Hello from Isarel! - Page 10 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

CHUQ · #**136** (**permalink**) 08-10-2006

Oh sorry, you want just US regcognized countries. Right?

jpsartre12 · #**137** (**permalink**) 08-10-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUQ

Oh sorry, you want just US regcognized countries. Right?

Let's cut through the crap. If Lebanon had kept its own house in order, Israel wouldn't have to do it for them.

FreeThinker · #**138** (**permalink**) 08-10-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

Not at all. But when did self-defense involve crossing borders to kidnap people or fire missiles into another sovereign nation unprovoked?

hmm Hezbollah didn't fire weapons unprovoked. they were heavily provoked by the bombings by the IDF of the airport, bridges and roads. Hezbollah until then had only kidnapped the soldiers, then israel bombed, then hezbollah retaliated by the katusha rockets.

check this video out, and research some history:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/vi...060806,00.html

jpsartre12 · #**139** (**permalink**) 08-10-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeThinker

hmm Hezbollah didn't fire weapons unprovoked. they were heavily provoked by the bombings by the IDF of the airport, bridges and roads. Hezbollah until then had only kidnapped the soldiers, then israel bombed, then hezbollah retaliated by the katusha rockets.

check this video out, and research some history:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/vi...060806,00.html

We've already been through the timeline. Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel to create a diversion when it kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Ergo, they fired first. Now, you will go back and modify your statement to something like "well, Israel fired at CIVILIAN targets first", or some other qualified statement, right? Save your time. It isn't flying. Even the UN admitted that Hezbollah fired the first rockets.

FreeThinker · #**140** (**permalink**) 08-10-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

We've already been through the timeline. Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel to create a diversion when it kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Ergo, they fired first. Now, you will go back and modify your statement to something like "well, Israel fired at CIVILIAN targets first", or some other qualified statement, right? Save your time. It isn't flying. Even the UN admitted that Hezbollah fired the first rockets.

links? sources?

CHUQ · #**141** (**permalink**) 08-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

Let's cut through the crap. If Lebanon had kept its own house in order, Israel wouldn't have to do it for them.

And if Lebanon was given the same amount of support that is given to Israel, we probably would not be having this conversation.

The best Israel can do in Lebanon is a draw, they cannot win a guerilla war using outdated conventional warfare tactics.

In case you need the figures in 2005, Israel recieved about $3 billion is aid while Lebanon recieved about $40 million. remeber, they were trying to also rebuild a country that Israel and others helped to destroy.

Maxture · #**142** (**permalink**) 08-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUQ

The best Israel can do in Lebanon is a draw, they cannot win a guerilla war using outdated conventional warfare tactics.

A draw? Are you blind? They have already lost!

jpsartre12 · #**143** (**permalink**) 08-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeThinker

links? sources?

OK

Quote:

Beginning of conflict
Main article: Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident
At 9:05 AM local time (04:05 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians [18]. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah attacked two Israeli armored Humvees along the Israel-Lebanon border with anti-tank rockets, capturing two Israeli soldiers, and killing three.[18] Five others were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border on 12 July during a mission to rescue the two captured soldiers.[19] In a report the Lebanese police force stated that the Israeli soldiers were attacked and captured on the Lebanese side of the border on 12 July during a mission to infiltrate the Lebanese town of Ayta al-Sha`b,[20] though the U.N, EU, G8[21], and prominent news agencies[22] have characterized the Hezbollah action as "cross-border". In an interview with The Times on 2 August, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two, but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately."[23]

Hezbollah's attack was named Operation Truthful Promise, after a "promise" by its leader Hassan Nasrallah to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for convicted murderer Samir Kuntar and two other Lebanese prisoners still held by Israel.[24][25] Later on, Hassan Nasrallah declared: “No military operation will return them… The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade of prisoners.”[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Is...ng_of_conflict

Quote:

Q: But there is a sense in the world, and you must be aware of it, of lack of "proportionality". Many people question how after two soldiers kidnapped and eight killed by Hezbollah we are now seeing upwards of 400 dead and rising in Lebanon. How can such an initial incident justify such a huge response from Israel?

A: I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...296832,00.html

Quote:

The present fighting had begun on 12 July with an unprovoked Hizbollah attack on Israel and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, he recalled. Since then, Hizbollah had continued firing rockets indiscriminately into northern Israel, from positions apparently located in the midst of the civilian population. No one disputed Israel's right to defend itself. But, its manner of doing so had caused, and was causing, death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/0bbd096afda55743852571bc004b4925!OpenDocument

There are others available as well, but that'll do for now.

Pogo · #**144** (**permalink**) 08-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

We've already been through the timeline. Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel to create a diversion when it kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Ergo, they fired first. Now, you will go back and modify your statement to something like "well, Israel fired at CIVILIAN targets first", or some other qualified statement, right? Save your time. It isn't flying. Even the UN admitted that Hezbollah fired the first rockets.

There's been a state of ongoing war ever since Israel came into being in '48. Some protracted ceasefires here and there but never a formal end to hostilities.

For Israel to claim that it is the defender rather than the aggressor is absurd because the Zionists knew full well that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would necessitate war. The IDF's own records acknowledge that it was Jewish military and paramilitary forces that initiated aggressive action.

BTW, what exactly is the purpose of Israel? If it's to provide a safe refuge then it's a miserable failure with little hope of ever achieving success. Jews in the diaspora are far safer than those in Israel.

iamwhatiseem · #**145** (**permalink**) 08-12-2006

Hey Pogo...long time no see..

Pogo · #**146** (**permalink**) 08-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Hey Pogo...long time no see..

I moved a couple months ago and decided not to get internet access for awhile.

Got some inline skates and trying to get into some semblance of fitness, among other things.

jpsartre12 · #**147** (**permalink**) 08-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

There's been a state of ongoing war ever since Israel came into being in '48. Some protracted ceasefires here and there but never a formal end to hostilities.

Why stop at 1948? You can trace hostilities back to the 7th century and the birth of Islam.

Quote:

For Israel to claim that it is the defender rather than the aggressor is absurd because the Zionists knew full well that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would necessitate war. The IDF's own records acknowledge that it was Jewish military and paramilitary forces that initiated aggressive action.

I don't ever recall hearing Israel state that their neighboring countries should be destroyed. That's the rhetoric of the Arab world and Israel's neighbors.

Quote:

BTW, what exactly is the purpose of Israel? If it's to provide a safe refuge then it's a miserable failure with little hope of ever achieving success. Jews in the diaspora are far safer than those in Israel.

Israel would be a whole lot safer if the spineless UN would enforce some of its resolutions instead of looking the other way and/or giving lip service.

Pogo · #**148** (**permalink**) 08-26-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

Why stop at 1948? You can trace hostilities back to the 7th century and the birth of Islam.

I suppose we could trace them to the conquest of the Canaanites by the Israelites. It was the Canaanites, BTW, who built Jerusulem, not the Israelites. Prior to Zionism, however, things had been pretty mellow with respect to modern Arab/Jewish relations in Palestine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

I don't ever recall hearing Israel state that their neighboring countries should be destroyed. That's the rhetoric of the Arab world and Israel's neighbors.

Israel was established by means of forcibly displacing the non-Jewish majority. I don't know what sort of morality you subscribe to but according to mine, that's an act of aggression.

You live by the sword, you die by it, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

Israel would be a whole lot safer if the spineless UN would enforce some of its resolutions instead of looking the other way and/or giving lip service.

Israeli policy has been to deal with the crisis as an internal security issue with no room for international meddling. If Israel isn't safer for this policy -- and it isn't -- then perhaps it should rethink it.