ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

You do realize that Setanta's accusations of "lying" are about as common as his other personal attacks against other posters. I've lost track of how many times he's accused me of lying. On one memorable occasion, he accused me of lying just to gauge my reaction. I think it's a fetish of his.

I'm sure he'll call me a liar for having said this.

From the piece directly above. So, that would indicate an example as recent as the present.

It has been multiple occasions and I posted info on that earlier today either here or a related thread.

Would it be your contention, given this past history and circumstances of Israel's probable battle situations, that US military or State officials would consider it more probable that Israel would suddenly follow such laws and accords thus behaving differently than they have behaved previously?

In that case, you ought not to have started it up by pointing to a post in which i did not lie, and claiming i had done so.

This topic is important, because the American apologists for Israel consistently claim, without substantiation, that Israel only acts in self-defense, and only reluctantly, and with commendable restraint. You were attempting to create just such an impression when you very foolishly trotted out a claim about thousands of rockets. You have been unable to substantiate that claim. When Ican't tried to substantiate the claim, he provided evidence that Israel has killed five times as many Lebanese civilians as the number of Israelis who were killed by an alleged 400 rockets launched in five days time. He in fact provided evidence that Israel was acting in a far more lethal manner than Hezbollah.

Therefore, if you wish to avoid being to avoid being called a liar, you need to have a much greater care when you post your pro-Israeli propaganda. Instead of saying that Hezbollah has launched thousands of rockets, you might have gone out to get a reliable figure, and sources to substantiate your claim--instead, you just threw out there, and have whined about the reaction when you are challenged.

Then, in Bernard-like fashion, you made a claim about what i had said (that i had claimed you said 4000 rockets were launched before an Israeli military reaction--something which i patently didn't claim, and which you cannot cite), and are now whining because i called you on that, too. You can avoid all of these problems by simply not throwing sloppy statements out which you cannot substantiate.

The issue is important. My position, and that of a great many honest and forthright members here is that Israel grossly overreacted to a provocation of the kind which it has ignored in the past, and that thousands of Lebanese civilians who are neither guilty of attacking Israel nor in any way affiliated with Hezbollah have paid with their lives, or horrible wounds and homelessness. It's an important point, and denying the "poor, innocent Israel" song and dance goes to the heart of reaching a realistic solution to the problems of the middle east. Israel's latest overwrought militarism has simply made many more enemies for Israel, and made the solution of the problems of the middle east that much harder--and they didn't even get their kidnapped soldier back.

Not so easy (but you didn't ask me ): must have been between July 1982, when the Reagan administration announced that it would prohibit new exports of cluster munitions to Israel, and November 1988, when the United States quietly lifted the ban.

Yes, I know. And as often as not, it appears to be an intentional attempt to derail the thread. It gets tedious, but as you have so often diplomatically reminded me, "Don't feed the trolls, Foxy." So I'll regroup and compose myself and forge on with renewed resolve.

No, that is not an example of prior occasions that would be germane to your argument, because it is part of the current issue, and in fact is a present issue.



I don't read every thread or every post, and I didn't see your earlier post on whatever thread, and I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to repost the information here, in any event.

But I imagine that unless you have information I'm not aware of, the last such instance of a US Administration denying shipments of such weaponry for that reason was following Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, SOME 14 YEARS AGO. The moratorium was lifted in 1988.

So it appears that the jist of your argument is that because Israel behaved a certain way 14 years ago, the moratorium on shipments should never have been lifted, but in any case, because the moratorium was in place at one time, and because the US was aware of Israels' prior use of cluster munitions in this regard, but still allowed the shipments to occur, the Bush Administration is to blame because they knew full well that Israel intended to use them in populated civilian neighborhoods.

Is that your argument?



I believe that the reason the moratorium was lifted was for that very reason. I believe that if that was not the belief at the time, that the moratorium would not have been lifted, and the shipment would not have occurred. But in any case, I don't see that the Bush Administration is to blame, or that it can be rationally claimed that the Bush Administration "knew darned well precisely how the Israeli military were going to use these weapons." And I certainly don't see how you can claim I'm not adhering to the truth when I call F4F on his fanatical anti-Bush bias, unless of course your anti-Bush bias is governing your hand.

The problem for you, Tico, is that reality itself has an anti-Bush bias.

Also,



Last time I checked, 1982 was 24 years ago.

/nitpick

Cycloptichorn

There is no attempt to derail the thread in pointing out that Fox has made statements about the international situation which she cannot substantiate, and to point out that one of her rhetorical methods is to accuse people of making statements which they have not made.

It is very much to the point to discuss the false claim that Israel only ever acts in her own self-defense, that she does so reluctantly and that she does so in a measured and effective manner. It is nearly fifteen years since Israel ended active military operations in southern Lebanon. It is six years since Israel "withdrew" from southern Lebanon (as is so common, she never actually hews to the letter of her diplomatic engagements--she retained possession of the Shebaa Farms, one of the bones of contention on which Hezbollah gnaws--but the Israeli apologists would have us believe that any attack on Israel is unprovoked). In that time, Hezbollah has launched rockets and made raids across the border. On at least on previous occasion, Hezbollah has taken a hostage, and succeeded in a prisoner exchange negotiation.

Now, with Gaza inflamed, Israel chooses to react to yet another such provocation with a massive military response (dozens of air raids constitute a massive response, too, just consider only the cost of sending dozens of aircraft on an attack on ten or twelve occasions, nevermind the numbers of Lebanese civilians killed). What is most pathetic is that, at the cost of a lot of international support, and having alienated the Lebanese people (and probably increased support for Hezbollah, which previously only ever enjoyed marginal support in the target community, the Shi'ites, nevermind all of the Lebanon), the Israelis have failed to achieve even one of their military objectives. They did not stop Hezbollah's rocket attacks, they did not manage to kill the Hezbollah leadership, there is no evidence that they inflicted serious casualties on Hezbollah fighters, and they failed to free the kidnapped soldiers in either Gaza or the Lebanon. The military actions of Israel since the raid near Gaza on June 25 constitute a monumental military failure.

I wish all the Israel apologists joy of their "victory."

I was clearly suffering from the denial of my own age.

"... SOME 24 YEARS AGO!!!"

Denial of your age, Senility... call it what you will.

Cycloptichorn

The CBC (radio) reports that eight people have been killed by previously unexploded cluster bombs since the cease fire, although the cease fire is holding so far.

Source at CNN, quoting the Associated Press



Source at Fox "News"-dot-com





Source at the letters section of The Guardian

A significant reason why many decent, honest people deplore the actions of Israel is because of matters such as the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

The agreement with the USA says that Israel will use the bombs for defensive purposes only. Israel will certainly claim that its purposes were defensive.

BTW, the cluster bombs are not like mines. They are supposed to explode when dropped. However, a small percentage don't immediately go off.

Set, your reading is still very poor. I didn't say that Israel was attacked first in 1956. I did say that Israel's attack, which was transitory, was after a series of terroristic-type attacks by Egypt.

It is worth noting that, except for the 1956 thing, Israelis never set foot in Arab territory prior to the 1967 war. However, this didn't stop the Arabs from attacking Israel hundreds of times.

Should we mount an Israeli-type attack to free the Fox journalists held in Gaza?

From today's Opinion Journal. Required reading for those who are sure Israel lost the war.

Hezbollah Didn't Win
Arab writers are beginning to lift the veil on what really happened in Lebanon.
BY AMIR TAHERI
Friday, August 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The way much of the Western media tells the story, Hezbollah won a great victory against Israel and the U.S., healed the Sunni-Shiite rift, and boosted the Iranian mullahs' claim to leadership of the Muslim world. Portraits of Hassan Nasrallah, the junior mullah who leads the Lebanese branch of this pan-Shiite movement, have adorned magazine covers in the West, hammering in the message that this child of the Khomeinist revolution is the new hero of the mythical "Arab Street."

Probably because he watches a lot of CNN, Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, also believes in "a divine victory." Last week he asked 205 members of his Islamic Majlis to send Mr. Nasrallah a message, congratulating him for his "wise and far-sighted leadership of the Ummah that produced the great victory in Lebanon."

By controlling the flow of information from Lebanon throughout the conflict, and help from all those who disagree with U.S. policies for different reasons, Hezbollah may have won the information war in the West. In Lebanon, the Middle East and the broader Muslim space, however, the picture is rather different.


Let us start with Lebanon.
Immediately after the U.N.-ordained ceasefire started, Hezbollah organized a series of firework shows, accompanied by the distribution of fruits and sweets, to celebrate its victory. Most Lebanese, however, finding the exercise indecent, stayed away. The largest "victory march" in south Beirut, Hezbollah's stronghold, attracted just a few hundred people.

Initially Hezbollah had hesitated between declaring victory and going into mourning for its "martyrs." The latter course would have been more in harmony with Shiite traditions centered on the cult of Imam Hussain's martyrdom in 680 A.D. Some members of Hezbollah wished to play the martyrdom card so that they could accuse Israel, and through it the U.S., of war crimes. They knew that it was easier for Shiites, brought up in a culture of eternal victimhood, to cry over an imagined calamity than laugh in the joy of a claimed victory.

Politically, however, Hezbollah had to declare victory for a simple reason: It had to pretend that the death and desolation it had provoked had been worth it. A claim of victory was Hezbollah's shield against criticism of a strategy that had led Lebanon into war without the knowledge of its government and people. Mr. Nasrallah alluded to this in television appearances, calling on those who criticized him for having triggered the war to shut up because "a great strategic victory" had been won.

The tactic worked for a day or two. However, it did not silence the critics, who have become louder in recent days. The leaders of the March 14 movement, which has a majority in the Lebanese Parliament and government, have demanded an investigation into the circumstances that led to the war, a roundabout way of accusing Hezbollah of having provoked the tragedy. Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has made it clear that he would not allow Hezbollah to continue as a state within the state. Even Michel Aoun, a maverick Christian leader and tactical ally of Hezbollah, has called for the Shiite militia to disband.

Mr. Nasrallah followed his claim of victory with what is known as the "Green Flood"(Al-sayl al-akhdhar). This refers to the massive amounts of crisp U.S. dollar notes that Hezbollah is distributing among Shiites in Beirut and the south. The dollars from Iran are ferried to Beirut via Syria and distributed through networks of militants. Anyone who can prove that his home was damaged in the war receives $12,000, a tidy sum in wartorn Lebanon.

The Green Flood has been unleashed to silence criticism of Mr. Nasrallah and his masters in Tehran. But the trick does not seem to be working. "If Hezbollah won a victory, it was a Pyrrhic one," says Walid Abi-Mershed, a leading Lebanese columnist. "They made Lebanon pay too high a price--for which they must be held accountable."

\Hezbollah is also criticized from within the Lebanese Shiite community, which accounts for some 40% of the population. Sayyed Ali al-Amin, the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism, has broken years of silence to criticize Hezbollah for provoking the war, and called for its disarmament. In an interview granted to the Beirut An-Nahar, he rejected the claim that Hezbollah represented the whole of the Shiite community. "I don't believe Hezbollah asked the Shiite community what they thought about [starting the] war," Mr. al-Amin said. "The fact that the masses [of Shiites] fled from the south is proof that they rejected the war. The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name."

There were even sharper attacks. Mona Fayed, a prominent Shiite academic in Beirut, wrote an article also published by An-Nahar last week. She asks: Who is a Shiite in Lebanon today? She provides a sarcastic answer: A Shiite is he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence, and leads the nation into catastrophe without consulting anyone. Another academic, Zubair Abboud, writing in Elaph, a popular Arabic-language online newspaper, attacks Hezbollah as "one of the worst things to happen to Arabs in a long time." He accuses Mr. Nasrallah of risking Lebanon's existence in the service of Iran's regional ambitions.

Before he provoked the war, Mr. Nasrallah faced growing criticism not only from the Shiite community, but also from within Hezbollah. Some in the political wing expressed dissatisfaction with his overreliance on the movement's military and security apparatus. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they described Mr. Nasrallah's style as "Stalinist" and pointed to the fact that the party's leadership council (shura) has not held a full session in five years. Mr. Nasrallah took all the major decisions after clearing them with his Iranian and Syrian contacts, and made sure that, on official visits to Tehran, he alone would meet Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei.

Mr. Nasrallah justified his style by claiming that involving too many people in decision-making could allow "the Zionist enemy" to infiltrate the movement. Once he had received the Iranian green light to provoke the war, Mr. Nasrallah acted without informing even the two Hezbollah ministers in the Siniora cabinet or the 12 Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Parliament.

Mr. Nasrallah was also criticized for his acknowledgement of Ali Khamenei as Marjaa al-Taqlid (Source of Emulation), the highest theological authority in Shiism. Highlighting his bay'aah (allegiance), Mr. Nasrallah kisses the man's hand each time they meet. Many Lebanese Shiites resent this because Mr. Khamenei, a powerful politician but a lightweight in theological terms, is not recognized as Marjaa al-Taqlid in Iran itself. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese Shiites regard Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, in Iraq, or Ayatollah Muhammad-Hussein Fadhlallah, in Beirut, as their "Source of Emulation."

Some Lebanese Shiites also question Mr. Nasrallah's strategy of opposing Prime Minister Siniora's "Project for Peace," and instead advancing an Iranian-backed "Project of Defiance." The coalition led by Mr. Siniora wants to build Lebanon into a haven of peace in the heart of a turbulent region. His critics dismiss this as a plan "to create a larger Monaco." Mr. Nasrallah's "Project of Defiance," however, is aimed at turning Lebanon into the frontline of Iranian defenses in a war of civilizations between Islam (led by Tehran) and the "infidel," under American leadership. "The choice is between the beach and the bunker," says Lebanese scholar Nadim Shehadeh. There is evidence that a majority of Lebanese Shiites would prefer the beach.

There was a time when Shiites represented an underclass of dirt-poor peasants in the south and lumpen elements in Beirut. Over the past 30 years, however, that picture has changed. Money sent from Shiite immigrants in West Africa (where they dominate the diamond trade), and in the U.S. (especially Michigan), has helped create a prosperous middle class of Shiites more interested in the good life than martyrdom à la Imam Hussain. This new Shiite bourgeoisie dreams of a place in the mainstream of Lebanese politics and hopes to use the community's demographic advantage as a springboard for national leadership. Hezbollah, unless it ceases to be an instrument of Iranian policies, cannot realize that dream.

The list of names of those who never endorsed Hezbollah, or who broke with it after its Iranian connections became too apparent, reads like a Who's Who of Lebanese Shiism. It includes, apart from the al-Amins, families such as the al-As'ad, the Osseiran, the al-Khalil, the Hamadah, the Murtadha, the Sharafeddin, the Fadhlallah, the Mussawis, the Hussainis, the Shamsuddin and the Ata'allahs.

Far from representing the Lebanese national consensus, Hezbollah is a sectarian group backed by a militia that is trained, armed and controlled by Iran. In the words of Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the Iranian daily Kayhan, "Hezbollah is 'Iran in Lebanon.' " In the 2004 municipal elections, Hezbollah won some 40% of the votes in the Shiite areas, the rest going to its rival Amal (Hope) movement and independent candidates. In last year's general election, Hezbollah won only 12 of the 27 seats allocated to Shiites in the 128-seat National Assembly--despite making alliances with Christian and Druze parties and spending vast sums of Iranian money to buy votes.

Hezbollah's position is no more secure in the broader Arab world, where it is seen as an Iranian tool rather than as the vanguard of a new Nahdha (Awakening), as the Western media claim. To be sure, it is still powerful because it has guns, money and support from Iran, Syria and Hate America International Inc. But the list of prominent Arab writers, both Shiite and Sunni, who have exposed Hezbollah for what it is--a Khomeinist Trojan horse--would be too long for a single article. They are beginning to lift the veil and reveal what really happened in Lebanon.

Having lost more than 500 of its fighters, and with almost all of its medium-range missiles destroyed, Hezbollah may find it hard to sustain its claim of victory. "Hezbollah won the propaganda war because many in the West wanted it to win as a means of settling score with the United States," says Egyptian columnist Ali al-Ibrahim. "But the Arabs have become wise enough to know TV victory from real victory."

Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008847

When would go five pages back ...

This entails a series of false statements, which to be charitable, i will ascribe to ignorance.

You claim that Arabs have attacked Israel hundreds of times. Such a claim cannot be made against Arab Nations, but only people who are referred to as Arabs, such as the Palestinians. If that is your claim, then i can as easily point out that Israelis have attacked Arabs hundreds of time, and say so what.

Now, i did not state that you had said that Israel was attacked first in 1956. This is what i wrote:



So, what i wrote was that you have claimed that Israel has only ever acted in her own self-defense. On page 210 of this thread, in post #2224941, you wrote:



I have not included the rest of that post, because it does not refer to Israel being attacked first, as you clearly stated here. Anyone who does not believe that can read that post here. Now you want to claim both that you never claimed that Israel was attacked first in 1956 (which contradicts this quoted and linked post), and that her incursion into Egypt was "transitory." That, despite this post:



In the first place, i did not allude to any "claim" made by Israel. In the second place, you stated in this post that Israel "trekked" across Egypt" as a part of an attacking force. A trek is hardly something which can be characterized as transitory, and in your original post you certainly did say that the Isrealis attacked the Suez Canal. You are the one who appears to have reading difficulties, and they seem to apply even in reference to your own posts.

As this map at Wikipedia demonstrates, Israeli forces pushed throughout the Sinai Penninsula, begining with the Gaza strip, and reached the city of Sharm el-Sheikh, at the extreme southern end of the Sinai Pennisula. That is hardly consistent with a description of a "transitory" attack, which in any event contradicts your earlier statement that in all the wars, Israel was attacked first.

Israel claimed that Palestinians were conducting guerilla attacks (no one called them terror attacks in 1956, and the Palestinians were not yet all lumped together in the international propaganda campaign as "terrorists"--the Israelis themselves described them as guerilla attacks and not terror attacks), and that they had been supported in that by the Egyptians. The Israelis already knew that Anthony Eden wanted to attack Egypt because of the nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Young Officers revolutionaries who had thrown out King Farouk, and that he had convinced the French to back his play. What was needed was a casus belli, and Israel was willing to provide it, and occupied Gaza, moved out into the Gaza Strip, and when Israel received word that the Anglo-French paratroopers had landed on the Suez Canal, they spread out across the Sinai.

Of course, the Israeli apologists will claim that attacking Gaza was an act of self-defense, and that the Palestinian guerilla attacks were an unprovoked attack which justified Isreali action. However, this is disingenuous, and a part of Israeli propaganda, as well.

This is the Yale Univesity Law School page which contains the full text of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which created the state of Israel. One of the provisions of this Resolution reads:



The Isrealis got around this in fine legalistic fashion. When an Arab owned land in the Jewish state, but had no written title, the land was expropriated out of hand, and without compensation. When Arabs in the Jewish state could provide written title, the land was condemned for public purposes, and a kibbutz was erected, enabling the Israelis to settle European Jews on Arab-owned land by public condmenation, without violating the letter of the agreement. The city of Gaza in January, 1948, had fewer than 100,000 inhabitants. By the end of 1949, it had more than half a million, and the population of Gaza and the Gaza Strip continued to grow as more Arab land was condemned and kibbutzim were set up all over Israel. In 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and in the Lebanon after 1982, land occupied by the IDF has been settled with Isrealis or with European or middle eastern Jews who have come to Israel to settle.

The Geneva convention specifically prohibits the establishment of settlements of the citizens of the occupying power on land occupied militarily:



This has been repeatedly and egregiously violated by Isreal, and for most of the period from 1973 until quite recently, Isreali settlements in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have been the bone of contention which needed to be resolved to acheive a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians.

Additionally, the rightwingnuts are found of saying that Israel was justified in attacking the Lebanon in general because the Lebanese people did not interfer with the activities of Hezbollah. Collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva conventions as well:



******************************************

In short, Advocate, you are the one who seems to have reading difficulties, and it begins with the contents of what you have posted yourself. Israel has created most of her own problems, and certainly there was enough hostility that she didn't need to do so. You, however, want to peddle the claptrap of an innocent Israel being subjected to unprovoked attacks. Unfortunately for your propaganda, the historical record doesn't support your screed.

Ah, more wonderful idiocy. Saying that Hezbollah did not win, does not mean that Israel won. Saying that Israel did not acheive any of her military objectives is a sound basis, however, for saying that Israel lost.

In my long post responding to Advocate, i neglected to link the Geneva Convention which i was quoting, which is available at a page maintained by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I will supply that ommision here:

Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.