News Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[Anttech]

Its your democratic right, and good for you! If Lebanon Israel and Palestine could rid itself of these problems of extreemism. What a beatiful, and prosperus place it would be.

 

[Yonoz]

If Lebanon Israel and Palestine could rid itself of these problems of extreemism. What a beatiful, and prosperus place it would be.

We had dreams of that during the time of the Oslo accords. It's sad to admit that I don't think I'll get to see that in my lifetime.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What is this treaty you speak of?

The UN partition plan, now where as the reason for taking these distinctly demarkated Arab/Palestinian state may have been to pre-empt a strike and may even have had merit at the time, holding onto them and refusing to give them back is a clear breach of an already unfair treaty that you no doubt signed eagerly and then failed to uphold, you broke your word, to make ammends for this breach of trust you might want to consider giving the land back.

FYI Palestine declared itself a state in 1988, although it is not recognised by the UN, US influence again no doubt, It does have diplomatic ties with the EU, who recognise it's authority, you may also like to know the state when declared also recognised the pre 1967 boundaries, and accepted Israels right to exist. About half the worlds countries recognise it's existence. It's an aside to the original point but FYI, you can't take someones land and then claim they are not a state so you took nothing, no one is going to take that seriously, we could of said the same thing about the American indians, the Zulu or the Mauori, but we were more honest back then, we know we stole it, we recognised it then and we recognise it now. No one expects you to give the partition plan land back now, it's not realistic and I happen to think you've fought hard enough for the right to live there, the extras though should be part of any peace process.

EDIT: Here's a quote I think echoes my sentiment:

"Only then [after an internal revolution] will the young and old in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruit of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed, we put up houses of education, charity and prayer." -
- Philosopher Martin Buber addressing fellow Jews in 1961

Although people like this shouldn't be alowed to speak in public, I can see where your ideas come from.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." -- Golda Meir Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." -- Golda Meir (quoted in Chapter 13 of The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace by Alfred Lilienthal )

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_shiite_power;_ylt=ApH.c7sJl3eZMTi_yPpplYIUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NmxuamZjBHNlYwNyaGw-

CAIRO, Egypt - The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah exposed divisions across the Arab world, not only between Shiites and Sunnis but also between Arab governments and their citizens.

Key Arab allies of the United States, predominantly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fear the rising power of Shiites in the region: Hezbollah militants who virtually control southern Lebanon, Iraq's majority Shiite government, and — most worrisome — the Shiite theocracy that has run Iran for decades.

Yet many ordinary people, Sunnis as well as Shiites, are cheering the Lebanese guerrillas because of their willingness to stand up to Israel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

BEIRUT, Lebanon - A U.N.-run observation post near the border took a direct hit Friday during fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants. Israel resumed airstrikes on Lebanon and prepared for a possible ground invasion, warning people in the south to flee.

Well, it is escalating. But note - Israel does warn civilians to get out of the way - Hizbollah shells (targets) Isreali population centers (civilians).

 

[Cyrus]

Because the Hezbollah, like the Hamas hides amongst the civilians. You didn't know that? Now you do.

Thank you for that piece of information. I hadn't the faintest idea..

Post something with substance or take a hike. Stop spamming posts with no content.

 

[Yonoz]

The UN partition plan, now where as the reason for taking these distinctly demarkated Arab/Palestinian state may have been to pre-empt a strike and may even have had merit at the time, holding onto them and refusing to give them back is a clear breach of an already unfair treaty that you no doubt signed eagerly and then failed to uphold, you broke your word, to make ammends for this breach of trust you might want to consider giving the land back.

The UN partition plan was not a treaty. A treaty is accepted by both sides. The Jewish leadership accepted this plan but the Arab nations, whome the Palestinians have chosen to represent them, refused to accept the formation of a Jewish state and so rejected the plan. Thus, it is not a treaty and Israel is not bound by it. Nevertheless, the parts that remained in Arab hands were not formed into a Palestinian state by the Arab nations, whome Israel fought in the 6-day war. Now, seeing as that land was held by the Arab nations and used by their armies to attack Israel, Israel is under no obligation to the Palestinians, who saw themselves as the subjects of those Arab nations. In the Khartoum conference following the 6-day war, Arab nations elected not to negotiate with Israel. While in retrospect it may have been wise for Israel to form a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, we can only speculate whether such a state could have been formed and what its relations with Israel and the Arab nations might have been. Thus the territories were kept but not annexed (with the exception of the Golan Heights) and certain groups started buying lands and returning to old Jewish settlements such as the Hebron community that was massacred in 1929, and ones that were lost in the war of independence. This is how the now infamous settlements began.
BTW, we are considering "giving the land back", as we have with the Gaza Strip and as we plan to do with the West Bank. We've sat at the negotiating table many times only to be disillusioned by PA-sponsored acts of terror at the peak of negotiations.

FYI Palestine declared itself a state in 1988, although it is not recognised by the UN, US influence again no doubt

No doubt? Excuse me if I take this sort of propoganda and theorising with a pinch of salt, ifs and maybes are that.

It does have diplomatic ties with the EU, who recognise it's authority, you may also like to know the state when declared also recognised the pre 1967 boundaries, and accepted Israels right to exist.

So if it was formed in 1988, how could Israel steal its land like you have claimed? You're not making much sense there.
The declaration does not recognise Israel's right to exist, and the Hamas government's ideology still calls for the destruction of Israel.

About half the worlds countries recognise it's existence. It's an aside to the original point but FYI, you can't take someones land and then claim they are not a state so you took nothing, no one is going to take that seriously, we could of said the same thing about the American indians, the Zulu or the Mauori, but we were more honest back then, we know we stole it, we recognised it then and we recognise it now.

Can you please show me how Israel has stolen lands from the Palestinian state, considering that it was declared 1988 and Israel hasn't taken any land, but rather gave over 100% of its current size away since 1967?
I don't see how anyone can compare the conquering of new lands by imperial nations to the peaceful return of the Jewish people to our homeland after 2 millenia of persecution in the diaspora. But nevermind that because that last sentence was fun to read - "we were more honest back then, we know we stole it, we recognised it then and we recognise it now". Why don't you contemplate that a little more before lecturing me about land rights. So many nations were born in sin, and yet you feel no shame criticizing us.

Although people like this shouldn't be alowed to speak in public

What's happened to your noble morals? Do you only live by them if they serve a purpose? There sure seems to be a lot of that around.
When presented with the option of living peacefuly with the Jews, the ancestors of the Palestinians chose to align themselves with the Arab countries and to become their subjects, in hope that their armies would crush Israel. Now they're disillusioned, and expect us to forget years and years of bloodshed? They expect us to just hand over land we've fought for and raised our children on? Only through negotiations will a fair settlement be reached. Until they're ready to take that step, the Israeli leadership is simply forced to make unilateral moves. I know of no country that has gone into negotiations with a terrorist group whose ideology is its destruction.

 

[Hurkyl]

Like Putin said, it is now completely destroying Lebanon

Completely destroying?? Countries have undergone years of carpet bombing, and emerged all right. I think Lebanon can survive a week or so of tactical and strategic bombing.

You lie. ... You lie. Again.

"You lie" usually requires some explanation, y'know.

It was 300 years and it was the ottomans, not the turks. Turkey didnt exsist.

The Ottomans were Turks.

2 soldiers kidnapped 300+ dead civillians. You are admitting this is revenge for past events and has nothing to do with the soldiers then? It's an excuse pretty much to war yes? a sort of pay back for past misdemeanours?

Because, of course, Hezbollah has done nothing except kidnap 2 civilians.

WOW -- talk about over analysing.

It's called supporting one's assertions. When I'm making a point, that I actually have reasoning for it, rather than spouting out a bunch of emotional appeals or other fallacies...

this whole argument you are *attempting* to get into with me is a red herring

which is what this subthread is about. If you think that's a red herring, then by all means continue to be suckered by and and be a repeater for emotional appeals, then go ahead. Just don't expect your posts to have any weight.

 

[Anttech]

The Ottomans were Turks.

Following your logic then everything Hellenised is Greek? Nope. The bysantium empire before the ottoman empire enveloped most of the Middle east and eastern Europe, but they weren't all greek. The Ottomans were Arabs that came towards Europe in the conquest of breaking up the Bysantium empire. They were NOT turks, because there was never such a place as Turkey until the fall of the Ottomen Empire. However there was a people called the "Turkic" where the country after the Ottomans fell got there name from.

Edit: To be honest it depends on how you classify "Turks" as any tribe that spoke a dervitive of the Turkic language group or people from the land that is now called Turkey. Right now there is about 5 or 6 countries that speak a turkic language derivative.

In modern Turkey, a distinction is made between "Turks" and the "Turkic peoples": the term Türk corresponds specifically to Turkish people and culture, while the term Türki refers generally to modern Turkic peoples and cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples#Geographical_distribution

So the ottomans would be better described as differing tribes of Arabs not Turks, since there was no such place as Turkey before the Ottomans fell I would not say that the ottomans are turks.

 

[Hurkyl]

However there was a people called the "Turkic"

Yes. The word "Turk" refers to the Turkic peoples. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was founded by a tribe of Oghuz Turks, and I've generally heard the Ottomans referred to as the "Ottoman Turks".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

 

[Anttech]

Completely destroying?? Countries have undergone years of carpet bombing, and emerged all right. I think Lebanon can survive a week or so of tactical and strategic bombing.

Which ones would those be? Qualifiy your statement with a few examples please.

"Alright" meaning, after the carpet bombing everyone was happy and the ecconomy was boombing. Or Alright in the sense that the country was still there.

 

[Anttech]

I've generally heard the Ottomans referred to as the "Ottoman Turks".

Yes in modern time perhaps, but it arguably incorrect to call them this, since there never was such a place as Turkey.

The word "Turk" refers to the Turkic peoples

The word Turk refers to the Turkish people not the Turkic people. The word Turkic refers to Turkic people. ;)

 

[vanesch]

You destroy Hezzbollah. Then you wait and see. It hasn't been done before, no it is a good opportunity to see. What a novel approach, destroy the terrorists.

Hehe, I know of another successful example of that strategy
(6 weeks, or 6 months was it )

It's very simple: Israel is in a place where there's a lot of folks around it who don't like them. Some don't like them so much, that they'd even die for it. On the other hand, Israel has, for the moment, the biggest guns, so it can hit back. But just to entertain itself, to take a breath of air again, and to start all over. Because the guns don't solve the problem.

Because each time there's a bomb that falls on a house on the other side, and there's an innocent, or a not-so-innocent that dies or gets hurt, the folks around get reinforced in not liking Israel.

You can't win against terrorism, if it is rooted in the masses around you.
You can win against a few crazy terrorists nobody likes: just track them down and pick them up or kill them. But you can't if it is rooted in the populations amongst whom you're living. For each terrorist you kill, and each innocent you kill, you provoke more recruits for new ones. Your only hope is to diminish their hatred, if you want the terrorism to stop. But if the hatred is strong enough, you won't even succeed.

However, terrorism cannot win against a nation with many big guns either, and with people determined to stay, no matter what it costs them.

And that's why this thing will go on and on.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The UN partition plan was not a treaty. snip.

more political BS, you don't work for the Israeli governement by any chance? No, thank god for that :) I will say only one thing, no one outside of Israel is buying any of that, and saying if a people don't declare themselves a state they don't own the land is like claiming that all the non European countries England conquered had no right to claim their land back because they had not declarded themselves a state, sorry India you can't have your coutnry back you weren't a state? Never mind, I thought I'd made this clear but it isn't obvious to you still. You need to accept the idea that everyone outside of Israel thinks that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians or Arabs who lived there before 1890 when you were but 5% of the population, when you turned up you took the land, or rather were gifted it, it already belonged to someone else OK, you sound like that raccist I quoted at the End there in that you believe these people didn't exist and that you moved into a ghostland, saying they weren't a state is essentially saying they were worthless and you had no need to honour there right to their land, and it's very derrogatory language. We don't buy it, hell does anyone in good moral conscience? You signed up to the partition plan they didn't, that still means you have to honour it, it was an agreement with the UN as well you know, they signed too, you broke your word to them?

You can spin history however you like, your kidding only yourself with rhetoric like that. I'm not partial to one side or the other but your one sided logic, smacks of condecension, I hope this sort of weaseling isn't typical amongst Israelis, surely you can see that this sort of ideology can lead only to descriminatory thought, you should start being more rational about your history and a little less one sided, probably not easy, may be impossible, but denying people rights because you don't acknowledge they have any isn't considered a civil way to behave.

EDIT: It is the US who uses it's veto powers to refuse recognition of Palestinians membership to the UN, it was passed by 200-4 votes. It only needed one country to veto it though and that was the US. Here's an update though on why it may of got stateship, it's academic though. I was wrong two thirds of all couintries now officially recognise Palestine as a state.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2002/0519palmem.htm

There were two good strategic reasons for this. First, the Palestinian leadership believed that discretion and peaceful negotiations were more likely to produce a warm and open peace based on the two-state solution than thrusting the Palestinian state aggressively in the face of an Israeli state which, after all, still occupied militarily all of Palestine. Second, the Palestinian leadership believed that, at each point when bringing the state out of the closet was a serious prospect (indeed, on several occasions when President Arafat had solemnly promised to do so), a U.S. veto of UN membership was highly likely and might make the Palestinian position worse than before.

 

[kyleb]

First, get your facts straight. Israel is not asking for Hizbullah to be removed...

I am trying to get your claims straight, I asked, you responded, and I asked for clarifcation:

...what reasonable means did Israel peruse to clear the boarder of Hezbollah prior to the attacks?

Repeated calls to the Lebanese government and the UN, meetings with UNIFIL officials, supersonic booms over major cities and limited strikes against Syrian targets.

Lebanese government can barely keep themselves together, let alone are they in any position to remove a Hezbollah from the boader, and supersonic booms are strikes on Syria obviously aren't any way to get Hezbollah off the boarder either. Working UN and UNIFIL officals can be helpful though, when and what exactly was the last time Israel made a valid effort to resolve the problem of Hezbollah that way?

So please, it is up to you to set your claim straight or admit that Israel did not peruse reasonable means before resorting to war.

Are you familiar at all with international law? Read up on the Geneva convention, you'll find Israel has every right to bomb the bridges, runways, radar installations, even civilian houses if they store weapons.

I am fairly familiar with the Geneva Conventions, what potions of it are you claiming to be sighting here?

Let me try to clarify a point about negotiations that you fail to grasp despite it being explained several times already in this discussion: both sides have to first recognise each other's basic rights. Then comes the part about making offers.

I'm pointing out the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land.

 

[kyleb]

Can you please show me how Israel has stolen lands from the Palestinian state, considering that it was declared 1988 and Israel hasn't taken any land, but rather gave over 100% of its current size away since 1967?

The blue and red dots on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/map/" mark recent examples of land Israel has stolen from the Palestinian state.

 

[Yonoz]

I am trying to get your claims straight, I asked, you responded, and I asked for clarifcation:

So please, it is up to you to set your claim straight or admit that Israel did not peruse reasonable means before resorting to war.

Israel is demanding Hizbullah be disarmed, it can continue its presence in Lebanon, just not as a paramilitary force. I showed you a UN security council report that states Israel keeps the UNSC informed on every violation of UNSC 1559, which demands Lebanon take control of the south and disarm Hizbullah.

I am fairly familiar with the Geneva Conventions, what potions of it are you claiming to be sighting here?

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm"

The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It, too, can be targeted if it makes an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities and its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage” to the attacking side. However, such “dual use” objects might also be protected by the principle of proportionality, described below.
Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for military purposes. Even then, the same rule applies requiring the parties to the conflict to weigh carefully the impact on civilians against the military advantage served; they must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage. Human Rights Watch has not yet done the field research that would enable the organization to assess the legitimacy of Israeli attacks on Lebanese roads and bridges, but among the factors to be considered are whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in fact to impede military transport in light of readily alternative routes – that is, whether the infrastructure attacked is making an “effective” contribution to Hezbollah’s military action and its destruction offers a “definite military advantage” – or whether its destruction seems aimed more at inconveniencing the civilian population and even preventing it from fleeing the fighting and seeking safety.

I'm pointing out the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land.

Let us suppose that this really was the reason for this conflict - where are your proportions now? Does building settlements justify the carnage the Muslim world has brought upon Israel? Did the violence start when Israel started building settlements?

 

[Yonoz]

more political BS, you don't work for the Israeli governement by any chance? No, thank god for that :)

How amusing.

I will say only one thing, no one outside of Israel is buying any of that, and saying if a people don't declare themselves a state they don't own the land is like claiming that all the non European countries England conquered had no right to claim their land back because they had not declarded themselves a state, sorry India you can't have your coutnry back you weren't a state? Never mind, I thought I'd made this clear but it isn't obvious to you still.

It's good to know you speak for everyone outside of Israel.
The English have a home called England. The Indians have a home called India. The Jewish people's home is Israel. I hope you get the difference between Britain colonizing India and Israel conquering the occupied territories off Arab countries.

You need to accept the idea that everyone outside of Israel thinks that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians or Arabs who lived there before 1890 when you were but 5% of the population, when you turned up you took the land, or rather were gifted it, it already belonged to someone else OK, you sound like that raccist I quoted at the End there in that you believe these people didn't exist and that you moved into a ghostland, saying they weren't a state is essentially saying they were worthless and you had no need to honour there right to their land, and it's very derrogatory language.

I don't see how it's derogatory, it's an historical fact the ancestors of today's Palestinians were always subjects of other countries. Never did I say they did not exist nor did I say Jews moved into a "ghostland". Saying there was no Palestinian state does not essentially mean they were worthless and no one needed to honor their right to the land. The UN partition plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership and it called for the formation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel - is that not honouring their right to the land? It is the Palestinians that forgave their right for self-rule when their leaders chose they'll remain subjects of Arab countries. Why should we pay for their mistakes.

We don't buy it, hell does anyone in good moral conscience?

That's great because I am not selling it.

You signed up to the partition plan they didn't, that still means you have to honour it, it was an agreement with the UN as well you know, they signed too, you broke your word to them?

Nope, the State of Israel was declared in full accordance with the partition plan and the Arab nations, certain they could crush it, declared war and attacked it the next morning, from then on it was war. Then came the six day war in which the occupied territories were taken from the Arab countries.

You can spin history however you like, your kidding only yourself with rhetoric like that. I'm not partial to one side or the other but your one sided logic, smacks of condecension, I hope this sort of weaseling isn't typical amongst Israelis, surely you can see that this sort of ideology can lead only to descriminatory thought, you should start being more rational about your history and a little less one sided, probably not easy, may be impossible, but denying people rights because you don't acknowledge they have any isn't considered a civil way to behave.

That is your opinion, and it is my opinion that you are partial, one-sided, spinning history, condescending and too self-assured for someone so terribly uninformed. Please stop your personal assault as I'm trying to conduct a meaningful discussion here.

 

[kyleb]

Israel is demanding Hizbullah be disarmed, it can continue its presence in Lebanon, just not as a paramilitary force. I showed you a UN security council report that states Israel keeps the UNSC informed on every violation of UNSC 1559, which demands Lebanon take control of the south and disarm Hizbullah.

I understand the terms of UNSC 1559 and I understand that Israel has complained that those terms had not been meant, what I don't see is any reasonable effort by Israel to put a plan into action which would have resolved the problem prior to this war.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm"

Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for military purposes.

That is the restriction on the rights you claim which I am taking issue with.

Let us suppose that this really was the reason for this conflict - where are your proportions now? Does building settlements justify the carnage the Muslim world has brought upon Israel? Did the violence start when Israel started building settlements?

Before we can reasonably discuss the history and arguments you bring up I need you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land for nearly 40 years. Can you do that?

 

[Bystander]

I understand the terms of UNSC 1559 and I understand that Israel has complained that those terms had not been meant, what I don't see is any reasonable effort by Israel to put a plan into action which would have resolved the problem prior to this war.

That's Lebanon's and the UN's problem, not that of the Israelis.

That is the restriction on the rights you claim which I am taking issue with.


Before we can reasonably discuss the history and arguments you bring up I need you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land for nearly 40 years. Can you do that?

War is not a video game --- it's "played for keeps." You start a war, you risk losing everything. This isn't too terribly well understood in that part of the world. "Running to mama" (the UN) and crying about the "big bullie" who took your marbles after you tried to steal his doesn't cut it.

 

[Yonoz]

I understand the terms of UNSC 1559 and I understand that Israel has complained that those terms had not been meant, what I don't see is any reasonable effort by Israel to put a plan into action which would have resolved the problem prior to this war.

Can you suggest such a plan?

That is the restriction on the rights you claim which I am taking issue with.

Hizbullah uses rocket launchers mounted on trucks and regular trucks to supply its activists with rockets to be launched on Israel. Hizbullah stores many of these weapons in the Beq'a valley, Beirut area and Tyre. Iran supplies it with weapons via the Beirut airport and Syria. Israeli soldiers were kidnapped from the border and there's a obvious risk they'll be transported to more remote locations in Lebanon and possibly other countries. This means the bridges and roads are legitimate targets for this campaign, and it's quite clear from the article I linked to - I'm surprised you require me to explain it further.

Before we can reasonably discuss the history and arguments you bring up I need you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land for nearly 40 years. Can you do that?

I disagree with the colonization claim.

 

[kyleb]

Can you suggest such a plan?

It's a bit late now for what I was asking for there. But at this point, call off attacks and the impending ground invasion and let NATO forces take over would be my plan, and the Europeans seem interested in doing so as well.

Hizbullah uses rocket launchers mounted on trucks and regular trucks to supply its activists with rockets to be launched on Israel. Hizbullah stores many of these weapons in the Beq'a valley, Beirut area and Tyre. Iran supplies it with weapons via the Beirut airport and Syria. Israeli soldiers were kidnapped from the border and there's a obvious risk they'll be tranported to more remote locations in Lebanon and possibly other countries. This means the bridges and roads are legitimate targets for this campaign, and it's quite clear from the article I linked to - I'm surprised you require me to explain it further.

The difference being what could be used and what actually has been used for military purposes.

I disagree with the colonization claim.

And by what reason do you dispute my use of the term 'colonization' to refer to the continental building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land?

 

[kyleb]

That's Lebanon's and the UN's problem, not that of the Israelis.

If it wasn't Israels problem, they would be there now.

War is not a video game --- it's "played for keeps." You start a war, you risk losing everything. This isn't too terribly well understood in that part of the world. "Running to mama" (the UN) and crying about the "big bullie" who took your marbles after you tried to steal his doesn't cut it.

Sounds like you are the one taking about a video game, I'm talking about real people, many of whom weren't even born yet when this started.

 

[Yonoz]

It's a bit late now for what I was asking for there. But at this point, call off attacks and the impending ground invasion and let NATO forces take over would be my plan, and the Europeans seem interested in doing so as well.

They "seem interested"? Do you honestly think NATO would be able to disarm Hizbullah, considering the necessities I listed earlier? Do you think Iran and Syria would let Hizbullah be disarmed by NATO forces? Get real.

The difference being what could be used and what actually has been used for military purposes.

We've waited enough for Hizbullah's weapons to be used. Feel free to file suit to the international court if you think it's unlawful.

And by what reason do you dispute my use of the term 'colonization' to refer to the continental building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation" (or colonization) is the act where life forms move into a distant area where their kind is sparse or not yet existing at all and set up new settlements in the area.

You may notice the west bank is not at all distant from the pre-war borders. The British colonised India, the French colonised Viet-Nam and Cambodia.

 

[Anttech]

They "seem interested"? Do you honestly think NATO would be able to disarm Hizbullah, considering the necessities I listed earlier? Do you think Iran and Syria would let Hizbullah be disarmed by NATO forces? Get real.

Well to be frank, the full force of NATO could Dissarm Israel, so within the context of an iron fist (Which is what you *seem* to think is the answer) NATO could disarm Hezbullah. BUT deploying NATO to the situation wouldn't be about an iron fist, it would be about allowing space and time to solve this crisis with less civilan casualties, and less destroying of Lebanon. Perhaps even NATO would be able to undermine Hezbollah with a lot less destruction and stiring of future hatred, than this current bomb the sh!t out of beruit that is going on.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That is your opinion, and it is my opinion that you are partial, one-sided, spinning history, condescending and too self-assured for someone so terribly uninformed. Please stop your personal assault as I'm trying to conduct a meaningful discussion here.

Trying and failing believe me, this is a website dominated by the US posters and you'll find little argument amongst them, I'm prodding you for good reason I want to see your justifications, if it's the same old same old we've heard before as it seems to be, then to me, your just reiterating what all of us have heard already, if you want good debate, think for yourself, don't try and bring tired rhetoric to a modern discussion and I won't prod you. What do you think? Don't tell me what the consensus of your mates is or what you've been told to think, tell me what you understand about the situation, question your media: I do, I think it's biased crap half the time, I look into Israeli sources.

Do me a favour go through all my posts and tell me where exactly my history is wrong, when I'm talking about this crisis you refer to the past, when I'm talking about the past you refer to this crisis, your disengenuous. If you want a real dialogue stop trying to rewrite history in your favour, it might help. If you don't want a good discussion, then let all the fine posters pat you on the back, if that's what you want, so be it.

 

[kyleb]

They "seem interested"? Do you honestly think NATO would be able to disarm Hizbullah, considering the necessities I listed earlier? Do you think Iran and Syria would let Hizbullah be disarmed by NATO forces? Get real.

If I did think so I would have said so. Do you think Syria would be less happy with NATO handling this compared to the IDF contuning themselves?

We've waited enough for Hizbullah's weapons to be used. Feel free to file suit to the international court if you think it's unlawful.

Note that alll the waiting you did is one of the things I've been taking issue with here.

You may notice the west bank is not at all distant from the pre-war borders. The British colonised India, the French colonised Viet-Nam and Cambodia.

The planting flags on hilltops and building there is what strikes the image of colonisation to me, but do I agree with your distance argument refuting my use of the term. So, in respect to that; can you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and settling on their land for nearly 40 years.

 

[Hurkyl]

The word Turk refers to the Turkish people not the Turkic people. The word Turkic refers to Turkic people. ;)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Turk
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/turk

I never realized how much forsight people back then had, coming up with words to refer to people living in a country that didn't even exist yet.

Which ones would those be? Qualifiy your statement with a few examples please.

"Alright" meaning, after the carpet bombing everyone was happy and the ecconomy was boombing. Or Alright in the sense that the country was still there.

I was thinking France, Western Germany, Britain, and Japan. Obviously they weren't better off than they were before the war, but neither were they irreparably harmed.

 

[Yonoz]

Trying and failing believe me, this is a website dominated by the US posters and you'll find little argument amongst them, I'm prodding you for good reason I want to see your justifications, if it's the same old same old we've heard before as it seems to be, then to me, your just reiterating what all of us have heard already, if you want good debate, think for yourself, don't try and bring tired rhetoric to a modern discussion and I won't prod you.

It may be "tired rhetoric" to you, but it's grim daily reality for us here. You're accusing me of spinning history but you don't seem to realize I myself have lived right at the epicenter of much of what is being debated here. My grandparents were ones of the settlers who built this country out of swamps and deserts, and having been raised on their socialist ideology, with the emphasis of love of one's fellow man I take your condescending criticque rather personally. You judge us so readily, while clearly you've little touch with the reality here. It's clear to me your life or home have never been in danger.

What do you think? Don't tell me what the consensus of your mates is or what you've been told to think, tell me what you understand about the situation, question your media: I do, I think it's biased crap half the time, I look into Israeli sources.

Here's an article that I think covers my thoughts: http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=195&docid=1845"
Israelis are well-versed in all things military. Most of us have served in the military, our sons and daughters do etc. We've also the dubious experience of one endless conflict. The same goes for our journalists, who know they're not exactly speaking to a crowd of action seeking children. We know which channels and reporters are more nationalist than others, it's come up in my conversations several times over the past few days. There are reporters that specialise in Arab affairs, Arab media, international media, and even before this conflict began they've been delivering as complete a picture as possible. Apart from all the live feeds from Lebanon, there are phone interviews with Lebanese civilians. I watch CNN and Sky because that's all I receive but I also look at a myriad of news sites, most of which are terrible.

Do me a favour go through all my posts and tell me where exactly my history is wrong,

Israel are bombing civillians and Hizbullah are bombing civillians, I don't think either side could killl more civillians if it started aiming for them deliberately.

Honestly.

I'm confused when you bombed that airport what were the civillian casualties, 79 wasn't it, something like that?

There were no casualties at all.

But to say peace will never work is hypothesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords" .

I find this sort of politcal BS insulting to Palestinians, it was there land given over by treaty, you broke the treaty and stole it and you refuse to give it back and your premise is they were not a state so we can break our promise before the world because they do not exist as a people or a state

I've shown there was no such treaty, only a UN plan, and that the State of Israel was established according to that plan. It was the Arab nations that attacked it the next day thus "breaking the treaty" in your own words.

The UN partition plan, now where as the reason for taking these distinctly demarkated Arab/Palestinian state may have been to pre-empt a strike and may even have had merit at the time, holding onto them and refusing to give them back is a clear breach of an already unfair treaty that you no doubt signed eagerly and then failed to uphold, you broke your word, to make ammends for this breach of trust you might want to consider giving the land back.

Israel never refused to return the land. It actually gave most of it back already. It was the Arab leaders that decided in the Khartoum conference not to negotiate with Israel under any circumstance.

You need to accept the idea that everyone outside of Israel thinks that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians or Arabs who lived there before 1890 when you were but 5% of the population, when you turned up you took the land, or rather were gifted it, it already belonged to someone else

Every piece of land that was settled before the war of independence was bought. Jews all around the world put whatever money they could spare into the famous http://www.jnf.org/" "blue box" (photo attached) to redeem the land our entire culture is centred around.

when I'm talking about this crisis you refer to the past, when I'm talking about the past you refer to this crisis, your disengenuous.

Please enlighten me.

If you want a real dialogue stop trying to rewrite history in your favour, it might help. If you don't want a good discussion, then let all the fine posters pat you on the back, if that's what you want, so be it.

What pat on the back?

 

[Yonoz]

Do you think Syria would be less happy with NATO handling this compared to the IDF contuning themselves?

I think Syria would be very happy seeing as a NATO force could never achieve such a mission.

Note that alll the waiting you did is one of the things I've been taking issue with here.

Wow and I thought you have a problem with everything Israel does...
Seriously though, do you honestly think we're so happy to go to war we haven't done everything to avoid it? My 2 younger brothers are risking their lives right now, and I may be called to reserve service at any moment, do you think my family is happy about this?

The planting flags on hilltops and building there is what strikes the image of colonisation to me, but do I agree with your distance argument refuting my use of the term. So, in respect to that; can you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and settling on their land for nearly 40 years.

Yes, and as you can see I'm acting on the matter. You can also return to Hurkyl's appeasement list if you're looking for signs of goodwill by Israel to end it.

 

[Yonoz]

About seven minutes into this video, you can see a http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//944950" . The soldiers are removing part of the launching platform and examining a rocket. Notice the vehicle looks completely civilian from the outside, and is stored right under the mosque.