Proportionate response in the Lebanon

Originally posted by xs
[b]Here's another account:

At 9:05 AM local time (04:05 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah militants attacked two Israeli armored Humvees on a routine patrol along the Israel- explain the confusion about the border, but if you don't believe Al Jazeera, well ....[/i][/b]

The facts are that the initial reports indicated that the original incident occured in Lebanon. Then the IDF released a press statement saying Hezbollah staged a "cross border" raid. This is what news agencies are now saying, exactly what Israel wants them to.

EDIT: They also keep using the inaccurate word "kidnapped" to refer to soldiers captured in a military operation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you even know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah?

Stop asking stupid questions . . .fool.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Stop asking stupid questions . . .fool.

I ask because you claimed that Hamas broke their ceasefire because of something Hezbollah did.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I ask because you claimed that Hamas broke their ceasefire because of something Hezbollah did.

I had links to the bbc web page deleted from this thread. i will post them again.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you kidding? Israel has killed over 200 in Gaza in the last month! Hamas had in place a cease fire from April 2005 to June 2006; they did NO actions against Israel. Yet, the Israelis killed hundreds in Gaza including targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders.

Seriously, is this the very first time you even read anything about the situation in the Middle East? Because you seem incredibly uninformed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4701775.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4281450.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4559089.stm


Thats just three examples of this cease fire being broken.


So, the question is, do you know how to tell the truth?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
I would be interested in your views on how you would've done things differently in the Lebanon-Israel conflict ?

If we take it that Israels response so far has been disproportionate, how would you determine when it would've been correct to attack the Lebanon? How many Israelis should've died before A response would be deemed correct?

Thats war what else can you say all conflicts are much the same and have been for a long time.
Not as bad as civil wars look at the american cival war.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4701775.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4281450.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4559089.stm


Thats just three examples of this cease fire being broken.


So, the question is, do you know how to tell the truth?

The first link refers to fighting between Hamas and Fatah. Fatah claimed that it was trying to prevent Hamas from launching an attack on Israel; Hamas denied it. Where is there a violation of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel?

I can't get the other two links to work; I'll try again later.

I guess the question is do you know what a cease fire between Hamas and Israel means?

EDIT: Here's a bbc article from June: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5065982.stm

Originally posted by no1marauder
The first link refers to fighting between Hamas and Fatah. Fatah claimed that it was trying to prevent Hamas from launching an attack on Israel; Hamas denied it. Where is there a violation of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel?

I can't get the other two links to work; I'll try again later.

I guess the question is do you know wha ...[text shortened]... s?

EDIT: Here's a bbc article from June: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5065982.stm

The first one was (screw those mods for deleting my last post)
but hte second one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4281450.stm
Definitely wasn't. The ceasefire was broken as early as april 2005.


So, now you can answer my original question.

How many Isaerli lives would have to have been lost before defence would've been justified ?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
The first one was (screw those mods for deleting my last post)
but hte second one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4281450.stm
Definitely wasn't. The ceasefire was broken as early as april 2005.


So, now you can answer my original question.

How many Isaerli lives would have to have been lost before defence would've been justified ?

I've answered this question the terms of which you keep changing. I'll look at the other link but I'm pretty sure April 2005 was prior to Hamas' unilateral ceasefire.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
The first one was (screw those mods for deleting my last post)
but hte second one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4281450.stm
Definitely wasn't. The ceasefire was broken as early as april 2005.


So, now you can answer my original question.

How many Isaerli lives would have to have been lost before defence would've been justified ?

Perhaps you missed this part of your second link:

They were responding to the shooting of three Islamic Jihad militants in the West Bank and a blast which killed 15 at a rally in Gaza - an explosion blamed on Israel by Hamas but disowned by the Israelis.


An explosion at a Hamas rally celebrating the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza killed 16 people (1 died a few days later). In response, soem members of Hamas fired rockets at Israel which killed no one, but did injure a few civilians. The Hamas leadership then instructed its military wing to cease all rocket attacks.

Who acted with restraint: Israel or Hamas? And how many Palestinian lives would have to be lost before defense would be justified in your view?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound

How many Isaerli lives would have to have been lost before defence would've been justified ?[/b]

I'm currently reading about international law (Anton et al 2005) so i would like an attempt to answer your question. However, i will 1) frame it on the assumption that you posed the question for the purpose of debate and not an actual figure and 2) answer along the lines of policy. This is very very concise and will no doubt still leave your question unresolved because international conflict is not that simple, but some of the things that have been stated throughout the thread can be seen in this context.

The dominant legal theory that underpins international law is positivism. Under this theory States have absolute sovereignty, political independance, exclusive jurisdiction over their nation and freedom from external interference, to name a few. Now positivism in effect is absent 'reason', 'morality' and 'justice'. The Charter of the UN is based on this, so this is what they grapple with.

Apart from consent or self defense, the other exception to the rule for interference by another state is humanitarian intervention, IF it is limited to humanitarian ends and absent ulterior motives by intervening State/s. This option does not always gather full support from the international community of States because of past experiences. So there will often be disagreement amongst the member states. I think this is what is happening right now, the proposed draft allowed Israel to remain in Lebanon but Lebanon wants Israel right out. Security council can not act when there is disagreement amongst permanent members (France, China, Russia, US, UK). It also appears that civilian deaths would have to be on such a large scale that it shocks the conscience of all human beings before intervention is justified, but thats not to say diplomatic measures are not being sort during this process.

Gender issues provides an either/or approach. Given that international conflict is male dominated then it is more likely that military action is the preferred approach, whereas, a feminine approach could have likely been to seek a compromise or otherwise. Example, when Colin Powell presented his case to the hawks and said "lets negotiate or compromise", he was met with a "what are you a freakin woman, get someone with balls in here" and so entered Condoleeza. If more females held top positions in negotiations, some arguments suggest it would be different?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The facts are that the initial reports indicated that the original incident occured in Lebanon. Then the IDF released a press statement saying Hezbollah staged a "cross border" raid. This is what news agencies are now saying, exactly what Israel wants them to.

EDIT: They also keep using the inaccurate word "kidnapped" to refer to soldiers captured in a military operation.

The initial reports you speak of came from Hezbollah, however the
video of the destroyed vehicles and dead Israelis proved otherwise.

The word "kidnapped" is accurate for anyone being held for ransom.

Originally posted by xs
The initial reports you speak of came from Hezbollah, however the
video of the destroyed vehicles and dead Israelis proved otherwise.

The word "kidnapped" is accurate for anyone being held for ransom.

There's no question at all that 4 Israelis were killed in a tank which ran over a land mine 5 Km inside Lebanon, is there? Please give a link to a "video" that clearly shows "destroyed vehicles and dead Israelis" from July 12th inside Israel.

No "ransom" has been demanded, so the term remains inaccurate and propaganda. Prisoner exchanges are quite common in war.

EDIT: Some initial reports came from Hezbollah, some from the Lebanese police. I've seen nothing that would indicate reports from the IDF are more truthful than either source.