NationStates Jolt Archive

Senior IDF officers: ""round two" coming up.
08:27 21/08/2006

Members of the Israel Defense Forces General Staff say that "round two" between Israel and Hezbollah could begin within months or even weeks, probably over the renewal of arms deliveries to the organization from Iran and Syria.

One senior officer told Haaretz on Sunday that throughout the month-long war with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria attempted to smuggle large quantities of weapons to Lebanon. He said that the efforts were stepped up over the past week, following the cease-fire and the end of Israel Air Force sorties deep in Lebanese territory.

Sources Yahoo/Haaretz/OcceanNEWS©2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/752773.html

my2cents: "Lets the killing resume".. Israelis perceive this war as a defeat.. So that is why they want a round 2 or 3.. untill it looks like Israel won.. or at least tied.

Any rearming of Hezbollah is a violation of the ceasefire.

See the other thread where this was discusssed.

Any rearming of Hezbollah is a violation of the ceasefire.

See the other thread where this was discusssed.

Psst! OcceanDrive would not know facts at all.

Any rearming of Hezbollah is a violation of the ceasefire.

See the other thread where this was discusssed.a Cease-Fire can only be violated by one side attacking the other side.

You may be suggesting that the UN resolution was not respected.. but that is up to the UN to decide..

the UN has to come forward and say "Arms shippement have taken place without the permission of Beirut"..

but the UN has no proof that has happened.. and Israel has never showed any proof to the UN.

Good, I hope Hez will be destroyed this time.

a Cease-Fire can only be violated by one side attacking the other side.

That is not actually 100% accurate.

That is not actually 100% accurate.99.99% .. close enough.

pwned again Corneliu :D :D :p :D

*sigh*

Great.

I don't really see the point to be honest. They still haven't realised its like squishing ants. Change tactics guys. Didn't work before, not going to work now.

a Cease-Fire can only be violated by one side attacking the other side.

You may be suggesting that the UN resolution was not respected.. but that is up to the UN to decide..

the UN has to come forward and say "Arms shippement have taken place without the permission of Beirut"..

but the UN has no proof that has happened.. and Israel has never showed any proof to the UN.

The US has proof. And Beirut's permission has nothing to do with it.

While Beirut may receive arms for the Lebanese Army, they may not transfer any under any conditions to Hezbollah, so your argument vanishes in a puff of vapor.

Good, I hope Hez will be destroyed this time.

Agreed; let's just hope the Israeli military doesn't take down the entire country.

And Beirut's permission has nothing to do with it.the resolution says it has.
The US has proof.show us.

99.99% .. close enough.

pwned again Corneliu :D :D :p :D

Violations of cease-fire comes in many forms as do treaty violations. So no, it is not 99.99% close. Far from it actually.

And learn to spell.

the resolution says it has.
show us.
The relevant UN resolution requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah.

They are currently in violation, and acceding to more violations.

That's enough.

The relevant UN resolution requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah.

They are currently in violation, and acceding to more violations.

That's enough.

Now you are just as guilty as OcceanDrive is about providing evidence.

Good, I hope Hez will be destroyed this time.
*knock knock knock* - hollow -
*tosses Sel Appa down the garbage chute*
"Mr Wonka.. wha.. what just happened?"
"Well, it looks like she was a bad nut."

a Cease-Fire can only be violated by one side attacking the other side.




Entirely wrong. A cease-fire can be violated by either side violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Any such violation relieves the other side of any responsibility to uphold the cease-fire, though it is generally considered good form to announce that you do not consider yourself bound before attacking.

As to this particular instance, I don't believe non-rearmament was part of the agreement. Therefore, no breach of terms has occurred.

Now you are just as guilty as OcceanDrive is about providing evidence.
OK.
Rearming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209071,00.html

Violation of UN Resolution
http://www.mideastweb.org/1559.htm
A key provision of Resolution 1559 was disarmament of militias:

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

Provisions for disarming of militias were not implemented. The Hezbollah, puppets of Iran and Syria, remained under arms and prevented independent action by the Lebanese government. Hezbollah representatives were taken into the Lebanese government of Fouad Seniora. In 2006, Hezbolla renewed attacks on Israel, resulting in a major confrontation. Resolutions of the UN Security Council have the validity of international law.

Entirely wrong. A cease-fire can be violated by either side violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Any such violation relieves the other side of any responsibility to uphold the cease-fire, though it is generally considered good form to announce that you do not consider yourself bound before attacking.

As to this particular instance, I don't believe non-rearmament was part of the agreement. Therefore, no breach of terms has occurred.
The current resolution takes into account a previous resolution, 1559, which is in violation.

The relevant UN resolution requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah.

They are currently in violation, and acceding to more violations.

That's enough.
In fairness, it does take time to actually disarm a group such as Hezb'allah.

The important thing that is being missed here is that the rockets have stopped going south over the border. Thats a good start.

In fairness, it does take time to actually disarm a group such as Hezb'allah.

The important thing that is being missed here is that the rockets have stopped going south over the border. Thats a good start.
Lebanon has no intention of disarming Hezbollah.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15281382.htm

Entirely wrong. A cease-fire can be violated by either side violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Any such violation relieves the other side of any responsibility to uphold the cease-fire, though it is generally considered good form to announce that you do not consider yourself bound before attacking.

And we have a winner :)

As to this particular instance, I don't believe non-rearmament was part of the agreement. Therefore, no breach of terms has occurred.

UN Resolution 1701 states that no weapons can be transfered without government approval first. If Iran and Syria are transferring weapons to Hezbollah without government approval, then it is a violation of 1701.

And we have a winner :)

UN Resolution 1701 states that no weapons can be transfered without government approval first. If Iran and Syria are transferring weapons to Hezbollah without government approval, then it is a violation of 1701.
It's also a violation of 1559.

OK.
Rearming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209071,00.html

Violation of UN Resolution
http://www.mideastweb.org/1559.htm

Thank you. More proof against OcceanDrive.

Good, I hope Hez will be destroyed this time.

They won't be.

They won't be.
No, but it will involve more fireworks.

*sigh*

Great.

I don't really see the point to be honest. They still haven't realised its like squishing ants. Change tactics guys. Didn't work before, not going to work now.

It'll never work. You can't beat terrorist organizations miltarily. It's impossible.

It'll never work. You can't beat terrorist organizations miltarily. It's impossible.
Actually, Hezbollah is violating a precept. They are offering a standup fight - which is bad for a guerilla organization.

Better that they decentralize, and fight like the insurgents in Iraq, than defend hardpoints and launch sites.

Right now, they are dependent on external supply for rockets and other arms, which are heavy and must be defended. Not a good thing.

If they persist in offering a standup fight, they're going to be ground down.

Lebanon has no intention of disarming Hezbollah.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15281382.htm
Thats from August 16th. A bit old considering the amount of action that has occured since then.

Yet this statement would seem to contradict yours: From 20th August.
Lebanon's defence minister says anyone firing rockets at Israel from the south will be considered a traitor and be firmly dealt with by the army.

Mr Murr told a Beirut news conference that any ceasefire violation that would give Israel the justification to strike Lebanon would be "treated harshly
"It will be considered as direct collaboration with the Israeli enemy," Mr Murr said, adding that those responsible "will be tried and referred to a military tribunal".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5268418.stm

There's more than one way to skin a cat....or disarm a group.

Thats from August 16th. A bit old considering the amount of action that has occured since then.

Yet this statement would seem to contradict yours: From 20th August.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5268418.stm

There's more than one way to skin a cat....or disarm a group.

Talk. Bluster. They're not going to disarm Hezbollah, because Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese Army, and pro-Syrian and Hez candidates own the Lebanese government.

Actually, Hezbollah is violating a precept. They are offering a standup fight - which is bad for a guerilla organization.

Better that they decentralize, and fight like the insurgents in Iraq, than defend hardpoints and launch sites.

Right now, they are dependent on external supply for rockets and other arms, which are heavy and must be defended. Not a good thing.

If they persist in offering a standup fight, they're going to be ground down.

They are fighting that way because they are able to. When they are no longer able to, they will change tactics. These people will do whatever it takes to appease their angry volcano god.

They are fighting that way because they are able to. When they ae no longer able to, they will change tactics. These people will do whatever it takes to appease their angry volcano god.

Yeah, they keep talking about that lack of virgins. No wonder the volcano god is angry.

It's important to realize that the south of Lebanon is very different from every other part of the country (except maybe the Bekaa valley.) There's a reason the Lebanon government basically abandoned it after the 75-90 war ended. It's majority Shi'a, of course, with a sizable Christian minority. The fact that the Shi'a dominate there is essential to understand - they are now undoubtedly the largest sect in Lebanon due to a high birth rate, but the Sunnis and Maronites hold far more political power because of the way the government is set up. They are also on average one of the poorest sects in Lebanon.

All of this means that a lot of Shi'a likely don't trust their own government and rightfully feel disenfranchised, so they turn to either Amal or the more militant Hezbollah. I think that even if Israel does get rid of this group's upper leadership, another similar group will fill the void in the south.

Yeah, they keep talking about that lack of virgins. No wonder the volcano god is angry.

Virgins are overrated. After a few virgins, you're gonna want a pro. :p

Talk. Bluster. They're not going to disarm Hezbollah, because Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese Army, and pro-Syrian and Hez candidates own the Lebanese government.
Maybe, maybe not. "Disarming" doesn't have to mean "Give us your guns motherfucka"!!!.

It could very easily be spun into - "Change your military into a purely political force, join with the Army"...etc etc.

Like I said, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.

Virgins are overrated. After a few virgins, you're gonna want a pro. :p
Tell that to the volcano god.

It'll never work. You can't beat terrorist organizations miltarily. It's impossible.

Wrong. Quite wrong. It can and has been done before, and will be done again.

To defeat an insurgency:

1) Leave no safe harbour. Let them have no safe bases to train and arm, no place to feel safe and send out propaganda from.

2) Be Ruthless. If the terrorists are using human shields, hit them anyway. If they try to create no-go zones, go in with armoured columns. If they demand captured insurgents be released in exchange for hostages, shoot the captives. In short, do not allow the terrorists to profit from anything they do.

3) Hunt them relentlessly. Identify their command and control apparattus and destroy it. Assassinate their leadership, destroy their propaganda offices, squeeze their logistics lines shut.

This is what slew the Shining Path. This destroyed the Mau-Mau Uprising. This works.

The only question is, are we strong enough to do it?

Tell that to the volcano god.

There is no volcano god. But I spoke to Allah about this(whom these lunatics claim to worship but really don't) and he's as disgusted with the whole situation as I am. The problem is that people don't listen to him. They listen to clergy. *nod*

Wrong. Quite wrong. It can and has been done before...

When?

When?

1. South Africa, where the British won.
2. Malaysia, where the British won.
3. Aden, where the British won.

See a pattern here?

1. South Africa, where the British won.
2. Malaysia, where the British won.
3. Aden, where the British won.

See a pattern here?
I do.

All 3 won independence from Britain. :D

1. South Africa, where the British won.
2. Malaysia, where the British won.
3. Aden, where the British won.

See a pattern here?

They're all places the british no longer control? :p

When?

Most recently, the aforementioned Shining Path in Peru was destroyed by President Fujimori and the Peruvian military.

The Malaysian war against communist insurgents, inthe 1950s, mostly by the British and Australians.

The Moro War when the US took over the Phillippines from Spain.

It's happened sporadically for centuries - sorry, make that millenia. The Romans were a dab hand at suppressing guerrilla warfare.

I do.

All 3 won independence from Britain. :D
After the insurgents got their butts kicked.

The Moro War when the US took over the Phillippines from Spain.

1901 actually in a Philippino uprising that the US defeated.

I do.

All 3 won independence from Britain. :D

No,

all three left British control peacefully. The uprisings were near-unmitigated failures.

After the insurgents got their butts kicked.
Ah... so the resistance may lose...but their cause will, in the end, be victorious. ;)

UN Resolution 1701 states that no weapons can be transfered without government approval first. If Iran and Syria are transferring weapons to Hezbollah without government approval, then it is a violation of 1701.

Exactly who would be in violation? The resolution seems flawed in that if Iran or Syria transports weapons to Hezbolah without Lebanese concent or knowledge, then Lebanon gets bombed again.

All of you sad boys with your war toys...

1901 actually in a Philippino uprising that the US defeated.

Depends how you read it. I won't say you're wrong (it's not my period of expertise), but there seems to be some argument on just how to classify that conflict.

2) Be Ruthless. If the terrorists are using human shields, hit them anyway. If they try to create no-go zones, go in with armoured columns. If they demand captured insurgents be released in exchange for hostages, shoot the captives. In short, do not allow the terrorists to profit from anything they do.


There's a little problem with this point. You claim that it's worth it to kill innocents so long as it furthers the goal of killing the terrorists. But is killing innocents not what terrorism is all about? No doubt, we have to get to terrorists, but there are better methods than brute force. In fact, I think brute force is sometimes not so effective, even if you don't care about "collateral damage", as they put it.

Exactly who would be in violation? The resolution seems flawed in that if Iran or Syria transports weapons to Hezbolah without Lebanese concent or knowledge, then Lebanon gets bombed again.

They were charged to stop it. If they don't, then yea, then it is there fault.

They were charged to stop it. If they don't, then yea, then it is there fault.

Do you honestly think that the Lebanese Army has the power to go up against Hezbollah? They would get thrashed. Like I said, they have shiny boots, because they've never gotten them dirty.

edit: not to mention that the Lebanese really don't want to piss off the Syrians, and for good reason. Of course, the President of Lebanon is Syria's man, so I wouldn't count on it.

No,

all three left British control peacefully. The uprisings were near-unmitigated failures.


Mau Mau Uprising:
The uprising did not succeed militarily, but did create a rift between the white settler community in Kenya and the Home Office in London that set the stage for Kenyan independence in 1963.

That seemed to do the job didn't it?

Mau Mau Uprising:
The uprising did not succeed militarily, but did create a rift between the white settler community in Kenya and the Home Office in London that set the stage for Kenyan independence in 1963.

That seemed to do the job didn't it?

Didn't accomplisht the goals of the Mau Mau, who wanted to be the government.

The UK seems to be ok with independence, as long as the resultant government is fairly friendly.

Otherwise, back in the day, the British Army killed you.

Most recently, the aforementioned Shining Path in Peru was destroyed by President Fujimori and the Peruvian military.

The Malaysian war against communist insurgents, inthe 1950s, mostly by the British and Australians.

The Moro War when the US took over the Phillippines from Spain.

It's happened sporadically for centuries - sorry, make that millenia. The Romans were a dab hand at suppressing guerrilla warfare.

These were political uprisings, not 'holy' wars. There were no angry volcano gods involved. :p

These were political uprisings, not 'holy' wars. There were no angry volcano gods involved. :p
There were angry volcano gods when the Moros were fighting...

Didn't accomplisht the goals of the Mau Mau, who wanted to be the government.

Well considering Mau Mau means (in Swahili) -Let the white man go back abroad so the African can get his independence- (Yes, its from Wiki) I'd say their aims were quite simple. Obvisouly, post-independence is another story but the "common enemy" is quite a biniding force at the start.

Also, as a "carrot" to the Kenyan population, the British had already given many political concessions demanded by the Mau Mau in 1956. I'd say their aims were quite successfully obtained.

[Enough of this off topicness.]

There's a little problem with this point. You claim that it's worth it to kill innocents so long as it furthers the goal of killing the terrorists. But is killing innocents not what terrorism is all about? No doubt, we have to get to terrorists, but there are better methods than brute force. In fact, I think brute force is sometimes not so effective, even if you don't care about "collateral damage", as they put it.

Never said there weren't downsides. And terrorism isn't about killing innocents; it's about POWER. Power through fear. If the vast herd of humanity fears you, they will obey you.
I should note, that kind of tactic is progressively less effective the better educated and more cosmopolitan your populace is. Not how well educated much of the Middle East is...
By denying the terrorists victory, you rob them of the capacity to create fear. A bunch of terrorists take hostages, and eventually shoot them, they win. They take hostages and the hostages get killed in attempted rescue along with the terrorists, you win. In the first instance, you have seemed weak and indecisive; in the second, you have demonstrated your strength and determination. For the poor hostages, the result is the same, but at least you have denied the terrorists their terror.

There were angry volcano gods when the Moros were fighting...

If you're refering to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front(MILF *chuckles*), they are still around. *nod*

I should note, that kind of tactic is progressively less effective the better educated and more cosmopolitan your populace is. Not how well educated much of the Middle East is...
By denying the terrorists victory, you rob them of the capacity to create fear. A bunch of terrorists take hostages, and eventually shoot them, they win. They take hostages and the hostages get killed in attempted rescue along with the terrorists, you win. In the first instance, you have seemed weak and indecisive; in the second, you have demonstrated your strength and determination. For the poor hostages, the result is the same, but at least you have denied the terrorists their terror.

First of all, you'd be surprised how high the level of education is in Lebanon. It has one of the best school systems in the region, in part thanks to French influence and in part to Protestant missionaries who founded institutions like American University of Beirut, which is a world-renowned university. Beirut itself is very cosmopolitan, in fact.

Your other point is interesting, but I wonder how you would feel if your own family were held hostage. It's more difficult to be "decisive" when people you know and love are in danger. Or is it a sacrifice that some have to make?

If you're refering to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front(MILF *chuckles*), they are still around. *nod*
Different Moros.

First of all, you'd be surprised how high the level of education is in Lebanon. It has one of the best school systems in the region, in part thanks to French influence and in part to Protestant missionaries who founded institutions like American University of Beirut, which is a world-renowned university. Beirut itself is very cosmopolitan, in fact.

So I've heard. They used to call it "The Paris of the Mid-East", or something like that. Actually, I suspect that is why the civil war lasted as long as it did; both sides actually knew what they were doing.
Unfortunately, I suspect he ranks of Hezbollah are being swelled by the generation that had their educations utterly disrupted by that same civil war.


Your other point is interesting, but I wonder how you would feel if your own family were held hostage. It's more difficult to be "decisive" when people you know and love are in danger. Or is it a sacrifice that some have to make?

Well, that's the real trick, isn't it? No one wants to lose loved ones, no one wants to be the ones who 'paid the price.'
All I can say is for myself. I will not be used as a tool against what I love. Knowing that death is The End, yet I would choose that for myself and those I love rather than allow us to be slaves to the wielders of fear.

All I can say is for myself. I will not be used as a tool against what I love. Knowing that death is The End, yet I would choose that for myself and those I love rather than allow us to be slaves to the wielders of fear.

You're a very strong person, then. I'm not sure how many others would take that path.

Different Moros.

Exactly.

You're a very strong person, then. I'm not sure how many others would take that path.

Not so strong. I just know that there are far worse things than a swift, clean death, for a cause I think is just.

Actually, Hezbollah is violating a precept. They are offering a standup fight - which is bad for a guerilla organization.

Better that they decentralize, and fight like the insurgents in Iraq, than defend hardpoints and launch sites.

Right now, they are dependent on external supply for rockets and other arms, which are heavy and must be defended. Not a good thing.

If they persist in offering a standup fight, they're going to be ground down.when?

So I've heard. They used to call it "The Paris of the Mid-East"...Yes.. It was indeed a great rich city..

Their youth was pro-US, pro-Europe, pro-West.. they used to love American culture..

99.99% .. close enough.

pwned again Corneliu :D :D :p :D

Anyone who disagrees with you is me now? WOW. Did not realize I was that popular.

Entirely wrong. A cease-fire can be violated by either side violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Any such violation relieves the other side of any responsibility to uphold the cease-fire, though it is generally considered good form to announce that you do not consider yourself bound before attacking.

As to this particular instance, I don't believe non-rearmament was part of the agreement. Therefore, no breach of terms has occurred.

To bad that OcceanDrive is to stupid to know this.

when?
As soon as the fighting resumes.

Judging by the statement from UN...
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution/1701
Hezbollah have done nothing wrong.
Although they have, in spirit, broken the accord they have not legally breached it. Much as the IDF have not breached it with the multiple violations of Lebanese air space by their air-force.
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2170

However, the flagrant action that took place in the Bekaa Valley was a violation of the ceasefire and I am unclear as to what Israel stood to gain by it.

To bad that OcceanDrive is to stupid to know this.
Good to have you back :rolleyes:

However, the flagrant action that took place in the Bekaa Valley was a violation of the ceasefire and I am unclear as to what Israel stood to gain by it.


...which brings me riiight back to this:
There is speculation locally that the Israelis may have been trying to capture a senior Hezbollah figure who lives in the village.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5267736.stm

As soon as the fighting resumes.it already has..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496679

it already has..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496679
Sorry, doesn't count.

Even if the UN says it's a violation, the question is, is it enough to make Hezbollah decide to resume fighting.

Obviously, it hasn't.

it already has..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496679

Seems to me the shooting has not started yet. A raid to stop an illegal weapons transfer is legal in this case as transfering weapons to hezbollah violates 1559 and 1701.

It's important to realize that the south of Lebanon is very different from every other part of the country (except maybe the Bekaa valley.) There's a reason the Lebanon government basically abandoned it after the 75-90 war ended. It's majority Shi'a, of course, with a sizable Christian minority. The fact that the Shi'a dominate there is essential to understand - they are now undoubtedly the largest sect in Lebanon due to a high birth rate, but the Sunnis and Maronites hold far more political power because of the way the government is set up. They are also on average one of the poorest sects in Lebanon.

All of this means that a lot of Shi'a likely don't trust their own government and rightfully feel disenfranchised, so they turn to either Amal or the more militant Hezbollah. I think that even if Israel does get rid of this group's upper leadership, another similar group will fill the void in the south.

Woa, someone with an insight.

PS: Some of you might have not understood this but.. Hizb Allah isn't in South Lebanon. Hizb Allah IS South Lebanon.. remember those IDF footages showing rocket launchers being driven to civilian homes? That was just some Hizb Allah guy parking his car after a hard day work.

Seems to me the shooting has not started yet. A raid to stop an illegal weapons transfer is legal in this case as transfering weapons to hezbollah violates 1559 and 1701.
If you could give the quote that says Israel is allowed to raid Lebanon at the drop of the hat?

If weapons were indeed being supplied to Hezbollah and these supplies were taking place without the authorisation of the Lebanese government then Hezbollah was in violation of sections 8 & 15 and should be dealt with accordingly.
It would be interesting to see if the weapon supply operation (if that's what it was) was, in fact, condemned by the Lebanese government. There would appear to be tacit support for an armed Hezbollah emanating from the significant portions of the Lebanese government.

On the other hand, Israel has breached an awful lot of regulations of 1701 already: -
1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 15.
It should be dealt with accordingly.

I just hope that the ceasefire broadly holds. The last thing the Middle East needs is for the war to start again. :(

If you could give the quote that says Israel is allowed to raid Lebanon at the drop of the hat?

If it was a weapons transfer, that is all the justification they need to conduct the raid as transfering weapons to hezbollah is a violation of 1701 which is a cease-fire agreement. Violating it, means all bets are off.

If weapons were indeed being supplied to Hezbollah and these supplies were taking place without the authorisation of the Lebanese government then Hezbollah was in violation of sections 8 & 15 and should be dealt with accordingly.

Yep. Israel should have told the UN to get out and launched a massive ground assault. Pussies that they are did not.

It would be interesting to see if the weapon supply operation (if that's what it was) was, in fact, condemned by the Lebanese government. There would appear to be tacit support for an armed Hezbollah emanating from the significant portions of the Lebanese government.

Which would violate 1559 all over again.

On the other hand, Israel has breached an awful lot of regulations of 1701 already: -
1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 15.
It should be dealt with accordingly.

Prove that they have.

I just hope that the ceasefire broadly holds. The last thing the Middle East needs is for the war to start again. :(

agreed.

If it was a weapons transfer, that is all the justification they need to conduct the raid as transfering weapons to hezbollah is a violation of 1701 which is a cease-fire agreement. Violating it, means all bets are off.
Not according to 1701. Even if the Lebanese government did not sanction the transfer (which would make it legal) there is nothing to say that a lone violation invalidates the treaty or empowers the other signatories to do whatever they feel like.

Yep. Israel should have told the UN to get out and launched a massive ground assault. Pussies that they are did not.
I assume they were hoping not to get their asses handed to them in a bag after their inability to get to the Litani last time and their experience against a much, much, much weaker Hezbollah during the Occupation.

Which would violate 1559 all over again.
This is not a thread about 1559. If it was we could include all the UN resolutions which both sides have ignored or failed to implement.

Prove that they have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Violations_of_current_ceasefire
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.main.05/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lebanon_israel
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-19T154553Z_01_L13492527_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5267736.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209419,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1220650.ece
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525905204&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I can give more sources if you wish.
They all put IDF forces in Lebanon, actively engaged in hostile acts that contravene a number of sections of 1701.

Not according to 1701. Even if the Lebanese government did not sanction the transfer (which would make it legal) there is nothing to say that a lone violation invalidates the treaty or empowers the other signatories to do whatever they feel like.

Actually, a treaty violation does normally end treaties. In this case, a violation of a cease-fire agreement is justification for Israel to go in and kick some hezbollah ass. Transfering weapons that were not sanctioned by the Lebanonese government is a violation of this agreement. Ergo, Israel is entitled to kick their asses.

I assume they were hoping not to get their asses handed to them in a bag after their in ability to get to the Litani last time and their experience against a much, much, much weaker Hezbollah during the Occupation.

Last time, Hezbollah did not stand up to the Israeli army as they did this time around.

This is not a thread about 1559. If it was we could include all the UN resolutions which both sides have ignored or failed to implement.

United nations Resolution 1559 was mentioned in 1701. So yes. mention 1559 is indeed part of 1701.

I can give more sources if you wish.
They all put IDF forces in Lebanon, actively engaged in hostile acts that contravene a number of sections of 1701.

Despite the damn fact that they are pulling out of Lebanon UNDER FIRE from Hezbollah forces?

Very surprisingly unsurprising. I mean its not like they're fighting over land or political ideals or anything of that kind of importance..... Israel just likes war as much as the extremists! :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Violations_of_current_ceasefire
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.main.05/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lebanon_israel
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-19T154553Z_01_L13492527_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5267736.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209419,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1220650.ece
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525905204&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I can give more sources if you wish.
They all put IDF forces in Lebanon, actively engaged in hostile acts that contravene a number of sections of 1701.
Of course, every single one of those posts refers to an incident in which Hiz'bo'allah is in violation, and the Israelis responded.

Virgins are overrated. After a few virgins, you're gonna want a pro. :p

"you can tell the cherry is ripe by they way it tastes".-bloodhound gang

Different Moros.

moro bars?

Senior IDF officers: ""round two" coming up.
08:27 21/08/2006
Two words: Oh Fuck

If you could give the quote that says Israel is allowed to raid Lebanon at the drop of the hat?
Section Q "I give Israel the authority to invade Lebanon at the drop of a hat, GWB heh heh"

Section Q "I give Israel the authority to invade Lebanon at the drop of a hat, GWB heh heh"LOL

The Jew crew approves of this.

The Jew crew approves of this.

Good for you, I guess? I'm still not clear on what the "Jew crew" is, though.