Any guesses what will happen when Hezbollah refuses to disarm? They are currently under a UN mandate to disarm, but it is quite obvious that they have no intentions of doing so. Armies don't disband after they win a war... duh!
So in essence, Israel will theoretically have the support of the UN if they decide to try and disarm Hezbollah themselves. Furthermore, if the UN proves that it cannot fullfill its own mandate, I doubt Israel will care either way if the UN supports them or condems them.
Plus, throw in the fact that Netanyahoo will likely take office by the end of the year - and the probablility for another war is very likely.
I am being attacked by the people with wacked out religious beliefs,
Exactly what the administration wants you to believe. It's not their religion that causes their hostility towards the west, it's the U.S. foreign policy. I'm pretty tired of hearing the terms "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" because those terms really are ignorantly overused. Sure there may be some, but I don't believe they even exist on a large scale, and certainly not as large as the bush administration would like for us to believe. I'm disappointed time and time again by the number of people who fall right into their little trap of turning us against "them".
An incomplete list obtained by Ha'aretz from the Israeli Prison Service in March 1997 suggested that Israel held 52 Lebanese, mostly captured in Lebanese territory by the Israeli Defence Force or its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (disbanded since Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000). Particular concern was held for 21 Lebanese detainees, who broadly fitted two categories:
- 11 men were tried for offences committed in 1986/87 such as military training, attacks on Israel, weapons possession and membership of banned organisations (eg Hezbollah). They were convicted by a military court and served their terms, yet were still held long after the fact under administrative detention in a Ramaleh prison. The reason for this has never been made public.
- 10 others were captured around the same time, and held in administrative detention without charge or trial. They were forcibly taken to Israel, where they were held in a Ramaleh prison. Their presence there, initially denied, was eventually admitted. No public hearing ever took place, though this is understood to be the norm.
A damning report produced by Humans Rights Watch in 1997, entitled Without Status or Protection: Lebanese Detainees in Israel, asserts that all 21 prisoners were held without due process or humane treatment, in breach of the Geneva Convention (1949), and that no status under the laws of war was accorded them. Five were released in December 1999, and another, reported to be mentally ill, was released in April 2000.
The report expressed concern that two of the men were thought to be held as hostages, a further grave breach of the Geneva Convention, as it was understood that Israel had conditioned their release on information leading to the return of Israeli POWs and MIAs.
In April 2000, the Israeli High Court ruled their detention to be illegal under domestic Israeli law, which was then rapidly changed in June of the same year to sidestep the difficulty. The two were released in January 2004 as part of a wider prisoner swap.
Further concern was held over Khiam Prison in formerly occupied South Lebanon, where countless Lebanese were subjected to unlawful detention and severe abuse since it opened in 1985, according to Amnesty International, which monitored the prison since it opened.
An open letter, written by an Amnesty delegation who visited it shortly after its closure in May 2000, contended that even though it was run by the SLA, Israel, as the occupying power, was legally held to be responsible for it.
Many prisoners released from this facility required physical and psychological rehabilitation. On 23 May 2000, the prison was closed upon the collapse of the SLA, and the remaining 144 prisoners were released and the jailers fled.
As recently as 27 June 2006, laws concerning the incommunicado detention of prisoners have been changed to extend to 96 hours the period before which a prisoner must come before a judge, and 21 days remains the period before which a prisoner suspected of 'security' offences must have access to a lawyer.
Lebanese prisoner profiles:
A major prisoner swap took place on 29 January 2004 in a German-brokered deal in which 23 Lebanese nationals were released to Hezbollah in exchange for a reservist colonel and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. Also included in the deal were Arabs of other nationalities and 400 Palestinians.
Under the deal, Israel provided Lebanon with information on 24 missing Lebanese, and turned over the bodies of 59 Lebanese killed by Israeli forces. Some uncertainty exists as to who exactly remains imprisoned in Israel. Israel admits to holding two Lebanese, but Lebanese sources say three or four.
Samir Kantar, a Druze from the Aleih District of Lebanon, has been in prison since 1979, when he was captured as a lieutenant in the Palestine Liberation Organisation on a mission aimed at capturing Israeli soldiers. Several people died. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has frequently called for his release in prisoner exchanges, but this has always been turned down by Israeli authorities, his release only likely when linked to the provision of information regarding an Israeli airman downed in 1986.
Nassim Nasir, from Bazourieh, took Israeli citizenship a year after entering Israel due to his mother being Jewish. He was arrested in 2002 and imprisoned, accused of spying for Hezbollah.
Yehia Skeif, a Christian from north Lebanon, has been held since 1978 for participating in a military operation against the Israeli Army. Reportedly in poor health by those prisoners that saw him while serving their sentences, his detention is not acknowledged by the Israeli authorities, but asserted by the Lebanese.
Israel holds a fourth man, a fisherman called Ali Faratan, according to Hezbollah MP Nawar al-Sahili, though this is unconfirmed.
Israel is also thought to be holding 25 Lebanese citizens of Palestinian origin, many for conventional criminal offences.
Exactly what the administration wants you to believe. It's not their religion that causes their hostility towards the west, it's the U.S. foreign policy. I'm pretty tired of hearing the terms "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" because those terms really are ignorantly overused. Sure there may be some, but I don't believe they even exist on a large scale, and certainly not as large as the bush administration would like for us to believe. I'm disappointed time and time again by the number of people who fall right into their little trap of turning us against "them".
Dayan is in Israel - he knows a lot more than you whether these Islamic fascists (I bet that touched a nerve) exist on a large scale.
What's even more upsetting is that Olmert was presented with a war plan that would have destroyed/disarmed Hezbollah within 2 weeks, but he didn't have the stomach to do it.
Or maybe someone realized that 2 weeks is entirely unreasonable when we're talking about war.
Israel, as you say, is always damned if they do, damned if they don't. If it sits back and does nothing, its terrorist enemies perceive it as a sign of weakness, so they will keep on attacking.
If it fights the terrorist enemies, the world cries about civilian casualties, expecting Israel to fight a perfect war, which no other country could possibly do. It is sickening.
Come on, there's a huge difference between "expecting Israel to fight a perfect war" and expecting them to be somewhat responsible in their killing, if that's even possible.
Dayan is in Israel - he knows a lot more than you whether these Islamic fascists (I bet that touched a nerve) exist on a large scale.
So Israel, being America's bitch, isn't being spoon fed the same garbage about terrorists and muslim extremists and islamic fascists? I submit that they are.
Exactly what the administration wants you to believe. It's not their religion that causes their hostility towards the west, it's the U.S. foreign policy. I'm pretty tired of hearing the terms "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" because those terms really are ignorantly overused. Sure there may be some, but I don't believe they even exist on a large scale, and certainly not as large as the bush administration would like for us to believe. I'm disappointed time and time again by the number of people who fall right into their little trap of turning us against "them".
We're not talking about religion, we're talking about ideology. "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" are people who believe Israel must be destroyed. The problem starts when "people"= presidents (Iran & Syria), who obviously influence their nation's state of mind. If you can't see that, than there's something wrong with you point of view.
I agree. The tragedy is really what will now happen to Lebanon. A "victorious" Hezbollah is basically going to take over the country. They don't even have to win an election or conduct a coup. They can just dictate policy because everyone knows that they have the only credible military force in the country backing them up. Problems with Israel's conducting of the war aside, a continued Israeli offensive that resulted in the disarming of Hezbollah, or at least a situation where they could not credibly claim victory, would have been much better for Lebanon.
No, that would have been much better for Israel, not necessarily Lebanon. A scenario where Hezbollah becomes the Lebanese military would satisfy the UN resolution wouldn't it?
An incomplete list obtained by Ha'aretz from the Israeli Prison Service in March 1997 suggested that Israel held 52 Lebanese, mostly captured in Lebanese territory by the Israeli Defence Force or its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (disbanded since Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000). Particular concern was held for 21 Lebanese detainees, who broadly fitted two categories:
- 11 men were tried for offences committed in 1986/87 such as military training, attacks on Israel, weapons possession and membership of banned organisations (eg Hezbollah). They were convicted by a military court and served their terms, yet were still held long after the fact under administrative detention in a Ramaleh prison. The reason for this has never been made public.
- 10 others were captured around the same time, and held in administrative detention without charge or trial. They were forcibly taken to Israel, where they were held in a Ramaleh prison. Their presence there, initially denied, was eventually admitted. No public hearing ever took place, though this is understood to be the norm.
A damning report produced by Humans Rights Watch in 1997, entitled Without Status or Protection: Lebanese Detainees in Israel, asserts that all 21 prisoners were held without due process or humane treatment, in breach of the Geneva Convention (1949), and that no status under the laws of war was accorded them. Five were released in December 1999, and another, reported to be mentally ill, was released in April 2000.
The report expressed concern that two of the men were thought to be held as hostages, a further grave breach of the Geneva Convention, as it was understood that Israel had conditioned their release on information leading to the return of Israeli POWs and MIAs.
In April 2000, the Israeli High Court ruled their detention to be illegal under domestic Israeli law, which was then rapidly changed in June of the same year to sidestep the difficulty. The two were released in January 2004 as part of a wider prisoner swap.
Further concern was held over Khiam Prison in formerly occupied South Lebanon, where countless Lebanese were subjected to unlawful detention and severe abuse since it opened in 1985, according to Amnesty International, which monitored the prison since it opened.
An open letter, written by an Amnesty delegation who visited it shortly after its closure in May 2000, contended that even though it was run by the SLA, Israel, as the occupying power, was legally held to be responsible for it.
Many prisoners released from this facility required physical and psychological rehabilitation. On 23 May 2000, the prison was closed upon the collapse of the SLA, and the remaining 144 prisoners were released and the jailers fled.
As recently as 27 June 2006, laws concerning the incommunicado detention of prisoners have been changed to extend to 96 hours the period before which a prisoner must come before a judge, and 21 days remains the period before which a prisoner suspected of 'security' offences must have access to a lawyer.
Lebanese prisoner profiles:
A major prisoner swap took place on 29 January 2004 in a German-brokered deal in which 23 Lebanese nationals were released to Hezbollah in exchange for a reservist colonel and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. Also included in the deal were Arabs of other nationalities and 400 Palestinians.
Under the deal, Israel provided Lebanon with information on 24 missing Lebanese, and turned over the bodies of 59 Lebanese killed by Israeli forces. Some uncertainty exists as to who exactly remains imprisoned in Israel. Israel admits to holding two Lebanese, but Lebanese sources say three or four.
Samir Kantar, a Druze from the Aleih District of Lebanon, has been in prison since 1979, when he was captured as a lieutenant in the Palestine Liberation Organisation on a mission aimed at capturing Israeli soldiers. Several people died. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has frequently called for his release in prisoner exchanges, but this has always been turned down by Israeli authorities, his release only likely when linked to the provision of information regarding an Israeli airman downed in 1986.
Nassim Nasir, from Bazourieh, took Israeli citizenship a year after entering Israel due to his mother being Jewish. He was arrested in 2002 and imprisoned, accused of spying for Hezbollah.
Yehia Skeif, a Christian from north Lebanon, has been held since 1978 for participating in a military operation against the Israeli Army. Reportedly in poor health by those prisoners that saw him while serving their sentences, his detention is not acknowledged by the Israeli authorities, but asserted by the Lebanese.
Israel holds a fourth man, a fisherman called Ali Faratan, according to Hezbollah MP Nawar al-Sahili, though this is unconfirmed.
Israel is also thought to be holding 25 Lebanese citizens of Palestinian origin, many for conventional criminal offences.
according to an updated info (07/2006) from the same source (ha'aretz): 4 Lebanese prisoners who had a fair trail. Those 25 men are Palestinians who also have a Lebanese citizenship.
*edit - I was just trying to say your info is up-to-date.
So Israel, being America's bitch, isn't being spoon fed the same garbage about terrorists and muslim extremists and islamic fascists? I submit that they are.
They don't have to be spoon fed. Go visit Israel and maybe you'll learn something - they have been faced with this threat since modern Israel's inception.
No, that would have been much better for Israel, not necessarily Lebanon. A scenario where Hezbollah becomes the Lebanese military would satisfy the UN resolution wouldn't it?
No, because they were told to disarm back in 2000, not to become the Lebanese formal army (which is already exists), nor to keep their weapons nor to gain more.
We're not talking about religion, we're talking about ideology. "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" are people who believe Israel must be destroyed. The problem starts when "people"= presidents (Iran & Syria), who obviously influence their nation's state of mind. If you can't see that, than there's something wrong with you point of view.
But they may have very valid reasons for believing that Israel should be destroyed. They see the U.S. dumping bombs and warplanes down Israel's throat, while the U.S. is irrationally accusing nearly all of the middle east, save Israel of being terrorists. American presence in the middle east is unwarranted and unwelcome. Trying to justify it is proof that Bush's redefining of the word "terrorist" has been used according to plan.
They don't have to be spoon fed. Go visit Israel and maybe you'll learn something - they have been faced with this threat since modern Israel's inception.
I'm sorry but that's not a valid defense. It's not about geography at all. It's about the source of information and I'm not certain but I'm afraid that Israel is too tuned in to the bush administration and FoxNews.
No, because they were told to disarm back in 2000, not to become the Lebanese formal army (which is already exists), nor to keep their weapons nor to gain more.
The problem is that the Lebanese army is incredibly weak. If I was weary of Israel and they had set an aggressive precedent against my state, I would not want to rely on a weak army to protect me.
I'm sorry but that's not a valid defense. It's not about geography at all. It's about the source of information and I'm not certain but I'm afraid that Israel is too tuned in to the bush administration and FoxNews.
That's laughable. As if the threat to Israel's existence wasn't there well prior to the Bush administration and the day Fox News started broadcasting.
But they may have very valid reasons for believing that Israel should be destroyed. They see the U.S. dumping bombs and warplanes down Israel's throat, while the U.S. is irrationally accusing nearly all of the middle east, save Israel of being terrorists. American presence in the middle east is unwarranted and unwelcome. Trying to justify it is proof that Bush's redefining of the word "terrorist" has been used according to plan.
According to your logic, Israel has every reason to believe Iran or Syria should be destroyed. But we don't. Destroying a country = destroying its residents (amongst others horrible things). It is sick, and there is NO justification for that kind of sate of mind, not even the fact US is our ally.
According to your logic, Israel has every reason to believe Iran or Syria should be destroyed. But we don't. Destroying a country = destroying its residents (amongst others horrible things). It is sick, and there is NO justification for that kind of sate of mind, not even the fact US is our ally.
I'm not saying it's right if they do actually think that Israel should be destroyed. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable if they do feel that way. Just like it's not unreasonable for Israel to defend itself. There's a clear difference in thinking a country should be destroyed and actually attempting it, even for the sake of self-preservation.
The problem is that the Lebanese army is incredibly weak. If I was weary of Israel and they had set an aggressive precedent against my state, I would not want to rely on a weak army to protect me.
Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.
Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.
I am 100% certain that you are correct......
.....according to Israeli and U.S. media / lip service
Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.
But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.
I'm not saying it's right if they do actually think that Israel should be destroyed. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable if they do feel that way. Just like it's not unreasonable for Israel to defend itself. There's a clear difference in thinking a country should be destroyed and actually attempting it, even for the sake of self-preservation.
I'm sorry, there's nothing "reasonable" in this kind of state of mind. NOTHING. That's why they are called extremists. And again, I'm talking about believing, not thinking. This is much more stronger, and eventually leads for sure into radical actions.
But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.
Great points, sourdough. I think if anything, the recent Israeli invasion is going to encourage Hezbollah to be the Lebanese military. Of course I haven't checked with what Israel is telling its people so I may be wrong.
I'm sorry, there's nothing "reasonable" in this kind of state of mind. NOTHING. That's why they are called extremists. And again, I'm talking about believing, not thinking. This is much more stronger, and eventually leads for sure into radical actions.
I guess that's where we have a pretty big disagreement. I believe they're called extremists because it makes them easy to hate and easier to justify killing them. Especially when it's predominantly arabs we're talking about....people are lazy and stupid and now a lot of people view most arabs as terrorists or extremists. A woman I know came home from seeing that movie Flight 93 or whatever it's called. She referred to the hijackers several times as Iraqis. Why? Well besides being lazy and stupid it's because words like terrorist and extremist have been used quite cleverly by dubya.
But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.
You should look over the last few years, in which both countries were gaining something out of that peaceful-period. I'm not saying Lebanon should forget about the past, only that Hizbullah is NOT necessary for them to have a strong army. Think about it, they could have developed it in the past 6 years, but chose not to. They chose to diplomaticaly cooperate with us, instead of threatening. In my mind, it means a lot. It means Lebanon trusted us.
You should look over the last few years, in which both countries were gaining something out of that peaceful-period. I'm not saying Lebanon should forget about the past, only that Hizbullah is NOT necessary for them to have a strong army. Think about it, they could have developed it in the past 6 years, but chose not to. They chose to diplomaticaly cooperate with us, instead of threatening. In my mind, it means a lot. It means Lebanon trusted us.
I think Lebanon (in general) just wanted to move on. They were tired of the fighting and tired of war and wanted to return to normalcy. Lebanon wanted peace and did what they needed to do to achieve that, but to say that they were warm and fuzzy about Israel may be a bit far from the truth. However, that said, not all Lebanon felt as secure with Israel. This is only going to further distance lebanon from Israel and I fear it will create more extremists from moderates. Do you think Lebanon is going to want to trust Israel again?
I guess that's where we have a pretty big disagreement. I believe they're called extremists because it makes them easy to hate and easier to justify killing them. Especially when it's predominantly arabs we're talking about....people are lazy and stupid and now a lot of people view most arabs as terrorists or extremists. A woman I know came home from seeing that movie Flight 93 or whatever it's called. She referred to the hijackers several times as Iraqis. Why? Well besides being lazy and stupid it's because words like terrorist and extremist have been used quite cleverly by dubya.
I think the state of mind who makes you act via suicide bombings, is radical. I think someone who is brought up to believe Jews or black people are inferior and need to die, is radical. I think someone who believes the world whould be compleate after Israel would be wiped off, is an extremist. I think someone who really believes he'll become a saint & go to hevean after killing a jew, is an extremist.
I believe those people "earn" their definition of being an extremists, and not calling this phenomenon by its name only because of some people who always use generalizations, is extremely WRONG.
I think the state of mind who makes you act via suicide bombings, is radical. I think someone who is brought up to believe Jews or black people are inferior and need to die, is radical. I think someone who believes the world whould be compleate after Israel would be wiped off, is an extremist. I think someone who really believes he'll become a saint & go to hevean after killing a jew, is an extremist.
I believe those people "earn" their definition of being an extremists, and not calling this phenomenon by its name only because of some people who always use generalizations, is extremely WRONG.
Shiraz, you're violating a very sacred rule here on the moving train - calling terrorists/extremists what they are. Remember, they are only committing atrocities because of legitimate grievances. If Israel would just disappear, they'd all be peaceful law-abiding citizens.
Comments
you are correct, this is far from over
Only 3 or 4, all had a fair trial.
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/LebaneseprisonersinIsrael/tabid/321/Default.aspx
An incomplete list obtained by Ha'aretz from the Israeli Prison Service in March 1997 suggested that Israel held 52 Lebanese, mostly captured in Lebanese territory by the Israeli Defence Force or its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (disbanded since Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000). Particular concern was held for 21 Lebanese detainees, who broadly fitted two categories:
- 11 men were tried for offences committed in 1986/87 such as military training, attacks on Israel, weapons possession and membership of banned organisations (eg Hezbollah). They were convicted by a military court and served their terms, yet were still held long after the fact under administrative detention in a Ramaleh prison. The reason for this has never been made public.
- 10 others were captured around the same time, and held in administrative detention without charge or trial. They were forcibly taken to Israel, where they were held in a Ramaleh prison. Their presence there, initially denied, was eventually admitted. No public hearing ever took place, though this is understood to be the norm.
A damning report produced by Humans Rights Watch in 1997, entitled Without Status or Protection: Lebanese Detainees in Israel, asserts that all 21 prisoners were held without due process or humane treatment, in breach of the Geneva Convention (1949), and that no status under the laws of war was accorded them. Five were released in December 1999, and another, reported to be mentally ill, was released in April 2000.
The report expressed concern that two of the men were thought to be held as hostages, a further grave breach of the Geneva Convention, as it was understood that Israel had conditioned their release on information leading to the return of Israeli POWs and MIAs.
In April 2000, the Israeli High Court ruled their detention to be illegal under domestic Israeli law, which was then rapidly changed in June of the same year to sidestep the difficulty. The two were released in January 2004 as part of a wider prisoner swap.
Further concern was held over Khiam Prison in formerly occupied South Lebanon, where countless Lebanese were subjected to unlawful detention and severe abuse since it opened in 1985, according to Amnesty International, which monitored the prison since it opened.
An open letter, written by an Amnesty delegation who visited it shortly after its closure in May 2000, contended that even though it was run by the SLA, Israel, as the occupying power, was legally held to be responsible for it.
Many prisoners released from this facility required physical and psychological rehabilitation. On 23 May 2000, the prison was closed upon the collapse of the SLA, and the remaining 144 prisoners were released and the jailers fled.
As recently as 27 June 2006, laws concerning the incommunicado detention of prisoners have been changed to extend to 96 hours the period before which a prisoner must come before a judge, and 21 days remains the period before which a prisoner suspected of 'security' offences must have access to a lawyer.
Lebanese prisoner profiles:
A major prisoner swap took place on 29 January 2004 in a German-brokered deal in which 23 Lebanese nationals were released to Hezbollah in exchange for a reservist colonel and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. Also included in the deal were Arabs of other nationalities and 400 Palestinians.
Under the deal, Israel provided Lebanon with information on 24 missing Lebanese, and turned over the bodies of 59 Lebanese killed by Israeli forces. Some uncertainty exists as to who exactly remains imprisoned in Israel. Israel admits to holding two Lebanese, but Lebanese sources say three or four.
Samir Kantar, a Druze from the Aleih District of Lebanon, has been in prison since 1979, when he was captured as a lieutenant in the Palestine Liberation Organisation on a mission aimed at capturing Israeli soldiers. Several people died. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has frequently called for his release in prisoner exchanges, but this has always been turned down by Israeli authorities, his release only likely when linked to the provision of information regarding an Israeli airman downed in 1986.
Nassim Nasir, from Bazourieh, took Israeli citizenship a year after entering Israel due to his mother being Jewish. He was arrested in 2002 and imprisoned, accused of spying for Hezbollah.
Yehia Skeif, a Christian from north Lebanon, has been held since 1978 for participating in a military operation against the Israeli Army. Reportedly in poor health by those prisoners that saw him while serving their sentences, his detention is not acknowledged by the Israeli authorities, but asserted by the Lebanese.
Israel holds a fourth man, a fisherman called Ali Faratan, according to Hezbollah MP Nawar al-Sahili, though this is unconfirmed.
Israel is also thought to be holding 25 Lebanese citizens of Palestinian origin, many for conventional criminal offences.
Dayan is in Israel - he knows a lot more than you whether these Islamic fascists (I bet that touched a nerve) exist on a large scale.
Yes, such a martyr they love to be.
Come on, there's a huge difference between "expecting Israel to fight a perfect war" and expecting them to be somewhat responsible in their killing, if that's even possible.
We're not talking about religion, we're talking about ideology. "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" are people who believe Israel must be destroyed. The problem starts when "people"= presidents (Iran & Syria), who obviously influence their nation's state of mind. If you can't see that, than there's something wrong with you point of view.
according to an updated info (07/2006) from the same source (ha'aretz): 4 Lebanese prisoners who had a fair trail. Those 25 men are Palestinians who also have a Lebanese citizenship.
*edit - I was just trying to say your info is up-to-date.
They don't have to be spoon fed. Go visit Israel and maybe you'll learn something - they have been faced with this threat since modern Israel's inception.
No, because they were told to disarm back in 2000, not to become the Lebanese formal army (which is already exists), nor to keep their weapons nor to gain more.
The problem is that the Lebanese army is incredibly weak. If I was weary of Israel and they had set an aggressive precedent against my state, I would not want to rely on a weak army to protect me.
That's laughable. As if the threat to Israel's existence wasn't there well prior to the Bush administration and the day Fox News started broadcasting.
According to your logic, Israel has every reason to believe Iran or Syria should be destroyed. But we don't. Destroying a country = destroying its residents (amongst others horrible things). It is sick, and there is NO justification for that kind of sate of mind, not even the fact US is our ally.
Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.
.....according to Israeli and U.S. media / lip service
But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.
I'm sorry, there's nothing "reasonable" in this kind of state of mind. NOTHING. That's why they are called extremists. And again, I'm talking about believing, not thinking. This is much more stronger, and eventually leads for sure into radical actions.
You should look over the last few years, in which both countries were gaining something out of that peaceful-period. I'm not saying Lebanon should forget about the past, only that Hizbullah is NOT necessary for them to have a strong army. Think about it, they could have developed it in the past 6 years, but chose not to. They chose to diplomaticaly cooperate with us, instead of threatening. In my mind, it means a lot. It means Lebanon trusted us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
most relevant quote I've heard in a long time. Thank you. Food for thought, tho some here may choke on it.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I think Lebanon (in general) just wanted to move on. They were tired of the fighting and tired of war and wanted to return to normalcy. Lebanon wanted peace and did what they needed to do to achieve that, but to say that they were warm and fuzzy about Israel may be a bit far from the truth. However, that said, not all Lebanon felt as secure with Israel. This is only going to further distance lebanon from Israel and I fear it will create more extremists from moderates. Do you think Lebanon is going to want to trust Israel again?
I think the state of mind who makes you act via suicide bombings, is radical. I think someone who is brought up to believe Jews or black people are inferior and need to die, is radical. I think someone who believes the world whould be compleate after Israel would be wiped off, is an extremist. I think someone who really believes he'll become a saint & go to hevean after killing a jew, is an extremist.
I believe those people "earn" their definition of being an extremists, and not calling this phenomenon by its name only because of some people who always use generalizations, is extremely WRONG.
Shiraz, you're violating a very sacred rule here on the moving train - calling terrorists/extremists what they are. Remember, they are only committing atrocities because of legitimate grievances. If Israel would just disappear, they'd all be peaceful law-abiding citizens.