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

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, If it's that easy to get a passport and VISA to the US, why aren't more of them doing so?

More than how many? Most of them are preoccupied at the moment trying to kill us and their other enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

0 Replies

Here is an interesting article from the BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6619529.stm

The leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon has said he respects Israel for issuing such a damning report on last year's war against Hezbollah fighters.
Hassan Nasrallah's comments come as Israeli PM Ehud Olmert comes under increasing pressure to resign.

By contrast, Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora criticised the Israeli report for failing to draw the right lessons.

He condemned the report for failing to mention the destruction wrought on Lebanon by heavy Israeli shelling.

The Winograd commission issued its interim report on Monday. This accused Mr Olmert of "serious failure in exercising judgement, responsibility and prudence".

In a rare show of esteem, Sheikh Nasrallah offered "every respect to a commission appointed by Olmert that condemns Olmert".

He also praised Israel for being "'committed and faithful to its own existence", which, he said, "was linked to its military might".

The leader of Hezbollah said that the commission's report showed that it was "ready to sacrifice one hundred Olmerts for Israel's survival".

Sheikh Nasrallah said that Israelis "study their defeat in order to learn from it". He contrasted this to Arab states that "do not probe, do not ask, do not form inquiry commissions... as if nothing has happened".

Contrasting attitudes

On Wednesday, Mr Siniora criticised the Israeli report, and warned of "talk in Israel of the need to launch new military operations against Lebanon".

The contrasting reactions in Lebanon to the Israeli report underline sharp divisions in Lebanese politics.

Hezbollah has claimed "divine victory" and accused elements in the ruling coalition of covertly undermining it during the war. These are claims vehemently denied by the government.

Many pro-government politicians, on the other hand, have accused Hezbollah of dragging Lebanon into the conflict deliberately at the behest of Syria and Iran.

The war began on the 12 July 2006 after Hezbollah fighters abducted 2 Israeli soldiers and killed 8 in a cross border raid.

About 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis were killed in the fighting.

0 Replies

And some will point out that 1200 Lebanese vs 160 Israelis killed in the conflict isn't 'fair' and that automatically makes Israel the 'villain'. But conflicting reports also don't point out that Hezbollah randomly fired rockets into Israeli neighborhoods hoping to kill Israeli men, women, and children while Israel's counter attacks were intentional, deliberate, and focused on taking out the rocket launchers and the supply routes for them. Further, the Israelis did not launch their counter attacks from the midst of civilians but rather put their people into bomb shelters. Hezbollah put their rocket launchers in the midst of populated (as opposed to evacuated) civilian neighborhoods to ensure civilian deaths in any counter attack.

The contrasting mentalities in how to conduct war can't be ignored in any policy to move toward peace.

George has said more than once now that Israel cannot survive unless it changes its policies toward Palestinian Arabs. He suggests that it is the United States' responsibility to convince Israel of that fact and make it happen; otherwise Israel has no incentive to change.

The counter argument to that is that there is no evidence that Israel is conducting unprovoked attacks against Palestinian Arabs nor is behaving irresponsibly or unacceptably re any Arabs who demonstrate peaceful intentions toward Israel. Law abiding citizens of Israel seem to be doing quite well and have few complaints.

I think that also cannot be ignored in asssessment of that component of Middle East conflict.

0 Replies

It is against Humanitarian Law in the GC to disregard the lives and property of civilians even in the case of reprisal.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150702006

0 Replies

And we've already had this discussion and shown, many times over, that gas stations, bridges, highways, grocery stores, etc... are not legitimate targets and were not "where the rocket launchers were". In fact, Israel seems to have bombed everywhere except "where the rocket launchers were" as Hezbollah appeared to continue firing rockets with impunity. Which is why Olmert is in the hot water he is in now.

0 Replies

Which is typical liberal speak for Hezbollah or Hamas or any other terrorist organization being able to do any damn thing to Israel they want but Israel is not allowed to defend itself when the terrorists shield their rockets with old men, women, and little kids.

Further, roads, bridges, warehouses etc. supply those rocket launchers which is something else the liberals persistently ignore.

0 Replies

And that is typical apologist speak where everything Israel does is necessarily self defense for the simple fact that they are a Jewish state.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

And that is typical apologist speak where everything Israel does is necessarily self defense for the simple fact that they are a Jewish state.

Israel didn't shoot first. They shot back. That is called self defense even when it is done by Jewish people.

0 Replies

So in the cases where Israel DID shoot first, you are prepared to say that those who shot back were defending themselves?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

So in the cases where Israel DID shoot first, you are prepared to say that those who shot back were defending themselves?

Absolutely if Israel didn't shoot first in order not to be shot. The policeman facing a hostile gun and shoots first is still acting in self defense.

Show me where Israel has shot first when there was no imminent threat and they're just as wrong as Hezbollah or Hamas.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
And that is typical apologist speak where everything Israel does is necessarily self defense for the simple fact that they are a Jewish state.

Israel didn't shoot first. They shot back. That is called self defense even when it is done by Jewish people.

Not too many people are denying that Israel was shooting back; what most are saying is that Israel broke Humanitarian laws in shooting back. Clearly Hizbollah broke Humanitarian laws as well. Read the Humanitarian laws; it is easy enough even for me to understand where Israel crossed the line of simple defense.

0 Replies

So, it's ok to shoot first if, say, Hezbollah felt there was an imminent threat from Israel. Like, maybe, soldiers on the border...

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

So, it's ok to shoot first if, say, Hezbollah felt there was an imminent threat from Israel. Like, maybe, soldiers on the border...

If Israel had repeatedly threatened Hezbollah, vowed to wipe Lebanon off the face of the map, and amassed an army on the border with obvious intent to attempt to do just that, you bet your booty that Hezbollah would have every right to defend itself and would not need to absorb the first blow in order to do that. Show me that this was the case in the most recent conflict or any other conflict between Israel and Hezbollah or Hamas or any other Arab power, and I'll join you in unilateral criticism of Israel.

I haven't seen much evidence that an aggressive or hositle Israel was the issue however.

0 Replies

As to Revel's point, when the enemy places its offensive weapons among old men, women, and little kids, Israel either has to take whatever punishment the enemy dishes out and accept that Israeli lives are 100% expendable and Israelis must forever live under fear and threat of being murdered, or the Israelis will go after those offensive weapons wherever they are.

Given the two options, I won't fault Israel for going after those weapons.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

As to Revel's point, when the enemy places its offensive weapons among old men, women, and little kids, Israel either has to take whatever punishment the enemy dishes out and accept that Israeli lives are 100% expendable and Israelis must forever live under fear and threat of being murdered, or the Israelis will go after those offensive weapons wherever they are.

Given the two options, I won't fault Israel for going after those weapons.

What you fault Israel for and what the humanitarian law says are two different things regarding what Israel can and cannot do in the name of defense even if it is actually true about the enemy using human shields. Read the Humanitarian laws in regards this discussion at this link.

Sometimes, as we have already gone over at some length, it was found there were not even any Hezbollah or Hezbollah weapons to be found at the damage sites. At other times it was true, Hezbollah did use civilians and civilian areas to launch from; which is against the laws of war. However, like I said before, laws are put in place to deal with such situations, and Israel broke them. Hezbollah broke laws as well.

0 Replies

What "Laws" are you referring to? Are they real -- i.e. recognized and enforced matters of law, or merely the fixed opinions of some self-appointed group of "world legislators"?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What "Laws" are you referring to? Are they real -- i.e. recognized and enforced matters of law, or merely the fixed opinions of some self-appointed group of "world legislators"?

Quote:

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). Links to selected resources.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are part of international humanitarian law - a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals.

They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).

The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches"; those responsible for breaches must be punished.

The Geneva Conventions have been acceded to by 194 States and enjoy universal acceptance.

source

Quote:

What is international humanitarian law?

Fact sheet providing a summary description of the sources, content and field of application of international humanitarian law.

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict.

International humanitarian law is part of international law, which is the body of rules governing relations between States. International law is contained in agreements between States - treaties or conventions -, in customary rules, which consist of State practise considered by them as legally binding, and in general principles.

International humanitarian law applies to armed conflicts. It does not regulate whether a State may actually use force; this is governed by an important, but distinct, part of international law set out in the United Nations Charter.

source

Quote:

Treaty law and customary international humanitarian law are the main sources of humanitarian law. Unlike treaty law (for ex: the four Geneva Conventions), customary international law is not written.

The ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law identifies the common core of international humanitarian law binding on all parties to all armed conflicts.

A rule is customary if it reflects state practice and when there exists a conviction in the international community that such practice is required as a matter of law. While treaties only bind those States which have ratified them, customary law norms are binding on all States.

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols are the principal instruments of humanitarian law.

source

more here

Or if you want to explore on your own

here

0 Replies

No. I am aware of all that you have cited here. I am skeptical of the open ended references to other sources of so called "Humanitarian Law". Apart from signed treaties there are none others than those cited.

0 Replies

At first, I wasn't sure what georgeob was trying to get at, but from his explanations, I also agree. International laws are not worth the paper they are written on if they can't be enforced. One can cite all the UN resolutions and agreements, but nobody has yet shown much enforcement of those "laws" when they are not followed. Probably not worth any more than PR at this juncture.

0 Replies

Anyone else think this may really become a serious argument?

Quote:

Residents of Gush Etzion anticipate that the find will strengthen eastern Gush Etzion. The Herodium is located along the not-yet opened Zaatra bypass road between the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa and the two Gush Etzion communities of Tekoa and Nokdim.

Herod's Grave Uncovered

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know