fired small arms" wounding one IDF soldier. No claim of responsibility, and Hezbollah denied any involvement. The incident triggered a major exchange of fire. The IDF used air strikes, artillery, mortar, and tank fire, wounding two Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah "responded with rocket, mortar and small-arms fire."
22 July 2006
"several"
none mentioned[e]
Hezbollah, as part of a diversion for its cross-border abduction operation
4. Rockets fired at "IDF positions" are excluded from this list of attacks on civilians. Compiled from the following Security Council documents: S/2000/718, 20 July 2000; S/2000/1049, 31 Oct. 2000; S/2001/66, 22 Jan. 2001; S/2001/423, 30 Apr. 2001; S/2001/714, 20 July 2001; S/2002/55, 16 Jan. 2002; S/2002/746, 12 July 2002; S/2003/38, 14 Jan. 2003; S/2003/728, 23 July 2003; S/2004/50, 20 Jan. 2004; S/2004/572, 21 July 2004; S/2004/572.Add.1, 21 July 2004; S/2005/36, 20 Jan. 2005; S/2005/460*, 21 July 2005; S/2006/26, 18 Jan. 2006; and S/2006/560, 21 July 2006."
h://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10721
Now, I suggest you go trawl through the full reports to verify this summary is indeed an acurrate account of the UN Observers reports to the UN Secretary General, they are even more informative and will put you right Azure when you foolishly cite reports like the following...
"September 2003: Israeli warplanes hit southern Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's firing antiaircraft missiles at Israeli planes in the area."
...as some sort of justification for Israel`s actions. Violating Lebanese airspace is a crime in International Law and it happened thousands of times, low flying and creating sonic booms over populated areas. If they were fired upon, they were inviting it.
Finally, on the above summary of rockets fired from lebanon, you will note, as does the author of the article:
"This table makes a number of points clear. First, Not a single Israeli civilian was killed by a rocket from Lebanon from May 2000 to July 12, 2006. And second, until May 28, 2006, there was not a single confirmed rocket fired at civilians by Hezbollah. (True, in some of the cases where the responsible party was unidentified, it might have been Hezbollah, but that's inconsistent with the group's usual policy of proudly taking responsibility for its attacks.) Often the perpetrators were Palestinians, responding to events in Palestine (for example, the bloody Israeli offensive on the West Bank in Spring 2002)."
So, let`s get one thing clear, there was no "special guest star" Hezbollah rockets fired at Israeli towns and civilians until AFTER the "crisis" in which Israel started bombing Lebanon.
Those who claim this on this forum (AmateurScientist among others) are dishing up to readers a blatent falsehood. It`s cheap Israeli propaganda and needs exposed.
"July 12, 2006 - Hezbollah launches rockets across the Lebanense border, targetting several Israeli border towns, and then stages an attack in which three Israeli soldiers are killed and two more kidnapped."
ZN:
"So the reason Hezbollah crossed into Israel killed 8 soldiers and took two hostage as they were shelling the Israeli town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms is simply to exchange prisoners."
Have you been saving up that post all week, accumulating links to articles that confirm what in your historical ignorance you hope will be confirmed?
To begin with, the Palestinians who captured an Israeli soldier did so in response to Israel's kidnap of two Palestinian civilians. And, see, that's the difference between "capture" and "kidnap" - one involves combatants, the other civilians.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76854
Now to those infamous "guest star rockets".
I see the "evidence" you use for these claims that Hezbollah was firing rockets at Israeli towns and citizens comes from various journalists and news outlets...CNN...BBC...etc who do not site their sources (one can guess of course)....."from a random search on Google" as you inform us.
The question therefore arises: why have you left out the main and most authoratitve report on Hezbollah actions during this period, that being the UN Secretary General`s based on reports from UN Observers at the border? Yes, from people actually on the ground there. Guess it didn`t occur to you to look for the UN Observer`s reports eh, in your "random search on Google"? Maybe you are unaware that UN Observers have been observing...in which case I ask what the hell you are doing debating about the Middle East if you didn`t.
quote (from Lebanon War Question and Answer by by Stephen R. Shalom ):
"Here is the complete list of Katyusha and other rockets launched from Lebanon against civilian areas of Israel between May 2000, when Israel announced its withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and July 12, 2006, as derived from reports of the UN Secretary General based on reports from UN observers at the border.(4)
31 March 2002
3
no damage or casualties mentioned
probably launched by Palestinians
2 April 2002
at least 1
no damage or casualties mentioned
unknown elements
6 April 2002
4
5 civilians wounded in divided border village of Ghajar
"suspected Palestinian shooters"
7 October 2003
3
2 landed in Lebanon killing a child; 1 landed in Israel causing no damage or casualties
"unidentified elements"
7 June 2004
3-4
none hit Israel
"unidentified elements presumed likely to be Palestinians"
9 Oct. 2004
1
no casualties or property damage
"generally believed to be Palestinian militants"
28 Oct. 2004
1
no casualties or property damage
"generally believed to be Palestinian militants"
15 Nov. 2004
1
no casualties or property damage
"generally believed to be Palestinian militants"
11 May 2005
1
property damage, no casualties
"unidentified armed elements"
12 May 2005
2
"no impact reported by UNIFIL. While UNIFIL was unable to verify this claim, local residents reported hearing explosions."
IDF[c] claimed Hezbollah responsible
25 Aug. 2005
2
no casualties
Hezbollah denied
responsibility; Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility
27 Dec. 2005
4
some damage, no casualties
those responsible not identified, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in Iraq claimed responsibility.
28 May 2006 a.m.
at least 8
3 landed in IDF position, wounding one [unclear where others aimed; no other casualties or injuries mentioned]
Hezbollah denied involve-ment. Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Lebanon initially claimed responsibility in retaliation for the killing of a leading member in Lebanon and his brother on 26 May. The claim was retracted later that day.[d]
28 May 2006 p.m.
rocket fire
no Israeli civilian casualties mentioned
"unidentified armed elements fired small arms" wounding one IDF soldier. No claim of responsibility, and Hezbollah denied any involvement. The incident triggered a major exchange of fire. The IDF used air strikes, artillery, mortar, and tank fire, wounding two Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah "responded with rocket, mortar and small-arms fire."
22 July 2006
"several"
none mentioned[e]
Hezbollah, as part of a diversion for its cross-border abduction operation
4. Rockets fired at "IDF positions" are excluded from this list of attacks on civilians. Compiled from the following Security Council documents: S/2000/718, 20 July 2000; S/2000/1049, 31 Oct. 2000; S/2001/66, 22 Jan. 2001; S/2001/423, 30 Apr. 2001; S/2001/714, 20 July 2001; S/2002/55, 16 Jan. 2002; S/2002/746, 12 July 2002; S/2003/38, 14 Jan. 2003; S/2003/728, 23 July 2003; S/2004/50, 20 Jan. 2004; S/2004/572, 21 July 2004; S/2004/572.Add.1, 21 July 2004; S/2005/36, 20 Jan. 2005; S/2005/460*, 21 July 2005; S/2006/26, 18 Jan. 2006; and S/2006/560, 21 July 2006."
h://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10721
Now, I suggest you go trawl through the full reports to verify this summary is indeed an acurrate account of the UN Observers reports to the UN Secretary General, they are even more informative and will put you right Azure when you foolishly cite reports like the following...
"September 2003: Israeli warplanes hit southern Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's firing antiaircraft missiles at Israeli planes in the area."
...as some sort of justification for Israel`s actions. Violating Lebanese airspace is a crime in International Law and it happened thousands of times, low flying and creating sonic booms over populated areas. If they were fired upon, they were inviting it.
Finally, on the above summary of rockets fired from lebanon, you will note, as does the author of the article:
"This table makes a number of points clear. First, Not a single Israeli civilian was killed by a rocket from Lebanon from May 2000 to July 12, 2006. And second, until May 28, 2006, there was not a single confirmed rocket fired at civilians by Hezbollah. (True, in some of the cases where the responsible party was unidentified, it might have been Hezbollah, but that's inconsistent with the group's usual policy of proudly taking responsibility for its attacks.) Often the perpetrators were Palestinians, responding to events in Palestine (for example, the bloody Israeli offensive on the West Bank in Spring 2002)."
So, let`s get one thing clear, there was no "special guest star" Hezbollah rockets fired at Israeli towns and civilians until AFTER the "crisis" in which Israel started bombing Lebanon.
Those who claim this on this forum (AmateurScientist among others) are dishing up to readers a blatent falsehood. It`s cheap Israeli propaganda and needs exposed.
Last edited:
Azure:
More on your claims that:
"...three Israeli soldiers are killed and two more kidnapped."
Let me first refer you to the fact that IDF soldiers were not "kidnapped", it is actually a legal case of "capture", their official status is POW, and they were not "kidnapped".
To clarify a major and fundamental difference, the term "kidnap" is commonly used for civilian captures (or "abduction", a term I have been guilty of using concerning the IDF soldiers...no more though); "capture" is the term commonly used for the capture of non-civilians, or soldiers/militia. The capture of Palestinian MPs, by common usage, should be referred to as "kidnap" or "abduction"; the capture of all soldiers/militia, by common usage should be referred to as simply "capture".
According to Ramzy Baroud of Aljazeera.Net
"One of America’s top and most courageous international law professors wrote me yesterday: “Insist on calling Gilad Shalit a prisoner of war, for he is one.” Well, maybe according to international law and the Geneva Conventions, but not CNN, Fox News and the increasingly spineless BBC, which insists on presenting the solider (with an overt emphasis on his young age) as a victim, who was “kidnapped” by Palestinian “militants”, who are “affiliated” with the Hamas government, and that Israel is doing its outmost to free him, insisting that there can be “no negotiations with terrorists.”
he goes on to say:
"But if that indeed was the case, then how can one excuse the fact that the same media that coined the term “kidnapping” to describe the action of the Palestinian fighters who captured Shalit, refused to use the same association to describe the kidnapping of most of the elected Palestinian Cabinet"
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=85220&d=12&m=7&y=2006
You might also mention that the groups that are holding the Israeli soldier have asked for Israel to release the women and children that it is illegally holding. Israel regularly kidnaps and imprisons Palestinian children, with hundreds in Israeli jails at any given time. They are subject to torture and have even resorted to hunger strikes to win basic rights.
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/camp/freedom/display.cfm?docid=243&categoryid=14
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4970
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73CFFDDD-0953-46FE-92CC-6BBBE42ABE97.htm
Somehow supporters of Israel - which has kidnapped almost the entire elected Palestinian cabinet, blown up bridges and power stations in Gaza, killed dozens and dozens of innocent civilians since the capture of the soldier - somehow those like you never manage to mention that because an Israeli life is, as Israeli leaders say, worth more than a Palestinian life.
More on your claims that:
"...three Israeli soldiers are killed and two more kidnapped."
Let me first refer you to the fact that IDF soldiers were not "kidnapped", it is actually a legal case of "capture", their official status is POW, and they were not "kidnapped".
To clarify a major and fundamental difference, the term "kidnap" is commonly used for civilian captures (or "abduction", a term I have been guilty of using concerning the IDF soldiers...no more though); "capture" is the term commonly used for the capture of non-civilians, or soldiers/militia. The capture of Palestinian MPs, by common usage, should be referred to as "kidnap" or "abduction"; the capture of all soldiers/militia, by common usage should be referred to as simply "capture".
According to Ramzy Baroud of Aljazeera.Net
"One of America’s top and most courageous international law professors wrote me yesterday: “Insist on calling Gilad Shalit a prisoner of war, for he is one.” Well, maybe according to international law and the Geneva Conventions, but not CNN, Fox News and the increasingly spineless BBC, which insists on presenting the solider (with an overt emphasis on his young age) as a victim, who was “kidnapped” by Palestinian “militants”, who are “affiliated” with the Hamas government, and that Israel is doing its outmost to free him, insisting that there can be “no negotiations with terrorists.”
he goes on to say:
"But if that indeed was the case, then how can one excuse the fact that the same media that coined the term “kidnapping” to describe the action of the Palestinian fighters who captured Shalit, refused to use the same association to describe the kidnapping of most of the elected Palestinian Cabinet"
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=85220&d=12&m=7&y=2006
You might also mention that the groups that are holding the Israeli soldier have asked for Israel to release the women and children that it is illegally holding. Israel regularly kidnaps and imprisons Palestinian children, with hundreds in Israeli jails at any given time. They are subject to torture and have even resorted to hunger strikes to win basic rights.
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/camp/freedom/display.cfm?docid=243&categoryid=14
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4970
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73CFFDDD-0953-46FE-92CC-6BBBE42ABE97.htm
Somehow supporters of Israel - which has kidnapped almost the entire elected Palestinian cabinet, blown up bridges and power stations in Gaza, killed dozens and dozens of innocent civilians since the capture of the soldier - somehow those like you never manage to mention that because an Israeli life is, as Israeli leaders say, worth more than a Palestinian life.
ZN and bignickel:
What's more, nobody would so foolishly argue that Israel just attacks the Palestinians and Lebanese because they are "bored" or come "out of the blue". There are very good reasons the Israelis attack them.
I'll let the great leaders of Zionism speak for themselves:
Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:
"With compulsory transfer [of the Palestinians] we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)
In September 1967 Moshe Dayan told senior staff in the Israeli Occupation Army in the West Bank that some 200,000 Palestinian Arabs had left the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
"we must understand the motives and causes of the continued emigration of the [Palestinian] Arabs, from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and not to undermine these cause after all, we want to create a new map." (Righteous Victims, p. 338)
And in April 1973 from the peaks of Massada he proclaimed a vision:
"a new State of Israel with broad frontiers, strong and solid, with the authority of the Israel Government extending from the Jordan [river] to the Suez Canal." (Iron Wall, p. 316)
In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49 & Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
In an interview with the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html
What's more, nobody would so foolishly argue that Israel just attacks the Palestinians and Lebanese because they are "bored" or come "out of the blue". There are very good reasons the Israelis attack them.
I'll let the great leaders of Zionism speak for themselves:
Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:
"With compulsory transfer [of the Palestinians] we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)
In September 1967 Moshe Dayan told senior staff in the Israeli Occupation Army in the West Bank that some 200,000 Palestinian Arabs had left the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
"we must understand the motives and causes of the continued emigration of the [Palestinian] Arabs, from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and not to undermine these cause after all, we want to create a new map." (Righteous Victims, p. 338)
And in April 1973 from the peaks of Massada he proclaimed a vision:
"a new State of Israel with broad frontiers, strong and solid, with the authority of the Israel Government extending from the Jordan [river] to the Suez Canal." (Iron Wall, p. 316)
In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49 & Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
In an interview with the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Zionist air-brushing of history is no new phaenomenon, but the terrorisation of northern Israel by Hizbullah rockets just a couple of months back is a new departure. Why were they not reported at the time? Anti-semitism?
Hizbullah's intention to take Israeli prisoners to exchange for the last few Lebanese prisoners held in Israel have been no secret for years. That bone of contention could have been removed by unilaterally releasing the prisoners at any time, and the other bone - the Sheba'a farms district - has proven not to be of any strategic significance despite previous claims. The most obvious conlusion is that Israel ensured that there would still be bones of contention remaining after their retreat from Southern Lebanon in 2000 that would ultimately be used to justify destructive retribution for that defeat.
Hizbullah's intention to take Israeli prisoners to exchange for the last few Lebanese prisoners held in Israel have been no secret for years. That bone of contention could have been removed by unilaterally releasing the prisoners at any time, and the other bone - the Sheba'a farms district - has proven not to be of any strategic significance despite previous claims. The most obvious conlusion is that Israel ensured that there would still be bones of contention remaining after their retreat from Southern Lebanon in 2000 that would ultimately be used to justify destructive retribution for that defeat.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,759
1. HAMAS leaders are being 'arrested' as members of a terror organization.
They are not being held as hostages, and they may or may not face charges, depending on the Israeli judicial system's decisions.
2. The soldiers of the IDF are hostages --- kidnapped by terroristic pirates, for ransom. Clearly not POW's -- and they have not even had the courtesy of visitation of Red Cross. Anybody telling you they were legitimately 'captured in war' is lying.
3. demon proposes his own version:So, let`s get one thing clear, there was no "special guest star" Hezbollah rockets fired at Israeli towns and civilians until AFTER the "crisis" in which Israel started bombing Lebanon.
NO.
The village of SHLOMI's peaceful calm was shattered on the morning of July 12th. These rockets were launched into Israel totally unprovoked, and it was an act of outright war.
By Hezbollah.
They claimed responsibility.
"Hizballah also claimed responsibility for two separate Katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli towns resulting in the death of 1 civilian and the injury of 25 others."
By the way, the Lebanon timeline is not finished.
Not quite yet!
An Israel Defense Forces officer was killed and two other officers were wounded - one seriously - during a commando raid near the Hezbollah stronghold of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon early Saturday A.M.
They are not being held as hostages, and they may or may not face charges, depending on the Israeli judicial system's decisions.
2. The soldiers of the IDF are hostages --- kidnapped by terroristic pirates, for ransom. Clearly not POW's -- and they have not even had the courtesy of visitation of Red Cross. Anybody telling you they were legitimately 'captured in war' is lying.
3. demon proposes his own version:So, let`s get one thing clear, there was no "special guest star" Hezbollah rockets fired at Israeli towns and civilians until AFTER the "crisis" in which Israel started bombing Lebanon.
NO.
The village of SHLOMI's peaceful calm was shattered on the morning of July 12th. These rockets were launched into Israel totally unprovoked, and it was an act of outright war.
By Hezbollah.
They claimed responsibility.
"Hizballah also claimed responsibility for two separate Katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli towns resulting in the death of 1 civilian and the injury of 25 others."
By the way, the Lebanon timeline is not finished.
Not quite yet!
An Israel Defense Forces officer was killed and two other officers were wounded - one seriously - during a commando raid near the Hezbollah stronghold of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon early Saturday A.M.
They would be POW's if their captors would hold to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
Those rules do not apply to terrorist organizations.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
By now you're probably well aware that when it comes to Israel/Palestine, or in fact anything involving either the US or Israel and foreign policy, the skeptical values of the JREF turn to silly putty in your hands.
From your OP you appear to be specifically asking about the current events in Lebanon.
As such, you probably find it a bit frustrating that so many people have to delve off into previous conflicts and the parallel conflict in Gaza.
Of course, history does not happen in isolation, but if I ask for a timeline for Operation Overlord, I don't expect it to begin with:
June 28, 1914 - Gavrilo Princip assassinates Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo
To the best of my knowledge (and a number of people have already provided sources) this particular engagement was initiated by a Hizbollah attack on an Israeli army patrol near the border which resulted in a number of dead Israeli soldiers and two kidnapped. Hizbollah also launched a simultaneous or near simultaneous rocket attack on an Israeli civilian location.
Of course, there are always alternative theories - I have heard one that the IDF staged the attack to justify an invasion of Lebanon. I give such theories (a compelling piece of evidence was the armoured vehicle's rear door was down, or something...) as much credence as claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF on September 11.
From here on in the sequence of events may be a little more difficult, from what I gather Israel commenced with airstrikes against alleged Hizbollah rockets sites, whilst Hizbollah randomly fired rockets into Israel. Ultimately Israel sent in ground forces, whilst specific air strikes fired out international outrage at the alleged loss of civilian lives (Qana, for example).
As IDF ground operations rapidly explanded, a ceasefire agreement was reached via the UN - the idea being a combined 15,000 strong Lebanese Army force and 15,000 strong UN force would occupy Southern Lebanon. Neither disarmament of Hizbollah nor return of the two IDF soldiers is included in the UNSC resolution - these are the alleged primary aims of Israel in commencing hostilities.
A further spanner was spectacularly thrust in the works when France - initially identified as major leader of the UN force, decided it would only supply a very small force.
I anticipate the entire thing quickly turning to mud due to the dismal failure of the UN to uphold their end of the bargain.
I'm more interested in where things go after this - this was the perfect opportunity for the UN to save its hide after several decades of hopelessness. Instead the look to be keen to take their uselessness to new levels. They obviously regard the League of Nations as their role model.
I find it a bit pathetic that the UN - with 192 member states, as the organisation tasked with maintain international peace and security, is seemingly incapable of assembling a paltry force of 15,000 troops in a non-combat role.
Bring on WWIII, I say.
-Andrew
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
That's not actually true. The IDF soldiers - both in the example of Hamas and Hizbollah, were captured for the purpose of ransom - the ransom in this case being the release of prisoners held by Israel.
POWs cannot be ransomed, they have to be given access to the Red Cross or Red Crescent, and they must be repatriated at the end of hostilities.
In addition, a POW can be illegally detained - if the act of capture itself was illegal - which Hizbollah's action was, being a . Thus, though they may be POWs (I assert they are not) they were still kidnapped (illegally detained).
On the following likely grounds (amongst others) the act of Hizbollah would be illegal:
-The kidnappers were not operating under a military chain of command, carrying arms openly, and wearing distinguishing markings
-The kidnapping was an act of war of aggression, which is illegal
-The act was not preceeded by a declaration or similar warning of imminent action
-The act was a violation of a UNSC resolution
Any one of the above elements (there are many others) would make the act by Hizbollah illegal. As a kidnapping is defined as ILLEGAL detainment against the prisoner's will, that would make the capture of the IDF soldiers a kidnapping.
-Andrew
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,759
gumboot says:
"Neither disarmament of Hizbollah nor return of the two IDF soldiers is included in the UNSC resolution"
Not accurate; both are mentioned.
PP3 and PP5
http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2532
...such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon...
and
...emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers...
"Neither disarmament of Hizbollah nor return of the two IDF soldiers is included in the UNSC resolution"
Not accurate; both are mentioned.
PP3 and PP5
http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2532
...such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon...
and
...emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers...
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
So I guess that means the Red Cross has access to them and can report on their health, right?
Right?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
My apologies. Never are explicity addressed. Of course, given we all know Hizbollah is permitted by the Lebanese Government to operate in southern Lebanon, I can't see anything happening there.
The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers (interesting that UNSC calls it "abduction" which makes it pretty clear it was an illegal detainment IMHO) is mentioned better than I thought.
However it doesn't say "the abducted IDF soldiers must be returned within X many days to Israel, or else [insert punishment here]".
Likewise it doesn't say "Hizbollah must be complete disarmed within X many days or else [insert punishment here]".
It actually says (basically) "The Lebanese are in charge, but Hizbollah can keep their weapons if the Lebanese government says it's okay".
-Andrew
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Ahhhhh yes....my "historical ignorance" indeed.
I guess VOANEWS, Haaretz and the BBC - the articles I cited - are also part of the historically ignorant conspiracy to frame Hezbollah. I am curious, the article you cite clearly states that Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar were "kidnapped" by Israel on Monday June 26, 2006. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas early on Sunday morning the 25th of June 2006.
So how in the hell can the Palestinians kidnap an Israeli soldier "in response to" Israel's kidnap of two Palestinian civilians - Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar - when the soldier was kidnapped the day BEFORE?
Do you even read and research what you write Demon or are you just a spam bot?
Yup, everyone is lying except Hezbollah...got ya.
Dude I just documented that you excused the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by claiming it was the response to something that happened the day after the soldier was kidnapped. Your credibility is so close to zero right now I don't read anything you cite for I know now it is not researched, thought through or even factual.
ZN
"Dude I just documented that you excused the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by claiming it was the response to something that happened the day after the soldier was kidnapped. Your credibility is so close to zero right now I don't read anything you cite for I know now it is not researched, thought through or even factual."
Credibility? You have a nerve...have you explained you plagiarism yet?
"Dude I just documented that you excused the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by claiming it was the response to something that happened the day after the soldier was kidnapped. Your credibility is so close to zero right now I don't read anything you cite for I know now it is not researched, thought through or even factual."
Credibility? You have a nerve...have you explained you plagiarism yet?
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
So you actually don't have a rebuttal to support your theory that I, along with VOANEWS, Haaretz and the BBC, are "framing" Hezbollah - see: conspiracy - when I say Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel as they were kidnapping the two Israeli soldiers. OK, check that off the list, moving on....
And you have no rebuttal to why you posted:
When the event you cite above - see: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76854 - took place THE DAY AFTER Gilad Shalit's kidnapping. OK, why cloud the issue with facts anyways...
moving on....Ok let's skip over you two problems and go to the real "crime against humanity", my plagiarism.
Well Demon, the statement:
...was indeed written by David Makovsky. By posting it without crediting David Makovsky is not evidence that I am conspiring to frame Hezbollah, nor does it challenge my credibility because that statement is 100% true, unlike:
....it was just bad form for me to type it verbatim.
ZN:
" ...was indeed written by David Makovsky. By posting it without crediting David Makovsky is not evidence that I am...blah blah blah"
No, it is`s evidence you are a plagiarist.,,simple question, why didn`t you attribute that "claim" to it`s author David Makovsky: I know, it sounded better coming from you eh?
You don`t get away with it that easily "dude". I thought that was frowned upon around here...you know, PLAGIARISM.
" ...was indeed written by David Makovsky. By posting it without crediting David Makovsky is not evidence that I am...blah blah blah"
No, it is`s evidence you are a plagiarist.,,simple question, why didn`t you attribute that "claim" to it`s author David Makovsky: I know, it sounded better coming from you eh?
You don`t get away with it that easily "dude". I thought that was frowned upon around here...you know, PLAGIARISM.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
There are conflicting reports, even within sources, as to the timeline and the location of the abduction. Another sequence has two rockets being fired from "near the border" (sometimes referred to as the "Blue Line" just to make life more difficult), and the Israeli reponse being ambushed in Lebanon, whatever that means precisely. Not that the border was ever mapped out precisely, even by the French and British. Sykes and Picot had small maps and thick pencils. It didn't matter much in those days. The Middle East was a quiet backwater.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,759
It was.
The UN even drew blue painted lines right through the kitchens and living-rooms of homes that straddled the border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_(Lebanon)
In any case, the islamic jihadists care nothing about Israel's "borders" -- it is all Islamic Sacred Trust (WAQF) to Hezbollah, and HAMAS --- as we are well aware, no lines on the ground will stop them from pursuing their violent aims.
Last edited: