Israel vs Hezbollah Thread #3

[Brent]

Israeli forces operate deep inside Lebanon
Raid marks broadest violation of 5-day-old cease-fire with Hezbollah
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 4:35 a.m. ET Aug 19, 2006

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah fighters battled Israeli commandos who landed near the militants’ stronghold deep inside Lebanon early Saturday, killing one soldier, in the first large-scale violation of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between the sides.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14420157/

[Yarrah]

Tisk tisk tisk, Israel should know better then this.

Anyway, there's some more news from that area.

* Israel arrests the Palestinian vice-pm Naser al-Shaer, a high ranking official of Hamas
* The first 50 French UN-troops have arrived in southern Lebanon.

[Derek Ortt]

Hezbollah has not disarmed; thus, Israel is allowed to attack. Until Hezbollah complies with ALL of the terms of the cease fire, not just the ones that want to, they are fair game

[Yarrah]

Still, UN resolution 1701 doesn't mention that Israel could just attack Hezbollah because they were transporting weapons. The disarming of Hezbollah is up to the Lebanese army which is already in that are, according to the UN resolution. So Israel had no right to attack during this cease fire.

[Derek Ortt]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire. Hezbollah violated the terms, and Israel responded

The lebanese army also needs to do their job, which they are not

[Yarrah]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire.

Huh? How come the resolution mentions a ceasefire? For example, the resolution has the following point: 'The Security Council calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire'

[stormtruth]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire. Hezbollah violated the terms, and Israel responded

The lebanese army also needs to do their job, which they are not

If it is not a cease fire why then did you call it a cease fire in an earlier post?

Hezbollah has not disarmed; thus, Israel is allowed to attack. Until Hezbollah complies with ALL of the terms of the cease fire, not just the ones that want to, they are fair game

[Audrey2Katrina]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire.

Huh? How come the resolution mentions a ceasefire? For example, the resolution has the following point: 'The Security Council calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire'

It also says specifically the following:

Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

The frightened rabbit who is president of Lebanon has already made it clear they have NO INTENTION of "disarming" Hezbollah--hence it is going to be left up to Israel to do it in the absence of anyone else willing to do so. I'm afraid because of the horribly PC manner in which this conflict was handled, and the skewed in the extreme presentations in the media--things are going to get a lot worse over there--before they get any better.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire. Hezbollah violated the terms, and Israel responded

The lebanese army also needs to do their job, which they are not

If it is not a cease fire why then did you call it a cease fire in an earlier post?

What Derek, I, or anyone else calls it--is irrelevant unless one is simply out to argue for argument's sake. The very wording of the document calls it a "cessation of hostilities" in it's FIRST article.

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

The document mentions working TOWARD a permanent "ceasefire" but make no mistake--it is a request for a "cessation of hostilities"... I've read the entire text.

A2K

[f5]

the UN is an anti semite institution.they are going to side with the terrorist .they should just pass a resolution calling for Israel's destruction.that would make that nutcake's(MR.NUKE) day over in IRAN

Source????

today is another source that proves the un hates israel.Kofi annan condems israel for the raid but he won't call an emergency session for Syria rearming supplies to hezabollah which in itself is a violation.Iran has to be delat with directly

[f5]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire. Hezbollah violated the terms, and Israel responded

The lebanese army also needs to do their job, which they are not

If it is not a cease fire why then did you call it a cease fire in an earlier post?

Hezbollah has not disarmed; thus, Israel is allowed to attack. Until Hezbollah complies with ALL of the terms of the cease fire, not just the ones that want to, they are fair game

the anti semetic UN calls it a ceasefire as a cover for hezabollah to rearm

[stormtruth]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire. Hezbollah violated the terms, and Israel responded

The lebanese army also needs to do their job, which they are not

If it is not a cease fire why then did you call it a cease fire in an earlier post?

Hezbollah has not disarmed; thus, Israel is allowed to attack. Until Hezbollah complies with ALL of the terms of the cease fire, not just the ones that want to, they are fair game

the anti semetic UN calls it a ceasefire as a cover for hezabollah to rearm

The U.S. also calls it a cease-fire. Are you calling them anti semetic? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2312587

Clearly, this is a cease fire per BOTH the UN and the U.S.

[streetsoldier]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire.

Huh? How come the resolution mentions a ceasefire? For example, the resolution has the following point: 'The Security Council calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire'

For Lebanon to "support" a ceasefire, their military has to belly up to the bar and confront or disarm Hizbollah...I don't see that happening. The Christian majority is too weak to take on Hizbollah, the Druzes and their own Syrian-apologist government, and putting France in the driver's seat of the UN "force" is like hiring the captain of the Titanic as a maritime safety officer.

Thus, nothing concrete will be done unless Israel does it themselves.

[f5]

there was no cease fire, just a cessation of hostilities, which is different than a cease fire. Hezbollah violated the terms, and Israel responded

The lebanese army also needs to do their job, which they are not

If it is not a cease fire why then did you call it a cease fire in an earlier post?

Hezbollah has not disarmed; thus, Israel is allowed to attack. Until Hezbollah complies with ALL of the terms of the cease fire, not just the ones that want to, they are fair game

the anti semetic UN calls it a ceasefire as a cover for hezabollah to rearm

The U.S. also calls it a cease-fire. Are you calling them anti semetic? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2312587

Clearly, this is a cease fire per BOTH the UN and the U.S.

the US wanted a resolution with teeth something Kofi Annan opposes beacuse he hates Israel and it would weaken hezabollah when in fact he wants to strengthen hezabollah and weaken israel

[Brent]

Why Israel ever agreed to this "ceasefire" is beyond me. Olmert is an idiot and needs to go. This war didn't help them at all. During this "ceasefire" Hezbollah is simply getting re-armed for the next conflict.

[kevin]

What evidence besides Israel's word does anyone have for Hizbollah getting resupplies? I can offer none that they haven't, but find such willingness to assert whatever a government says as a bit naive. One has to understand the Israelis will lie for their percieved national interests, just like any other state.

In fact the Israelis are one of the few countries which I know of that have actually used False Flag Operations, and I am absolutely not a conspiracy nut.

But really, why think that everything the Lebanese say are lies and everything Israel says as truthful?

[stormtruth]

Why Israel ever agreed to this "ceasefire" is beyond me. Olmert is an idiot and needs to go. This war didn't help them at all. During this "ceasefire" Hezbollah is simply getting re-armed for the next conflict.

They didn't have a choice because the US desperately needed a ceasefire to quiet the shias in Southern Iraq who generally side with Hezbollah and were getting very angry. Basically we had to back down to Sistani who controls Southern Iraq. If we weren't in Iraq then we could just ignore these shias.

[Audrey2Katrina]

The U.S. also calls it a cease-fire. Are you calling them anti semetic? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2312587

Clearly, this is a cease fire per BOTH the UN and the U.S.

Guess whom the UN has condemned most: The regime of Communist China, or that of Israel? Guess whom the UN has condemned more: The regime of Fidel Castro, or his buddy in Venezuela--or Israel? How about between the Taliban government of Afghanistan (when it existed) or Israel? Or perhaps that of Idi Amin, or Israel? What about all the financing of terror taking place in Iran, and Syria--vs. Israel? Guess which country the UN has "condemned" more than ANY other country on the planet? All that OIL talks!!! You arrive at whichever conclusion you clearly CHOOSE to arrive at; but the facts speak for themselves IMO.

As far as that semantic nonsense; one can call it whatever one wants to... instead of quoting ABC, or some spokesperson for the UN, or the State department--why not read the actual resolution? I DID provide the link... it calls for "cessation of hostilities"... and it calls for a LOT of other things, which Hezbollah clearly has NO intention of doing--nor does the impotent Lebanese government. I find it beyond incredible that some would have Israel just lay down and let these terrorists rearm, and have their way only to rain more havoc on their nation.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Why Israel ever agreed to this "ceasefire" is beyond me. Olmert is an idiot and needs to go. This war didn't help them at all. During this "ceasefire" Hezbollah is simply getting re-armed for the next conflict.

I agree with you completely, Brent. It's tragic that the media, in my opinion, pressured yet another Neville Chamberlain into more "appeasement" mentality... which will ultimately cause far greater tragedy. Time will tell; but this bodes ill, as I see it. They should have ignored all the press and got the job done!

A2K

[stormtruth]

The U.S. also calls it a cease-fire. Are you calling them anti semetic? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2312587

Clearly, this is a cease fire per BOTH the UN and the U.S.

Guess whom the UN has condemned most: The regime of Communist China, or that of Israel? Guess whom the UN has condemned more: The regime of Fidel Castro, or his buddy in Venezuela--or Israel? How about between the Taliban government of Afghanistan (when it existed) or Israel? Or perhaps that of Idi Amin, or Israel? What about all the financing of terror taking place in Iran, and Syria--vs. Israel? Guess which country the UN has "condemned" more than ANY other country on the planet? All that OIL talks!!! You arrive at whichever conclusion you clearly CHOOSE to arrive at; but the facts speak for themselves IMO.

As far as that semantic nonsense; one can call it whatever one wants to... instead of quoting ABC, or some spokesperson for the UN, or the State department--why not read the actual resolution? I DID provide the link... it calls for "cessation of hostilities"... and it calls for a LOT of other things, which Hezbollah clearly has NO intention of doing--nor does the impotent Lebanese government. I find it beyond incredible that some would have Israel just lay down and let these terrorists rearm, and have their way only to rain more havoc on their nation.

A2K

Isreal backed down because of the USA. Because the US was worried the shias in Southern Iraq were going to get out of control. So basically it is the U.S., which helped arrange this "cessation of hostilities" with the UN that let this happen. Because we are handicapped by Iraq. You can blame the UN all you want but Isreal would not have stopped fighting if it were not for us and the stability we are trying to maintain in Iraq.