Ceasefire Violation? (America, mission, eternal, suicide, Israel)

[croak]

Beirut fury at 'ceasefire breach'

Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora has accused Israel of a "naked violation" of the five-day-old ceasefire, after a raid by Israeli commandos deep inside Lebanon.
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.
But Lebanon's defence minister said he might suspend his army's deployment in the south if the UN failed to respond.
The Israeli raid centred on the village of Bodai, west of the city of Baalbek, some 100km (60 miles) north of the Israeli border. It is the first incident of its kind since the ceasefire came into effect.

What do you think? In my opinion, a pre-emptive strike is an offensive move. Israel has not been attacked, yet says it is a defensive move. Sigh.

Oh, and about those clashes: it seems Israel started firing first in each instance.

[Sunstone]

But, Paw, it's the Middle East! Since when has a ceasefire in the Middle East not been violated by one side, the other side, or both sides? What did you expect when you heard there was going to be a ceasefire? Did you expect that meant a ceasefire? Maybe in Europe that would mean a ceasefire, but not in the Middle East.

[Djamila]

It's impossible to imagine a cease fire for long, Paw. Hezbollah clearly won this war. They dramatically increased their support within Lebanon (up to 87%, that still astounds me) and, despite all of Israel's efforts, they're exactly where they started. Hezbollah still has the ability to fire rockets into Israel and it still has the two Israeli soldiers. The fact Hezbollah came out on top in this conflict is significant, why would they back down now?

Isreal is still running in circles. They dismantled the illegal colonies in the occupied Gaza Strip, and moved most of the settlers to illegal colonies in the occupied West Bank. Then they wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza didn't just lay down their arms? You have the Isreali left and centre pushing for peace, manifested in different ways, and the Israeli right pushing for a continuation of the policies of ethnic cleansing and territorial occupation.

This isn't going to end any time soon, not for as long as the United States supports Israel unconditionally. When 19 Israelies are killed in a suicide bombing, and American media rightly goes crazy about the war, but when 39 Palestinians were killed in bombings in Gaza the day before, and American media calls it a "period of relative calm" - you're bound to have millions of people who don't know the real story.

I've met Americans who don't even realize the Gaza Strip and West Bank are occupied territories, who don't even realize Israel's illegal colonies there violate the Geneva conventions, who don't even realize there's been a UN resolution on the books since the 1960s ordering them to end the occupation, etc. So until the American public takes the time to look at the situation on the ground, preferably from Israeli peace groups like Checkpoint Watch, Jews Against the Occupation, and so on.

I say that because they're the ones I trust most. Like when I make donations for the Palestinians, I always give it to Jewish groups because it's the only way to know, for certain, that not a single coin will go towards terrorism.

But it's just... this war won't end, not anytime soon. It's being wages by outside players anyway. If the Isrealies and the Palestinians knew what the wider world was using them as the front line for, they'd be ashamed of themselves.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

But, Paw, it's the Middle East! Since when has a ceasefire in the Middle East not been violated by one side, the other side, or both sides? What did you expect when you heard there was going to be a ceasefire? Did you expect that meant a ceasefire? Maybe in Europe that would mean a ceasefire, but not in the Middle East.

What he said...

[Elvendon]

It's awful. You'd think that a nation populated by a people who had suffered so much in their recent history would be a little less willing to oppress others and violate the resolutions of the international body that sanctioned the formation of their state...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Paw

What do you think? In my opinion, a pre-emptive strike is an offensive move. Israel has not been attacked, yet says it is a defensive move. Sigh.

Rather than sighing, perhaps you could protest the obscene violation represented by Lebanon's refusal to disarm Hezbollah or the latter's continued Katusha attacks - but, no, apparently not. Sigh.

[croak]

But, Paw, it's the Middle East! Since when has a ceasefire in the Middle East not been violated by one side, the other side, or both sides? What did you expect when you heard there was going to be a ceasefire? Did you expect that meant a ceasefire? Maybe in Europe that would mean a ceasefire, but not in the Middle East. [emhasis mine]

Great. So since a ceasefire will always be violated in the Middle East, why even have one? Why not just stay in a state of eternal war? I, for one, would like to see people actually abiding by a ceasefire. And I am one of those people that would like the war NOT to resume. I am a refugee. What joy.

Rather than sighing, perhaps you could protest the obscene violation represented by Lebanon's refusal to disarm Hezbollah or the latter's continued Katusha attacks - but, no, apparently not. Sigh.

Oh yes. Sigh. We would love to have yet another civil war, wouldn't we? -pauses- Right. -takes a deep breath- Right now, it's obvious that we can't disarm Hizbullah. Why? Because of the current conflict. By the way, we were working on disarming Hizbullah, but the war disrupted that. Anyways, the reason we can't is because we are in the middle of a conflict, and Hizbullah isn't going to get itself slaughtered. Once everything calms down, then we can talk about disarming. And none of the Katyushas have hit Israel, have they? If they have, please tell me. And I'm not being sarcastic or anything: please do tell me.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Paw

Great. So since a ceasefire will always be violated in the Middle East, why even have one? Why not just stay in a state of eternal war? I, for one, would like to see people actually abiding by a ceasefire. And I am one of those people that would like the war NOT to resume. I am a refugee. What joy.


Oh yes. Sigh. We would love to have yet another civil war, wouldn't we? -pauses- Right. -takes a deep breath- Right now, it's obvious that we can't disarm Hizbullah. Why? Because of the current conflict. By the way, we were working on disarming Hizbullah, but the war disrupted that. Anyways, the reason we can't is because we are in the middle of a conflict, and Hizbullah isn't going to get itself slaughtered. Once everything calms down, then we can talk about disarming. And none of the Katyushas have hit Israel, have they? If they have, please tell me. And I'm not being sarcastic or anything: please do tell me.

When the Israel broke the ceasefire, the Western media kept quiet and hush hush it up. If the ceasefire was broken by the Hizbellah, you will see the response all over the world.

[greatcalgarian]

But Israel insisted it had not breached the ceasefire.
"We had specific information of arms transfers taking place and we acted to prevent that violation, so that violation is not from the Israeli side - we were responding to a violation of the resolution by Hezbollah," said Israeli spokesman Mark Regev.


View a 360-degree panorama taken in Beirut




Israel has said it will continue to carry out such actions until an expanded international military force is in place to prevent Hezbollah's rearmament.
UN mission
The resolution which stopped the conflict said Israel should end all offensive military action and Hezbollah should end all attacks. It also called for a halt to all unauthorised arms deliveries to Lebanon.

In another thread, I have already predicted this is going to happen, because Israel can easily redefine what they understood as 'offensive' and 'defensive' action. You just have to have suspicion (not proof) that Hisbellah is carrying out unauthorised armd deliveries, and that is a good reason for the 'defensive' action. Thanks to GWB new definition of 'pre-emptive strike'. However, all these have to be applicable only by the Israeli. Pre-emptive strike by Hizbellah will be considered as ceasefire violation. Mark my words.
It is always one set of rule applied to one party, and another set applied to the other party. And we wonder why there is no peace in middle east. Sigh.

[kai]

the ceasefire is shaky to say the least hezbollah is supposed to disarm not rearm thats the deal if Israel sees them rearming then what do you expect .the Lebanese army is not going to disarm Hezbollah and France is now backpedalling . this is why Bush and Blair were trying to get a lasting ceasefire not rushing into a quick fix . whats the point of Israeli withdrawal leaving hezbollah intact claiming victory and rearming

the ceasfire is on the terms that the Lebanese and UN forces enter southern Lebanon ,hezbollah disarms and the attacks on Israel cease , its quite simple to understand. All this talk of Hezbollah winning makes me wonder if people are really watching what went on there ,If this doesnt work we will see a massive invasion of Lebanon. Israel has learnt by its mistake of trying to wipe out Hezbollah with air power,it will use ground troops tens of thousands of them. the UN must shape up or i feel sorry for the Lebanese