well, dismantling settlements and pulling out of Gaza turned out to be such a success....

"On Monday, hundreds of Palestinians who marched in downtown Ramallah in support of Hizbullah chanted: "Hassan Nasrallah is our hero, the rest of the Arab leaders are cowards" and "O beloved Abu Hadi [Nasrallah's nickname], bomb, bomb Tel Aviv." The second battle cry is reminiscent of the famous slogan the Palestinians used during the first Gulf War: "O beloved Saddam, bomb, bomb Tel Aviv."

Ahhh, such nice people. Two wrongs, Norm, right?

Exactly right Zak.

So Hezbollah is wrong to bomb or call for the bombing of Tel Aviv? And Israel is well within its right to pre-empt such a threat? Glad we finally agree, Norm.

So Hezbollah is wrong to bomb or call for the bombing of Tel Aviv? And Israel is well within its right to pre-empt such a threat?

i really dont understand what israel's motivations are. i suppose their incoherent foreign policy must be the result of differing factions within the country or something. i dont get it. do they want peace? how does occupation protect them in any way?

is it a punishment for their enemies not being completely submissive? no matter how much you bomb them they arent gonna be. at some point you actually have to negotiate, and you have to try to make the other side legitimate.

Define 'imminent.'

Norm, the UN Charter does not allow any nation to invade, attack or occupy another nation, even on claims of self defense.

Israel has repeatedly violated this UN Charter and remains the only Middle East country not punished for it.

=====

Zak again ignores the fact that Hezbollah only fires rockets at Israel AFTER Israel violates Lebanese sovereinty or attacks Lebanese civilians.

Take this year's conmflict for example.

Hezbollah kidnapps 2 ISRAELI SOLIDERS in Jusly to exchange for the 15 Lebanese hostages Israeli took during its illegal occupation of South Lebanon, an Israeli act which violated the Geneva Convention.

Israeli responded by bombing CIVILIAN areas and infrastructures.

The Hezbollah then fired rockets into Israeli cities.

========

Other violations by Israel of Lebanese sovereignty that necessitated a Hezbollah response.

"Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns. In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation". On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12...."

Read more here:

August 8, 2006 by the Guardian / UK

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0808-23.htm

I just happen to have landed an interview with that right-wing "dwarf-planet" himself, Pluto, here.

Coocoo Kes, you write:

"the UN Charter does not allow any nation to invade, attack or occupy another nation, even on claims of self defense."

Kes, I dont know what UN Charter you're reading, but it's not the one from Planet Earth. Please read Article 51 below from the United Nations Charter:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Kes, whatever minimal credibility you had before, this pretty much should put a nail in that coffin.

"Norm, the UN Charter does not allow any nation to invade, attack or occupy another nation, even on claims of self defense." kes, im not even gona ask you to provide documentation of this.1st, i trust in two things:your command of all things u.n., and 2nd, the long history of stupidity of that originally well intentioned organization. but do you realize what you're saying? that according to the u.n. it is forbidden for one nation to attack another even in defense? and if this is true, wouldn't it also apply to the arabs? but who cares, nobody listens to the u.n. anyway, which makes me wonder why you're so obsessed w/them. as if they were the arbiters of morality and world history itself. the IDEA behind such an organization is admirable and still desirable, but they have shown themselves to be even more foolish and impotent than you.

oops, sorry, should have read ahead instead of letting my bullshit detector dictate an immediate response. seems zak has already adressed this issue.

i would guess kes was referring to pre-emptive actions, but i dunno.

it's hard to tell what kes is referring to sometimes.

Zak and jonathan are misleading the people here.

Israeli claims of self defence to justify its military aggression has been debunked by historians

First, did Lebanon attack Israel before Israel attacked Lebanon?

The answer is no. The Hezbollah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers 1 month AFTER Israel kidnapped 2 Arabs from Gaza Bank in 24 June 2006 and that Israel still held 15 Lebanese hostahes taken from its occupation

If Israel sees kidnapping of Arabs justified and not as an act of war, the Arabs can retaliate in kind.

Only the pro-israel crowd here can insist that Israel can FIRST kidnap and attack Arabs at will in Arab lands without proof or court order, thus violating Arab sovereignty, while condemning Arabs for retaliating in kind.

The right of self-defence belongs to the country that was attacked first and that was not Israel.

The country attacked was Palestine's Gaza Strip and all of of Lebanon.

Jonathan and Zak's biases are clear for everyone to see.

Although they do have problems seeing the truth most of the times.

Zak and Jonathan, as long as you keep saying that only Israel has the right to self defence and not tyhe Arabs and that Israel can continue with terrorism and not the Arabs, everyone will know you interest in promoting a one-sided debate in Israel's favour.

Zak and jonathan are misleading people on what Article 51 is about.

Article 51 does not does not allow any nation to invade, attack or occupy another nation, even on claims of self defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Where did the Article allow Israel to attack, invade and occupy Arab lands for self defence??????

I have quoted article 51 in this quote in Norm’s blog many times, but everyone knows that Zak does not read my posts and my sources even though he claims that they are wrong.

Here it is again:

"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

=========== PROOF ========

Here’s Article 51 from the official website of the UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp7.htm

Article 51 from the official website of the UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp7.htm

=========

Article 51 of the UN Charter CLEARLY does not allow any nation to invade, attack or occupy another nation, even on claims of self defense.

All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed in 1949. < < < "The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

==============

Everyone, please note that Zak and jonathan are trying to mislead people here with no proof for what they are saying.

And up to now, jonathan and Zak does not bother substantiating their points or attacks against people critical of Israel in over 90% of their posts.

I have not bothered to respond to their attacks but focused on addressing their points because personal attacks to avoid addressing the facts and issues I raised are clearly an act of desperation.

Just keeping the record real : >

=================

Unlike Zak and jonathan who makes claims out of empty air, I take the time to research and support my points while allowing people the space to reply to my posts before addressing them.

But the next time, I spot someone deliberately lying or misleading others on my points, I will rebut that person imediately to expose his or her dishonesty.

Kindly note that I have refuted and rebuted Zak's empty claims in everyone of his posts.

I have refuted Zak's claim in detail at this thread, to which Zak has no response either:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/linkswithyour_379.html#comments