Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Maturity alert! How can we continue partison bickering when people act li9ke adults and agree from time to time!?  |
Stop it lest my ice water blood warms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Israel created Hezbollah... Right. It had nothing to do with say the fractured Lebanese government and civil war, coupled with destabilization by the PLO, and the countering of foreign involvement from Syria.
|
Quote:
|
Syria had nothing to do with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and it definately had nothing to do with the thousands left dead in Lebanon, most of which were civilians that had little or nothing to do with the Hezbollah. I suppose you can argue from a different perspective about Israel creating the Hezbollah, but Israel had to know that invading and occupying a forieng land would ahve consequences. It's like the US in Iraq. The only insurgency in Iraq before 2003 was the growing rebelion against Saddam. Now there is a very strong resistence force there that formed as a direct result of US action. I'd go as far as saying that Israel is responsible for the Hezbollah in the same way that the US is responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.
|
When I reference Syria, I'm referencing what happened in Lebanon after America started dicking around in their affairs in the 50's which led to civil war. Syria thought they could seize on the oppurtunity and moved into Lebanon. The presence of the PLO, Syria, and the Arab-Muslims forced the Christian factions to turn to Israel who then came in in 82'.
Quote:
The Lebanese government is not completly run by the Hezbollah, as a matter of fact, their influence had been steadily dropping for the past 6 years. Imagine that the US was attacked because of the democrats, and the attackers killed everyone stating that we have a Democrat government. It doesn't really work that way. The Hezbollah influence on government before the 2006 conflidt was negligable.
The thing is: Hezbollah was and is a terrorist organzation working outside of the jurisdiction of the legitimate Lebanese government. Their actions are not the actions of the Lebanese people. So when the Hezbollah attacks Israel, then Israel strikes back at Lebanon as a nation...that's a mistake at best. It would be like the US attacking the whole of Iraq because of the insurgency.
|
I don't know if their hold is dwindling, by all accounts I've heard and read, they've made gains in Parliament in every elections since 92', they hold 20 some odd seats out of 100(+). On top of that there are several cabinent level ministers affiliated with Hezbollah. Hezbollah operates as a terrorist organization, they also operate as a political party in the government. Since Lebanon is a sovereign nation they have the responsibility to reign in militants, regardless of who they act for extra-national or not; the Lebanese government was not doing anything.
Quote:
Israel killed a lot of civilians that had nothing to do with the conflict. Israel invaded Lebanon. Israel blocaded Lebanon by sea. Israel even created one of the largest eco-disastors in the history of the ME when they hit a power plant spilling 15 tons of oil into the Mediterranean. The blocade made it impossible for relief efforts.
Just so we're clear, the order of events is as follows:
1) Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah for the purpous of prisoner exchange.
2) Israel attacks Lebanon with missiles, tanks, ground troops.
3) Hezbollah starts firing missiles into Israel.
If Israel wanted to protect it's cizitens, they wouldn't have all out attacked Lebanon, where they knew they'd get fired upon by Hezbollah that were, up until the attack and invasion, inactive.
Or they could just leave the Shebaa Farms.
|
One fact that I am unsure if you are aware of is regardless of the lineation of events, Israel and Lebanon as two sovereign actors were at a state of war before the last situation, there was no standing peace, no cease fire, no armstice agreement. As such any action taken against Lebanon is legal as Lebanon is a belligerent nation. Since that is the case I don't see what the issue is with Israel holding the Sheeba farms which are a defensive/military/strategic position which has historically been used by Hezbollah/Lebanon to aggress towards Israel.
Quote:
|
What right did the UN have to create an Israeli state where people already lived? I've been trying to get an answer for this for a long time. The Ottoman Empire was not a member of the UN. The Palestinians had no interest at the time of joining the UN. The UN ahd no real claim on the land, as WWII was a war to stop German, Italian and Japanese aggression. The area probably would have developed into a Palestinian state, let's call it Palestine, and they would have become another country in the Middle East. Why did the UN have the power to declair a state like that?
|
Like I stated the Jews lived there too, more just happened to be coming. Tensions started raising amongst both populations and the shit hit the fan, the UN intervened to try and create some type of stability. You are right in that the Ottoman Empire was not a nation state of the UN, this is due to the fact that the sick man had died 20 years earlier. As a result of WWI, the British took a bunch of gains, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Iran... again the situation in Palestine was too much for them to handle as such they turned it over to the UN. I don't see what your problem is with that, I'd think you and a lot of others on the board here would favor such an action, rather then continuing their Colonial dominanting (or lack thereof) presence, the British a member of the UN turned a major problem to a extra-national government organization whose foundation and purpose was to address such issues, what else could they have done? The British trying to maintain their protectorate would make our current situation in Iraq look like a trip to DisneyLand as the both jewish and Muslim-Arab populations were getting extremely hostile and aggressive towards each other and the British.