If the war comes back who will get blamed for starting it?
BEIRUT, Lebanon – Hezbollah said it foiled an Israeli commando raid early Saturday near its stronghold of Baalbek, a confrontation that could prove to be the biggest violation to date of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between
Israel and Hezbollah.
Lebanese security officials confirmed a report on Hezbollah TV that Israeli commandos were dropped off by helicopter outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a school. The officials also reported heavy Israeli overflights.
Israel’s army said it was looking into the report. [source]
From BBC News…
The raid, in the eastern Bekaa Valley, left one Israeli dead and two injured. Israel said it was trying to disrupt the movement of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah, and insisted the ceasefire was still intact.
The Israelis seem to have met more resistance than they expected, with one local fighter describing a gun battle lasting more than two hours, says the BBC’s Jon Leyne at the scene. Two helicopters landed in a cornfield and took away the soldiers, while Israeli fighter jets circled overhead, witnesses say.
There is speculation locally is that the Israelis may have been trying to capture a senior Hezbollah figure who lives in the village, our correspondent adds. Lebanese sources earlier told Reuters agency that three militants died in the incident
Now I get it, the reason US insisted on the wording Cessation of Hostile activities rather than Cease Fire is because cease fire entails the stopping of any new forms on hostility because its a term. While the words cessation of hostile activities are not a term and therefore mean only what they mean. Thus allowing Israel to start new hostile activities on the condition they stop the ones they were doing when the UN resolution was issued.
Israel said it clearly that they will never stop targetting HizbAllah anywhere.
Okay, Israel violates the cease fire, like anyone gonna complain or say something….lol
Is everyone so quick to forget the French and Lebanese force that was promised but never came? If the Lebanese and French won’t disarm Hezbollah like they promised, and if they won’t even try, then it’s up to Israel to do the job.
This war isn’t over.
I don’t know if what you just said was meant to be funny or you are really in this much denial.
Do you think there would be a UN resolution at all if Israel COULD disarm hizbollah? Seriously. Do you believe that Israel CHOSE to get its a** kicked out of Lebanon?
If not, (and I assume you are not) then how can you accept this logic?? An army sparing nothing for 33 days trying to at least advance, let alone disarm an opposing army, how can you accept that this same army is actually now MAGICALLY able to disarm the army that just whipped it??
And by the way, not that I am saying you’re not really watching the news; but I suggest you watch more news, because Lebanese and UN forces ARE being deployed on the border.
Nazar, but who will disarm Israel?
Sari, the problem is that Israel tried to fight this war “nicely” in order to minimize civilian casualites. Israel could have smashed Hezbollah, they just chose not too, which is only going to prolong the conflict. You accuse me of not following the news, but the fact is that Israel not only fought this war with its hand tied, it fought it with one finger. Consider this: Israel has a total strength of half a million personnel, including the resrves. In total, approximately 30,000 were called up. The reason Israel had so much trouble gaining ground in some areas is because they simply didn’t have enough soldiers. Remember the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur war, the 1948 War Of Independence? If Israel could achieve such stunning victories, don’t you think they would be able to crush a guerrila group like Hezbollah?
Nas, Israel is a sovereign nation, and sovereign nations have a right to a military. Just like Lebanon has a right to its own military, but not a right to Hezbollah.
Nicely?? Well I have 400+ corpses of children that scream otherwise, not counting 148 bodies of adults and children burried THIS DAY from martyrs of Qana and Sour.
Clearly you are an Israeli trying to push your agenda by continuing the long stream of polished lies that fortunately no body is buying any more.
So give it up. No one beleives that Israel fought nicely, and no one believes that Israel could’ve won that war, and no one believes that Israel could smash ANY real resistance. You have Hamas, and Hizb Allah and I hope soon more resistance factions all armed with faith and truth that La ysa7 illa Assa7ee7 (Have some translate that for you).
And I will not answer your question trying to apply comparison between the previous wars and this one as you obviously trying to hijack this conversation into somewhere you can lie more about. Suffice it to say, go read the blogs, there is more than plenty discussion about it.
The war that started 50 years ago did not end with the ceassation, as you and I know, it mearly started to do so.
Nazar, why not? why doesnt it have a right to a well armed militia? because israel says so? and what if hizballah merged with the lebanese army, would that make it “legit”?
Nas, of course Lebanon has a right to an armed militia. However, when that armed militia attacks other nations it is the duty of the host government to reign in that militia. If it fails to do so, then the attacked nation not only has a right, but a duty to respond and eliminate that militia.
If Hezbollah merged with the Lebanese army, and didn’t attack any nations then I see no problem. Lebanon is a sovereign state, it has a right to a military. However, if this “merged” Lebanese military attacked another nation, then that would be an open act of aggression, and it would mean war.
Sari, I know this is an emotionally charged topic, and sometimes we say things we later regret. Let us refrain from character assasination and insults, shall we? I think that a lot of what you say is untrue, but I don’t attack you-I debate you. I welcome disagreement because it challenges my beliefs, how about you?
First of all, I’m not an Israeli, and I’m not even a Jew. I don’t know if you will believe me, but it doesn’t really matter anyway. Secondly, you said that I “lie.” By defintion, a “lie” is a deliberate falsehood. I’m open to the idea that I may hold some incorrect opinions, in which case I would be incorrect, but not a liar. Everything I say, I sincerely believe.
If Israel launched a full scale invasion, a lot more Lebanese would have been killed. Compared to that, the 400+ that were killed are a small number. You don’t believe that Israel could have won this war, but I ask again, how could Israel have won those other wars and not beat a bunch of ragtag rebels? If Israel was ruthless, Hezbollah would have been done in a week, maximum. Of course, if Israel was ruthless, then many more Lebanese would have been killed. By the way, I’m not highjacking the debate, I’m asking a legitimate question.
For your information, I do read blogs. This one and a staunchly pro-Israeli blog, JoshuaPundit, are the main ones I read. See, I try to get both sides of the story.
Truly, shar al baliyeh ma yod7ik.
I don’t know which is more hilarious, the fact that you are trying to pass yourself as an unbiased bystander, or the deliberate falsehood of the statement “If Israel was ruthless …”.
Nazar so we can conclude based on your logic that attacking a nation gives a mandate for a country to respond. we can also conclude that occupying any of that nation’s land is also a mandate to respond. we can also conclude that agreeing to a cease fire and then breaking it by attacking is also a mandate to respond.
We can agree on everything besides the last point. When the aggressor hasn’t been disarmed, and most likely won’t be by any international force, it’s up to the attacked nation to do the disarming.
Sari, I never claimed to be unbiased. I am biased in favor of democracies, which Israel is and Lebanon was before it was highjacked by terrorists.
Clearly, you are biased in favor of the terrorists, and by terrorists I mean Hezbollah, don’t pass me that “Israel is a terrorist state” crap.
Nazar, then based on you logic we can conclude that since Israel, which has just broken the cease fire by being the aggressor, is not disarmed then its up to the attacked nation (lebanon) to do the disarming.
I’m talking about Hezbollah. They started this, and they haven’t been disarmed as promised by the French and UN.
The idea of Israel “being disarmed” is ridiculous. As a sovereign nation, it has the right to a military. If an Israeli militia attacked Lebanon(before this war) and the Israelis didn’t stop those attacks, Lebanon would have the right to invade Israel to stop the attacks. If the UN promised to disarm the militia but didn’t do so, then Lebanon would also have the right to take any steps necessary to disarm that militia.
Hizballah attacked an Israeli military outpost on lebanese soil in an attempt to have a prisoner exchange as has been done many times by both sides. How many times has Israel invaded the soverignty of Lebanon without a single Hizballah rocket being fired? How many Israeli jets have invaded the Lebanese airspace in the last few years? This latest attack being one of many. What is ridiculous is to assume that Hizballah can ever be disarmed, let alone by a handful of UN forces in less than one week. What is ridiciulous is the expectation that everyone should put down their guns except for the Israelis. What is ridiculous is that Israel is the only nation that has a right to defend itself.
1. i see you still havenÃ¢??t taken my suggestion to read a book.
2. There are two ways to fix the delusion you live in. One is education the other is a frontal lobotomy.
please donÃ¢??t get me wrong…i donÃ¢??t hate you or have it out for you. i donÃ¢??t even know you. i just donÃ¢??t like to see a young mind go to waste.
Nas, you are clearly misunderstanding what I am saying. Of course Lebanon has the right to defend itself. However, if Lebanon attacks Israel, then Israel has a right to defend itself too. In this case, if a group withing Lebanon attacks Israel and the Lebanese military doesn’t stop it, then that group is a state-within-a-state, warranting defense measures by Israel.
Fad, don’t patronize me. I’ll have you know that when this conflict started, I was very anti-Israel. I thought that “I would be the happiest person in the world if Israel ceased to exist.”
However, I was also curious about the underlying origins of this conflict, and the more I read about it, the more I found out about the history, the more pro-Israeli I became.
There are two sided to this conflict. No one side is entirely in the right, but in most cases the violence has been perpetrated by the Palestinians. Also, Israel is a functioning, prosperous democracy. I don’t know if you have any regard for democracy at all, but I do, and this reason alone would be enough for me to support Israel.
Nazar, again hizballah did not attack israel, it attacked an israeli outpost on lebanese soil.
as for violence perpetrated by the palestinians. when you occupy a land you will inevitably inspire and encourage resistance from those whom you occupy and resistance will out last occupation everytime.
Perhaps you should continue to read about history further back than a month ago or 6 months ago. Go back further if you’re so inclined to find a point of origin for blame.
Nas, Hezbollah conducted a cross-border raid into Israel and killed 8 Israeli soldiers and captured two others. Let me repeat that-Hezbollah went inside the Israeli borders, and not on the Lebanese side of the Sheeba Farms area.
Besides, if Hezbollah’s goal was to protect national sovereignity, then why continuously shoot Katyusha rockets into Israeli civilian areas in order to indiscriminately kill Israelis? I could understand if Hezbollah attacked only the IDF, but you can’t deny that they deliberately targeted the Israeli civilians.
Israel withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon. How much further would you have them withdraw? To the Mediterranean Sea? The catalyst for this continuous conflict is the Palestinians’ refusal to accept the existence of Israel.
As for the history, I’ve read it from the beginning. The very beginning.
Nazar, you may be suffering from wikiality. hopefully you’re not getting your history from there either. It all comes down to the version you’re willing to believe. Most of the international media claimed Hizballah had attacked on lebanese soil but after the Israeli government released a statement some of them such as MSNBC decided to change their story and other american media (as usual) followed suit. But a great deal of media did not change the story as all indications showed the attack took place in Ayta Al-Shab which is inside Lebanon…
even israel’s media reported it thus so. and so did most of the international media.
moreover, what is the difference between hizballah launching rockets in to Israeli civilian areas, katyusha rockets nevertheless, and Israel launching missiles and cluster bombs in civilian areas. the airport? factories producing food products for God’s sake.
How about withdrawing from the occupied territories? Do you know why the world calls them the occupied territories? It’s not because they’re free, the word “occupied” is not metaphorical. How about withdrawing from the farms in south lebanon? How about giving back the jordan valley and all the farm land currently being stolen by a wall?
the list is endless. they can keep the mediterranean.