WOW Poly i can quote you on every post and we can go at it endlesly...
Feel free. But try not to insert more misinformation into the conversation.
For one, dont think everybody in Lebanon supports Hezbollah, and some want them to surrender their weapons, so why doesnt Israel make a step forward, free Shebaa Farms and release Lebanese prisoners, so that Hezbollah would have less arguments when their weapons are brought into cause in discussions?
Like Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in 2000? That "step forward" didn't get the attacks to stop, did it?
If it's not the Shebaa farms, they will fight Israel in the name of aiding Palestinian struggle against occupation. If Palestinians get a state, they will find some other excuse.
You require Israel to unilaterally acquiesce to the demands of its attackers in order to get the attacks to stop, but with no promise or guarantee that they will. Here's a better, more sensible idea: Why don't Lebanon, Syria and Israel sit down to negotiate an actual peace agreement, that may include returning occupied land and releasing prisoners? Such an agreement would require the militias to disarm, of course. But if all they want is an end to the occupation of land, why wouldn't they agree to it?
The fact of the matter is, Hezbollah has refused to such initiatives in the past. Thus Israel has absolutely no incentive to cede over land or release prisoners - Israel believes the attacks will continue if they do. So do I. Unless the warring sides sit down to talk peace, I don't see any reason to believe otherwise.
And what do you expect when Israel entered Beirut in 1982 when it was meant for them to advance just to Litany River? Of course resistence forces will get supplies and ammunition and get more popular among citizans! Should we mention what happened in Sabra & Chatila camp ?(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre ) , you can find as many videos and stories about this bloody massacre, which was followed by the entrance of Israeli forces, those who carried out this massacre was the Lebanese Forces ( aka Phalangistes ), Ariel Sharon gave them all they required to carry out this massacre, Israeli tanks provided light on this camp during nights so nobody escapes, there was so many blood spilled in one week... Is that a good enough reason for existing for Hezbollah aor fighting back Israel?
No, it's not. Or at least, it's not anymore. I'm not saying there was no justification for resistance against occupation; but that occupation is gone. Hezbollah has no justification for its existence as an armed militia anymore, because the very things you cite as the reasons no longer exist.
2-Hezbollah is a resistence force
Resisting what, exactly? Israel no longer occupies South Lebanon. Your "resistance force" has parliament members in a (supposedly) sovereign state. That's not very guerrilla of them, is it? They don't exactly live in caves and holes
and what do you expect them to fight with? forks and knives? while israel has that elite aviation fleet provided by USA? nobody minded that obviously in the early years
Two problems with this.
First off, Hezbollah is very well armed and trained, receiving financial, ordnance and training support from both Syria and Iran. This is also why this organization is promoting their interests in the region, rather than those of the Lebanese people themselves.
Secondly, what I
expect is that
if Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance movement, it would fight the "oppressing" military exclusively, in the occupied region. That means not targeting civilians. I notice that you bring no counter evidence to this organization's use of anti-personnel rockets against cities nor other methods of targeting and killing innocents, nor the other violations of International law. This undermines your point that they are a legitimate organization. Rather, they are a terrorist group.
Again, the sensible solution is for the sides to come to an agreement. I reject your justification of Hezbollah attacks on civilians by them being a "resistance movement" or having less resources than the IDF, as if that can ever justify murdering innocents.
3- You say i make one sided arguments... what about you?
I don't think I did. You're welcome to quote me and show what you think is out of balance. Note that I have pointed you to two bi-national movements' websites.
Re-read what I said. This link discusses spent shells found in Gaza. It does not speak of Israeli soldiers in International court, which was what I asked support for. I did not dispute your claims of white phosphorous being used in Lebanon, nor did I agree with them. I did not find it relevant to the discussion, because I was not trying to defend Israel's actions. You, on the other hand, claim that Hezbollah is justified in its actions. I have shown that it is not.
you just hit a builiding where you think hezbollah fighters are hiding, and then 50 civilians die, and you say : well this is war, civilains die.... yeah how one sided from one my part really
I am sure I never said that. Feel free to quote where I did. In fact, I'm fairly certain I said this sort of careless disregard of civilians is wrong.
However I stand by my original statement: Though not justified, such actions are not morally equivalent to deliberately targeting civilians.
Theres much more i can say .... but Poly are you saying that Israels acts have been fair since they established their country?
I am not saying that, no. Some actions were justified, others were not. The same can be said about all other parties. That is where our accounts differ, with yours being one-sided.
you make your country in Palestine by force,
If "being attacked by seven other nations in addition to civil war" is considered "make your country in Palestine by force", then yes. Again this is a misrepresentation of the facts, since the UN recognized Israel as a state, which was followed by attacks from its neighbors with intent to destroy the fledgling nation. Note that Jewish settlements where the defensive failed, such as Kefar Ezion, were destroyed utterly, with every last defender getting gunned down.
This is a bit of a double standard for you, because you seem to think it's alright for the Palestinians and Lebanese to strike back with force, but it's not alright for the Israelis to have fought to defend their own homes.
take plaestenians homes,
The Palestinian refugees problem is
much more complicated than this.
build new israeli homes,
People building homes. How evil.
submitt palestenians to Israeli laws ,
Actually, with the exception of those in annexed neighborhoods of Jerusalem, Palestinians are under military occupation, so they are subject to military law. This is precisely the issue at hand regarding Israeli occupation of the West Bank. But it's not as if Palestinians were under their own rule before 1967; the land was just as occupied, only by the Jordanians.
At any rate, an occupying army is
required to govern an occupied territory and set rules there, by international law, until the region is returned, which of course we all hope will move forward expediently. The only other alternative is lawlessness, which I don't think would be in the best interests of the Palestinians.
Regarding those Palestinians in annexed neighborhoods of Jerusalem, they
do answer to Israeli law, and are free to move around in Israel. They are also entitled to social security benefits and are generally better off than many Arab citizens around the world. However I agree that a more permanent solution is required, as well as them receiving citizenship in their own sovereign nation.
geez the palestenian goverment was arrested once for 2 weeks because they refused to sign a peace treaty or a cease fire!!!!!!!!!
I would like a reference for this extraordinary claim. This is the third one you make with no sources.
Living in Lebannon my freind, im sorry i cant be more supportive for Israel. Ive seen enough suffering and conflicts in my country, that all i want to see now is just everybody stop playing football on in our field! all middle east conflictsdepend alot on what happens in Lebannon and politticians bargain on that.
While I feel for you, I think the objectivity is warranted, regardless of where one lives.
All i wanna see is that Palestenians given their country and state back(, and a fair deal, not a one that will violate their rite, and when they refuse just say they are the ones that are not willing to settle)
The Palestinians never did have a state which they can get back. Their attempt to finally get one is at the heart of the conflict.
As for a fair deal, as I have previously shown, there are fair proposals on the table right now, which many people from both sides agree to. The principles of one of those (the Geneva Accord) have been directly referenced by the current Israeli PM in the Bar Ilan speech. He also said there that Israel is ready to reopen negotiations with no preconditions. Currently it is the Palestinians who refuse to negotiate, putting forth preconditions to be met. That is not productive to moving forward.
, giving Lebannon back Shebaa Farms ( 22KM², i dont care its still ours , without it were not 10425 km²), Hezbollah surrending their weapons, and finally PEACE PEACE PEACE!!!!!!
On this we agree. However I believe such things should happen by agreement, not unilaterally under the threat of violence.
yeah nobody is obliged to check this link, niehter obliged to read your posts even, still i provide the link for those who want to know what is really going on, you really break it out wisely dont you?
The principle I am referring to is, references are brought as
supporting tools in a debate. They support an argument. If you bring a reference that is outside the forum, it is up to you to summarize why you brought it up and what it is supposed to prove. Otherwise people need to guess what your argument is, and that's no way to debate.
" Houses that build within Israel municimality thadt do not complywith zoning commitee regulations "....i will summarize : Israel settles downs in palestine, sets new rules that say in this zone no Palestenian houses are allowed, take them down!!!!! YES HOW FAIR !!!!! now at least they have rules to back up the destruction of those houses.
This is false. And is part of your misrepresentation of the facts. The fact of the matter is, illegal Israeli settlements have been demolished too. While, as I said, there might be some injustice and some callous bureaucracy, this is not part of some conspiracy against the Palestinians.
And i want to say this out loud : THEY WERE OBLIGED TO TAKE DOWN THEIR HOUSES , IF NOT, YES THE MUNICIPALITY WILL TAKE THEM DOWN, BUT BUT BUT THOSE PALESTENIANS SHOULD PAY THE MUNICPALITY THE DESTRUCTION FEES!!!!!!
I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Yes, if you build something that is illegal, you are responsible for setting it right, including any fees that may apply. You may not like it, but that's how law and order generally works. Israel isn't out of the ordinary in that regard.
You have once again brought up a reference without tying it to anything or even having the courtesy to summarize it. That does not form an argument, in fact it forces one to guess your logical argument, and this is the last time I'll do it.
The reference you bring describes legal battles over houses in East Jerusalem based on land ownership. Specifically it brings the story of a house built 10 years ago, which a Jewish Israeli had ownership for the land.
This fails to demonstrate your point for several reasons:
- The article mentions 7 such cases, each of them taking many years in court to resolve. In a Palestinian population of millions, such occurrences are a drop in the bucket at best. This undermines the claim that there's some sort of organized, state-endorsed plot to "liberate" land from Palestinians.
- I don't know of any place in the world where it is ok to build on somebody else's land. In fact, there is a serious double standard here, because Israeli settlements that do this are condemned for it by you and others. The difference is that East Jerusalem was annexed and is subject to Israeli law, whereas settlements are not.
I would regard settlements built on previously Palestinian-owned land a bigger problem than houses built on Jewish-owned land being evicted. Note though that Palestinians
do receive compensation if their land is used for anything - again, problematic, but not exactly some earth-shattering conspiracy for land grab. Incidentally, drafts of the possible agreements with the Palestinians include a land swap in a ratio of 1-to-1, which means that Israel has both paid the owner for the land and may well cede equal land in return, so it essentially pays twice. Not exactly the evil overlord approach, there.
- These incidents are not actually tied to any of your arguments. I've done my best to try and give your reference some relevance, but this is the last time I try it. It's too easy to misinterpret what you're trying to say when you don't say it outright. So from now on I'll only answer actual supported arguments, if you have any left.
so you build a house, now new laws and rules are in place and suddenly your house is illegal, and you should destroy it with your own hands, or pay for it to be destruct.
False. Israeli law as well as military law cannot be applied retroactively. Only if the action (building a house) was illegal when you did it, the law may apply to it.
Again, you might find a case here and there of injustice in applying these rules, but that's personal tragedy that's part of the larger tragedy that is occupation - not conspiracy.
you say il giving one side arguments, well your ( as many others ) defenetly not a bit concerned of what the Palestenians have suffered and see only one side of the story, this is why i speak from the other side....
I don't see why you think that. I unequivocally think that the situation for Palestinians is intolerable and they suffer greatly under the occupation. I also believe they have the right for self definition and their own sovereign state.
However I object to the implication that this justifies violence against civilians; as well as to the narrative where Israel as a whole plots to deprive the Palestinians of land, rights, and life.
I hope we're clear on that and can reach an understanding.