Hezbollah's Victory (3 Viewers)

[sam04u]

Nothing of the sort. I'm aware Israel has made some fuck-ups, some of them pretty bad. At the end of the day however, it's Hezbollah that's antagonising as a terrorist agency, and Israel that's responding to its threats. It's a war of sorts, and no side can really claim moral high-ground if people are dying by their actions.

Slidey, had Israel never agreed to the recent prisoner exchange you may have been making a point with your argument. Lets take a look at the most recent clashes between Hezbollah, a so-called terrorist agency, and Israel, laughably called a beacon of democracy and freedom.

In July of 2006, Hezbollah engaged (attacked) Israeli forces on the Lebanese and Israeli border, and they captured two of these Israeli soldiers and held them captive. They demanded only one thing, and it was "release all Lebanese captives held in Israeli dungeons".

Israel vehemently opposed those demands and instead pledged to disarm Hezbollah, assassinate Nasrallah, reclaim the captured soldiers, and create a buffer zone (occupy) the southern Lebanese town Bint-Jbeil to the border of Lebanon. In every one of their objectives they failed. At the end of the conflict, Hezbollah remained armed, and came out of the conflict stronger and with more support. At the end of the conflict, Nasrallah was alive and well and made a victory speech, saddended by the loss of civilians on both sides of the conflict. At the end of the conflict, the two captives remained captive in Lebanon. At the end of the conflict, Bint-Jbeil was dubbed the "town of resistance" by Lebanese and the broader arab world.

In ALL of Israel's objectives they failed. And more remarkably, was that 2 years after the war, Israel agreed to Hezbollah's initial agreements. They released many of the Lebanese captives held in Israeli prisons. Conceding that they were held captive, not independantly from the conflict, and abiding by the terms set forth by Hezbollah. If that doesn't legitimise Hezbollah, if that concession doesn't clearly highlight who the original antagonists are what will? Israel has been an antagonist in the region since the inception of the state, but that isn't to say Israel shouldn't exist. Israel however shouldn't assassinate the political leaders of it's neighbouring countries, it shouldn't meddle with their ecosystems, or ciphen their ever decreasing water supplies. Israel shouldn't illegally occupy land captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, it shouldn't impose, or influence economic sanctions on it's neighbours. Israel shouldn't restrict humanitarian aid, as a form of collective punishment, from entering the Gaza strip, when the Palestinian occupants resist an illegal occupation, recognised by international law.

If that isn't antagonism, there is no antagonism.

However, as I support the co-existence of Israel and Palestine, I clearly cannot support something which seeks to disrupt that, namely Hezbollah.

If you support the co-existance of Israel and Palestine, it should be the international consensus' version of an Israeli and Palestinian existance. That is to say, it should be based on the legal borders, the 1948 borders. Israel should not be allowed to illegally occupy and settle in the occupied land. That does not entail a peaceful co-existance. Infact if you wanted to find something to label as an disruptive factor in achieving this co-existance, it's Israel's unwaivering stance to not follow international law.

They are not willing to accept the 'right of return', the right of Palestinians to return to their homes, or be offered proper compensation in the cases where Palestinians were driven out of their homes.

They are not willing to accept the internationally recognised, and world court ordered, 1948 borders.

They are not willing to accept the internationally accepted and recognised capital of the future Palestinian state being East Jerusalem, and Israel's capital rightly being Tel Aviv.

On ALL these key issues, Israel refuses to do what is expected of them by international law. Why is that?

 

[Riet]

"During the campaign Hezbollah fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets. About 95% of these were 122 mm (4.8 in) Katyusha artillery rockets, which carried warheads up to 30 kg (66 lb) and had a range of up to 30 km (19 mi).[65][66] An estimated 23% of these rockets hit built-up areas, primarily civilian in nature.[67][65][68] Cities hit included Haifa, Hadera, Nazareth, Tiberias, Nahariya, Safed, Shaghur, Afula, Kiryat Shmona, Beit She'an, Karmiel, and Maalot, and dozens of Kibbutzim, Moshavim, and Druze and Arab villages, as well as the northern West Bank.[69][70][71]"

How can you deny they're attacking civillians? Yes, Israel killed ~1000 civillians but they also killed half of Hezbollahs regular soldiers. It's simply not comparable dude.

Edit: Dude are you fucking kidding? Why would the Israeli's ever surrender Jerusalem as their capital?

"The city has a history that goes back to the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world. Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE"

It's been Jewish from 600 years before Islam was even founded.

 

[Riet]

Sam, what do you think would have happened if Palestine had accepted the 1947 borders, instead of having Syria, Egypt and Jordan immediately declare war on Israel?

Also, olol:

On 27 August, Hassan Nasrallah apologised to the Lebanese people for the incident that sparked the war, saying "Had we known that the capture of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it."

Lebanese desire to emigrate has increased since the war. Over a fifth of Shias, a quarter of Sunnis, and nearly half of Maronites have expressed the desire to leave Lebanon. Nearly a third of such Maronites have already submitted visa applications to foreign embassies, and another 60,000 Christians have already fled, as of April 2007. Lebanese Christians are concerned that their influence is waning, fear the apparent rise of radical Islam, and worry of potential Sunni-Shia rivalry.

Sound like Hezbollah achieved stacks.

 

[sam04u]

How can you deny they're attacking civillians? Yes, Israel killed ~1000 civillians but they also killed half of Hezbollahs regular soldiers. It's simply not comparable dude.

You're delusional if you believe "they (Israel) killed half of Hezbollah's regular soldiers", they did no such thing. Hezbollah, unlike Israel do not have the capability to fire lazer guided, aircraft fired, missiles. What they fired, were rockets. They fired rockets mounted from vehicles. And as best as possible, the fired these inaccurate, and weak (30kg) rockets.

Dude are you fucking kidding? Why would the Israeli's ever surrender Jerusalem as their capital?

Because it's not their capital. Why do you think all the foreign embassies in Israel are in Tel Aviv? Jerusalem is internationally recognised to be occupied territory, in particular East of Jerusalem, which is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. Israel captured Palestinian land in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and against international laws, and world court orders, has not yet unoccupied the land.

It's been Jewish from 600 years before Islam was even founded.

Sorry, I don't believe God is a real estate agent, who can give land that was lived in by the palestinians for over 50 generations and 2 millenium, to Israel. Infact, you simply can not follow that idea of thinking, just because 2,000 years ago one people or another occupied a land, that does not give them the right in this day and age to occupy that land. I mean, that's almost like suggesting the United Kingdom go back under the occupation of Italy.

 

[sam04u]

Sam,

You do realise that after the 1948 war, Gaza was Jordanian controlled, and the West Bank by the Egyptians. Israel only seized the lands in 1967 (6 day war lasting 200ft). But no of course, they Jews stole it DIRECTLY FROM THE PALESTINIANS. Oh my how couold I be so silly.

You're being silly Exphate. It is internationally accepted, that it is inadmissible to occupy and settle in land captured through war. The Arab-Israeli borders as outlined in the 1948 partition plan, are the legal borders of Israel and Palestine. And under international orders, Israel is disregarding the law by occupying the Palestinian land.

The Israelis were greatly excepting of the 1948 borders. Heck, if they hadn't been, THERE'D BE NO ISRAEL! Oh but no, you're right, they didn't accept the 55/45 split of Mandate Palestine, and they initiated all the wars the 1948 war as well as 1967 (olol cuz dey act00ly did in dis caes!).

Actually if you did a little bit of reading, something I highly doubt you do enough of based on your writing style. You would know that both those wars were directly, or indirectly initiated by Israel. Either by ciphening or redirecting their neighbouring countries water supplies, or by occupying and launching attacks against the Palestinian state. See: Plan Dalet.

 

[Riet]

Sorry, I don't believe God is a real estate agent, who can give land that was lived in by the palestinians for over 50 generations and 2 millenium, to Israel. Infact, you simply can not follow that idea of thinking, just because 2,000 years ago one people or another occupied a land, that does not give them the right in this day and age to occupy that land. I mean, that's almost like suggesting the United Kingdom go back under the occupation of Italy.

Then why do you think it should be handed over to Palestine? Obviously sharing it would be the most obvious answer since it has important religious sites for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Saying "they are inaccurate weapons" is no excuse, it's pretty clear they intentionally fired them at civillian areas. You object to civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq by the USA but think it's alright just because they can't do any better? That's pretty ridiculous, man. Even if you think Hezbollah came out victorious (even though 250-500 of their troops died, out of 600-1000), I don't see how you can condone the rocket attacks. Especially when you then complain about the Israelis hitting non-combatants when hezbollah, lebanon and the media all confirm that they were using civillian areas to stage attacks from.

Seriously, debating whether or not you think this is a win for them is fine, but when you defend intentional attacks on civilians by a terrorist organisation it undermines your argument and makes you look like a retard.

You're being silly Exphate. It is internationally accepted, that it is inadmissible to occupy and settle in land captured through war. The Arab-Israeli borders as outlined in the 1948 partition plan, are the legal borders of Israel and Palestine. And under international orders, Israel is disregarding the law by occupying the Palestinian land.

Since when man? Borders have been shifting due to war for as long as mankind has existed.
Edit:You can't occupy and settle land that was captured in war? Pretty sure before the romans and then ottomans and then british, Jerusalem belonged to the Israelis. No wait, those wars don't count because they were a long time ago. And it'd be silly to take the borders back to what they were 2000 years ago right? Then why is it different re: Palestine?

 

[sam04u]

Then why do you think it should be handed over to Palestine? Obviously sharing it would be the most obvious answer since it has important religious sites for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

I don't think all of Jerusalem should be handed over to Palestine. As was agreed upon in the 1948 partition plan, central Jerusalem is to be a seperate state, somewhat like the vatican.

Saying "they are inaccurate weapons" is no excuse, it's pretty clear they intentionally fired them at civillian areas.

Unfortunately for your argument, it's the dead bodies that tell this story better than any statistics on where or how the bombs landed. (All of which can only be verified by Israeli sources, and there is severe doubt every site was observed by an independant agency.)

The point is the number of Israeli's dead is only 50, in comparison to the over 1,000 Lebanese dead.

You object to civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq by the USA but think it's alright just because they can't do any better?

I do not. But I'll make the same point to you, that I made to the other guy. When the options availble to you are "resist" (occupation) or "cease and desist", one can only ever pick the first option.

Seriously, debating whether or not you think this is a win for them is fine, but when you defend intentional attacks on civilians by a terrorist organisation it undermines your argument and makes you look like a retard.

I have no problem debating whether or not Hezbollah won, in terms of influence, gained power, and political objectives being met either. (Ofcourse winning to you is all casualties right? Then I'm afraid Vietnam lost the Vietnam War, and the Soviet Union lost WW2.)

The death of Israeli casualties is not only unfortunate, but it is morally wrong. Hezbollah should attempt to aquire more advanced weaponry, capable of effectively only killing Israeli soldiers who may or may not question Lebanon's sovereignty, or violate their rights as a sovereign state. (And not uninvolved civilians)

Likewise with Israel, who already possess these weapons. They should cease using them on innocent civilians.

 

[sam04u]

Since when man? Borders have been shifting due to war for as long as mankind has existed.

That is a great question Riet, and I will endeavour to answer it as best as I can. In 1967, after Israel captured Palestinian territory in the war dubbed the "6-day war" the United Nations in an attempt to prevent this sort of matter occuring, passed a resolution. Resolution 242, which makes specific reference to the Arab-Israel conflict.

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

 

[Riet]

I don't think all of Jerusalem should be handed over to Palestine. As was agreed upon in the 1948 partition plan, central Jerusalem is to be a seperate state, somewhat like the vatican.

Fair enough.

The point is the number of Israeli's dead is only 50, in comparison to the over 1,000 Lebanese dead.

As has previously been stated, that was due to mass evacuation. Also while Southern Lebanon was a war zone, the Israeli civlians were being specifically targettted. Also, as has previously been said many thousand WERE injured. Do you think if Hezbollah had more powerful/accurate weapons they would have fired less, or that more Israelis would be dead?

I do not. But I'll make the same point I made to you, that I made to the other guy. When the options availble to you are "resist" (occupation) or "cease and desist", one can only ever pick the first option.

True, except firing rockets at civilians isn't resisting. I cannot accept that. Hezbollah did it full well knowing exactly what the response would be. Also what exactly are they resisting? Israel hadn't gone into Lebanon for many years prior to this.

 

[Riet]

That is a great question Riet, and I will endeavour to answer it as best as I can. In 1967, after Israel captured Palestinian territory in the war dubbed the "6-day war" the United Nations in an attempt to prevent this sort of matter occuring, passed a resolution. Resolution 242, which makes specific reference to the Arab-Israel conflict.

Do you think it's fair (for anyone *cough* think about how fucked Germany got last century *cough*) that 1967 is suddenly the year where you can no longer occupy territory?

Anyways, I'm going to bed now.

 

[sam04u]

Do you think it's fair (for anyone *cough* think about how fucked Germany got last century *cough*) that 1967 is suddenly the year where you can no longer occupy territory?

Anyways, I'm going to bed now.

Yes, lol. That's like asking if it I think it's fair that white people weren't allowed to keep slaves anymore the year after it was banned.

Good night.

 

[Riet]

Last thing then, ever thought about how the only countries with Veto power in the UN defence council are the major powers that won WWII?

 

[sam04u]

Last thing then, ever thought about how the only countries with Veto power in the UN defence council are the major powers that won WWII?

I have. The United Nations was the source of a lot of power for the Second World War victors. But little American-run Oceania is too busy fooling around with their little "Western Values" bloc, to stick with the UN. Eventually there is going to be a fall out. What with NATO, and the Russian bloc, and China's bloc.

It's absolutely insane. I just hope our generation does not have to live out the horrors of such a potential war. Moreso, being on the wrong side of that war .

 

[ari89]

I heard they're waiting for you in GITMO, Sam.

 

[YO!]

I heard they're waiting for you in GITMO, Sam.

That was a cheap attempt at humour. Sorry.

 

[YO!]

Jews kill everyone. They even were responsible for the extinction of the Dinosaurs.

 

[sam04u]

Again - the fact you seem to constantly ignore - the "occupied lands" weren't occupied in the first instance, by the Israelis.

How is that relevant at all? Did you miss U.N resolution 242 which I wrapped in quotation tags? It doesn't matter whether it's Egypt, Jordan, Israel or Palestine. International law is clear on this point, and that is (especially as of 1967 - and after the 6-day war) it is inadmissible to occupy territory captured in war. The internationally recognised, and world court ordered, legal borders of Israel-Palestine are the borders outlined in the 1948 partition plan.

This is probably the only rational thing I've ever seen you post. It was originally to be a UN Protected zone, but our good friends who can't fire a single bullet didn't do a thing to keep this upheld.

All of what I've posted in my posts are based on international laws, world court orders, or human rights. So if you believe it's irrational, it's you who has the problem, not me.

 

[sam04u]

I heard they're waiting for you in GITMO, Sam.

Oh shi-
Also ari89, where do you get that awesome propoganda you have in your sigs?

Just for the record, for 1,400 years, since Islam was brought into the world by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) divinely inspired by Allah (SAW), there has been the concept of "the age of criminal responsibility" in Islam, and moreso, drawing the prophet is not considered a capital crime. Infact, it'll be hard to find Qur'anic support to even consider it a crime.

But awesome new anti-Islamic propoganda.

 

[Riet]

Oh shi-
Also ari89, where do you get that awesome propoganda you have in your sigs?

Just for the record, for 1,400 years, since Islam was brought into the world by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) divinely inspired by Allah (SAW), there has been the concept of "the age of criminal responsibility" in Islam, and moreso, drawing the prophet is not considered a capital crime. Infact, it'll be hard to find Qur'anic support to even consider it a crime.

But awesome new anti-Islamic propoganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Danish_embassy_bombing

 

[ari89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Danish_embassy_bombing

Dude, don't bother. He'll just deny that it happened and if you persist he'll just start posting lies about you.