Saying Hizbollah fought a cleaner war in 2006 kinda overlooks the huge disparity in technology and weapons quality between the two forces. Are you arguing that Hizbollah attempted to avoid killing Israeli non-combatants, or are you just keeping score based on casualties? Hizbollah appeared to be trying to kill as many Israelis as possible. If you want to argue that the onus should have been on Israel to minimize collateral damage, OK. I am going to assume that you are not distorting Hizbollah's motives. They launched as many rockets at civilian areas as they could, and saying that this is "clean" is pretty odd.
It's actually disturbing how so many people today can justify actual criminal actions on the basis of the supposed "motive" of the other side.
Says the least biased person on here, of course. I think we should start a whole new thread where people with giant chips on their shoulders simply put words in everyone else's mouths.
If you think the numbers say it all, then you completely missed my point about motives. By the way, Lebanese officials estimate around 500 Hizbollah dead, and about 1200 Lebanese civilians (wikipedia). 1200 civilians is deplorable, but that is hardly a 10:1 ratio.
Estimate is the key word. Hizbullah said 64 fighters died which is a tad biased I'd say and Israelis estimated the number to be around 300 (non-biased sources not IDF). Safe guess would be somewhere in the middle. I'm sure you can do the calculations.
If you think the numbers say it all, then you completely missed my point about motives. By the way, Lebanese officials estimate around 500 Hizbollah dead, and about 1200 Lebanese civilians (wikipedia). 1200 civilians is deplorable, but that is hardly a 10:1 ratio.
Estimate is the key word. Hizbullah said 64 fighters died which is a tad biased I'd say and Israelis estimated the number to be around 300. Safe guess would be somewhere in the middle. I'm sure you can do the calculations.
Your estimate of 10 to 1 is closer to the Hizbollah figure, which is not at all believable, given the magnitude of the fighting. 5:1 is a better conservative estimate. Is that bad? Absolutely. Not that me saying that will stop folks from arguing that I am excusing Israeli actions.
If you think the numbers say it all, then you completely missed my point about motives. By the way, Lebanese officials estimate around 500 Hizbollah dead, and about 1200 Lebanese civilians (wikipedia). 1200 civilians is deplorable, but that is hardly a 10:1 ratio.
Estimate is the key word. Hizbullah said 64 fighters died which is a tad biased I'd say and Israelis estimated the number to be around 300. Safe guess would be somewhere in the middle. I'm sure you can do the calculations.
Your estimate of 10 to 1 is closer to the Hizbollah figure, which is not at all believable, given the magnitude of the fighting. 5:1 is a better conservative estimate. Is that bad? Absolutely. Not that me saying that will stop folks from arguing that I am excusing Israeli actions.
Haha seriously? 5:1 civilians to fighters then and Hizbullah killed 2:1 fighters to civilians. Making the overall total at 10:1, statistically speaking. That better?
And regarding missing the point on motives, I'll copy paste what I said in the post again.
"It doesn't really matter what you want to believe when it comes to motives because its obvious you side with the israelis when it comes to moral high-ground."
Which obviously you do since you repeat your argument. You are trying to say that the IDF didn't deliberately target civilians while Hizbullah did, aren't you? An argument that is repeatedly used by israeli apologists. Just by simply looking at the history of the conflict there is no way in hell the moral high-ground can be given to the israelis.
My opinion on the matter is that neither side can claim the moral high ground in that war. I am honestly not sure if Israel willfully carpet-bombed Lebanese civilians, or if they just didn't care about "collateral damage". Either way, the outcome was the same and they do NOT have the moral high ground. Do you think Hizbollah does?
My opinion on the matter is that neither side can claim the moral high ground in that war. I am honestly not sure if Israel willfully carpet-bombed Lebanese civilians, or if they just didn't care about "collateral damage". Either way, the outcome was the same and they do NOT have the moral high ground. Do you think Hizbollah does?
I do not generally take up my time thinking about moral high-grounds. Facts on the other hand are a lot better at making a point. The facts on the ground say that Hizbullah was created in order to fight the occupation of Lebanese territories which they did successfully by 2000. Now, the only territory left by then was Shebaa farms which the Israelis refuse to pull out of, thus, giving Hizbullah further excuse to launch attacks.
With regards to 2006, Hizbullah launched an incursion into israeli land (something the israelis do constantly in Lebanon, be it ground incursions, sea and air incursions) which the israelis responded to with green-lighting a mass invasion of the south of Lebanon. Hizbullah then fought off the invasion not only by ground forces but also by launching these shitty missiles they have into israel. These missiles were very effective at changing public opinion in israel about the effectiveness/necessity of that war because for the first time israeli civilians within the cities of israel (i.e. not the northern countryside) were feeling the effects of the war. Something they never experienced in their conflict with Lebanon, specifically.
There is no moral high ground in war but there is logical reasoning.
My opinion on the matter is that neither side can claim the moral high ground in that war. I am honestly not sure if Israel willfully carpet-bombed Lebanese civilians, or if they just didn't care about "collateral damage". Either way, the outcome was the same and they do NOT have the moral high ground. Do you think Hizbollah does?
I do not generally take up my time thinking about moral high-grounds. Facts on the other hand are a lot better at making a point. The facts on the ground say that Hizbullah was created in order to fight the occupation of Lebanese territories which they did successfully by 2000. Now, the only territory left by then was Shebaa farms which the Israelis refuse to pull out of, thus, giving Hizbullah further excuse to launch attacks.
With regards to 2006, Hizbullah launched an incursion into israeli land (something the israelis do constantly in Lebanon, be it ground incursions, sea and air incursions) which the israelis responded to with green-lighting a mass invasion of the south of Lebanon. Hizbullah then fought off the invasion not only by ground forces but also by launching these shitty missiles they have into israel. These missiles were very effective at changing public opinion in israel about the effectiveness/necessity of that war because for the first time israeli civilians within the cities of israel (i.e. not the northern countryside) were feeling the effects of the war. Something they never experienced in their conflict with Lebanon, specifically.
There is no moral high ground in war but there is logical reasoning.
Israel left Lebanon not because of Hizbollah's fighting prowess, but because the Israelis recognized that there is no way to actually win such a war short of destroying Lebanon itself. Destroying it even more than they already did, I mean. If you want to talk facts, Hizbollah's extremely ill-advised hostage taking behavior starting the 2006 invasion in the first place, leading directly to the bombings and all those civilian deaths. Nice move by a bunch of "freedom fighters". Whose freedom? If indeed Hizbollah's goal in 2006 was protecting the Lebanese people, they fucked that up pretty badly.
And not to beat the point re. civilian casualties to death, but this summary of Hizbollah casualties makes the most sense to me (again from wikipedia):
Hezbollah
Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 184 to 1,000. However, Hezbollah is known to have sustained more fatalities than Israel during the conflict. Hezbollah's leadership claims that 250 of their fighters were killed in the conflict,[9] while Israel estimated that its forces had killed 600 Hezbollah fighters.[9][12] In addition, Israel claimed to have the names of 532 dead Hezbollah fighters.[174][dead link] A UN official estimated that 500 Hezbollah fighters had been killed,[11] and Lebanese government officials estimated that up to 500 had been killed.[10] A Stratfor report cited "sources in Lebanon" as estimating the Hezbollah death toll at "more than 700... with many more to go",[175] Meanwhile, British Military Historian John Keegan estimated that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah fighters were killed.[176] A burial count published in an October 2006 article in the Asia Times Online suggested a death toll of 184.[177] However, Israel also captured the corpses of 199 Hezbollah fighters. Following the prisoner swap deal in July 2008, Israel returned the remains of almost 200 militants.[178] Defense analyst Ben Moores estimated that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) lost a combined total of 600 to 900 killed in action.[179]
Con Coughlin of the Daily Telegraph reported that the difficulty in ascertaining an accurate Hezbollah casualty count was due in large part to deliberate attempts by Hezbollah to conceal the true extent of its losses. Citing a “senior security official” he wrote, “Hizbollah(sic) is desperate to conceal its casualties because it wants to give the impression that it is winning its war. People might reach a different conclusion if they knew the true extent of Hizbollah’s(sic) casualties.” [180] Patrick Bishop of the Telegraph reported that Hezbollah’s “culture of secrecy has disguised the true number of its losses – funerals of ‘martyrs’ are being staggered to soften the impact of losses.” [181]
And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?
Spin it anyway u want, Israel got there asses handed to them by Hez-bollah. If you think other wise then you're fucking blind. Israelis are militarily smart. They purposely fought this war to see what military powers Hezbollah had but they didn't expect to see the resistance they did. I dnt give a fuck what lame ass excuse anyone makes about Israel in this war. Bottom line is Hezbollah did something no one the world believed could happen, made Israel back off of Lebanon. And they even called dumb bitch condi rice and told her to make them stop. Hamas is one thing but Hezbollah is someone you dnt fuck with. Try target killing them. See what will happen. I mean shit you destroy gaza cuz of rocket attack but yet you leave Hezbollah alone after they grabbed two idf soldiers? I mean you tried but in reality you couldn't get the job done. Remember, Israelis government MADE condi rice return back her flight and told her to make them stop. That's what REALY happened. Dnt foool yourself or anyone else into thinking otherwise. Hezbollah scared the shit out of Israel and that so called war was a huge mistake to Israel. Period.
When Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 during the Six Day War, the Shebaa Farms were considered to be part of the Syrian Golan Heights.[3]
A controversy arose following the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory in Southern Lebanon on May 25, 2000. On June 18, 2000, the United Nations affirmed that Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with Resolution 425.[5] Syria and Lebanon disputed the United Nations certification that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was complete. Hezbollah cites the ongoing occupation of the Shebaa farms as the basis for its continued attacks on Israel.
For decades members of the international diplomatic community have repeatedly requested that Syria and Lebanon take steps to determine the exact boundary between them in the Shebaa Farms region and elsewhere, including officially registering the demarcated border with the United Nations. However, recently President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has refused to do so until Israeli troops withdraw.[6] On October 31, 2007, the definition of the physical extent of the Shebaa Farms area by former UN cartographer Miklos Pinther was released by the UN.[1] This could be a prelude to an eventual negotiated determination of the political destination of that territory.[7]
The United Nations agreed with Israel that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Shebaa Farms issue is really pretty contrived. Israel captured it from Syria, not Lebanon, but Syria doesn't want to make an explicit claim on the area now because it is more useful to let it remain "disputed" so that Hezbollah, itself a Syrian proxy, can claim a justification for its continued hostility towards Israel.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Just curious, when was the last time Syria attacked Israel? And when was the last time Israel attacked Syria? So the hostility finger pointing is deserved at Israel. What was it 2 years ago Israel bombed Syria? I nuclear plant ey? Funny how it turned out to be a medicine factory. And syria didn't respond. Those damn Syrian terrerists, how can they attack Israel? Oh wait, I made a mistake, it was Israel that attacked Syria. My mistake, sorry.
Oh and since when does Israel care about UN resolutions? I mean shit they've been ignoring them for the past how many years???? Come on people, are u serious? Read between the lines and open ur fucken eyes already!! Jesus christ, excuse after excuse but only if it benefits u right? These debates are getting comical now. People complain about lame as quotes from texts yet they then put lame as quotes from texts. Bottom line is ENOUGH of the occupation, ENOUGH of the finger pointing and ENOUGH of the silly personal attacks. We all know there's two sides and beliefs to each story so let's just say ENOUGH. There will
always be sheep following sheep to the slaughter and there will always be blind people in the world. Your point of view depends on what side your on. It's just amazing to me to see so
many people who are not Palestinian siding with the Palestinians. That says a lot to me. Says there are people
who can see and not blinded by propoganda. To them I say keep up the fight and to those on the other side, I give u credit for standing by your beliefs and defending them. That means you yosi my brother . I'm keeping my promise about that pj show yosi. I swear when that day comes I'm there standing right next to you singing Tremor Christ cuz we all know it's the Christians fault!!!! Jk to all my christian brothers and sisters out there!!! We'll all sing NO MORE with Ed and the boys!!!!
Leaving aside your comparison, which has nothing to do with anything discussed so far in this thread, NO, they should simply stop lynching people in the street without trial.
Don't let anyone ever accuse you of trying to change the subject Yosi.
By the way, Israel carries out illegal, extra-judicial assassinations which are considered crimes against humanity.
And I wonder what Mordachai Vennunu would make of your high regard for the Israeli justice system?
or like many they just lock them in prison without giving them a charge or trial....some people guilty of nothing but talking to another country about divestment from Israel.
the reality is it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do they will be killed by these extra-judicial assassinations, written off as collateral damage or kidnapped and thrown in prison without ever being charged of a crime or seeing a judge. after decades of this and the danger that tanks, APCs and bulldozers could come at any time because they think your section of houses is a threat to the security of their illegal occupation...it's just common sense a people would resist that an strike back, like how a girl being raped might try to punch and scratch but is no match for the overpowering male with a big gun.
back to the OP
yosi, i know you will argue the semantics if the murder of over 300 innocent children can be called a massacre but are you also arguing that a UN building housing over 700 residents of Gaza is dense enough to fire white phosphorus shells over??
that's like going over 100 in a residential area and saying well shit, like 200 kids live in that area and so far i've only clipped 15 or so, so it's ok
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and why does the IDF seem to always have several different versions of what happened?
first they called any claims of using white phosphorus ridiculous and not worth dignifying with a response.
then yeah, they may have used a little bit but only to illuminate the battlefield
oh, it was daytime? i mean uhh, yeah, did i say illuminate? i meant cover, we used it to cover our troop movement in a densely populated area
and then it turns out they fired these rounds over head of over 700 people? and then the most that happens is a note is placed in their files?? are you fucking kidding me??? you can say it's isolated all you want but even if that were so the more you let things like that (and beating up old women peacefully protesting the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and murdering journalists) go unpunished the more it will happen. that is just common sense and human nature.
and look at when they bombed those UN and Red Cross buildings:
first Israel said it was a lie
then they said militants were in the building
then it was a targeting error (even though they were given the coordinates of these buildings well in advance)
or look at when they killed the journalist, Jamie Miller:
first the IDF said the Palestinians killed him and it was kinda his fault for entering a combat zone
then they find out there was no rocket attack by Palestinians going on, the IDF showed up and started firing into buildings...the documentary crew waited for them to stop then left a home waving a white flag with the word TV on their helmet and jackets and AFTER one of them shouted "hello, we are british journalists" Jamie Miller gets shot in the neck...and it was proven the only gunfire came from the IDFs APC and the guy who shot and killed Jamie Miller was given a fucking promotion!
so, it's nonsense to argue every abuse is simply an isolated incident and not the norm. it is the norm when it happens repeatedly and no one is punished for it and instead rewarded. that's like yelling at your kid for stealing then taking him out for ice cream because you yelled at them.
when these incidents happen nothing is done about it. in cases they are rewarded for their crimes. what do you expect when the IDF has a ribbon named after a terrorist orginzation like the Lehi Ribbon?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'm really not interested in arguing the specifics. I am perfectly willing to grant you that there were specific instances in which I'm sure IDF personnel acted wrongly, perhaps even criminally. What I am not willing to do is assume guilt based solely on the testimony of Palestinians who may or may not be telling the truth. Again, I'm sure that in many instances mistakes were made, and that in a few rarer instances truly criminal acts were taken. That is the reality of war, and I say this not to excuse anything whatsoever, but to place the acts within their proper context. Where crimes were committed I fully support Israel undertaking criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. What I do not in any way support is the assertion that criminality defined the policy of the IDF as a whole. I have yet to see clear evidence of this. People keep claiming that sheer numbers of dead amounts to evidence. It does not. It is proof of the price paid when a war is fought in the midst of a civilian population, a situation that was entirely dictated by Hamas' decision not to wear uniforms and to fight from within populated areas. Someone recently claimed on the board that uniforms are merely showy pieces of clothing to make soldiers look impressive. That is simply wrong. Uniforms serve the decidedly moral function of creating a clear, visible distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Hamas' operatives have uniforms. They could have worn them when they fought the Israeli forces. They did not do so, and the only reason for this was so as to make it virtually impossible for Israeli soldiers to distinguish between a civilian, and a person that looked like a civilian but was actually a combatant. Hamas could not have done this without knowing that it would greatly increase the number of civilian casualties. They are not stupid, just cynical and immoral. Again, this does not justify actions taken by Israeli soldiers that were clearly criminal. What it does do, however, is give a sense of the context in which the IDF was operating, and seen in this light it is easier to appreciate that at the very least Hamas must share responsibility for Palestinian deaths, and that the sheer numbers of dead are not in any way clear proof of a massacre, or of any intent on the part of the IDF as a whole to target civilians.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You keep making a big deal about this Lehi ribbon. It isn't a big deal. From wikipedia:
In 1980 Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it.
In 1980 Israel had its first conservative, non-labor government in the country's history. It makes some sense that such a government would create such an award, especially since Begin, the prime minister, had been the head of the Irgun 40 years earlier. In any event the medal was only awarded to former members of the Lehi, who by 1980 would all have been long retired from military duty. So basically what you're talking about is a meaningless decoration that a couple old veterans can wear when they get together. This is hardly an indication that the IDF sees the Lehi as an organization to be emulated. It probably just means that after 40 years of labor governments that would never dream of associating themselves with the Lehi some old veterans saw a chance to get some recognition from Israel's first conservative government, petitioned, and were given an utterly meaningless ribbon to wear.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm really not interested in arguing the specifics. I am perfectly willing to grant you that there were specific instances in which I'm sure IDF personnel acted wrongly, perhaps even criminally. What I am not willing to do is assume guilt based solely on the testimony of Palestinians who may or may not be telling the truth. Again, I'm sure that in many instances mistakes were made, and that in a few rarer instances truly criminal acts were taken. That is the reality of war, and I say this not to excuse anything whatsoever, but to place the acts within their proper context. Where crimes were committed I fully support Israel undertaking criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. What I do not in any way support is the assertion that criminality defined the policy of the IDF as a whole. I have yet to see clear evidence of this. People keep claiming that sheer numbers of dead amounts to evidence. It does not. It is proof of the price paid when a war is fought in the midst of a civilian population, a situation that was entirely dictated by Hamas' decision not to wear uniforms and to fight from within populated areas. Someone recently claimed on the board that uniforms are merely showy pieces of clothing to make soldiers look impressive. That is simply wrong. Uniforms serve the decidedly moral function of creating a clear, visible distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Hamas' operatives have uniforms. They could have worn them when they fought the Israeli forces. They did not do so, and the only reason for this was so as to make it virtually impossible for Israeli soldiers to distinguish between a civilian, and a person that looked like a civilian but was actually a combatant. Hamas could not have done this without knowing that it would greatly increase the number of civilian casualties. They are not stupid, just cynical and immoral. Again, this does not justify actions taken by Israeli soldiers that were clearly criminal. What it does do, however, is give a sense of the context in which the IDF was operating, and seen in this light it is easier to appreciate that at the very least Hamas must share responsibility for Palestinian deaths, and that the sheer numbers of dead are not in any way clear proof of a massacre, or of any intent on the part of the IDF as a whole to target civilians.
other than all the soldiers and squad leaders who say otherwise, who claim their orders were everyone was a target.
and ok, let's put aside to what you don't believe because it's a Palestinian saying it, take the firing of white phosphorus over a UN compound where over 700 people were taking refuge? shells fell on that property so it was just firing over and past it. nothing happened to the people in charge, do you feel they were justified in firing those rounds?
the murder of Jamie Miller? they had a white flag, were clearly marked as tv personnel and identified themselves as such and the officer that killed him got promoted? you think he was justified in shooting him? do you think he deserves a promotion afterwards?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
You keep making a big deal about this Lehi ribbon. It isn't a big deal. From wikipedia:
In 1980 Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it.
In 1980 Israel had its first conservative, non-labor government in the country's history. It makes some sense that such a government would create such an award, especially since Begin, the prime minister, had been the head of the Irgun 40 years earlier. In any event the medal was only awarded to former members of the Lehi, who by 1980 would all have been long retired from military duty. So basically what you're talking about is a meaningless decoration that a couple old veterans can wear when they get together. This is hardly an indication that the IDF sees the Lehi as an organization to be emulated. It probably just means that after 40 years of labor governments that would never dream of associating themselves with the Lehi some old veterans saw a chance to get some recognition from Israel's first conservative government, petitioned, and were given an utterly meaningless ribbon to wear.
"Awards for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel" are ribbons commemorating a person's involvement in engagements concerning the fighting and the struggle for the resurrection of the State of Israel, through underground organisations and military units, since the days of the "HaShomer" organization till the establishment of the State.
the Lehi, aka the stern gang, were a *terrorist organization* who believed the entire land is promised to them in the bible so they are justified in taking it by force. they assassinated people, blew up police barracks, trains and other buildings killing civilians, murdered over 100 civilians in Deir Yassin.....
and you are saying it is ok to make a ribbon commemorating them in the establishment of Israel??? so, for all your talk about Hamas how would you feel if that role was reversed and it was a Hamas ribbon for the establishment of Palestine? (except of course the lehi were far more violent and i don't believe Hamas has ever assassinated government officials or wiped out an entire village....)
you can call it a meaningless decoration all you want, i think many others see it a different way
why not have an al qaeda ribbon, too?
and 'If the person eligible for this award has passed away, a family member (a spouse, a son, a daughter, a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, a grandson, a granddaughter) is entitled to submit an application requesting the ribbon, or an equivalent to the ribbon in event of loss or wear and tear.'
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Spin it anyway u want, Israel got there asses handed to them by Hez-bollah. If you think other wise then you're fucking blind. Israelis are militarily smart. They purposely fought this war to see what military powers Hezbollah had but they didn't expect to see the resistance they did. I dnt give a fuck what lame ass excuse anyone makes about Israel in this war. Bottom line is Hezbollah did something no one the world believed could happen, made Israel back off of Lebanon. And they even called dumb bitch condi rice and told her to make them stop. Hamas is one thing but Hezbollah is someone you dnt fuck with. Try target killing them. See what will happen. I mean shit you destroy gaza cuz of rocket attack but yet you leave Hezbollah alone after they grabbed two idf soldiers? I mean you tried but in reality you couldn't get the job done. Remember, Israelis government MADE condi rice return back her flight and told her to make them stop. That's what REALY happened. Dnt foool yourself or anyone else into thinking otherwise. Hezbollah scared the shit out of Israel and that so called war was a huge mistake to Israel. Period.
What are you, a cheerleader? Rah, rah, Hezbollah!!!
Pepe, I have already said this, but I have come to learn not to expect you to pay close attention to what people say. I would have no problem with an eventual Palestinian state creating a ribbon to commemorate Hamas. Or to be more precise, I might have a problem with it, but I would not be stupid enough to judge them for it. I would recognize that they have their own narrative of events and that a state has an interest in being as inclusive in its creation narrative as it can be.
As for the Israeli ribbon, it is utterly meaningless. It isn't awarded to current soldiers. It is entirely symbolic, a token to make a few old men, who have probably lived most of their lives feeling unappreciated feel recognized by their country. (I say that these men probably felt unappreciated because they were unappreciated due to the fact that the Lehi play a very minor, and to be quite honest somewhat negative role in the mainstream Israeli narrative, which is really the story of the Haganah and the Palmach.)
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israel left Lebanon not because of Hizbollah's fighting prowess, but because the Israelis recognized that there is no way to actually win such a war short of destroying Lebanon itself. Destroying it even more than they already did, I mean. If you want to talk facts, Hizbollah's extremely ill-advised hostage taking behavior starting the 2006 invasion in the first place, leading directly to the bombings and all those civilian deaths. Nice move by a bunch of "freedom fighters". Whose freedom? If indeed Hizbollah's goal in 2006 was protecting the Lebanese people, they fucked that up pretty badly.
And not to beat the point re. civilian casualties to death, but this summary of Hizbollah casualties makes the most sense to me (again from wikipedia):
Hezbollah
Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 184 to 1,000. However, Hezbollah is known to have sustained more fatalities than Israel during the conflict. Hezbollah's leadership claims that 250 of their fighters were killed in the conflict,[9] while Israel estimated that its forces had killed 600 Hezbollah fighters.[9][12] In addition, Israel claimed to have the names of 532 dead Hezbollah fighters.[174][dead link] A UN official estimated that 500 Hezbollah fighters had been killed,[11] and Lebanese government officials estimated that up to 500 had been killed.[10] A Stratfor report cited "sources in Lebanon" as estimating the Hezbollah death toll at "more than 700... with many more to go",[175] Meanwhile, British Military Historian John Keegan estimated that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah fighters were killed.[176] A burial count published in an October 2006 article in the Asia Times Online suggested a death toll of 184.[177] However, Israel also captured the corpses of 199 Hezbollah fighters. Following the prisoner swap deal in July 2008, Israel returned the remains of almost 200 militants.[178] Defense analyst Ben Moores estimated that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) lost a combined total of 600 to 900 killed in action.[179]
Con Coughlin of the Daily Telegraph reported that the difficulty in ascertaining an accurate Hezbollah casualty count was due in large part to deliberate attempts by Hezbollah to conceal the true extent of its losses. Citing a “senior security official” he wrote, “Hizbollah(sic) is desperate to conceal its casualties because it wants to give the impression that it is winning its war. People might reach a different conclusion if they knew the true extent of Hizbollah’s(sic) casualties.” [180] Patrick Bishop of the Telegraph reported that Hezbollah’s “culture of secrecy has disguised the true number of its losses – funerals of ‘martyrs’ are being staggered to soften the impact of losses.” [181]
You are wrong. Israel did leave south Lebanon because of Hizbullah. The group made the occupation of south Lebanon hell for the Israelis. They were not only losing soldiers but the security threats made it financially impossible to maintain such an occupation. So they packed their bags and left in 2000. Hell even the IDF admitted to this so I'm not sure why you are arguing a false point. The rest of the post about destruction of the country is BS and only shows how little you understand of what went on in Lebanon post 1983.
Regarding the incursion, the Israelis had multiple daily incursions in Lebanon before 2006 and Hizbullah or the Lebanese army never retaliated by sending rockets to completely destroy northern villages. If there was retaliation it was one or two rockets shot out. There were many reports that Israel had planned an invasion of Lebanon until the Litani river months before the 2006 war and the incursion was just an excuse to put those plans into effect and destroy Hizbullah completely. They failed miserably.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at with your civilian vs fighter count because even if the number is 600 as the IDF say it is that would still make it an overall 4:1 ratio against Israel. Perhaps you should move on.
And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?
By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.
If we are already assuming that Shebaa Farms is nothing more than an excuse then why should Israel give it up to a bunch of thug terrorists, since it should be clear that they will just find another excuse to attack Israel. You don't make concessions, or at the very least you shouldn't make concessions, to terrorists committed to your destruction. They will always find another reason to attack you, and every time you give in to them it only re-enforces their belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. If Israel gives up anything, anywhere, it should only be in the context of a negotiation with a legitimate partner.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If we are already assuming that Shebaa Farms is nothing more than an excuse then why should Israel give it up to a bunch of thug terrorists, since it should be clear that they will just find another excuse to attack Israel. You don't make concessions, or at the very least you shouldn't make concessions, to terrorists committed to your destruction. They will always find another reason to attack you, and every time you give in to them it only re-enforces their belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. If Israel gives up anything, anywhere, it should only be in the context of a negotiation with a legitimate partner.
I'm not entirely sure who this "we" is but I believe you are the only one who is assuming that. Shebaa village is known to be part of Lebanon. That is fact. The farms on the other hand were in unknown territory, until Syria agreed that it is part of Lebanon. Regardless of the motives (and I assure you the last thing Syria wants is to give more land to Lebanon), it is part of Lebanon so get the fuck out.
and actually, thug terrorists are currently occupying it at the moment and if it was returned to Lebanon it would probably be turned over to the UN and not Hizbullah. The Lebanese army will deploy there as well, as they did in the south post-2006.
They will always find another reason to attack you, and every time you give in to them it only re-enforces their belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want.
Like every time the US vetoes a UN resolution it only re-enforces Israel's belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. Spot on.
And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?
By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.
I am quite irritated by your tone regarding my knowledge of the 2006 war (personally, I think you are just irritated that someone is raining on your Hezbollah worship parade), but I will concede this point (mostly because its facile and obvious).
And its worth asking ... How are the Israelis supposed to pull out of Shebaa farms now? To do so would empower Hizbollah even further, sending the message that hostage taking and causing an invasion of Lebanon is a good way to do business with Israel. Why would Israel wish to send that message at this point?
By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.
I am quite irritated by your tone regarding my knowledge of the 2006 war (personally, I think you are just irritated that someone is raining on your Hezbollah worship parade), but I will concede this point (mostly because its facile and obvious).
Hahaha is this the best you have? "Hizbullah worship parade"?
I'll have you know I come from a family of hardcore Hariri supporters who are adamantly opposed to Hizbullah. But you can keep trying to paint a negative picture of me.
Dnt let the door hit u on the way out reborn. You're a fucking joke. Me a Hezbollah cheerleader? Where did I ever say that? I just said the facts. Hezbollah handed it to Israel. I'm not cheering up and down, it's just the truth.
Comments
Says the least biased person on here, of course. I think we should start a whole new thread where people with giant chips on their shoulders simply put words in everyone else's mouths.
Estimate is the key word. Hizbullah said 64 fighters died which is a tad biased I'd say and Israelis estimated the number to be around 300 (non-biased sources not IDF). Safe guess would be somewhere in the middle. I'm sure you can do the calculations.
Your estimate of 10 to 1 is closer to the Hizbollah figure, which is not at all believable, given the magnitude of the fighting. 5:1 is a better conservative estimate. Is that bad? Absolutely. Not that me saying that will stop folks from arguing that I am excusing Israeli actions.
Haha seriously? 5:1 civilians to fighters then and Hizbullah killed 2:1 fighters to civilians. Making the overall total at 10:1, statistically speaking. That better?
And regarding missing the point on motives, I'll copy paste what I said in the post again.
"It doesn't really matter what you want to believe when it comes to motives because its obvious you side with the israelis when it comes to moral high-ground."
Which obviously you do since you repeat your argument. You are trying to say that the IDF didn't deliberately target civilians while Hizbullah did, aren't you? An argument that is repeatedly used by israeli apologists. Just by simply looking at the history of the conflict there is no way in hell the moral high-ground can be given to the israelis.
I do not generally take up my time thinking about moral high-grounds. Facts on the other hand are a lot better at making a point. The facts on the ground say that Hizbullah was created in order to fight the occupation of Lebanese territories which they did successfully by 2000. Now, the only territory left by then was Shebaa farms which the Israelis refuse to pull out of, thus, giving Hizbullah further excuse to launch attacks.
With regards to 2006, Hizbullah launched an incursion into israeli land (something the israelis do constantly in Lebanon, be it ground incursions, sea and air incursions) which the israelis responded to with green-lighting a mass invasion of the south of Lebanon. Hizbullah then fought off the invasion not only by ground forces but also by launching these shitty missiles they have into israel. These missiles were very effective at changing public opinion in israel about the effectiveness/necessity of that war because for the first time israeli civilians within the cities of israel (i.e. not the northern countryside) were feeling the effects of the war. Something they never experienced in their conflict with Lebanon, specifically.
There is no moral high ground in war but there is logical reasoning.
Israel left Lebanon not because of Hizbollah's fighting prowess, but because the Israelis recognized that there is no way to actually win such a war short of destroying Lebanon itself. Destroying it even more than they already did, I mean. If you want to talk facts, Hizbollah's extremely ill-advised hostage taking behavior starting the 2006 invasion in the first place, leading directly to the bombings and all those civilian deaths. Nice move by a bunch of "freedom fighters". Whose freedom? If indeed Hizbollah's goal in 2006 was protecting the Lebanese people, they fucked that up pretty badly.
And not to beat the point re. civilian casualties to death, but this summary of Hizbollah casualties makes the most sense to me (again from wikipedia):
Hezbollah
Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 184 to 1,000. However, Hezbollah is known to have sustained more fatalities than Israel during the conflict. Hezbollah's leadership claims that 250 of their fighters were killed in the conflict,[9] while Israel estimated that its forces had killed 600 Hezbollah fighters.[9][12] In addition, Israel claimed to have the names of 532 dead Hezbollah fighters.[174][dead link] A UN official estimated that 500 Hezbollah fighters had been killed,[11] and Lebanese government officials estimated that up to 500 had been killed.[10] A Stratfor report cited "sources in Lebanon" as estimating the Hezbollah death toll at "more than 700... with many more to go",[175] Meanwhile, British Military Historian John Keegan estimated that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah fighters were killed.[176] A burial count published in an October 2006 article in the Asia Times Online suggested a death toll of 184.[177] However, Israel also captured the corpses of 199 Hezbollah fighters. Following the prisoner swap deal in July 2008, Israel returned the remains of almost 200 militants.[178] Defense analyst Ben Moores estimated that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) lost a combined total of 600 to 900 killed in action.[179]
Con Coughlin of the Daily Telegraph reported that the difficulty in ascertaining an accurate Hezbollah casualty count was due in large part to deliberate attempts by Hezbollah to conceal the true extent of its losses. Citing a “senior security official” he wrote, “Hizbollah(sic) is desperate to conceal its casualties because it wants to give the impression that it is winning its war. People might reach a different conclusion if they knew the true extent of Hizbollah’s(sic) casualties.” [180] Patrick Bishop of the Telegraph reported that Hezbollah’s “culture of secrecy has disguised the true number of its losses – funerals of ‘martyrs’ are being staggered to soften the impact of losses.” [181]
When Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 during the Six Day War, the Shebaa Farms were considered to be part of the Syrian Golan Heights.[3]
A controversy arose following the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory in Southern Lebanon on May 25, 2000. On June 18, 2000, the United Nations affirmed that Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with Resolution 425.[5] Syria and Lebanon disputed the United Nations certification that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was complete. Hezbollah cites the ongoing occupation of the Shebaa farms as the basis for its continued attacks on Israel.
For decades members of the international diplomatic community have repeatedly requested that Syria and Lebanon take steps to determine the exact boundary between them in the Shebaa Farms region and elsewhere, including officially registering the demarcated border with the United Nations. However, recently President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has refused to do so until Israeli troops withdraw.[6] On October 31, 2007, the definition of the physical extent of the Shebaa Farms area by former UN cartographer Miklos Pinther was released by the UN.[1] This could be a prelude to an eventual negotiated determination of the political destination of that territory.[7]
The United Nations agreed with Israel that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Shebaa Farms issue is really pretty contrived. Israel captured it from Syria, not Lebanon, but Syria doesn't want to make an explicit claim on the area now because it is more useful to let it remain "disputed" so that Hezbollah, itself a Syrian proxy, can claim a justification for its continued hostility towards Israel.
always be sheep following sheep to the slaughter and there will always be blind people in the world. Your point of view depends on what side your on. It's just amazing to me to see so
many people who are not Palestinian siding with the Palestinians. That says a lot to me. Says there are people
who can see and not blinded by propoganda. To them I say keep up the fight and to those on the other side, I give u credit for standing by your beliefs and defending them. That means you yosi my brother
or like many they just lock them in prison without giving them a charge or trial....some people guilty of nothing but talking to another country about divestment from Israel.
the reality is it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do they will be killed by these extra-judicial assassinations, written off as collateral damage or kidnapped and thrown in prison without ever being charged of a crime or seeing a judge. after decades of this and the danger that tanks, APCs and bulldozers could come at any time because they think your section of houses is a threat to the security of their illegal occupation...it's just common sense a people would resist that an strike back, like how a girl being raped might try to punch and scratch but is no match for the overpowering male with a big gun.
back to the OP
yosi, i know you will argue the semantics if the murder of over 300 innocent children can be called a massacre but are you also arguing that a UN building housing over 700 residents of Gaza is dense enough to fire white phosphorus shells over??
that's like going over 100 in a residential area and saying well shit, like 200 kids live in that area and so far i've only clipped 15 or so, so it's ok
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
first they called any claims of using white phosphorus ridiculous and not worth dignifying with a response.
then yeah, they may have used a little bit but only to illuminate the battlefield
oh, it was daytime? i mean uhh, yeah, did i say illuminate? i meant cover, we used it to cover our troop movement in a densely populated area
and then it turns out they fired these rounds over head of over 700 people? and then the most that happens is a note is placed in their files?? are you fucking kidding me??? you can say it's isolated all you want but even if that were so the more you let things like that (and beating up old women peacefully protesting the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and murdering journalists) go unpunished the more it will happen. that is just common sense and human nature.
and look at when they bombed those UN and Red Cross buildings:
first Israel said it was a lie
then they said militants were in the building
then it was a targeting error (even though they were given the coordinates of these buildings well in advance)
or look at when they killed the journalist, Jamie Miller:
first the IDF said the Palestinians killed him and it was kinda his fault for entering a combat zone
then they find out there was no rocket attack by Palestinians going on, the IDF showed up and started firing into buildings...the documentary crew waited for them to stop then left a home waving a white flag with the word TV on their helmet and jackets and AFTER one of them shouted "hello, we are british journalists" Jamie Miller gets shot in the neck...and it was proven the only gunfire came from the IDFs APC and the guy who shot and killed Jamie Miller was given a fucking promotion!
so, it's nonsense to argue every abuse is simply an isolated incident and not the norm. it is the norm when it happens repeatedly and no one is punished for it and instead rewarded. that's like yelling at your kid for stealing then taking him out for ice cream because you yelled at them.
when these incidents happen nothing is done about it. in cases they are rewarded for their crimes. what do you expect when the IDF has a ribbon named after a terrorist orginzation like the Lehi Ribbon?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
In 1980 Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it.
In 1980 Israel had its first conservative, non-labor government in the country's history. It makes some sense that such a government would create such an award, especially since Begin, the prime minister, had been the head of the Irgun 40 years earlier. In any event the medal was only awarded to former members of the Lehi, who by 1980 would all have been long retired from military duty. So basically what you're talking about is a meaningless decoration that a couple old veterans can wear when they get together. This is hardly an indication that the IDF sees the Lehi as an organization to be emulated. It probably just means that after 40 years of labor governments that would never dream of associating themselves with the Lehi some old veterans saw a chance to get some recognition from Israel's first conservative government, petitioned, and were given an utterly meaningless ribbon to wear.
other than all the soldiers and squad leaders who say otherwise, who claim their orders were everyone was a target.
and ok, let's put aside to what you don't believe because it's a Palestinian saying it, take the firing of white phosphorus over a UN compound where over 700 people were taking refuge? shells fell on that property so it was just firing over and past it. nothing happened to the people in charge, do you feel they were justified in firing those rounds?
the murder of Jamie Miller? they had a white flag, were clearly marked as tv personnel and identified themselves as such and the officer that killed him got promoted? you think he was justified in shooting him? do you think he deserves a promotion afterwards?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
oh come now, yosi, you know the lehi ribbon is given for
http://www.mod.gov.il/pages/heritage/Awards.asp#lechi
the Lehi, aka the stern gang, were a *terrorist organization* who believed the entire land is promised to them in the bible so they are justified in taking it by force. they assassinated people, blew up police barracks, trains and other buildings killing civilians, murdered over 100 civilians in Deir Yassin.....
and you are saying it is ok to make a ribbon commemorating them in the establishment of Israel??? so, for all your talk about Hamas how would you feel if that role was reversed and it was a Hamas ribbon for the establishment of Palestine? (except of course the lehi were far more violent and i don't believe Hamas has ever assassinated government officials or wiped out an entire village....)
you can call it a meaningless decoration all you want, i think many others see it a different way
why not have an al qaeda ribbon, too?
and 'If the person eligible for this award has passed away, a family member (a spouse, a son, a daughter, a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, a grandson, a granddaughter) is entitled to submit an application requesting the ribbon, or an equivalent to the ribbon in event of loss or wear and tear.'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
What are you, a cheerleader? Rah, rah, Hezbollah!!!
As for the Israeli ribbon, it is utterly meaningless. It isn't awarded to current soldiers. It is entirely symbolic, a token to make a few old men, who have probably lived most of their lives feeling unappreciated feel recognized by their country. (I say that these men probably felt unappreciated because they were unappreciated due to the fact that the Lehi play a very minor, and to be quite honest somewhat negative role in the mainstream Israeli narrative, which is really the story of the Haganah and the Palmach.)
You are wrong. Israel did leave south Lebanon because of Hizbullah. The group made the occupation of south Lebanon hell for the Israelis. They were not only losing soldiers but the security threats made it financially impossible to maintain such an occupation. So they packed their bags and left in 2000. Hell even the IDF admitted to this so I'm not sure why you are arguing a false point. The rest of the post about destruction of the country is BS and only shows how little you understand of what went on in Lebanon post 1983.
Regarding the incursion, the Israelis had multiple daily incursions in Lebanon before 2006 and Hizbullah or the Lebanese army never retaliated by sending rockets to completely destroy northern villages. If there was retaliation it was one or two rockets shot out. There were many reports that Israel had planned an invasion of Lebanon until the Litani river months before the 2006 war and the incursion was just an excuse to put those plans into effect and destroy Hizbullah completely. They failed miserably.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at with your civilian vs fighter count because even if the number is 600 as the IDF say it is that would still make it an overall 4:1 ratio against Israel. Perhaps you should move on.
By that logic why should Israel pull out of any place it occupies. Perhaps the better question is, why are they occupying it in the first place? To pull out would give Hizbullah no more excuse to attack them.
I'm not entirely sure who this "we" is but I believe you are the only one who is assuming that. Shebaa village is known to be part of Lebanon. That is fact. The farms on the other hand were in unknown territory, until Syria agreed that it is part of Lebanon. Regardless of the motives (and I assure you the last thing Syria wants is to give more land to Lebanon), it is part of Lebanon so get the fuck out.
and actually, thug terrorists are currently occupying it at the moment and if it was returned to Lebanon it would probably be turned over to the UN and not Hizbullah. The Lebanese army will deploy there as well, as they did in the south post-2006.
Like every time the US vetoes a UN resolution it only re-enforces Israel's belief that murdering civilians is an effective way to get what they want. Spot on.
I am quite irritated by your tone regarding my knowledge of the 2006 war (personally, I think you are just irritated that someone is raining on your Hezbollah worship parade), but I will concede this point (mostly because its facile and obvious).
Is this the excuse you are going to give to back off a failed argument?
I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to when you say glorification of Hizbullah but what I have said are facts whether you like them or not.
Hahaha is this the best you have? "Hizbullah worship parade"?
I'll have you know I come from a family of hardcore Hariri supporters who are adamantly opposed to Hizbullah. But you can keep trying to paint a negative picture of me.