Israel: Lebanon Cease-Fire in Jeopardy

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

Israel: Lebanon Cease-Fire in Jeopardy
Email this Story

Mar 24, 6:17 PM (ET)

By STEVE WEIZMAN

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's defense minister told the head of the United Nations on Saturday that the U.N.-brokered cease-fire in southern Lebanon is endangered by Hezbollah militants, who continue to hold two captured Israeli soldiers and receive arms shipments from Syria.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz Peretz met Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon at the start of Ban's first visit to Israel since taking office. The secretary-general is to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at his Ramallah headquarters on Sunday and hold talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli officials in Jerusalem on Monday.

Peretz, greeting Ban at the Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, said a main subject of talks would be the status of Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to 34 days of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah on Aug. 14.


Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, left, listens to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, right, upon the latter's arrival at Ben Gurion airport near Tel-Aviv, Israel, Saturday, March 24, 2007. Speaking in Cairo after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Ban urged the new Palestinian coalition government to live up to the expectations of the international community, referring to demands that it recognize Israel and work toward peace. (AP Photo/Gali Tibbon, Pool)


The war was triggered after Hezbollah guerrillas crossed Israel's northern border, killed three soldiers and returned to Lebanon with the two captured troops.

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070324/D8O2Q7CO0.html

[PDJane]

1. The war was planned, in the same way that the war

with Iraq was planned, long in advance, and for the same reasons. It was to show the invincibility of western military might and planning, make a statement about staying in line, maybe move the rockets back, and make inroads into the civilian population and infrastructure.

Hezbollah is an organization of Southern Lebanese Shi'a. It is their country, they belong there, and they are as much a political organization as anything else.

At least one of those "abducted" soldiers was on Lebanese territory, and was simply arrested.

Ask Israel how many Palestinians and lebanese "insurgents" are languishing in Israeli jails, under what conditions, and why. Ask how many of those abducted are shopkeepers and doctors. When you get an answer to that, talk to me about how Lebanon is breaking the peace.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Hizb'allah is a terrorist organization.

Prove the war was planned.

As for your other assertion, the soldiers were in ISRAELI territory.

What do the Palestinians have to do with this conflict and whether the truce lasts? There are no Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails to my knowledge. You have a source for that information?

[Igel]

3. Kuntar.

Unfortunately, it only takes one counter-example to falsify a proposition, and lamentably he's biologically human.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Well, I did add the disclaimer.

Thanks to that info, I found that there are three other Lebanese in Israeli jails (4 according to Hizb'allah).

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Olmert himself has said the war was planned in advance...

PREPARATIONS for Israel's war in Lebanon last July were drawn up at least four months before two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah in July, the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has admitted.

His submission to a commission of inquiry, leaked on Thursday, contradicted the impression at the time that Israel had been provoked into a battle for which it was ill-prepared.

Mr Olmert told the Winograd commission, a panel of judges investigating Israel's perceived defeat in the 34-day war, that he first discussed the possibility of war in January last year and asked to see military plans in March.

According to the Ha'aretz daily, which obtained details of Mr Olmert's testimony, the Prime Minister chose a strategy of air attacks on Lebanon and a limited ground operation to be implemented in the event of an abduction by Hezbollah, which had made several attempts to capture Israeli soldiers on the border since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.

Israeli commentators believed that Mr Olmert and his Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, took the opportunity of the kidnapping to show they could manage a war in spite of their limited military experience. But the outcome seemed to highlight their lack of experience, as well as deficiencies in Israel's military planning.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/olmert-primed-for-war-before-a-pretext-came/2007/03/09/1173166991661.html

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Not planned in the way the orginal poster claimed.

"...the Prime Minister chose a strategy of air attacks on Lebanon and a limited ground operation to be implemented in the event of an abduction by Hezbollah..." is NOT the same as the plans for Iraq, nor for the same reasons!

[Alexander]

14. No, but it goes to show the two captured IDF troops had nothing to do with the invasion.

Kind of makes the whole premise for invasion seem bogus, when at the time we were all being told Israel invaded because of the two captured soldiers.

If only we still had Rabin instead of Olmert and Sharon....

[Behind the Aegis]

15. How do you figure?

It was stated the reason was because of the abducted soldiers. I have plans to evacuate in case of another hurricane in NOLA. If I do evacuate, it doesn't mean I planned the hurricane!

[Alexander]

16. Like World War I, the invasion of Lebanon would've happened anyway.

That is what Olmert is essentially admitting.

The capture of the two soldiers was merely the catalyst. I'm sure any other incident, whether or not it involved abducting soldiers, would've been used as justification.

From the article:

" submission to a commission of inquiry, leaked on Thursday, contradicted the impression at the time that Israel had been provoked into a battle for which it was ill-prepared."

You also did little to address my claim that had Rabin still been alive, peace would seem a lot more than just a pipe dream. Olmert really fucked the whole situation up when he invaded Lebanon, which was a wonderful exercise in not thinking things through and then acting militarily on those notions.

Looks like most of Israel agrees with me on this one:

"In an opinion poll published this week, only 3 per cent of Israeli voters said they would vote for Mr Olmert, while 72 per cent said he should resign."

I'd rather have Labor back in power for the peace processes' sake, but then I don't live in Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. You don't know that to be true.

Many countries have "plans" for invasion, defense, and other eventualities, this is NOT to say that those plans are the reason, which is what the original poster was insinuating. She made it sound as if Israel was the aggressor in the situation, which was not the case.

"The capture of the two soldiers was merely the catalyst. I'm sure any other incident, whether or not it involved abducting soldiers, would've been used as justification." Opinion and unprovable.

"You also did little to address my claim that had Rabin still been alive, peace would seem a lot more than just a pipe dream." Hypothetical and unprovable assertion. While Rabin was certainly on a more peaceful road, there is no telling what he would be doing to day, as we can only speculate.

"Olmert really fucked the whole situation up when he invaded Lebanon, which was a wonderful exercise in not thinking things through and then acting militarily on those notions." Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is arm-chair governing. The plans and its execution were poor indeed.

As for having Labor back in power, I would settle for any group that is working toward a peaceful goal. Israelis agree with you about Olmert, however, I am sure you part ways in the other recent poll which shows that were elections held today, Likud would sweep back into power.

[Alexander]

20. I might not be able to "prove" it, but there is such a thing as an "educated guess".

And my educated guess is that if Olmert was trying to portray Israel as unready for battle when that clearly wasn't the case, that he's also probably hiding something else. I'm not particularly compelled to trust either the Israeli or Palestinian governments at this time - neither has really shown themselves to be trustworthy, in my opinion.

"Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is arm-chair governing. The plans and its execution were poor indeed."

That sounds like some of the former Iraq War supporters, saying "It wasn't planned right" or "I don't agree with the way it was executed".

Invasions are wrong, period. Morally wrong. No matter who starts them. Maybe you don't agree, but my beef is not that Olmert didn't plan it right - he should never have invaded in the first place.

It is also morally wrong to kidnap IDF soldiers, however an action such as that does in no way justify an invasion which inevitably will kill many more in the civilian populace.

"As for having Labor back in power, I would settle for any group that is working toward a peaceful goal. Israelis agree with you about Olmert, however, I am sure you part ways in the other recent poll which shows that were elections held today, Likud would sweep back into power."

Since Amir Peretz has joined the current government, I'm sure very few in Israel have a compelling reason to vote Labor. That is unfortunate, in my opinion, since I see right-wing parties everywhere (including Likud) as a threat to peace and liberal democracy.

[oberliner]

40. If Hezbollah had dismantled as a milita there would have been no war

After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah was supposed to dismantle as a militia and allow the Lebanese army to take control of the border with Israel, as stipulated by the United Nations. Hezbollah refused to do this. Had they done so there would have been no conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

I hope, as you do, that Labor will prevail in the next election in Israel.

I also hope that Hezbollah will live up to their end of UN Resolution 1559:

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

[Behind the Aegis]

44. A response.

I was going to answer earlier then got ill. When I came back I answered some other posts first and had this one in the wings. I thought the discussion was going well between you and me, but it seems you have now adopted a more hostile tone.

First, let's clear up some confusion. Your title response to mine is a little confusing. When I wrote, "You don't know that to be true.", I was addressing your title: "Like World War I, the invasion of Lebanon would've happened anyway." However, the title of this post to which I am responding seems to be addressing Olmert's excuse. I wasn't addressing it, and didn't know you were either.

And my educated guess is that if Olmert was trying to portray Israel as unready for battle when that clearly wasn't the case, that he's also probably hiding something else. I'm not particularly compelled to trust either the Israeli or Palestinian governments at this time - neither has really shown themselves to be trustworthy, in my opinion.

Given the outcome, I would say that the Israeli army was unprepared. As for hiding something, very few politicians are forth-coming and believing them at face value is not often a good decision. I am not sure what the Palestinian government has to do with this conversation because we are discussing Lebanon and Hizb'allah.

"Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is arm-chair governing. The plans and its execution were poor indeed."

That sounds like some of the former Iraq War supporters, saying "It wasn't planned right" or "I don't agree with the way it was executed".

What an odd thing to say, but after reading it a few times, I think I realized what you were thinking. When I said: "The plans and its execution were poor indeed." I was agreeing with you when you wrote: "Olmert really fucked the whole situation up when he invaded Lebanon, which was a wonderful exercise in not thinking things through (the plans) and then acting militarily on those notions. (the execution)"

Invasions are wrong, period. Morally wrong. No matter who starts them. Maybe you don't agree, but my beef is not that Olmert didn't plan it right - he should never have invaded in the first place.

That is your opinion. There are times where invasions are called for and even justifiable, as horrible as it may seem.

It is also morally wrong to kidnap IDF soldiers, however an action such as that does in no way justify an invasion which inevitably will kill many more in the civilian populace.

I think the first response should have been a diplomatic one, but I don't run Israel. Also, the reality of the situation in that part of the world is also different than that of the US and many other places.

Since Amir Peretz has joined the current government, I'm sure very few in Israel have a compelling reason to vote Labor. That is unfortunate, in my opinion, since I see right-wing parties everywhere (including Likud) as a threat to peace and liberal democracy.

I agree that right-wing parties are a threat world-wide; however, they are a reality. How they are dealt with is the real test, but, like any test, people don't always pass.

[Alexander]

52. My tone was "hostile"? Gimme a break.

You claimed hostility, and then failed to provide a single word of mine that you considered hostile.

I am really quite puzzled by your last post. I am not trying to take this discussion to a hostile level, and I'm not quite sure where you see this hostility you speak of. It seems like we may agree on more than initially thought, and I hope we can keep it cordial.

'I was addressing your title: "Like World War I, the invasion of Lebanon would've happened anyway." However, the title of this post to which I am responding seems to be addressing Olmert's excuse. I wasn't addressing it, and didn't know you were either.'

I made the World War I analogy because I figured it was comparable to the Lebanon invasion. Perhaps I shouldn't have made such a comparison, but since I did, I might as well fully explain myself.

-Europe was at the brink of war anyway in 1914. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was merely the catalyst; it could've been any number of incidents, real or fictitious, that started the war.

Likewise, I also believe that

-The kidnapping of the 2 IDF soldiers was merely the catalyst; it could've been any number of incidents, real or fictitious, that started the war.

Who knows if Olmert wasn't going to invade Lebanon anyway? With his previous failure to come clean about when the planning took place, I'm not exactly inspired to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it seems better leadership is called for everywhere for a successful peace process to take place.

"That is your opinion. There are times where invasions are called for and even justifiable, as horrible as it may seem."

Yes, in rare cases, like the Allied forces invading Europe in World War II. Those tend to be the exception more than the rule, and generally to prevent things like genocide and world domination.

But Olmert's invasion of Lebanon was not one of these cases. It was an overreaction of the worst kind, and many civilians died for no reason. Why not kidnap two Hezbollah members, if he wanted to get even?

"I think the first response should have been a diplomatic one, but I don't run Israel. Also, the reality of the situation in that part of the world is also different than that of the US and many other places."

I agree with your first part. Yes, it's much different on the other side of the world, but you'd think something like an invasion would be considered with the utmost care. All I want to know is, what was Olmert thinking?

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Continuing...

I need to clear some things up first.

You claimed hostility, and then failed to provide a single word of mine that you considered hostile.

I am really quite puzzled by your last post. I am not trying to take this discussion to a hostile level, and I'm not quite sure where you see this hostility you speak of. It seems like we may agree on more than initially thought, and I hope we can keep it cordial.

When I said you were adopting a hostile tone, it was not in reference to the post to which I was responding (#20: I might not be able to "prove" it, but there is such a thing as an "educated guess".). "Hostile" might not have been the best word, but I really couldn't think of another at the time. The reason I said your tone was becoming hostile was because of the comments you made elsewhere. In post #32 (Ok - so does 2 kidnapped soldiers justify an invasion which kills thousands?), you jumped into the middle of a 'conversation' I was having with "PDJane" and asked a question that seemed to be more of a statement. I have found that when others do that they really aren't asking you a question, but supposing they already know the answer, especially when the question is about something that hadn't been asked by the other poster. Now, perhaps, that was not your motivation and you were sincerely asking a question, but it is a common tactic at DU, especially on the topic of Israel. The next one, post #33, which was really the one that did it for me, was when you again jumped into a conversation, this time between "The Stranger" and me. You asked: "Do your arguments consist of anything more than snarky one-liners?" Considering you and I had been involved in a conversation, and I had several more posts that were clearly more than one-line responses, I saw this as "hostile" because you knew that I had arguments that clearly were not "snarky one-liners."

I made the World War I analogy because I figured it was comparable to the Lebanon invasion. Perhaps I shouldn't have made such a comparison, but since I did, I might as well fully explain myself.

-Europe was at the brink of war anyway in 1914. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was merely the catalyst; it could've been any number of incidents, real or fictitious, that started the war.

Likewise, I also believe that

-The kidnapping of the 2 IDF soldiers was merely the catalyst; it could've been any number of incidents, real or fictitious, that started the war.

The full explanation is appreciated, but I still feel it was an errant comparison. We will never know if something else would have set off WWI or the 2nd war of Lebanon, all we know is what happened. The reason I feel the two are different is because the levels of what happened. I doubt many thought the murder of a minor character would lead to an all-out world war. As for the Lebanon war, though plans had been laid in the eventuality of soldiers being abducted, there really was no way of knowing if that would really lead to the levels of attack in Lebanon. In both cases, though, I can say reactions to both events were like swatting a fly with a shovel! But, that is just my opinion.

Who knows if Olmert wasn't going to invade Lebanon anyway? With his previous failure to come clean about when the planning took place, I'm not exactly inspired to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it seems better leadership is called for everywhere for a successful peace process to take place.

Well, I can say, just as easily, "Who knows if Olmert was going to invade Lebanon anyway?" I am guessing, IMO, that Olmert didn't even know until the last minute, because the execution of the campaign really made him (and the IDF) look like he (they) got caught with his (their) pants down around his (their) ankles!

"That is your opinion. There are times where invasions are called for and even justifiable, as horrible as it may seem."

Yes, in rare cases, like the Allied forces invading Europe in World War II. Those tend to be the exception more than the rule, and generally to prevent things like genocide and world domination.

Your answer negates, in some ways, your previous statement of "Invasions are wrong, period. Morally wrong. No matter who starts them." (post #20). The way I read that statement is that no invasion is ever a correct course of action. It seems though, from your follow up statement, you and I are in agreement that invasions aren't a preferable manner of solving conflict, but are sometimes necessary.

But Olmert's invasion of Lebanon was not one of these cases. It was an overreaction of the worst kind, and many civilians died for no reason. Why not kidnap two Hezbollah members, if he wanted to get even?

You, and others, may feel the invasion was an overreaction. I am inclined to agree, as I said earlier, like swatting a fly with a shovel. But, I do feel military action was appropriate and that may be where you and I part ways. I also don't think Olmert's reaction was as simple as "trying to get even." I don't even think that factors into the equation, to be honest.

"I think the first response should have been a diplomatic one, but I don't run Israel. Also, the reality of the situation in that part of the world is also different than that of the US and many other places."

I agree with your first part. Yes, it's much different on the other side of the world, but you'd think something like an invasion would be considered with the utmost care. All I want to know is, what was Olmert thinking?

Actually, it seems we agreed on my entire statement. As for wanting to know what Olmert was thinking, I can't help you with that one.

The major issue I had with this thread was the historical revisionism that is taking place and the parsing/misuse of the word "planned." The way it (planned) is being used by some here indicates the Israelis were "behind it" or it was premeditated on their (Israeli) part. Yes, there was a plan in place. Yes, that plan included a scenario involving abducted soldiers. However, that is different than saying it was "planned" (implemented) by the Israelis, which is what some here are trying to indicate, which I see as revisionist. Israel, in this case, 'reacted', not 'acted' to a situation for which a plan had already been established. This is wholly different than the Iraq situation in which a plan was drawn up and executed without provocation.

Earlier, I used an example about a hurricane. I am going to alter it slightly.

1. I have a plan to escape from my house in the event of a fire. A bolt of lightning hits my house, setting the roof on fire. I enact my pre-established plan, and flee my home. (Israel/Hizb'allah)
   
   
2. I have a plan to escape from my house in the event of a fire. I have several oily rags and open paint cans under my house. I throw a lit match, thereby setting my house on fire. I enact my pre-established plan, and flee my home. (US/Iraq)

Some here are acting as if the Second War of Lebanon, is the second "option," as opposed to the first; all because there was a "plan" before the event.

My apologies for the length of the response. Since this seems to be down to you and me, should you decide to respond, you can choose to do so through a PM or here.

[The Stranger]

9. You simply cannot be serious -- Olmert ADMITTED that the war was planned.

No one needs to prove anything -- IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED.

Lebanon war was planned in March, Olmert says

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Winograd Commission that he decided to launch a military operation in case of a kidnapping incident along the Lebanese border as early as March, 2006, four months prior to the beginning of the war in Lebanon.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3373938,00.html

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Not planned in the way the original poster claimed.

"...the Prime Minister chose a strategy of air attacks on Lebanon and a limited ground operation to be implemented in the event of an abduction by Hezbollah..." is NOT the same as the plans for Iraq, nor for the same reasons!

[PDJane]

21. If you send people into another country,

Then implement a strategy that has been deliberately planned in case of an "abduction"...tell me, why is that not the same imperialist strategy that the US practices?

[Behind the Aegis]

24. You are supposing that Israelis crossed the border first, that is not what happened. n/t

[PDJane]

25. Yes. It is.

Don't believe everything you read here. They were there first, and Robert Fisk covered it.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. You are mistaken. It is fact that Hizb'allah crossed into Israel, not the other way.

It is you who needs not to believe everything you read.

[Alexander]

32. Ok - so does 2 kidnapped soldiers justify an invasion which kills thousands?

BTW, those 2 poor soldiers are still kidnapped.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. I never said anything about justification for a full-scale invasion.

If you want to discuss this, refrain from speaking for me.

On edit: a typo

[PDJane]

34. No. I told you,

Fisk covered it, and Fisk is in Lebanon.

Why do you think the plans for such a large scale retaliation were in the works well beforehand?

This is just contingency planning?? Hardly.

[oberliner]

37. Robert Fisk said the opposite of what you are claiming he said

In an interview with Amy Goodman:

"Anyway, it is important to remember that the Hezbollah crossed that border against all international law. No one gave them a referendum or a vote to cross the border and kill Israelis and capture two Israelis and start off this war"

And later in the same interview:

"Obviously, Hezbollah knew when they carried out this attack across the border on Wednesday that the soldier had been captured and taken into the Gaza Strip."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345257

[oberliner]

35. Robert Fisk says Hezbollah forces crossed the border into Israel and started the war

Here is a direct quote from Robert Fisk in an interview he did with Democracy Now!:

"Anyway, it is important to remember that the Hezbollah crossed that border against all international law. No one gave them a referendum or a vote to cross the border and kill Israelis and capture two Israelis and start off this war."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345257

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. WRH is a crap site and that particular "proof" has been debunked.

It is known that Hizb'allah crossed INTO Israel. Nasaralla even admitted that a few times.

[oberliner]

46. I wasn't disputing any of that

I was only disputing your claim about Robert Fisk.

He has clearly stated on several occasions that Hezbollah forces crossed the border into Israel to capture those two soldiers.

I would also point out that Amnesty International has additionally called for Hezbollah to be investigated for war crimes it committed during the conflict.

"No investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah is known to have been conducted by the Lebanese authorities or by Hizbullah commanders. If respect for the rules of war is ever to be taken seriously, a proper investigation of their violation by both parties to the recent conflict is imperative."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde020252006

Hizbullah rockets damaged houses, apartment blocks, schools, kindergartens, synagogues, public buildings, factories and shops in towns and villages across northern Israel.

Kindergartens for crying out loud.

[PDJane]

self-delete.......dupe.

[PDJane]

50. There is plenty of blame to go around.

However, if Hezbollah is to be investigated for war crimes, Israel must be on the list.

The death toll is running, at last look, thus:

In Israel: 44 civilians dead, 1,489 wounded. 119 Military dead, less than 400 wounded.

In Lebanon: 1,189 civilians dead, 3,600 wounded, 46 military dead, less than 100 wounded, between 450 and 700 Hezbollah warriors dead, 17 Amal Movement (another Shi'a organization) dead.

That's an about a 25 to 1 ratio of dead civilians, Lebanon to Israelis.

This is not about revenge for two soldiers.

[The Stranger]

26. That reply is laughable. You asked someone to prove it, and they did it -- BY AN ADMISSION.

Try to salvage whatever credibility you may still have. It looks really, really bad.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Seems you support revisionism.

[Alexander]

33. Do your arguments consist of anything more than snarky one-liners?

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Depends.

[The Stranger]

53. Good, at least you aren't now denying what has been admitted -- this "war" was planned.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Um...

It was to show the invincibility of western military might and planning

If that's the case, then it sure was a miserable failure.

[PDJane]

22. Of course.........

That's why they feel that they "lost" the war.

That tactic never works well........The US is 0 for 8 or something like that.

[Big Pappa]

27. Then why

has that soldier not been released to the Lebanese govt? When is his trial date? :shrug:

[Theduckno2]

5. Is the Sec'y General going to meet with the Lebanese?

It might make for a great photo-op to have him meeting with some of the peace-keepers.

[bemildred]

8. More empty blather from Peretz.

Why is he still in office, anyway?

[The Stranger]

10. What's going on -- Is Olmert planning another war on Lebanon for this Summer?

[kaal]

11. Always a good reason to end a cease-fire....

How about a good reason to start negotiation for a final peace settlement....?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. How absurd.

[yava]

23. a word for those who died ...

These guys made decisions that led to the death of 160 Israelis and 1000 Lebanese including many children. Several tens of thousands became homeless. And those two soldiers are still being held.
Why do some defend these decisions?

[EFerrari]

28. Welcome to DU, yava. I have the same question.

[PDJane]

31. Israel is holding lebanese citizens.

Six lebanese men are being held by Israel, and have been since 1990. Israel has not admitted to holding these men, but the IRC and other released detainees have seen them and given news to their families. Israel now states that they, and 15 other Lebanese nationals held in Israel, are administrative detainees held under the Emergency Powers (Detention) Law of 1979. As such they can be held indefinitely without charge or trial.


To read the rest, go here:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150181997?open&of=ENG-ISR

At the moment, Lebanon is negotiating with Israel for the release of 500 prisoners for the return of their "bargaining chips."

Israel is an occupying force. They are not innocent, nor are they right. If you are going to demand things of your neighbours, it behooves you to behave with a certain amount of dignity and fairness.

Before you accuse me of anti-semitism, know that I was born Jewish. I do not support Zionism, however, because the fact of the matter is that Zionism has nothing to do with religion. It is a political movement, it was born in terrorism, and terrorism is now a state tactic.

Also note that both Israel and the United States are signatories to the Geneva convention. Under that convention, territory gained in war is not to be kept. Civilian infrastructure and civilian lives, and most especially medical facilities, are to be protected. Water and power are to be protected.

Israel's security buffers are a joke; they are a land grab, plain and simple. And yes, Israel is mostly concerned with controlling the aquifiers for the region. I wish to note that Israel's use of those water resources is wasteful, and the "settlements" often dump raw sewage onto Palestinian farmland.

It is wrong. Israel's security is not a reason, but an excuse.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. outdated document by TEN YEARS!

Israel is NOT occupying Lebanon.

Your religion has NOTHING to do with whether you can or cannot be anti-Semitic, so introducing it is a moot point. But, your following statement shows a clear animosity toward Israel. The rest of your arguments as to the reasons are a joke.

[PDJane]

43. You are partially correct, mea culpa.

The occupation of Lebanon ended in 2000. That occupation went on for 22 years. That's not that long ago, and the major points still stand in regards to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.\

Israel has the policy wrong. Period. There is no excuse for the damage done to Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and it is a tactic guaranteed NOT to work.

I am not anti-semitic. One can be anti-zionist without being anti-semitic. If you are unable to tell the difference, that is either a product of ignorance or of brainwashing, but it ain't my monkey, and I refuse to take delivery.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. Some facts.

Gaza is not occupied.

I said nothing about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the Lebanese campaign.

I am not anti-semitic. One can be anti-zionist without being anti-semitic. If you are unable to tell the difference, that is either a product of ignorance or of brainwashing, but it ain't my monkey, and I refuse to take delivery.

I didn't say you were anti-Semitic. I said that your religion has no bearing on whether you can be or can't be anti-Semitic. There is a difference. And, yes, you are correct that one can be anti-Zionist and not be anti-Semitic, but since I said nothing about that issue, I fail to see why it was introduced.

[oberliner]

48. Would you agree that Hezbollah ought to dismantle as a militia?

Shouldn't the Lebanese army be in control of that border by now?

[PDJane]

49. One more time.

This is not a terrorist organization per se. They have supported and compensated the people of Lebanon, helped to retrieve bodies and rebuild facilities, and have acted in all ways as a part of the civilian infrastructure.

Hezbollah is made up of Shi'a. They are there, it is their turf, and they are as much a political organization as anything else. The organization has seats in parliament, and the military is mostly made up of Shi'a. The administration is not going to risk a civil war, and civil war there would be if they decided to "crack down" on the organization.

This is the reality in the middle east. It does not work the way that the US or Israel thinks it should.

[oberliner]

51. UN Resolution 1701 was adopted unanimously

That resolution calls for "full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State"

[oberliner]

41. And then came January 29th 2004

Israel, Hezbollah swap prisoners

(CNN) -- Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah conducted a historic prisoner swap Thursday after years of tense, secret negotiations brokered by Germany.

Two planes left Cologne, Germany, after the exchange -- one touching down in Beirut, Lebanon, to an enthusiastic greeting and the other landing in Tel Aviv, Israel, amid great national sorrow and anger.

Israel Defense Forces said more than two dozen Lebanese and Arab prisoners -- including two senior Hezbollah officials, Mustafa Dirani and Sheikh Abdel Karim Obeid -- flew to Beirut after the exchange occurred at an air base in Cologne. Stephan Smyrek, a German who worked with Hezbollah, also was freed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/29/prisoner.exchange/