Israeli planes violate Lebanon airspace - Page 2

Jijala · 07-25-08, 12:20 PM

Ok let's agree here. There has never been any terrorist act commited by Hezbollah, or at least there has never been any evidence to that. That's why the labelling seems fictitious.

But back to the initial question. What measures would you propose to ensure that Israel behaves peacefully and abides by international law in the future ?

donsutherland1 · 07-25-08, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jijala

Ok let's agree here. There has never been any terrorist act commited by Hezbollah, or at least there has never been any evidence to that. That's why the labelling seems fictitious.

Factually incorrect.

From The New York Times:

In 1983, more than 260 Americans died in Hezbollah-directed terrorist attacks, including truck bombings that destroyed the American Embassy, then situated on the seafront in western Beirut, and a compound near the airport that housed a United States Marine detachment. In 1984, a second attack on the embassy caused nine additional deaths.

Source: John F. Burns, "Army Breaks Up Beirut Demonstration at U.S. Embassy," The New York Times, February 18, 2000.

Jijala · 07-25-08, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Factually incorrect.

From The New York Times:

In 1983, more than 260 Americans died in Hezbollah-directed terrorist attacks, including truck bombings that destroyed the American Embassy, then situated on the seafront in western Beirut, and a compound near the airport that housed a United States Marine detachment. In 1984, a second attack on the embassy caused nine additional deaths.

Source: John F. Burns, "Army Breaks Up Beirut Demonstration at U.S. Embassy," The New York Times, February 18, 2000.

A newspaper featuring Thomas Friedman as middle-east expert can hardly be termed credible. also, where does the NYT present the proof of Hezbollah involvement ? This is because there is none, and this is because all sane countries around the world do not term Hezbollah a terrorist group.

donsutherland1 · 07-25-08, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jijala

A newspaper featuring Thomas Friedman as middle-east expert can hardly be termed credible...

First, there is a difference between the opinion page on which Thomas Friedman is a syndicated columnist and the news pages. I cited an article on a news page.

Second, the Middle East Online portal states, "Shadowy Hezbollah military leader Imad Mughnieh, who was wanted by Interpol and the United States in connection with bloody attacks around the globe..." If there were no evidence to link Hezbollah to terrorism, Interpol would not have wanted to arrest Mr. Mughnieh. Instead, Mr. Mughnieh was among the world's most wanted terrorists.

Democrat4life · 07-25-08, 05:48 PM

I support Israel one hundred percent but they need to calm down. They are trying to be the U.S. of the middle east and all it is doing is causing trouble. If Israel pisses off enough people in the middle east, and all the countries declare war, I don't think the U.S. would support them on that.

Israel is trying to prove that they have the military might to destroy the middle east, and they do, but they need to stop flaunting it.

If the U.S. is a really ally to Israel then we would put a stop to their shenanagins.

Frankly, the UN is week and the U.S. is a prime example of that. The entire security council but Britain, and us of course, vetoed the U.S. invading Iraq, we did it anyway, did the UN do anyting?

No.

We are just setting a bad example for foreign countries, pretty much saying interational law deosn't mean anything.

We set up the damn UN you would think we would abide the laws set by them.

bub · 07-25-08, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Israel has an inherent right to act in its self-defense. If the UN were enforcing the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for, among other things, an end to arms supplies for the Hezbollah terrorist group and for Lebanon's compliance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, such flights would not be necessary. UN Sec. Res. 1559 calls for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." In other words, Lebanon is obligated to disband and disarm Hezbollah.

That is not happening. Therefore, as Israel's security is threatened by Lebanon's non-compliance with its international obligations and the UN's failure to bring about Lebanon's compliance, Israel has little choice but to take such steps as are necessary to safeguard its security. In short, if Israel's overflights of Lebanon are to end, Lebanon must fulfill the terms of its own obligations, including the disbanding and disarming of Hezbollah. Israel, like any other sovereign state, cannot reasonably be expected to refrain from exercising its inherent right to safeguard its national security.

in what way is violating Lebanon's airspace "self defense"?

what if Iran violated Israel's airspace with bombers?

Slainte · 07-25-08, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Factually incorrect.

From The New York Times:

In 1983, more than 260 Americans died in Hezbollah-directed terrorist attacks, including truck bombings that destroyed the American Embassy, then situated on the seafront in western Beirut, and a compound near the airport that housed a United States Marine detachment. In 1984, a second attack on the embassy caused nine additional deaths.

Source: John F. Burns, "Army Breaks Up Beirut Demonstration at U.S. Embassy," The New York Times, February 18, 2000.

If the New York Times calls it a terrorist attack who is anyone else to argue...

Most of those Americans were professional soldiers there to prop up a government based on a pretty unjust sectarian balance of power.

Lebanon was in a civil war and whether they wanted to or not by trying to maintain the political status quo in Lebanon those marines had picked a side. Terrorism is a loaded word and these days reserved for the most despicable of acts. Attacking foreign soldiers helping one side in a civil war doesn't merit the term.

There were reports of Hezbollah being involved in bombings of Jewish centres in Argentina in retalliation for the Israeli assasination of their leader in the early 90's, if solid proof of that was ever presented then maybe the term could be applied. In any case that was over a decade ago, at worst I'd call Hezbollah an extremist paramilitary organisation.

donsutherland1 · 07-25-08, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slainte

Most of those Americans were professional soldiers there to prop up a government based on a pretty unjust sectarian balance of power.

The NYT article also referred to an attack on the U.S. Embassy. In general, an embassy is not a military objective. Hence, an attack against an embassy can be termed an act of terrorism and would satisfy the definition under such international law instruments as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

new coup for you · 07-25-08, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

The countries below have officially listed Hezbollah in at least some part as a terrorist organization.

Australia The Hezbollah External Security Organization [170]
Canada The entire organization Hezbollah [171]
Israel The entire organization Hezbollah [172][173]
Netherlands The entire organization Hezbollah [174][175]
United Kingdom The Hezbollah External Security Organization [176]
United States The entire organization Hezbollah [177]

...so the Anglosphere and the Netherlands.

i.e. the Netherlands and the US.

Slainte · 07-25-08, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

The NYT article also referred to an attack on the U.S. Embassy. In general, an embassy is not a military objective. Hence, an attack against an embassy can be termed an act of terrorism and would satisfy the definition under such international law instruments as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

Well from the article "In 1983, more than 260 Americans died in Hezbollah-directed terrorist attacks"

Only 17 Americans died in the embassy bombing, so I'm concluding most of the others died in the Barracks bombing, a Marine barracks certainly is a military target.

Also the embassy would likely be home to many of the Americans involved in bringing US troops into Lebanon, inevitably to the detriment of one Lebanese faction or the other. The decisions made in that building could have had severe military consequences for any faction, to say it wasn't involved in the war is disingenuous.

I'm not saying that attack was fully justified, only that to claim it was some barabaric act of terrorism completely ignores the realities of Lebanon in 1984.