Aardvark

KH 4000%? That means that there was less than one dead - 1 = 100%; 40 x 1 = 4000% To be out by 4000% requires there to have been 1 dead and a claim of 41 dead.

Hizbollah/Hezbollah is not a signatory to international laws. Israel and the Lebanon are. Israel is right to question when 1559 will be implemented; see my previous post - these things take time.

One should also consider Israel's response to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List of UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS against Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This only takes us to 1992.

It took Israel 18 years to respond to resolution 425. Nearly 40 years on we're still waiting for response to 237.

Keith, I don't mind you citing international law against the Arabs, but it really is unfair for Israel to claim the protection of UN Security Council resolutions when it ignores those that don't suit it.

As for the Fourth Geneva Convention - read the thing, as I have done, before you cite it. What about Israel's response to UN Security Council Resolution 446 that condemns the settlements as being in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention?????????????????????????????

Why, Keith, do you support Israel's refusal to obey international law, but expect a non-signatory to abide by it?

I propose that Hizbollah is disarmed in accordance with 1559 at precisely the moment that Israel obeys the resolutions listed above and gets back inside its 1967 borders.

I am sure, since you support international law, Keith, that you agree with me.

ukpatriot

I think that, in posting the above, you have finally relinquished any claims to be objective on this topic since you have by your own admission closed your mind.

That doesn't mean they're biased one way or the other; it's just the way the media works, which you really ought to know by now.

Not at all, in more than one respect. First, Israel has killed thousands since the intifada began in 2000, and tens of thousands before that. The figures in this war up to and including yesterday are 90 Hizbollah killed, and 973 civilians in Lebanon, accortding to the Lebanese Government. I'm disappointed that you have chosen to skirt around the tens of thousands of those who have died at Israeli hands; it reminds me of your callous attempts at whitewashing Israeli crimes against civilians by accusing the Lebanese etc of carting bodies about in order to claim that Israel has murdered even more civilians than it actually has. From here it is but a short journey to deduce that you consider Israeli murders of civilians to be acceptable.

Read Chikroda's and Aardvark's posts, they have answered you impeccably.

On the contrary, while you are castigating the Palestinians for allegedly supporting Hitler, you cannot ignore the founder of Israel when he praises the 'Hitlerian' qualities of a leading Israeli terrorist, especially since the aims of B-G and Begin were the same as Hitler's, in the sense that Hitler wanted to create 'Lebensraum' in Eastern Europe for the ethnic Germans out of land already occupied by the Poles and Ukrainians, and B-G and Begin wanted to create a Jewisgh state out of land already occupied by Arabs; to clear Arabs out of Israel, which was their 'sacred aim'.

Maybe, and maybe the Palestinian support for Hitler that you claim existed was also exaggerated...

Understatement of the year. While British servicemen were fighting the Nazis in Europe, incurring high casualties against an experienced and determined enemy, in order to liberate Europe from the Nazis, your chum Begin was killing British servicemen in Palestine. Tells us all we need to know about that toerag, who as we know has had 'Hitlerian' qualities ascribed to him by one of his fellows.

No, you didn't 'report' it at all. You cynically pulled some dirt off a dodgy site and then used it in an attempt to sweep Israeli crimes against Lebanese civilians under the carpet and so make it look as though Israel in fact has done no wrong.

That's what is cynical, callous and sick.

I oppose the use of civilians as human shields by anyone and note that Israel has been accused of doing this. Given that this country claims to be a civilised Western-style democracy, it is an appalling indictment as you must agree.

Tony Bennett

I visited the Amnesty International site recommended by a previous poster and found this:

QUOTE from AI

In April, Israeli soldiers used 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan as a “human shield” during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Biddu. The soldiers placed the boy on the hood of their jeep and tied him to the front windscreen to discourage Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones in their direction.

UNQUOTE

Just for the record, I condemn that as a despicable act, though the 13-year-old might well have been actively throwing stones, petrol bombs or grenades at the Israelis, I don't know.

However, I suggest that it may be just *some* Israeli soldiers who have *occasionally* acted like that; this must be compared with the systematic, wholesale use by Hizbollah of civilians as human shields in the past three weeks - and which very much accounts for the higher death toll in Lebanon than Israel. The Palestinian Arabs also routinely use civilians as human shields in their fight against Israel.

On the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, I return once again to the peace agreement reached with the Palestinians in 2000, when the Israelis were prepared to give up practically all of their settlements. The majority of Palestinian Arabs and surrounding Arab states accepted this peace agreement as fair.

Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat tore it up at the very last minute and began the second intifada.

Now the Palestine authority has elected Hamas to government, not a group that, if you look at its manifesto (on the Net), has any intention of reaching a peace settlement.

As to why the U.N. has passed so many resolutions against Israel when one looks at the mayhem, wars and civil wars in the rest of the world since World War II, that is an interesting question which really woud take us a long way beyond the current Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah dispute.

The Palestinians should accept the defensive wall as the de facto boundary line and the accompanying Israeli offer to cede majority Arab land in northern Israel to the Palestine Authority.

ukpatriot

Looking at the destruction wrought across the Lebanon in such a short time, it seems certain that the soldiers issue was merely the trigger for a campaign which was planned some time ago, as you suggest.

The damage to the lebanese infrastructure is also out of all proportion to the kidnapping of a handful of Israeli soldiers, who were by all accounts on Lebanese soil when captured and so were violating Lebanese sovereignty.

Israel has now declared it will not allow the United Nations to rebuild bridges in Lebanon, and any workers who attempt to do so will be considered fair game for attack.

These attacks on a country's vital arteries are not those of a nation angry at the kidnapping of a few soldiers; there seems to be far more involved than first impressions suggest and the motives behind this wanton destruction are far from noble.

If Britain had done this to Ireland during the Troubles, we would have faced the wrath of the UN, led by the USA, and sanctions would shortly have followed. Fair enough.

Yet we are currently witnessing US hypocrisy at its dirtiest; unconditional support for an aggressor who has deliberately set out to wreck the infrastructure of a democratic neighbour who has come back from the abyss in recent years.

The time has come for sanctions to be applied to Israel; military measures preventing the sale or supply of arms will do to start.

Israel's massive military machine must be cut down to size so that it no longer poses a threat to its neighbours and its WMD capacity should be treated in the same way that Iran's future potential ability is currently viewed.

Until the settlements are disbanded, all Israeli presence in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria is withdrawn, there will not be peace in the region. Until stability is established a UN peacekeeping force drawn from nations other than those involved in the Iraq war should be put in place.

Clippo

Ukpatriot wrote:-
My response:-
1. I only called your postings , UKpatriot, ‘crazed anti-Israeli invective’ – don’t drag others into the argument.

2. I have made 3 postings on this thread. In the latter 2 I have made these statements:-

So that makes me anti Arab / pro Israeli does it? But of course, your definition of a moderate is one who can only swallow your own preposterous extremism.

I did also say that in this current conflict, I was leaning very, very slightly towards the Israeli side. I'm not leaning so far yet to fall off the fence but the general acceptance that Hezbollah started this time, the 'propaganda' from the Arab side & yesterday the statement on TV of the UK Joint Chief of Staff that he didn't consider the Israeli action ' disproportionate' all maintain that leaning.

3. I will say this again, clearly & in simple language :-

This present conflict is, imo, just another flare-up of the antagonism between Jews & Arabs of nigh on 60 yrs now. This time, however, I believe Hezbollah are the primary agents of Iran and of course the USA is happy to allow Israel to some of its’ dirty work on the other side.

It serves no useful purpose, imo, to re-hash the old disagreements and try to blame the other side. It’s worse than a TV replay of say, a line call at Wimbledon or did Rooney foul whoever it was? Even if something is ‘proved’ in this context, it doesn’t change history if the guilty party doesn’t accept it publicly or or even privately. Efforts to compare current actions with the last war or IRA vs UK are at best fatuous. (Cliche 1 - one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist)

The present military action from both sides is generating a new set of controversies and which will only provide more barriers to ultimate settlement. To me, as a moderate, both sides are militarily & politically as bad as one another (cliche 2, all is fair in love & war), & so I believe there must be a sustainable ceasefire, followed by a phased retreat of the Israelis in turn followed instantly by a UN force with teeth. Hezbollah must be disarmed, or absorbed into the regular Lebanese army.

Diplomacy must then take over & the Arab League of Nations needs to seriously consider accepting Israel as a sovereign nation and to examine in a wider context the ‘problem’ of Islamic militancy worldwide. With the assurances of a safe existence even Israel, (and the US), will find it difficult to justify remaining in the occupied territories. Some Arab nations, particularly Egypt & Jordan, took this path successfully previously. In the light of the experience of the last 60 years, I don’t think you can expect Israel to act quickly but it must eventually.

The Security council of the UN must then address the Iranian nuclear research option – it is criminal in an international sense that such a fanatical regime should be allowed to develop nuclear capability. And to re-assure you of my moderacy, if & when an Arab / Israeli settlement is reached, then the UN must address the Israeli nuclear option along with North Korea.

Mikeuk

I thought for a moment you were talking about the fanatical and criminal Bush regime in Amerika.

Personally I'm more worried about the fact that the far-right moron Bush has his finger on the button of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal.

Sorry, but Iran is hardly in the same league

Clippo

Yes, pretty useful & constructive comment from you MikeUk as to be expected.

I wouldn't give up the day job though (if you were expecting to become a sensible political analyst).

ukpatriot

Which comments do you consider to be 'crazed'?

Now perhaps you would like to tell us how the entire 'Arab Islamic' world insists on wiping Israel off the map. Perhaps you would then like to add, just for balance, some choice quotations from leading Israelis about Arabs and their wish to dominate the Middle East.

b. In earlier times, and still am I have been utterly against the Israeli settlements in occupied territories and so on.[/quote]

Again you'd better be able to provide evidence to support this claim.

[/quote]also say that in this current conflict, I was leaning very, very slightly towards the Israeli side.[/quote]

As more than one poster has noted, your inclination is more than 'slight'.

Did they? Actually, Israeli forces violated Lebanese sovereign territory. Or in your book is that not a problem?

Well he is wrong. I wonder who's pulling his strings?

Yes simple language is easier for you to understand, I appreciate that.

[quote[ Efforts to compare current actions with the last war or IRA vs UK are at best fatuous. [/quote]

Why do you think they are fatuous?

They must be addressed simultaneously to avoid any accusations of perferential treatment.

Aardvark

"preferential treatment" - Tony Blair's Middle East envoy, and tennis partner, is Lord Levy. Lord Levy was photographed outside his privately owned holiday home in Herzliya. Herzliya is in Israel. Lord Levy, a Jewish millionaire friend of Tony Blair with land holdings in Israel, is supposed to be viewed as independent by the Arab nations. Lord Levy is responsible for fund raising for the Labour Party.

JCDS has spoken the party line - he is fibbing big time if he really believes that wiping out a country is a proportionate response to less than 10 deaths, or are we about to do the same for Afghanistan and Iraq?

The Taliban are a terrorist group who cannot be disarmed by the elected government and are killing lots of people and sponsor terrorism in the USA. The militias in Iraq are terrorist groups who cannot be disarmed by the elected government and are killing lots of people and want the destruction of the USA. Does JCDS really believe that we should now crater the runways, destroy the oil refineries, blow up all cars in Taliban/militia controlled areas, destroy the power stations, blow all the bridges and drop 'leaflets' telling the locals that if they don't ****** off sharpish it is their own fault that they get killed? Of course he doesn't believe that for Afghanistan and Iraq, but he is Tony's puppet, which makes him Bush's puppet, which makes him Olmert's puppet.

The point about the IRA, who seek the destruction of the Union, remains pertinent. Does JCDS believe that we should treat Ireland in the same way that Israel treats Lebanon?

Mikeuk

Who's JCDS?