NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

Isn't it great that two states (Syria and Iran) can sponsor a non-state entity that is essentially exempt from all international law, and immune to all forms of international sanction or punishment? And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Beirut, Lebanon (AHN) - A Canadian UN peacekeeper killed in an Israeli air strike Tuesday complained just days before that tragic incident that his position was being used as cover by Hezbollah terrorists attacking Israel.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

Isn't it great that two states (Syria and Iran) can sponsor a non-state entity that is essentially exempt from all international law, and immune to all forms of international sanction or punishment? And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Just out of curiosity, is there any difference between 'peacekeeper' and 'observer'?

Just out of curiosity, is there any difference between 'peacekeeper' and 'observer'?
Peacekeepers are actually allowed to intervene, observers are just used to keep the people who need to know information informed.

Just out of curiosity, is there any difference between 'peacekeeper' and 'observer'?

Generally no. "Peacekeeper" in the UN sense is a complete oxymoron.

The UN's job is mainly to show up in conflict areas and either get killed or watch some other people get killed.

Peacekeepers are actually allowed to intervene, observers are just used to keep the people who need to know information informed.

Rarely do they ever have the authority to intervene, and even more more rarely have any ability to intervene.

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
How ironic. When the IDF recieves warnings that they're shelling a UN position and are asked to stop multiple times - the IDF does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING too.

What a wonderful world :)

How ironic. When the IDF recieves warnings that they're shelling a UN position and are asked to stop multiple times - the IDF does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING too.

What a wonderful world :)

According to international law, they don't.

The Fourth Geneva Convention is quite explicit on this.

If any UN observers are killed while being used as human shields, it's all Hezbollah's fault, according to international law.

Trying to cover for the other days 6 hour shelling with guided missile finale, are we? I don't seem to remember there being any question of "human shields" when Israels proxy army - the SLA - used to attack peacekeepers.

And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?


That woulldnt be the 4th Geneva convention that Israel refuses to apply in the occupied territories?

And Israels army was only recently stopped from using human shields by its own supreme court, I do believe. Something that these members of the IDF don't seem to have heard....http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

Trying to cover for the other days 6 hour shelling with guided missile finale, are we? I don't seem to remember there being any question of "human shields" when Israels proxy army - the SLA - used to attack peacekeepers.

And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?


That woulldnt be the 4th Geneva convention that Israel refuses to apply in the occupied territories?

And Israels army was only recently stopped from using human shields by its own supreme court, I do believe. Something that these members of the IDF don't seem to have heard....http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp


You'll notice the difference here - Israel is not only being accused of violating the Conventions, there are investigations and legal repercussions.

Zero repercussions, for Hezbollah. In fact, nations like Spain seem to think that Hezbollah can do no wrong.

How ironic. When the IDF recieves warnings that they're shelling a UN position and are asked to stop multiple times - the IDF does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING too.

What a wonderful world :)

hey what if hezzbolah was useing that postion to attack the israelies which they were. also the u.n. peacekeepers shared food,water, and supplies with the terrorists.

According to international law, they don't.
Don't what?

The Fourth Geneva Convention is quite explicit on this.

If any UN observers are killed while being used as human shields, it's all Hezbollah's fault, according to international law.
Link?

I doubt it would work that way.

Just out of curiosity, is there any difference between 'peacekeeper' and 'observer'?


Huge difference. An observer is a person who observes the situation without interfering. Peacekeeper can be a peace enforcer too.

hey what if hezzbolah was useing that postion to attack the israelies which they were. also the u.n. peacekeepers shared food,water, and supplies with the terrorists.
That did not give the IDF the option of shelling the position for six hours and ignore the pleas coming from the UN.

I doubt it would work that way.

Hate to burst your bubble.

The use of human shields to protect targets is a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)

UN observers are "protected persons". If Hezbollah hugs UN observers in order to keep Israelis from attacking Hezbollah fighters and rockets, it DOES NOT render the Hezbollah immune to military operations by the IDF.

It is there, in black and white.

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
What are they meant to do - ask nicely for them to leave? Israel has nicely demonstrated that excessive force makes little different to Hezbollah, and observers don't have authority to use force anyway.

What are they meant to do - ask nicely for them to leave? Israel has nicely demonstrated that excessive force makes little different to Hezbollah, and observers don't have authority to use force anyway.

Perhaps the UN should withdraw its observers so they can't be used as human shields.

Perhaps the UN should withdraw its observers so they can't be used as human shields.

Good idea. That way Israel can do what it wants with all those pesky reprecussions that come from being seen doing it.

i can see the UN of being that one kid thats really small and virtually useless in a fight that tells two people fighting to stop or they are going to be in alot of trouble.

Perhaps the UN should withdraw its observers so they can't be used as human shields.
That'd be convenient, without anyone left to witness the two sides' human rights abuses.

i can see the UN of being that one kid thats really small and virtually useless in a fight that tells two people fighting to stop or they are going to be in alot of trouble.

That's usually the person who gets their ass kicked by both sides.

Hate to burst your bubble.

The use of human shields to protect targets is a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)

UN observers are "protected persons". If Hezbollah hugs UN observers in order to keep Israelis from attacking Hezbollah fighters and rockets, it DOES NOT render the Hezbollah immune to military operations by the IDF.

It is there, in black and white.
Burst away. But do it convincingly.

"may not be used" indicates activity. There is no indication that there were Hezbollah fighters in the vicinity of the UN base at the time of the shelling - your own link states that it was "days ago" when they were observed. As such there is no indication that the precition guided missile aimed directly at the observation post in any way was justified. This act of gross incompetence or outright murder has nothing to do with the "human shield"-aspect.

Also, the UN soldiers are there as part of a treaty which Israel is a part of. When they request stopping the shelling, Israel has an obligation to comply. In this case, the IDF ignored it.

Perhaps the UN should withdraw its observers so they can't be used as human shields.
That's what the IDF seem to want, but I'm guessing it's not for that reason...

You'll notice the difference here - Israel is not only being accused of violating the Conventions, there are investigations and legal repercussions..

As Israel has violated these before, continously in some cases, over 40 years, what repercussions have there been?


Zero repercussions, for Hezbollah. In fact, nations like Spain seem to think that Hezbollah can do no wrong.

I doubt that. However the outlaw calling on the law when faced with another outlaw is quite humorous.

According to international law, they don't.

The Fourth Geneva Convention is quite explicit on this.

If any UN observers are killed while being used as human shields, it's all Hezbollah's fault, according to international law.
just because it is illegal to use human shields does not mean it's ok for an attacking force to ignore the fact that the human shields are there and blow them up anyway. the blame lies with the person who pulls the trigger, or more properly, the person who gave the order to pull the trigger. wars don't kill people, people do.

Generally no. "Peacekeeper" in the UN sense is a complete oxymoron.

The UN's job is mainly to show up in conflict areas and either get killed or watch some other people get killed.

Right on. The UN is too pussy to have any tangible means of actually implementing its resolutions. By its Security Council resolution, Hezbollah should have been disarmed by now. But noooo, Peacekeepers are not enforcers. We leave it up to the Member States who are probably sympathetic to Hezbollah to take care of the problem.

just because it is illegal to use human shields does not mean it's ok for an attacking force to ignore the fact that the human shields are there and blow them up anyway. the blame lies with the person who pulls the trigger, or more properly, the person who gave the order to pull the trigger. wars don't kill people, people do.

Read the Conventions.

If you're using human shields, that in no way renders that target immune from attack. Period. It's there in black and white.

Read the Conventions.

If you're using human shields, that in no way renders that target immune from attack. Period. It's there in black and white.
Didn't the US not carry out certain bombings raids in Yugoslavia in the 90's because downed pilots were being used as human shields?

Please say you didn't just advocate the death of Allied soldiers for the sake of a bombing run....

Why DK? Why do hate the West so?

Didn't the US not carry out certain bombings raids in Yugoslavia in the 90's because downed pilots were being used as human shields?

Please say you didn't just advocate the death of Allied soldiers for the sake of a bombing run....

Why DK? Why do hate the West so?

It's an option, not an obligation. We bombed the crap out of Iraq during the First Gulf War, and nearly killed some of our own captured pilots who were being used as human shields.

That did not give the IDF the option of shelling the position for six hours and ignore the pleas coming from the UN.

If they were sharing food and water with Hezbollah and Hezbollah was firing Rockets from there then unfortunately, yes it does.

no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?

Looks to me like someone is ...

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/canwest/44/israeliforces071806.jpg

just because it is illegal to use human shields does not mean it's ok for an attacking force to ignore the fact that the human shields are there and blow them up anyway. the blame lies with the person who pulls the trigger, or more properly, the person who gave the order to pull the trigger. wars don't kill people, people do.

Actually, that not entirely correct. If civilians are being used as Human Shields and get killed by being bombed, missiled shot at, whatever, the blame does lie with those who were using Human shields.

Read the Conventions.

If you're using human shields, that in no way renders that target immune from attack. Period. It's there in black and white.
well if you really believe that morality in war can be written in black and white then, i don't know, you're silly, or something. the israeli commander who ordered the bombardment knew there were UN observers posted in a place where hezbollah fighters had been seen some time previously. so instead of doing the reasonable thing and confirming the precise location of the enemy and then sending in a covert ground force to take them out (or even considering such an option), he decides to order a blanket bombarment or the area knowing full well that the UN observers would be killed. if the IDF had come straight out with a statement that other options were considered before the bombardment then they might be believed, if they do it know it can only be seen as a cynical brush off to allow them to continue their blitzkrieg without further complaints. the fact is, the un observers would probably not have been killed if the bombardment had not been given the go ahead.

Right on. The UN is too pussy to have any tangible means of actually implementing its resolutions. By its Security Council resolution, Hezbollah should have been disarmed by now. But noooo, Peacekeepers are not enforcers. We leave it up to the Member States who are probably sympathetic to Hezbollah to take care of the problem.
Hey now! You're not following the Bolton doctrine. You have to make a balanced post and note Israels non-compliance of resolutions as well.

If they were sharing food and water with Hezbollah and Hezbollah was firing Rockets from there then unfortunately, yes it does.
No. Not the UN forces. You cannot fire upon them if they perform humanitarian services (like sharing food and water) to the enemy.

Besides, do you have confirmation that food and water was shared? A link?

well if you really believe that morality in war can be written in black and white then, i don't know, you're silly, or something. the israeli commander who ordered the bombardment knew there were UN observers posted in a place where hezbollah fighters had been seen some time previously. so instead of doing the reasonable thing and confirming the precise location of the enemy and then sending in a covert ground force to take them out (or even considering such an option), he decides to order a blanket bombarment or the area knowing full well that the UN observers would be killed. if the IDF had come straight out with a statement that other options were considered before the bombardment then they might be believed, if they do it know it can only be seen as a cynical brush off to allow them to continue their blitzkrieg without further complaints. the fact is, the un observers would probably not have been killed if the bombardment had not been given the go ahead.


Nice to know that you are completely ignorant of international law on the subject. Go back and read the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Responsibility for any casualties resulting from an incident involving a combat force that is hugging "protected persons" in order to avoid attack is solely on that combat force - the attacking force has every right to proceed with the attack - the people using the human shields have no right to assume that the attack will not occur.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

Isn't it great that two states (Syria and Iran) can sponsor a non-state entity that is essentially exempt from all international law, and immune to all forms of international sanction or punishment? And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Your thread does not disclose that the opinion of the dead Canadian UN peacekeeper had been shared with UN personnel responsible for the post. Therefore your assertion that the UN did "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" is totally meaningless, and baseless.

Nice to know that you are completely ignorant of international law on the subject. Go back and read the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Responsibility for any casualties resulting from an incident involving a combat force that is hugging "protected persons" in order to avoid attack is solely on that combat force - the attacking force has every right to proceed with the attack - the people using the human shields have no right to assume that the attack will not occur.
you completely ignored most of my post and entirely missed the point of the bit that you did read it seems. i'm quite aware that the fourth geneva convention says that responsibility for this lies with the those employing human shields. that does not however give an attacking force the right to ignore the fact that the human shields are there. the one does not follow from the other. 'the law' is all well and good but any rational and moral being should realise that it cannot be applied verbatim in any context, one must always take account of circumstances and alternative possible actions. if you don't want israel to be seen as a villain as much as hezbollah is in this conflict don't defend their blatantly villainous actions.

Nice to know that you are completely ignorant of international law on the subject. Go back and read the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Responsibility for any casualties resulting from an incident involving a combat force that is hugging "protected persons" in order to avoid attack is solely on that combat force - the attacking force has every right to proceed with the attack - the people using the human shields have no right to assume that the attack will not occur.

So if the IDF use human shields again in Gaza, they are responsible for all civillian deaths resulting from that, or does that not apply, as they refuse to apply the Geneva convention there? My lack of legal knowledge leaves me at a disadvantage here.

So if the IDF use human shields again in Gaza, they are responsible for all civillian deaths resulting from that, or does that not apply, as they refuse to apply the Geneva convention there? My lack of legal knowledge leaves me at a disadvantage here.

Yes, that is correct. And, you may note that the Israeli Supreme Court has told the military that they may not use civilians as human shields, and that more of the same will result in prosecution.

Israel, as a nation, is a signatory to the Convention. The fact that members of the IDF violate the Convention from time to time does not mean that Israel itself doesn't abide by the Conventions. It has a mechanism for prosecuting those who violate the law.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has no such mechanism at all. In the words of the UN observer (Jan, I believe) Hezbollah is bragging about how few Hezbollah are killed and how many civilians they are hiding amongst are being killed - they are quite proud of using anyone and everyone as a human shield, and the UN guy was horrified.

Other than the IDF though, NO ONE will ever hold a single Hezbollah accountable.

Nice to know that you are completely ignorant of international law on the subject. Go back and read the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Responsibility for any casualties resulting from an incident involving a combat force that is hugging "protected persons" in order to avoid attack is solely on that combat force - the attacking force has every right to proceed with the attack - the people using the human shields have no right to assume that the attack will not occur.
So basically what you are saying is that Israel had "every right to proceed with the attack", knowing full well that they could quite possibly kill UN peacekeepers?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11442594&postcount=69

I believe that the Israeli attack was totally irresponsible, especially considering the numerous conversations between the UN troops and the Israeli command.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

Isn't it great that two states (Syria and Iran) can sponsor a non-state entity that is essentially exempt from all international law, and immune to all forms of international sanction or punishment? And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.



Excellent insight, and YES it's absolutely disgusting the free pass terrorist organizations receive from the UN and other left leaning political entities!

Yes, that is correct. And, you may note that the Israeli Supreme Court has told the military that they may not use civilians as human shields, and that more of the same will result in prosecution.

Israel, as a nation, is a signatory to the Convention. The fact that members of the IDF violate the Convention from time to time does not mean that Israel itself doesn't abide by the Conventions. It has a mechanism for prosecuting those who violate the law.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has no such mechanism at all. In the words of the UN observer (Jan, I believe) Hezbollah is bragging about how few Hezbollah are killed and how many civilians they are hiding amongst are being killed - they are quite proud of using anyone and everyone as a human shield, and the UN guy was horrified.

Other than the IDF though, NO ONE will ever hold a single Hezbollah accountable.

i wonder if you might be able to provide a source for a hezbollah spokesman bragging about "how few Hezbollah are killed and how many civilians they are hiding amongst are being killed". in this post you manage to excuse the israeli state for using human shields, because it was a few members of the idf that did it, and at the same time condemn the whole of hezbollah because one of their members 'bragged' about the success of using human shields as a defense tactic.

the signatories to the geneva convention were heads of state, if you'd like to write to the un and request that they allow militia leaders the option of signing a revised convention then i think you should go ahead. because then maybe popular militias and state militaries can be treated the same in open combat and be held equally responsible for their actions in warfare.

Yes, that is correct. And, you may note that the Israeli Supreme Court has told the military that they may not use civilians as human shields, and that more of the same will result in prosecution.

Israel, as a nation, is a signatory to the Convention. The fact that members of the IDF violate the Convention from time to time does not mean that Israel itself doesn't abide by the Conventions. It has a mechanism for prosecuting those who violate the law.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has no such mechanism at all. In the words of the UN observer (Jan, I believe) Hezbollah is bragging about how few Hezbollah are killed and how many civilians they are hiding amongst are being killed - they are quite proud of using anyone and everyone as a human shield, and the UN guy was horrified.

Other than the IDF though, NO ONE will ever hold a single Hezbollah accountable.

But who is going to hold Israel responsible is my question. Theres no mechanism to bring them to heel, as America has seen to that.

Excellent insight, and YES it's absolutely disgusting the free pass terrorist organizations receive from the UN and other left leaning political entities!
Right now, it is Israel who has the "free pass" because the US vetoed a UN Resolution that would have stopped the bombardment, thus saving hundreds of innocent civilians from going to their graves.

That did not give the IDF the option of shelling the position for six hours and ignore the pleas coming from the UN.

so by killing terrorists and thier supporters we get in trouble????

But who is going to hold Israel responsible is my question. Theres no mechanism to bring them to heel, as America has seen to that.
The UN is powerless to act as long as the US wields the veto. :(

But who is going to hold Israel responsible is my question. Theres no mechanism to bring them to heel, as America has seen to that.

Get off it, dude. There's no way to bring any nation to heel, unless you're willing to use force. At least Israel is trying to do the right thing by their treaties.

Burst away. But do it convincingly.

"may not be used" indicates activity. There is no indication that there were Hezbollah fighters in the vicinity of the UN base at the time of the shelling - your own link states that it was "days ago" when they were observed. As such there is no indication that the precition guided missile aimed directly at the observation post in any way was justified. This act of gross incompetence or outright murder has nothing to do with the "human shield"-aspect.

Also, the UN soldiers are there as part of a treaty which Israel is a part of. When they request stopping the shelling, Israel has an obligation to comply. In this case, the IDF ignored it.

lets think, the treaty which hezzbolah did not follow. i got a good idea. the u.n. could give their peace keepers guns!

The UN is powerless to act as long as the US wields the veto. :(
And China, and Russia, etc...

Plus, the UN has no 'teeth'. What are they going to do? Smack them in the face with a terrifying resolution? Sanctions? Forget it. UN troops basically need the authority to shoot, which I doubt they'll ever be granted.

no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?
Isn’t that what people like you claim Israel is doing?

The UN is powerless to act as long as the US wields the veto. :(
Not if our leaders weren’t such assholes.

Didn't the US not carry out certain bombings raids in Yugoslavia in the 90's because downed pilots were being used as human shields?

Please say you didn't just advocate the death of Allied soldiers for the sake of a bombing run....

Why DK? Why do hate the West so?

i say that is allowed.

P.S they were hostages not human shields

lets think, the treaty which hezzbolah did not follow. i got a good idea. the u.n. could give their peace keepers guns!

Hezbollah don't have to, they never signed it.

Get off it, dude. There's no way to bring any nation to heel, unless you're willing to use force. At least Israel is trying to do the right thing by their treaties.
Invading a sovereign country is a violation of the UN Charter. Israel is in violation. Killing innocent civilians by the hundreds is also a violation of the UN Charter.

No. Not the UN forces. You cannot fire upon them if they perform humanitarian services (like sharing food and water) to the enemy.

Besides, do you have confirmation that food and water was shared? A link?

yesterday brodcast from Hugh Hewitt. west coast

The UN is powerless to act as long as the US wields the veto. :(
Really? The US is the only country that vetoes Security Council resolutions?

Invading a sovereign country is a violation of the UN Charter. Israel is in violation. Killing innocent civilians by the hundreds is also a violation of the UN Charter.

firing and kidnapping people is also. as long as no one does anything why should israel let itself be bombarded

Really? The US is the only country that vetoes Security Council resolutions?
They did in this case. That is the only relevant issue here.

firing and kidnapping people is also. as long as no one does anything why should israel let itself be bombarded

Hezbollah are not a country, they are a militia of terrorist group depending on your point of view. They are not subject to the same treaties as Israel.

Invading a sovereign country is a violation of the UN Charter. Israel is in violation. Killing innocent civilians by the hundreds is also a violation of the UN Charter.

It could easily be argued that Israel is responding to aggression, not perpetrating it. That is perfectly permitted by the UN Charter. As for killing hundreds of civilians - actually, I don't think that is any sort of violation of the charter at all. Area bombing is a legitimate tactic, and Israel hasn't even been especially prolific with it as yet.

Right now, it is Israel who has the "free pass" because the US vetoed a UN Resolution that would have stopped the bombardment, thus saving hundreds of innocent civilians from going to their graves.

So by your thinking hesbollah SHOULD be allowed to continue to move rockets into civilian areas and bombard Israel without retaliation? How many rockets have to hit Israel unanswered before they are allowed to retaliate, just curious?

so by killing terrorists and thier supporters we get in trouble????
Yes, when you do it in such a horrendously wrong way.

yesterday brodcast from Hugh Hewitt. west coast
So... nothing provable?

Yes, when you do it in such a horrendously wrong way.

Typical lefty tactic, paints self defenders into the aggressor...

It could easily be argued that Israel is responding to aggression, not perpetrating it. That is perfectly permitted by the UN Charter. As for killing hundreds of civilians - actually, I don't think that is any sort of violation of the charter at all. Area bombing is a legitimate tactic, and Israel hasn't even been especially prolific with it as yet.
I tiotally disagree with what you say about the civilians:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Yes, when you do it in such a horrendously wrong way.

Just in a deer in the headlights sort of way, I have to ask, what could you possibly consider the right way?

firing and kidnapping people is also. as long as no one does anything why should israel let itself be bombarded
Israel has a right to defend itself. That right must be exercised proportionally to the attack. Israel is way out of proportion in this case.

Typical lefty tactic, paints self defenders into the aggressor...
Typical ignorant post.

So by your thinking hesbollah SHOULD be allowed to continue to move rockets into civilian areas and bombard Israel without retaliation? How many rockets have to hit Israel unanswered before they are allowed to retaliate, just curious?
What has this got to do with the IDF targeting UN observers?

Oh, saw in the Independent today- China ain't happy about losing their man there either.

So by your thinking hesbollah SHOULD be allowed to continue to move rockets into civilian areas and bombard Israel without retaliation? How many rockets have to hit Israel unanswered before they are allowed to retaliate, just curious?
Please stay on topic. This is about killing UN observers.

I am not making any apologies for Hezbullah. I am deploring the indiscriminate actions of the IDF.

I tiotally disagree with what you say about the civilians:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Well, they do state a "right to life", so I suppose there is a point there. On the other hand, that would also make the UN intervention in Korea illegal, since that was denying the NK soldiers that right.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Area bombing is a legitimate tactic.

Just in a deer in the headlights sort of way, I have to ask, what could you possibly consider the right way?
Commando-raids and special forces, limited targeted bombardments by air and sea, a limited incursion by land forces, perhaps.

The massive bombing campaign that you see in Lebanon, completely destroying the country's infrastructure, the targeting of UN forces and relief agencies, the blowing up of ambulances, the displacement of 600,000 people is not the right way.
Hezbollah's ability to inflict damage appears undiminished - on Wednesday they fired some 150 rockets into Israel, more than on any other day of the conflict.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5219360.stm

I am not making any apologies for Hezbullah. I am deploring the indiscriminate actions of the IDF.

A lot of people seem to think that's the same thing.

I've read several comments about how the observers shouldn't have shared food and water with Hezbollah. My question is, what should they have done about it? I highly doubt they were flagging down passing Hezbollah patrols and offering them food and water. Hezbollah probably came up, knocked on the door, and suggested that it would be in their best interest to give them supplies. What should they have done? Should they have denied them and got killed (at which point Hezbollah would have gotten the supplies anyway) just on general principle?

No. Not the UN forces. You cannot fire upon them if they perform humanitarian services (like sharing food and water) to the enemy.

Besides, do you have confirmation that food and water was shared? A link?

I did say the word if and I also stated if they were launching rockets from there that it did make them a target.

The UN is powerless to act as long as the US wields the veto. :(

Excuse me Sir/ma'am but the United States is not the only nation that has veto authority. Yes I know they use it constently but let us not forget the threats of other vetos that have caused other resolutions to be withdrawn because of said veto threats.

I am not saying it is wrong nor am I saying it is right.

A lot of people seem to think that's the same thing.

I've read several comments about how the observers shouldn't have shared food and water with Hezbollah. My question is, what should they have done about it? I highly doubt they were flagging down passing Hezbollah patrols and offering them food and water. Hezbollah probably came up, knocked on the door, and suggested that it would be in their best interest to give them supplies. What should they have done? Should they have denied them and got killed (at which point Hezbollah would have gotten the supplies anyway) just on general principle?

I'm still waiting for a source on that 'fact'.

I did say the word if and I also stated if they were launching rockets from there that it did make them a target.
If so, then it might - you're right. But there is no indication as far as I've seen to support the claim that rockets were fired from the vicinity at the time of the shelling. And the shelling should have stopped at the UN's repeated requests.

Invading a sovereign country is a violation of the UN Charter. Israel is in violation. Killing innocent civilians by the hundreds is also a violation of the UN Charter.

On the flip side to that, Hezbollah is a political entity within Lebanon and have invaded Israel. On that flip side, one can say that Israel's invasion of Lebanon is warrented.

Just another side of the coin.

I'm still waiting for a source on that 'fact'.
Strange that... Me too :)

They did in this case. That is the only relevant issue here.

Was that in regards to Hamas or did we also veto a resolution in regards to Hezbollah and what is going on in Lebanon?

I did say the word if and I also stated if they were launching rockets from there that it did make them a target.

Neither event which has been confirmed, or even alledged.

I tiotally disagree with what you say about the civilians:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that approved by the General Assembly and is not an actual treaty?

Excuse me Sir/ma'am but the United States is not the only nation that has veto authority. Yes I know they use it constently but let us not forget the threats of other vetos that have caused other resolutions to be withdrawn because of said veto threats.

I am not saying it is wrong nor am I saying it is right.
Yes they do but the US is always first in line waiting to veto on the best interests of Israel.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that approved by the General Assembly and is not an actual treaty?
Ummmm, right under the title are these words:

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

Ummmm, right under the title are these words:

They pass general resolutions all the time but they are non-binding resolutions. Anything passed by the General Assembly is a non-binding resolution.

They pass general resolutions all the time but they are non-binding resolutions. Anything passed by the General Assembly is a non-binding resolution.
Do you have anything to support that the UN Charter of Rights is non-binding?

Do you have anything to support that the UN Charter of Rights is non-binding?

Nowhere in the Charter does it say it is binding.

Instead it is vague wording like:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Compare that to the Geneva Conventions:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Yes they do but the US is always first in line waiting to veto on the best interests of Israel.
Exactly:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_israel_gaza

Eight of the last nine vetoes in the council have been cast by the United States. Of those, seven concerned the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Do you have anything to support that the UN Charter of Rights is non-binding?

Its called the UN General Assembly. Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, including adoption of a scale of assessment, Assembly resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security under Security Council consideration. The one state, one vote power structure theoretically allows states comprising just eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote.

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

Since the UN Declaration of Human Rights is therefore, in accordance with General Assembly rules, a non-binding peace of legislation. It has been used as springboards for permanent treaties in the scope of Human Rights but the declaration in and of itself, is non-binding.

Nowhere in the Charter does it say it is binding.

Instead it is vague wording like:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Compare that to the Geneva Conventions:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Making excuses for Israel to violate the Charter of Human Rights is lame at best?

Originally the Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law. Nonetheless, it is still a potent instrument used to apply moral and diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration’s principles. In fact, in 1968, the United Nations International Conference on Human Rights agreed that the Declaration "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to protect and preserve the rights of its citizenry.

Making excuses for Israel to violate the Charter of Human Rights is lame at best?

I guess you missed the first statement? After all, you are the one that brought this up.

Originally the Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law.

Doesn't matter what the conference thinks but the fact does remain that it is non-binding as even the opening sentence of what you quoted states sir/ma'am.

Making excuses for Israel to violate the Charter of Human Rights is lame at best?

Bullshit CH. You claimed it was binding. You've now been shown it isn't and are now trying to dodge.

You're statement stated " protect and preserve the rights of its citizenry". and "still a potent instrument used to apply moral and diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration’s principles" and also stated it is NON-BINDING.

Neither of which claim it is binding.

Nice try. Keep going. A little intellectual dishonesty must be good for you.

Do you have anything to support that the UN Charter of Rights is non-binding?
The charter is a codification of unwrtten customary international law, isn't it?

The charter is a codification of unwrtten customary international law, isn't it?

Ironically no it isn't a codification of unwritten customary international law. In today's time maybe yea but back then? no. Also have to remember that the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a treaty. It was a resolution. A treaty is a codification of International Law this didn't do that. It was a recommendation hence the word Declaration.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

Isn't it great that two states (Syria and Iran) can sponsor a non-state entity that is essentially exempt from all international law, and immune to all forms of international sanction or punishment? And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention ....Wait a minut.. Didnt you just say yesterday.. that both US and Israel dont care about Geneva C.??

Oh yeah I forgot.. the US/Isreal Armies only care about certain parts of Geneva C. ..and they care only when they see themselves as the victims..

Ironically no it isn't a codification of unwritten customary international law. In today's time maybe yea but back then? no. Also have to remember that the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a treaty. It was a resolution. A treaty is a codification of International Law this didn't do that. It was a recommendation hence the word Declaration.
It's today that matters...

Excuse me Sir/ma'am but the United States is not the only nation that has veto authority. Yes I know they use it constently but let us not forget the threats of other vetos that have caused other resolutions to be withdrawn because of said veto threats.

I am not saying it is wrong nor am I saying it is right.
All I can say about that, is that IF the US did not constantly prop up Israeli indiscretions by vetoing so many Resolutions, then the Israelis would have to act responsibly and get on with the damn peace process.

Time to end the blank cheque approach to this matter.

It is time to stop the barbaric actions on BOTH sides.

All I can say about that, is that IF the US did not constantly prop up Israeli indiscretions by vetoing so many Resolutions, then the Israelis would have to act responsibly and get on with the damn peace process.

Well let me ask you this since you decided to open up this front, who has done more to damage peace? Israel or the various terror/political organizations that have sabatoged many chances for peace?

I am not taking sides here, just asking thought provoking questions.

Time to end the blank cheque approach to this matter.

It is time to stop the barbaric actions on BOTH sides.

I wish to The Good Lord upstairs that it will come to pass but I do not think it will till the due time.

It's today that matters...

Unfortunately this passed in 1948 and not 1998 or I would say you are right. However, since this was never a treaty nor was it ever binding, what we say on the issue is rather moot.

congrats for finally using a legit news source.

Bullshit CH. You claimed it was binding. You've now been shown it isn't and are now trying to dodge.
WHERE did I claim it to be binding? You have selective reading glasses on?

You're statement stated " protect and preserve the rights of its citizenry". and "still a potent instrument used to apply moral and diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration’s principles" and also stated it is NON-BINDING.

Neither of which claim it is binding.

Nice try. Keep going. A little intellectual dishonesty must be good for you.
If anyone is being dishonest is you for supporting Israel to violate the intent and spirit of the Human Rights Declaration. I guess Israel should be free from "moral and diplomatic pressure" to live up to a document that they signed, even though it may be non-binding.

Go ahead and give everyone a licence to be a terrorist.

Well let me ask you this since you decided to open up this front, who has done more to damage peace? Israel or the various terror/political organizations that have sabatoged many chances for peace?

I am not taking sides here, just asking thought provoking questions.
Does it really matter who has done more? Is there a scoreboard in place? Time to sit the kiddies down and force them to sit there until they stop pointing fingers and sticking their tongues out at each other.

Does it really matter who has done more? Is there a scoreboard in place? Time to sit the kiddies down and force them to sit there until they stop pointing fingers and sticking their tongues out at each other.

So are you going to answer my question?

WHERE did I claim it to be binding? You have selective reading glasses on?

Originally Posted by Alleghany County
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that approved by the General Assembly and is not an actual treaty?
Ummmm, right under the title are these words:

Quote:
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948


Do you have anything to support that the UN Charter of Rights is non-binding?

So you weren't argueing it is binding?


If anyone is being dishonest is you for supporting Israel to violate the intent and spirit of the Human Rights Declaration. I guess Israel should be free from "moral and diplomatic pressure" to live up to a document that they signed, even though it may be non-binding.

Go ahead and give everyone a licence to be a terrorist.

Now you get to go ahead and prove your little red-herring and personal accusations. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Glad you can continue to keep dodging when you've been proven wrong.

Unfortunately this passed in 1948 and not 1998 or I would say you are right. However, since this was never a treaty nor was it ever binding, what we say on the issue is rather moot.
I'd rather say that the question is whether or not it has turned into something binding over time.

All I can say about that, is that IF the US did not constantly prop up Israeli indiscretions by vetoing so many Resolutions, then the Israelis would have to act responsibly and get on with the damn peace process.

Time to end the blank cheque approach to this matter.

It is time to stop the barbaric actions on BOTH sides.

You mean like refusing the Camp David accords et al? Like randomly lobbing rockets into civilian areas for years?

Oh, wait.

I'd rather say that the question is whether or not it has turned into something binding over time.

Well the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been used as templates for the binding treaties that came after the UNDHR. So in reality no it hasn't since real treaties came along.

If the Declaration of Human Rights is legally binding then the Declaration of Independence is also legally binding.

Well the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been used as templates for the binding treaties that came after the UNDHR. So in reality no it hasn't since real treaties came along.

If the Declaration of Human Rights is legally binding then the Declaration of Independence is also legally binding.
Well isn't it? ;)

You can't really compare the two. The question concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have to look at the practices of all the NationStates - and the treaties can be viewed as indications to the fact that the human rights are, indeed, universal, and that the declaration has evolved into something more.

Well isn't it? ;)

You can't really compare the two. The question concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have to look at the practices of all the NationStates - and the treaties can be viewed as indications to the fact that the human rights are, indeed, universal, and that the declaration has evolved into something more.

The thing of it is, nations do not have to incorporate what the UDHR says into national law. The treaties are an offshoot of the UDHR just like the Articles of Confederation was an offshoot of the DoI. One thing can lead to another but it doesn't make the original any more binding than it was already. In this case, non-binding whatsoever.

Well let me ask you this since you decided to open up this front, who has done more to damage peace? Israel or the various terror/political organizations that have sabatoged many chances for peace?

I would rephrase this as "Israel and the nations/organisations that support it or those nations/organisations that oppose it." But even that isn't accurate as many nations and/ or their governments oppose the actions of the Israeli government or of Hamas' militant wing or of Hezbollah's terrorist or militant wing.

Most accurate would be "Who is directly or indirectly to blame for the violence in the Middle East."
As all actions have consequences I challenge anyone to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who is actually at fault for the entire situation.

Even if we use your version (and I am asuming that it is badly punctuated and that you accept that people tied to the country of Israel are also to blame for the sabotage of the chances of peace). I think history shows that neither side's hands are clean and that both sides hold a significant measure of blame. Even if we just look at the last 14 days it is clear that neither side has managed to find a way out of the self-perpetuating circle of violence that keeps people dying on both sides.
We can play the blame game, and have the same circular discussions that go on in a mutitude of threads on this board and in the international community, or we can agree that both sides are guilty to an extent and that the violence needs to stop.

Originally Posted by Alleghany County
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that approved by the General Assembly and is not an actual treaty?
Ummmm, right under the title are these words:

Quote:
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

Do you have anything to support that the UN Charter of Rights is non-binding?

So you weren't argueing it is binding?
You really don't get it do you? It is not a matter of whether I am right or wrong. What is wrong is the amount of indiscriminate killing that is going on in the Middle East by BOTH sides. You don't seem to mind allowing that to continue. You would rather get bogged down on semantics (whether I am right or wrong) when we should be looking at specifics such as how do we stop the killing.

As far as this thread is concerned, it is about killing UN peacekeepers, despite repeated requests to stop the shelling. The message is loud and clear and it says "we don't care"!!

People such as yourself are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The terrorists are on both sides in this current dispute. Allowing Israel to have carte blanche will only make the situation in the Middle East much worse than it already is. This is not a war on terrorism, it is a definite act of aggression based upon revenge. Neither side can claim the moral high ground but you want to give it to the Israelis, even though they are committing atrocities.

Start printing licences for new terrorists....you making more enemies by the day.

War on terror my ass.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

Isn't it great that two states (Syria and Iran) can sponsor a non-state entity that is essentially exempt from all international law, and immune to all forms of international sanction or punishment? And even though the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that you can't use human shields, no one is ever going to hold Hezbollah responsible for doing so?

That, and even when the UN receives warnings from its own observers that they are being used as human shields, the UN does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Well, I guess the only question remaining is this;

How many Hezbollah members were killed in that strike?

Get off it, dude. There's no way to bring any nation to heel, unless you're willing to use force. At least Israel is trying to do the right thing by their treaties.

"do the right thing".....Normally that doesnt include endorsing a semi-religous attempt at colonisation outside a nations own borders and brutalising a population for four decades....


Really? The US is the only country that vetoes Security Council resolutions?
.

Its the only one to do so in a way that implies its raining while we get a strong sense of urine.

*Snip lots of ranting and raving*

Translation: I have nothing to back up my assertions and am dodging previous claims so I'm going to make lots of ad-hominems, red herrings, and personal attacks to cover it up.

I do not defend all of the IDF's actions. You're the one making the claim that I do because I showed you up on your assertion that the UDHR is binding.

You have yet to show any proof of that. I'm still waiting.

You really don't get it do you? It is not a matter of whether I am right or wrong. What is wrong is the amount of indiscriminate killing that is going on in the Middle East by BOTH sides. You don't seem to mind allowing that to continue. You would rather get bogged down on semantics (whether I am right or wrong) when we should be looking at specifics such as how do we stop the killing.

As far as this thread is concerned, it is about killing UN peacekeepers, despite repeated requests to stop the shelling. The message is loud and clear and it says "we don't care"!!

People such as yourself are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The terrorists are on both sides in this current dispute. Allowing Israel to have carte blanche will only make the situation in the Middle East much worse than it already is. This is not a war on terrorism, it is a definite act of aggression based upon revenge. Neither side can claim the moral high ground but you want to give it to the Israelis, even though they are committing atrocities.

Start printing licences for new terrorists....you making more enemies by the day.

War on terror my ass.

Truth be told sir/ma'am, you did ask about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since you were the one that quoted it and got hit on the head with it because it isn't non-binding.

I do want the fighting to end. I do not think there isn't a person minus the fanatics on either side that wants this to continue. I do not want it to continue.

Also, it does no good to hurl accusations at people. You do not know what he/she actually wants. To say someone is part of a problem when you do not even know the person is quite disingenious of you sir/ma'am.

As for labeling Israel a terrorist, I am going respectfully disagree with you on that. All I see is a nation trying to defend itself from fanatics who want to see Israel destroyed. Frankly, I do think they have gone overboard but you can only restrain so much before the restraints break and hell (pardon my language) breaks loose.

The irresponsible thing to do is to not attack a known enemy position. the sooner your enemy is dead or defeated the sooner civilians will be safe.


So basically what you are saying is that Israel had "every right to proceed with the attack", knowing full well that they could quite possibly kill UN peacekeepers?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11442594&postcount=69

I believe that the Israeli attack was totally irresponsible, especially considering the numerous conversations between the UN troops and the Israeli command.

The UN is a friggin joke Hezzbollah is Iran's proxy army what has the UN done to them .


The UN is powerless to act as long as the US wields the veto. :(

The UN is a friggin joke Hezzbollah is Iran's proxy army what has the UN done to them .

They ordered Jordan to disarm Hezbollah. Look how far that got. I guess the US vetoed that as well.

The UN is a friggin joke Hezzbollah is Iran's proxy army what has the UN done to them .

Hezbollah is also Syria's proxy according to all I am hearing.

So they get a free friggin pass to attack Isreal? WTF? If Lebabnon can't keep their own house then the Isreali's have to do it for them if only for self defence.


Hezbollah are not a country, they are a militia of terrorist group depending on your point of view. They are not subject to the same treaties as Israel.

You would do what ?... send a candygram and a male stripper ?

Yes, when you do it in such a horrendously wrong way.

So they get a free friggin pass to attack Isreal? WTF? If Lebabnon can't keep their own house then the Isreali's have to do it for them if only for self defence.

of cramer corp was getting upset about Hezbollah not following a treaty, Hezbollah are not signatories to said treaty and, as such, don't have to abide by it. I was merely pointing this out to him.

Learn to read posts in context before you get your knickers in a twist.

Weren't the observers kill because if the comingling? The violence is targeted at Hezzollah they placed the UN in danger.

Please stay on topic. This is about killing UN observers.

I am not making any apologies for Hezbullah. I am deploring the indiscriminate actions of the IDF.

I don't wear knickers !!!!! :eek:
of cramer corp was getting upset about Hezbollah not following a treaty, Hezbollah are not signatories to said treaty and, as such, don't have to abide by it. I was merely pointing this out to him.

Learn to read posts in context before you get your knickers in a twist.

I don't wear knickers !!!!! :eek:

That's what they all say ;)

Truth be told sir/ma'am, you did ask about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since you were the one that quoted it and got hit on the head with it because it isn't non-binding.
If a nation state signs a declaration at the world class level, one would expect that said nation would honour such agreement. The fact that it is not binding, doesn't relieve a nation from the moral duty to honour their committment? BTW, it is sir.

I do want the fighting to end. I do not think there isn't a person minus the fanatics on either side that wants this to continue. I do not want it to continue.
Well there certainly appears to be enough fanatics of either side of this issue here on this board.

Also, it does no good to hurl accusations at people. You do not know what he/she actually wants. To say someone is part of a problem when you do not even know the person is quite disingenious of you sir/ma'am.
Kec and I go back quite aways here at NS and we kinda have this great opposite pole like repulsion. I perhaps over-reacted to his obvious flame.

As for labeling Israel a terrorist, I am going respectfully disagree with you on that. All I see is a nation trying to defend itself from fanatics who want to see Israel destroyed. Frankly, I do think they have gone overboard but you can only restrain so much before the restraints break and hell (pardon my language) breaks loose.
In this case, it appears that Israel fits the definition of terrorism:

Definition:

political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

Both sides are guilty.

Kec and I go back quite aways here at NS and we kinda have this great opposite pole like repulsion. I perhaps over-reacted to his obvious flame.




:fluffle:

In this case, it appears that Israel fits the definition of terrorism:

Definition:

political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

Both sides are guilty.

Doesn't your definition of terrorism describe any nation at war?

Israel does not target civilians on purpose. Hezbollah does. American troops do not. Al-queda does. Yet the left continues to but both sides on an equal moral level. I don't get it....why?

If a nation state signs a declaration at the world class level, one would expect that said nation would honour such agreement. The fact that it is not binding, doesn't relieve a nation from the moral duty to honour their committment? BTW, it is sir.

The fact that it is non-binding sir makes the UDHR irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. If it was a binding piece of legislation then I would be agreeing with you but since it is non-binding....

Well there certainly appears to be enough fanatics of either side of this issue here on this board.

I am slowly figuring that out.

Kec and I go back quite aways here at NS and we kinda have this great opposite pole like repulsion. I perhaps over-reacted to his obvious flame.

Its not a problem. It was just how I was raised.

In this case, it appears that Israel fits the definition of terrorism:

Definition:

political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

Both sides are guilty.

I will agree that both sides are guilty but does it stand to reason that most of the time Israel is provoked into taking action to defend her citizens? Under the definition you have quoted, I would say that Israel does not actually fit this definition of Terrorism for they are reacting to an attack on their forces.

Israel does not target civilians on purpose. Hezbollah does. American troops do not. Al-queda does. Yet the left continues to but both sides on an equal moral level. I don't get it....why?

I could be wrong but I think it may be the fact that Israel have been so much more successful at it.

It becomes difficult to believe the 'it's collateral damage and we really really sorry' thing when you are killing civilians at about 10 times the rate of the side who are deliberatly aiming for them.

Israel does not target civilians on purpose. Hezbollah does. American troops do not. Al-queda does. Yet the left continues to but both sides on an equal moral level. I don't get it....why?

Because they do, whether it be through military means, social means, political means, economic means. Most of the World powers (be they governments of organisations) are bastards and it frustrates those of us in the centre that the hypocrisy is so blindly supported.
That there is no accountability, no questioning and that those who do question are attacked, sometimes physically, for their dissent. That the democracy in the West is a broad sham controlled by those already in power and the media.
In my country the government is steadily restricting my rights to protest. One of the few things I can do is to encourage people to question the actions of the governments, to ask if the motives are the right ones, if their actions are the best actions they could take for the country and, in some cases, for the world. For all that much of western democracy is anything but there is a small window of opportunity, every few years, when the government is accountable, for at least some of what it does, and the only way to ensure that they fear that accountability is to make sure people question the government's actions.
You know that much of what Hezbollah and Hamas do is wrong (and everything I have heard Al-Qaeda do) but so many people view their own governments as morally superior without understanding that the terrorists are just a bit more obvious in their actions.

:fluffle:
OMG the sky is falling. Certainly the end of time can not be far off?

In all seriousness, I will relate a small true story.

A few years ago, my GF, who eventually became my wife, was having a problem with one of her younger office mates. It appears that the younger one was running to management with minor stuff (mostly untruths) about my wife. Of course my wife was very upset, and I suggested that she kill her office mate with kindness. So despite whatever the younger one was doing, my wife would always smile at her fellow worker and talk pleasantly to her.

Today, they are the best of friends. Pure magic!!

I am not suprised, and I actually expected this.

Guess the UN observers weren't 'observing' very well :p

I could be wrong but I think it may be the fact that Israel have been so much more successful at it.

It becomes difficult to believe the 'it's collateral damage and we really really sorry' thing when you are killing civilians at about 10 times the rate of the side who are deliberatly aiming for them.

Hell hath no fury like the Jewish soldier scorned.

If you think they're bad now trying to hit Hezz, imagine if they tried to hit civilians intentionaly.

OMG the sky is falling. Certainly the end of time can not be far off?

Actually, I think we are already living in the end of time. :D

In all seriousness, I will relate a small true story.

A few years ago, my GF, who eventually became my wife, was having a problem with one of her younger office mates. It appears that the younger one was running to management with minor stuff (mostly untruths) about my wife. Of course my wife was very upset, and I suggested that she kill her office mate with kindness. So despite whatever the younger one was doing, my wife would always smile at her fellow worker and talk pleasantly to her.

Today, they are the best of friends. Pure magic!!

I am glad that they became friends good sir.