Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 85 of 300 (335376)
07-26-2006 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by MangyTiger
07-25-2006 9:08 PM


Re: So why is Israel targeting the UN?
As you will all have doubtless seen by now four UN observes have been killed by an Israeli air strike. They weren't in a vehicle on the road, they were in a fixed UN observation post. Prior to the air strike Israel shelled the post 14 times[1].
It gets more blatant and disturbing than that, from cnn article...
The U.N. observers killed when an Israeli bomb made a direct hit on their bunker in southern Lebanon Tuesday called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that the aerial attacks were getting close to their position, according to a U.N. officer.
After each call, the Israeli officer promised to have the bombing stopped, an officer at the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) base in Noqoura said.
Finally, an Israeli bomb exploded directly on the U.N. post near Khiyam, killing four U.N. observers from Austria, Finland, Canada and China, the U.N. officer said.
and
"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," Annan said.
"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the U.N. force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack."
The timeline provided CNN by a U.N. officer in Lebanon showed the first bomb exploded about 200 yards from the U.N. outpost at 1:20 p.m. Tuesday, prompting the first call by the UNIFIL observers to their designated contact with the Israeli military. The officer said they were assured by the Israeli liaison that he would stop the attacks.
A series of about nine more bombs hit within 100 to 400 yards from the observers over the next several hours, with a call to the Israeli military following each explosion.
The U.N. base at Noqoura lost contact with the outpost at 7:40 p.m., apparently the time of the direct hit, the officer said.
So the Israelis not only knew about the place before their strikes began, but did nothing in the face of reports from that position that it was under fire.
In the face of condemnation, and despite an initial apology, they are now claiming that Hezbollah was the guilty party. Given fog of war I suppose its possible. But if it is discovered that israel was the guilty party it is not outside of previous practices. I am still puzzled by Israel supporters as that nation once bombed one of our own (US) ships, which they claimed was a mistake, at a time when they were engaged in grabbing territory in an illegal manner. This could be another one of those episodes... look for Israeli apologists to continue their work.
All of this said, its sort of shocking that it takes the bombing of a UN outpost to bring about criticism which should have been going on from the start.
I get that Hezbollah sucks. I don't like them and they did attack Israel first (if we ignore that it was bound up with what was going on in gaza). The point is that Israel is not supposed to be a terrorist organization and so it is bound by international rules of conduct. Because a terrorist group does X does not allow any and all means.
Their retaliation is heavily disproportionate to the action which initially occured against them, as well as the full threat posed to Israel by Hezbollah. What they have already done IN FACT to the Lebanese people, is more than Hezbollah could ever have done to Israel in theory. There seems to be some moral calculus that the life of an Israeli is worth more than any amount of any other life.
More so, they are targeting the people of Lebanon and their infrastructure which is specifically NOT targeting Hezbollah. Really the people of Lebanon do not become "potentially guilty" and so punishable because Hezbollah operates there.
Its that the UN and US let Israel get away with the acts they've already commited against the Lebanese which allows for such (relatively minor) tragedy and outrage as the bombing of a UN outpost. Condemning them for the outpost and not the rest, is pretty much an open hypocrisy, not to mention unlikely to bring any positive results.
Note, I'm not criticizing your post or suggesting your comments are limited to the outpost attack, just what appears to be happening in reaction to that attack among world leaders. They need to make the next step, which they should have taken initially, and force Israel to comply with Internation Law.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MangyTiger, posted 07-25-2006 9:08 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ikabod, posted 07-26-2006 7:05 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 87 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2006 9:26 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 88 by lfen, posted 07-26-2006 10:33 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 95 of 300 (335633)
07-27-2006 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by MangyTiger
07-26-2006 9:26 AM


Re: So why is Israel targeting the UN?
I hadn't seen this yet. I suppose it's possible but it seems a bit unlikely - all the reports I've seen have said the UN soldiers were in a bomb shelter underneath the outpost. I'm not aware that Hezbollah has the capability of accurately delivering a bomb, shell or missile capable of destroying an underground bomb shelter.
When I wrote my post the Israeli ambassador to the US was just being quoted as making this claim. I had my doubts but since I am not there, and fog of war is always pretty large, I decided to mention the possibility and leave it at that.
As of today's news there seems to be no more support of that idea, though I see apologists here are trying for the "hezbollah set up Israel to look bad" and "hezbollah was using the outpost as a cover so it was a legitimate target" excuses.
Some of the statements Rice has been making ('time for a new Middle East' etc.) make me wonder just how far/long the US will let - or even encourage - Israel go.
I think Rice, Bush, and all the rest of the neocons should go live there, without their bodyguards, and see if they like living through the results of their own rhetoric.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2006 9:26 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 300 (335636)
07-27-2006 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
07-26-2006 9:28 PM


Israel above the law
Israel says it was an accident.
You mean ten accidents right? They were warned at each point at which they told the UN oupost things were going to be okay.
Let's pretend that this was a mistake, doesn't this suggest to you that Israel should halt its actions until it has the capability of avoiding well known positions off limit to fire, and warned ten consecutive times that it was actually targeting that position?
I mean lets be honest, if you do not have the ability to control fire to that degree, how on earth can they claim to be targeting Hezbollah at all? Essentially its the equivalent of when Iraq sent scuds into Israel... which Israel decried at the time.
the UN which has consistently been anti-Israel, anti-US and pro-Islam/Arab had no business being in the middle of a war zone
The UN body generally reflects collective international opinion... hence the name United Nations. What you are suggesting is that the US and Israel have been defying international law in supporting Israeli aggressions and the rest of the world has been upset by this.
That said, they have never acted against Israel or the US and its a bit of bearing false witness to make such a claim. Do you have any evidence for this? What is disturbing is that Israel keeps getting free rides based on singular US security council vetos, which the US decries when other security council nations do the same thing. If you want a list, it can be produced.
They were in the enemy zone and who knows who they were protecting, informing and otherwise helping against Israel.
You start by criticizing the secretary general for not waiting for an investigation, and then deliver this kind of argument in support of Israel's actions?
Israel warned that all noncombatants should go north and evacuate. The UN contingent should have heeded the warning.
I've heard this somewhere before, let's see...
Mr. Blonde: Yeah, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. I told 'em {not to stay in the south}, they {stayed in the south}. If they hadn't done what I told 'em not to do, they'd still be alive.
Mr. White: [clapping] My fucking hero.
Mr. Blonde: Thanks.
Mr. White: That's your excuse for going on a kill-crazy rampage?
Mr. Blonde: I don't like {people staying in the south}, Mr. White.
Yeah, that was it.
Have you ever heard of the rule of law Buz? In international law you don't get to tell innocent people in neighboring countries, and especially not UN observers who have well defined positions, that they must leave because you have decided to blow up their location.
I might point out that while Israel gave such an illegal blanket warning, they were also given a warning by the UN to stop shelling their position... ten times to be exact.
Is Israel above the law?
Edited by holmes, : shorter, clearer

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 07-26-2006 9:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2006 10:00 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 300 (335637)
07-27-2006 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
07-27-2006 12:50 AM


Re: Evidence Hezbollah set up the UN post as a target
It's just crazy to think Israel would intentionally target a UN base, totally nuts, just as it's nuts to think they would target civilians.
First of all Israel has blatantly targeted civilians in the past. It has had a notorious habit of "collective punishment" from before Israel was a nation. The only difference is that they no longer use suicide missions to deliver such punishment.
In any case even if they did not intend to hit the UN base, the results make such theoretical discussions moot. The lack of control required for this to have occured indicates they are not capable of discriminating between civilian and hezbollah targets in practice. And that is supported by the highly disproportionate casualty figures between innocents and hezbollah.
If a person gets stung by a wasp from a nest in a neighbors yard, one is not justified in lobbing grenades into that yard, regardless of your intention to avoid your neighbors and hit the wasps.
These are set-ups by their opponents to make it LOOK like Israel does these things.
Uhhh... you then go on to create an argument that Israel did in fact target the UN position. If Hezbollah was using the outpost for "cover", and so Israel attacked the outpost to hit Hezbollah then they did in fact intentionally attack the outpost. It doesn't just look that way.
I think what you meant to say is that it makes it look like Israel was targeting UN observers at the base rather than Hezbollah militants around the base.
Let me ask you something. If Israel thought that Hezbollah was using a UN post for cover, and knows that there are UN officers within that post telling them not to continue firing because they are inside, wouldn't that suggest Israel should have stopped the shelling and switch to a form of engagement with the militants that would not result in UN casualties?
Is there some reason Israel was restricted to high powered artillery ordinance or nothing at all?
the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.
One wonders if this same peacekeeper was the one who repeatedly telephoned Israeli officials that they were using their post as a target, which is even more blatantly illegal than some rogue group using it as temporary cover.
I mean this is the height of the qrotesque. You are now trying to use the alleged words of a person killed by Israel about hezbollah, to try to justify his own killing. Do you honestly believe that he felt in those last moments of his life that it was a good thing that Israel was shelling his position, even if there were Hezbollah militants? That it was a legal thing to be doing?
That hezbollah might have been doing something illegal, would not justify Israel to even greater illegal action. Or have all principles and reason been flushed down the toilet?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 07-27-2006 12:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 2:29 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 300 (336262)
07-29-2006 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Buzsaw
07-28-2006 10:00 PM


Re: Israel above the law
You didn't answer my questions. I think that is telling, don't you? There are international laws which govern (or are supposed to govern) the actions of NATIONS. Yes, terrorists do not as well as what are becoming referred to as "rogue nations". But legitimate nations are measured by their adherence to such laws.
When Iraq was invaded, it was stated that a reason was the number of UN resolutions that Iraq had defied. The number that Israel has defied is greater in number, and if I remember right, greater than any number any other nation has defied... and that does not include the number it could be facing except that the US has unilaterally vetoed the resolution.
As has already been pointed out your paranoia regarding the UN is totally misplaced. Israel is a member. The fact that some of its actions receive unilateral support from the UN does NOT indicate that the rest of the world must be biased. In fact I think that is sort of funny. When Russia was doing the same thing, we accused Russia of bias not the rest of the world. In fact when it looked like France was going to veto an Iraq resolution we prepostured ourself to condemn them for bias.
History shows that Israel has commited and continues to commit violations of International Law, most specifically the geneva convention in its role as an occupying power. Things like collective punishment which is their openly stated policy is against international law and the US has criticized all other nations which have used it.
In Iraq militants used civilian and holy places for cover and we did not always shell them. I get that in warfare sometimes it might become necessary to hit someone in such a place. What you have failed to explain is why this particular instance was one of necessity. It simply makes no sense, not even common sense, beyond callous disregard for innocent life in pursuit of devastation.
Why could they not have switched to other weapons, or delivered detailed proof of why they need to shell that area to the UN body, rather than (and this is very important for you to consider buz) just start shelling the position and when warned by innocent people in that position TELL THEM IT WAS GOING TO STOP! If that's not intentional murder it most certainly is negligent homocide. Your argument that they had some need to hit hezbollah there is simply ad hoc reasoning.
If the police suspected terrorists had a bomb lab next to your house, would you be alright with them blowing you and your house to smithereens without any notice, and even worse, telling you to sit tight because you'll be just fine (as you scream to them to stop).
Also, do YOU have any evidence for your accusation that Hezbollah was using that position during the time period of the shelling? My guess is the observers were unlikely to have allowed militant to use it without some mention heading back to the UN and other world bodies. You claim everyone must shut up until Israel conducts its own investigation yet you seem to feel no similar need when it comes to the UN.
And finally you claim the observers were watching a buildup by hezbollah? Why on earth would hezbollah do such a thing right in front of a well marked and longstanding UN oupost? That they used it for cover is one thing, that they'd openly build up armamants in plain site of it seems pretty ridiculous... do you have some evidence for this?
But to answer your question, they are unarmed observers. As such all they could do is observe and report to the world body. They are politically and militarily neutral to the conflict (notice the nations involved which for some reason you suggest would support hezbollah?). Notice that they were observing and reporting violations by Israel... look what Isreal did... what were they doing? Serving coffee while blowing innocent people up?
You seem to be seriously denying a truth. Just because Hezbollah is a terrorist organization engaged in criminal activity does not mean that EVERYTHING it does is necessarily illegal. Just because Israel is a legitimate nation does not mean that EVERYTHING it does is necessarily legal. And just because Israel is attacked by Hezbollah and should respond (you do not see me disagreeing with that despite my dislike of Israel) does not mean that any and all responses are necessary, legitimate, or legal.
If hezbollah had infiltrated into Israeli neighborhoods, Israel would not be conducting the same operations on their own soil as they are doing now in Lebanon out of respect for Israeli lives. That is what is telling about their respect for the lives of others and the criminality of their own actions.
Edited by holmes, : Made last statement more clear (thanks lfen for the catch).

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2006 10:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by lfen, posted 07-29-2006 11:57 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-29-2006 6:56 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 300 (336264)
07-29-2006 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
07-28-2006 11:20 PM


Re: Israel above the law
Well then how about this for bias?
Given that the world is engaged in a war on terror which has many of its roots within the MidEast conflict, why would it seem odd to you for them to deal with that issue first and foremost?
In fact several of your issues listed in the quote are cultural issues internal to sovereign nations, and not about blatant legal issues regarding nations serving as longstanding and controversial occupying powers over displaced people... hmmm, why would that stand out as more important? Maybe because it is more readily addressable?
I'm seeing bias pretty clearly, and you should be at this point as well. If you cannot get simple facts straight like Israel is part of the UN, then isn't it possible you are missing many other (more complex) facts? Perhaps you are avoiding more accurate analysis and focusing on comments by people with a pro Israeli stance?
Note: The post before this is my response to your post directly to me.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2006 11:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 300 (336569)
07-30-2006 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
07-29-2006 6:56 PM


Re: Israel above the law
My answer was that UN observers sat in southern quietly for years watching Hezbollah's massive arms/military buildup on Lebanon's southern border when in fact their own law/resolution 1559 required Hezbollah, being a political/ideological entity, to disarm.
It's not surprising when a terrorist group with no power in the UN decides not to follow that advice. That is different than a nation who is part of the UN and expected to follow resolutions. Instead of repeating the above point, why not deal with what I have presented to you instead. Israel is in numerous violation of resolutions and reckless disregard for UN observation posts is another violation.
They were to stop and they didn't. Why didn't they stop buz? Why couldn't they switch?
When rogue nations violate by invasion and disregard to the rules, ligitimate nations must do what is needed to compensate or the rogue nations/terrorists win
I am in complete agreement, including your off topic pro firearms rant which followed. I am not a knee jerk liberal, deal with my points....
Why was continued bombing of a well known UN outpost NEEDED to compensate for the hezbollah attack? I have already stated I totally agree that Israel had a right to respond to Hezbollah's attck in some way, my criticism has been its form, and this particular case is a fantastic example. Why was telling the observers in that outpost to stay where they are as the shelling would stop, when in fact they were going to continue shelling, NEEDED to compensate for the Hezbollah attack?
Would the Israelis have launched such an offensive within their own neighborhoods if Hezbollah managed to get in that far? Would you accept such behavior from England towards the US to get at supporters of the IRA? How about the US to your neighborhood in case a terrorist cell of any kind (maybe even Xian extremist) were there?
The idea of international law was to remove the law of the jungle. That means that nations refrain from just any response they might want to make. I don't see how this was NEEDED much less legal.
You have yet to set out why it was necessary (they had no other options).
I also produced evidence of UN's serious pro-Islamic and anti Israel bias.
No you didn't. You made one wholly fallacious comment about the UN, then said the fact that the entire world disagreed with US-Israel makes the rest of the world wrong and in support of Islam (while the US & Israel are unbiased?), and finally gave a list of issues the UN has not dealt with which ignored the fact that the war on terror was set as one of the highest priorities for them to deal with and it is linked to the issues they decided to take on.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-29-2006 6:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 165 of 300 (336583)
07-30-2006 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
07-30-2006 2:29 AM


Re: Evidence Hezbollah set up the UN post as a target
That's a lie. Or, prove it.
Interesting, an unsupported claim is not necessarily a lie, even if it turns out to be wrong... suppose I had made a mistake Faith... just as Buz did when he claimed that the UN is so anti Israel it is the only nation not allowed to be a member? Notice I didn't say he was lying, though I do notice you didn't call him one.
On the flipside your claim that I am lying means that you claim there is no such evidence. So I guess when I prove that, it means you are a liar? Or is it just that you are mistaken?
While I actually didn't have time to do research today I am going out of my way in this case. I'm going to leave out the cases of terrorist bombings and massacres by Israelis or those trying to form Israel (such as the King David Hotel incident) because you might decide to argue that isn't the gov't of Israel (though that would be hypocrisy as Lebanon is getting punished for Hezbollah).
Here is a discussion of illegal deportations of innocent people. It is called "deterence" by Israel, it is considered "collective punishment" by law.
Here is a second link to a discussion of demolation of housing.
Please note that those discussing the violations as "collective punishment" above are ISRAELIS. It doesn't take a left wing anti Israel nutcase to observe what is happening and fit it to a definition.
In this article it is mentioned that Kofi Annan refers to the attacks on Lebanon as "collective punishment".
Here is a petition to Ariel Sharon by the Zionist youth movement. You simply can't get more unbiased than actually quoting self-proclaimed zionists... here's an excerpt:
We in Habonim Dror call for an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; including home demolitions, curfews, closures, and destruction of agriculture which only have the effect of inflaming Palestinian frustration, and lead to desperate acts.
Here is a link to a discussion from a nonIsraeli source of Ariel Sharon. His maltreatment of Palestinian citizens is notorious, and involved many reprisals which got him reprimanded even by Israeli courts (though always getting lenient treatement). In fact the only reason he did not face a war crimes tribunal is that the US got some international laws change to prevent Palestinians from lodging claims in foreign courts. Note at the end of the article a description of what Bishop Tutu feels about the plight of the Palestinians (and he's not an avid Islamist, right?).
Actually Sharon's own statement about Palestinians is itself quite telling. Here are just a few of his own words:
“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care.”
“I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”
"The Palestinians must be hit and it must be painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so they feel the heavy price" March 5th 2002, speaking to the press.
Sorry I could only track down one of the dates, but I am really pressed for time. If you do research into Sharon, even in writings by himself and those who like him, you'll find his sentiments and activities were pro punishment of the Palestinians as a whole, rather than just guilty parties.
Here's a wild card link to a Rabbi who is vastly antiZionist, so pick and choose whether you trust his claims.
Another Israeli link on deportation plans. Note Sharon's comments. Here's another Israeli link, Haaretz newspaper, describing the acts as collective punishement.
Amnesty International has declared that they used collective punishement, but I assume you'd consider that a biased source.
I did not go into any detail on the razing of agriculture, besides one passing mention above, but it really deserves some note. A popular tactic is razing olive trees. Clearly this has nothing to do with protecting Israel from terrorism, and acts to monetarily punish innocent Palestinians for decades (it takes a long time for olive trees to produce well).
You need to do more research before you start throwing around accusations of lying.
Edited by holmes, : general edits
Edited by holmes, : more fixes
Edited by holmes, : third times the charm?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 2:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 8:59 PM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024