Is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ?

[dirac1]

is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ??

is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ??

what do you think

 

[fargoth]

the US has enough illegal actions of it's own... naplam bombing, nuclear bombing were in the past, recently it was the prisoners in iraq.. soldier abuse of civilians... if you'd look hard enough you'd find more..

is Iran syria being blamed for the illegal actions of hizbullah?

are you talking about recent illegal actions Israel did?
can you elaborate?

 

[fargoth]

the investigation is still being conducted on the bombed UN case, Israel claims it wasn't a deliberate bombing, so it's not illegal just yet.

as for past actions - israelli illegal actions seems to be a valid argument even if they were before the independance of Israel.. (eg "israel terrorist organization" anttech likes to mantion).

and what does qatar have to do with israel's illegal actions?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

What the!?

 

[dirac1]

the investigation is still being conducted on the bombed UN case, Israel claims it wasn't a deliberate bombing, so it's not illegal just yet.

as for past actions - israelli illegal actions seems to be a valid argument even if they were before the independance of Israel.. (eg "israel terrorist organization" anttech likes to mantion).

and what does qatar have to do with israel's illegal actions?

i think the questions are
1.who is to blame for the UN deaths the person who guided the precision weapon onto the UN or the person above him or gave the order, the post had been there for 20 years its not like israel didnt know it was there.
2.Why was there only one country in the entire world that vetoed a resolution against israel
3.how can we ensure that the will of the international community is enforced and israel is held accountable for her illegal activities

qatar vetoed a resolution against irans nuclear weapons, we are now seeing american allies turning away from her because of israels illegal actions.

 

[Anttech]

as for past actions - israelli illegal actions seems to be a valid argument even if they were before the independance of Israel.. (eg "israel terrorist organization" anttech likes to mantion).

Dont put words in my mouth, I never said anything like this. Please either show me where I said this, or retract that statement!As for the original question. The States are not directly responsible for the actions of Israel. Israel is responsible, although the USA government backs Israel's hardline stance, and has been using its media to spin the reason for this new war from "Kidnapped Israeli soldiers" to the current reason of "Hezbollah firing rockets at civilians"

Hezbollah did actually say at the beginning of this conflict that they were willing to negotiation (whether or not they were actually going to is speculation but they said it) Israel didnt want to, and instead now have almost 1 Million Displaced civilians and >400 dead in Lebanon and < than 20 Civilians killed in Israel. I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Hezbollah are targeting only civilians where it seems their ratio of Soldiers killed to civilians is WAY better than Israel's

I am not anti-Jewish nor am I anti-Israel. However I am against this war 100% and I believe that Israel is loosing it... the circle of Violence continues.

 

[Anttech]

the investigation is still being conducted on the bombed UN case, Israel claims it wasn't a deliberate bombing, so it's not illegal just yet.

Wasnt deliberate? I think we can safely say it was deliberate. We however cannot say if there was an error in judgement by the soldiers that carried out the attack. An F16 used laser guided missiles to take out the UN post. The UN post had its UN flag flying HIGH, that post is well documented, the people inside the post radioed the Israeli's to let them know they were being attacked several times. It may still be being investigated, but don't you think we can use our own logic for once, and come to our own conclusions with the evidence that has been given to us? IMHO it is obviously deliberate, however we will not know the motive for the attack. The motivate could be justifiable, or it could not be. *THAT* is what needs investigating.

 

[Gokul43201]

Hezbollah did actually say at the beginning of this conflict that they were willing to negotiation

That was the entire point of the kidnapping, no? To negotiate prisoner exchange?

 

[marlon]

I am not anti-Jewish nor am I anti-Israel. However I am against this war 100% and I believe that Israel is loosing it... the circle of Violence continues.

When saying that losing a war means that the circle of violemce continues, indeed Isreal is loosing this "war". However, i fully support the actions of Isreal because when knowing that a terrorist organization is firing rockets close to your border, one has to act as a nation. So, if i had been the prime minister of Isreal, i would have done the exact same thing. Hezbollah needs to be eliminated because it is an organization (just like Al Quaida) that is full of people that are not thinking in a rational way. These guys are just inferior fundamentalists that will not reason with you if they don't want to.

All they want is to cause pain and terror. They want to eliminate Israel as a nation (just like Iran, who's "government" is totally supporting and financing Hezbollah) because of anti-semite and anti-holocaust reasons. They always said that Europe created Isreal as an excuse for the socalled holocaust. When "governments" are saying statements like this, i really don't believe that negotiations will yield anything good.

Again, these are irrational fundamentalists that need to be blown away so that the world is a safer place.

So, indeed, the circle of violence is not going to stop right away, but that is not relevant and it is not important. It is very logic that it will not end directly because such wars (with the aim of eliminating a terrorist government) takes time. The change of a lifestyle and mentality takes time and only time will prove US right. Just like in the case of Iraq.

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

Hezbollah did actually say at the beginning of this conflict that they were willing to negotiation (whether or not they were actually going to is speculation but they said it) Israel didnt want to,

Err, first of all, about what did they want to negotiate ?

Secondly, you really think such a proposition should be taken into account when this terrorist organization had just kidnapped Israeli soldiers ?

Thirdly, just because they said it and Israel did not, does certainly not imply that Israel is "more guilty" or whatever. At least this is what i guess you want to say right ? If not, what exactly is your point ?

Finally, why would Isreal want to negotiate if they just had been the victim of a crime ? One does not negotiate with terrorists and certainly not in public or as an entire nation. That would violate one of the very foundations of democracy, which Israel IS and Hezbollah is NOT.

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Hezbollah are targeting only civilians where it seems their ratio of Soldiers killed to civilians is WAY better than Israel's

Hezbollah is engaging in two separate types of action - one that fundamentally targets civilians and one that fundamentally targets soldiers. The one that fundamentally targets civilians isn't all that reliable, but they are doing the best they can to kill as many civilians as they can.

 

[Anttech]

Err, first of all, about what did they want to negotiate ?

Prisoner exchange as Gokul rightly said

Secondly, you really think such a proposition should be taken into account when this terrorist organization had just kidnapped Israeli soldiers ?

yes I do as a matter of fact. Look at the IRA conflict as a case study. They are not identical conflicts by any means, but there are loads and loads of similarities. You can't "stamp" out terrorists, it doesn't work, the harder you attack them the more they recruit and the more they attack you. Its like one of the chinesse finger puzzles, the stronger you pull the more impossible it is to take off.

Thirdly, just because they said it and Israel did not, does certainly not imply that Israel is "more guilty" or whatever. At least this is what i guess you want to say right ? If not, what exactly is your point ?

No that's not my point, my point is that Israel was incorrect in its judgement to go to war. They should have negotiated, got there prisoners back and saved the anguish of all the Israeli's in danger now, and all the Lebonesse.

Finally, why would Isreal want to negotiate if they just had been the victim of a crime ? One does not negotiate with terrorists and certainly not in public or as an entire nation. That would violate one of the very foundations of democracy, which Israel IS and Hezbollah is NOT.

people do negotiate with terrorists, this is a slogan, its not workable. Terrorist, freedom fighters, resistance movements, (Whatever label you want to put on them) have been effectively disarmed through negotiations, especially when they sense that MORE can be achieved through political channels and not through Violence.

 

[Anttech]

Hezbollah is engaging in two separate types of action - one that fundamentally targets civilians and one that fundamentally targets soldiers. The one that fundamentally targets civilians isn't all that reliable, but they are doing the best they can to kill as many civilians as they can.

Russ that is news to me. Where did you get that info from?

Whether it is true or not, the same could be perceived of the Israeli's, especially after the recent bombing runs.

 

[russ_watters]

the US has enough illegal actions of it's own... naplam bombing, nuclear bombing were in the past, recently it was the prisoners in iraq.. soldier abuse of civilians... if you'd look hard enough you'd find more..

is Iran syria being blamed for the illegal actions of hizbullah?

are you talking about recent illegal actions Israel did?
can you elaborate?

I am kinda talking in general eg the recent vetoe i believe from qatar a regional ally of the US against irans nuclear weapons program, eg when israel targetted the UN post and 4 died china said non-cooperation with them over that incident could lead to non-cooperation with china in other occasions.

so i think that when the US vetoes israels illegal actions should people blame israel or should they blame the United States ?

p.s what are you talking about hezbullah

p.p.s just because the US has done illegal things in the past does not mean that its ok for israel to do illegal things.

Both of you are casting far too wide a net with what you are considering illegal actions. First nuclear weapons are not illegal and the US doesn't use napalm. We've had long and torturous discussions about those.

Second, having a UN resolution about something doesn't mean that something is illegal. Resolutions are not laws.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ that is news to me. Where did you get that info from?

Where do I get what? Every news article about this conflict discusses the two types of actions they are engaging in:

1. Ground combat with Israeli soldiers in the border region.
2. Rocket strikes against civilian population centers.

 

[russ_watters]

Prisoner exchange as Gokul rightly said

Are you saying that people should negotiate with terrorists for hostages?

Do you remember the plane hijackings that used to be common in the 70s and 80s? Do you know why they are rare today? Do you know why kidnappings are so rare in the US today? And besides the practical reason, kidnapping for ransom is illegal and negotiation requires letting criminals get away with their crime.

You do not negotiate for hostages with terrorists.

 

[Anttech]

Where do I get what? Every news article about this conflict discusses the two types of actions they are engaging in:

1. Ground combat with Israeli soldiers in the border region.
2. Rocket strikes against civilian population centers.

I thought you meant something else. I don't think it is as clean cut as this anyway. The rocket attacks are also towards Military installations not only towards civilians. Regardless, the ratio of Civilians killed to Soldiers in Israel is way way lower than that of Lebanon.

 

[Anttech]

Are you saying that people should negotiate with terrorists for hostages?

Do you remember the plane hijackings that used to be common in the 70s and 80s? Do you know why they are rare today?

You do not negotiate for hostages with terrorists.

yes because of the security in airports is *WAY* tighter now than in the 70's and 80's. Whats your point?

 

[Anttech]

You do not negotiate for hostages with terrorists.

Its not a law of physics you know. Its a matter of opinion. In ever situation you should look at all factors and decide what is the best course of action to resolve the situation. To take your corner like that and leave no room for thought is a dangerous game to play, especially in a situation where loss of life (mass loss of life) if bound to happen if you don't play your cards correctly.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Dont put words in my mouth, I never said anything like this. Please either show me where I said this, or retract that statement!


As for the original question. The States are not directly responsible for the actions of Israel. Israel is responsible, although the USA government backs Israel's hardline stance, and has been using its media to spin the reason for this new war from "Kidnapped Israeli soldiers" to the current reason of "Hezbollah firing rockets at civilians"

Hezbollah did actually say at the beginning of this conflict that they were willing to negotiation (whether or not they were actually going to is speculation but they said it) Israel didnt want to, and instead now have almost 1 Million Displaced civilians and >400 dead in Lebanon and < than 20 Civilians killed in Israel. I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Hezbollah are targeting only civilians where it seems their ratio of Soldiers killed to civilians is WAY better than Israel's

I am not anti-Jewish nor am I anti-Israel. However I am against this war 100% and I believe that Israel is loosing it... the circle of Violence continues.

I'm not sure where your quoting it from, can't see it but I'm responding to the quote, but before Israel was a state the people living in Jewish settlements were responsible for their actions, afterwards the government where, either way your still responsible for your actions, what sort of odd logic is it to say it is irrelevant what our people did pre establishment of borders? Is it irrelevant to Italians that the Romans crucified christ? I think the Catholic church may say differently. Even if they aren't technically Romans any more.

I agree with Antech, the Israelis have messed up, time will tell if we're right, of course I hope I'm wrong.

As for the original wquestion I think the US position is biased, in as much as sanctions against Israel are impossible, but always possible against the other side, yes the US is partially responsible, as who's supplying Israel with it's military might, if your not in part somewhat responsible then I fail to see how.

So are the French for giving Israel nukes, who are in turn responsible for the as yet usnsubstantiated claim that Iran are looking for nukes, i'ts all a web of politics, lies and machinations, that Machievella would have drooled over

Second, having a UN resolution about something doesn't mean that something is illegal. Resolutions are not laws.

When a country has the power of veto, they aren't even worth the paper they are written on

 

[marlon]

Prisoner exchange as Gokul rightly said

One does not negotiate with an organization that just took prisoners. How on Earth would you expect such negotiations to yield something good. Besides, this is certainly not the way negotiations should be held. This is hostage and hostage is a crime. The Israeli have nothing to negotiate with.

No that's not my point, my point is that Israel was incorrect in its judgement to go to war.

I disagree, they have the right of self defense. They needed the military actions because what else could they do? One cannot reason with terrorists.

They should have negotiated, got there prisoners back

At what cost ?

people do negotiate with terrorists, this is a slogan, its not workable. Terrorist, freedom fighters, resistance movements, (Whatever label you want to put on them) have been effectively disarmed through negotiations, especially when they sense that MORE can be achieved through political channels and not through Violence.

I know that. I think you missed my point. One cannot have such policy as a public opinion. Ofcourse it happens behind the scenes but that is irrelevant. The aim of this war is not just to get soldiers back but to eradicate an entire terrorist organization.

Time will show that the Israeli took the right path.

marlon

 

[Andre]

One of the problems of negotiation about hostages is creating precedent. If a hostage case is negotiated succesfully the message to the potential hostage takers is how profitable it is to take hostages and there is always a reason to take more hostages. And consequently the world will get a lot unsafer.

The message should be that you only hurt yourself when taking hostages, because it is just the same crime category as murder.

 

[marlon]

One of the problems of negotiation about hostages is creating precedent. If a hostage case is negotiated succesfully the message to the potential hostage takers is how profitable it is to take hostages and there is always a reason to take more hostages. And consequently the world will get a lot unsafer.

Truer words were never spoken

marlon

 

[Hans de Vries]

Time will show that the Israeli took the right path.
marlon

This is destabalizing global politics in a very dangerous way.
An unexperienced snotnose president who was misleaded by his own
ambitious military staff into this collosal blunder.

The one and only reason for this whole escalation is to get the peace
process of the table and most importantly: the widthdraw from occupied
territories which was forced by the world upon an unwilling Israel.
Escalate with Hamas to keep the Westbank, Escalate with Hezbollah and
Syria to keep the Golan Heights. Regards, Hans.

 

[Anttech]

One of the problems of negotiation about hostages is creating precedent. If a hostage case is negotiated succesfully the message to the potential hostage takers is how profitable it is to take hostages and there is always a reason to take more hostages. And consequently the world will get a lot unsafer.

One of the problems with not negotiation with Terrorist organisations is that, if you do not engage them and listen to what they want, they tend to shout louder and louder and louder. The 'ignore them and they will go away' tactic doesn't work with Terrorism. Look these people have been radicalised by something, that something needs to be addressed. The problem with you argument IMO is that the is no precedence to set. Military prision exchanges and political prisoners exchanges have been going on for years and years

I read a great article by Robert Pape today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape
Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism controverts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2003 (315 campaigns and 462 individuals), he concludes that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or anyone of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" (p. 4). "The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism," he argues; it is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (pp. 79-80). Pape's volume is divided in three parts, examining suicide terrorism in its strategic, social, and psychological dimensions.

Basically he is asserting that Islam and terrorism (Suicide bombing) are not linked, but instead Terrorism is almost always linked with national liberalism. I tend to believe him.

 

[Hurkyl]

is it fair that america gets the blame for israels illegal actions ??

what do you think

I think this is a loaded question, if I've ever saw one!

1.who is to blame for the UN deaths the person who guided the precision weapon onto the UN or the person above him or gave the order, the post had been there for 20 years its not like israel didnt know it was there.

What about the militants that were standing next to the UN post launching rockets?

IMHO it is obviously deliberate

Dropping the bomb was deliberate. Dropping the bomb on the UN outpost was not. (or are you asserting that the Israelis actually wanted to take out the UN people in the post?)

There's a big difference between the two, and it doesn't help this discussion any when you don't make the distinction.

The rocket attacks are also towards Military installations not only towards civilians.

Source?

You can't "stamp" out terrorists, it doesn't work

Even if you are right -- that still doesn't mean you should let the terrorists run around unfettered and doing anything they want to anyone they want.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it is as clean cut as this anyway. The rocket attacks are also towards Military installations not only towards civilians.

In general, that isn't correct. The rockets are not accurate enough to choose anything other than a population center as a target. That they occasionally hit military installations isn't because they are aimed at them, but through sheer probability.

Regardless, the ratio of Civilians killed to Soldiers in Israel is way way lower than that of Lebanon.

That doesn't have any bearing on the legality of the various acts.

 

[Anttech]

Dropping the bomb was deliberate. Dropping the bomb on the UN outpost was not. (or are you asserting that the Israelis actually wanted to take out the UN people in the post?)

There's a big difference between the two, and it doesn't help this discussion any when you don't make the distinction.

I think it is very clear what I am saying.

IMHO it is obviously deliberate, however we will not know the motive for the attack. The motivate could be justifiable, or it could not be. *THAT* is what needs investigating.

Let me try once again to explain what I said:

IMO they deliberately bombed the UN post, however we do not know why they did it. There *could* be a justifiable motive for doing so, or they *could not* be. The focus of the investigation (which should not be carried out by Israel) should be on the motivates and reasons for the attack, not if they Deliberately did it or not.

 

[russ_watters]

yes because of the security in airports is *WAY* tighter now than in the 70's and 80's. Whats your point?

No. The reason is that the Israelis adopted the policy of storming the planes, guaranteeing hijackers that they would die in their attempt. The cost-benefit analysis made hijacking an unattractive option, to say the least.

Its not a law of physics you know. Its a matter of opinion. In ever situation you should look at all factors and decide what is the best course of action to resolve the situation.

No. First of all, logic is mathematical. It is not a matter of opinion. With the same starting premise, any logical person should reach the same conclusions. In this case, the logic is inescapable: you do not negotiate with hijackers/kidnappers. Second, hijackers/kidnappers aren't stupid - they know their history and calculate odds of success. Because of that, you must, in general, treat all such actions the same in order to send a consistent message to them.

To take your corner like that and leave no room for thought is a dangerous game to play, especially in a situation where loss of life (mass loss of life) if bound to happen if you don't play your cards correctly.

The decision matrix for this is very straightforward, and the results are clear. We've discussed it before, but I'm not sure I ever laid the whole thing out (you could figure it out on your own if you tried). I'm going to start a new thread about this, since it is kinda a side issue.

 

[Office_Shredder]

IMO they deliberately bombed the UN post, however we do not know why they did it. There *could* be a justifiable motive for doing so, or they *could not* be. The focus of the investigation (which should not be carried out by Israel) should be on the motivates and reasons for the attack, not if they Deliberately did it or not.

The Canadian observer would tend to disagree with you:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b&p=1

My question is: will Israel stop being blamed for the illegal actions taken by Hezbollah that directly threaten neutral targets by drawing them into the fight?

As long as people continue to blanket-condemn Israel for every civilian being killed, and UN post being hit, Israel's enemies will continue to use them as cover illegally

 

[marlon]

This is destabalizing global politics in a very dangerous way.
An unexperienced snotnose president who was misleaded by his own
ambitious military staff into this collosal blunder.

The one and only reason for this whole escalation is to get the peace
process of the table and most importantly: the widthdraw from occupied
territories which was forced by the world upon an unwilling Israel.
Escalate with Hamas to keep the Westbank, Escalate with Hezbollah and
Syria to keep the Golan Heights.


Regards, Hans.

I completely disagree with this. Let's look at the situation. Israel is surrounded by nations that don't recognize Israel as an independent country. Israel is surrounded by so many hostile nations and when being attacked (AS THEY WERE BY HEZBOLLAH) who can they turn to for help. Europe is not helping, only the USA are. They have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. How would you react when you are dealing with people/nations that don't even recognize your country ? Would you just talk when you are attacked. Keep in mind that Israel was attacked first, you know. Really, tell me, what would you do as prime minister ?

marlon

 

[Anttech]

My question is: will Israel stop being blamed for the illegal actions taken by Hezbollah that directly threaten neutral targets by drawing them into the fight?

Israel didnt have to fight, the negotiation table was open. Israel played right into Hezbollahs hands.

As long as people continue to blanket-condemn Israel for every civilian being killed, and UN post being hit, Israel's enemies will continue to use them as cover illegally

What do you expect Gurrelia/ resistance fighters /Terrorist to do? All line up on in the middle of a field and take on Israel with rifles, firing at their F16's? Of course they are going to use the urban Environment to get shelter. But this fact still doesn't give Israel the right to bomb Villages and kill 50 Civilians of which over 50% were children, or Deliberately take out using laser guided missiles a UN post. If you don't agree with this, then write to you senator or whatever and ask them to null the Geneva convention, and all other Human Rights pacts Israel signed up too..

And it seems the Toronto Star aggrees with me :)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154382609690&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

 

[russ_watters]

The one and only reason for this whole escalation is to get the peace
process of the table and most importantly: the widthdraw from occupied
territories which was forced by the world upon an unwilling Israel.
Escalate with Hamas to keep the Westbank, Escalate with Hezbollah and
Syria to keep the Golan Heights.


Regards, Hans.

I'm confused too - who has forced Israel to withdraw from occupied territories? What they have done so far (the West Bank) has been done unilaterally and they have been very straightforward about their intention to withdraw more.

And how is the reson for this to get peace off the table? Israel is the only side who has ever shown up at the table! It seems to me that the reason for fighting is to force the other side to the table.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the problems with not negotiation with Terrorist organisations is that, if you do not engage them and listen to what they want, they tend to shout louder and louder and louder. The 'ignore them and they will go away' tactic doesn't work with Terrorism.

There is a difference between general terrorism and the specific tactic of kidnapping. Your logic is somewhat correct regarding terrorism as a whole, but simply doesn't apply to the specific tactic of kidnapping.

No that's not my point, my point is that Israel was incorrect in its judgement to go to war. They should have negotiated, got there prisoners back and saved the anguish of all the Israeli's in danger now, and all the Lebonesse.

Many in the world community share this view, but it is worthlessly shortsighted. Yes, if Israel negotiated, they wouldn't be in this conflict (that's almost uselessly redunant), but by negotiating, they guarantee that more people will be kidnapped in the future. That is the cycle in this case.

 

[russ_watters]

What do you expect Gurrelia/ resistance fighters /Terrorist to do? All line up on in the middle of a field and take on Israel with rifles, firing at their F16's? Of course they are going to use the urban Environment to get shelter.

They certainly are on the short end of that catch-22. But that is their problem and it is still wrong to fight the way they are fighting. A person who steals bread because they are hungry still goes to jail.

But this fact still doesn't give Israel the right to bomb Villages and kill 50 Civilians of which over 50% were children...

Yeah, actually it does. The Geneva Conventions are relatively clear on the use of human shields being the illegal act, not their killing while trying to kill the fighters.

... If you don't agree with this, then write to you senator or whatever and ask them to null the Geneva convention, and all other Human Rights pacts Israel signed up too..

Sorry, that simply isn't how those laws read. Please find for me a passage that says it is illegal to bomb soldiers who are using human shields.

And it seems the Toronto Star aggrees with me :)

That is an op ed and it doesn't mention the use of human shields.