Despite Cease Fire Israeli Forces Conduct Raids Into Lebanon.

[imported_dna]

Huh? What actions? Do you always have to be so vague?
Also, it is Mossad, and not Massod.
Lastly, for you to tell me to stop justifying Israeli action, tells me that you think that Hezbolla's action was just. Anybody who's not a hypocrite understand this concept of shooting back at those who shoot at you, so for you to support the claim that Qana was a massacare is just laughable.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Drift3r
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel


It seems Israel thinks that it is free to do whatever it wants despite signing a cease fire. This action is not a smart one IMHO though I suspect the media will ignore these types of provocations if and when this conflict flares up again and the blame will be placed on Lebanon.

you mean a UN document, we know how far and how useful those are

So what agreement would Israel honor if not a UN/US brokered agreement ?

hahaha I dont blame them, no one else honors UN documents in the world why should they really?

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: dna
Huh? What actions? Do you always have to be so vague?
Also, it is Mossad, and not Massod.
Lastly, for you to tell me to stop justifying Israeli action, tells me that you think that Hezbolla's action was just. Anybody who's not a hypocrite understand this concept of shooting back at those who shoot at you, so for you to support the claim that Qana was a massacare is just laughable.

i think lemon law got his IDF foreign policy education from Munich

Peace...sounds easy on paper, in that region its like try to make 2 guys best friends after one slept with the others wife..... its a pipe dream, they have been fighting for, well ,since man has populated that area....

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna
People can consider themselves whatever they wish, it does not negate the fact that maps issued after 1948 by both Syria and Lebanon placed the Shebaa Farms within Syria?s borders; you should read the following article.

Yeah, that is what I'm getting at. The French drew the maps to show Shebaa farms as Syrian, and Syria tried to hold claim to the area for a while, but the people of the land were Lebanese. One thing that article mentions I wasn't aware of though:

During the 1950s and early 60s A joint Lebanese Syrian commission was formed to determine the border between the two nations. In 1964 the commission determined that the Farms belong officially to Lebanon.

Seems Syria gave up their claim to the land just three years before the Six-Day War.

Originally posted by: dna
How many people are there supposedly held? We?ve already seen in this past engagement that Hezbolla has a knack for exaggerating numbers (just like the Palestinians, and their alleged massacres), so a list would be helpful.

B'Tselem keeps track of Israel's offical numbers for that here

Originally posted by: dna
As for the refugees issue, I thought I already gave you plenty of info, but I see I?ll have to do it again, so you don?t mislead other people. I?ll post a message on this a bit later, when I have my resources at hand.

EDIT:
Let me add this: can you prove that people were run out?

Here is a website dedicated to most pivotal event in that:

http://www.deiryassin.org/

And again, Israel was always to be a Democarcy of Jewish people, and that would have been statisticly impossable without the removal of much of the indiginious population. Theodor Herzl invisioned it done by "gental presuasion" in his diary, but that didn't go nearly as smooth as he hoped and push came to shove it came down to the threat and use of force by the Irgun and the Lehi.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Seems Syria gave up their claim to the land just three years before the Six-Day War.

Funny, one would think you have a hidden agenda by not quoting the whole paragraph; here it is for your benefit, the part you accidently omitted highlighted:

During the 1950s and early 60s A joint Lebanese Syrian commission was formed to determine the border between the two nations. In 1964 the commission determined that the Farms belong officially to Lebanon. However, maps printed after 1964 did not incorporate the determination of the commission, the maps printer after that period rather shows that the Shebaa Farms are still Syrian territory. And in 1960, Syrian authority ordered the inhabitants of the Shebaa Farms to replace their Lebanese identification cards with Syrian ones.

 

[imported_dna]

Heh, it tells you something when an Israeli organization keeps track and advocates fair treatment, while an Israeli detainee of any sort in the PA custody doesn't make it through the day, case-in-point: the two reserve soldiers lynched. Knowing you, I now expect you to justify the lynching, saying that it is because the "oppression".

As for the refugees, you know I already posted this stuff, but if you wish to play dumb, here it is again:

According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, "the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier.

Quotes, references, etc, are over here

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
Heh, it tells you something when an Israeli organization keeps track and advocates fair treatment, while an Israeli detainee of any sort in the PA custody doesn't make it through the day, case-in-point: the two reserve soldiers lynched. Knowing you, I now expect you to justify the lynching, saying that it is because the "oppression".

As for the refugees, you know I already posted this stuff, but if you wish to play dumb, here it is again:

According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, "the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier.

Quotes, references, etc, are over here

probably more than 68% of the refugees in lebanon never saw an isreali soldier either, so your point is what?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: dna
Heh, it tells you something when an Israeli organization keeps track and advocates fair treatment, while an Israeli detainee of any sort in the PA custody doesn't make it through the day, case-in-point: the two reserve soldiers lynched. Knowing you, I now expect you to justify the lynching, saying that it is because the "oppression".

As for the refugees, you know I already posted this stuff, but if you wish to play dumb, here it is again:

According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, "the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier.

Quotes, references, etc, are over here

probably more than 68% of the refugees in lebanon never saw an isreali soldier either, so your point is what?

lol

 

[imported_dna]

Czar, probably more than 68% of your neurons also left before seeing an Israeli soldier, so what's your point?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
Czar, probably more than 68% of your neurons also left before seeing an Israeli soldier, so what's your point?

so.. you got nothing?

 

[imported_dna]

On the contrary, I think you got nothing in your head.
If you wish to make dumb comments, you will get dumb replies.
I was discussing with TheSnowman the 1948 refugees, so don't play dumb (unless you really are).

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
On the contrary, I think you got nothing in your head.
If you wish to make dumb comments, you will get dumb replies.
I was discussing with TheSnowman the 1948 refugees, so don't play dumb (unless you really are).

well if you are trying to make the point that because the people never saw a soldier they have no right to return to their homes then you must agree that the people fleeing in lebanon who never saw a soldier have no right to return to their homes... is that it?

 

[imported_dna]

I am not going to spoon-feed you -- scroll-up and read the other messages.
Also, don't try to put words in my mouth -- we were talking about the 1948-refugees.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
I am not going to spoon-feed you -- scroll-up and read the other messages.
Also, don't try to put words in my mouth -- we were talking about the 1948-refugees.

how are they different than other refugees?

 

[imported_dna]

The situation is different from what it is presented to be.
These people left at the urging of the Arab League, and then were not permitted to return by the neighboring nations. On top of that, they have been kept on a refugee status for the past 60 years in Lebanon, Syria, etc. A normal country would've granted them citizenship by now.

 

[imported_dna]

The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
The situation is different from what it is presented to be.
These people left at the urging of the Arab League, and then were not permitted to return by the neighboring nations. On top of that, they have been kept on a refugee status for the past 60 years in Lebanon, Syria, etc. A normal country would've granted them citizenship by now.

So do they dont have the right to return to their homes?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Seems Syria gave up their claim to the land just three years before the Six-Day War.

Funny, one would think you have a hidden agenda by not quoting the whole paragraph; here it is for your benefit, the part you accidently omitted highlighted:

During the 1950s and early 60s A joint Lebanese Syrian commission was formed to determine the border between the two nations. In 1964 the commission determined that the Farms belong officially to Lebanon. However, maps printed after 1964 did not incorporate the determination of the commission, the maps printer after that period rather shows that the Shebaa Farms are still Syrian territory. And in 1960, Syrian authority ordered the inhabitants of the Shebaa Farms to replace their Lebanese identification cards with Syrian ones.

Maps and what Syria did in 1960 do nothing to change what they did in 1964. And feel free to ask me anything you like about my agenda or anything else here I have no reason to hide anything of the sort.

Originally posted by: dna
Heh, it tells you something when an Israeli organization keeps track and advocates fair treatment, while an Israeli detainee of any sort in the PA custody doesn't make it through the day, case-in-point: the two reserve soldiers lynched. Knowing you, I now expect you to justify the lynching, saying that it is because the "oppression".

No, there is no rustication for that, never under any grounds. But there is no justification for holding anyone responsible for that other than the few individuals who took part in the lynching.

Originally posted by: dna
As for the refugees, you know I already posted this stuff, but if you wish to play dumb, here it is again:

According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, "the majority" of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and "68%" left without seeing an Israeli soldier.

Quotes, references, etc, are over here

Yeah, they didn't have to see any solders, the theat of a massacre was enough:

Menachem Begin, on the other hand, was unrepentant. He told The New York Jewish Newsletter in October 1960 that "The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin."

Deir Yassin was not the first or the largest massacre of Palestinians, but the advancing Zionist forces used it to frighten unarmed Palestinians into fleeing for their lives. Thus started the eviction of more that 750,000 Palestinians from their lands in 1948. It iscarved in Palestinian collective memory because it has come to symbolize Palestinian dispossession.

http://www.deiryassin.org/byboard7.html

 

[imported_dna]

You seem to be ignoring all these other details, such as why they left, and who prevented them from returning; I'd say that the Arab League is primarily responsible for the situation, and therefore carry the burden.
Furthermore, the Arab nations voted against UN Resolution 194 which called for resolving the refugee issue; they preferred to continue and try to destroy Israel by force, and therefore did not allow any refugees to return. So, since the last major conflict was in 1973, and no person would have been allowed to return prior to that, that's at least 25 years before seeking any peaceful resolution (as stated in Resolution 194), so it seems a little bit extreme? Using power didn't work, so now they demand "international justice". I called this being a sore loser.

I think I'll create a thread for this issue; I've had to retype the same stuff on too many threads.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna
The situation is different from what it is presented to be.
These people left at the urging of the Arab League, and then were not permitted to return by the neighboring nations. On top of that, they have been kept on a refugee status for the past 60 years in Lebanon, Syria, etc. A normal country would've granted them citizenship by now.

What evedince do you have to back up that bolded part? The evedince I've seen goes agaisnt that, such as:

Erskine Childers, then an Irish journalist, in 1961 challenged the conventional wisdom that Palestinian refugees fled their homes in 1948 due to radio broadcasts by the Arab states and political forces urging them to leave. He did so by examining the actual records of the broadcasts in the British Museum. He found no such orders to leave, in fact he found orders to remain, and published the results of his examination in the London Spectator ("The Other Exodus," London Spectator, 12 May 1961). Nowadays, conventional wisdom has turned around such that a historian such as Dr. Aryeh Yitzhaki, who in 1992 was military historian for the Israel Defense Forces, described the alleged calls by Arab governments for the Palestinians to leave "fabrications" (Ha'ir, May 6, 1992).

http://www.deiryassin.org/op0005.html

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
You seem to be ignoring all these other details, such as why they left, and who prevented them from returning; I'd say that the Arab League is primarily responsible for the situation, and therefore carry the burden.
Furthermore, the Arab nations voted against UN Resolution 194 which called for resolving the refugee issue; they preferred to continue and try to destroy Israel by force, and therefore did not allow any refugees to return. So, since the last major conflict was in 1973, and no person would have been allowed to return prior to that, that's at least 25 years before seeking any peaceful resolution (as stated in Resolution 194), so it seems a little bit extreme? Using power didn't work, so now they demand "international justice". I called this being a sore loser.

I think I'll create a thread for this issue; I've had to retype the same stuff on too many threads.

Tell me

Why did they leave?
Why couldnt they return?

Since UN Resolution 194 states "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"
How come Israel does not want to honor that?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Maps and what Syria did in 1960 do nothing to change what they did in 1964. And feel free to ask me anything you like about my agenda or anything else here I have no reason to hide anything of the sort.

Funny thing that they only raised this issue after Israel withdrew in 2000. Makes you wonder.

No, there is no rustication for that, never under any grounds. But there is no justification for holding anyone responsible for that other than the few individuals who took part in the lynching.

You probably didn't see the videos, but it was definitely not few individuals.

Yeah, they didn't have to see any solders, the theat of a massacre was enough:

I've read somewhere that the Arab fighers developed a strategy of dressing up like women (women weren't frisked), and then, when the Israeli guards were unattentative, they would've pulled out their weapons, and shoot; If I were in this situation, you'd be damned sure I'd develop a take-no-priosonners attitude (to some extent).

Just so you understand how you get to the point that "innocents" are being shot, consider this bit of history on submarine warfare: initially, submarines were used to stop merchant ships in the Atlantic to inspect them for contraband. This was all nice and good as long as the ship's crew cooperated. Somewhere down the line, a "cunning" ship captain decided to install and use (by surprise) a deck gun. The outcome: submarine captains wised up, and sunk any ship; a submarine is very vulnerable on the surface, so why risk a dangerous inspection?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Czar
Tell me

Why did they leave?
Why couldnt they return?
...
How come Israel does not want to honor that?

Are you high? I already posted why they left, and why they couldn't return.
Anyway, I see that you are out to blame Israel for everything, so there's no point wasting time with you.

 

[Lemon law]

On that Arabs not accepting refugees point, I agree with dna. The arab side has a rather shameful record---and a pandering one at that in regard to the Palistinians. But its great PR
for a given arab country at home---who can say to its citizens---look at that poor oppressed Palistinian---thank your lucky stars that you live in our wonderful country. At the same time
they can deflect anger and attention away by getting its people to hate Israel---and not cast their eye on the problems of reform in their own country. So the arab also gains as the Palistinian is oppressed----and neither side is motivated to see the status quo changed.----or gasp---poney up the money that its gonna take to get a viable Palistinian State going which is what its going to take to long term solve many of the problems in the mid-east.

But it also may show the reflection of different mind-sets----the guy on top rungs of the ladder wants to climb even higher---while the terrorist is so far down on the ladder, they see no hope of reaching equality---so they just want to tear down the structure the ladder is leaning on, and start with building a different structure from the torn down old one.

And taking the Galloway quote, if the arab states want to keep the Palistinian problem as an open sore, it then implies that Israel would want that open sore to scab over and heal. And that can be only done if the Palistinian is given the raw materials to start using their energies to build a Palistinian State----failing that, I think we can extend that Galloway quote to say
Neither the Arabs or Israel gives a damn whether the Arab refugee lives or dies.

I note some years ago GWB was saying that a Palistinian State was needed. It was about the same time GWB was saying we needed to switch to a hydrogen based energy structure.
And both have proved to be nothing but empty verbage and pie in the sky----its one thing to have an idea---its quite another to invest time and energy into making an idea into a reality.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What evedince do you have to back up that bolded part?

Here you go, and notice the bold part:

The Economist, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Times Magazine (May 3, 1948) reported: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

Edward Atiyah, the secretary of the Arab League Office in London, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country."

According to Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . ."

Nimr el Hawari, the Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization, in his book Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster, published in Nazareth in 1955), quoted the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said as saying "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

Habib Issa wrote in the New York Lebanese daily newspaper Al Hoda on June 8, 1951, " The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. -- Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."