Lebanese Soldiers on the border - guns pointing which way?

[Denver Dave]

Couldn't help wondering if Lebanese soldiers do move to the south and are on the border - which direction will their guns be pointing?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/20/israel.raid/i...

"Every telephone pole in the town of 8,000 was flying a yellow Hezbollah flag, and windows were plastered with posters of the militant group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah."

"About 10 Hezbollah fighters initially confronted the Israelis, but some 300 townspeople heard the roar of helicopters, grabbed their guns and joined the fight."

[Kagemusha]

1. If they're smart, towards the ground.

And I mean that seriously. There are no good options for pointing them parallel to the soil.

Edit: Finished reading the entire article. Oh. my. god. Israel is being so stupid here. Hezbollah clearly initiated Round 1. By initiating Round 2 by itself, Israel is making the civilians say, 'We are all Hezbollah now', and making them MEAN it. Nasrallah looks like a genius now for accepting the ceasefire and letting Israel's weak leadership violate it and give Hezbollah stronger, less ambiguous moral high ground within Lebanon.

Good luck disarming them now. Good LUCK.

[msmcghee]

2. They were never going to give up their guns.

Don't you remember - that's what they said on day 2 of the cease-fire. They said they wouldn't show them in public but they would not leave S. Lebanon and they would not turn their weapons over to anyone.

And then Kofi Anan sputtered something and said well that was probably OK if they refused to abide by the agreement that Lebanon made with the UN that was the condition of the cease fire and the Israeli withdrawel.

But now I see, it's the mean Israelis who are going to lose the PR war over this. I'm sure they are wringing their hands and whimpering right now over that - as they load some more bombs into their F16's.

[Kagemusha]

3. The F-16's bombs will only unite the population more.

Smart armies isolate guerillas instead of driving civilians into their arms. Which creates more guerillas in the future.

I question how this is progress.

[msmcghee]

7. Smart guerrillas therefore have learned . .

. . to become one with the population - making such isolation impossible. Hizbullah now provides health services with the millions they get from Iran - along with missiles they store next door to the health clinic and fire from the driveway of the aprtment complex next door. That is the obvious strategy in both S. Lebanon and Gaza.

Under such conditions Israel must focus on destroying the offensive capability regardless of the civilians nearby - once those civilians realize that being close to any rocket launchers or weapons storage areas will result in a lot of pain and destruction - they will leave and separate themselves from the Hizbullah.

[Kagemusha]

8. That theory is deeply, deeply mistaken.

Civilian immersion isn't 100% unless an attacking force MAKES it so! And treating the civilian population as part of the enemy - a soft target to be exploited - is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. This is not personal to you but, whoever you're getting your theories of warfare from needs to go jump in the Dead Sea.

[msmcghee]

10. Whoever you are getting your theories of warfare from . .

. . was probably killed a long time ago by terrorist guerrillas.

[Kagemusha]

11. If you think limitless murder of civilians is the answer

go ahead, try it - you don't want the world's sympathy for Israel? Good. You won't have ANY left afterwards.

[msmcghee]

13. If limitless murder of civilians was Israel's goal . .

. . there would be a million dead Hizbullah and Lebanese right now - not a few hundred. There would be no-one left alive in Gaza

Killing Arabs who are crowded together in dense cities and refugee camps within easy range of Israel's F16's would be easy enough if that were Israel's goal.

Obviously, it is not. But, I understand. One's blindness is not so easily cured when the blinders are ideological.

[Kagemusha]

14. As I said, bombing civilians to drive them away is ethnic cleansing.

I just thought your comments indicated you didn't think that ethnic cleansing was *sufficient*. But fine.

Bottom line is, if Israel really wants to initiate Round 2, words on a message board won't stop it. All we can do is count the bodies after the fact. The problem is that unless you DO go out and kill a million people, fighting guerillas in the most stupid method possible trends heavily towards failure. On that score, my blinders are practical, not ideological.

[msmcghee]

15. No, bombing civilians to kill them . .

. . is ethnic cleansing. Bombing terrorists who hide among civilians is self defense. That's true even if mistakes are made under those difficult conditions while trying to stop the rain of several hundred missiles a day being fired into civilain areas of Israel.

Where are the calls for war crimes trials against Israel that you are so sure they committed?

Is Hizbullah going to let them off because Hizbullah don't carry a grudge - or do they have no case?

[Kagemusha]

16. You're artfully shifting the subject.

Bombing civilians to force them to flee to separate them from the "actual" guerillas is ethnic cleansing. Now if you really want me to believe that all bombings of civilians themselves is a mistake then you should take back some of the things you said earlier on this thread.

As for war crimes, don't make me laugh. I'm not one of those sissies who thinks that trials can solve the world's ills. No Israeli is ever going on trial for war crimes. Ever. It will. not. happen. And we would be fools to expect, or hope, otherwise.

[msmcghee]

18. You are completely wrong about ethnic cleansing.

To use it in this context only shows your ignorance - and is demeaning and degrading to the millions who have died from ethinic cleansing in the last decades - like the six million Jews gassed in WWII the decendants of whom now occupy Israel, the land they were given to settle by us - or the million or so who died in Rawanda in the nineties

Again, the purpose of ethinic cleansing is to kill all those of a particular ethinicity in a population - like Hitler's Final Solution. By your own definition you admit that their purpose was to " . . force them to flee to separate them from the "actual" guerillas."

Obviously, they did that so they could kill the guerrillas without killing many more civilians than had already died. Or, perhaps you think they did that so they could kill the civilians more easily - without damaging Hizbullah's expensive missiles and launchers - that took so many years to bring down from Syria and place in those hardened bunkers.

Israel cares nothing about the ethnicity of the Lebanese or the Hizbullah. Israel only cares to stop missiles that are killing her citizens and wrecking her cities. By your own admission Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties by separating them from the Hizbullah - who hide amongst the civilians making that task difficult and deadly dangerous for everyone concerned.

Actually, I think even that assessment is wrong. I suspect that Israel was simply trying to stop the missiles by attacking the launchers and weapons stores - wherever they found them, or wherever they suspected them to be. I'm sure they were hoping that any civilians would be smart enough to get away from any Hizbullah or their equipment.

No-one here has provided even one small piece of evidence to the contrary. I suggest you save big phrases like ethnic cleansing until you understand what they mean.

[Kagemusha]

24. Christ. Where were you during the Kosovo conflict?

"ethnic cleansing" clearly has a separate and distinct meaning from genocide, which is what you're describing, and I'm really sorry you took my comment as somehow conflating the two. That was not my intention. I understand exactly what it means to normal people. You have a definition of it that means the exact same thing as extermination. Just because ethnic cleansing is considered by some to be a form of genocide does not mean it means gas chambers.

So now that we have that out of the way....

I know you're not referring to Katyusha launchers when you mention expensive ones... because those are the salt of the earth, unguided (dumb) short range ground to ground rockets. I'd heard the IAF had done a pretty good job against the other stuff. Great.

I don't dispute Israel cares nothing about their ethnicity aside from the fact they're not Jews. That's not the point. Forced population exile makes people really, really bitter. (Israelis ought to appreciate this somehow but whatever...) Right now, the population that got exiled has returned. If Israel goes in with a plan to do any less than force that population out AGAIN, it will encounter a population of maximum hostility doing everything it can to help Hezbollah hide. Of course Israel could go in with 40,000 troops and just empty Southern Lebanon permanently. Don't have to kill them, just level their farms, kill their livestock, burn their fields (even more than last time), destroy deep wells that the IDF won't be using, etc. Yes, you can do this...

...it's just a very stupid and unpragmatic thing to do. And that is my point.

[msmcghee]

29. There is more than one definition of ethnic cleansing.

A good one from Wiki: Ethnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means, from discrimination to extermination, and entails violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

My original point was that I have seen no evidence that Israel was doing anything other than trying to stop missiles being fired into Israel and killing Israeli civilians.

If you have any such evidence please present it. Otherwise you are just pissed off at Israel - and that doesn't justify an accusation of war crimes.

I also question your point that this will work against Israel the next time she has to go into Lebanon to stop Hizbullah missiles. I am certain that Israel sees her mission as to prevent a next time - and I assure you Israel will not hold back attempting to destroy Hizbullah because Israel is worried that civilians in S. Lebanon will be angry. I assure you Israel cares far more about her citizens lives than her popularity in Arab states who have pledged to destroy Israel.

This is part of a general disconnect I encounter here at DU - the idea that this is all some kind of PR campaign that Israel is losing. Israel rightly sees this as attacks against her borders and population. PR is the last thing on Israel's mind - and when people are killing your citizens that damned well better be the case for any civilized nation.

It also reveals a real and even more important disconnect. You are making a huge mistake thinking that the people who live in S. Lebanon, who are by and large the families and fighters of Hizbullah - or their close friends - are just like us, but they have a different religion.

Most of those people are dedicated to the destruction of the US and Israel by violent means. They want to kill you and your children. They despise your decadent and Godless way of life. They are religious fanatics far more dangerous than the Jerry Fallwell / Pat Robertson type idiots we have here. I hope you and others here wake up before its too late. They are not your friends.

All you are doing with your defense of terrorists is making George Bush sound intelligent - which I always figured was really hard to do.

[Kagemusha]

30. I see your point now.

Sanity is stupid. Acting crazy, true brilliance. Israel's smarter than all of us because it knows to discard what rational people regard as sane, because rationality is weakness.

Sure it is. Check back with me after Round 2.

[msmcghee]

32. There is nothing sane about war.

War is a state of insanity that involves violently and painfully ending the lives of many nice innocent people - way before their time. Are you proposing that there is a sane way to conduct such activities? If so, you are quite deluded.

The insanity of war is precisely why people should not start them. In order for people to stop others from waging war on them they might have to kill many thousands of otherwise innocent citizens. Like the US did in Japan or Britain did in Germany to end WWII.

I hoped that that sad experience would have convinced the ideological / cultural / religious zealots of the world (who are the ones who always start the wars) that starting wars is not a wise thing to do. Unfortunately, the nature of ideological / cultural / religious zealots makes them immune to such lessons. These sick fucks are willing to die for their hatred of others - and they are more than willing to bring many innocents along with them.

I really really hate seeing innocent people die. That's why I'm ready to see extreme violence applied against anyone who tries to start a war - as soon as possible and at least violent enough to guarantee that even more innocent civilians are not killed the next time. To guarantee that there can be no next time. I am opposed to the death penalty in the US but I believe that people who start wars should be killed - because the longer they live the more innocent people will die because of them.

Do you prefer gradual escalation and attempts to reason with the ideological / cultural / religious zealots of the world by appeasing these sickos - hoping they will stop being ideological / cultural / religious zealots because you are being nice to them?

It's just not in the cards my freind.

[lvx35]

4. Where the fuck is the UN, the French?

An international presence is the ONLY way this is going to work out positively. Israel, for the first time in a long time, is playing the right game trying to bring the international community in to arbitrate. Really, the guns should be pointed at whoever is violating the international community...But there are no GUNS! Why does the international community have no teeth? This should be addressed in a serious way. I mean 50 french soldiers? Thanks guys!

[hack89]

6. They are not willing to die ...

which will happen if they attempt to disarm Hezbollah.

[Kagemusha]

9. Or at the hands of more accidents during Israel's defensive operations

Their people would still be just as dead.

[hack89]

12. That too ...

Israel means business - which means a fully disarmed Hezbollah. If the UN does not mean business also they better stay out of the way.

[lvx35]

17. IF that's true, then it has to be done.

Hezbollah has to be disarmed, and by anybody BUT Israel. We need to let terrorists know that their battle is against the world, not Israel if they use those tactics. Its the only way to achieve lasting peace in the middle east, and that's sooo much more valid and relevant in the war on terrorism than whatever we are doing in Iraq.

[msmcghee]

38. Your post is a breath of fresh air . .

. . in an otherwise polluted swamp. Thanks.

[msmcghee]

19. I suspect that no-one is willing to die for Jews.

It's a politically volatile position to take in places like France. They won't say they are anti-semitic - but when it comes to taking a tough position that could save Israeli lives - they would probably be unelectable the next time around.

Any French-folks out there who could set me straight on this if I'm wrong?

[scarletwoman]

20. No, but lots of people seem to end up dying for them anyway.

As for "taking a tough position that could save Israeli lives" -- for myself, I am totally willing to give "Israeli lives" precisely the same value and consideration as Israel gives Lebanese and Palestinian lives.

Perhaps the French feel likewise.

sw

[msmcghee]

21. You ask, "is there some special virtue to Israeli lives . .

. . over other lives?"

Generally, no. I value all lives equally.

However, by their actions, people can devalue their lives.

One way to do this is by using violence rather than dialog and negotiations to settle differences - to use guns and bombs to force others to your will rather than persuade them. When someone does this they expose themself to just retaliation. If they kill others to get their way, or shelter the killers or support them logistically, then they lose their right to complain when someone kills them or their family while trying to stop the attacks.

Those who purposely attack Israeli civilians with high explosive missiles and hide among civilians, like Hizbullah, are bullies and cowards.

If you claim that the lives of those who initiate the use of violence against others are equal to the lives of those who are defending the borders and the lives of their citizens against that violence - then you are one of them.

[scarletwoman]

22. Read what you've written: "...using violence rather than dialog and

and negotiations to settle differences" -- precisely what Isreal did after their 2 soldiers were captured -- "to use guns and bombs to force others to your will rather than persuade them. When someone does this they expose themself to just retaliation."

Funny thing. That's EXACTLY how I would describe Israel's standard modus operandi.

sw

[msmcghee]

23. Hopeless and clueless.

OK - One more time, just for the slow ones here:

Official UNIFIL Report to the UN:

New Crisis Erupts

New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line towards IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon.

Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and the IDF. While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shabaa farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks. In addition to air strikes on Hizbollah positions, the IDF targeted numerous roads and bridges in southern Lebanon, within and outside the UNIFIL area of operations.

********************************************

What Hizbullah did is known as "attacking others" - not as "negotiating".

[Kagemusha]

25. Process this: Everyone understands Hezbollah started it.

Everyone also understands that Israel went crazy and bombed civilian infrastructure far to the north that had no more relationship with Hezbollah aside from the fact that as Lebanese citizens, infrastructure intended for the economic and civil good from all Lebanese provided Hezbollah members with tangental indirect benefits. It wasn't good enough to just go after Hezbollah. Israel had to make an enemy out of the entire country in preference to engaging Hezbollah directly, and frankly, didn't do all that good a job when it tried doing just that.

You just happen to defend doing more of the same. That's your right; you just shouldn't expect people to agree with you (and not because they have some hidden ideological agenda against Israel).

[msmcghee]

26. Well, that's what sometimes happens when you . .

. . attack someone and kill their civilians and soldiers in a violent hostile attack. They might just go crazy.

And the rules state that if your targets are in any way associated with supporting the attack against you - then you have the right to hit those targets. Maybe Hizbullah should have considered that possibility before they started this.

Maybe Lebanon should have asked for UN or NATO help in disarming Hizbullah three or four years ago when it was obvious that this was going to be the result some day. But they didn't - and they paid heavily for their miscalculations. I hope they learned a valuable lesson from that and that they make better choices in the future. If they did - then the world will be a happier and more peaceful place - and more Israeli and Lebanese civilians will live long and happy lives.

If they did not then I predict the next lesson will be far in excess of this one and many more Lebanese civilians and infrastructure will be destroyed than this time. Which outcome are you hoping for?

[Kagemusha]

27. Man, you just do not get it. No point arguing with you now.

No matter how stupid or crazy Israel gets, since it's morally justified in your mind, being stupid and crazy is actually the ideal result for you. For what reason I know not, but at this point, I'm done arguing, I don't WANT to know.

[msmcghee]

28. Sounds like you were not able to make a . .

. . coherent case to me.

But, as to Israel being stupid - I guess that depends on how many Israelis are going to die from Hizbullah attacks in the future.

According to Ned Lamont, we have no right to tell Israel how to defend the lives of her citizens. I agree with Ned.

[scarletwoman]

31. Yeah, you conveniently left out all the previous UNIFIL reports that

detail all the Israeli violations of Lebanese air space, and Israeli cross-border incursions and missile fire over the past 6 years.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background...

Lebanon - UNIFIL - Background

Situation in the Area, January 2001-January 2002

<snip>

Regarding air violations, the report stated that Israeli aircraft violated the line on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace...

<snip>

In his further report on UNIFIL dated 16 January 2002, the Secretary-General said that the UNIFIL area of operation had continued to be generally calm, with low incident and tension levels recorded since his July 2001 report.

<snip>

According to the report of the Secretary-General, serious breaches of the ceasefire in the Shab'a farms area remained a cause of concern. On 3 October, Hezbollah fired 18 missiles and 33 mortar rounds at two positions of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) on the line south-east of Kafr Shuba. On 22 October, Hezbollah fired 10 missiles and 61 mortar rounds at five IDF positions in the same vicinity. In both instances, the IDF responded with heavy artillery and mortar fire to the Lebanese side of the line in the same vicinity, in the latter case also dropping two air-to-ground missiles. There were no casualties from either incident.

Please note that Hizbullah was attacking military targets only.

Of equal concern, stated the Secretary-General, were Israeli air violations of the Blue Line, which continued on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. These incursions were not justified and caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas. The air violations were ongoing, although demarches to the Israeli authorities, calling on them to cease the overflights and to fully respect the Blue Line, had been made repeatedly by the United Nations, including by the Secretary-General, and a number of interested governments.

<snip>

Situation in the Area, January 2002- January 2003

In his report on the Force dated 12 July 2002, the Secretary-General said that tensions increased in that mission's area of operation over the past six months (from 17 January to 12 July 2002), with an outbreak of violent incidents across the Blue Line during the first two weeks of April surpassing any activity since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. Those events coincided with the substantial escalation of tension in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. Militant activities were carried out by Hezbollah, as well as Palestinian and unidentified elements both inside and outside the Shab'a farms area. Also, throughout most of the reporting period, unjustified Israeli incursions into sovereign Lebanese airspace continued on an almost daily basis, often penetrating deep into Lebanon. Those events have underscored the fragility of the situation and demonstrated how readily tensions could escalate.

<snip>

In his further report on UNIFIL dated 14 January 2003, the Secretary-General said that the UNIFIL area of operation had been calm for the most part, with a substantial reduction in the number of incidents relative to the last report. Tension, however, continued to prevail. This tension was demonstrated most visibly by the unresolved Hasbani River matter, as well as the provocative cycle of Israeli air violations and Hezbollah anti-aircraft fire. The Shab'a farms area also remained a significant source of concern.


<snip>

Situation in the Area, January - July 2003

In his report on UNIFIL dated 23 July 2003 and covering the period since 15 January, the Secretary-General observed that "almost six months have passed since the last violent exchange across the Blue Line, the longest period of relative calm since Israel withdrew from Lebanon more than three years ago after 22 years of occupation." An additional indicator of stabilization in southern Lebanon has been the success of demining efforts.

"Nevertheless, tension between Israel and Lebanon remains high and the relative calm along the Blue Line is an uneasy one," he noted. The most significant sources of tensions were the persistent Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace and the Hezbollah anti-aircraft fire directed towards Israeli villages.

<snip>

Situation in the Area, July 2003 - January 2004

.... The persistent Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace and several instances of Hizbollah anti-aircraft fire directed towards Israeli villages contributed significantly to the tension.

<snip>

Situation in the Area, January - July 2004

...The Secretary-General also voiced deep concern that Israel persists in its provocative and unjustified air violations of sovereign Lebanese territory. Hezbollah's retaliatory firing of anti-aircraft rounds across the Blue Line "is a violation that poses a direct threat to human life", he added.

<snip>

Situation in the Area, July 2004 - January 2005

...The Secretary-General stated further that the air violations also remained a matter of significant concern. As long as Israel carries on with its policy of overflying Lebanon whenever it sees fit to do so, it risked provoking retaliatory acts from the Lebanese side. In addition, the periodic sonic booms generated over population centres only generate animosity in the local populace.

<snip>

Situation in the Area, January—July 2005

A fragile quiet prevailed in the UNIFIL area of operation during most of the period under review, although the situation was often marked by tension, the report said. Violations of the Blue Line continued, most often in the form of recurring air violations by Israeli jets, helicopters and drones, as well as ground violations from the Lebanese side, primarily Lebanese shepherds...

SHEPHERDS!

Situation in the Area, July 2005—January 2006

...Persistent Israeli air incursions into Lebanese airspace also disrupted the fragile calm.

Please do read the whole thing. While I've taken the liberty of highlighting Israel's part in violating the Blue Line to make my point that Israel is hardly blameless, you'll find that this report covers the violations of both sides quite evenhandedly. Although you might take note that much of the action from the Lebanese side has been retaliatory in nature. That is, when one side deploys anti-aircraft weaponry, it can logically be assumed that this is in response to hostile aircraft.

sw

[msmcghee]

33. Violations of air space are not attempts to kill.

They are defensive if they are to gather intelligence on the location of missiles being brought in against UN resolutions that the UN is not enforcing.

Israel would have been justified in bombing the shit out of any missile sites three years ago. But they took the less deadly response - and look what happened as a result.

Why not just admit that anything Israel does is wrong and anything Hizbullah or any other Arab state does to attack Israel is just fine with you - because Jews are evil and cunning monters and should be kept in their place and never allowed to exist as a nation that is equal to others in the world?

Why do you pretend that there is something other than outright hatred of Israel and Jews behind your pov? What are you afreid to be honest about your true beliefs and keep playing these silly online word games?

[scarletwoman]

34. LOL! Wow!

Why do you pretend that there is something other than outright hatred of Israel and Jews behind your pov?

Um, maybe because it's not true? I don't "hate" Israel any more than I "hate" the U.S. I think they both have governments with fucked up policies, and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to criticize said policies without being labeled "anti-American" or "anti-Israel" -- or even worse, "anti-Jew".

And your equating "Jews" with the Israeli government is really beyond the pale. I certainly wouldn't want myself equated with the bush (mal)administration just because I'm an U.S. citizen.

What I am is pro-common humanity -- that means ALL the people on the earth, including Arabs. When states act in inhumane ways I will oppose those actions and those states. No exceptions.

sw

[msmcghee]

35. The most inhumane thing a state can do is attack . .

. . the citizens of another state. That is an act of war that inevitably results in the deaths of many innocent civilians. All of the saddest stories of civilization are started with such events.

You can not condemn a state for defending itself. Unless you can show that Israel was trying to kill Lebanese civilians and did not care if there were Hizbullah targets in its sights - then you must give Israel the benefit of the doubt - because Israel was attacked by Hizbullah.

Even if Israel attacked Lebanese civilians with no defensive purpose - which I do not believe they did - even those attacks can be justified if they are necessary to end hostilities initiated by the other state. That's what happened to Dresden and Hiroshima in the attempt to bring WWII to a close. Those were terribly unfortunate events - yet arguments can reasonably be made that they saved many lives of our soldiers and liberated many thousands of them from prison camps and brought them home to their familes months or years before they would otherwise have been freed.

War is really shitty. That's why we (the UN with our help) should kick the hell out of anybody who starts one. It's a simple rule. You do not attack other states or people. Period. Every Arab state except Jordan and Egypt hold the current policy of destrying Israel and most have tried to do so more than once. Hizbullah has sworn to destroy Israel. Israel had nothing but hopes for good relations with Lebanon. Israel has always preferred negotiation to war when she had that option. This is all well-documented and substantiated fact.

You have offered nothing to contradict these facts. Yet you accuse Israel of inhumane actions - while completely ignoring the actions of Hizbullah who is legally and morally responsible for all the deaths that occurred because Hizbullah attacked Israel.

Show me any evidence that the Lebanese who were killed by Israel's actions were not killed as the result of Israel being forced to defend her borders and the lives of her citizens. You must be able to do that in order to blame Israel for their deaths. You have not done that.

I can't possibly understand why anyone who wasn't anti-Israel and probably anti-Jew as well could be that unfair and unrealistic.

[scarletwoman]

36. I don't believe Dresden & Hiroshima were "unfortunate events"

I believe they were war crimes, mass murder -- and TOTALLY unacceptable.

So accuse me of being "anti-Jew" all you want, that's apparently your schtick. I'm anti-state-sponsored terror -- period.

"Israel had nothing but hopes for good relations with Lebanon." Yeah, right. I've just cited massive evidence to the contrary, but it means nothing to you.

sw

[msmcghee]

37. I don't pretend there's any way to reach you.

This is solely for the benefit of others who may be following this thread.

You said, "So accuse me of being "anti-Jew" all you want, that's apparently your schtick. I'm anti-state-sponsored terror -- period."

You say you are anti-state-sponsored terror. Terror is generally defined as purposeful attacks against civilian populations to cause death and political change.

The only party that unequivocally participated in such activities in this conflict was Hizbullah. They fired app. 4000 missiles at Israeli civilians in 34 days with the express purpose to kill those civilians. That's 4000 de-facto war crimes according to all known international rules.

No one has provided any evidence that Israel's response, even one Israeli bomb or artillery shell, had a purpose other than to stop those missiles from flying into Israel and killing those civilians.

Yet it's Israel that you accuse of war crimes and mass murder. I'm afraid your anti-Israeli, anti-Jew bias is more than obvious.

Certainly you can come up with something better than this utterly transparent nonsense to justify that bias.

[MrPrax]

41. "solely for the benefit of others"

Others would notice that when you run out of facts, you smear...

Pretty obvious to anyone looking at this thread... :shurg:

[pelsar]

39. what you cited was:

6 years of recon flights over lebanon and Israel refraining from doing anything about a militia that was armed with 12,000 missles that swore to use them against israel. What you didnt cite was 6 years of attacks on israel since they took over s. and e. lebanon and s. Beirut.

and for just taking in those attacks israel was rewarded with more kidnappings, attempts and otherwise......

but then as stated above somehow recon flights to watch over a force whos intentions are clear and proven in a country that refuses to anything about it, makes israel the "bad one.

what were the other options?, i dont believe it was mentioned (just for record, when ever i ask for a serious option, I never receive a response, with a single exception)

[lvx35]

40. The force to disarm Hezbollah is not anti-Lebanese

in fact its pro-Lebanese. The problem is that there is this sweeping mythos of "zionist world domination" that is moving in the ARab world as a conspiracy theory. Any defensive/offensive action that Israel takes will increase the power of the myth and turn popular opinion against them, and so will action by the united states. This situation requires a third party arbitrator like France. France doesn't have a history of being fond of a lot of Israel's policies, but that's exactly why they could fill the role so well, it could be neutral. This is needed, because somebody needs to tell the lebanese that the people they send to the UN and call their government should actually be in control of the country, and when an organization like Hezbollah takes control of everything instaed of the government they democratically elected its a bad thing indeed.

[breakaleg]

5. Well, so much for Israel's intentions.

But I'm sure they'll find a way to justify this - it's par for the course.

[Lithos]

42. Locking per I/P guidelines

Subject line does not agree with article title.

Lithos
DU Moderator