All Hez has to do is return 2 soldiers and stop firing rockets

why don't they save all those civilians on both sides by doing that?

How do you return anyone when you're trying to dodge incoming fire? And I guess, as long as Israel keeps dropping bombs, Hezbollah will keep firing rockets.

they have to "dodge missles" That's so lame. They can't call? email? CNN?

Please, they will kill those boys. They're probably already dead.

In public, even.

The destruction of Lebanon will continue as long as Israel has not satisfied itself that there is NO further capacity to take military action against Israel.

There should be no capacity to destroy Israel in the hands of terrorists

On what planet? Hezbollah does not have the power to destroy Israel, only to annoy it. If that's Israel's worry, then, they can stop right now.

Since when was this expected of a nation?

Palestinians and the people in Southern Lebanon?

Nice double standard.

Israel has a complete military monopoly over the entire region with the arguable exception of Egypt. So if they actually *wanted* to kill Palestinian civilians or Lebanese civilians, it would be really damn easy.

Where have you been for the past few decades?

of Southern Lebanon, the mass murder of innocent people, and the destruction of civilian infrastrucure? Is that what you're saying with that pithy, meaningless statement?

I'm neither Jewish or Arab. I have watched for years as Israel has had it's way with it's neighbors. I've watched as the Israeli troops shoot Palestinian(sp) youth throwing rocks. They never listen to the UN and the US always sides with Israel. I think it's time for the US to step back and stop backing Israel and be neutral. And have you watched Hez. help the people of Leb.? much better than what the US did for NOLA. I know Hez is called terrorists but who invaded who. They wanted their people released and took 2 hostages, hardly worth starting a war and destroying a country. They could have easily nego. but they want to fight and kill.

:toast:

and return land illegally conquered. Maybe it would end ALL conflicts, not only in Lebanon.

DO you mean, after 4 Arab countries tried to wipe Israel out, they were beat, and Israel took a swath of land to serve as a buffer? Do you mean that land?

Israel doesn't respect the UN resolution 242

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Legal interpretation of English version

Expressio unis est exclusio alterius
The legal principle expressio unis est exclusio alterius (which states that the terms excluded from a law are excluded intentionally) it cited by some as operating against an "all territoires" reading. Others object that the legal principle in question cannot operate so as to create ambiguity. Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the Resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact...East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted <3>.
Further to this, it is argued that an interpretation of the text which takes the absence of the definite article to mean "some" would run contrary to the legal Golden Rule, in that the outcome would be absurd, particularly since the definite article is absent twice in the clause. Israel would have been required to withdraw only "some" of its military presence from "some" of the territories occupied, and would have been at liberty to choose for itself the extent of withdrawal in each case, which, it is claimed, cannot have been the intention of the Security Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Unless of course, you subscribe to the idea that the UN is always right, and all of thier rules must be followed or the action involved is suddenly "illegal". If that was the case, then an awful lot of people have a lot of explaining to do.

of the world community. This is a a security counsel resolution, even applicable by force. Even the US signed it.

But, I know UN resilutions only apply to the other side...

the WHOLE world knows that Israel is wrong on that one, that it occupies by force territories that don't belong to it. Of course it's part of the global anti-semitic conspiracy.

the only reason the UN even exists is to continue persecuting israel. it's an inept, corrupt and irrelevant organization. it wouldn't bother me if headquarters moved from NYC to the sudan.

UN = Hizbollah. No wonder it was OK to shell it, like the Red Cross.

you guys show really your true faces

U.N. Mandate establishing the State of Israel, back in the day (ca. 1948).

This element of it is often over-looked:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force...."

While several Arab states have by now signed treaties of peace, it would be nonesense to maintain that Israel is not the object of belligerency, and that there is refusal in many quarters to recognize its sovereignity, territorial integrity, right to live in peace free from violence and threats of violence, etc.

1. It's not empty of Palestinians because Israel hasn't succeeded yet in driving them all away.
2. It's not empty of Israelis because Israel has been occupying the land.

cause they would never attack us again.

but let skip that one...

the Hezbollah or the Palestinians don't need a bunch of battered and in poor health shadows of themselves to send them back to the front. At lest for a great part of them. They have plenty of fresh ones, new ones for every family killed.

another poor excuse

I am sorry, but Israel doesn't have rights that others don't have.

Does one "illegally conquer" land when one's country is attacked on 3 fronts literally within hours of it's inception?

Grab up a modern history book, friend.

as I stated above you have a very, very narrow approach to that conflict. That Israel was attacked doesn't allow it to OCCUPY territories that don't belong to it, persecute its dwellers and build colonies.

Israel right to land is to the land it BOUGHT from its previous OWNERS or by other legal international agreements
with the former owners. Below a map of those borders that are internationally recognized :


it's the lighter colored part which is the legal Israel, not the rest.

Rabbin tried to make that agreement to go back to those borders against peace. He was assassinated by his own, who very rapidly forgot the agreement.

what amazes me is that except for Israel and a part of the people of Jewish confession living abroad (not all of them) and of course a good number of - "I have not a clue" - Americans, NOBODY BUYS YOUR VERSION OF THE STORY.
It has changed since the 70s because of Israel's OWN attitude towards the Palestinians. And today's little adventure in Lebanon won't make it better.

would not be targeted...

This is NOT about two soldiers.

Now that 1000s of rockets have been fired on a nation it's way beyond that.

Thanks Hez.

Israeli soldiars are probaably dead.....

and at the UN.

I don't support kidnapping anyone...I don't support Hezbollah....I also don't support the fact the Cheney was over there two weeks before the fighting broke out....the * cabal has their hands in this...because this is what they want...

I support the innocent civilians and their right to live their lives in peace....

If you support killing innocent people on either side that's your perrogative....

I have yet to see anyone defend the "terrorist" on this board. I have seen a lot of Israeli apologists defend the murder of innocent Lebanese with all sorts of elaborate, and untimately immoral, spin. You are the latest.

Nice joke

is return the folks they kidnapped in Gaza BEFORE the soldiers were taken!

even IF two people are missing.

:sarcasm: sorry. Of COURSE, Israel could stop the murder of hundreds of innocents!

Jenn

...and Hezbollah--i think some are confusing Iraqi insurgents (who do torture and kill those the kidnap or capture) with H&H, who (in the vast majority of cases) do not...the IDF grunts were taken as bargaining chips, and as such, command a higher market value alive than dead. In the past, Israel would respond with some air strikes/artillery barrages, a targeted assassination or two, then open negotiations. For whatever reason, this time Israel decided to obliterate an entire nation, whose government (as Israel well knew) could do little, if anything, about the situation.

As for what Hamas and Hezbollah can do to "appease" Israel, well, mass suicide would only be a start, and as far as Israel and its apologists are concerned, a totally inadequate one...as Uri Avnery, founder of Israel's peace movement, has said, no government of Israel (Labour, Likud, and now Kadima) ever entered into an agreement with any Arab/Palestinian country or group that it couldn't find some excuse to bomb its way out of. For all the pious whining about "poor, little, defenseless/blameless Israel" being picked on by all those blood-thirsty Arabs, it has been Israel's obstinate refusal to negotiate anything in good faith, or abide by any agreement entered into, that is driving this crisis--the refusal to establish definite borders and live within them; to end the occupation; to treat its captive populations with the dignity and respect international law requires; to stop stealing land and water; to destroy the Palestinian economy, intelligentsia and political leadership...etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

And to spare the "Israel uber alles" folks from posting responses, yes, i know: it's Hamas this, and Hezbollah that, and yadda, yadda, yadda...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

proposal Israel neo-cons put forth. Also why would Hez want Israel to stop? I'm sure their volunteer rate has been exponentially rising since this latest neo-con invasion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not that they have any reason to do so. it was the israeli kidnapping of two palestinians, one a doctor, that began this mess. hisb'allah was simply replying in kind. pity cnn has yet to bother to mention that little detail. but this was NEVER about the two soldiers. it is about justifying a full scale air campaign against IRAN. the plan HAD been to get syria to respond militarily, which has failed thus far, despite a '72 hour deadline to stop hezbollah actions' that israel threatened early in the conflict. syria called their bluff though, and we've not heard a word about the dreaded 'deadline' since. funny eh? and now there's a report that rumsfeld's planning on sending us special forces to the area (most likely on a false flag op of some kind) to ensure a widening of the war. its quite possible that attack on the un observation post had been MEANT to be blamed on hezbollah, but the israelis got caught. the right wing echo chamber even tried to blame it on them at first too. also, that little tidbit about 'expedited weapons shipments' from the us to israel? its no mistake that became common knowledge. they've done everything but kill a busload of syrian nuns and a box of syrian kittens in a desperate attempt to provoke syria into acting militarily.

"it was the israeli kidnapping of two palestinians, one a doctor, that began this mess."

This "mess" has been going on for 6 decades...

and of course its the one thing that has gone pretty much completely unreported by the corporate western media. and anyways, it itself is just as irrelevent as the israeli soldiers being nabbed, particularly in the light of the fact this war had been in the works for a long time and the soldiers were simply used as an excuse for it. but still, its revealing that the kidnapped palestinians isn't 'newsworthy'.