• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Despite Cease Fire Israeli Forces Conduct Raids Into Lebanon.

Drift3r

Guest
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

Lebanon gives warning after Israeli raid

By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms shipments from Iran and Syria.

Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.

The fighting did not appear to be escalating, but it highlighted the fragility of the truce as the United Nations pleaded for nations to contribute to an international peacekeeping force due to patrol southern Lebanon.

Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr threatened to halt the army's deployment in south Lebanon if the United Nations does not take up the issue of the raid. A stop to the deployment would deeply damage efforts to move in the U.N. force to strengthen the cease-fire.

"If there are no clear answers forthcoming on this issue, I might be forced to recommend to the Cabinet early next week the halt of the army deployment in the south," Murr told reporters after a meeting with U.N. representatives.

In Jerusalem, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev defended the raid as a response to "a violation of the cease-fire."

"The U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is very explicit: It says that Hezbollah cannot use the cease-fire to rearm, to receive more missiles and more rockets from Syria and Iran. That was happening, and Israel acted to prevent that from happening," he said.

Regev indicated Israel could conduct further raids until Lebanese and international troops take up positions to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal ? a goal that the U.N. resolution sets as part of a long-term end to the conflict but does not immediately require.

"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Regev said. "Once the Lebanese army and the international forces are active ... then such Israeli activity will become superfluous."

The first small contingent of reinforcements for the peacekeeping force ? 49 French soldiers ? landed Saturday in inflatable dinghies at the southern Lebanese coastal town of Naqoura, with 200 more expected next week.

But Deputy U.N. Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said more countries need to step forward to fill out a vanguard of 3,500 soldiers that the U.N. wants on the ground by Aug. 28 to help ensure the truce holds.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called Saturday's commando raid a "flagrant violation" of the cease-fire, and said he would take the issue up with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Murr said the raid could spark Hezbollah retaliation, which in turn could lead to Israeli reprisals. He suggested Israel might be trying to provoke a response, so it could have an excuse to attack the Lebanese army. "We will not send the army to be prey in an Israeli trap," he said.

Under the cease-fire terms, Israel has said it will conduct defensive operations if its troops are threatened. But the raid took place far from positions of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Such a bold operation suggested Israel was going after a major target ? perhaps to rescue two Israeli soldiers snatched by Hezbollah on July 12, or to try to capture a senior guerrilla official to trade for the soldiers.

Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.

The Israeli commandos were dropped by helicopter on a hill outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek and apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school, Lebanese security officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media.

Local media said Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa Valley and a member of the group's Shura council, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.

Hezbollah TV said the guerrillas foiled the raid. Israel said the force completed its mission, with one officer killed and two soldiers wounded.

Lebanese security officials said three guerrillas were killed and three were wounded. A Hezbollah spokesman said none of his fighters died.

Hezbollah officials at the scene said the Israeli commandos brought two vehicles with them that they used to drive into Boudai. They identified themselves as the Lebanese army when intercepted by Hezbollah fighters in a field, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted, according to the officials.

Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew out of the area an hour later, they said.

Witnesses saw bandages and syringes at the landing site outside Boudai, about 10 miles west of Baalbek and 15 miles west of the Syrian border. A bridge was destroyed bridge about 500 yards from the area in what witnesses said was an Israeli airstrike.

The ancient town of Baalbek is the birthplace of the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah. The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold.

On Aug. 2, Israeli commandos targeted the Iranian-funded, Hezbollah-run Dar al-Hikma Hospital in Baalbek, killing 16 people, according to Lebanese police. Israel said that the building was a Hezbollah base, not a hospital, and that its soldiers captured five guerrilla fighters and killed 10 more before withdrawing.

Under the cease-fire, some 15,000 Lebanese soldiers are to move into the south, backed by the beefed-up U.N. peacekeeping force known, as Israeli forces withdraw. Once there, the troops are to enforce the cease-fire.

Lebanon has said Hezbollah will not be allowed to show its weapons in public, but has not said whether it will try the more controversial step of disarming the guerrillas.

The Lebanese army has deployed more than 1,500 soldiers in three sectors that Israeli forces have left, and the U.N. force ? currently numbering 2,000 ? has set up checkpoints and started patrolling the areas.

So far, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Italy, France and Finland have promised troops. In an effort to encourage more countries to sign on, Annan said the peacekeeping force would not "wage war" on Israel, Lebanon or Hezbollah militants, addressing a key concern of many countries.

Turkey's government said this week that during the Lebanon war it forced Syria-bound Iranian planes to land and be searched for rockets and other military equipment.

The newspaper Hurriyet reported that two Iranian planes were forced to land at Diyarbakir airport on July 27 and Aug. 8 but that no military equipment was found.

Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Murat Ozcelik said those were not the only planes forced to land. "We inspect Iranian planes upon any suspicion that they may be carrying any weapons," he said, but declined to give details.

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.
 
And it seems that Hezbollah is free to do whatever it wants, according to you. Remember that arms deals also directly violate Resolution 1701.

Simply the fact that the media is not jumping all over this, and Kofi is not immediately condemning all of Israel, is proof enough that they don't want egg on their face when this is brought up.
 
"The U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is very explicit: It says that Hezbollah cannot use the cease-fire to rearm, to receive more missiles and more rockets from Syria and Iran. That was happening, and Israel acted to prevent that from happening," he said.

Regev indicated Israel could conduct further raids until Lebanese and international troops take up positions to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal ? a goal that the U.N. resolution sets as part of a long-term end to the conflict but does not immediately require.
If that turns out to be the true story, Israel's right.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
And it seems that Hezbollah is free to do whatever it wants, according to you. Remember that arms deals also directly violate Resolution 1701.

Simply the fact that the media is not jumping all over this, and Kofi is not immediately condemning all of Israel, is proof enough that they don't want egg on their face when this is brought up.

That's true, although at this point we know what Israel was doing...but we only have their word that Hezbollah was doing something they shouldn't have been. Since the Israelis were the ones caught with their hands in the cookie jar, I think I'll wait for some credible information before I start blaming Hezbollah. From the information we have right now, it appears that the Israelis were in the wrong here...and it also appears that they did exactly what all the pro-Israeli people suggested Hezbollah would do.
 
israel doesnt give a damn about the UN, it does what it pleases.

What you have to remember is, Israel have broken more UN resolutions than any other country on earth - SIXTY FOUR!! Israel has ignored every resolution that has been passed.

 

All I hear is that Israel were either trying to free the 2 soldiers (if they were there) or capture a senior Hezbollah member. No photographs of alleged weapon transfers or ammunition being destroyed. Nothing.

I'll pass judgement until more details emerge. 🙂
 
Just to point this out, niether Isreal, nor Hezbollah give a sh|t what the UN says unless it fits their purpose. What they care is what their backers say (so Isreal wants US support, and Hezbollah wants Syria and Iran support). The ceasfire that matters is the one between Hezbollah and Isreal, not the one the UN outlined, becasue niether side will follow that. Hopefully everyone will just stay calm after this raid and not do anything stupid that will reignite the war. I think this is likely as both sides have gotten past the point where this war would further their aims.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
"The U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is very explicit: It says that Hezbollah cannot use the cease-fire to rearm, to receive more missiles and more rockets from Syria and Iran. That was happening, and Israel acted to prevent that from happening," he said.

Regev indicated Israel could conduct further raids until Lebanese and international troops take up positions to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal ? a goal that the U.N. resolution sets as part of a long-term end to the conflict but does not immediately require.
If that turns out to be the true story, Israel's right.

I agree. Of course, this won't stop the brigade of Hezbollah supporters here on AT from venting their opinions...
 
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.
 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.

I also suggest that at the same occasion, awards will be given to Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Hizbullah for advocating Human Rights and honoring UN resolutions.

U.S. Biased? Who would you want it to side with, Nassarallah? Iran?
 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.

Because WE ALL KNOW that the Lebanese government and Hezbollah ALWAYS follow the UN resolutions and care more than anyone else about human rights.
 
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.

Because WE ALL KNOW that the Lebanese government and Hezbollah ALWAYS follow the UN resolutions and care more than anyone else about human rights.

So does that give Israel a right to break U.N reslutions? If an Embargo is imposed on Hezbollah, a similar Embargo should be imposed on Isreal. Israel is not better than Hezbollah in its honouring reslutions.
 
Hezbollah is not allowed to receive weapons and they must be disarmed. If Israel must conduct a raid to stop Hezbollah from receiving weapons they can.
 
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.

I also suggest that at the same occasion, awards will be given to Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Hizbullah for advocating Human Rights and honoring UN resolutions.

U.S. Biased? Who would you want it to side with, Nassarallah? Iran?

Sanctions were imposed on Pakistan for its nukes (even though that did not break any human rights). Why not on Israel?

The U.S is uber biased! Its giving Israel the go ahead to do whatever they want. Thats just not tolerable. Too bad America is a super power.
 
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Hezbollah is not allowed to receive weapons and they must be disarmed. If Israel must conduct a raid to stop Hezbollah from receiving weapons they can.

There is no proof that they aimed for a supply line. Its all proganda. To bad you are too brainwashed to beleive it.

And even if they were being supplied, according to the Resolution, the U.N and Lebanese army were responsible for it. No matter whatever the case, Isreal was wrong to cross the border.
 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.

I also suggest that at the same occasion, awards will be given to Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Hizbullah for advocating Human Rights and honoring UN resolutions.

U.S. Biased? Who would you want it to side with, Nassarallah? Iran?

Sanctions were imposed on Pakistan for its nukes (even though that did not break any human rights). Why not on Israel?

Because Israel isn't threatning any country and will never be the first one to use nuclear arms, and you know that just as well as I do.
Nor has Israel ever initiated a war on anyone without provokation, thing which you can not say on any of it's neighbours in the ME.

The U.S is uber biased! Its giving Israel the go ahead to do whatever they want. Thats just not tolerable. Too bad America is a super power.

Not tolerable for whom? America has to choose a side, and they chose Israel to side with. On the other side is Iran. With who should US side? Pakistan maybe?
Israel and the US are fighting the same war, just like as the British, German, or any other European domestic security service is fighting.

 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.

I also suggest that at the same occasion, awards will be given to Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Hizbullah for advocating Human Rights and honoring UN resolutions.

U.S. Biased? Who would you want it to side with, Nassarallah? Iran?

Sanctions were imposed on Pakistan for its nukes (even though that did not break any human rights). Why not on Israel?

The U.S is uber biased! Its giving Israel the go ahead to do whatever they want. Thats just not tolerable. Too bad America is a super power.

Yeah, India sucks, Pakistan is the future. We should not forget that India was/is a commie supporter!

 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Sanctions should be imposed on Israel for first breaking numerous Human rights and now failing to honour the resolution. Too bad the U.N is so weak and the U.S is so biased.
Just a little myopic, aren't we? Under the peace agreement ending the previous occupation, signed with Lebanon six years ago, the Lebanese government promised to occupy their own southern territory and disarm Hezbollah. Would you care to explain how many violations of human rights and other agreements Hezbollah has broken by raining rockets on Israeli civilians almost every day for the last six years in direct contravention of those accords? :roll:

If it weren't for all the civilian bloodshed on all sides, I'd reply with a roaring BUAHAHAHAHA! 🙁
 
You know what I find amusing (in a really sad way)? The fact that there is no question, from what we know right now, that Israel broke the cease fire first. While there may be justification for it proven later, none of that really matters to any of you guys...all you care about is that Israel is the good guy and everyone else is the bad guy, so in your mind it doesn't matter WHAT Israel does, they are justified. So what if they illegally broke the cease fire, the other side has done it in the past, right?

And this, my friends, is why there will never be peace in the region. Both sides feel totally justified in doing whatever the hell they want, and both sides believe that they have the absolute right to attack the other guys...if not for current transgressions, than for past ones. We don't have the cease fire for 5 minutes before the Israelis decide to go bounding into Lebanon, guns blazing, after some soldiers, or weapons, or something that may or may not have been there...and the Israeli fan-boys are perfectly willing to back them up in doing so. But don't get me wrong, once this settles down, I'm confident that Hezbollah will start firing some rockets into Israel, no doubt on some equally flimsy pretext...or maybe for no reason at all...and THEIR supporters will be just as supportive of that action.

So here is my proposal...we just step back and let those stupid bastards kill each other for a few years until there aren't enough of them left to fight. Don't get me wrong, I WANT peace in the Middle East, but I don't think it's possible working with the children that live there.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what I find amusing (in a really sad way)? The fact that there is no question, from what we know right now, that Israel broke the cease fire first. While there may be justification for it proven later, none of that really matters to any of you guys...all you care about is that Israel is the good guy and everyone else is the bad guy, so in your mind it doesn't matter WHAT Israel does, they are justified. So what if they illegally broke the cease fire, the other side has done it in the past, right?
If you're referring to my posts, I believe you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills. I said (bold caps added),
IF that turns out to be the true story, Israel's right.
The word IF makes that a conditional statement. IF the condition is true, then, the conclusion follows.

I believe that directly addresses your complaint.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what I find amusing (in a really sad way)? The fact that there is no question, from what we know right now, that Israel broke the cease fire first. While there may be justification for it proven later, none of that really matters to any of you guys...all you care about is that Israel is the good guy and everyone else is the bad guy, so in your mind it doesn't matter WHAT Israel does, they are justified. So what if they illegally broke the cease fire, the other side has done it in the past, right?
If you're referring to my posts, I believe you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills. I said (bold caps added),
IF that turns out to be the true story, Israel's right.
The word IF makes that a conditional statement. IF the condition is true, then, the conclusion follows.

I believe that directly addresses your complaint.

I was not talking about that post you made, I was talking more about what others have said here...such as...

Originally posted by: Extelleron
...
Because WE ALL KNOW that the Lebanese government and Hezbollah ALWAYS follow the UN resolutions and care more than anyone else about human rights.

Originally posted by: Aisengard
And it seems that Hezbollah is free to do whatever it wants, according to you. Remember that arms deals also directly violate Resolution 1701.

Simply the fact that the media is not jumping all over this, and Kofi is not immediately condemning all of Israel, is proof enough that they don't want egg on their face when this is brought up.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
...

I also suggest that at the same occasion, awards will be given to Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Hizbullah for advocating Human Rights and honoring UN resolutions.

U.S. Biased? Who would you want it to side with, Nassarallah? Iran?

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Hezbollah is not allowed to receive weapons and they must be disarmed. If Israel must conduct a raid to stop Hezbollah from receiving weapons they can.

And yes, of course...

Originally posted by: Harvey
...
Just a little myopic, aren't we? Under the peace agreement ending the previous occupation, signed with Lebanon six years ago, the Lebanese government promised to occupy their own southern territory and disarm Hezbollah. Would you care to explain how many violations of human rights and other agreements Hezbollah has broken by raining rockets on Israeli civilians almost every day for the last six years in direct contravention of those accords? :roll:

If it weren't for all the civilian bloodshed on all sides, I'd reply with a roaring BUAHAHAHAHA! 🙁

Israel violates the agreement and the response from a lot of people is to deflect criticism, either by implicitly arguing that breaking an agreement with Hezbollah, since they are the bad guys, doesn't really count (You, SamurAchzar and Extelleron) or immediately buying into the story offered (without a shred of proof) by Israel (Aisengard).

Look, don't get me wrong, if I had to choose one side or the other, it would be Israel in a second. I don't like Israel, but they are a lot better than the alternative. But here's the thing, I DON'T have to choose sides...I can be in favor of peace in the Middle East, not a particular victory for any side. And part of that is dealing with reality.
 
All during the conflict as it played out, the Lebanese Army stayed clear of any involvement in andassociation with Hizbollah forces.
Even at that they have lost soldiers as the result of some of Israel's tacticle strikes.

After breaking the ceasefire with Hizbollah and launching yet another explatory insertion they are inticing the Lebanese Government.

I'd bet that the vast majority of the Lebanese Army would be considered Hizzy sympathizers,
and it would not be a bright move to unite the causes with access to munitions held by Lebanese forces.

Sure, Israel still commands superior weapons and technology, but they would incur higher losses . . at what price?

Here's a sure thing - if the US cuts off it's assistance from financial to military, that makes them a dead man walking.
 
CaptnKirk, if Iran and Syria cut off assistance to Hezbollah...well, there never would have been this war, would there.
 
Back
Top