It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel lost war first time

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I totally disagree with you. How do you get they lost the war. Is not Israel where they want to be? Did they not go where they wanted? Who so lost more lives here surly not Israel. Israel can SLAM any country over there PERIOD.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Shar]




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
What about the rest of it?

I adressed the part that was factually incorrect - the rest is true: Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting on Israeli occupied land in the Shaba Farms area.

IE they've been fighting on lind occupied by Israeli military forces, not Israel itself.

Thus undermining Israel's claims that this was a "defensive" action in response to an "unprovoked" attack.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
lol isreal lose a war? u gotta be kiddin....they get all there good # from USA



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
xmotex,

Are you so naive as to believe the Hezbullah rantings? Hezbullah is not fighting about Shebaa farms and not about Lebanese prisoners. They are fighting to liberate the the "occupied" land of Palestine. They and their patrons (Iran) as well as their Palestinian cohorts do not recognize Israel's right to exist.
That is what this fight is about and not anythins else. If you wish to be foolish and believe their 'stories' there will be many more stories to follow.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I don't trust anybody's propaganda, not theirs, not yours.

But frankly I don't think for a second Hezbollah is deluded enough to think they have a snowball's chance in hell of displacing Israel. IMHO Hezbollah's current primary aim is to increase their political power in Lebanon, and to do so by positioning themselves as the only defenders of Lebanon from foreign agression.

A goal towards which Israel's recent incursion has no doubt helped greatly.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I don't trust anybody's propaganda, not theirs, not yours.

And don't...if I were to offer an opinion here (only my opinion)...propaganda is flowing far too thick from too many directions…time will tell…see who buys/bites it…etc.


Originally posted by xmotex
IMHO Hezbollah's current primary aim is to increase their political power in Lebanon, and to do so by positioning themselves as the only defenders of Lebanon from foreign agression.


Again the comments primarily address propaganda issues; however in a very short space of relative time Hezbollah has absolutly achieved the goals of your above observation(s)…the lingering question is, “does it hold or embolden?”.


Originally posted by xmotex
A goal towards which Israel's recent incursion has no doubt helped greatly.

w/o any shadow of a doubt…and agreed…but the feign may be very well intentional, including political back-lash.

mg



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
What about the rest of it?

I adressed the part that was factually incorrect - the rest is true: Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting on Israeli occupied land in the Shaba Farms area.

IE they've been fighting on lind occupied by Israeli military forces, not Israel itself.

Thus undermining Israel's claims that this was a "defensive" action in response to an "unprovoked" attack.



So you agree with my factually correct statement that the Sheba Farms area is not part of Lebanon and the UN has determined it to be occupied Syrian territory gained by Israel in the 67 war.

My statement still stands, Hezbollah claimed to only want to get Israel out of Lebanon. Israel, as documented by the UN left Lebanon in 2000 and Hezbollah kept attacking Israeli forces in Israeli held Syrian territory. Hezbollah attacks and it is not a defensive action by Israel? In the 67 war Syria was shelling Israel from the Golan Heights and Israel counterattacked, again not a defensive action? Strange, I thought that if someone attacks you first and you respond, it is defending. That term must not apply to any Israeli military actions in your book.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   


So you agree with my factually correct statement that the Sheba Farms area is not part of Lebanon and the UN has determined it to be occupied Syrian territory gained by Israel in the 67 war.


Sure it's technically Syrian, although even the Syrian government has stated that they consider it part of Lebanon as well. Their argument is that since they don't possess the land right now, they are in no position to cede it to anyone. It's also true that the UN does not recognize Israel's occupation of Shebaa farms or the Golan Heights as lawful, a fact your post omits.

So essentially Israel claims it is occupied Syrian territory, while both the Lebanese and Syrians claim it is occupied Lebanese territory.



Hezbollah attacks and it is not a defensive action by Israel?


Hezbollah would argue their attack was a defensive response to Israeli incursions across the Blue Line. I think in this case both sides can claim they were "acting in self-defense", and do.



In the 67 war Syria was shelling Israel from the Golan Heights and Israel counterattacked, again not a defensive action?


Who said anything about the '67 war?



Strange, I thought that if someone attacks you first and you respond, it is defending.


Yeah, but who attacked first? This is an ongoing conflict that hasn't really stopped since 1978. The Israelis may have "withdrawn" in 2000, but the IDF was crossing the blue line regularly. If a foreign military is launching incursions into your terrirtory, and you engage them, is that action not "defensive"? And that's how Hezbollah (and a lot of other Lebanese) see it.


That term must not apply to any Israeli military actions in your book.





posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Yeah, but who attacked first? This is an ongoing conflict that hasn't really stopped since 1978.

You mean of course the PLO in the frame of reference …or perhaps you could mean Syria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon or Iraq….who first?

Originally posted by xmotex
The Israelis may have "withdrawn" in 2000, but the IDF was crossing the blue line regularly.

Read the reports included here exactly for what they are…not the watered down summations…the actual reports 2000-2006. I will of course remind you Hezbollah is not the Lebanese military and Hezbollah was and is staging from foreign soil...with blessings...therefore:


Originally posted by xmotex
If a foreign military is launching incursions into your terrirtory, and you engage them, is that action not "defensive"? And that's how Hezbollah (and a lot of other Lebanese) see it.


Then by your logic…and a thorough review of the above full reports from field… you, the Lebanese and Hezbollah must agree that Israel has historically acted in its’ own defense…yes.

mg



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
What about the rest of it?

I adressed the part that was factually incorrect - the rest is true: Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting on Israeli occupied land in the Shaba Farms area.

IE they've been fighting on lind occupied by Israeli military forces, not Israel itself.

Thus undermining Israel's claims that this was a "defensive" action in response to an "unprovoked" attack.



Sheba Farms never was Israeli territory. Nor was it Syrian .It always was Lebanese. You should look up its history. Never mind what the UN says or what Israel says. It was part of Lebanon. It was taken wrongly by Syria and was again taken wrongly by Israel. I guess if Israel deems its worth fighting about then Lebanon and whoever wishes to defend it should have just as much right to fight over it as the people who never lived there in the first place. It surely does not belong to a country that has only been there for 60 years and is populated with Europeans and Russians thats for sure. So much for the country that just wants its "little slice of land."

















[edit on 15-8-2006 by ThePieMaN]

[edit on 15-8-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
You mean of course the PLO in the frame of reference …or perhaps you could mean Syria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon or Iraq….who first?


Depends how far back you want to go, really. I chose 1978 because that was Israel's first major incursion into Lebanon.


Read the reports included here exactly for what they are…not the watered down summations…the actual reports 2000-2006. I will of course remind you Hezbollah is not the Lebanese military and Hezbollah was and is staging from foreign soil...with blessings...therefore:


I'm reading the reports right now, and what's your point?
They show both sides crossing the Blue Line and firing across it on a fairly regular basis since 2000... including Israeli tanks killing UNIFIL blue helmets in Lebanon, in response to a Hezbollah bombing.

As for Hezbollah not being the Lebanese military, who cares? Frankly, the Israelis were patrolling occupied territory, not Israel itself. IMHO they're valid targets. And attacks in Shebaa farms don't count as "cross border attacks". They'd be cross border attacks if they were taking place in Israel.


Then by your logic…and a thorough review of the above full reports from field… you, the Lebanese and Hezbollah must agree that Israel has historically acted in its’ own defense…yes.


I think, due to the continuing hostilities at the border, both parties can claim they were acting defensively, and do. In fact I think I just said that a couple of minutes ago.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Sheba Farms never was Israeli territory. Nor was it Syrian .It always was Lebanese. You should look up its history. Never mind what the UN says or what Israel says.


I never said it was Israeli territory only Israeli occupied.

Since you are claiming Sheba Farms as belonging to Lebanon, the burden of proof is on you to provide documentation to support that claim. The UN and most non Arab countries do not find Lebanon's claim to be valid as historical documents (maps for instance including some Lebanese maps) show Sheba farms on the Syrian side of the map and to have been under Syrian administration.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Sure it's technically Syrian, although even the Syrian government has stated that they consider it part of Lebanon as well. Their argument is that since they don't possess the land right now, they are in no position to cede it to anyone. It's also true that the UN does not recognize Israel's occupation of Shebaa farms or the Golan Heights as lawful, a fact your post omits.

Syria had ample time prior to 1967 to "cede" it to Lebanon and since you correctly state the UN does not recognize Israel's annexation/occupation of the Golan, including Sheba farms that technically Syria could do the proper legal paperwork ect and actually cede it to Lebanon, which they have failed to still do.




Hezbollah would argue their attack was a defensive response to Israeli incursions across the Blue Line. I think in this case both sides can claim they were "acting in self-defense", and do.

I agree that the lines of who started what first are always blurred in the Israeli/Arab conflict, but the record shows Israel withdrawing from all of pre 1982 territory of Lebanon and still was being attacked by Hezbollah on numerous times from Lebanese territory into territory not part of Lebanon prior to 1982, that's cross border to me as attacks crossed Lebanon's legal international border. Again having an armed militia attack another country from your country is never a good idea and then to cry "hey!, that hurts" when the other country gets fed up with the pinprick attacks from the milita is crazy. Lebanon should have taken control of the situation in the south of their country long ago.





Who said anything about the '67 war?


I used that as and example of a "defensive action" caused by initial hostilites from the other side.




Yeah, but who attacked first? This is an ongoing conflict that hasn't really stopped since 1978.


Really 1975 if you want to get at the root cause of Lebanese instability and lack of total control of their country, primarily due to Syrian and Palestian mucking about in Lebanese polictics. Once the PLO set up a military force in Southern Lebanon and started to attack Israel from there, the die was cast for further conflict in Lebanon. Lebanon has been an innocent bystander in most of this but sooner or later they will have to address the lack of control they have over Hezbollah and it's Southern border area with Israel.



[edit on 15-8-2006 by pavil]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Pavil you seem to forget that Palestinians do not belong in LEBANON they belong in PALESTINE thats why they are PALESTINIANS. So before you go blaming LEBANON for Israels problems that it made not only for itself but Lebanon as well, you should try saying maybe ISRAEL should allow the Palestinians back into THEIR country and back into THEIR land which is PALESTINE...not a Refugee camp in Lebanon. If Israel wasn't so paranoid about the Arab population growing then maybe there wouldn't be a problem with them kicking everyone out and Palestinains attacking them from Lebanon.

Which again are more resolutions calling for the palestinians right to return as being totally ignorred by israel.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Pavil you seem to forget that Palestinians do not belong in LEBANON they belong in PALESTINE thats why they are PALESTINIANS. So before you go blaming LEBANON for Israels problems that it made not only for itself but Lebanon as well, you should try saying maybe ISRAEL should allow the Palestinians back into THEIR country and back into THEIR land which is PALESTINE...not a Refugee camp in Lebanon. If Israel wasn't so paranoid about the Arab population growing then maybe there wouldn't be a problem with them kicking everyone out and Palestinains attacking them from Lebanon.

Which again are more resolutions calling for the palestinians right to return as being totally ignorred by israel.


I get you don't like Israel or it's existance as a Jewish state in the Middle East PieMan. However that still doesn't excuse the PLO setting up a mini-state within Lebanon which only helped make Lebanon's Civil war worse. I guess there will be no satisfactory resolution to the Israeli/ Palestinian problem till there is only one side left in your world. Both sides want the full loaf of bread and will only be left with dry crumbs in each of their hands.

Still waiting for your documentation of Sheba farms as legally belonging to Lebanon, so is the UN for that matter.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I get you don't like Israel or it's existance as a Jewish state in the Middle East PieMan. However that still doesn't excuse the PLO setting up a mini-state within Lebanon which only helped make Lebanon's Civil war worse. I guess there will be no satisfactory resolution to the Israeli/ Palestinian problem till there is only one side left in your world. Both sides want the full loaf of bread and will only be left with dry crumbs in each of their hands.

Still waiting for your documentation of Sheba farms as legally belonging to Lebanon, so is the UN for that matter.


I have no qualms whatsoever about a jewish state. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Its israel and people like you who believe Israel has the right to kill Palestinians and push them out of their own land and to allow Israel to illegally confiscate and develop on that land, while the people who have lived there longer then the europeans are treated like dirt. They are Palestinian and its no one elses fault but Israels for denying those people the right to going back home. Like I said, they do not belong in Lebanon, they are not Lebanese, someone should not have to live in a refugee camp all their lives.

If Israel doesn't give Palestinians their right, then no, Im totally against the state of Israel. I did not support Apartheid S.A. then and will not support Apartheid Israel now.



Who Owns the Shebaa Farms? Chronicle of a Territorial Dispute
Asher Kaufman (Autumn 2002)

The roots of the border controversy in the Shebaa farmland lie in the clumsy manner France delineated the Syrian-Lebanese boundary during the Mandate years. Since 1920, maps located the area within Syria. However, for all practical matters, the area was considered to be part of Lebanon. French officials themselves noted this anomaly but did nothing to rectify it. For different reasons, Syrian and Lebanese governments perpetuated this anomaly. In 1967, with the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, this controversy entered the orbit of the Arab-Israeli conflict.



Source



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Depends how far back you want to go, really. I chose 1978 because that was Israel's first major incursion into Lebanon.


Ok…1978... The Israeli incursion was in response to the Syrian occupation, faction support in the Lebanese civil war and backing of the PLO; their actions against Israel and the groups that were basing out of Lebanon involved in terroristic and martial acts against Israelis…all while Lebanon was occupied by Syria.

Syria (which occupied 2/3 of Lebanon) was also attacking Israel from Lebanese territory and arming/aiding the PLO in the southern fixed occupation of Lebanon…the Arab League was nothing less than the “fait accompli” by sending in token forces under the guise of seeking peace while allowing huge flows of Syrian troops to enter Lebanon also contributing to the PLO…Lebanon was “occupied” in 1978...


I'm reading the reports right now, and what's your point?
They show both sides crossing the Blue Line and firing across it on a fairly regular basis since 2000... Including Israeli tanks killing UNIFIL blue helmets in Lebanon, in response to a Hezbollah bombing.


This is not so easy to ‘pass-off’ as mutual….Hezbollah is responsible for the majority, vast majority of militant BL incursions and Israel is usually recorded as the respondent…

However; UNIFIL has been purposefully attacked and restricted by Hezbollah, face-to-face more than once, twice, three times etc....year after year etc.

Hezbollah is shown and reported in stealing UN equipment at gun point, accosting UN peacekeepers, assaulting UN peacekeepers (one instance using gun butts to get their point across to a UNIFIL convoy and critically injuring one soldier), firing on UNIFIL convoys, injuring unarmed observers, inhibiting their movements, setting-up fixed observation posts (beginning years ago) in the "immediate" vicinity of fixed UNIFIL positions...etc, etc, etc,…correct?

Odd how this one instance you mentioned as Israel as an aggressor against UNIFIL …but yet no mention to any of the above or of the UNIFIL scandal and following cover-up attempt about UNIFIL’s complicity in the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers.


Originally posted by xmotex
Frankly, the Israelis were patrolling occupied territory, not Israel itself. IMHO they're valid targets.

1978: Lebanon occupied by foreign forces in 1978, the southern region occupied by a militant faction which was armed and supported by the occupying forces?…

So is it your position (from your above statement) that the Israeli attacks on the PLO in 1978 were completely “valid” as the PLO (as a Syrian militant element) and Syrian's were operating in an occupied region? ...while allowed to attack Israel from factions, proxy elements and occupying states?

Therefore the Litani River Operation 1978 (which is where you begin) was in fact legitimate?

Were not all the “occupied territories” first “occupied” by foreign forces prior?...

2006: The Lebanese military still does not control the southern border and Hezbollah occupies this region in much the same way the PLO accomplished their occupation of the region.

Syria did not withdraw from Lebanon until April of 2005 and the Hezbollah camps/stocks are ironically maintained in the Bekaa Valley… ipso; Hezbollah is not Lebanon’s ‘military’ nor any one nation’s military…the southern territory Hezbollah claims to defend does not belong to them…but is completely controlled by them…what do you call that?


Originally posted by xmotex
And attacks in Shebaa farms don't count as "cross border attacks". They'd be cross border attacks if they were taking place in Israel.

Not according to the UN…the same UN that certified the complete withdraw of Israeli forces from Lebanon behind demarcation lines...and yes, the lines clearly “count”….




Mg



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

I have no qualms whatsoever about a jewish state. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Its israel and people like you who believe Israel has the right to kill Palestinians and push them out of their own land and to allow Israel to illegally confiscate and develop on that land, while the people who have lived there longer then the europeans are treated like dirt. They are Palestinian and its no one elses fault but Israels for denying those people the right to going back home. Like I said, they do not belong in Lebanon, they are not Lebanese, someone should not have to live in a refugee camp all their lives.

If Israel doesn't give Palestinians their right, then no, Im totally against the state of Israel. I did not support Apartheid S.A. then and will not support Apartheid Israel now.


So are you for a Jewish not a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state since you said you have no qualms about it? I don't mean to put words in mouths of others, but the shoe seemed to fit, reading most of your past posts. Just for the record, you are in favor of the acceptance of the State of Israel within it's pre 1967 borders and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?

The history of the Middle East as always, is murky about the flight of Palestinians in the early days of the creation of the state of Israel. Yes some were forced out by Israel and yes some were told to flee by the Arab governments in the region.

Yes it is a tragedy that both sides, Israel and the Palestinians, can not come up with a soultion that both sides can live with. I think we can agree that both sides have done little historically to solve the other sides concerns as well. Indeed any solution that happens in the future is sure to be much less than either side now deems acceptable, but that is the nature of negoatiations. Both countries will need brave, strong leaders to get through all the hate that now clouds everything.



Who Owns the Shebaa Farms? Chronicle of a Territorial Dispute
Asher Kaufman (Autumn 2002)


Like I figured, no real documentation of Lebanon's claim. That's exactly why the UN has not acknowledged it.


Source



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

So are you for a Jewish not a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state since you said you have no qualms about it? I don't mean to put words in mouths of others, but the shoe seemed to fit, reading most of your past posts. Just for the record, you are in favor of the acceptance of the State of Israel within it's pre 1967 borders and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?



I am for seperate states. The Palestinians should not have to live under a Jewish state, so one state would not be fair. They were promised independance and should recieve full 100% independance like Syria, Lebanon and Israel got. Jerusalem should be under multinational governance as it was intended to be.
The Palestinians spread to the wind in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt should be allowed to return to their home.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I am for seperate states. The Palestinians should not have to live under a Jewish state, so one state would not be fair. They were promised independance and should recieve full 100% independance like Syria, Lebanon and Israel got.

OK agreed - with no army or capacity to go into warmongering agreements with states like Iran or Syria. If you seek peace - this will not bring it.


Jerusalem should be under multinational governance as it was intended to be.

Too late for that. Jerusalem was NEVER under UN control and I do not think that the Palestinians or the Israelis would agree to that. Moreover the touchy issue is the old city not Jerusalem as a whole, which is Israel's largest city.


The Palestinians spread to the wind in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt should be allowed to return to their home.


I hope that you are aware that you just contradicted yourself. Allowing Palestians to return to their home is that exact plan of the Palestinians to demographically overpower Israel within Israel's borders. Refugees streaming into Israel's territory with their kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids is just what the radical muslims want to erradicate Israel from within.

When you say let the Palestinians have a state and give the Palestinians the return to their home after 60 years what you are actually doing is giving them a state and then another state by demographically flooding Israel with millions of refugees, their children, grand children and great grandchildren.

If you want genuine peace you must understand that this is a non-starter and reassess your stance. Let them return to the Palestinian state not the Israeli state.

Do we agree here?

[edit on 17/8/06 by JudahMaccabbi]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join