NationStates Jolt Archive

Clash along Israel-Lebanon border

Odisrael Tensions on the Lebanon-Israel border grew last night as troops exchanged fire after an Israeli patrol crossed the boundary that the U.N. re-established after last summer's 34-day war with Hezbollah.

"Lebanese troops opened fire on a bulldozer after it crossed the so-called Blue Line — the U.N.-demarcated boundary — and entered about 20 yards into Lebanon," Lebanese officials told AP.

"Israeli troops responded with tanks and light weapons, Israeli security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media," AP reported.

In related news, the Christian Science Monitor reported this morning that 26% of the cultivable land in southern Lebanon is carpeted with an estimated 1 million cluster bombs.

Sources: Christian Science Monitor / USAtoday / Reuters / AP / OccN etc..
my2cents: WoW.. 26% of the cultivable land in S.Lebanon!!!
I say the UN should clean it up.. and send the bill to Israel.

link?

el linko (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/clash_along_isr.html)

el linko (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/clash_along_isr.html)

Ah yes, coming just days after the lebanese open up fire on Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border, searching for bombs planted by hizbullah.

Not to mention, Lebanon is still not taking care of Hizbullah, as there are reports of French UN workers that are being forced to do things by Hizbullah.

WoW.. 26% of the cultivable land in S.Lebanon!!! I say the UN should clean it up.. and send the bill to Israel.

Nah, just procure ten thousand large-breed rabbits and set 'em loose over there.. the survivors will breed the rest of the million.. :p

What does it matter when Lebanon doesn't even use its cultivatable land. I was on the Israeli-Lebanese border a little less than 2 months ago. Israel's side is filled with lush forests and green fields. Lebanon's side is nothing but brown because the Lebanese don't give a damn about the environment while Israel does.

If you want, I can upload some pics I took atop Mt. Meron. The border is clearly visible. The green side is Israel. The brown dust is Lebanon.

Aw, crap, not this again...

Israel's side is filled with lush forests and green fields. Lebanon's side is nothing but brown because the Lebanese don't give a damn about the environment while Israel does.It is not going to become green anytime soon because of the cluster bombs.

If Israel cares so much about the environment.. Why-the-hell do they keep Cluster bombing the cultivable lands??

I am assuming Israel knows the "environment" does not stop at the border..

Not to mention, Lebanon is still not taking care of Hizbullah, as there are reports of French UN workers that are being forced to do things by Hizbullah.

Source?

What does it matter when Lebanon doesn't even use its cultivatable land.
.

I presume, when Lebanese farmers become bomb and bullet proof, or somebody develops a cream for the itch that seems to afflict fingers in the IDF, they will.

Source?


I presume, when Lebanese farmers become bomb and bullet proof, or somebody develops a cream for the itch that seems to afflict fingers in the IDF, they will.

I hope they share it with the Lebanese idiots, too. Given they started both incidents.

Lebanese troops opened fire on a bulldozer after it crossed the so-called Blue Line

Maybe they've been hanging around near their opposite numbers too much, more like.

The border is clearly visible. The green side is Israel. The brown dust is Lebanon.

Lets see how green Israels side will be after heavy shelling with conventional and cluster munitions.

It is not going to become green anytime soon because of the cluster bombs.

If Israel cares so much about the environment.. Why-the-hell do they keep Cluster bombing the cultivable lands??

I am assuming Israel knows the "environment" does not stop at the border..
Forget about the cultivatable land. The cluster bombs are there because of a little thing called self defense. You know good and well that Israel doesn't need to go to Southern Lebanon for bombing _practice_.

The border is clearly visible. The green side is Israel. The brown dust is Lebanon.

:D

What does it matter when Lebanon doesn't even use its cultivatable land. I was on the Israeli-Lebanese border a little less than 2 months ago. Israel's side is filled with lush forests and green fields. Lebanon's side is nothing but brown because the Lebanese don't give a damn about the environment while Israel does.

If you want, I can upload some pics I took atop Mt. Meron. The border is clearly visible. The green side is Israel. The brown dust is Lebanon.

Wasn't that area occupied by Israel for a decade or so? I do believe it was......

Forget about the cultivatable land. The cluster bombs are there because of a little thing called self defense. You know good and well that Israel doesn't need to go to Southern Lebanon for bombing _practice_.

Wait, wait, wait. These cluster bombs are still there after the supposedly "safe" period where they're supposed to have self destructed? That makes them the equivalent of land mines then doesn't it?

Land mines in Lebanon? Israeli land mines?

If I think you're a threat to me, could I get away with putting land mines by your front door?

Since when was seeding someone else's territory with armed munitions that stay around after hostilities called self defense?

Rebuild the iron curtain for all I care, seed it with nuclear land mines if that's what you want. But do it on your own territory please.

Ah yes, coming just days after the lebanese open up fire on Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border, searching for bombs planted by hizbullah.

Not to mention, Lebanon is still not taking care of Hizbullah, as there are reports of French UN workers that are being forced to do things by Hizbullah.

SHHHHHH!

OD2 does not care about facts. He just loves painting Israel as the soul bad guy in the entire Middle East, forgetting that BOTH SIDES have kept this conflict going far longer than it should have.

Wait, wait, wait. These cluster bombs are still there after the supposedly "safe" period where they're supposed to have self destructed? That makes them the equivalent of land mines then doesn't it?

Land mines in Lebanon? Israeli land mines?

If I think you're a threat to me, could I get away with putting land mines by your front door?

Since when was seeding someone else's territory with armed munitions that stay around after hostilities called self defense?

Rebuild the iron curtain for all I care, seed it with nuclear land mines if that's what you want. But do it on your own territory please.

A: The Cluster Bomb self-destructs aren't 100% functional. They're actually better than you might think (given the abuse a cluster bomblet takes from it's intended use), but in the field something like 20% of the "poppers" don't work on the duds.

B: Cluster Bomblets are usually brightly coloured and designed to be easily spotted, to ease cleanup. They're also designed to be easily swept (ie, no trembler switches or other booby traps).

C: Deployable Mine Fields, either air dropped or artillery deployed, are dull, designed to be difficult to spot and are usually booby trapped to make sweeping them both a royal pain and as futile as possible. THEIR "poppers" are designed to work after a much longer period, like weeks or months, and are for that reason also less reliable - we were told they had a SUCCESS rate of around 20% in the field (though that was in the 1980s, so it may well have improved since then).

Unexploded cluster bomblets are a fact of life of modern war. If the IDF had desired to deny access to that area, they could have been much more unpleasent about it.

A: The Cluster Bomb self-destructs aren't 100% functional. They're actually better than you might think (given the abuse a cluster bomblet takes from it's intended use), but in the field something like 20% of the "poppers" don't work on the duds.

B: Cluster Bomblets are usually brightly coloured and designed to be easily spotted, to ease cleanup. They're also designed to be easily swept (ie, no trembler switches or other booby traps).

C: Deployable Mine Fields, either air dropped or artillery deployed, are dull, designed to be difficult to spot and are usually booby trapped to make sweeping them both a royal pain and as futile as possible. THEIR "poppers" are designed to work after a much longer period, like weeks or months, and are for that reason also less reliable - we were told they had a SUCCESS rate of around 20% in the field (though that was in the 1980s, so it may well have improved since then).

Unexploded cluster bomblets are a fact of life of modern war. If the IDF had desired to deny access to that area, they could have been much more unpleasent about it.

Indeed. Well said my friend.

. If the IDF had desired to deny access to that area, they could have been much more unpleasent about it.

Like occupying part of it and funding a militia associated with torture, murder, and attacks on the UN for a few years, then claiming the moral highground.

Like occupying part of it and funding a militia associated with torture, murder, and attacks on the UN for a few years, then claiming the moral highground.

Your description matches that of everyone in the entire benighted country, Nodinia. There are no good guys in the Lebanon.

It was stupid of the Lebanese to open fire on a mere bulldozer, although it should not have been there.

What does it matter when Lebanon doesn't even use its cultivatable land.
And they never will now. Israel cares about the environment because they can afford to, after all it's not like their economy was destroyed by a war.

Your description matches that of everyone in the entire benighted country, Nodinia. There are no good guys in the Lebanon.

No, there are no "good" guys, there are just shades of bastardy. However the basic assertion re the concept of the "lazy" Arab and untilled land is entirely untrue. Its untilled for a number of practical reasons entirely to do with what happens in that Southern Area.

No, there are no "good" guys, there are just shades of bastardy. However the basic assertion re the concept of the "lazy" Arab and untilled land is entirely untrue. Its untilled for a number of practical reasons entirely to do with what happens in that Southern Area.

Good, we are in agreement.

I say the UN should clean it up.. and send the bill to Israel.
You do realise the Israeli bulldozer crossed the border to remove mines/explosives, at least that was the reason given when I read it in the paper.

A: The Cluster Bomb self-destructs aren't 100% functional. They're actually better than you might think (given the abuse a cluster bomblet takes from it's intended use), but in the field something like 20% of the "poppers" don't work on the duds.

So with an estimated 1 million cluster bombs still there, that makes what, 5,000,000 cluster bombs having being fired off?

Don't forget, Israel was reported to having bombed the roads out of various Lebanese cities/towns/villages before declaring "anyone still there is a terrorist and deserves to die in our carpet shelling".


B: Cluster Bomblets are usually brightly coloured and designed to be easily spotted, to ease cleanup. They're also designed to be easily swept (ie, no trembler switches or other booby traps).

Since you know so much, can you point out which type of cluster bomblet the IDF was purported to have been using? After all, usually does not always mean always.

And somehow, when you say swept, I very much doubt you mean sweeping with say, a broom.


Unexploded cluster bomblets are a fact of life of modern war. If the IDF had desired to deny access to that area, they could have been much more unpleasent about it.

Much like mine fields sown and completely forgotten about until some luckless person steps onto it eh? As for being possibly more unpleasant, that's hardly an effective plea in any defense.

"I robbed the old granny, but at least I didn't whack her on the head with a 2x4"

Try to avoid using such defenses. They usually fail.

Besides, has Israel provided Lebanese with the locations shelled with cluster bombs, the particulars on its removal?

Ah yes, coming just days after the lebanese open up fire on Israeli troops on the Israeli side of the border, searching for bombs planted by hizbullah.

I remember your thread on the subject; I also remember predicting that it wouldn't result in escalation. Needless to say I feel a bit silly now. :(

You do realise the Israeli bulldozer crossed the border to remove mines/explosives, at least that was the reason given when I read it in the paper.

It's a great Catch 22 isn't it? If Israel clear up then they're accused of interfering with Lebanon's sovereignty. If Israel don't clear up then they're accused of not caring about the Lebanese people.

So with an estimated 1 million cluster bombs still there, that makes what, 5,000,000 cluster bombs having being fired off?

First, I suspect the estimate is, as is almost always the case, over high. Second, a cluster munition uses a LOT of bomblets (the CBU100 carries over two hundred bomblets), and that "1 million cluster bombs" is idiot civvie speak for "1 million bomblets". If the IDF had used 5 million cluster bombs, there wouldn't be anything left to clean up.


Don't forget, Israel was reported to having bombed the roads out of various Lebanese cities/towns/villages before declaring "anyone still there is a terrorist and deserves to die in our carpet shelling".

I don't see any particular reason to bring it up, given it has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but feel free.


Since you know so much, can you point out which type of cluster bomblet the IDF was purported to have been using? After all, usually does not always mean always.

No, I don't know what type the Israelis use. The US manufactures a number of different types, and I would expect the Israelis would use whichever best suits their needs. However, unless they're using non-american made weapons, my statement remains accurate.


And somehow, when you say swept, I very much doubt you mean sweeping with say, a broom.

No, not quite. Unexploded ordinance is always a headache. But with a cluster bomblet, all you need is either a reinforced bulldozer or somebody with a rifle and a good eye to eliminate the threat.


Much like mine fields sown and completely forgotten about until some luckless person steps onto it eh? As for being possibly more unpleasant, that's hardly an effective plea in any defense.

I don't see any defence as being necessary. Israel counterattacked a force that had attacked them, and were nice enough to use only weapons that are easily disposed of. They didn't have to, and I consider it a mark in favour of their civility.


Besides, has Israel provided Lebanese with the locations shelled with cluster bombs, the particulars on its removal?

Probably not. Nor have they any obligation to do so. If Lebanon wishes to host a military force and allow it to attack their neighbours, that's up to them, but they cannot then cry foul when they must pay the price of such decisions.

Israel's side is filled with lush forests and green fields. Lebanon's side is nothing but brown because the Lebanese *snips bile*

Yeah... lemme see now - right, here we are:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/wall.jpg

Kinda like this? Just substitute "Lebanon" for Mexico, and away you go. Damn uncaring, lazy Lebanese and their supposed inability to farm around Israeli cluster bombs, eh IDF? Why don't they just buckle down and get themselves maimed like proper automata?

Remember guys, Zionists do not recognize borders, only Zionist lands and potential Zionist lands.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t258/gobears1987/100_0148-2.jpg

I'm sorry, but when the difference is this stark, you can't blame Israel. It was pretty much the same story in the Golan Heights. The Golan was beautiful while Syria was ugly and brown.

If you've ever looked at satelite imagery of Israel, you can practically trace Israel's borders by following the green.

Remember guys, Zionists do not recognize borders, only Zionist lands and potential Zionist lands.

Remember guys, AP is a freaking Nazi and his posts are full of shit.

I'm sorry, but when the difference is this stark, you can't blame Israel. It was pretty much the same story in the Golan Heights. The Golan was beautiful while Syria was ugly and brown.


Yes, and as you've already gone out of your way to say, it's the fault of the Lebanese for not going out into the lands immediately bordering onto Israel (and presumably letting themselves get maimed - or worse - by Israeli cluster-bombs in so doing) in order to pretty up the view for you and your fellow tourists. For shame.

Yes, and as you've already gone out of your way to say, it's the fault of the Lebanese for not going out into the lands immediately bordering onto Israel (and presumably letting themselves get maimed or worse by Israeli cluster-bombs in so doing) in order to pretty up the view for you and your fellow tourists. For shame.

Look at that picture. That isn't from the war. That is from decades of neglect. Israel actually used to look a lot like that, but the Zionists experimented with various methods of irrigation and trapping water. It took decades of work, but the results are that a land that once eroded soil is now lush.

You should take a trip there and see first hand how green that land is. If you look into either Syria or Lebanon, there is no green on their side of the border while Israel is full of it.

Here is the point everyone is missing.

Had Lebanon upheld their obligation to control Hezbollah, none of this would've happened.

Their negligence allowed Hezbollah to fire a few hundred rockets in order to cover the border raid which killed 8 and captured 2. Israel was well within their right to do everything they did there. Had Lebanon done their job, none of this would've happened. If Lebanon was unable to do their job, then they easily could've made a request to France or another European nation for support.

Look at that picture. That isn't from the war. That is from decades of neglect. Israel actually used to look a lot like that, but the Zionists experimented with various methods of irrigation and trapping water. It took decades of work, but the results are that a land that once eroded soil is now lush..

And how many years of that had Israel occupying it and its local thugs running rampant?


You should take a trip there and see first hand how green that land is. If you look into either Syria or Lebanon, there is no green on their side of the border while Israel is full of it.

Israel is indeed full of it.

And how many years of that had Israel occupying it and its local thugs running rampant?
Israel was there in order to stop attacks like the one that occurred over the summer. Their presence didn't stop locals from farming there.



Israel is indeed full of it.

On the contrary, it is you who is full of it.

"BEIRUT, Lebanon – Mohammad Ghamlush, the engineer heading the Wazzani river pumping systems, told AFP the Israeli army sabotaged the water pumps on the river last week and installed a pipe to pump hundreds of cubic meters to Israel."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/blogs/18868/Lebanon_accuses_Israel_of_stealing_Wazzani_river_water?r=1

Arguably 50% or more of the water that Israel uses is unilaterally appropriated from water that should fairly go to its Arab neighbors. Even the New York Times used the word "theft" when quoting an "Arab" in connection with Israel's appropriation of regional water resources. ("Hurdle to Peace: Parting the Mideast's Waters" by Alan Cowell NYT, 10.10.93 p. 1)
http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html

Israel was there in order to stop attacks like the one that occurred over the summer. Their presence didn't stop locals from farming there..

One can only farm safely(as an Arab) within sight of the IDF if theres a local Girls school there to draw their fire.

"BEIRUT, Lebanon – Mohammad Ghamlush, the engineer heading the Wazzani river pumping systems, told AFP the Israeli army sabotaged the water pumps on the river last week and installed a pipe to pump hundreds of cubic meters to Israel."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/blogs/18868/Lebanon_accuses_Israel_of_stealing_Wazzani_river_water?r=1

Arguably 50% or more of the water that Israel uses is unilaterally appropriated from water that should fairly go to its Arab neighbors. Even the New York Times used the word "theft" when quoting an "Arab" in connection with Israel's appropriation of regional water resources. ("Hurdle to Peace: Parting the Mideast's Waters" by Alan Cowell NYT, 10.10.93 p. 1)
http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html

you beat me to it...west bank farmers can't get permits to dig a well on their own land while the settlements are nice a green with Arab water...

"BEIRUT, Lebanon – Mohammad Ghamlush, the engineer heading the Wazzani river pumping systems, told AFP the Israeli army sabotaged the water pumps on the river last week and installed a pipe to pump hundreds of cubic meters to Israel."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/blogs/18868/Lebanon_accuses_Israel_of_stealing_Wazzani_river_water?r=1

Arguably 50% or more of the water that Israel uses is unilaterally appropriated from water that should fairly go to its Arab neighbors. Even the New York Times used the word "theft" when quoting an "Arab" in connection with Israel's appropriation of regional water resources. ("Hurdle to Peace: Parting the Mideast's Waters" by Alan Cowell NYT, 10.10.93 p. 1)
http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html
I do hope you'll excuse me if I don't trust a website that claims 9-11 was an "illusion".

I'd like to clarify that I'm not disputing Israel's abuse of their access to the Jordan river, but rather the extent to which these sources claim it occurs.

I say Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah clean it up using their own funds.

Remember guys, Zionists do not recognize borders, only Zionist lands and potential Zionist lands.

:rolleyes:

"BEIRUT, Lebanon – Mohammad Ghamlush, the engineer heading the Wazzani river pumping systems, told AFP the Israeli army sabotaged the water pumps on the river last week and installed a pipe to pump hundreds of cubic meters to Israel."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/blogs/18868/Lebanon_accuses_Israel_of_stealing_Wazzani_river_water?r=1

Can this be independently verified?

Arguably 50% or more of the water that Israel uses is unilaterally appropriated from water that should fairly go to its Arab neighbors. Even the New York Times used the word "theft" when quoting an "Arab" in connection with Israel's appropriation of regional water resources. ("Hurdle to Peace: Parting the Mideast's Waters" by Alan Cowell NYT, 10.10.93 p. 1)
http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html

Again, independent verification is needed.

I say Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah clean it up using their own funds.

Hear Hear

I say the Israeli's really ought to clear up those cluster bomblets, which are illegal under international law anyway.

Also, if the grass really is greener on the Israeli side, then why doesn't Israel help out it's neighbour Lebanon by perhaps sending aid so that that after they've cleaned up their mess, they can help cultivate the land again. I would have to say their esteem in the Middle East could only rise.

I say the Israeli's really ought to clear up those cluster bomblets, which are illegal under international law anyway.

WRONG!!!! They are not illegal under International Law. Also, why should they clean it up if they are going to get shot at?

Also, if the grass really is greener on the Israeli side, then why doesn't Israel help out it's neighbour Lebanon by perhaps sending aid so that that after they've cleaned up their mess, they can help cultivate the land again. I would have to say their esteem in the Middle East could only rise.

They've tried. What do they get for their troubles? Hezbollah attacks.

Well if Israel hadn't annexed about half the Middle East, then keep on over-reacting whenever some soldier gets kidnapped, then Hezbollah wouldn't be the problem it is now.

I mean really. Invading Lebanon because a couple of soldiers get captured? Hardly a justification for wreaking all the havoc they did on the Lebanese.

Hezbollah only gained in strength from the invasion.

Well if Israel hadn't annexed about half the Middle East,

Half the Middle East? *dies of laughter* Talk about exaggeration. They do not even have close to that. All they have is the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. THAT'S IT!!!!

then keep on over-reacting whenever some soldier gets kidnapped, then Hezbollah wouldn't be the problem it is now.

So they shouldn't have done what they did after Hezbollah's illegal attack, across the border using rockets and an invasion?

I mean really. Invading Lebanon because a couple of soldiers get captured? Hardly a justification for wreaking all the havoc they did on the Lebanese.

What? The rocket attacks that were used as cover had nothing to do with it? Be advised that Israel was not in Lebanon when Hezbollah did that. Hezbollah was not responding to an invasion but instead, invaded Israel to capture the soldiers and killed 8 while they were at it in a cross-border attack.

Hezbollah only gained in strength from the invasion.

Be that is it may, they are only gaining strength because the Lebanonese Government is doing jack shit to stop them. Neither is the United Nations and neither are the Arab neighbors.

So again, why should Israel clean it up if they are going to get shot at if they try?

Half the Middle East? *dies of laughter* Talk about exaggeration. They do not even have close to that. All they have is the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. THAT'S IT!!!!


That's exactly what it was. An exaggeration.

That's exactly what it was. An exaggeration.

Why should Israel be forced to clean it up when we all know that they'll get shot at if they do?

Why should Israel be forced to clean it up when we all know that they'll get shot at if they do?

Because reasonable people clean up after themselves? Or perhaps if Israel feels that comporting themselves like others is too far beneath them, they could hire foreign menials to do it in their place. Now that's more Israel's speed.

Because reasonable people clean up after themselves? Or perhaps if Israel feels that comporting themselves like others is too far beneath them, they could hire foreign menials to do it in their place. Now that's more Israel's speed.

Israel did not start the war. It should be done by those that started it and that means Hezbollah or Lebanon. Pick your pick.

Israel did not start the war. It should be done by those that started it and that means Hezbollah or Lebanon. Pick your pick.
Maybe old Crazy Cindy Sheehan can talk her new pal into sending some Venezuelan troops to clear it up.

Can this be independently verified?



Again, independent verification is needed.

Israel 's water policy in the Occupied Territories benefited Israel in two primary ways:

Utilization of new water sources, to which Israel had no access prior to 1967, such as the Eastern Aquifer (in the West Bank ) and the Gaza Aquifer, primarily to benefit Israeli settlements established in those areas.
For residents of the Occupied Territories , the primary result of the change in the law and transfer of powers over the water sector to Israeli bodies was the drastic restriction on drilling new wells to meet their water needs. According to military orders, drilling a well required obtaining a permit, which entailed a lengthy and complicated bureaucratic process. The vast majority of applications submitted during the occupation were denied. The few that were granted were solely for domestic use, and were less than the number of wells that, after 1967, had ceased to be used due to improper maintenance or because they had dried up.

It should be emphasized that the legal and institutional changes that Israel instituted in the water sector in the Occupied Territories are not intrinsically unacceptable. They conformed to the approach taken in Israel 's water sector and could, in principle, have led to a more efficient supply of water to the Palestinians. However, Israel utilized these changes to exclusively promote Israeli interests, almost completely ignoring the needs of the Palestinian population, which was left to face a growing water shortage"
http://www.btselem.org/English/Planning_and_Building/

Site also includes statistics re consumption etc.

The use of water regulation against the Bedouin.
http://www.adalah.org/eng/legaladvocacycultural.php#3586

As regards the "stolen water".
In 1953 the four countries Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan agreed in principle on the priority use of Jordan River waters, in the so-called Johnston Agreement, which provided for priority use of the main stem of the Jordan River by Israel and Lebanon, while the biggest tributary, the Yarmouk. running along the national boundary, was to be exclusively used by Syria and Jordan. This established a water allocation of the usable Jordan River estimated at 1.38 x 109 m³ per year in total: 52% (720 million m³) to Jordan, 32% (440 million m³) to Israel, 13% (180 million m³) to Syria, and 3% (40 million m³) to Lebanon (Naff and Matson 1984). It is widely assumed that the technical experts of each country involved in this discussion agreed on the details of this plan, although soon afterwards the governments rejected it for political reasons.

With the failure of these negotiations, both Israel and Jordan decided to proceed with water projects situated entirely within their own boundaries. As a result, Israel began work in 1958 on the National Water Carrier, which is currently abstracting 90% or more of the flow from the upper Jordan River through their intake in the north-west of Lake Tiberias.
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E06.htm

Source?
Here (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359802795&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) :)
In related news, High-ranking officers from the French contingent of UNIFIL have recently complained to their IDF counterparts of being mistreated by Lebanese villagers - under orders from Hizbullah - due to their decision to incorporate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) into daily peacekeeping operations.

The French officers told IDF officers in the Northern Command that under Hizbullah orders, shopkeepers in southern Lebanese villages are not allowed to sell them food or supplies. One officer told the IDF that he went to a store to buy a pair of shoes and that the shopkeeper refused to sell even after he offered to pay double the set price.

In addition to the boycott, the French contingent is also the most threatened force in UNIFIL due to its crackdown on Hizbullah and its employment of UAVs in reconnaissance operations. The French Armed Forces deployed a UAV squadron in southern Lebanon in December to conduct intelligence-gathering missions.

Sources in the Northern Command said that the French contingent - together with Spanish and Italian soldiers - were doing an exemplary job at preventing Hizbullah from reestablishing its terror infrastructure in southern Lebanon and particularly along the Blue Line, international border. The Spanish, French and Italian contingents sources said, were particularly effective in locating and destroying Hizbullah weapon caches.

"Because they are actually doing their job they are being harassed and threatened by Hizbullah," explained an IDF officer in the Northern Command.

UNIFIL spokesman Liam McDowall downplayed the report and said that while there was some low-level friction between UNIIFL soldiers and local Lebanese civilians, it was mostly due to the civilians' difficulty getting used to the new large presence of the peacekeeping force near their homes.

It's a great Catch 22 isn't it? If Israel clear up then they're accused of interfering with Lebanon's sovereignty. If Israel don't clear up then they're accused of not caring about the Lebanese people.

Not really. If Israel crosses the border and tries to clear up and without any agreements with Lebanin then they are indeed interfering with Lebanon's sovereignty. How about asking permission first? Then you avoid your Catch. And if they don't get the permission they can say that they tried and thus refute accusations of not caring. It's really not that difficult.

Remember guys, AP is a freaking Nazi and his posts are full of shit.
So? As far as I have seen, that goes for most of your posts as well. Why discriminate?

So? As far as I have seen, that goes for most of your posts as well. Why discriminate?

Because IDF does not hate the Arab people nor their soveriegn countries. IDF hates the terrorists that permiate said governments and the region.

AP hates Israel and anything connected with it and would cheer at its destruction.

Israel did not start the war. It should be done by those that started it and that means Hezbollah or Lebanon. Pick your pick.
Israel most certainly did start this summer's war.

Israel most certainly did start this summer's war.

Umm yea....Don't you mean last summer as we are not in summer time yet?

Rocket attacks happened first as they were cover fire for an illegal invasion by Hezbollah into Israel itself that resulted in the deaths of 8 IDF soldiers and the capture of 2. Then Israel went on a tear against Hezbollah.

Israel most certainly did start this summer's war.

PW, what universe are you from? Israel responded to an out-and-out military strike against them by Hezbollah. They may have gone a tad overboard, but no nation on earth would have let that attack go unanswered.

First, I suspect the estimate is, as is almost always the case, over high. Second, a cluster munition uses a LOT of bomblets (the CBU100 carries over two hundred bomblets), and that "1 million cluster bombs" is idiot civvie speak for "1 million bomblets". If the IDF had used 5 million cluster bombs, there wouldn't be anything left to clean up.


Assuming the CBU100 was used, with lets say a ballpark of 200 bomblets, that gives us what 25,000 bomblet dispensers?


No, I don't know what type the Israelis use. The US manufactures a number of different types, and I would expect the Israelis would use whichever best suits their needs. However, unless they're using non-american made weapons, my statement remains accurate.

Since they do have a fair mix of local and foreign made armaments (Merkava's and M4s), your statement only has a 50-50 chance of being accurate.



No, not quite. Unexploded ordinance is always a headache. But with a cluster bomblet, all you need is either a reinforced bulldozer or somebody with a rifle and a good eye to eliminate the threat.

Things that not every village and hamlet in Lebanon that was shelled might have I imagine.


I don't see any defence as being necessary. Israel counterattacked a force that had attacked them, and were nice enough to use only weapons that are easily disposed of. They didn't have to, and I consider it a mark in favour of their civility.

Civility also includes telling people where you put lots of armed, but unexploded munitions in their territory once combat is over. Minefields were required by treaty to be clearly marked and their locations recorded if I recall correctly. And the reason being that after the war's over, having your people losing limbs to 20 year old ordnance that everybody forgot was just shitty.

Since cluster bombs have, according to you, a 20% self destruct failure rate, thereby becoming explosive kid magnets (quite a few were mistaken for toys), the same courtesies governing the use of land mines should also cover liberal use of cluster bombs no?


Probably not. Nor have they any obligation to do so. If Lebanon wishes to host a military force and allow it to attack their neighbours, that's up to them, but they cannot then cry foul when they must pay the price of such decisions.

Then obviously Israel cannot cry foul when it's people suffer from occasional rocket attacks then can it? I'm not the kind of person who thinks that everything is Israel's fault, but at the same time, it is exacerbating the situation.

In this case, I am taking Goofballs stance on this. All sides are equally responsible for the strife in the region, and until someone pounds on a working peace treaty on the regions respective leaders, preferably on their heads, they deserve what they get.

Lebanon's side is nothing but brown because the Lebanese don't give a damn about the environment while Israel does.
Are we talking about the same Israel which caused an enormous oil spill by blowing up Lebanese fuel dumps by the coast, which is going to take a great many years to sort out?

Because IDF does not hate the Arab people nor their soveriegn countries. IDF hates the terrorists that permiate said governments and the region.

AP hates Israel and anything connected with it and would cheer at its destruction.
Again: So? Posts full of shit are still posts full of shit, regardless of whom the poster hates.

I tend to look at the content, not the poster. Even asshats tend to say something right and wise from time to time, and when they do I will listen to the arguements presentet rather than disregard it completely because it was an arguement delivered by an asshat.

Again: So? Posts full of shit are still posts full of shit, regardless of whom the poster hates.

I tend to look at the content, not the poster. Even asshats tend to say something right and wise from time to time, and when they do I will listen to the arguements presentet rather than disregard it completely because it was an arguement delivered by an asshat.

I wish more people follow this philosophy.

Israel most certainly did start this summer's war.
As much as I don't like Israel as a state (I like some of the Israelis I've met, mind), it was indeed Hezbollah who started it - unless, of course, one argues that it was a diversionary attack to help the Palestinians by relieving some of the pressure on them by the IDF, that went horribly wrong.

Assuming the CBU100 was used, with lets say a ballpark of 200 bomblets, that gives us what 25,000 bomblet dispensers?

Actually, more like twice that. Bomblets are reasonably reliable; a very high percentage detonate on impact as designed. The 20% is the number of duds that don't self destruct, and there usually aren't many duds.

It's a lot of strikes, but then, Israel has a lot of aircraft.


Things that not every village and hamlet in Lebanon that was shelled might have I imagine.

No, though bringing a tractor in shouldn't prove much of a problem. A solid drive to eliminate the UXO should take about a year, I figure.


Civility also includes telling people where you put lots of armed, but unexploded munitions in their territory once combat is over. Minefields were required by treaty to be clearly marked and their locations recorded if I recall correctly. And the reason being that after the war's over, having your people losing limbs to 20 year old ordnance that everybody forgot was just shitty.


True enough.


Since cluster bombs have, according to you, a 20% self destruct failure rate, thereby becoming explosive kid magnets (quite a few were mistaken for toys), the same courtesies governing the use of land mines should also cover liberal use of cluster bombs no?

It would be nice, but it would also be extremely difficult, requiring Israel to go back over all of their daily orders, as well as tracking the locations of every bomb dropped on a target of opportunity. Israel would also be reluctant to do so because they would be certain to have it thrown back in their faces as propagnda; the first time a mistake was found in the mapping (and with 50 000 plus strikes there WOULD be mistakes) Hezbollah would be jumping up and down to the world press going "Look! Look! Israel Lied!"

Tell me I'm wrong.



Then obviously Israel cannot cry foul when it's people suffer from occasional rocket attacks then can it? I'm not the kind of person who thinks that everything is Israel's fault, but at the same time, it is exacerbating the situation.

In this case, I am taking Goofballs stance on this. All sides are equally responsible for the strife in the region, and until someone pounds on a working peace treaty on the regions respective leaders, preferably on their heads, they deserve what they get.

I largely agree (though I'm more of the "Tie them to chairs and lock them in a room together until they make an agreement" mode), But I have to say your initial sentence here is not logical. Israel didn't start this war, and ceased messing with Lebanon's internal affairs a decade ago - they are not doing anything to gather the opprobrium of their northern neighbour. The reverse is not true.

Here (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359802795&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) :)


Now please explain to me where in that article is the bit that made you type this here below -
Not to mention, Lebanon is still not taking care of Hizbullah, as there are reports of French UN workers that are being forced to do things by Hizbullah.

Because IDF does not hate the Arab people nor their soveriegn countries. IDF hates the terrorists that permiate said governments and the region..

Yet certain members of the IDF target Arab civillians, UN workers, peace-keepers, journalists and medical personnell. Are you saying that they really don't like using snipers on school children, its just they need the practice?



Rocket attacks happened first as they were cover fire for an illegal invasion by Hezbollah into Israel itself that resulted in the deaths of 8 IDF soldiers and the capture of 2. Then Israel went on a tear against Hezbollah...

No, then Israel went on a tear against Lebanon, which is the part even the normally neutral disagree with. They practice collective punisment, as always.

Umm yea....Don't you mean last summer as we are not in summer time yet?
Uhh, yeah. Do the time warp!

Rocket attacks happened first as they were cover fire for an illegal invasion by Hezbollah into Israel itself that resulted in the deaths of 8 IDF soldiers and the capture of 2. Then Israel went on a tear against Hezbollah.
As far as I know the IDF troops were actually on the Lebanon side of the border. While Hezbollah was wrong, and irresponsible to attack them, the sheer excessive scale of the response puts the blame primarily on Israel IMO.

PW, what universe are you from? Israel responded to an out-and-out military strike against them by Hezbollah. They may have gone a tad overboard, but no nation on earth would have let that attack go unanswered.
Why not? Retaliation achieved nothing.

As much as I don't like Israel as a state (I like some of the Israelis I've met, mind), it was indeed Hezbollah who started it - unless, of course, one argues that it was a diversionary attack to help the Palestinians by relieving some of the pressure on them by the IDF, that went horribly wrong.
See above.

See above.
IIRC, they actually abducted the soldiers from the Israeli side.

IIRC, they actually abducted the soldiers from the Israeli side.

fairly sure they had strayed north of the border

Yet certain members of the IDF target Arab civillians, UN workers, peace-keepers, journalists and medical personnell. Are you saying that they really don't like using snipers on school children, its just they need the practice?

You have bad apples in any military.

No, then Israel went on a tear against Lebanon, which is the part even the normally neutral disagree with. They practice collective punisment, as always.

Since Lebanon did jack shit to disarm Hezbollah....

IIRC, they actually abducted the soldiers from the Israeli side.

You are indeed correct that they crossed the border into Israel and abducted the soldiers.

You have bad apples in any military.
....

But whens the last time you heard somebody trot that excuse for the French in Spain or the British in Ireland? Ande a lot of the time it doesnt seem to be some random act either.....

By the way, if an Army is the kind that drags out the local men and marches them up the street in front of them, firing with their rifles over the locals shoulders, as part of an official policy of using "human shields" for 30 years, isn't it safe to say theres something wrong with the basket....?


Since Lebanon did jack shit to disarm Hezbollah....

And that justifies destroying a decades worh of reconstruction in areas with little or no hezbollah presence....Great stuff.

And that justifies destroying a decades worh of reconstruction in areas with little or no hezbollah presence....Great stuff.

Since they were under UN obligation to disarm Hezollah and they didn't, they are just as responsible. Therefor, it is little wonder that Israel attacked what they did.

Oh and Lebanon still is not following through on their promise to the United Nations whereas Israel did. Go figure.

Any reason you havent acknowledged that info about diversion of the Jordan?

Since they were under UN obligation to disarm Hezollah and they didn't, they are just as responsible.
.

"Couldn't" would be rather more apt.


Therefor, it is little wonder that Israel attacked what they did. .

Yes, because obviously blowing crap out of it 20 years ago hadn't made Hezbollah popular enough.


Oh and Lebanon still is not following through on their promise to the United Nations whereas Israel did. Go figure.

O arent they great..It must mean a new era of international peace......And they'll be fucking off to their own side of the green line when?

Any reason you havent acknowledged that info about diversion of the Jordan?

Ahh we are not talking about the Jordan River here. Take that to a different thread.

"Couldn't" would be rather more apt.

Be that is it may, people bemoan when Israel violates UN Resolutions but yet make allowences when others do the same.

Yes, because obviously blowing crap out of it 20 years ago hadn't made Hezbollah popular enough.

I do not care what happened 20 years ago. I was four 20 years ago. Also, that started because of the PLO launching attacks into Israel from there hence the creation of Hezbollah to combat the IDF. Problem is that the IDF left in 2000 and yet, Hezbollah is still causing problems for the IDF even after they were told to disarm. The other militia groups that were involved disarmed but Hezbollah did not.

O arent they great..It must mean a new era of international peace......And they'll be fucking off to their own side of the green line when?

They will do so when the PA and the rest of the Middle East realize that they want to be left alone. They are more than willing to give up territory for peace as they have done so with Egypt but that requires full cooperation from their neighbors. The PA seems willing to play ball but Hamas so far is not playing ball but might be showing signs that they might actually play ball.

IIRC, they actually abducted the soldiers from the Israeli side.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77521

Ahh we are not talking about the Jordan River here. Take that to a different thread..

You asked for confirmatiom re the amount of Israels water that was taken from "Arab" sources. Don't act the eejit.



Be that is it may, people bemoan when Israel violates UN Resolutions but yet make allowences when others do the same...

A state incapable of exercising authority over its land area being compared to a nuclear power colonising a bunch of farmers...


I do not care what happened 20 years ago.
..

Great stuff. Fuck context then, we'll wait till we see who looks more friendly on the TV and say they're right, and to hell with the other lot....


I was four 20 years ago. Also, that started because of the PLO launching attacks into Israel from there hence the creation of Hezbollah to combat the IDF.
..

Hezbollah was primarily aimed at driving the IDF from its occupation of South Lebanon. Others could see a pattern there, but you arent interested in history...


Problem is that the IDF left in 2000 and yet, Hezbollah is still causing problems for the IDF even after they were told to disarm. The other militia groups that were involved disarmed but Hezbollah did not.
..

And that has to do with the inability of the Lebanese Govt to disarm them how?


They will do so when the PA and the rest of the Middle East realize that they want to be left alone. They are more than willing to give up territory for peace as they have done so with Egypt but that requires full cooperation from their neighbors. ..

I've bolded the part that doesnt seem "willing to give up territory" for your delectation.

"Olmert also said he would seek to keep three large blocs of Jewish settlements in central areas of the West Bank, which Palestinians want as part of a future state, called Maale Adumim, Ariel, and Gush Etzion. And he vowed to build Jewish housing in a West Bank area east of Jerusalem known as E-1, a longstanding Israeli plan to consolidate control of the area that is on hold because US officials say it violates a settlement-building freeze that is part of the ''road map" peace plan."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/10/with_lead_in_israels_polls_kadima_lays_out_plans/

The Orthodox church owns a great deal of property in Arab East Jerusalem
"Israel is demanding that the Greek Orthodox patriarchy conduct a census of all church property in Israel and the Palestinian territories ahead of its sale or long-term lease, and to give Israel the first right of refusal on the property. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/824151.html

Why would they want that? After all, they are occupying it.

And whats this about?
"The agreement being formulated with the settlers is reminiscent of the outposts agreement of October 1999, in which then prime and defense minister Ehud Barak reached a deal with the Yesha Council to evacuate a mere 11 outposts (four of which were empty), out of a total of 42 illegal outposts. At the time, Barak was praised for this "precedent," in which the Yesha Council and even some of the right's political leaders expressed their willingness to cooperate with the government in carrying out a decision to evacuate communities in the territories. He argued that the agreement with the "mainstream" settlers would "contribute to bolstering the rule of law." But according to the Sasson report, now collecting dust in government ministries, since that "precedent" was established, at least 60 more outposts have been set up - most with government assistance, and all while the army turned a blind eye. It seems that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert adheres to that same longstanding tradition of "bolstering the rule of law"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807444.html





The PA seems willing to play ball but Hamas so far is not playing ball but might be showing signs that they might actually play ball.

But if Hamas came out to play ball in the Israeli strip, why is it I get the feeling another excuse will arise....But you wouldn't realise that, not being interested in what happened 20 years ago etc.

I do not care what happened 20 years ago. I was four 20 years ago.

Israel cares. Lebanon cares. The US cares. The UN cares.

And who are you to not care?

Right, a four-year old.

I see.

Most informative.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77521

That blog cites 9/11 conspiracy sites as their source. I call BS.

A state incapable of exercising authority over its land area being compared to a nuclear power colonising a bunch of farmers...

That is where negotiations come into play. Don't know what one will get if they do not negotiate.

Great stuff. Fuck context then, we'll wait till we see who looks more friendly on the TV and say they're right, and to hell with the other lot....

And ignore history as you just done?

Hezbollah was primarily aimed at driving the IDF from its occupation of South Lebanon.

And the IDF did leave South Lebanon after the turn of the century so what is Hezbollah still around and attacking Israel for?

Others could see a pattern there, but you arent interested in history...

*dies of laughter* Thanks, I needed that laugh.

And that has to do with the inability of the Lebanese Govt to disarm them how?

If they are having problems that is why we have this thing called the UN to assist them in that area.

*snip*

In reality, I do not blame him for what he is saying. If Palestine is incapable of negotiating peace then maybe the Jews should just settle in and make both the West Bank AND Gaza all part of Israel and make the arabs living there Israeli citizens. That way, the IDF doesn't have to do much and the police can go on in there and start rooting people out who support terrorism.

But if Hamas came out to play ball in the Israeli strip, why is it I get the feeling another excuse will arise....

Because you are paranoid. Frankly, I want peace in the Middle East. I want to see Israel go back to the green line. However, the terror attacks need to stop first before the IDF does that.

Israel cares. Lebanon cares. The US cares. The UN cares.

And who are you to not care?

Right, a four-year old.

I see.

Most informative.

I was 4 20 years ago. I wasn't even born when Israel invaded the first time and upon checking, was not born when they invaded the second time either.

Clash along Israel-Lebanon border

Odisrael Tensions on the Lebanon-Israel border grew last night as troops exchanged fire after an Israeli patrol crossed the boundary that the U.N. re-established after last summer's 34-day war with Hezbollah.

"Lebanese troops opened fire on a bulldozer after it crossed the so-called Blue Line — the U.N.-demarcated boundary — and entered about 20 yards into Lebanon," Lebanese officials told AP.

"Israeli troops responded with tanks and light weapons, Israeli security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media," AP reported.

In related news, the Christian Science Monitor reported this morning that 26% of the cultivable land in southern Lebanon is carpeted with an estimated 1 million cluster bombs.

Sources: Christian Science Monitor / USAtoday / Reuters / AP / OccN etc..
my2cents: WoW.. 26% of the cultivable land in S.Lebanon!!!
I say the UN should clean it up.. and send the bill to Israel.

What about the damage caused to Israel during the war? Who's going to pay for that?

Considering that Lebanon was complicit in the aggression against Israel, it shouldn't get a penny. Maybe that will make them think twice before they allow a militia to attack a neigboring country.

Hezbollah were justified in their actions for acting as a bulwark against Zionist expansionism.

Hezbollah were justified in their actions for acting as a bulwark against Zionist expansionism.

You do know that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and from the Gaza Strip two years ago?

What was that about expansionism?

Hezbollah were justified in their actions for acting as a bulwark against Zionist expansionism.

\

Oh, and I suppose Hezbollah was justified in its deliberate targeting of civilians too?

You do know that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and from the Gaza Strip two years ago?

What was that about expansionism?

Just ignore him. He's not worth the effort.

\

Oh, and I suppose Hezbollah was justified in its deliberate targeting of civilians too?

I never said that, remember of course the IDF targeted and destroyed far more civilian lives and infrastructure in a deliberate campaign of terror against the Lebanese population, particularly those of certain Beirut suburbs.

I never said that, remember of course the IDF targeted and destroyed far more civilian lives and infrastructure in a deliberate campaign of terror against the Lebanese population, particularly those of certain Beirut suburbs.

You mean the infrastructure that was being used by the terror group Hezbollah thus making it a legitament target for the IDF? That infrastructure?

I never said that, remember of course the IDF targeted and destroyed far more civilian lives and infrastructure in a deliberate campaign of terror against the Lebanese population, particularly those of certain Beirut suburbs.

These are your exact words:

Hezbollah were justified in their actions for acting as a bulwark against Zionist expansionism.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Also, the IDF dropped leaflets on areas that it bombed in order to warn the residents of those areas to leave so that they would not be caught in the bombing. The fact that more Lebanese infrastructure was destroyed is a testament to the greater firepower of the IDF, and that more Lebanese civilians were killed to the fact that Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as human shields.

You mean the infrastructure that was being used by the terror group Hezbollah thus making it a legitament target for the IDF? That infrastructure?

What isn't a legitimate target for the IDF?

What isn't a legitimate target for the IDF?

Any infrastructure that holds civilians and no armaments or militants, and/or has no possibility of doing so.

Conversely, what is a legitimate target for Hezbollah?

What isn't a legitimate target for the IDF?


You better hush with that tone, or they'll target your house! Terrorist! :)

Any infrastructure that holds civilians and no armaments or militants, and/or has no possibility of doing so.

Conversely, what is a legitimate target for Hezbollah?

Clearly not Israeli soldiers. That's what started that whole recent mess. :p

You mean the infrastructure that was being used by the terror group Hezbollah thus making it a legitament target for the IDF? That infrastructure?

Lol, your funny. Does that mean London or NYC should be flattened because their are a few nuts around too?

You better hush with that tone, or they'll target your house! Terrorist! :)

That's okay. I gave them a different address. You won't miss Clay Aiken, will you? :p

Clearly not Israeli soldiers. That's what started that whole recent mess. :p

In my view, Israeli soldiers are the only legitimate targets.

Lol, your funny. Does that mean London or NYC should be flattened because their are a few nuts around too?

Not any nuts that go out of their way to attack foreign countries.

And in any case, the damage Beirut sustained was overblown. Most of the city was left untouched.

Lol, your funny. Does that mean London or NYC should be flattened because their are a few nuts around too?

I was talking infrastructure and not cities. Thanks for playing though.

Not any nuts that go out of their way to attack foreign countries.

And in any case, the damage Beirut sustained was overblown. Most of the city was left untouched.

Indeed.

I would disagree though with just IDF soldiers being legitimate targets, I believe the West Bank settlers are legitimate targets too. These people volunteer to go out of the safety of inner Israel to live in the settlements, which most Israelis find ridiculous because they are actually volunteering to live in such a dangerous place. Most of these people are ethnic-ultranationalists who believe in a 'Greater Israel' and all that Ben Gurion annexation and subjugation of the Arabs garbage.

Most of pretty crazy, and will routinely attack Palestinians living the West Bank, while the IDF looks on. IMHO these people volunteered for these colonies and therefore accepted the risk, they are the ones living in illegal imperialist colonies established on a foreign land against agreements made to their contrary with Western and otherwise governments. They are in every way legitimate targets as long as they live in those colonies, and are no longer 'civilians'.

I would disagree though with just IDF soldiers being legitimate targets, I believe the West Bank settlers are legitimate targets too. These people volunteer to go out of the safety of inner Israel to live in the settlements, which most Israelis find ridiculous because they are actually volunteering to live in such a dangerous place. Most of these people are ethnic-ultranationalists who believe in a 'Greater Israel' and all that Ben Gurion annexation and subjugation of the Arabs garbage.

Civilians are civilians no matter where they are living at. It does not make them legit targets no matter what your propaganda states.

Civilians are civilians no matter where they are living at. It does not make them legit targets no matter what your propaganda states.

No, the point I am making is they made a choice to live in these settlements which are illegal under International Law and contrary to agreements made in which they would not be built. In that way they take their own lives into their hands by living out of protection.

No, the point I am making is they made a choice to live in these settlements which are illegal under International Law and contrary to agreements made in which they would not be built. In that way they take their own lives into their hands by living out of protection.

Illegal or not, they are civilians. By advocating that they are not protected shows just how stupid you are. No civilian should be targeted intentionally and those that do target them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Illegal or not, they are civilians. By advocating that they are not protected shows just how stupid you are. No civilian should be targeted intentionally and those that do target them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
In this case 'civilian' is being used by Israel as a shield against the Palestinians. In this case also the 'civilian' colonists in the WB settlements are actively part of the Palestinian occupation as much as the IDF are. Saying all 'civilians' cannot be targeted is at best naive about the current situation of the Palestinian struggle.

Israel itself has a civilian political leadership and civil service which aids, directly or indirectly, the occupation of Palestine. For the Palestinians to only target IDF military targets is not only harder, but more importantly is less effective in combating the Zionist occupiers. The Israelis have been blowing up Palestinians Parliamentarians and civil servants under the pretext of 'terrorism' for years, and these people are not military, but civilians. Using your logic Hezbollah or even Palestinian gunmen officially
aren't military targets, as they are not part of the Armies of Palestine or Lebanon.

You see how inefficient and outdated your concepts of warfare are?
I know many Israeli 'civilian' politicians who for their actions against the Palestinians etc are just as much terrorists as those the IDF claims are on the Palestinian side.

In this case 'civilian' is being used by Israel as a shield against the Palestinians. In this case also the 'civilian' colonists in the WB settlements are actively part of the Palestinian occupation as much as the IDF are. Saying all 'civilians' cannot be targeted is at best naive about the current situation of the Palestinian struggle.

Saying that any civilians are outside protection, excluding terrorists and those that are a part of a militia force, is barbaric and that person needs his head examined.

Israel itself has a civilian political leadership and civil service which aids, directly or indirectly, the occupation of Palestine.

Big difference between government targets and civilian. If Hamas and Hezbollah were targeting government and IDF structures then I say you have a case but going after restaurants and nightclubs is not the way to get what you want. It just makes people madder.

For the Palestinians to only target IDF military targets is not only harder, but more importantly is less effective in combating the Zionist occupiers.

You mean Israeli occupation. There are non-Jews living in Israel and serving in the IDF too ya know. So to say it is purely a "zionist occupation" is indeed incorrect to state.

The Israelis have been blowing up Palestinians Parliamentarians and civil servants under the pretext of 'terrorism' for years, and these people are not military, but civilians. Using your logic Hezbollah or even Palestinian gunmen officially aren't military targets, as they are not part of the Armies of Palestine or Lebanon.

Wrong. Hezbollah is a legit target because they are attacking Israel outright. At least their militant wing is the legitament target. Palestinian gunmen should be brought to trial but frankly, if its a shoot out, I say shoot to kill as is the case with any insurgency. International law is actually clear on that.

You are indeed right though that they are not part of the Armies of Palestine or Lebanon. In terms of Hamas, they are part of the security forces which makes them part of the government and therefor legitament targets and Hezbollah made themselves targets by intentionally targeting civilians inside Israel and Not in the West bank or Gaza.

You see how inefficient and outdated your concepts of warfare are?

So we should all ignore International Law? Great, let me get my nukes ready and say good by to the middle east.

I know many Israeli 'civilian' politicians who for their actions against the Palestinians etc are just as much terrorists as those the IDF claims are on the Palestinian side.

Some indeed. I'll grant you that but not all of them are like that.

What does it matter when Lebanon doesn't even use its cultivatable land. I was on the Israeli-Lebanese border a little less than 2 months ago. Israel's side is filled with lush forests and green fields. Lebanon's side is nothing but brown because the Lebanese don't give a damn about the environment while Israel does.

If you want, I can upload some pics I took atop Mt. Meron. The border is clearly visible. The green side is Israel. The brown dust is Lebanon.

Maybe something would grow in Lebanon is some jerk countries like Syria and Israel would stop invading and bombing its land. You know, cluster bombs aren't good as fertiliser.

Definition of jerk country: A country that acts like a jerk. Manners, everybody!

Risottia don't you get it, the desert only blooms with prosperity when the Jews are cultivating it!:)

That is where negotiations come into play. Don't know what one will get if they do not negotiate..

You obviously didnt read the bit about Israeli government and 'unilaterally draw Israels permanenet borders' recently then.



And ignore history as you just done?..


You're the one who said they had no interest in what happened 20 years ago. Just to clarigy, what is your statute of limitation just so I can avoid anything that might involve a forbidden date.




*dies of laughter* Thanks, I needed that laugh.?..

I'd well imagine you did. However it was you that stated I do not care what happened 20 years ago. I was four 20 years ago.





In reality, I do not blame him for what he is saying. If Palestine is incapable of negotiating peace then maybe the Jews should just settle in and make both the West Bank AND Gaza all part of Israel and make the arabs living there Israeli citizens. That way, the IDF doesn't have to do much and the police can go on in there and start rooting people out who support terrorism.


You do support the annexation of territory by force and colonisation then. Well, at least you're honest, to some degree.

By the way, that will never happen, because they don't want to incorporate large numbers of Arabs within Israel. It is a state thats dedicated to maintaining a Jewish majority.


Because you are paranoid. Frankly, I want peace in the Middle East. I want to see Israel go back to the green line. .

But you said If Palestine is incapable of negotiating peace then maybe the Jews should just settle in and make both the West Bank AND Gaza all part of Israel and make the arabs living there Israeli citizens.

Its not becauseI'm paranoid btw, its because I remember the various excuses for not dealing with the PLO. Thats possibly "20 years ago" though, so don't fret about it.



However, the terror attacks need to stop first before the IDF does that.

But as they are building civillian housing, its fairly clear that thats rather a stupid idea, as they've clearly no intention of going anywhere. In fact, they only thing that gets done when theres a ceasefire is more cement poured.

What other groups resisting oppression have you asked to give up arms?


Also, the IDF dropped leaflets on areas that it bombed in order to warn the residents of those areas to leave so that they would not be caught in the bombing. The fact that more Lebanese infrastructure was destroyed is a testament to the greater firepower of the IDF, and that more Lebanese civilians were killed to the fact that Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as human shields.

...according to the IDF.

Any infrastructure that holds civilians and no armaments or militants, and/or has no possibility of doing so..

Could you explain how those criteria are being followed in this example?

"This is the fifth incident in the last two years in which children have been killed or seriously injured inside UNRWA school premises in the Gaza Strip. Two girls were killed in separate incidents in Rafah and Khan Younis last year and a little girl was permanently blinded in Khan Younis in March 2003.
UNRWA has repeatedly protested the Israeli military’s indiscriminate firing into civilian areas in the occupied Palestinian territory. Rafah Elementary Co-Ed “B” School, which is 800 metres from the border, has been hit on numerous occasions since the start of the conflict."
http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2005/hqg01-05.pdf


So to say it is purely a "zionist occupation" is indeed incorrect to state.
..

As one need not be Jewish to be a 'Zionist' its actually quite correct in one sense. However one can be a zionist and disagree with the occupation, so its not entirely true either.

You obviously didnt read the bit about Israeli government and 'unilaterally draw Israels permanenet borders' recently then.

Yes I read it. I also know things are said for political purposes. Look at Iran's speeches. Somethings are said publicly but that does not mean that is what they 100% truly desire. I already told you what I would support and if Israel did do that, I'd be the first out here complaining about it.

You're the one who said they had no interest in what happened 20 years ago. Just to clarify, what is your statute of limitation just so I can avoid anything that might involve a forbidden date.

I have no statute of limitation. How can I care about something that I was not even when it started?


[qoute]You do support the annexation of territory by force and colonisation then. Well, at least you're honest, to some degree.[/quote]

HAHAHA!!!! Nice job of equating the sentence to something that I happen to disagree with. Notice the words I used and understand the context of said words. Reading comprehension my friend.

By the way, that will never happen,

And we can praise whatever deity or non-diety one believes for that. That would spark no end of trouble if thhey did do that. Both from the inside and from the outside. You think we have problems now, they'll be worse if Israel did that.

Its not because I'm paranoid btw, its because I remember the various excuses for not dealing with the PLO. Thats possibly "20 years ago" though, so don't fret about it.

Oh I'm not fretting about it because I do support a withdrawal back to the green line as the official border of Israel. I've stated it in several of these threads. But then, you are never one to actually comprehend what is being said.

But as they are building civillian housing, its fairly clear that thats rather a stupid idea, as they've clearly no intention of going anywhere. In fact, they only thing that gets done when theres a ceasefire is more cement poured.

And more palestinian on palestinian killings. It is becoming abit more obvious that the president of the PA wants to end this bloodshed however, they have to reign in the terror cells first. On the flip side, Israel does indeed need to stop building settlements. That will also go along way in establishing peace in the Middle East.

What other groups resisting oppression have you asked to give up arms?

All that target civilians indiscremently.

As one need not be Jewish to be a 'Zionist' its actually quite correct in one sense. However one can be a zionist and disagree with the occupation, so its not entirely true either.

Here, I will agree with you up to a point.

Yes I read it. I also know things are said for political purposes. Look at Iran's speeches. Somethings are said publicly but that does not mean that is what they 100% truly desire. I already told you what I would support and if Israel did do that, I'd be the first out here complaining about it..

Yet theres deeds to accompany these words.


I have no statute of limitation. How can I care about something that I was not even when it started?
..

Well as all this started long before you were born, why are you picking and choosing?


HAHAHA!!!! Nice job of equating the sentence to something that I happen to disagree with. Notice the words I used and understand the context of said words. Reading comprehension my friend...

Forced laughter, the old standby of the affronted. You said that (under certain circumstances) you would support it.


Oh I'm not fretting about it because I do support a withdrawal back to the green line as the official border of Israel. I've stated it in several of these threads. But then, you are never one to actually comprehend what is being said....

See above.

there goes my hope that israel will self-implode. let them kill eachother.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77521
The BBC disagrees, and that's a much more reliable news source than a site I've never heard of before.

From the "history" bit (hence the use of the present tense).

WEDNESDAY 12 JULY
Hezbollah fighters based in southern Lebanon launch Katyusha rockets across the border with Israel, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area.

In a cross-border raid, guerrillas seize two Israeli soldiers before retreating back into Lebanon, insisting on a prisoner exchange and warning against confrontation. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert describes the capture of the soldiers as "an act of war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6352793.stm - at the bottom.

Maybe that will make them think twice before they allow a militia to attack a neigboring country.
So if a bunch of US vigilantes fires small rockets to Canada, Russia or Mexico from the US, they are now justified to land-mine 25% of Southern farm lands in the US??

Guerrilla groups exist in many countries.. For example Colombian guerrilla groups invade Venezuela and Ecuador on a daily basis.
But I don't see Ecuador/Venezuela cluster-bombing 25% of Colombian farm lands

.So if a bunch of US vigilantes fires small rockets to Canada, Russia or Mexico from the US, they are now justified to land-mine 25% of Southern farm lands in the US??

Guerrilla groups exist in many countries.. For example Colombian guerrilla groups invade Venezuela and Ecuador on a daily basis.
But I don't see Ecuador/Venezuela cluster-bombing 25% of Colombian farm lands

Israel didn't use a single land mine in the conflict so your analogy falls flat.

Now if a guerrilla group operating with the consent of the US government attacked a nation, they would be 100% in the right when they bombed the shit out of us.

Now if a guerrilla group operating with the consent of the US government attacked a nation, they would be 100% in the right when they bombed the shit out of us. consent??? Prove it.

consent??? Prove it.

Lebanon did nothing to Hezbollah and allowed them into their government. They were supposed to have disarmed Hezbollah and refused to do so. If you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

Israel didn't use a single land mine in the conflict so your analogy falls flat.

Now if a guerrilla group operating with the consent of the US government attacked a nation, they would be 100% in the right when they bombed the shit out of us.

You can send that one to the Ronald Reagan library.

What about the damage caused to Israel during the war? Who's going to pay for that? Lebanon.. of Course.

Now if a guerrilla group operating with the consent of the US government attacked a nation, they would be 100% in the right when they bombed the shit out of us.Consent??? Prove it.
.
Lebanon did nothing to Hezbollah.. I see no proof of Consent there.
.
Lebanon .. allowed them into their government. Its called Democracy.. but no proof yet.
.
Lebanon were supposed to have disarmed Hezbollah Israel multi-Billion dollar "superior" Army was supposed to have disarmed Hezbollah too. but I guess Hezbolla did not "Consent"
.
Hezbollah and refused to do so. Like I just said. Hezbollah knows how to say "no"

If you play with fire, you're going to get burned. :rolleyes: and if its raining.. -of course- bring your umbrella. But still, no proof,nothing,nada,zippo.

Oh, cut the bullshit already, OD2. Lebanon has done exactly nothing to rein in Hezbollah. They haven't even tried. That means consent, even if unspoken.

What you really can't stand is that Israel was 100% in the right on this one. Hezbollah started a war they weren't prepared to fight, and the Israeli's called them on their cowardly use of human shields rather than letting them get away with it.

What you really can't stand is that Israel was 100% in the right on this one. actually what I cant really 100% stand is... US allowing Tonya Harding on the olympic team.. after conspiring to break the leg of that other skater.

thank you for playing the "try to read my mind" game..
play again and.. better luck next time ;)

Consent??? Prove it.
.
I see no proof of Consent there.
.
Its called Democracy.. but no proof yet.
.
Israel multi-Billion dollar "superior" Army was supposed to have disarmed Hezbollah too. but I guess Hezbolla did not "Consent"
.
Like I just said. Hezbollah knows how to say "no"

:rolleyes: and if its raining.. -of course- bring your umbrella. But still, no proof,nothing,nada,zippo.
Oh, cut the bullshit already, OD2. Lebanon has done exactly nothing to rein in Hezbollah. They haven't even tried. .The Tibet military has never tried to stop China Military from taking over.. Does NOT proves consent.

Lebanon was given the task of disarming Hezbollah. Not only did they not do that job, but they tried to legitimize Hezbollah by incorporating them in their government. That wasn't democracy when they decided when the government was reorganized that Hezbollah would control one of the 3 wings of government. That was a decision by the government that they would get the position they did.

If Lebanon couldn't disarm Hezbollah on their own, they could've easily asked for aid from the UN. I bet if they requested it, they would've gotten troops sent to assist them.

Lebanon gave tacit consent to Hezbollah's actions by refusing to do anything to suppress them. They also made them a part of their government and are thus responsible for them.

Don't give me anything about how the people want it. Israel used to have a party that called for kicking the Israeli Arabs out of their homes. Israel kicked that party out of the Knesset and banned them for politics. Governments can control radicals if they with to.

That wasn't democracy when they decided when the government was reorganized that Hezbollah would control one of the 3 wings of government. That was a decision by the government that they would get the position they did.why the hell not?

why the hell not?

Because the Constitution which guarantees Hezbollah heads the Parliament wasn't drafted by the people.

There is also the fact that governments are responsible for fringe groups if they legitimize them as a part of their government. Lebanon could've been like Israel and kicked the fascists out of government and banned their party.

Lebanon could've been like Israel and kicked the fascists out of government and banned their party.

:confused:

Israel used to have a party that called for kicking the Israeli Arabs out of their homes. Israel kicked that party out of the Knesset and banned them for politics. Governments can control radicals if they with to.yeah.. Israel used to have a party that called for Bulldozing the suspected homes of suspected palestinean insurgents.

I guess Israel can control the Mossad terrorists and the other radicals.

Because the Constitution which guarantees Hezbollah heads the Parliament wasn't drafted by the people.so.. you mean its not like the constitution of Afghanistan or Iraq??

OH MY GOD , the Horror !!!

so.. you mean its not like the Iraqi constitution??

OH MY GOD , the Horror !!!

The Iraqi Constitution was ratified by popular vote though. I can't say the same for Lebanon's COnstitution.

:confused:

They banned a party over a decade ago because they called for forcibly kicking out Israel's Arab inhabitants.

yeah.. Israel used to have a party that called for Bulldozing the suspected homes of suspected palestinean insurgents.

I guess Israel can control the Mossad terrorists and the other radicals.

Mossad is a legitimate intelligence agency. They aren't a terrorist group that sends people with bombs strapped on them into nightclubs.

of course you support Hezbollah since they kill Jews and you of course hate Jews.

The Iraqi Constitution was ratified by popular vote though.what are you are going to say next?.. "Egypt is a Democracy"???
:rolleyes:

what are you are going to say next?.. "Egypt is a Democracy"???
:rolleyes:

They aren't, but there is no dispute to the fact that every Iraqi adult was given the chance to vote for the Constitution. That is a democratic vote whether or not you like it is beside the point.

Mossad is a legitimate intelligence agency. They aren't a terrorist group that sends people with bombs strapped on them into nightclubs.

of course you support Hezbollah since they kill Jews and you of course hate Jews.what?
You want to play the mind-reading-game too?

what?
You want to play the mind-reading-game too?

Your past posts do quite a good job displaying your views.

Mossad is a legitimate intelligence agency. They aren't a terrorist group that sends people with bombs strapped on them into nightclubs.

of course you support Hezbollah since they kill Jews and you of course hate Jews.
he doesnt hate jews. And Mossad isnt a legit. intelligence agency. They are a bunch of thugs who kill and torture whoever disagrees with them.

he doesnt hate jews. And Mossad isnt a legit. intelligence agency. They are a bunch of thugs who kill and torture whoever disagrees with them.

So says the man who has openly said he wants to see Israel destroyed. Run along now and go make some Nazi friends. They agree with you on a lot.

Mossad is a legitimate intelligence agency. They aren't a terrorist group that sends people with bombs strapped on them into nightclubs.

of course you support Hezbollah since they kill Jews and you of course hate Jews.

Oh Mossad is so much more than that, and I think you know that. Mossad were implicated in the recent death of an Iranian scientist and have a history of "active intellligence operations". To use the term terrorist to describe them is subjective. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter / hero / infidel / intel operative / take - your - pick.

They aren't, but there is no dispute to the fact that every Iraqi adult was given the chance to vote for the Constitution. That is a democratic vote whether or not you like it is beside the point.the minimum for me to call it a Democracy.. is that the people elects the President (or PM)

For example..Israel is clearly a Democracy.
Israel, Lebanon, Iran and Palestine are the only Democracies in the region.

Your past posts do quite a good job displaying your views.you want to play or not?

the minimum for me to call it a Democracy.. is that the people elects the President (or PM)

For example..Israel is clearly a Democracy.
Israel, Lebanon, Iran and Palestine are the only Democracies in the region.

Iran is a democracy!?!?!? AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

No really you're killing me.

you want to play or not?

There are many instances of you showing your anti-semitism. You have even made posts about "Jewish control of the media." It was really pathetic on your part.

Iran is a democracy!?!?!? I stand by my statement.
prove me wrong if you can.

Oh Mossad is so much more than that, and I think you know that. Mossad were implicated in the recent death of an Iranian scientist and have a history of "active intellligence operations". To use the term terrorist to describe them is subjective. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter / hero / infidel / intel operative / take - your - pick.

And by taking the life of that scientist (no proof they actually did it an Iran even denies Israel did it) they likely saved many more lives by ensuring that fucking madman in Tehran doesn't get the bomb.

I stand by my statement.
prove me wrong if you can.

How about the fact that non-theocratic parties are banned from partaking in elections?

How about the fact that Mullahs control Iran and they are NOT elected.

There are many instances of you showing your anti-semitism. You have even made posts about "Jewish control of the media." It was really pathetic on your part.

IDF you have again gone to the bottom of the barrel whilst arguing your case. Nowhere on this thread has OD2 been anti semitic yet you throw the accusation. You do this on every thread concerning Isreal where someone disagrees with Isreal. You have a huge chip on your shoulder and need to sort it out, pal.

And by taking the life of that scientist (no proof they actually did it an Iran even denies Israel did it) they likely saved many more lives by ensuring that fucking madman in Tehran doesn't get the bomb.

So please explain how murdering someone in a foreign country makes Mossad different from, say, the IRA murdering British politicians in Brighton.

IDF you have again gone to the bottom of the barrel whilst arguing your case. Nowhere on this thread has OD2 been anti semitic yet you throw the accusation. You do this on every thread concerning Isreal where someone disagrees with Isreal. You have a huge chip on your shoulder and need to sort it out, pal.

I'm referring to past posts. Most of which were made under his many prior accounts such as OceanDrive, OceanDrive2, OceanDrive3, and OcceanDrive. It's pretty well established among the forum he's an anti-semitic troll.

So please explain how murdering someone in a foreign country makes Mossad different from, say, the IRA murdering British politicians in Brighton.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation, would you condemn the OSS had they assassinated a Nazi scientist working on the bomb during WWII?

I'm referring to past posts. Most of which were made under his many prior accounts such as OceanDrive, OceanDrive2, OceanDrive3, and OcceanDrive. It's pretty well established among the forum he's an anti-semitic troll.

Fair enough, if your making point prove it. Lets see them

Funny, you posted that thread saying ABC was controlled by Jews because they made that movie about the lead up to 9/11. You claimed it was a Jewish conspiracy to help Bush.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation, would you condemn the OSS had they assassinated a Nazi scientist working on the bomb during WWII?

Completely different situation. The OSS and therefore the allies were in a state of war against the nazis. No matter how much you seem to want it, there is no state of war between Isreal and Iran. If you were at war then it would be justified.

EDIT - You may say its justified in that Iran wabts to see Isreal dismantled as a state, but then the communists in the USSR said the same about the capitalist USA, yet they didn't send the CIA to kill Russian atomic scientists.

I'm referring to past posts. Most of which were made under his many prior accounts such as OceanDrive, OceanDrive2, OceanDrive3, and OcceanDrive. It's pretty well established among the forum he's an anti-semitic troll.I am against many of Israel military actions.. I am against Mossad terrorists.

If that makes me NAZI/Commie/porc-eating/athesit/Anti-semite/whatever..
SO BE IT.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

Here's a good one. ABC makes something that is supporting of neocons so therefore it must be part of the Jews evil plot to take over the world.

Funny, you posted that thread saying ABC was controlled by Jews because they made that movie about the lead up to 9/11. You claimed it was a Jewish conspiracy to help Bush.You are mixing-up making-up a lot of different things in there..

care to post a link to prove this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

Here's a good one. ABC makes something that is supporting of neocons so therefore it must be part of the Jews evil plot to take over the world.

I'll give you that one, the link was tenuous at best, bullshit at worst. However, you do still have a tendency to shout "anti-semite" every time. I'm not the first person to accuse you of that either am I.

I'll give you that one, the link was tenuous at best, bullshit at worst. However, you do still have a tendency to shout "anti-semite" every time. I'm not the first person to accuse you of that either am I.

I don't shout it everytime. I don't yell it at people like Nodinia. I do yell it at those who express an obvious hatred of the Jews. OD2, AP, East of Eden is Nod, Soviestan, etc.

In this thread, OD questions the Holocaust. As far as I'm concerned, all who question the Holocaust are without a doubt anti-semites.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497153&highlight=occeandrive

I don't shout it everytime. I don't yell it at people like Nodinia. I do yell it at those who express an obvious hatred of the Jews. OD2, AP, East of Eden is Nod, Soviestan, etc.

you shout it enough to

1: prove the sterotype of zionists hiding behind anti-semitism to deflect legitimate criticism away from the state of israel and

2: render it meaningless because in true boy who cried wolf fashion, no-one takes your accusations seriously

I don't shout it everytime. I don't yell it at people like Nodinia. I do yell it at those who express an obvious hatred of the Jews. OD2, AP, East of Eden is Nod, Soviestan, etc.

Ok I'll give you my opinion. In my opinion Isreal was falsly created by the victors of WWII because of a feeling of guilt of their failure to make any attempts during the war to stop the holocaust from taking place. The establishment off the Isreali state and its early problems through the 1950s and 60s were bankrolled by a guilt ridden West German government and then by an anti communist US government seeing a convenient emerging military power to counter Soviet influence in the middle east.

Thats right, I don't think Isreal has a right to exist as a state. A large proportion of the inhabitants of Isreal are immigrants from the past 50 years and have no claim on the land.

Does this make me an anti-semite? No, I would say the same if the Isreali state had been establishd as a Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hare Krishna state. Please do not equate anti - Isreal with anti - semite. Its a totally false analogy and frankly its insulting.

Israel didn't use a single land mine in the conflict so your analogy falls flat.

Now if a guerrilla group operating with the consent of the US government attacked a nation, they would be 100% in the right when they bombed the shit out of us.

Indeed and it would be well deserved too.

Ok I'll give you my opinion. In my opinion Isreal was falsly created by the victors of WWII because of a feeling of guilt of their failure to make any attempts during the war to stop the holocaust from taking place. The establishment off the Isreali state and its early problems through the 1950s and 60s were bankrolled by a guilt ridden West German government and then by an anti communist US government seeing a convenient emerging military power to counter Soviet influence in the middle east.

Thats right, I don't think Isreal has a right to exist as a state. A large proportion of the inhabitants of Isreal are immigrants from the past 50 years and have no claim on the land.

Does this make me an anti-semite? No, I would say the same if the Isreali state had been establishd as a Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hare Krishna state. Please do not equate anti - Isreal with anti - semite. Its a totally false analogy and frankly its insulting.

You're premise is faulty as the establishment of Israel is more based on WWI than WWII. Realize that the Balfour Declaration was made law when it was included under the Mandate given to Britain by the League of Nations. I will say that Britain fucked it up though because they played both sides and made promises they couldn't keep.

Lebanon did nothing to Hezbollah and allowed them into their government. They were supposed to have disarmed Hezbollah and refused to do so. If you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

Hear Hear!!!

You're premise is faulty as the establishment of Israel is more based on WWI than WWII. Realize that the Balfour Declaration was made law when it was included under the Mandate given to Britain by the League of Nations. I will say that Britain fucked it up though because they played both sides and made promises they couldn't keep.

The premise is not faulty. The Balfour declaration may have been made but it was not acted upon until after WWII, in my opinion for the reasons I stated.

Oh, cut the bullshit already, OD2. Lebanon has done exactly nothing to rein in Hezbollah. They haven't even tried. That means consent, even if unspoken.

What you really can't stand is that Israel was 100% in the right on this one. Hezbollah started a war they weren't prepared to fight, and the Israeli's called them on their cowardly use of human shields rather than letting them get away with it.

OceanDrive2 is one of the biggest Anti-semites around. He always makes allowences for all the attacks against Israeli civilians and is quick to point the finger when israel accidently kills civilians.

The premise is not faulty. The Balfour declaration may have been made but it was not acted upon until after WWII, in my opinion for the reasons I stated.

The fact is that Britain was legally obligated to create a Jewish State out of the Mandate.

You're also forgetting the Peel Commission and their recommendations in 1937. Britain only didn't do it because the Arabs revolted and they wanted to retain control of the oil fields and Suez Canal. Pissing off the Arabs would make that difficult.

what?
You want to play the mind-reading-game too?

Since you don't have a mind, it is rather difficult to read yours because everyone knows that your full of shit.

he doesnt hate jews. And Mossad isnt a legit. intelligence agency. They are a bunch of thugs who kill and torture whoever disagrees with them.

And thus enters a muslim convert who knows absolutely nothing about what he espouses.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

Here's a good one. ABC makes something that is supporting of neocons so therefore it must be part of the Jews evil plot to take over the world.ABC suporting Neocons would not make it a conspiracy.

In this thread, OD questions the Holocaust. As far as I'm concerned, all who question the Holocaust are without a doubt anti-semites.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497153&highlight=occeandrive
I think the Holocaust happened.. that has always been my position.. and it still is.

but if you want.. you can still call me NAZI/Commie/porc-eating/athesit/Anti-semite/etc..

The fact is that Britain was legally obligated to create a Jewish State out of the Mandate.

You're also forgetting the Peel Commission and their recommendations in 1937. Britain only didn't do it because the Arabs revolted and they wanted to retain control of the oil fields and Suez Canal. Pissing off the Arabs would make that difficult.

So my reasoning goes out the window because Britain had already promised to? Sorry thats rubbish, otherwise why hadn't it been done before WWII? Retaining control of Suez Canal was not an issue as Britain still controlled Egypt. If the jewish holocaust had never happened Britain would have quite happily handed Isreal / Palestine over to the Arabs to keep other Arab oil producing states happy.

I stand by my statement.
prove me wrong if you can.

A democracy does not disqualify people because they oppose the government and want reforms. That is what Iran does. Ergo, Iran is not a democracy.

I'm referring to past posts. Most of which were made under his many prior accounts such as OceanDrive, OceanDrive2, OceanDrive3, and OcceanDrive. It's pretty well established among the forum he's an anti-semitic troll.

Hear Hear!!

OceanDrive2 is one of the biggest Anti-semites around. He always makes allowences for all the attacks against Israeli civilians and is quick to point the finger when israel accidently kills civilians.oh noes.. he wants to cut my allowences

So my reasoning goes out the window because Britain had already promised to? Sorry thats rubbish, otherwise why hadn't it been done before WWII? Retaining control of Suez Canal was not an issue as Britain still controlled Egypt. If the jewish holocaust had never happened Britain would have quite happily handed Isreal / Palestine over to the Arabs to keep other Arab oil producing states happy.

Retaining control of the Suez Canal and Oil had everything to do with it. Had they given the Jews a State, it would've meant a region wide Arab revolt against the crown. The Balfour Declaration is more than a promise, it was a legal obligation do make a Jewish State.

Britain was able to create the Jewish State without pissing off the Arabs by handing it off to the UN.

Retaining control of the Suez Canal and Oil had everything to do with it. Had they given the Jews a State, it would've meant a region wide Arab revolt against the crown. The Balfour Declaration is more than a promise, it was a legal obligation do make a Jewish State.

Britain was able to create the Jewish State without pissing off the Arabs by handing it off to the UN.

A minute ago it was Briatin now the UN. Make your mind up.

The balfour declaration was legally binding how exactly? According to what set of laws?

A minute ago it was Briatin now the UN. Make your mind up.

The balfour declaration was legally binding how exactly? According to what set of laws?

I'm consistent here. Britain couldn't create a Jewish State because it would piss off the Arabs so they had the UN do it for them.

The Balfour Declaration was legally binding when the League of Nations made the implementation of the promise of a Jewish homeland part of Britain's duties when they were given the Mandate of Palestine.

I'm consistent here. Britain couldn't create a Jewish State because it would piss off the Arabs so they had the UN do it for them.

The Balfour Declaration was legally binding when the League of Nations made the implementation of the promise of a Jewish homeland part of Britain's duties when they were given the Mandate of Palestine.

Any legal authority held by the League of Nations fell by the wayside when WWII started. Britain helped to create the establishment of Isreal out of guilt over the holocaust. Yes, they may have deflected criticism from the Arabs by pointing at the UN, but do you still maintain that if the holocaust hadn't happened Isreal would have been established? All the evidence and reasoning points otherwise.

I'm consistent here. Britain couldn't create a Jewish State because it would piss off the Arabs so they had the UN do it for them.piss off?

the proposed spot for the set-up of the future state of Israel was made only on the basis of ancient religious writings..

the blood, misery, and war price was badly underestimated..

Israel should have been set-up in Europe or North-America.
It would have saved so many lives.

I stand by my statement.
prove me wrong if you can.

Amnesty International, Freedom House, and Human Rights Watch can prove you wrong.

And at least Israel, whatever its faults, is a democracy.

And at least Israel, whatever its faults, is a democracy. so, you agree with me on that one?
Israel is clearly a Democracy.

Any legal authority held by the League of Nations fell by the wayside when WWII started. Britain helped to create the establishment of Isreal out of guilt over the holocaust. Yes, they may have deflected criticism from the Arabs by pointing at the UN, but do you still maintain that if the holocaust hadn't happened Isreal would have been established? All the evidence and reasoning points otherwise.

Funny Britain was very willing to create a state in 1937 when the Peel Commission gave their report. The only thing that held them back from doing so was the fact the Arabs called for a revolt which lasted until 1939.

There are many instances of you showing your anti-semitism. You have even made posts about "Jewish control of the media." It was really pathetic on your part.

Now that is pathetic. :rolleyes:

so, you agree with me on that one?

Agree with you on what? That Iran is a democracy? Calling Iran a "democracy," is an unfunny joke.

What you really can't stand is that Israel was 100% in the right on this one. Hezbollah started a war they weren't prepared to fight, and the Israeli's called them on their cowardly use of human shields rather than letting them get away with it.

Israel calling anybody on "human shields" is rather pathetic, considering they do it on a regular basis to protect patrols. It was official policy for 30 years for fucks sake. Off the high horse.


Mossad is a legitimate intelligence agency. They aren't a terrorist group that sends people with bombs strapped on them into nightclubs..

No, they just kidnap people from other countries, put bombs under cars, pull up on mopeds and shoot people in the head (in other countries), assasinate, maim and torture. No comparison whatsoever.


Since you don't have a mind, it is rather difficult to read yours because everyone knows that your full of shit...

I like the way you always use wit while still sticking to the issues.

Funny Britain was very willing to create a state in 1937 when the Peel Commission gave their report. The only thing that held them back from doing so was the fact the Arabs called for a revolt which lasted until 1939.

In 1937 Britain was still a member of the league of Nations. So answer my question do you still maintain that if the holocaust hadn't happened Isreal would have been established? Considering the positions of the powers after the war and the stregnth of the Arabs concerning the oil field locations.

Agree with you on what? about Israel being one of the few democracies in that region.

about Israel

Not entirely.

Do I think we should continue providing aid to Israel? No. (Then again, I don't think we should send aid to anyone.)

Do I believe Israel has the right to exist? Absolutely.

And while I believe Israel has plenty of faults, it's far more democratic and respectful of human rights than its detractors make it out to be, and it's definitely preferrable to its neighbors.

about Israel being one of the few democracies in that region.

Since when do you consider Israel a democracy?

Since when do you consider Israel a democracy?from day one.

dp

A breach of Human rights
http://amostrust.org/projects/human_rights_2.htm

A breach of Human rights
http://amostrust.org/projects/human_rights_2.htm

Hear hear!

Do I think we should continue providing aid to Israel? No. I agree


Then again, I don't think we should send aid to anyone.
I dont agree, I think a few starving African people need temporary emergency help.

I believe Israel has the right to exist I agree.

I believe Israel has plenty of faults, I agree.

Israel... respectful of human rights.I do NOT agree.

A minute ago it was Briatin now the UN. Make your mind up.

The balfour declaration was legally binding how exactly? According to what set of laws?

The League of Nations.

The League of Nations.

Already dealt with

Already dealt with

Yep and your arguments were flimsy on historical grounds.

In 1937 Britain was still a member of the league of Nations. So answer my question do you still maintain that if the holocaust hadn't happened Isreal would have been established? Considering the positions of the powers after the war and the stregnth of the Arabs concerning the oil field locations.

You should also acknowledge that if it weren't for the fact that Britain wanted to retain control over Suez and oil fields that Israel would've been established before World War II. The sun was setting on the British Empire and Britain was trying to do all it could to stop it from happening. Creating a Jewish State would've meant the Empire would've been kicked out of all Arab lands. It was too economically costly for that to happen.

Already dealt with

Your argument is flawed. You state that had World War II not occurred, Israel wouldn't have been formed. The problem with that argument is that if WWII doesn't occur, the League of Nations exists and thus Britain would eventually have been forced to declare a Jewish State in the land.

forced by whom?

The League of Nations. Britain was only supposed to control the Mandate of Palestine on a temporary transition basis so it could become a Jewish State. The Balfour Declaration was a significant part of the Mandate.

forced by whom?The League of Nations. Britain was only supposed to control the Mandate of Palestine on a temporary transition basis so it could become a Jewish State. The Balfour Declaration was a significant part of the Mandate.Todays "UN" has more powers, money and resources than the LN ever had..

Yet the UN cannot force the UK to do anything at all.
a more recent example is NK.. the UN cannot force NK to do anything.

Todays "UN" has more powers, money and resources than the LN ever had..

Yet the UN cannot force the UK to do anything at all.
a more recent example is NK.. the UN cannot force NK to do anything.

The League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate of Palestine as a temporary territory to control. Britain took the mandate under the promise of creating a Jewish State. The problem was that the Arabs throughout the Middle East didn't want Jews living amongst them. Britain was caught in a Catch 22 where they could fulfill their promise and lose control over the Suez Canal and oil or they could act dishonorably and continue to control important economic and transportation resources.

This thread isn't talking about the UN so that point is irrelevant.

The League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate of Palestine as a temporary territory to control. Britain took the mandate under the promise of creating a Jewish State. .Britain promised what to whom?

Are you saying Britain promised a Jewish state to the World Zionist Org. ?

Britain promised what to whom?

Are you saying Britain promised a Jewish state to the World Zionist Org. ?

No, they promised the League of Nations they would create a Jewish homeland in order to be awarded the Palestine Mandate. They then hummed and hawed for twenty years so as to keep raking in the money from their Mid-East "Protectorates".

However, IDF is wrong about one thing: this was not law. Law implies a method of enforcement. Neither the UN nor the LN has any method of enforcement, so their rulings and documents cannot be considered law, but only international agreements. Such agreements do not have the force of law unless the nation agreeing to them writes the agreement into it's own codex of legality; otherwise they are, basically, only suggestions that a country can ignore at will.

The only international law is the law of consequences. If you piss off someone bigger than you are, you will suffer those consequences.

The League of Nations. Britain was only supposed to control the Mandate of Palestine on a temporary transition basis so it could become a Jewish State. The Balfour Declaration was a significant part of the Mandate.

Weren't they supposed to declare a Palestinian state as well?

Britain promised what to whom?

Are you saying Britain promised a Jewish state to the World Zionist Org. ?

Oh grow up OD and actually follow what is being said for once. He already explained it to you so why ask the same question? Oh wait! I forgot that you hate Israel and any logical and historical argument you do not like is not worth listening to.

Weren't they supposed to declare a Palestinian state as well?maybe they promised a Jewish state to the WZO and a Palestinian state was promised to the people living there.. the Palestinean people

that is why I was asking "Who promised what.. to whom?"

and most important.. did he/she had the right to promise that?
after all you canNOT give what is not yours.

If you own a house/land.. you can give it to someone if you wish..
You cant evict the some family from a house and give to someone else, If that house does not belong to you.

I am 100% sure that house did not belong to neither the UK/LofN/UN..

maybe they promised a Jewish state to the WZO and a Palestinian state was promised to the people living there.. the Palestinean people

that is why I was asking "Who promised what.. to whom?"

and most important.. did he/she had the right to promise that?
after all you canNOT give what is not yours.

If you own a house/land.. you can give it to someone if you wish..
You cant evict the some family from a house and give to someone else, If that house does not belong to you.

I am 100% sure that house did not belong to neither the UK/LofN/UN..

Then you'd be 100% wrong on all counts, as usual. Britain conquered that area during WWI, taking it from the Ottoman Empire. By the standards of that time, Britain had every right, and indeed was EXPECTED to annex it.

Britain instead decided to give this new-fangled League and the concept of Self-Determination half a chance. The League chopped up Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire up into little bits based (supposedly) on ethnicity or religion, or maybe just because they looked good on a map (how else to explain Yugoslavia?) and gave those areas that seemed civilized (i.e. European) self rule. They assumed everybody else was backward and unready for self rule, and handed those sections over to other countries to manage "until ready" - mostly Britain, but a few to France and other European states (it's notable that Japan felt seriously snubbed by the fact they got no mandates - this probably contributed to their sometimes in-sometimes out participation in the League).

Under a Mandate, the job of the mandated country was to get that area ready for eventual self rule. That's it. Many Mandates in the mid-east wound up as multiple countries - Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait and Transjordan (now just Jordan) and Palestine were all one Mandate. So the Brits actually had every right to carve up the territory and decide who ruled where.

Weren't they supposed to declare a Palestinian state as well?

They were. That is why the Peel Commission recommended Partition in 1937. The Jews accepted it but the Arabs rejected it and rioted until the White Paper was issued.

Then you'd be 100% wrong on all counts, as usual. Britain conquered that area during WWI, taking it from the Ottoman Empire. By the standards of that time, Britain had every right, and indeed was EXPECTED to annex it.all the nations annexed by the British empire have gained independence by today (Scotland has chosen to stay on a referendum.. I think)

Its like the Brits deciding to give Ireland or Hong Kong to the Jews.. and creating Israel in there..

And no, ancient Biblical writing are NOT a certificate of land ownership.

maybe they promised a Jewish state to the WZO and a Palestinian state was promised to the people living there.. the Palestinean people

*dies of laughter*

that is why I was asking "Who promised what.. to whom?"

It was mandated (aka a promise) that Britain would set up two states, an Israeli state and a Palestinian State. And that is now the uptenth time that has been explained to you and yet you still ask that question. My guess is, you are a class A idiot who can not comprehend history.

and most important.. did he/she had the right to promise that?
after all you canNOT give what is not yours.

ACtually yes they did have the right. The Ottoman Empire dissintegrated after WWI and the French and Brits were in charge of it under the LoN. The brits were mandated to set up 2 states. If you want to blame shit for the Mid East problems, blame the Brits and the LoN!

If you own a house/land.. you can give it to someone if you wish..
You cant evict the some family from a house and give to someone else, If that house does not belong to you.

Um here you are wrong. If you give the house to someone, you can legally evict them and give it to someone else. And that land was not necessarily the Palestinians either.

I am 100% sure that house did not belong to neither the UK/LofN/UN..

No. It belonged to the Ottoman Empire that collapsed and thus no one was left but the Brits and French who took over the entire region. With that, they did own the house of where their flags were being flown. The LoN stepped in as well because of the make up of the Treaty. They issued the mandate for Britain to divide the house for both parties involved. And do not get me started on ancient history either.

all the nations annexed by the British empire have gained independence by today (Scotland has chosen to stay on a referendum.. I think)

Wales: Annexed by England--Still part of the British Empire
Scotland I'm not sure about
Falkland Islands is still part of the British Empire as well.

All the nations that were annexed do have independence BUT in most cases, the Queen is still the official head of state thus turning the British Empire into the British Commonwealth.

And no, ancient Biblical writing are NOT a certificate of land ownership.

In that case, toss out the Quron while you are at it.

Clash along Israel-Lebanon border

Odisrael Tensions on the Lebanon-Israel border grew last night as troops exchanged fire after an Israeli patrol crossed the boundary that the U.N. re-established after last summer's 34-day war with Hezbollah.

"Lebanese troops opened fire on a bulldozer after it crossed the so-called Blue Line — the U.N.-demarcated boundary — and entered about 20 yards into Lebanon," Lebanese officials told AP.

"Israeli troops responded with tanks and light weapons, Israeli security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media," AP reported.

In related news, the Christian Science Monitor reported this morning that 26% of the cultivable land in southern Lebanon is carpeted with an estimated 1 million cluster bombs.

Sources: Christian Science Monitor / USAtoday / Reuters / AP / OccN etc..
my2cents: WoW.. 26% of the cultivable land in S.Lebanon!!!
I say the UN should clean it up.. and send the bill to Israel.

Theres now a C&C game on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzFmBBnINHE

Wales: Annexed by England--Still part of the British Empire
Scotland I'm not sure about
Falkland Islands is still part of the British Empire as well.

All the nations that were annexed do have independence BUT in most cases, the Queen is still the official head of state thus turning the British Empire into the British Commonwealth.



In that case, toss out the Quron while you are at it.Falkland Islands are not a Nation.

It belonged to the Ottoman Empire.the Ottomans were a occupation force, just like the US is occupying Iraq.

for example.. It would be wrong for the US to give it (Iraq) to the Turks.

Theres now a C&C game on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzFmBBnINHE

cool game.

the Ottomans were a occupation force, just like the US is occupying Iraq.

for example.. It would be wrong for the US to give it (Iraq) to the Turks.

Hmmm it says Ottoman empire on my pre-WW1 map.

Iraq still says Iraq.

As to the OP:

I guess if Hezballa hadn't of crossed the border a few months ago, they wouldn't have this problem right now.

the Ottomans were a occupation force, just like the US is occupying Iraq.

for example.. It would be wrong for the US to give it (Iraq) to the Turks.

Ah, no. For the Ottomans to be an occupation force, Palestine would have had to have been an independent nation prior to that occuring. It wasn't, it was part of the Caliphate, and before that the Empire of Iran and Not-Iran (Second Persian Empire), and before that Rome. Only prior to that was it independent. If you want to go back that far, then the Palestinians must also acknowledge the Jewish claim to the land to be valid - since at that time it was Judea.

As to the OP:

I guess if Hezballa hadn't of crossed the border a few months ago, they wouldn't have this problem right now.

I guess if the Israeli army didn't invade in 1978 and 1982, then attacked in 1993 and 1996, planted mines and bombs all over the country, and all this time continue funding a militant South Lebanon Army that committed gross violations of humans rights, they wouldn't have this problem right now.

Israel occupied an country (which has to date attacked Israel only once, with a feeble 1000-men strong force), all because some of the refugees Israel itself created fled there and wanted revenge. And then attacked them repeatedly because some of the natives decided that they don't actually like Israeli soldiers killing their friends and relatives. Any wonder why they might be just a little pissed?

Of course, Israel have all kinds of excuses. But let's just say someone from Britain travelled to America and blew up a plane. Will the U.S. go to war against the U.K.? No.

Um here you are wrong. If you give the house to someone, you can legally evict them and give it to someone else. And that land was not necessarily the Palestinians either.
.

As as been shown here countless times now, it was most certainly the Palestinians. What percentage was owned by the Ottoman Turks?

Falkland Islands are not a Nation.

In technicality, neither is Scotland nor Wales.

the Ottomans were a occupation force, just like the US is occupying Iraq.

So were half the empires in the Middle East. Actually all empired in the Middle East were technicaly occupyers. And FYI, the US is not occupying the country as the Iraqi government has full control over the government

Hmmm it says Ottoman empire on my pre-WW1 map.

Iraq still says Iraq.

LMAO

Owned by history yet again. Thanks Black Forrest.

As as been shown here countless times now, it was most certainly the Palestinians. What percentage was owned by the Ottoman Turks?

They owned all of it since they took it over. International Law was different back then than it is today.

Clash along Israel-Lebanon border

Odisrael Tensions on the Lebanon-Israel border grew last night as troops exchanged fire after an Israeli patrol crossed the boundary that the U.N. re-established after last summer's 34-day war with Hezbollah.

"Lebanese troops opened fire on a bulldozer after it crossed the so-called Blue Line — the U.N.-demarcated boundary — and entered about 20 yards into Lebanon," Lebanese officials told AP.

"Israeli troops responded with tanks and light weapons, Israeli security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media," AP reported.

In related news, the Christian Science Monitor reported this morning that 26% of the cultivable land in southern Lebanon is carpeted with an estimated 1 million cluster bombs.

Sources: Christian Science Monitor / USAtoday / Reuters / AP / OccN etc..
my2cents: WoW.. 26% of the cultivable land in S.Lebanon!!!
I say the UN should clean it up.. and send the bill to Israel.

WHAT!?!? WHAT!?!? OD with a thread about Israel? Let me guess... you're telling people about humanitarian efforts by the Jews? No. A Nobel prize they earned? Then it must be some other positive thing. Surely, it must.

I guess if the Israeli army didn't invade in 1978 and 1982,

If the PLO was not attacking Israel from southern Lebanon in 1978 and 1982, we wouldn't have had all that mess.

In technicality, neither is Scotland nor Wales.

O I'd love to see what would happen if you said that in Glasgow or Cardiff.....

O I'd love to see what would happen if you said that in Glasgow or Cardiff.....

I ain't that stupid. They are not independent nations for they are still flying under the Union Jack.

They owned all of it since they took it over. International Law was different back then than it is today.
Really? Because according to most sources ownership passed largely unchanged from Ottoman rule to British, and we have the breakdown of what it was during the mandate. And no, it was not owned by the Ottomans.

I ain't that stupid. They are not independent nations for they are still flying under the Union Jack.

"A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

They may not be politically independent, but to say that they are not a nation is entirely untrue.

I ain't that stupid. They are not independent nations for they are still flying under the Union Jack.

There's a reason you needed to add the word "independent" as a qualifier. Because independent is not required to be a nation.

There's a reason you needed to add the word "independent" as a qualifier. Because independent is not required to be a nation.

Yea I know. I should have added it earlier.

12 February 2007 – The new commander of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon held his first meeting today with senior Lebanese and Israeli military officers focussing on steps to prevent a recurrence of last week’s exchange of fire between Lebanese and Israeli forces across the Blue Line separating the two countries.

“I consider these meetings extremely important and the right mechanism to address the concerns of the parties and to avoid misunderstandings,” UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Commander Major General Claudio Graziano said after the session at UN headquarters at the border crossing at Ras Al Naqoura.

On Thursday Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesperson Michele Montas said the exchange of fire, initiated by Lebanon after an Israeli army bulldozer crossed the technical fence in an apparent attempt to clear mines from the area between the technical fence and the Blue Line, constituted a breach of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701.

At today’s meeting UNIFIL submitted the report and findings on the incident near Marun al-Ras, and both parties agreed with recommendations to improve the mission’s liaison and coordination with each side to prevent and mitigate such situations.

Under resolution 1701 UNIFIL, first created in 1978 to confirm an Israeli withdrawal after an earlier incursion, was greatly enhanced to monitor the ceasefire after Israel’s 34-day war against Hizbollah last summer, support the Lebanese army as it deployed throughout south Lebanon, and extend assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons.

Today’s meeting also discussed the ongoing issue of the northern part of Ghajar, with a view to speeding Israel’s withdrawal from the area, the last position it still occupies in southern Lebanon. The village straddles the line separating the two sides.

Maj.-Gen. Graziano of Italy took over command of UNIFIL from Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini of France at the beginning of the month. The mission now has more than 12,000 troops on the ground or patrolling Lebanon’s coast out of a maximum of 15,000 permitted by resolution 1701.

In a related move Mr. Ban has informed the Security Council by letter of his intention to appoint Geir Pedersen of Norway as his Special Coordinator for Lebanon. Mr. Pedersen, currently the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative for Lebanon, would be responsible in his new post for coordinating UN work in the country and representing the Secretary-General on all political aspects of UN work there. The Secretariat is awaiting the Council’s response.

Basically an update of the situation. Major General Graziano, the new head of UNIFIL has recently met with Lebanese and Israeli officers in order to prevent other incidents of this kind. My heart really goes out to the Peacekeepers. They're trying their best out there in missions around the world, risking their lives everyday, and seemingly all they get is flak from guys in the media and politicians who cite Rwanda and Srebenica all the time, lauding about how useless they are.

Americans are always talking about how they should support their troops in Iraq, despite what the administration sent them there for in the first place.

Why does no-one seem to support the peacekeepers?

Why does no-one seem to support the peacekeepers?

Because peace-keeping's boring. It doesn't involve awesome explosions, jet planes on bombing runs, or tanks rolling triumphantly into captured towns.[/cynic]

Basically an update of the situation. Major General Graziano, the new head of UNIFIL has recently met with Lebanese and Israeli officers in order to prevent other incidents of this kind. My heart really goes out to the Peacekeepers. They're trying their best out there in missions around the world, risking their lives everyday, and seemingly all they get is flak from guys in the media and politicians who cite Rwanda and Srebenica all the time, lauding about how useless they are.

Well maybe if the UN actually gave them orders to actually do something about keeping the peace instead of keeping their heads down and watching autrocities happen under there nose, then maybe they will not be useless.

Americans are always talking about how they should support their troops in Iraq, despite what the administration sent them there for in the first place.

That's because they are our troops. That is why we should support them. I'd support them under anyone's administration be it democrat or republican.

Why does no-one seem to support the peacekeepers?

Peacekeepers have committed more and worse crimes to the local population of whatever area they are in. Exception being the mid east apparently. Also, there orders suck and they are not allowed to actually do their jobs unless they come under direct fire and even then, sometimes they are not allowed because they are unarmed.

If you have a beef about this, take it up with the United Nations.

That's because they are our troops. That is why we should support them. I'd support them under anyone's administration be it democrat or republican.
.

'Gawd bless 'mericaw' *sniff. (cut to stars and stripes, flapping in the breeze)


Peacekeepers have committed more and worse crimes to the local population of whatever area they are in. Exception being the mid east apparently. Also, there orders suck and they are not allowed to actually do their jobs unless they come under direct fire and even then, sometimes they are not allowed because they are unarmed. .

"More and worse". Where have UN peacekeepers massacred over 800,000 people?

]

Peacekeepers have committed more and worse crimes to the local population of whatever area they are in. Exception being the mid east apparently.

I think you'll have a hard time coming up with a scenario where Peacekeepers were found to have rounded up defenseless people in their homes, tied them up, and gunned them down cause they wanted to do some killing and couldn't find any bad guys to do so.

Or UN Peacekeepers rounding up whole villagers and slaughtering them wholesale cause they hadn't fulfilled their quota of 'people to kill' that day. And then not going to jail despite having a tribunal.

Or UN Peacekeepers napalm bombing villages because they couldn't determine who was friend or foe.

Or UN Peacekeepers holding large prisons where torture is the norm.

Or UN Peacekeepers slicing suspension ropes on cable cars with their aircraft, thus killing dozens of people while walking away without going to jail.

However, US troops have been found to do just that. On more than one occasion, and more than one campaign.

UN Peacekeepers aren't saints, far from that. But US troops seem to have more problems with discipline and military justice.

That's because they are our troops. That is why we should support them. I'd support them under anyone's administration be it democrat or republican.

...

Peacekeepers have committed more and worse crimes to the local population of whatever area they are in. Exception being the mid east apparently. Also, there orders suck and they are not allowed to actually do their jobs unless they come under direct fire and even then, sometimes they are not allowed because they are unarmed.


1st statement: You're perfectly entitled to do that. I like to think that I support British troops in Iraq despite Tony Bliar's decisions. I'm saying that why can't people bring themselves to support the UN Peacekeepers more, who are in many respects doing a damn fine job in UN missions around the world?

2nd statement: Completely uninformed and untrue.

I think you'll have a hard time coming up with a scenario where Peacekeepers were found to have rounded up defenseless people in their homes, tied them up, and gunned them down cause they wanted to do some killing and couldn't find any bad guys to do so.

Or UN Peacekeepers rounding up whole villagers and slaughtering them wholesale cause they hadn't fulfilled their quota of 'people to kill' that day. And then not going to jail despite having a tribunal.

Or UN Peacekeepers napalm bombing villages because they couldn't determine who was friend or foe.

Or UN Peacekeepers holding large prisons where torture is the norm.

Or UN Peacekeepers slicing suspension ropes on cable cars with their aircraft, thus killing dozens of people while walking away without going to jail.

However, US troops have been found to do just that. On more than one occasion, and more than one campaign.

UN Peacekeepers aren't saints, far from that. But US troops seem to have more problems with discipline and military justice.

Amen to that, Brother.

2nd statement: Completely uninformed and untrue.

Then maybe you should look up atrocities committed by UN peacekeepers all across their missions. There are indeed records of their atrocities in Africa and in Bosnia. maybe you should look it up and get informed.

Then maybe you should look up atrocities committed by UN peacekeepers all across their missions. There are indeed records of their atrocities in Africa and in Bosnia. maybe you should look it up and get informed.
OK, why don't you prove your statement in regards to

Cyprus
Georgia
India and Pakistan

You may also try prove your statement in regards to how much better the situations in the affected countries would have been without the peacekeepers there. You may start with Kosovo. Sounds good?

Go!

Then maybe you should look up atrocities committed by UN peacekeepers all across their missions. There are indeed records of their atrocities in Africa and in Bosnia. maybe you should look it up and get informed.

Right then, save us some trouble and tell us where we can find "More and worse" than the 800,000 killed in Rwanda, or the Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) killed in Bangladesh by Pakistan. Off you pop.

The League of Nations. Britain was only supposed to control the Mandate of Palestine on a temporary transition basis so it could become a Jewish State. The Balfour Declaration was a significant part of the Mandate.
As much as I hate to defend OcceanDrive2 (because he's the kind of idiot I used to be, and hence I want to show him the 'right way' - although I never used the term 'zionist', I don't think), to be honest, the League of Nations was hardly very binding.

Germany quit on flimsy grounds, Japan quit when they didn't really want to be told off and Italy quit due to them not being very interested any more, taking the British and French foreign ministers with them.

IIRC we tried to fob the Jewish off with Kenya before actually giving them what is now Israel - I see no reason why we might not have stuck to our guns, were it not for the holocaust, and hence international sympathy for the Jewish and their plight.

Still - this is all a load of hypothetical debate, which really has little place in this topic tbh.

I don't think any early Declaration or any agreement or such should be taken seriously in the context of WWI, as Britain were trying these strategies, such as supporting Arab nationalism and Zionist ultra-ethnic nationalism in order to subvert the position of the Ottoman Empire, and were really so desperate as to try anything they could. I think it's quite possible that the consequences of supporting the rise of both Arab and Jewish nationalism in the same region were either overlooked or disregarded by the British, and now we today are paying the price for that inevitable conflict.

Oh urmm and to add something to the debate - yes, Lebanon haven't done anything to disarm Hezbollah. This is absolutely true. But what the hell could they do?

The Lebanese Military is basically the armed police force of Lebanon, whereas Hezbollah are a relatively well-trained and well equipped force, with the knowledge of their local area and, in some cases, local support, too.

Offering incentives to lay down their arms isn't going to work - Iran'll pay them double the money to stay active, and due to their oil reserves, that's certainly a possibility.

And trying to slug it out with Hezbollah would lead to a defeat for the Lebanese army, and would really piss off the general public, who already held large rallies essentially at Hezbollah's behest.