Israel threatens Syria over Hizbollah shelling

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11206349.htm

JERUSALEM, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Israel threatened Syria on Monday after Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon fired anti-aircraft shells that killed an Israeli teenager on Israel's northern border, but said it hoped to defuse tension through diplomacy.

Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Zeev Boim said Israel held Syria, the main powerbroker in Lebanon, responsible for Hizbollah's actions. snip

Staffan de Mistura, the U.N. special envoy for Lebanon, told reporters in Beirut: "We are appealing to all sides... to stop this type of potential escalation. Overflights should not take place over Lebanon."

He complained about the danger of anti-aircraft fire, which he said was "most of the time correlated to overflights".

Israeli warplanes bombed an anti-aircraft battery on the edge of a south Lebanon village on Sunday in retaliation for the Shlomi shelling. Israeli warplanes later flew over Beirut, breaking the sound barrier.

more

[psychopomp]

1. It sounds like Israel is threatening Lebanon, not Syria

People in Beirut, to be precise.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Same thing

Lebanon is controlled by Syria. Just no one complains about it because it's OK when an Arab nation conquers territory.

[Julien Sorel]

3. Conquers territory?

I hadn't been aware of Syria settling Lebanese territory with Syrians, or Syria annexing Lebanese territory. That would be 'conquering.'

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. You don't think

That Syria runs Lebanon?

Scary...

[Julien Sorel]

5. Lots of things are 'scary' to you.

Syria has a great deal of influence in Lebanon, but there's a difference between having influence and 'conquering.' That you would casually mis-use such a loaded word is what's 'scary.'

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Influence?

Syria has the kind of influence in Syria that means total control. It's scary that you don't want to acknowledge that.

[papau]

7. Syria has a great deal of influence in Lebanon - can we say ARMY

as in Syria's troops in Lebanon - albeit mostly in the Beka valley - enforce its decisions - and that no decision by the "Leb Gov" is made without Syria's approval - and that Syria internally thinks of Leb as part of Syria - and that Hiz could not operate - out of the Beka for God's sake - if Syria did not approve?

[Malikshah]

8. Hmmm

Don't worry folks--

The situation w/ the Palestinians will be quite similar later on

If Israel withdraws its Army, etc. and there is the establishment of an "independent" Palestinian state...

Then the situation will be quite similar as with Syria and Lebanon--

No army there, but controlled nonetheless...

If you question this-- read the details of Oslo I & II, Camp David II, the "Road Map"

[Julien Sorel]

14. The situation is Lebanon is far more complicated than that.

Before the Syrian army was in Lebanon, there was a civil war going on; Syria's military presence there is actually welcomed by the rest of the world (precious Israel included) as preferable to the alternative of chaos that reigned in the past. The Lebanese themselves also see the Syrian army as stabilizers, not 'conquerers,' and know full well the alternative to Syrian presence.

Whether or not Hezbollah could operate without Syria's 'approval' isn't the issue, 'for God's sake.' What is at issue is whether or not Syria has 'conquered' Lebanon, a statement which is palpably false.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Stabilizers

I thought that was what the Bushgang was saying about Iraq. Seems funny every time I hear it.

[Julien Sorel]

19. Since

what you find 'funny' isn't an argument, I presume you stopped trying to pretend that Syria conquered Lebanon? Or do you have a real argument that you forgot to make in your state of amusement?

[papau]

22. Syria pretends internally that Leb does not exist - no "conquering" needed

I agree that there was no recent invasion - there just was an agreed look the other way by all the good nations at the UN as Syris moved a huge Army into the Beka.

[Julien Sorel]

27. So has Syria 'conquered' Lebanon, or not?

Or are you just going to keep making posts that have no value?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Yes

They rule, they have an army there. They have conquered.

[Julien Sorel]

30. Fallacious criteria.

The U.S. has an army in Korea, and has influence in Korean politics. The U.S. has, therefore, by your definition, conquered Korea.

The U.S. has far greater influence in Iraq right this moment than Syria has ever had in Lebanon. Has the U.S. 'conquered' Iraq?

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Sane criteria

You left out one of my criteria. Syria runs things in Lebanon. That is the big difference. The U.S. does not run things in South Korea.

Actually, the U.S. has indeed conquered Iraq, against my better judgment. They run things. They have all but eliminated the opposition. That's conquest.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[cantwealljustgetalong]

11. whereas,...

the only thing scary to you is Israel...BOO !!

yeah, in between having influence and conquering, is OCCUPYING, and Syria has thousands of soldiers in Lebanon, some of which they have recently pulled back, but a significant number remain...

[The Stranger]

9. Retreat to seemingly cryptic pronouncements like . . .

You don't think that Syria runs Lebanon. Scary . . .

. . . really exacerbates the knowledge gap and furthers people's ignorance of the region.

Just no one complains about it because it's OK when an Arab nation conquers territory.

Not only has the "conquering" part of this been discredited, it should be added that a "non-Arab" nation (which shall go unnamed) had occupied Lebanon for almost 20 years, until just a few years ago. If anything, Syria's interest in Lebanon could be considered self-interest -- it didn't want to end up like Lebanon.

Then there's the Golan Heights -- part of Syria which has been occupied by the same unamed "non-Arab" nation for decades. Also, since the Golan has also been settled by "settlers" from the same unamed "non-Arab" nation, that, if anything, seems to be the best qualified as "conquered territory" in the region.

But maybe this is something that no one wanted to bring up -- which is sort of the point to begin with. How'm I doing so far?

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Post referral

For some of this, I will simply point you to #7 which isn't even my post.

Israel did not "occupy" Lebanon, it occupied part of it because it got tired of incursions from Lebanon into Israeli territory. I agree that the Golan is conquered territory just like Lebanon is for Syria. I'm not expecting either nation to return what they took in conquest, I just want both to be referred to in the same way.

[mmm]

12. Can we at least agree on this:

The IDF and Hizbollah are peas in a pod!

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Not a prayer

The IDF is the army of a legitimate nation. Hizbollah are terrorists. Never the twain shall meet.

[Sideways]

33. The IDF Just Might Well Be The Terrorist Of A Legitimate Nation

Is your glass half empty or half full? I live in the ME BTW and Muddle your words would not go over well with my neighbors.

The IDF on the other hand is quite reviled here. Oh but these folks have no say in the matter....huummmm...questions abound and YMMV.

My neighbors are legitimate people too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Not sure where you live

That is their choice to believe otherwise.

On the other hand, the IDF is heroic to those in Israel and many in the U.S.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. No military force is heroic...

Well, not unless yr really into blood and guts and death and war. Even the people I know who aren't half as critical of the IDF as I am don't view them as heroic. Anyway, considering 'many' in the US view the US military and its little adventure in Iraq as heroic, leading a lot of folk into wondering how brainwashed or fucking stupid these people must be to fall for all that comic-book GI Joe crap. The military of any nation operates under the orders of the government of that nation. Maybe you think the Bush regime and Sharons govt are heroic, but I sure as hell don't...

btw, Mary told you where she lived, so I don't really get why yr not sure where she lives...

Violet...

[Julien Sorel]

17. What Lebanese incursion into Israeli territory?

I want to see it. Tell me about it. Because this is the first time I've ever heard this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Hizbollah

Based in Lebanon.

[Julien Sorel]

21. LOL

It's ignorant nonsense like this that makes this topic insufferable to discuss.

Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. How then, could a group that was created in response to an invasion, have caused the invasion?

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. So all those attacks from Lebanon

Can then be attributed to whom?

[Julien Sorel]

32. Perhaps you've lost the thread, as it were.

You claim that Israel's occupation of Lebanon was prompted by incursions from Lebanon. When asked what incursions, you said 'Hizbollah.' Unfortunately for this rather bizarre exercize, Hezbollah was created after Israel's occupation. So I'll ask you again: how can Hezbollah have been responsible for Israel's occupation, when it was created as a result of that occupation?

Hopefully that will clear up some of the muddle.

[Darranar]

36. It wasn't Hizbollah that launched those incursions...

it was the PLO. Both were terrorist organizations.

[StandWatie]

37. if you don't know..

why did you think you did?

[Gimel]

51. Existed before 1982

Hizbollah existed as an organization before 1982. Israel's invasion resulted in Hizbollah gaining strenth. Check the Hizbollah web site.

[Aidoneus]

52. no, it did not..

.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Yr right, Aidoneus...

I've been slowly reading a book by Avi Shlaim where he said Hezbollah was formed due to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. I also found this, which confirms it:

The history of Hezbollah begins with the 1982 occupation of Beirut and southern Lebanon by Israel. Israel had re-invaded the country in an effort to control members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) who had settled there and were carrying out attacks on Israel. In response Shi'ite Muslims with the assistance of Iranian Revolutionary Guards formed Hezbollah to combat the Israeli presence, and ultimately to assist the Palestinians in their fight for statehood.

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hezbollah-History.htm

Violet...

[Aidoneus]

55. on a few of the factors in its formation:

In Lebanon the Shias were possibly the largest single confessional grouping (if not a majority), but they often found themselves with bad leadership that was more interested in fattening their own estates than providing for their people and competing with the Sunni/Maronite/Palestinian establishment. This factor came to a head in the civil war period, with a movement around Mussa Sadr stepping up and encouraging better service to the communities in forming the AMAL organization.

The success of the Islamic Republican faction of the revolutionary masses in Iran over the US-backed dictatorship emboldened Shiite minorities everywhere from Lebanon to Kashmir, but after Mussa Sadr's disappearance (either in Libya or in Rome, depending on which set of face-saving lies one choses to rely on) his AMAL movement did not adequately serve the community to the levels necessary to the increasingly difficult situations of civil and international wars. When AMAL stood by and did nothing after the '82 Israeli invasion, sections of its activist cadres abandoned the group, some forming their own groups to resist the invasion. In the same period a section of the Shia establishment in Lebanon began drifting towards a more "radical" stance than the increasingly opportunistic Amal leadership.

Aside from the oft-mentioned Iranian ties, much influence on the party also came from an old Iraqi group called Hizb al-Daawa Islamiyya, the party of the most active Islamic ideological and militant resistance to Saddam Hussein & the Baathists for many years (among their more notable traits, they pioneered the use of the "suicide bomber" technique, using it against Hussein's gov't and its allies in the region, including a human-bomber destroying the Iraqi embassy in Lebanon in '81, assaults on Baath party functionaries and many attempted assassinations against Saddam himself and family, crippling his son Uday in '96). The party's founder, Sayyid Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was one pillar of the international movement that reestablished itself over the years, Khomeini as another pillar being a peer of his in Najaf. Aside from being active in Iraq the party also had ties to Shias in Bahrain, Kuwait, Iran, and Lebanon, and was a major influence of another section of what became Hizbullah (for example, Sayyid Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr's Najaf circle produced religious/political leaders such as Sayyid Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah and Hizbullah's current head Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah).

The inactivity of Amal in response to the invasion encouraged defection from that party and part of these would flock to the underground movement that later became a section of Hizbullah, for the latter represented a more active resistance to the hostile forces at work in Lebanon (Israel and it's SLA collaborators on the one hand, the fascist Phalange and AMAL/Syria on the other). Iranian financial backing allowed the movement to provide much-needed social services for the Shia areas (which would be expanded to the Christian and Sunni areas over the years as well), building many of hospitals and schools in areas that had been ignored previously, construction services like sewage and water pipes to provide for the thousands of refugees in South Beirut from the wars and also to repair the many buildings in the South that were destroyed by the Israelis, and of course (more notably as far as news headlines go) to also carry out military actions against the invaders and collaborators.

The grouping of local political leaders and the hierarchy in the South/Bekaa/Beirut that became Hizbullah was not the only group to receive assistance from Iran, and much of the more "infamous" actions of the early-80s period were carried out primarily by the Mughniyah and ex-AMAL Husayn Musawi clans (though US-Israeli history's still inaccurately credits Hizbullah all the same), in the form of the small but distinct "Islamic Jihad" and "Islamic Amal" groups respectively.

All of this was well after '82, contrary to the false claims made by Gimel on multiple occasions. The major catalyst to its formation was indeed the '82 Israeli invasion--particularly the huge insult of IDF forces during an '83 Ashura festival in Nabatiyah--, though as I suggest, there were other factors as well.

There is a certain sense of (tragic?) irony to the whole matter:--the Israelis invaded Lebanon and killed many thousands in order to destroy the PLO, an organization which Israel was always able to push around and buy off and generally manipulate in the end, but instead exchanged them for being the parent of a group that delivered Israel its first defeat and one that it is not able to bully around as easily as they did/do the Palestinians.

[Gimel]

56. Hizbollah origins

You offer no proof with your argument. There were, however, Hizbollah organization activities prior to 1982:

Hizbullah has its immediate historic roots in the social uprising of the Lebanese Shia community in the late 1960's and early 70's that took its inspiration from the charismatic Imam Musa Sadr who "disappeared" in Libya in 1978.
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/

[Aidoneus]

57. apples & oranges

Mussa Sadr was not Hizbullah, the group he started was the Harakat al-Mahrumin/"Movement for the Dispossessed", with the onset of the civil war a military wing called AMAL was created--(Afwaj al-Muqawamma al-Lubnaniyya, acronym "Amal" means "hope", name means Lebanese Resistance Detachments)--, both a totally different political organization than Hizbullah and the latter's rival for much of the 80s. Mussa Sadr's legacy may be one pillar of influence for a section of Hizbullah, but the ties to him are indirect (aside from AMAL defections after the Israeli invasion) and there are many more people/groups who have influenced Hizbullah as well, such as the Iraqi Sayyid Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr and his Najaf school and al-Dawa party, among others as I elaborate on in #55 with respect to your claim that I offer no proof.

You're talking apples and oranges here, the difference between influences from the past and the actual forming of the group. Hizbullah taking influences from something Mussa Sadr did in '69/'74/'78 doesn't mean they existed as a corporeal political/resistance group in that time period as you alternately are suggesting.

I will give a compliment though, at least al-Mashriq was the source used instead of US-Israel.org (the former a useful source on the matter), though the reference cited does not prove what I assume you intend to say.

[Gimel]

59. Lebanon social uprising

While Amal was active before the June 1982 invasion, it is nonsense that Hizbullah suddenly sprang into being in June of 1982. The information I gave is on the Hizbullah web site as well as the site I referenced.
http://www.hizbollah.org/english/info.htm

As for Israel provoking Hizbullah, they even admit that they attacked Israel first:

Tension in the South took a dramatic turn for the worse Monday, with Hizbullah guerrillas mounting a wide-scale attack on Israeli forces occupying the Shebaa Farms and their leader pledging that the international campaign against terrorism would not derail the course of resistance.

<snip>

The Israeli raid is the first on Lebanon since July, when Israeli fighters destroyed a Syrian Army radar base in the Bekaa in response to a Hizbullah attack on Israeli armored patrols in the Shebaa Farms area. Hizbullah in turn responded by launching a heavy bombardment against every Israeli outpost in the Shebaa Farms, including the listening post known as “radar” with its high-tech equipment.
http://www.hizbollah.org/english/press/p2001/p20011024.htm


On edit: You've addressed only half of my statement in your response. The first part of the sentence, concerning the social uprising, is also relevant.

[Aidoneus]

62. indeed it is nonsense to suggest ". . . suddenly . . ."

Nor have I suggested such. The '82 invasion was a catalyst(***see below if you need a definition of the term..) for new processes that would develop over the next few years (as well as particularly the October'83 Ashura insult by IDF in Nabatiyah), in addition to adding further impetus to previous processes which came together in the eventual formation of Hizbullah--and at no point did I suggest anything like it was some instant night & day beginning, in fact in post55 I went out of my way to speak on some of the past movements and people who influenced the group before and after its founding.

Over a period of time that began with the Israeli invasion, several factions and tendencies had come together and formed a somewhat cohesive political/economic party and military wing, distinct from Amal and other parties and movements of the period, though for the first couple years after the '82 invasion it was not a single consolidated grouping but a loose unorganized alliance of an upswinging movement. It was composed at first of ex-Amal radicals, Lebanese Shia students of Sayyid Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah and other Lebanese Shia students of the Najaf school, Lebanese Shias influenced by the Iraqi al-Daawa party, local leaders and militants in the "Arc of Resistance" in the South fighting the Israeli invaders alongside other Lebanese and Palestinian groups resisting the aggression, etc.. the ideological backgrounds and diversity of its members would spread as the party grew into a fuller political and economic force, along with the Islamic Resistance that fought the Israeli invaders in the South.

To say the party existed before '82 is plainly untrue (beyond that, to say that party existed before '83/'84 would also be, to a point, untrue as well), though it is indeed true however that factors at work that would lead to its formal birth were in existance before that time, that doesn't also translate to a corporeal existance to speak of before that time....

Contrary to what you speak of, I did indeed address the whole portion of your previous misleading post. Of course the party had roots with local events that happened previously to its formal birth, nowhere did I suggest otherwise. The awakening of the Shia politicial consciousness in Lebanon was a result of long periods of neglect by the establishment on the one hand, and the revolutionary approach of the Najaf, and later, Qom, schools of thought in re-establishing Shiite political forces internationally on the other hand. Mussa Sadr was one pillar, Ruhollah Khomeini the more famous pillar, Mohammed Baqr al-Sadr the more dominant influence overall and on all of the above, etc.. all three a product of the Najaf circle in the 50s & 60s, and since these developments were international among the spread out Shiite populations in the region, of course the effect was also felt in Lebanon in the same periods.

The basic point put another way:--Israel's eventual creation as a country was influenced by Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1900s and the events in Europe that spurred this, but that doesn't mean it's accurate to say that "Israel" existed in 1930 even though the factors that created "Israel" were indeed at work at the time.

If I seem repetitive or that I am saying similar things in different phrasings, it is because I don't think what I say is sinking in, or rather, that I am being read and understood at all..

Hizbullah's webpage is too slow and not updated enough to rely on for a reference (though I do ordinarily think "Horse's Mouth" is one of the better ways to go about keeping track of things if one keeps the Bullshit Detector well-greased and handy), Lebanonwire.com often carries some things they say and articles about Lebanon/Hizbullah/etc from other websites, also has a more reliable server & archive.

Your 2nd link is an archived Daily Star piece from November of 2001, perhaps I'm dense but I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with any of this.. anyway, Shebaa is occupied territory according to them and old French colonial maps of the area, and there has indeed been sporatic periods of fighting in Shebaa before and after Israel's retreat from most of Lebanon in 2000. Are you referring to the recent Schlomi incident or just in general with this?

---------------
(***)--note from above:
Main Entry: cat·a·lyst
Pronunciation: 'ka-t&l-&st
Function: noun
Date: 1902
1 : a substance (as an enzyme) that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible
2 : an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action

Both definitions fit both the past situation and the proper term I intent to use in describing it.

[Gimel]

64. The cataylist you speak of

You might say the accross-border attacks were a constant threat, and a reminder to Israel that elements in Lebanon oppose peace. It continues from 1978 PLO attacks , 1982 Hizbollah and even today.

There is not clear beginning to Hizbollah, and as the web sites I referenced (Hizbollah.org) indicate, the group came together gradually. The Israel invasion gave a good excuse and and opportunity for them to gain power. It is noted that they did not "go public" until 1985. The argument may be cut and dried to you, but the catalyist for Hizbollah was the social unrest and uprising, ie, civil war. Your interpretation is that Israel's invasion caused the creation of Hizbollah. That is false.

I heard the name "Hizbollah" before the invasion, and it was talked about along with the Amal org. in Israel in 1981.

[Aidoneus]

65. ok

Could you produce at least one reference to Lebanese Hizbullah dated before '82?
(Iranian Hizbullah formed during the revolution doesn't count)

edited slightly to reduce the irrelevant noise level of my post.

[Gimel]

66. Don't need to be insulting

I know the meaning of catalyst, so spare yourself the trouble of expalining the English language.

I give you the "horse's mouth response" and you ask for URL. Go figure. I'm not interested in much of what you've written, so I'm not responding. Therefore getting into these little insidious arguments based simply on a point of view such as Israel as immoral for defending her northern border.

You want to talk about Iranian involvement and how that became a catalyst for the growth of Hizbollah, the attack on the US Marines and the French troops which gave them a great victory, then I'm interested.

Everything can be a catalyst. Hizbollah was a teacher for al Qaeda and bin Ladin studied the car-bomb success, using it to bomb US embassies in Africa.

One of your long lectures was posted while I was preparing my response to your short answer. Therefore you have the idea that you are not being read. Also, I don't generally absorb much from the heavy dictatorial syle of writing as it assumes too much. You make statements without backing up facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Exactly...

You're talking apples and oranges here, the difference between influences from the past and the actual forming of the group. Hizbullah taking influences from something Mussa Sadr did in '69/'74/'78 doesn't mean they existed as a corporeal political/resistance group in that time period as you alternately are suggesting.

The same sort of argument as Gimel uses in this thread was used a few months ago in relation to the creation of Hamas. I really don't understand why some people seem to have so much difficulty understanding that because groups existed in the past that influenced a group, or that members of past groups joined a new group, that doesn't mean the new organisation has existed for longer than it actually has. That's like saying that crappy, boring Audioslave has existed for years, and seeing them as indistinguishable from the much more superior Rage Against The Machine because members of RATM are now in Audioslave...

Violet...

[Gimel]

68. Maybe it's a matter

of record. Some books write history the way it suits them. Others take a more unified and organic outlook. Suit yourself VC. I'm sure you know what is an apple and what is an orange.

[The Stranger]

24. This statement is indefensible logically and is self-contradictory . . .

. . . on its face:

Israel did not "occupy" Lebanon, it occupied part of it because it got tired of incursions from Lebanon into Israeli territory.

It did not occupy Lebanon, but it occupied Lebanon. What is this? Doublethink?

And we'll refer you to the posts above -- Israel is settling the Golan Heights, thus, it is conquered territory. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

[rooddood743]

15. Keep this in mind...

Although I don't wish to seem like an apologist for Israel's actions over the past few years, they have good reasons for their occupation of the Golan Heights.
The Golan is a vitally strategic area; from there, Syria could (and has) rain artilley into significant population centers in Israel.
I wish people would try to see the Israeli's point of view here. Even in the darkest days of the cold war, the Soviet Union never proclaimed that they wanted to kill every man, woman and child in America. Not only did the surrounding Arab nations say this about Israel, they tried it, what, four, five times? We in America often fail to understand the points on view of others. Five powerful, oil rich nations hell-bent on killing you and everyone you know...being black in South Africa...We have absolutely no idea what it is like to live under such conditions.
Of course, if Bush wins another term, we may learn.

[LivingInTheBubble]

20. Well I do see what you are saying

But occupying another countries land because it is vitally strategic doesn't make it right.

I'm sure the surrounding nations think its vitally strategic to take back the land israel is on.

Has every surrounding country really officially declared they are going to kill every israeli and do you have a link for these claims?

[papau]

23. But UN says Leb not occupied - Hiz is pissed at UN - claims part of Israel

So in the Hiz mind, Israel is still occupying Leb - but in the rest of the world, there is no occupation.

Now when the Nazi's claimed the Sudenland - despite the rest of the world saying the borders were correct - we said the Nazi 's were evil.

How hard is it to say the Hiz are evil?

[The Stranger]

49. Bad logic.

There is a dispute (even acknowledged by Israelis) regarding some farms in the South of Lebanon that has still not been vacated.

[Gimel]

50. three IDF soldiers..

were abducted from the very land inside Israel that you've mentioned. They have not been heard of since. However, the UN denied Israel access to videos and items taken from those soldiers for more than a year. Hizbullah was responsible for the abduction. After the PLO was chased out Hizbullah took control in the 1980's.

Is not this an incursion? What about all the missiles that are landing in Israel's territory lately? What about the death of an Israeli teenager in the Israel town of Shlomi just last weeek? Who is responsible? What should Israel do about that? What would you do if it was your country, your neighbor or friend that was killed?

[Aidoneus]

58. some answers

--how quaint, the former bosses of Khiam are crying about soldiers arrested by their opponent.. what of the thousands of Palestinians kidnapped and taken to Negev camps, or the Lebanese Shias kidnapped by Israel and taken to Khiam for torture? Oh right, they're Arabs, and just don't matter when conversations like this come up..

--anti-aircraft artillery, not mere missiles.

--the unfortunate death in the border settlement of Shlomi was caused by AAA shot at Israeli warplanes flying into Lebanese airspace, as they quite often do (hundreds of similar flagrant Israeli violations and provocations have been recorded since the 2000 retreat).

--Hizbullah was probably responsible..they have a history of firing on these provocative IAF overflights.

--I don't know, maybe Israel should stop flying warplanes into Lebanese & Syrian lands; it's a crazy enough idea to work, but "stopping aggressive provocations" such as the overflights of warplanes and continued assassinations in Lebanon may just be the best way to prevent the reactions to them, such as the recent unfortunate death. I could be wrong, but it's just so logical, basic cause->effect/action->reaction type stuff that a 4th grader could understand if he can look beyond the flags....

[Gimel]

60. Grief

There have been continuous battles between the two nations. Lebanon has been occupied by terrorists for decades.

As to the recent across-boarder shellings, several Israelis have been injured in the past week.

The shelling erupted around 12:25, coming from
Hezbollah anti-aircraft cannons on the Lebanon
side of the northern border, overlooking
Shlomi. Seven shells were fired. Three landed
in Shlomi - in the yard of a private home, and
at two sites close to one another on Harav
Hazan street, a preschool facility and a small
plaza. Four shells exploded in the air and
caused no injuries nor property damage. Nor did
the shell which landed in the private yard
cause injuries.

But the explosion in the plaza left Dadon dead
and another teenager, Yaron Fingleh, sustained
moderate injuries. Several other pedestrians in
the plaza were hurt.

<this shelling is intentional, not a mere accident.>

Israel Air Force planes yesterday attacked the
Hezbollah anti-aircraft cannon that fired the
shells on Shlomi. The IAF attacks destroyed the
Hezbollah positions.

Israeli security officials are checking claims
that three Hezbollah men were killed on Friday
by IDF fire carried out in retaliation against
Hezbollah shelling and missile fire against Har
Dov. Hezbollah did not report the loss of any
of men.

IDF forces in the north remain on alert, with
their status unaltered since the assassination
of Hezbollah operative Ali Hussein Salah one
week ago in Beirut. This assassination was
attributed to Israel.

In recent weeks, 18 Israelis have been hurt in
the north by Hezbollah attacks.

The IDF Spokesman yesterday accused Hezbollah
and Syria of acts of terror and of
intentionally violating Israeli sovereignty.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=328001&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[Aidoneus]

63. I disagree with your designation of Lebanon's status

But considering the rank ignorance I have seen, such misleading and oversimplified statements do not surprise me.

The anti-aircraft artillery(AAA) firing itself was indeed not an accident, it was the product of (as they claim) firing on IAF jets that were overflying Lebanon; Hizbullah has a record of firing anti-aircraft guns on IAF warplanes that quite frequently violate Lebanese airspace, with many similar aggressive IAF violations recorded since 2000.

That the AAA hits the ground is the result of basic physics, specifically the principle of "what goes up/must come down". Perhaps Israel should stop sending these warplanes over the border, that is something of a hostile act after all. The death is indeed unfortunate and should not have happened--it could have been avoided had Israeli military not been active in its continued aerial provocations, and if the recent claims are true, assassinations, against Lebanon.

It seems bizarre to me that the side most often shouting "COLLATERAL DAMAGE!" (to justify or deflect criticism of the 'unintended' results of the actions of their team) now flares the hair on their neck up about this; it must be that flag thing again that drives such contradictions on.

[Gimel]

67. do you know that?

Or are you just guessing? Why would they be fired into the Israeli territory if they were aiming at aircraft? No aircraft was reported to be near. Anyway, Israel is within rights to monitor the border due to the continued artilary fire from the Lebanon side.

At one time there was a security zone, now there is none. Israeli military has to protect borders that are trouble spots. Any other law is unjust.

[The Stranger]

25. You may keep that in the press, but not in mind . . .

. . . because the statements you make are inconsistent with the facts:

Not only did the surrounding Arab nations say this about Israel, they tried it, what, four, five times?

Actually, it seems to be those supporting Israel and Likud who constantly say this about the Arab nations. On the contrary, the Arab nations, including the evil devilish brown people of Saudi Arabia actually, have offered Israel comprehensive peace, what, like four, five times?

1. Sharm al Shekh
2. Arab League Proposal Put Forth By Saudi Arabia
3. Oslo
4. "Roadmap" to Peace
5. Tenet-CIA plan to create another "ceasefire"

Each of these were scoffed at by Sharon and Co., or some other reason was found in order not to comply.

We in America often fail to understand the points on view of others. Five powerful, oil rich nations hell-bent on killing you and everyone you know...being black in South Africa...We have absolutely no idea what it is like to live under such conditions.

"Five powerful, oil rich nations?" Are you serious? Those are backwards desert regimes with outdated economies, governed by ancient and outdated tribal political customs, and lacking any notion of technology, much less the hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer aid that Israel has soaked the U.S. for in the past few decades. They are using Soviet-era weapons and are being pushed around by the world's fourth or fifth most powerful nuclear power.

The problem is Americans don't understand what the Palestinians are living in as an occupied people for 50 years. Your reference to South Africa only makes sense as the Apartheid and dispossession in which the Palestinians have been placed: South African townships take the form of Palestinian Refugee Camps; Israeli itizenship laws that prohibit native born from citizenship revive South African Apartheid in the Middle East.

[StandWatie]

39. Sounds like it makes sense but it doesn't

If it was all cleared out (problematic morally but we are speaking in pure security terms) it could be seen as a strategic advantage. Because it is settled it actually became a strategic liability.

[Darranar]

40. The Golan Heights?

Shelling most certainly occured from that position. I think Israel has a legitimate security concern there-but I also think that as part of a Middle East Peace Plan (a real one) it should be given back to Syria.

[Aidoneus]

41. it has a more material value than strategic

also the reason why Israel will keep its grip on the West Bank no matter what the cheesy photo ops say:--water.

(same issue over the al-Wazzani and Shebaa to a lesser extent with Lebanon).

On that note, and this is just a hunch that I haven't checked up on specifically, but it would be interesting to match up where the Wall is going up and where the main underground water sources are in the W.B.. The stolen land around the springs will be kept so the pools in the "settlements" stay full, and offer up the dry areas back and call it spectacular.

[StandWatie]

44. ....

[tinnypriv]

45. Here is a map

Forgive the lack of a key or anything, I just knocked this up:



Far from conclusive, but certainly gives some weight to what you're saying. Obviously you'd need to have a more in depth on the ground study than this, but I'm sure BT'selem or people like that are already working on it.

[Gimel]

48. Water and WB

While the article posted deals exclusively with Lebanon and Hizbulah, here we have water problems and the West Bank as the subject. It is a switch and finding this as a root cause to the political problems in the ME is not tenable in the long run. While water is a scarce commodity in the ME, it is not only Israel's problem. There are agreements dealing with water rights between Israel and Jordan. The West Bank water resources are shared with Israel due to nature as much as anything.

Israel imports quantities of water from Turkey, and a hydro-electric plant is under construction near Aqaba-Eilat to benefit the region. Squabbling over water is not a solution to the ME water crisis. There are scientific ways to solve the problem.

[StandWatie]

43. but..

the problem is these aren't just cleared out DMZ's, if it was a security motivation they never would have moved people in because trying to operate around them in Yom Kippur was actually a major pain in the ass.

[Darranar]

46. I'm not sure I understand...

the Israelis captured the Golan Heights in 1967, not in 1973. If there was a legitimate security concern in 1967, wouldn't there be one to defend in 1973?

[StandWatie]

47. right..

but what I'm saying is that it made operating there magnitudes harder trying to work around settlements instead of having an open field of combat.

[0007]

26. Where did the earlier thread go about this?

It just completely disappeared. How does one know it was Hizbollah?

This is about the third time this has happened that I have noticed

[0007]

38. What is going on with this board

The orginal post disappeared. Then this thread appeared, then a another (same post appeared) by same poster was casted out as a dupe. Whos controling these threads?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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