| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 10:34:01 PM |
Any cite yet?
I sighted a troll who attacked me and didn't address the subject in a substantive manner. Any chance his post will be deleted?
I did cite a reference to the implied fact that Hezbollah still has weapons. They killed an officer. You don't suppose they did that by pitching stones? Read resolution 1701. It is the topic of the thread. I have quoted it, and it is my major citation. Somebody needs to prove to me that Israeli soldiers were on something other than a recon mission when they were attacked by Hezbollah carrying the weapons that are outlawed by the resolution. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 10:40:37 PM |
I sighted a troll who attacked me and didn't address the subject in a substantive manner. Any chance his post will be deleted?
See below:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/usermessages.aspx?user_Id=1101896
Which post has the cite with proof of hezbollah receiving weapons from Iran or Syria?
That'll keep the quote above from qualifying as a troll.
They killed an officer.
Where was he?
Somebody needs to prove to me that Israeli soldiers were on something other than a recon mission when they were attacked by Hezbollah carrying the weapons that are outlawed by the resolution.
Actually, no
Where was the proof that gave the IDF a valid reason to be there?
And why has this proof STILL not been given to the UN?
Or are YOU a troll?
Or, ....what? | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 10:58:22 PM |
Where was the proof that gave the IDF a valid reason to be there?
You have not cited the source of the document that requires the IDF to show proof. I asked for that.
Where was the proof that gave the IDF a valid reason to be there?
You have not cited the source of the document that requires the IDF to show proof. I asked for that. Please try to be reasonable. I cannot find that requirement within 1701. I have shown what I found. Hezbollah is not yet disarmed. Is bad faith assumed? I'm not really sure what Lap Goch has to do with it, but to prove an Isreali violation; it is necessary to prove an offensive action. It is not necessary for Israel to prove that the action was defensive. Read the text. Assuming we are talking legal action, it would not be a legal question if everyone assumed the action was defensive, so Isreal would have to prove nothing. Why would the burden of proof shift to Israel if they would assert the action was defensive, or minimally, within the spirit of the resolution? It is critical to note, that if no assertion of a violation is made, then no proof is required. The burden of proof should lie with those who accuse Israel of a violation.
Cite your proof! | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:02:26 PM | I'm not really sure what Lap Goch has to do with it
Sorry, I thought Monty Python was something that might be known in Cali (the context was also explicit)
It is critical to note, that if no assertion of a violation is made, then no proof is required.
This ISN'T the UN, ...it's a discussion forum, ...and you've cried "Troll".
Because you've been asked for a cite.
Got one?
The burden of proof should lie with those who accuse Israel of a violation.
Cite?
All I've said is "wait and see"
| |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:10:30 PM | Sorry, I asked for one cite, and given many. I won't be bullied. The troll was posted number 24. Another cite.
How many cites do you want before you site your source on Burden of Proof. Any court I have ever attended, it has fallen on the prosecution. Israel is the accused in this thread. Please cite your source that requires the burden of proof upon the accused. I have only proposed scenarios that could vindicate the accused. It is the prosecutions duty to prove that these scenarios are invalid, and that in fact, a violation has occurred. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:20:46 PM | The troll was posted number 24. Another cite
Report it!
How many cites do you want before you site your source on Burden of Proof
One.
Factual proof to account for "just cause" in what Lebanon reported as a violation of the cease fire agreement.
the same cite I've asked for.
Israel has just cause?
Where is it?
Lebanon has not retaliated, Israel is under investigation for violating the cease fire. do you have a cite for Israel calling Lebanon on a violation of the cease fire?
UN chief slams Europeans for undermining UNIFIL
By Shlomo Shamir and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has criticized European member states for failing to send troops to expand the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) as mandated under Resolution 1701.
While states such as Bangladesh and Nepal are already committed to sending troops, the leading European countries with the best-equipped armies and logistics operations have been slow to respond to Annan's urgent pleas for personnel.
Saturday's IDF commando raid near Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, purportedly to prevent arms deliveries to Hezbollah, is not expected to make the UNIFIL recruitment operation any easier.
Annan also criticized the raid, accusing Israel of violating the terms of UN cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.
TO VALIDATE what otherwise is a violation of the cease fire?
Or is it time to side step accountability, to whine about the UN? | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:30:21 PM |
Any court I have ever attended, it has fallen on the prosecution. Israel is the accused in this thread. Please cite your source that requires the burden of proof upon the accused.
Given that it's plainly obvious that Israel has been bombing Lebanon again, I'd say that burden has been met. To carry on with your analogy it's then up to the accused to prove self defence. Or can I just go to court after killing someone and force the prosecution to prove that I wasn't acting out of a belief that I was about to be attacked? I say I thought that guy was going to attack me - prove I didn't think that. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:33:24 PM | I suppose if one side can cite hearsay, then so can another. I don't know if this Israeli response is new.
""It was an act of self-defense and not a violation of the cease-fire," an Olmert associate said. "Hizbullah broke the cease-fire by trying to import Syrian and Iranian weapons. If Lebanon doesn't do what it committed itself to, Israel won't wait six years to allow Hizbullah to rearm. We are permitted to act when the Lebanese do not fulfill their commitments, and the operations will continue as long as the international forces are not ready to take on their responsibilities.
Olmert's associates pointed out that Hizbullah had broken the cease-fire on several instances by firing at IDF units since the cease-fire took effect last Monday. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525906825&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I suppose we can wait for proof that goes beyond rhetoric. Until then, we can cite propaganda. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:38:46 PM | we can cite propaganda.
Well, actually, ....there are some who say:
WAIT AND SEE..........
???
Please cite where I have stated otherwise in regards to the ceasefire agreement.
On either side....
"We can cite propaganda"
sure, or we can have a perspective other than the "wrestlin-esque" one. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/19/2006 11:51:57 PM |
we can have a perspective other than the "wrestlin-esque" one.
You mean like the people who think that that the burden of proof for Murder One falls on the defendant to prove it wasn't manslaughter or self defense? If somebody dies, they don't immediately accuse someone of murder. They do seek proof. They submit that proof to a jury if they believe a manslaughter or a murder occurred. This thread is posed in accusation form, that not only ignores that Hezbollah was the first to violate, but accuses Israel of breaking the resolution. It is a pleasant gesture to re-iterate the wait and see approach, but I would suggest waiting and seeing without an accusatory posture, and with the full knowledge that the resolution is already broken. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 12:38:37 AM | Annan: Israeli Raid Violates Cease-Fire http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2333769&page=1
Page 2
"We have put the matter forward in a serious manner and the U.N. delegation was understanding of the seriousness of the situation," Murr told reporters. "We are awaiting an answer."
Answer
A statement issued by Annan's spokesman later Saturday said that the U.N. chief spoke with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Olmert about the fighting. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities," it said.
"All such violations of Security Council Resolution 1701 endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation," said the statement, issued by spokesman Stephane Dujarric.
Peace  | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 7:33:03 AM | "... are you guys tripping that Israel's infringing on human rights for not letting Hezbullah reload in peace? "
That is exactly what they are saying Anticon...Nice of Iran to re-arm the Hezbolla terrorist`s...huh?
"They are supposed to report the cease fire agreement violation to the UN."
Reporting anything to the UN is a waste of breath...People complain about the US sticking it`s nose into places it does not belong...trying to control everything...What do you think the damn UN is trying to do? The UN is a joke...always has been...always will be....I am for booting the UN out of New York...The US, UK, Isreal and all our allies removing ourselves from this farce called the UN... | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 11:54:11 AM | nothing new there. if israel respected previous resolutions of the UN, we would not be at resolution 1701. so I guess it was expected of israel to break the cease fire. it was more a question of when than who.
but hey, israel has no intention of respecting international law that provided it with a basis for its own existence. a country bent on stealing land from its neighbours and killing innocent civilians and making life miserable in the occupied territories is not a country that will respect a piece of paper it signed.
there are a lot more lebanese civilians alive, armed hezbollah roaming in south lebanon, a lot more land just waiting to be stolen to build the greater israel, so yes why should israel be any different that it's been for the last 50 years. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 12:25:36 PM | Yeah, Isreal violated the truce and attacked a schoolhouse, according to my latest reports. The evidence is in. The location was south of the Litani River, and Isreali commandos were ambushed while seeking an unproven target.
I guess we are allowed to interpret the evidence as we see fit, but reading resolution 1701 would be an important measure in determining whether it was violated. South of Litani, and Ambush would be the evidence I would focus on, not the hearsay and propaganda of the diplomats and enemies.
Is returning fire in an Ambush an offensive operation? Has Lebanon completed the parallel implementation required south of the Litani? Gee, lets all flip our one-sided coin to determine if Israel is at fault, and ignore all of the evidence and the text and spirit of the resolution and declare that Israel attacked a school house. Let's completely forget that the occupation of a schoolhouse for military ordnance and housing of troops is a crime against humanity, not simply a violation of a UN resolution. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 1:28:27 PM |
I guess we are allowed to interpret the evidence as we see fit, but reading resolution 1701 would be an important measure in determining whether it was violated. South of Litani, and Ambush would be the evidence I would focus on, not the hearsay and propaganda of the diplomats and enemies.
1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;
With regards to "South of Litani"...
The resolution calls for "establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL"..."No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government"
The resolution calls on UNIFIL (not Israel) to assist the government of Lebanon (not Israel) in disarming the militias, in accordance with 1680 ("further efforts to disband and disarm all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and to restore fully the Lebanese Government’s control over all Lebanese territory") and stopping weapons shipments. Seeing as how Israel is supposed to pull out as they go in...that means Israel should be pulled out before Lebanon and UNIFIL work on this.
Peace | |
|
rks58
|
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 41 | |
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 2:48:09 PM |
Is returning fire in an Ambush an offensive operation?
Don't you think the more relevant question would be "Is conducting an operation into an area where they aren't supposed to be an offensive operation?".
If they're not supposed to be there and got caught in an ambush as a result I would have to say it's more a case of 'getting caught with your pants down' and trying to bluff your way out.
Let's completely forget that the occupation of a schoolhouse for military ordnance and housing of troops is a crime against humanity,
Actually it's not. As long as it isn't being used for its' original purpose concurrently with its' military use civilian structures can be appropriated for military use. All that has to happen is for it to not be used as a school while troops are being quartered there. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 3:55:57 PM |
Seeing as how Israel is supposed to pull out as they go in...that means Israel should be pulled out before Lebanon and UNIFIL work on this.
I'm seeing that your semantics skills are not very adept. As they go in, not before they go in. Parallel. Not unilateral. It doesn't get more explicit. To me, it appears that the UN is hedging on the agreement, therefore violating it with their diplomacy. If the agreement had specified BEFORE, I would take your argument seriously. Really. Unfortunately, I read for explicit meaning, not an interpretation based on a prejudicial bias. I will grant that the phrase "as that deployment begins" is a complex contradiction in the document, but the context of "parallel" in the same sentence does indicate that the effect is not unilateral, and again, the word "as" is not the same as "before," and clearly must allow for a logistical timeframe. This is only reasonable common sense.
"establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river"
Now lets look at the semantics of "Establishment of." Does it say that the area is already established? No, it does not. It calls for the future tense of Establishing such a zone. Explicitly. Again, not to be hedged by extravagant propaganda or prejudice. It is the actual text of the resolution. It is legal document that should be interpreted for its exact meaning, and not hedged based on the inabilities of certain parties to carry out their responsibilities in a timely manner. Hezbollah did fire rockets at Israeli forces, and the UN hedged on its responsibility then. The French and Lebanese are backpeddling as fast as they can, and have their white flags at half staff already pointing at Israel when you know they are just as scared that Hezbollah will attack them as they have time and time again. Yeah, this agreement is going to work. Pardon my pessimism. Pardon my actual reading of the document. Pardon my obvious prejudice. Pardon my caution for the security of any force in that region when Hezbollah is allowed to re-arm.
Being ambushed must be a new Lap Goch offensive strategy as the sun sets slowly in the east.
As long as it isn't being used for its' original purpose concurrently with its' military use civilian structures can be appropriated for military use.
Who ever heard of Hezbollah doing that? Pass me a set of those blinders. I certainly don't want to see any crime against humanity, and would rather hedge everything by requiring the other side to prove its contentions. Great contention that the kids were never in school while the weapons or fighters were there. Got any proof? | |
|
rks58
|
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 43 | |
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 4:08:44 PM |
Great contention that the kids were never in school while the weapons or fighters were there. Got any proof?
Well, lets see...
Going to school in the middle of a war zone? Out frolicking for recess as the f-16's scream overhead?
You can't hear the little voices, "But mom, we can't go, it's a 'bomb day', they said so on the radio"?
Proof? How about a little common sense? (oh, wait, I forgot, Muslim mothers only love their children when they become martyrs).
How about proof they were there? | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 5:35:35 PM |
I'm seeing that your semantics skills are not very adept. As they go in, not before they go in. Parallel.
No, you're skills just mashed two of my statements into one.
"calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel"
The resolution gives the job of disarmament and weapons smuggling to Lebanon and UNIFIL, not Israel. It is impossible for Lebanon and UNIFIL to do that job, BEFORE moving into the area. As soon as Lebanon and UNIFIL starts deploying into the area, Israel is supposed to move ALL of its forces out. Get it? AS SOON AS they move in, Israel is supposed to move out. They CAN'T do their job until they move in. That only leaves the option of doing the job AFTER Israel has moved out.
Now lets look at the semantics of "Establishment of." Does it say that the area is already established? No, it does not. It calls for the future tense of Establishing such a zone.
Exactly. The resolution calls on Israel to move out AS SOON AS they start deploying. But, then leaves Hezbollah as a future job for Lebanon and UNIFIL.
Again, not to be hedged by extravagant propaganda or prejudice. It is the actual text of the resolution.
So, quit defending Israel...they've already broken the agreement.
Peace | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 6:04:47 PM | So, quit defending Israel...they've already broken the agreement.
Quit flipping your one sided coin. IN PARALLEL. Not unilaterally. Not before. REAL SIMPLE.
Hezbollah already broke the agreement in multiple instances. How could Israel break it if it was already broken?
Why weren't the events of the last week, when Israel actually killed Hezbollah fighters, considered breaking the agreement? They fired their weapons at VIOLATORS, and it was a justified self-defense.
I'll agree that Lebanon and the UN have future responsibilities, when they deploy. Parallel deployment would encourage them to deploy a lot of forces to allow the Israelis to go home. If you want to make a parallel number game out of it, you could assert that Israel would have to remove 1000 troops for every 1000 UN or Lebanese soldier that replaced them. Gee, so Isreal should remove about 50 troops tonight at the rate the UN is deploying. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 6:24:11 PM | israel has no business in lebanon period. it's a violation of international law. hezbollah, in case you needed to be reminded, are lebanese people. lebanon is their land and they have the righ to live anywhere in their country. just like people in the us, they have the right to bear arms. if you own country were agressed, you would want ( I am not sure now ) the foreign army to retreat to within their borders. it's easy to be generous with other people's land. so you can give israel your own property but you can't give them any lebanese piece of land.
if their soldiers were not caught inside lebanon, this whole mess would have been avoided but here we are trying to rewrite history. we are shocked if people defend the nazi agression but here we are ( well not me ) defending an agressor........
maybe it's time for you to switch on the light above your head to see things a bit more clearly. | |
|
rks58
|
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 47 | |
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 6:38:38 PM |
Parallel deployment would encourage them to deploy a lot of forces to allow the Israelis to go home. If you want to make a parallel number game out of it, you could assert that Israel would have to remove 1000 troops for every 1000 UN or Lebanese soldier that replaced them. Gee, so Isreal should remove about 50 troops tonight at the rate the UN is deploying.
That might be a valid interpretation if it was about geometry but it's not. It simply means in an interdependant way, that is, the Israeli withdrawal depends on UN deployment and UN deployment depends the Israeli withdrawal.
The language does not specify how many troops the UN has to deploy before the Israelis withdraw, it simply says they will deploy. It does however say that the Israelis MUST WITHDRAW COMPLETELY. At the time the ceasefire came into effect there were already 2,000 UN troops in Lebanon and within the designated zone. That is sufficient to trigger the Israeli requirement to withdraw completely under the terms of the cease-fire. | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 6:38:44 PM | So far, the only official release on Isreali or Lebanese cease-fire violations is this:
Israel's violation of cessation of hostilities endangers fragile calm – Annan
19 August 2006 – United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been in touch with top Israeli and Lebanese officials today following an Israeli raid in eastern Lebanon which he warned endangers the fragile calm that has generally held in the region since Monday.
“The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701,” a UN spokesman said in a statement. Adopted on 11 August, that text mandated a halt to the fighting which took effect three days later.
There have also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft, according to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is helping to support and coordinate the Israeli withdrawal.
Mr. Annan said violations of Security Council resolution 1701 such as the Israeli raid today “endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation and undermine the authority of the Government of Lebanon.”
He called on all parties “to respect strictly the arms embargo, exercise maximum restraint, avoid provocative actions and display responsibility in implementing resolution 1701.”
The Secretary-General has today spoken to the Prime Ministers of Israel and Lebanon about this matter, according to the spokesman, who added that Mr. Annan has further instructed that daily reports of compliance on the cessation of hostilities by the parties should be provided to the Security Council.
Under resolution 1701, UNIFIL is to be given more robust rules of engagement and expanded to include up to 15,000 peacekeepers to support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy across the south of the country at the same time as Israel withdraws from the area.
Israeli violations of the cease fire were reported to the security council by Lebanon, Israel has admitted to them.
Lebanese violations, if there ARE any; as reported by the Israeli Prime Minister, have NOT been reported to the security council, they've been used as pre-text to Israeli cease-fire violations after the fact. They have yet to be substantiated, at least I haven't been able to find any information that is anything other than allegations.
Surely if Hezbolla is being re-supplied with weapons, ...as is being alledged; there's proof of this. I've tried to find an evidence of this, or that Israel has supplied proof to the UN, ...reconnaissance photos, satellite imagery, and other means of making a case for Lebanese violations. Israel has access to the highest means of technology in this regard, ...if they have a case, why hasn't Lebanon been warned by the security council?
Hmmm... The Israeli PM has not said that there were weapons being smuggled BTW.
According to Olmert's office, the prime minister replied "the raid aimed to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and from receiving new supplies."
WTF? ...what if Lebanon decides to lob missles "to prevent IDF soldiers from violating the cease-fire"?
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Beri, said he also raised the incident with the envoys.
"If Lebanon had launched a similar act, wouldn't the Security Council have met to impose tough sanctions against it?" he asked, adding that he saw the raid as an attempt by Israel to provoke Hezbollah into retaliation and foil the deployment of the Lebanese army in south Lebanon.
"I'm sure that the resistance (Hezbollah) has enough awareness and realization of the conspiracy to refrain ... from retaliating ...," he said
If it looks like a suck, quacks like a duck, .....
Some political leaders in Israel are also not impressed.
Meretz party leader Yossi Beilin said on Sunday that the decision to carry out the raid in Baalbek put the cease fire at risk, and that the government's judgment in this case was completely distorted.
"We can't accept the terms of the cease fire, and simultaneously violate it, and remain in southern Lebanon. If government officials believe that it is not in Israel's best interest to adhere to the UN Security Council-brokered cease fire - they should announce that the war is in fact not over, and instruct Israel's residents to return to the shelters," Beilin said.
- Ha'aretz | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 7:47:14 PM |
Quit flipping your one sided coin.
Unless you can show me the part of the resolution that gives the job to Israel in the interum, you're blowing steam. You just said yourself that "It calls for the future tense of Establishing such a zone. Explicitly. Again, not to be hedged by extravagant propaganda or prejudice. It is the actual text of the resolution."
It is NOT Israel's job. It is the future job of Lebanon and UNIFIL. So, quit spinning it.
you want to make a parallel number game out of it, you could assert that Israel would have to remove 1000 troops for every 1000 UN or Lebanese soldier that replaced them.
No, it says all when Lebanon and UNIFIL starts deploying.
Peace | |
|
| Israel breaks U.N. ceasefire resolution 1701 with attack.
Posted: 8/20/2006 8:02:25 PM | Seems as if the UN is having trouble finding troops to go in … it appears that France is unwilling to send troops if there is any possibility that they will get sucked into war-like action. And now this from Olmert this AM as announced by Col. Jack Jacobs (Retired):
"Olmert has stated that Israel will not allow participants in the UN force who do not recognize Israel."
I checked out Col. Jack Jacobs … and this is what it said about his present position: He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is a director of the Medal of Honor Foundation. He is also a military analyst for NBC/MSNBC. | |
|
Home
login 
