I think the Israeli statement, "as surgical as we could be", is at the heart of the issue. The statement is false on its face. It implies that Israel had no choice, and that is bullshit.

What choice is there, Norm?

If someone is firing rockets off of the balcony of an apartment building, and you are unable to send ground forces into the building in order to neutralize this person, what do you do?

In some instances, its possible to drop troops onto the roof using a helicopter. Israel has done this before. It puts the lives of their soldiers at risk, because who knows what else lurks inside the building in question, but it is a good alternative to dropping a bomb on the place and turning the whole place into a pile of rubble.

This is not always possible though. What if there was an anti-aircraft battery on the roof? Or what if there were a bunch of guys with machineguns on the roof instead? Hard to fast-rope troops onto that kind of obstacle.

As much as we would all like Israel to fly its troops over and clean out the buildings that way, that isn't always a viable option.

Hezbollah knows this as well as you or I, which is why they conducted the war the way they did.

The number 1 concern of the Israeli Defence Forces is to protect Israeli civilians. Their number 2 concern is to protect IDF soldiers, and their number 3 concern is to minimize innocent deaths on the other side.

I dont know why this surprises anyone. If I were in command of the IDF I would probably think the same way, as would most others im sure.

Hezbollah is not a country so good luck charging them with war crimes. Of course the Israeli’s are guilty but mess with the bull you get the horns I don't like it any more then some one living I Lebanon but I would be kicking the ass of those sending rockets into Israel in I was in Lebanon if I needed help I would ask the UN. Just as I am mortified by Israeli action I understand they need to react. There was plenty of opportunity for the world community the head this off send in 200,000 troop the disarm Hezbollah a rough party (Nazi) highly armed. Hezbollah will put a resolution up for a vote that will do away with the bothersome and mentally taxing chore of voting. The UN is guilty of a war crime they let this crap go on.

Civilians? bah! Human life? ha! Collateral damage, that's what it is. Towel heads vs. patriotic innocent Americans, that's what it is. Come on, get with the program you silly bleeding-heart liberals.

At least with Hezbollah you don't have to debate whether they're being "as surgical as possible", eh Norm?

In the cases examined by HRW they were not shooting rockets from balconies. You know just because some attacks may be justified that doesn't mean all attacks are justified. Israel may have been justified in some cases, but you provide no evidence and at the same time not justified in other cases.

Their number 2 concern is to protect IDF soldiers

Hezbollah you don't have to debate whether they're being "as surgical as possible"

A couple of decades ago, I remember the hawks selling the "new air war" as being a "precision war." Modern warfare that will severely limit or eliminate civilian deaths altogether.

-Supposedly a more humane way to conduct war. What a crock of _ _.

The American military industrial complex is just as, if not more so, guilty as Israel. (We provide the weaponry.)

They know where the agitators reside/hide. They know where to point the bombs efficiently. Either they LIED about their technogical prowess or they DECIDE not to conduct a humane war (no such thing).

Either way, either side, they have no regard for life, they're power greedy, and they $ profit from mass destruction and the deaths of children, the elderly, women and innocent men.

War, precise or not, will NEVER bring about solution or peace. You can't kill ideas, prejudice or thought.

The sooner men learn this, the sooner the rest of us will be able to bring about resolution, respect, tolerance and peace.

Terrorists fighting terrorists is all it is anymore. I say fuck both military forces, as neither side values life. It will go on until the civilians on both sides tire of the death and violence and reign in their OWN soldiers. There in no military solution to this, unless you include total annihilation of Israel AND their neighbors.

Nicely done, commenter one! Blew that strawman to bits! Not one Israeli newspaper I have read (Ha'aretz, Jpost, Ynet)mentioned anything about missle launches from balconies. Given their tendencies to grasp at any straw for propaganda purposes, they would have were it anything other than made up BS.

From those same newspapers, you will regularly find the age old refrain about searing consciousness, the IDF's main tool since 1948. Searing consciousness is terrorism, frightening civilians into letting Israel do whatever it wants. That was what blowing up half of Lebanon was about, trying to drive a wedge between Lebanon's various factions. They made no secret about it. Something cannot be both accidental and be the main tactical weapon in the arsenal.

Are there any missile systems which are truly surgical? Surgical implies that one can zero in an a target without fail. My understanding is that any such surgical manoeuvres do not exist.

"Civilians? bah! Human life? ha!" I am a liberal But am no a bleeding-heart liberal respect diversity or I will kick your ass... lol I am tired of getting shafted but the right, the Religious fundy's, people who see a "Justice” on either side Israel is a country Hezbollah is not they need to be disarmed the un should do it!

Norm, doesn't your argument actually lend the IDF a compliment ? Indeed they could never risk the lives of their soldiers by relying solely on high altitude strikes or the like, but it is to their credit that they send troops in, on exceedingly dangerous missions, in order to deal with situations. Can you imaging the dangers posed by sending 2 elite troop forces into a highrise in order to complete a mission. Its mind boggling how much more dangerous that is rather than just bombing it. It implies that the mission selection is carried out based on a balance of the situation - including concerns for civillians. Now the devils advocate would say 'the Israelis are just doing this because they don't want bad PR'. It definitely doesnt hurt, but what if in the end Israeli (political/military) leadership really sit down and reason it out - for our security, and perhaps that of the region, we need to engage Hiz. which will undoubtedly cause civillian deaths. But the alternative in the end is worse. If some here believe that Israel is a calculating cold blooded killer, than perhaps they can also be a calculating reluctant warrior.

"In the cases examined by HRW they were not shooting rockets from balconies. You know just because some attacks may be justified that doesn't mean all attacks are justified. Israel may have been justified in some cases, but you provide no evidence and at the same time not justified in other cases."

So the ENTIRE statement is bullshit because they're only justified in "some" cases and not all?

Look, if you can show me any conflict in which either side was completely justified for all of its actions, then I will buy you a cookie.

Are there any missile systems which are truly surgical? Surgical implies that one can zero in an a target without fail. My understanding is that any such surgical manoeuvres do not exist.

Yes, there are such missiles. The US has them in great abundance. I'm not sure about the Israelis, but I would wager that they have some also.

Hezbollah certainly has some of these weapons, as we learned after they struck that Israeli gunship some weeks ago. The weapon they used there was in fact an Iranian copy of a Chinese cruise missile. Wonder how they got their hands on that kind of hardware.

There are of course duds with these weapons however, so to say that they are 100% accurate 100% of the time would be inaccurate.

In the cases examined by HRW they were not shooting rockets from balconies. You know just because some attacks may be justified that doesn't mean all attacks are justified. Israel may have been justified in some cases, but you provide no evidence and at the same time not justified in other cases.

Okay Norm, but even if Human Rights Watch didnt investigate any cases of rockets being fired from balconies, are rockets fired from infront of (or behind/beside/on top of) buildings any different?

How about when the launching platform is moved from inside a building, out infront of it so that it can fire, then brought back inside the building for cover. We know that Hezbollah has done this. We've all seen the evidence. Regardless of how we feel for the Lebanese, it's still Hezbollah using a building as a shield, isn't it?

I do feel bad that many of these buildings are owned by innocent people, but the fact remains that they are being used to facilitate militant attacks against Israel.

The point I was trying to make is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the Israelis to send ground forces against these targets. As much as it may reduce the collateral damage, it simply presents to much of a risk to the Israelis.

In a 'perfect' world, the IDF could roll into town in a couple of Armored Personnel Carriers, roll up to the building, then run inside and take out the bad guys. But that is not reality.

Instead we saw Israel roll into town with heavily armored tanks. Why? Because they knew that if they went with anything less their forces would be annihilated by people wielding RPG's and AK-47's.

And also note, that these people carrying the RPG's and AK-47's are the same ones we see on the news everyday denouncing Israel for its brutality. One day they carry the armbands and flags of Hezbollah, and the next day they're in plain clothes infront of the TV cameras trying to win the PR war.

And please, save the 'You know just because some attacks may be justified that doesn't mean all attacks are justified.' garbage.

I've never said that Israel was 100% justified in every single thing it did during the conflict. I'm just really opposed to this position that they had no justification at all.

If that were true you would always be justified in blowing up any building you think might harbor fighters whether you have credible evidence or not, and civilian casualties don't matter. You could simply drop a nuke and make sure no Israeli soldiers died, that would be following the principle you just outlined.

No Norm, you're wrong. You did a marvelous job of ignoring what I said, too. In fact, I almost thought that was Kes when I first started to read it.

What I said was that first and foremost the IDF is concerned with protecting the lives of its own people. Then I said that they were also concerned with limiting the number of innocent people that are killed as a result of their actions. Go ahead and scroll up a little bit, and read it again if you'd like.

Certainly dropping a nuke would destroy their enemies without risking the lives of any Israeli troops, but then that would be an indiscriminate act that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people inside Lebanon.

I think we can all agree that Israel has this capability also. With that in mind, I ask you, why do they not just 'drop a nuke' and finish the whole thing today?

Perhaps its because they honestly dont want to kill innocent people if it can be avoided.

Perhaps they dont want to sink down to the level of the cowardly hezbollah guerllias who they fight.

Or maybe its because they dont want all of the negative world opinion that such an act would bring.

Then again, the way some people spin things, Israel gets away with murder anyway. So what have they got to lose? I mean, besides being able to sleep at night and that sort of thing.

I guess Hezbollah isn't worried about that though, since they're the only ones who actually launched indiscriminate attacks during the conflict.

[and I challenge anyone here to prove that the IDF conducted 'indiscriminate' attacks against the Lebanese. I really am anxious to see what people post on this matter. Should be quite interesting.]

When you have 4th generation warfare against a conventional military force, you are always going to have civilian casualties. It is the way things have always been and will be, unless someone can come up with something new in warfare. I have read some military people say there were more effective ways for Israel to kill Hizballah militants, but I haven't read of any ways to avoid civilian casualties.

But, I do have a compromise... lock up the leaders of Israel, and its supporter, the USA, and also lock up the leaders of Hizballah and its supporters, Syria and Iran. It would be unfair, but I think we could all be happy with that result.

[and I challenge anyone here to prove that the IDF conducted 'indiscriminate' attacks against the Lebanese. I really am anxious to see what people post on this matter. Should be quite interesting.]

that's what this report is about.

So the ENTIRE statement is bullshit because they're only justified in "some" cases and not all? Look, if you can show me any conflict in which either side was completely justified for all of its actions, then I will buy you a cookie.

So your argument is that if one side is guilty of committing war crimes it's okay for the other side to commit war crimes. There is a logical fallacy in your argument do you know what it is?

If by "surgical" they mean the surgeon was Jeffrey Dahmer, then I suppose the statement could be, on its face, correct.

Man, you and your logical fallacies. I love how you read ten of them on some website and now can't stop repeating them in posts.

And yes, before you point it out, that was the ad hominem fallacy.

You know, Norm, no matter how many times you post this kind of crap it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't matter. You're engaged in a pointless argument. Not only because you cannot influence Israel's actions against its warlike neighbors, but because you've been repeatedly shown to be completely biased on the issue.

But that's okay, it's hip to be biased on the issue of terrorism - to 'understand' the terrorist. That's why there are reports about 'human rights' violations by Israel, and no such reports about Hamas. That's why there are people putting up big banners about the Lebanese 'civilians' killed in the fight and attributing the whole thing to Israel.

Everyone thinks they're so clever when they're just reciting the lines that were written for them. When you have a country fighting against a headless entity hell-bent on terror, the country is going to take all the crap. That's the point of the terror. If you don't respond, you lose. If you respond, you lose. And you wonder why Israel doesn't care what people say about them?

So I suggest a moratorium on these goddamn Israel stories. Please. There are so many other interesting things to argue pointlessly about like the gay candidate the Democrats just nullified, or who will be running for president in 2008, or the state of the minimum wage, etc.

Just drop the Israel thing. It's really, really old.

The pro-Israeli crowd refuses to ignore that Israel started this bombardment of Lebanon by dropping 660,000 MODERN artillery shells and nearly 40,00 ADVANCED rockets and bombs on Lebanese civilians, while they condemn Hezbopllah for firing back 3970 1940s rockets with poor accuracy and high failure rates

They rejext any basis for Arab's right to self defence against Israli mi,litary aggression as the instigator of 3 out of 4 major wars in the Middle East with pre-emtpive air strikes and occupation of Arab lands.

Without the Israeli invasion and occupation of SOuth Lebanon from 1982-2000, a globally condemned move, the Hezbollah would never appeared as a resistance movement entrenched in SOuth Lebanon to attack.

Valkesh and the pro-Israeli crowd fails to point out that Hezbollah only fires eockets into Israel AFTER Israel violates Lebaese soveriegnty.

Israel responded to Hezbollah kidnapping of 2 ISRAELI SOLDIERS by carpet bombing CIVILIAN AREAS AND INFRASTRUCTURE in all of Lebanon. Only then did the Hezbollah fired back at Israel.

The pro-Israeli crowd refuses to ignore that Israel started this bombardment of Lebanon by dropping 660,000 MODERN artillery shells and nearly 40,00 ADVANCED rockets and bombs on Lebanese civilians, while they condemn Hezbopllah for firing back 3970 1940s rockets with poor accuracy and high failure rates.

Proof:

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.

Guardian, 8 Aug 06,

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

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

KIndly also note that Israel kidnapped 2 Arabs from the Gaza Strip 1 day BEFORE Hamas kidnapped 1 Israeli soldier in retaliation which Israel said was a cause for war.

Israel [KIDNAPS] captures pair in Gaza raid 24 Jun 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm

Israel's kidnapping of 2 Arabs with no court order or proof clearly violates Palestian territorial soverienty, 1 month before Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers to exhange for the 15 Lebanese hostages Israeli still posseses from its occupations.

The pro-Israeli corwd, repeatedly refuses to address the gfact that Israel is often the one who first use terrorist tactis against Arab civilians while condemning Arabs when tey retaliate with Israel's own tactics.

Who's the one being one-sided?

Let he who did not sin cast the first stone. If not, don't.

Lev is advocating that people should not put up their sources for people to read and investigate, so that he won;t have to do the same.

After all, pro-Israeli posters like Zak like to get their materials from Israel's advocacy group like www.palestinefacts.org, who does not even dare to write down on its website which group sponsors it.

However, the Israeli groups have very clearly placed it among Israeli advocacy websites.

I'm sorry but I have to say that israel which destroyed Arab's statehood in Paestine is not credible in claiming to to provide an accurate picture of Palestine.

The UN, international media, international NGOs and historians do a better job, that's why I use them.

Palestinefacts.org is an advocacy website for Israel:

http://www.comsyn.org/israel.php

http://www.lambo.ca/barzel/Links.html

=====

See Lev, that's why people should reveal their sources.

We can all read them and determine whether they are credible or biased or not.

Sorry Lev, you made comments about me first and I have the right to a rebuttal.

Kes, don't use a phrase like "carpet bombing" unless you know what it means. You have shown you don't know what it means in your last post. When you do things like that, it kills your whole argument and hurts anyone trying to make a logical argument against Israel.

I found it disturbing that the reporters went out of thier way to make it clear 'Israeli civilians felt terror and fear.' Terror and fear are one thing, killing is another.

Man, i am so sick of people like Valkesh, Mithras, Average Joe....still backing Israel after all those years of oppression, regardless of the all the facts. Notice how, most of the time, those people never give their sources, never. Notice how they constantly defend Israeli atrocities with really old "catch phrases" such as: -Israel has a right to "defend" itself -Israel is constantly being attacked by its neighbours -Everyone expects higher standard from Israel (this one cracks me up. I have watched UK, French (supposedely pro arab) and US media, not one of them, once has not defended, understood, or excused Israeli actions. An Israeli soldier dies, you see a 5 mins video of him when he was young, how loving he was-why the army, then?-, his funeral, his family crying....A whole civilian palestinian familly dies, you see nothing, only the routinely "an Israeli air strikes blows up a building and kills 6 people, some of them being Hamas militants...).

Guys? Cut it. Honestly. It is getting embarrassing. You cannot hide forever behind lies, unexistant sources, and falses pretences. You must have a reason for doing it (embarassing yourselves over and over to defend an unjust cause), whatever the reason is, drop it, you're in the wrong, and hurting yourselves. You've got to be objective once in a while. Valkesh, you first commentary was idiotic, to say the least. How can you pretend that Israel concerns are:"number 1 concern of the Israeli Defence Forces is to protect Israeli civilians. Their number 2 concern is to protect IDF soldiers, and their number 3 concern is to minimize innocent deaths on the other side." I know that you're not suppose to attack someone thru this forum, but with bullshit like that! Shit it's hard. I won't go thru the facts which shows that those 3 statements are completely false and unfounded. Not that much time to waste. You always pretend that Israel has to be whiter than white. Ok, therefore tell me when was the last time that a country bombed and killed 4 UN personel, after being repeatedly warned off (from 9am till 6pm) and that the UN (the employer) only responded with a sort of a "blame" without even opening an independent inquiry? Tell me also what is the aim of Israel when bombing CIVILIANS infrastrutures (war crime-Geneva conventions) not only in south Lebanon, but all over the country. Who are you targetting when you bomb a bridge, an airport, a supermarket, a port, water, gas and electricity structures? Also, you cannot expect an armed militia (Hezbollah) to fight the third army in the world (Israel, thanks to USA of course) man to man, face to face. To DEFEND themselves from Israeli occupying their country, Hezbollah, like any other resistance group, has to use gorilla warfare. Last thing, give us your bloody sources guys! I have got tons of Israeli, Jewish sources (newspapers, charities, Army, political right and left...) CONDENMING ISRAEL for its actions. Give me some Palestinian sources agreeing with Israel's action. Please.

To conclude, hey average Joe, one more thing. You know what's "hip"? Defending one of the smallest, richest, armed to the teeth, most subsidized, egoistical, without a constitution, racist (zionism) state in the world oppressing a starved population. That's hip. Hey, you're hip, man. So now that you've achieved what you wanted most, cut it, and go back to history books, novels, films, documentaries, re reading of conventions, resolutions....and get hipper. Joe, you said it yourself, you're average. The day you get better than that (after reading a bit more) come back to the forum to give us some more advice on what we should, or not, talk about.

its not as bad as some claim, but not as justified as some here would like to believe. Israel did not target civilians, it simply didnt care whether civilians got hurt. There is a difference between the two, but in the law this amounts to the difference between 1st and second degree murder. (ie malice and aforethought v. recklessness and disregard for human life) In as far as this legal distinction can be made in the law for individulas as well as nation states, Israel can indeed be charged with warcrimes. Im a law student if anyone is wondering why im talking about 1st and 2nd degree murder definitions.

Glad to see giyus.org is still going strong and spamming.

Fact: Israel have shown on military footage that they could pick out a single target with ease if required.

The bombing of Lebanon has been indisriminate. You only need to look at the satellite photos. After all why bomb the beriut airport? Hezbollah don't run that airport and don't have an airforce.

All the Israel apologists is just sickening tbh. Fact is innocent people are dying on both sides, just Israel seems to be doing a better job of killing civilians.

A must read on the subject of the recent conflict. http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky08242006.html

"what is the aim of Israel when bombing CIVILIANS infrastrutures"

" After all why bomb the beriut airport? Hezbollah don't run that airport and don't have an airforce."

To me it's pretty simple - they were attempting to intimidate the lebanese people, and drive home the cost of supporting hezbollah. The use of violence to instill fear with the goal of making political changes. There's a word for that somewhere...

Norm, the article you posted for me didn't work for some reason.

-Israel has a right to "defend" itself -Israel is constantly being attacked by its neighbours -Everyone expects higher standard from Israel

Sweet fancy jesus man, are you fucking serious?

"Israel has a right to 'defend' itself" isn't a fucking catch phrase, its the truth.

Any country that is attacked has a right to defend itself. Why should Israel be any different? Why should they sit back while they're attacked by forces within Lebanon, while nobody does anything to stop these people?

Frankly, as far as the blue line goes, I honestly done really care that much anymore.

As long as there are people firing sniper rifles, launching mortars, or shooting rockets across the border, Israel has the right, and responsibility, to cross the line.

[Interesting article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071700340.html]

An Israeli soldier dies, you see a 5 mins video of him when he was young, how loving he was-why the army, then?-, his funeral, his family crying....A whole civilian palestinian familly dies, you see nothing, only the routinely "an Israeli air strikes blows up a building and kills 6 people, some of them being Hamas militants...).

What the hell? What news channels are you watching man?

You've got some really skewed views on this topic. Being 100% honest, where I live, I actually see more coverage of the Hamas and Hezbollah dead then I do Israeli soldiers/civilians.

The thing I really enjoy is when Israel kills some guy with a rocket launcher, then the next day his body is carried through Gaza by thousands of people waving Hamas flags and wearing their green armbands, shouting out "god is great" and bits about how the guy was such a martyr and how brave he was.

Then there's always the clip of the guys mother or wife holding up his sons and daughters and dressing them in those cute little baby-hamas costumes.

What a great thing to teach your children.

Tell me also what is the aim of Israel when bombing CIVILIANS infrastrutures (war crime-Geneva conventions) not only in south Lebanon, but all over the country. Who are you targetting when you bomb a bridge, an airport, a supermarket, a port, water, gas and electricity structures?

I do not support the bombing of gas plants, electrical plants, or water treatment. Nor do I support the bombing of supermarkets.

However, I do support the bombing of bridges and roads that connect Syria to Lebanon. Why? Because Syria and Iran have traditionally used these bridges and highways to resupply Hezbollah inside Lebanon. The same goes for the international airport in Beirut, unfortunately. It's a shame that the airport was struck, but at the same time I do understand why the Israelis did it.

[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33566.pdf]

Iranian arms flows to Hezbollah have continued in recent years. The method of transfer, by all accounts, have been Iranian cargo flights, off-loaded at Damascus airport and trucked into Lebanon for delivery to Hezbollah. Reported shipments have included “Stinger” anti-aircraft weapons obtained by Iran in Afghanistan, “Fajr-5” rockets (45-mile range) that can reach the Israeli city of Haifa, and over 10,000 Katyusha rockets (18-mile range).22 Some observers believe Iran might have transferred to Hezbollah the Zelzal missile (120-mile range) that might be able to hit the outskirts of Tel Aviv from south Lebanon.23 The U.S. State Department report on terrorism for 2004 (released April 2005) says that Iran supplied Hezbollah with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the Mirsad, that Hezbollah briefly flew over the Israel-Lebanon border on November 7, 2004 and April 11, 2005. Some reports suggest that Hezbollah used a Chinese-made C-802 sea skimming cruise missile to strike an Israeli naval vessel on July 14, 2006. Iran is known to have outfitted Chinese-made patrol boats with C-802’s during the 1990s, and Iran apparently transferred some C-802’s to Hezbollah.24

Simon,

Fact: Israel have shown on military footage that they could pick out a single target with ease if required. The bombing of Lebanon has been indisriminate. You only need to look at the satellite photos. After all why bomb the beriut airport? Hezbollah don't run that airport and don't have an airforce.

What's your point? If Israel used a laser guided bomb to blow up a building that was being used by Hezbollah, you'd be upset with them for destroying the building. If they used a dumb bomb to do the same thing, you'd still be upset with them for destroying the building.

So what would you have had them do?

I still do not accept the idea that the bombing of Lebanon was indiscriminate.

Israel was trying to bomb Hezbollah, that was their target. If they were bombing certain targets (Ie Hezbollah assets) then they were not acting indiscriminately.

The satellite photos show the destruction for sure, but they do not show the motivation or reasoning behind the destruction.

As far as the airport goes, I hope I've made myself clear on that point by now.

Israel did not target civilians, it simply didnt care whether civilians got hurt.

I agree with the first part of that statement, but not the last.

If Israel didn't care about killing civilians, why did they drop those leaflets for weeks on end asking people to get out of the combat zones. Why did they express so much regret and sadness when civilians were killed during the war.

Did they do it for the propaganda value? Maybe, I dont know.

I just feel that there are a lot of people on here that have said time and again that Israel doesnt care about public/world opinion, or the UN, and that they just do whatever the hell they want.

Given that point of view, why would Israel drop the leaflets, hold the press conferences, and conduct the investigations, if they dont care about the results?

guys. you have to understand (and i am speaking as a veteran with combat experience) that the number of dead while very tragic shows a great effort in not targeting civilians specifically.

Bombing civil tragets like airports and bridges especially considering the use of cargo drops of weapons is a legitimate target.

Contrary to what some people here say, those bombs accurate as they may be are not 100% sure fire. and it can be an accurate bomb that goes through an air shaft. if its a half a ton warhead. it will destroy the building.

Who is to blame? both sides are to blame. it seems that people here are arguing above and beyond the basic understanding, this is war. people get killed. you will kill 10, 100, 1000 on the "other" side, if it will save 2 soldiers on "your" side.

Humane war? there is no such thing. never was.

Valkesh falsely claims that Israel is not targeting civilians because Israel warned civilians in advance of bombings.

The Hezbollah has done the same thing by the way : >

Valkesh also ignores the fact that the warning may be too little to late and that Israeli atttack even civilians fleeing from bomb sites

As well as the fact that Israel does not provide warnings for all its bombings. Read for yourself:

1] BEIRUT (Reuters) - Israeli aircraft fired rockets at a convoy of hundreds of cars carrying people fleeing south Lebanon on Friday, killing at least seven people and wounding 36, witnesses and medical sources said.

Israel attacks convoy fleeing south Lebanon Fri Aug 11, 6:18 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060811/wlnm/mideastsouth_dc

2] Israeli drone strike on convoy kills 7 By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 11, 7:47 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/aponremiea/lebanon_israel

BEIRUT, Lebanon - An Israeli drone fired at a convoy of refugees fleeing southern Lebanon on Friday night, killing at least seven people and wounding 22, an Associated Press photographer said. The Israeli military said it was investigating the incident.

==========

Valkesh has provided no proof except his wishful and frankly speaking misleading claims that Israel does not target Arab civilians to achieve political objectives.

Israel has an official policy of targeting Arab civilians with terrorist tactics and for collective punishment. Some examples:

1] Yesha Rabbinical Council: During time of war, enemy has no innocents

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians," the statement said. (Efrat Weiss)

(07.30.06, 17:37)

2] Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, is an advocate of the use of air power against civilians as well as the creator of the policy of targeted assassinations:

• “Unfortunately, statistics on the results of Israel's targeted killing policy do not give it a clear moral edge. From November 2000 to April 2003, Israel conducted 175 targeted killings that killed 235 people and wounded 310. Of those killed, only 156 were defined as the targets of the strikes; of those wounded, only five were so defined. This result raises the question of whether Israel made sufficient efforts and took sufficient risks to prevent harm to innocent Palestinians. Moreover, official rhetoric demonstrated apathy to the tragic results: Israel's official spokesman announced that he slept well at night after Palestinian civilians are hit, and that the only thing he felt was "a slight bump to the wing of the plane as a result of dropping the bomb.”

  Israeli newspaper source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=582892

• In 1996, Israel used air bombing to target Arab civilians in Lebanon for collective punishment.

“In 1996 the idea was to put pressure on the civilians of southern Lebanon, so that they would put pressure on the government of Lebanon, so that it would put pressure on the Syrian government which, finally, would curb Hezbollah and grant immunity to Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. In short, the plan was to compel Syria to act as an Israeli gendarme in Lebanon. Syria did not oblige and Hezbollah went from strength to strength….

… Both Israeli incursions into Lebanon involved the deliberate targeting of civilians in flagrant violation of the laws of war. In Operation Grapes of Wrath, Israel's strategy was the equivalent of using a bulldozer to weed a garden. The commander of the current operation, Dan Halutz, is a former commander of the air force, and the leading advocate of the use of air power against civilians. Asked what he felt when he dropped a bomb on a civilian target, Halutz replied that there was a slight judder when the bomb was released and that was it. The reply speaks volumes about the depth of moral depravity of Israel's top soldier.

It was on Halutz's advice that the Israeli cabinet last month authorized the most savage air attack in Lebanon's history, which destroyed Beirut Airport, power stations, bridges, highways, civilian houses and even a UN post. In 1996, Israeli forces drove about 400,000 civilians from their homes. Currently the number is more like 800,000, added to which there are 515 civilian dead and more than 3,000 wounded. A high proportion of these casualties are children.

In 1996, a massacre of civilians brought Operation Grapes of Wrath to its inglorious end. One hundred and two refugees sheltering in a UN compound in Qana were killed by a barrage that was later described by Amnesty International as deliberate. The massacre gave Hezbollah a decisive moral victory. An international outcry forced the United States to arrange an immediate cease-fire to halt the bloodshed. Operation Grapes of Wrath was a political, military and moral failure.

Israel's error, then and now Avi Shlaim International Herald Tribune

Published: August 4, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/04/opinion/edshlaim.php

Human Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes 24 Aug 06 By JOHN KIFNER

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/middleeast/24lebanon.html?th&emc=th BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 23 — Amnesty International accused Israel on Wednesday of war crimes in its monthlong battle with Hezbollah, saying its bombing campaign amounted to indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and population. “Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that give rise to individual criminal responsibility,” Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group, said in a report on the Israeli campaign. “They include directly attacking civilian objects and carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”….. =========== Why did Human Rights Watch make this claim? ========

For Israel innocent civilians are fair game. Peter Bouckaert, International Herald Tribune,

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/opinion/edbouck.php

The voice of Mohammed Shalhoub, 61, a farmer from Qana, still quivers with shock and exhaustion. He was in a basement shelter with more than 60 relatives when two Israeli bombs hit, killing at least 28, including 16 children. As I interview him in hospital, relatives arrive with more news of the victims. A woman starts screaming as she looks at the pictures of the dead and Mohammed's eyes well up with tears.

But his voice turns cold with impotent fury when I ask if there were Hezbollah fighters near the home when the bombs fell. "If the Israelis really saw the rocket launcher, where did it go?" he asks. "We showed Israel our dead; why don't the Israelis show us the rocket launchers?" …..

The world doesn't seem to put much credence in the testimonies of Lebanese civilians, preferring to buy generic Israeli statements about Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, "precision strikes" at terrorist targets, and a "proportionate" bombing campaign. But after days of contradictory statements about Qana, the Israeli military was reported as saying it had no indication of rocket fire or Hezbollah presence in Qana on the day of the strike, and had bombed the area in retaliation for rockets launched days earlier.

Israel's claims about pin-point strikes and proportionate responses are pure fantasy. As a researcher for Human Rights Watch, I've documented civilian deaths from bombing campaigns in Kosovo and Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq. But these usually occur when there is some indication of military targeting: high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's regime present in a house just before it is hit, for example, or an attack against militants that causes the collateral deaths of many civilians.

In Lebanon, it's a different scene. Time after time, Israel has hit civilian homes and cars in the southern border zone, killing dozens of people with no evidence of any military objective.

My notebook overflows with reports of civilian deaths. On July 15, Israeli fire killed 21 people fleeing from Marhawin, including 13 children; no weapons, no Hezbollah nearby. On July 16, an Israeli bomb killed 11 civilians in Aitaroun, including seven members of a Canadian-Lebanese family on vacation; again, no Hezbollah, no weapons. On July 19, at least 26 civilians were killed in Srifa when Israeli bombs flattened an entire neighborhood; no evidence of military targets. On July 23, at least seven civilians were killed when Israeli warplanes bombed dozens of cars trying to flee the south after receiving Israeli instructions to evacuate immediately; no indication of weapons convoys in the vicinity. The list goes on, with about 500 civilians killed so far.

Israel says the fault for the massive civilian death toll lies with Hezbollah, claiming its fighters are hiding weapons inside civilian homes and firing them from civilian areas. But even if the Israeli forces could show evidence of Hezbollah activity in some civilian areas, it could not justify the extensive use of indiscriminate force that has cost so many lives.

Not only has Israel failed to distinguish between military and civilian targets; its own officials suggest that they have decided any civilian still in the south is fair game. Last week, Justice Minister Haim Ramon reportedly said, "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

So if you are too frightened to flee southern Lebanon, or are sick, injured or too poor to pay the more than $1,000 it now costs to get out, you are a "terrorist" and eligible for attack. As for those who heeded the Israeli warnings to flee, the roads are littered with bombed civilian cars, many with white flags still attached to their windows. After all, the Israelis tell us, they could have been transporting arms. Israel is prefabricating excuses to justify killing civilians. < < <

Tragedies happen in the fog of war, but Israel's strikes on civilians can't all be excused as accidents or mistakes. The unacceptably high death toll is the natural result of Israel's failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets, and Israel is responsible for the deaths.

Israel must target its fight on Hezbollah, not Lebanese civilians. To do otherwise is not only wrong, but may very well be criminal, and Israel's leaders, and its friends elsewhere in the world, must face up to this harsh reality.

Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, is co-author of the report "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," released Thursday.

So much Valkesh's claim of neutrality, especially since he posted here that he had nothing against the Arabs and yet tries to find all sorts of reasons to excuse Israeli terrorism and atrocities.

srael does not drop leaflets at all the places it wants to bomb before it bombs, a tactic which Hezbollah uses as well.

It's just a PR move as there is no way Israel will warn the Hezbollah fighters supposedly hiding in these civilian areas to run first, correct?

You claims of Israeli mercy is fallacious, Valkesh.

By dropping 660,000 artillery shells and nearly 40,000 rockets and bombs on all of Lebanon's civilian areas and infrastructure, Israel does not intend to give any Arab the chance tio flee or hide anywhere in Lebanon.

There are no civilian areas to speak of when Israel's carpet bombing made the whole of Lebanon a warzone.

Hezbollah leader urges Israeli Arabs to leave Haifa

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/10/hezbollahleaderurgesisraeliarabstoleave_haifa/

By Joseph Panossian, Associated Press | August 10, 2006

BEIRUT -- Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah yesterday warned all Israeli Arabs to leave the port city of Haifa so the militant group could step up attacks without fear of shedding the blood of fellow Muslims....

=====

So should the Hezbollah be complimented for warning Arabs to leave before they bomb? NO.

Should Israel be complimented for warning Arabs to leave before they bomb? No.

If you believed that civilians should not be targeted by terroist acts or acts of war, you can't condemn one side without condemning the other?

The case that Israel committed war crimes is strong based on the facts of the 33-day Israeli military campaign against Lebanon.

• Israel started the current Middle East Crisis for kidnapping 2 Arabs in June this year with no court order and violating Arab sovereignty. Israel's kidnapping PRECEDED the kidnappings by the Hamas and Hezbollahs.

• Israel started carpet bombing all civilian areas and infrastructure in all of Lebanon because of a kidnapping case in South Lebanon, not because Hezbollah fired rockets into civilian areas.

• Israel ignores Lebanon’s right of self-defence after Israel attacked Lebanon. The Hezbollah fired back rockets AFTER ISRAEL attacked Lebanese civilians nationwide.

• Israel's use of indiscriminate force by dropping 660,000 artillery shells and nearly 40,000 bombs and rockets on Lebanon in the 33-day conflict, while Hezbollah retaliated with 3970 rockets of WW2 vintage that are highly inaccurate with a high failure rate.

The case for Israel's war crimes as a territorial and military aggressor who violates the sovereignty of Lebanon becomes even stronger after the 33-day conflict.

Israel continues to violate Lebanese sovereignty, with no proof with no facts given, while Hezbollah has not violated the ceasefire with incursions into Israel.

• On 20 Aug 2006, a day after Israeli commandos staged a pre-dawn raid deep into Lebanon, prompting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to declare the Israelis in violation of the Security Council cease-fire resolution, no new clashes were reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/aponremiea/lebanon_israel

• “Artillery soared Wednesday in the disputed Chebaa Farms area — where Lebanon, Syria and Israel meet. Israel said it fired only into its own territory as deterrence. But Lebanese security officials said Israeli troops stationed in the area fired across the border into Lebanon, hitting near Lebanese army positions. Lebanese and Israeli officials agreed no artillery from Lebanon hit Israel.
• The Israeli army seized two Lebanese men in a village farther along the border, Lebanese officials said, but Israel did not comment on the claim.
• A Lebanese army communique said four Israeli jets flew over huge swaths of Lebanon, including the capital. Such flyovers have been frequent since the cease-fire.
• Witnesses in south Lebanon said an Israeli bulldozer and two tanks set up a roadblock and cut off traffic between two Lebanese villages, isolating the town of Bint Jbail. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2349917&page=3
• Israel: No plans to end Lebanon blockade 23 Aug 06 By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/aponreaf/lebanonisrael

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that Israel has no plans to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon until an international peacekeeping force takes up positions along the Syrian border and at Beirut's airport….

The pro-Israeli crowd ignores this main points in this clip:

1] CNN reports here on 24 Aug 06 that 1069 were killed in a 33-day conflict that killed more combatants than children

=====

At least 845 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day war: 743 civilians, 34 soldiers and 68 Hezbollah. Israel says it killed about 530 guerrillas.

On the Israeli side, 157 were killed — 118 soldiers and 39 civilians, many from the 3,970 Hezbollah rocket strikes. The figures were compiled by The Associated Press, mostly from government officials on both sides.

18 Aug 06:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/aponremiea/lebanon_israel

=====

Who's the one targeting the civilians and innocent children?

Not the Hezbollah

hiya norm. have to post here cuz the section we were involved in has disappeared.(funny thing, time). am i understanding you correctly, you're implying there might be some difficulty involved in finding a MSN report or article that condemns israel w/out condemning hizzbullah? if so, you've gotta be kidding. i can't even begin to count the posts on your own blog that fall into this category. the HRW summary you provided the link for springs to mind, no mention AT ALL of any wrongdoing by hizzbullah. you ever watch bbc or sky news? even cnn does it-frequently. and my favorite is kes, who as zak pointed out here, has only twice, by my count, in his INCREDIBLY long winded and repetitive posts attacking israel, even mentioned (without judgement, of course) that hizzbullah is targeting civilians, and then only in the context of one of his favorite-and most stupid-arguments, namely "israel did it first, or does it also, and therfore its ok for hizzbullah to do it". i only mention this because ive seen you two acting as a tag team, givin' the old one-two to the pro-israel (which is really a totally left-wing, defensive, apologetic)side. come on, you must be more observant than that. you must have noticed that, if hizzbullahs crimes are mentioned at all, its in a totally perfunctory way, mentioned very quickly and non-judgementally as a moral fig leaf, because after all, close to 4000 rocket attacks which even the most rabid israel hater can't claim were not aimed exclusively at civilians can't be COMPLETELY ignored. but many, if not most of your sources do a pretty amazing job of it.

btw, theres a huge storm of controversy here in israel (which seems to be getting little play in the blogosphere)over the performance of the idf brass and the government during this little border skirmish. besides the widespread concerns about lebanese civilian deaths (hey, wer'e jewish. i haven't seen any published ARAB concerns about jewish civilian deaths, and i bet there aren't any), the intense critisism revolves around how israeli soldiers were killed, not just because of concern for lebanese civilians, but because of idf logistical fuckups. now, if israels own soldiers were killed because of idf fuckups, is it so hard to believe lebanese civilians were killed because of idf fuckups? that is, UNINTENTIONALLY? why is it that everyone is prepared to believe at the same time that israel has the most powerful army in the mideast, that they were trying to wipe out lebanese civilians, and yet that they only succeeded in killing a couple of thousand, maybe? i mean, if the goal was to kill civilians, don't you think the most powerful army in the mideast could do better than that? disgusted.

" have got tons of Israeli, Jewish sources (newspapers, charities, Army, political right and left...) CONDENMING ISRAEL for its actions. Give me some Palestinian sources agreeing with Israel's action. Please." i'm sorry, duff, were you trying to use this point AGAINST israel? you poor, deluded fellow. its like kes using the israeli pilots refusal to bomb buildings that they were unconvinced contained military targets. uh, i would think this speaks FOR the moral fiber of the israeli army. those pilots, like the jewish sources that condemn israeli actions, were excercizing their moral, democratic rights as israelis. show me the arab equivilant.

Cluster bombs in civilian areas are not fuckups are you defending those too. As to articles expressing concern for Israeli losses let me point out that Israeli articles pointing to Lebanese losses are almost entirely in articles defending Israel from charges of committing war crimes. The average lebanese I expect is just as sympathetic to Israeli losses as are Israeli losses. You'll find exceptions on both sides of course. As to finding articles I haven't looked so I don't know, but it might be more difficult lacking the ability to read arabic and the fact that there are fewer english language arab papers. The answer to your other question is the other way around.

norm, im not defending cluster bombs in ANY area. i personally agree with kurt vonnegut, that attacking civilians from the air is one of the most repugnant actions a human being can engage in. i don't know how those guys can sleep at night, except that they at least think theyre helping to prevent their own civilians from being attacked from the air, i.e. rockets, by making it tough for the guys actually launching the rockets. hizzbullahs' rocketeers, however, can't possibly, remotely think that by targeting israeli civilians that they are in any way hampering the activities of the idf. their actions are pure spite and hatred. regarding the israeli articles, since i have a lot more access than you i can tell you that youre correct in that most articles mention both hizzbullah and israeli "excesses", but few have as their main point israeli innocence of war crimes. and the important thing is, when they mention lebanese civilian deaths, its with a genuine sense of outrage, or at least sympathy.(with the exception of the hard right wing, of course, which in any case is a small minority in israel). there IS no arab media equivilant. your comment about "the average lebanese" doesn't even warrant a response, its so ridiculous. the only thing the arabs are more united in than their hatred of israel is their lack of compassion for enemy dead. ANY enemy. killing us (and YOU,btw) is a "mitzvah" to be celebrated. or haven't you noticed.

I just wanted to add that I also feel very strongly about the cluster bomb issue.

Israel dropping cluster bombs in or near civilian centers is a horrible idea, and could (and should) be considered a crime against humanity. Heads in the IDF really ought to roll over this one.

And to Kes...

I dont even read the majority of your posts anymore.

Not because they're always attacking me, because I'm used to that now, but because you seem to have a lot of trouble making short, readable, posts.

I'm not sure about the rest of the readers here but in all honesty I simply do not have time to read the ten thousand word rants that you seem to enjoy posting so much.

Now that I've gone and said I don't read Kes's posts, I just had to quote this little tibit.

Who's the one targeting the civilians and innocent children? Not the Hezbollah

Amazing.

Valkesh,

That's a little out of context isn't it? He acknowledges just above there the number of Israeli civilians killed. I think what he was getting at that was that more Lebanese civilians were killed than Israeli civilians. I think a charitable reading would agree he was saying by comparison it was not Hezbollah.

you know, norm, i would say "fair enough", except that kes has expressed his belief in not only hizzbullahs' righteousness in this fight, but their innocence of all wrongdoing, so many times and at such length and detail on your blog.sorry, i see your point but im with valkesh on this one. and what about MY last, unbelievably contentious, though playful post? huh? huh? feeling neglected here.

im sorry. you were busy defending kes. he certainly needs it. no, wait, he doesn't- he's not a jew, an arab, or even an american. he's completely outside the parameters of involvement or danger here. THAT explains SO much.

just saw a cnn report about french u.n. troops in lebanon. the french military spokesman said a 1983 attack on french forces there was very much on their minds, as the attack that killed over 200 american soldiers would still be on american minds. cnn than did a little background piece on those attacks, attributing them both to "suicide bombers" without MENTIONING that both attacks were the work of hizzbollah. does this strike anyone else as odd?

Well there is this.

It is uncertain as to who is responsible for the bombing although several radical Shiite militant groups claimed responsibility for the attacks, and one, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, identified the two suicide bombers as Abu Mazen and Abu Sijaan.[3] Despite the fact that they were not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe [2] that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement. Many in the U.S. government do not claim Hezbollah is responsible for the marine barracks attack. For example in 2001 Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense under Reagan at the time of the attacks stated: "But we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then." [4] Along with the U.S. Embassy bombing, the barracks bombing prompted the Inman Report, a review of the security of U.S. facilities overseas for the U.S. Department of State. In his book "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, Victor Ostrovsky claims that Mossad knew in advance of the attack, but did not warn the United States.[5] There have been claims that Israel wanted US and French troops to leave Lebanon so it could freely operate in Lebanon without restriction. In May 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack, on the grounds that Iran had originally founded Hezbollah and financed the group throughout the years.[6]

Hey Jonathan login to typekey again.

ok, i stand corrected. unlike some other posters here, my experience with wicipedea is that its reasonably credible. but all this shows is that there is doubt as to the culprits,with the opinion of "many,including the us govt." being only one of...2? opinions. the general opinion in israel is certainly that it was hizzbullah, and if victor ostorovskys' claim has any merit (and i hope it doesn't), we may presume that the mossads "advance knowledge" was of a hizzbullah attack,since israels intelligence at the time (and since) has focused on hizbullah. you could check that if you like, but honestly, given the players and the motives and the apparant iranian involvement, what do you REALLY think? if you're saying that the cnn journalists non-mention of even the controversy was out of professionalism, well, i have my doubts.

ok, i stand corrected. unlike some other posters here, my experience with wicipedea is that its reasonably credible. but all this shows is that there is doubt as to the culprits,with the opinion of "many,including the us govt." being only one of...2? opinions. the general opinion in israel is certainly that it was hizzbullah, and if victor ostorovskys' claim has any merit (and i hope it doesn't), we may presume that the mossads "advance knowledge" was of a hizzbullah attack,since israels intelligence at the time (and since) has focused on hizbullah. you could check that if you like, but honestly, given the players and the motives and the apparant iranian involvement, what do you REALLY think? if you're saying that the cnn journalists non-mention of even the controversy was out of professionalism, well, i have my doubts.

did you notice what the first letters of that hitherto unheard of and never heard from since islamic "resistance" group spell? gotta love that.

First wikipedia can be a good source it does a good job of providing citations for the information there and you can then check it yourself. What do I really think? I think that technically they weren't hezbollah since it officially didn't exist until 1985 according to that source. I'd say they certainly are the type that could have joined Hezbollah if they hadn't killed themselves. I don't think it really matters very much which specific group they belonged to. They were members of some group that didn't like the fact that the U.S. and France were in Lebanon. The only reason for attributing it to a specific group if you didn't know would be for political purposes. The bombings do illustrate the problem of getting involved in a civil war. It is difficult to stay impartial and as soon as you seem to favor one side over the other you're asking for it. That is the point we're at in Iraq, the Sunnis I believe think we aren't doing enough to protect their interests and so we become targets. If we appear to be pushing too hard for the Sunnis then the Shia get pissed. That is the reason we need to get the hell out of there. It's a lose lose situation.

you got that right. this dual citizenship can get a little weird- i said from the beginning that, as an israeli, i was perfectly happy for ANYBODY to be kicking saddams ass, but as an american i thought going in there was one of the dumbest moves ive ever seen. and the false justification for it that you like to grind on this site- ablolutely horrifiying. cheny/rumsfeld/goebbels, anyone?

btw, im confused. all the sources ive seen (including kes)state that hizbullah started up in 1982. what gives?

It was formed to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[3] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto. [4]

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

so what does that mean? any attacks by hizbullah between 82 and 85 weren't "technically" made by hizbullah? fuck me.

"I'd say they certainly are the type that could have joined Hezbollah if they hadn't killed themselves". come on, norm, don't be cute. (well, if you must.) you know as well as i do that people join hizbullah and THEN become bombers. hizbullah INDOCTRINATES them, thats what they DO (and build hospitals and clinics,etc.) "The only reason for attributing it to a specific group if you didn't know would be for political purposes". now you're really being silly. the reason for attributing any bombing to a specific group is for retaliation and prevention of further mishap. i guess you just dont think that way, never having been a target of such an atrocity- and may you never be. i have, and believe me, when it happens, you want to no who did it and its not political- its personal.

"the Sunnis I believe think we aren't doing enough to protect their interests and so we become targets." well, THAT sounds perfectly reasonable. if i thought somebody wasn't doing enough to protect my interests id certainly try to KILL ALL THEIR FLUNKIES. even, or even preferably, at the expense of my own life. i swear, norm, i actually agree with saddam hussain on this: democracy is a dangerous weopon in the hands of people like this. i was very young when i first asked the question " if the majority of the people in a democratic country are nazis,or (insert horrible anti-human ideology here) wouldn't they just vote in a nazi government?" which would proceed to make sure that the next elections would be MUCH less lopsided, until there was no dissent at all, in which case, what damn good is democracy, in and of itself? but that was all hypothetical, back then. i never thought i'd be living next door to just such a democratically elected government, hell-bent on my destruction and that of my whole more-or-less genetic family group (its called genocide). blame israel all you want for creating this evil as a reaction to its heavy handed attempts at blockbusting, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast. can't we just call a spade a spade without being accused of right wing bigotry? i don't want to die for the sake of political correctness. sorry for rambling so much, but this release of the 2 fox journalists and the way they're talking about their captors and their government is completely blowing my mind. looks like their "conversion" may not, in the end, require quotation marks after all.

somebody just reminded me that the nazis were, in fact, democratically elected. zzzzzzzzzz....

I'm not being cute at all Jonathan. Of course if you're a victim of you want to know who is behind the violence. In this case there is some doubt. You can say it was Hezbollah, and it probably was though there are other groups it could have been. If you can't find out for sure picking one to retaliate against for the specific incident is a political decision not a rational one. It's not unlike picking a criminal off the street and charging him with a specific crime because he may have done it, and saying he is probably the one and he's guilty because he's committed other similar crimes.

well, see, there you go.say stuff that any rational person would agree with, and its a conversation stopper. you're right, that would be a political decision, and yours is a fair enough analogy. thanks for the explanation. i'm going to go listen to some new age music now, reach a state of agreement w/the universe, and pretend to cease to exist. not.

although a political decision can also be a rational one, as oxymoronic as that may sound.

I suppose it's true that the two coincide once in a while.

jonathan becker and valkesh, thanks for giving me some support out there... i was drowning under kes's cut and paste orgies of idiocy.

u da man, zak. was happy to be involved, these issues are very important to me. i don't feel that any of us is a true counterbalance to kes- for that you'd need a true right wing fanatic-but something had to be done. got a feeling hes gonna be back, tho, and meaner than ever.one of the things that bothered me about kes' approach is that i don't think norm would put up with the jewish right wing version of it on the blog- and im sure you know theres enough of them, with just as many "facts" in their quivers, and articulate to boot. and unable to conceal their hatred- just like kes. waddya say, norm, want me to find you one of those? could be interesting.

Oh I think you and Zak are about all I can handle. Do you think it less hateful that you Jonathan can't imagine any Lebanese caring about an Israeli, and Zak's statement bordering on racist that an Arab wasn't fit to maintain the holy sites. There is enough hate to go around and unfortunately it is far from one-sided.

ouch that hurts. see, norm, your subtle rewording of our statements is a perfect example of the sort of unfairness- or subversive, perhaps intentional malice- that make REAL liberals, sons and daughters of long lines of card carrying liberals, such as myself,(heh heh) suspect those ostensible liberals, like you, who are so consistantly and doggedly critical of israel, of making an exception in your liberal, tolerant views for israel-thus exposing a hypocrisy and inconsistancy unworthy of the noble liberal tradition. you know perfectly well, at least by now, that my imagination is perfectly capable of accomodating the notion of a lebanese sympathetic to israels existance. in fact ive even met him. (humor ar ar)no, really, i've met plenty of them. ever hear of the s.l.a.? have you been brainwashed yet to view them simplistically as traitors or collaborators, men of poor character? well, it ain't necessarily so. if you read my words "charitably", as you asked of us to read kes' words, you would know that i was simply referring to the incontrovertable fact of the remarkable, ALMOST universal arab political unification around the (political) hatred of israel. this unity is so extensive and well known that arab groups that ordinarily are at each others throats (often literally) over small-but-crucial ideological/religious points-such as shia and sunni- will often, if not always, join hands if theres an oppurtunity to kill jews that requires cooperation, and will even seek out such oppurtunities. and no,i don't think that merely mentioning this undisputable fact qualifies as "hateful". its certainly not in the same league as kes' repeated denials of israels very right to exist, in effect calling for a judenrein mideast. he advocates the very definition of ethnic cleansing. as for your critisism of zakdegrassis' statement, i'm sure he can speak for himself- but so does the history-especially recent history, say of the last 80 years- of arab custodianship of jewish holy sites. maybe you saw what happened to josephs tomb in nablus? its the behavior of the arabs there that was hateful, not a mere statement pointing out their shabby record of "caring" for jewish holy sites when given the oppurtunity- with documentation, as i recall. no, norm, all due respect, i dont accept your equivocating. not at all. you have some small internal instinct to favor the underdog,or a deep need to see 2 sides of an equation balance out even if they don't- and, hopefully, nothing darker than this- that isn't allowing you to make and honest appraisal of the manifestation of hatred on your most excellent blog. sorry.

i tried to keep that as short as possible, but if you need further documentation of lebanese that "care for" israelis, or abuse and destruction of jewish holy sites by arab custodians, let me know. kes' contention, however, that israel has no right to exist is undocumentable, because it is merely an opinion-and clearly racist. not even his precious u.n. agrees with him. and i don't think you do, either, unless i misread you quite badly.

I mis-spoke Jonathan it was the average Lebanese caring about an Israeli you thought was ridiculous. Have you discussed the issue with an average Lebanese. Do you really think the average Israeli mother who has lost someone to the violence is somehow more compassionate than the Lebanese mother in a similar situation. As to Zak comment it was the implication that Arab's were unable to care for holy sites. The generalization to all Arabs implicit in his statement. I think Zak made it clear where he is coming from when he said. "At the end of the day, Israel holds the land and if the Palestinians want it back, they'd be smart for once to take what they can get, move on and start building their state." Is that your attitude as well?

Norm writes: "Zak's statement bordering on racist that an Arab wasn't fit to maintain the holy sites."

PLEASE Norm, show me where I said that or even implied it. Never did. What I said was that during the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem for nearly 20 years, Jews were not allowed access to their holy sites and the Western Wall was pretty much treated like a garbage dump. In fact Jews are still not allowed to live in Jordan. (Where's your outrage there, Norm? Let's see some postings about racist Jordan, come on!)

Since 1967, all 3 religions that have a stake in Jerusalem are free to pray and their religious sites are controlled by the religious authorities in question.

Christians have Rome and Bethlehem but allow non-Christians in. Jews have the Western Wall but allow non-Jews in. Muslims have Mecca and had Jerusalem, and forbade Jews from setting foot. The Taliban even goes and utterly destroys a hallowed Buddhist site in Afghanistan. Doesn't that speak for itself?

How, in your twisted logic, my pointing out the clear record of Muslim and Arab disrespect and atrocities toward other religions makes me or Israel racist or bigoted, I'd love to know. Look at the record, Norm. It's clear Muslims and Arabs, when in power, have shown themselves incapable of respecting other religions. Add to that the fact that it's Muslims blowing themselves and others up around the world, not Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.

I'm currently reading Reza Aslan's "No god but God" and the one thing that strikes me througout is that Islam is indeed a beautiful religion. The trouble is the religion that goes by that name is not what Muhammed taught. Until apologists for radical Islam like you continue to ignore the dangers it poses, we're in big trouble.

Israel isn't the reason Muslims are killing Christians in the Philippines, Israel isn't the reason Muslims are killing Hindus in India, Israel isn't the reason Muslims are killing Copts in Egypt, or other Christians in Sudan.

Wake the fuck up, damn it.

As for my statement that you quoted: ""At the end of the day, Israel holds the land and if the Palestinians want it back, they'd be smart for once to take what they can get, move on and start building their state."

What's wrong with saying that? Don't you think that at the end of the day Palestinians would have been better off with their own smaller state in 1948, 1967, 1991, or 2000 than the shitful existence they currently have? The British promised the Zionists all of Palestine, which at the time included Jordan as well. In 1947, they took what they could get because it was better than nothing.

This is basic common sense, for chrissakes. Take what you can get instead of dreaming or basing your next move on vengence. Palestinians would have been better served at any point in the last 60years if they'd had leadership that understood the old adage that politics is the art of the possible. Instead of blaming the Jews and blaming the world, how about a little introspection for once. Of course there's a lot of blame to go around, but you can't blame everyone else all the time. I've never ever heard any Palestinian leader ever tell his people or admit "you know, we fucked up and we've been badly served by our leaders and our Arab "brothers." Never. It's only the fault of the Jews.

It's because I understand the danger of the threat from fundamentalist Islam that I'm so hard on Israel. They day after day year after year make the situation worse. Their take it or leave it attitude makes it difficult if not impossible for the more moderate in the Arab world to gain any traction.

Do you recall what post where you made the charges about arabs and we'll look at it. The impression I took from your remarks was that it was there was more to it that you now claim. I'm relying on my memory of the remarks if you can find them we can settle it.

Jonathan, Valkesh and Zak are being dishonest in their attacks against me.

They keep trying to justify Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians by providing no proof or sources to support their points, while condemning Hezbollah from attacking Israeli civilians.

My point is very clear. As long as Israel FIRST attacked Leabanese civilians all over Lebanon WITHOUT CAUSE, the Lebanese has a right to fight back in the same wasy i.e. firing back at Israeli cities.

Since Israel has shown no restraint in the use of air power against Lebanese civilians by first carpet bombing all of Lebanon, no one can expect the Lebanese to fight back with restraint or obey any rules beyond the ones Israel have set i.e. civilians are fair game.

Therefore Israel deserves far more condemnation than Hezbollah for targeting civilians and doint it first.

Zak, jonathan, Valkesh are trying to promote the view that the Lebanese xdoes bnot have the right to fight back against Israeli carpet bombing of all of Lebanon.

No sane person will agree with you all, as long as you promote the line that the Arabs cannot fight back or use the same tactics that Israel first used against them.

As the Arabs are the ones attacked and without the US$4 billion aid Israel received every year, the Arabs don't have that many options to fight back except using homemake rockets and rockets from 1940s vintage.

And people like Zak, Jonathan and Valkesh are trying to deny these Arabs the right to fight back, even with that.

They believed that Arabs atatcked by Israel should just lie down and play dead until Israel stops attacking.

This view is not supported by the world community and anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Norm, it took some digging, but here's my comment in full:

The plan you (and Jon Stewart) tout now was rejected by the Arabs and accepted by the Jews in 1948. Let me repeat that. Israel said yes, the Arabs said no and launched a war. Now 60 years later, Arab supporters suddenly like this idea? Isn't that wonderful! Imagine all the bloodshed theyd have avoided if they would have accepted the plan then.

I like this idea in principle. In practice, the Arabs controlled the old city of Jerusalem (the most contentious part, the Palestinians have never wanted Jerusalem's Jewish suburbs, they want the Old City) for nearly 20 years from 1948-67 and showed that they were incapable of respecting Jewish holy sites. Since 1967, Muslims and Christians have been free to pray as they wish on their holy sites. Sorry, but Israel has shown itself a better steward of the the holy sites than the Arabs/Muslims. Jerusalem is Judaism's holiest city, it is Islam's 3rd holiest. They took it and kept in 1948. Israel took it from them in 1967. The Arabs/Muslims had 20 years to internationalize it, they never did. You snooze, you lose.

Posted by: zakdegrassi | August 21, 2006 10:08 AM

As I explained earlier, my basic point is the burden of proof is on Arab/Muslim leaders to show that they can respect other religions when they're in control. They didn't do it from 48-67 in Jerusalem, they didnt do it with Joseph's tomb in Nablus, they didnt do it with the Afghan Buddhas in 1981, they don't do to this very day in Mecca. We can argue about Israel's treatment of Palestinians from both sides, but the fact is Muslims control the Temple Mount. It would have been theoretically simple for the Israeli government to have stormed Al Aqsa or the Dome of the Rock a million times in response to real or imagined threats. They never have in nearly 40 years.

And kes, please get an editor. Your posts are a cure for insomnia.

Valkesh, Zak and jonathan are misleading people by claiming that Israel does not target civilians.

Israel does target civilians to achieve its political objectives. Here are the facts. Kindly refute them when you can.

1] Israel responded to Hezbollah's kidnapping of 2 ISRAELI soldiers by bombing civilian areas and infrastructure all over Lebanon, including airports and roads.

Israel’s bombing makes it impossible for Lebanese civilians to escape the bombing. < < <

2] Against Lebanese civilians, Israel uses weapons of mass destruction AND weapons with a wide killing radius

Sources:

• Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25cluster.html?th&emc=th

• Poisonous Gas dropped on villages by Israeli military in southern Lebanon. July 21, 2006

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=2788

• New & unknown deadly weapons used by Israeli forces 'direct energy' weapons, chemical and/or biological agents, in a macabre experiment of future warfare. 7 Aug 06

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAN20060809&articleId=2932

3] Israel has an official policy of targeting civilians with air power, which is pioneered and advocated by Israel's Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz. This policy was used in Lebanon in 1996 already:

Israel's error, then and now Avi Shlaim International Herald Tribune

Published: August 4, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/04/opinion/edshlaim.php

4] Israel has persisted with the terrorist practise of assasinations of Arabs with rocket attacks that create high civilian casualties.

• “Unfortunately, statistics on the results of Israel's targeted killing policy do not give it a clear moral edge. From November 2000 to April 2003, Israel conducted 175 targeted killings that killed 235 people and wounded 310. Of those killed, only 156 were defined as the targets of the strikes; of those wounded, only five were so defined. This result raises the question of whether Israel made sufficient efforts and took sufficient risks to prevent harm to innocent Palestinians. Moreover, official rhetoric demonstrated apathy to the tragic results: Israel's official spokesman announced that he slept well at night after Palestinian civilians are hit, and that the only thing he felt was "a slight bump to the wing of the plane as a result of dropping the bomb.”

Israeli newspaper source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=582892

5] Israel uses indiscriminate force against Lebanese civilian areas and infrastructure. IN the 33-day conflict, Israel dropped 660,000 artillery shells and nearly 40,000 bombs and rockets in to Lebanon, compared to the 3970 rockets of 1940s vintage with high failure rates that Hezbollah fired back as RETALIATION.

Source: Lebanon: Protect Civilians From Unexploded Weapons Civilians and Aid Work Endangered by Dud Ordnancehttp://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/16/lebano14011.htm 6] The death toll clearly showed that ISRAEL KILLED MANY MORE ARAB CIVILIANS than Hezbollah militants, compared to Hezbollah killing far more Israeli soldiers who invaded Lebanon than Israeli civilians:

At least 845 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day war: 743 civilians, 34 soldiers and 68 Hezbollah. Israel says it killed about 530 guerrillas. On the Israeli side, 157 were killed — 118 soldiers and 39 civilians, many from the 3,970 Hezbollah rocket strikes. The figures were compiled by The Associated Press, mostly from government officials on both sides. (18 Aug 06)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/aponremiea/lebanon_israel

Israel’s claims that the Hezbollah are using civilian shields have been largely refuted by international organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch:

And the fact that Hezbollah’s ANSWERING rocket fire in respose of Israel’s bombing actually stayed consistant by the day, proves that Israel was not bombing the areas where they keep their rockets and launchers.

Zak, jonathan, Valkesh, kindly address my points and facts, rather than avoid them by attacking me. You will not stop me from repeating and restating the facts and numbers that formed an inconvenient truth that destroys your empty claims to defend Israel.

Everyone here can tell you have no facts or proof to defend what Israel did beyond trying to arguing and talking your way to defend Israel with no sources given for your claims.

You’re ALL busted.

Speaking of avoiding facts, kes, I'm still waiting for your response to my post proving the UN Charter allows countries to defend themselves from attack, contrary to your loopy post stating otherwise.

Or your response to my proof from Lord Caradon himself (the man who drafted 242) that Resolution 242 never required Israel to return all lands captured in 1967.

You were uncharacteristically silent. Talk about busted....

Actually kes, don't reply. I'm sure there's only limited space on Norm's servers....

Zak is no position to comment how much better the lives of the Palestinians are when you use Israeli advocacy websites,. Especially when Zak only mentions the plight of the 6 million Jews in Israel right now, and not the 8 million Arab refugees created by Jewish colonisation and occupation of Arabs lands in the 50 over years.

The plight of these 8 million Arab refugees are directly created by the actions of Israeli’s military aggression and occupation of Arab lands in Palestine, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai, Golan Heights, Lebanon since 1948 to this present day.

Zak is promoting the ludicrous claim that these Arabs have themselves to blame for not accepting the terms that the Israeli occupier of their lands have given them such as racist laws that bar West Bank Palestinians From Living With Family in Israel http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1959744

The law, imposed in 2002 at the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, is believed to have kept hundreds, and possibly thousands, of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from moving to Israel to live with their families.

This are clearly the fault of the Jewish immigrants in their zeal to colonise Arabs lands to create their state.

In 2049, the Arabs will become the dominant ethnic majority in Israel and will be in the position to repay their treatment at the hands of the Jews. It makes perfect sense for the Arabs to maintain their right of return and to fight against Israeli aggression and occupation in their lands.

Why should the democratic majority of any land surrender its rights to an aggression nation of Jewish immigrants from overseas with no real ties or owenership of the land?

Zak is no position to comment how much better the lives of the Palestinians are when you use Israeli advocacy websites,. Especially when Zak only mentions the plight of the 6 million Jews in Israel right now, and not the 8 million Arab refugees created by Jewish colonisation and occupation of Arabs lands in the 50 over years.

The plight of these 8 million Arab refugees are directly created by the actions of Israeli’s military aggression and occupation of Arab lands in Palestine, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai, Golan Heights, Lebanon since 1948 to this present day.

Zak is promoting the ludicrous claim that these Arabs have themselves to blame for not accepting the terms that the Israeli occupier of their lands have given them such as racist laws that bar West Bank Palestinians From Living With Family in Israel http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1959744

The law, imposed in 2002 at the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, is believed to have kept hundreds, and possibly thousands, of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from moving to Israel to live with their families.

This are clearly the fault of the Jewish immigrants in their zeal to colonise Arabs lands to create their state.

In 2049, the Arabs will become the dominant ethnic majority in Israel and will be in the position to repay their treatment at the hands of the Jews. It makes perfect sense for the Arabs to maintain their right of return and to fight against Israeli aggression and occupation in their lands.

Why should the democratic majority of any land surrender its rights to an aggression nation of Jewish immigrants from overseas?

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 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 to defend Israel or those people taking the time and effort to show sources that support the case against Israeli atrocities.

Zak, you are MISLEADING PEOPLE when you claim that the British promised the Zionists all of Palestine. Unless you provide proof, I have that you are flat our lying.

Read for yourself the Balfour Declaration of 1917:

”His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The British clearly said that the Zionists can only have a Jewish state as along as “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

As long as this condition is not fulfilled, the Zionists has no right to Palestine.

The Balfour declaration is CONTRADICTED by other international agreements such as the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence.

In the end, the British submitted the issue of Palestine to UN to decide, which came up with the Partition plan in 1947, which was not rectified or agreed to by the Arab majority in Palestine before Israel attacked and occupied Arab territories in Palestine and declared a state of Israel.

===========

The fact remains that under all the existing agreements, Israel has violated them all, and thus has no legitimacy under these agreements.

==========

Zak, you are the one prolonging the debate by repeating empty claims to defend Israel which are contradicted by facts, reasearch, internattional treaties and the UN Charter.

However, I have no problems restating these facts and research for the benefit of those with no pro-Israeli agenda, so that they can decide for themselves.

Zak, jonathan, Valkesh or whoever you are, I am not intimidated with your personal smears or name-calling with no facts or proof.

Nor will I let you all continue misleading people with a false debate with no proof and fancy spin while you condemn the Arabs for the things that Israel first did to them and in a far larger scale.

Unlike, I believe that people should have an open access to the facts and truth of the matter from the most credible sources that can be found i.e. UN Charter.

Zak, It looks like my memory is not as good as I thought. Please accept my apology for that. I was combing your remarks with the post that followed with the following pithy comment " If Jerusalem gets put under arab control it'll turn into a shithole.:" The problem with your statement that the Palestinians should have taken what Israel offered ignores the reality that it was not just. Why is that a problem because when a solution is forced on a population you can never have a real peace. Israel simply must leave the occupied territories or the world will suffer the consequences. The world is suffering the consequences. You can't have peace without winning hearts and minds. The United States by failing to play a role as a fair broker of peace has squandered its reputation and enhanced the position of the fundamentalists. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon like the U.S. invasion of Iraq has strengthened the anti-western sentiment in that part of the world. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have pointed to Israeli and Hezbollah's War Crimes. I'm frankly quite tired of the they're worse argument. All should be held accountable period. I'd like to ask your opinions of the kidnapping of elected Hamas Political representatives. You do understand that there is a difference between the military and political wings of Hamas don't you? So what give Israel the right to enter Palestinian territory and take the citizens providing no due process at all. I don't see much difference between what we're doing at Guantanamo and what Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank.

Zak falsely claims that the Jews rule Jersalem better to justify Israel's globally condemned move to annex East Jerusalem in 1981.

Zak wishes to avoid mentioning that the Muslim rulers of the past opened Jersalem to people of all faiths:

The Jews found their new Muslim rulers far more congenial than the Byzantines. The Christians had never allowed the Jews to reside permanently in the city, whereas Umar invited 70 Jewish families back. The Byzantines had left the Jewish Temple in ruins and had even begun to use the Temple Mount as a garbage dump. ”

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html

Zak also forgot to mention that the Arabs in Jerusalem are suffering under Israeli occupation.

"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'

"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us.

While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.

Jonathan claims that I have no case that Israel has no legitimach.

The facts prove Jonathan dead WRONG in his own claim.

Israel has never fulfilled the terms of its membership as a state to UN and Geneva Conduct since 1949.

Sources:

1] Israel reneged on the conditions under which it was admitted to UN, which was to allow Arab refugees to return to their lands in Palestine.

"The [Lausanne] conference officially opened on 27 April 1949. On 12 May the [UN's] Palestine Conciliation ,Committee reaped its only success when it induced the parties to sign a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace. . Israel for the first time accepted the principle of repatriation [of the Arab refugees] and the internationalization of Jerusalem. . .[but] they did so as a mere exercise in public relations aimed at strengthening Israel's international image...Walter Eytan, the head of the Israeli delegation, [stated]..'My main purpose was to begin to undermine the protocol of 12 May, which we had signed only under duress of our struggle for admission to the U.N. Refusal to sign would...have immediately been reported to the Secretary-General and the various governments.'" Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, "The Making of the Arab-Israel Conflict, 1947-1951."

"The Preamble of this resolution of admission included a safeguarding clause as follows: 'Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (on partition) and 11 December 1948 (on reparation and compensation), and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, the General Assembly...decides to admit Israel into membership in the United Nations.' "Here, it must be observed, is a condition and an undertaking to implement the resolutions mentioned. There was no question of such implementation being conditioned on the conclusion of peace on Israeli terms as the Israelis later claimed to justify their non-compliance." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

2] "The first UN General Assembly resolution--Number 194- affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

3] "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."

4] "In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin. 5] 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."

=========

Israel has also violated the conditions imposed on the Jews for any creation of a Jewish state in the Balfour declaration and the UN Partition Plan.

I have addressed this in an earlier post here: August 27, 2006 09:31 PM

Israel thus also has no legitimacy under these agreements, beyond trying to legitimise its statehood by conquests, military aggression and its military strength.

Jonathan, kindly refute my points, sources and facts if you want to persuade people that I’m making a false claim.

Your personal attacks and empty claims won’t help your case.

blah, blah, blah, kes. yes, israel is the source of all evil in the world, she has violated every single one of the u.n.s' rules of better international housekeeping and been found behaving like a crack whore sucking off the men of the general security council, causing great consternation among their wives. she does not thereby forfeit her right to EXIST. you moron. hows that for a personal attack?

"blah blah blah. . ."

Diversionary Humor or Ridicule

This fallacy consists in injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to an opponents criticism or counter-argument.

Is it really so difficult to discuss the evidence that Kes provides. Take this example where he claims that Israel has used poisonus gas. I haven't seen one comment challenging this. Now I don't know if they have or have not, but the fact that there is only a single source raises questions. I haven't seen any reports from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International even raising the question, nor have I seen other reports in the media. This is a weak argument and I have trouble understanding why It takes me to point it out since there are so many supporting Israel's side in this argument. I consider most of the sources Kes has provided as good, but this is one is certainly questionable. Now isn't that better than blah blah blah. I have to say I've about reached my fill of nasty comments like Jonathan's last though I don't mean to single him out as the only guilty party. The point is that if a comment you post doesn't appear and it is of the nature of the last one Jonathon posted you'll know why.

humor or no my point was a valid one. no matter how many directives of the international community it has disobeyed (im SO tired of kes' endless lists on this matter, no one, especially me, is arguing that point), no matter that its coming into being is attacked by many as illegitimate (so what), and no matter how bad its behavior since then (and i don't mean to be flip. i realize full well that this "bad behavior" often involves the deaths of innocents), israels right to exist is not open to question, except by people who don't mind admitting their racism. its a "fact on the ground", as is the existance of an arab "palestinian people" for which there was scant evidence 100 years ago. kes keeps bringing facts that arent being argued about here.

Hi all, I've caught jonathan lying and misleading people about what I say.

jonathan, where did I say Israel is "the source of all evil" as you claimed in my last post here on August 27, 2006 10:52 PM?

Show me where I said it in Norma's blog or admit that you are lying and misleading people here about what I said.

Trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument by creating a ludicrous statement about the facts I have raise is a stupid way of avoiding the facts and issues I raise.

Caught and busted, jonathan.

No one is going to believe someone like you.

TYPO: jonathan, where did I say Israel is "the source of all evil" as you claimed in YOUR last post here on August 27, 2006 10:52 PM?

Norm, the reason no one has countered kes' claim about poison gas is because kes's posts are so long and tedious, it's hard to respond to everything. most of us have day jobs, i presume, and i can't spend all day rebutting. you give him credit for the sources in his posts, but i've already rebutted a half dozen of those as being completely out to lunch. (He's wrong on 242, he's wrong on a nation's right to self-defense, he's wrong about Jews having no historical claim whatsoever to Israel, for example). you continually critique my "logical falacies" but some of the stuff he spews is logical and moral vomit.

If, for example, I hear him claim Jews were so well treated by Muslims in the 8th century, I'm going to scream.

Now, to your response of my last post, above. You write:

"The problem with your statement that the Palestinians should have taken what Israel offered ignores the reality that it was not just. Why is that a problem because when a solution is forced on a population you can never have a real peace. Israel simply must leave the occupied territories or the world will suffer the consequences. "

Norm, I don't know what negotiating skills you may or may not have. But no two parties EVER finds any solution completely just, because no two parties ever get what they both want. That's life and that's certainly politics. Abortion was once illegal and pro-choicers found it "unjust".... Now it's legal and pro-lifers find it "unjust"... If the courts overturn roe v wade, we'll be back to pro-choicers being pissed.

Israel has the land it has because it won two major wars against Arab neighbors that tried to destroy it and lost. Israel won. I can assure you, with 110% certainty, that if the Arabs won in 1948, there would be no Israel today and no one would be asking the Arabs to negotiate with the Jews or give them any land. I know this sounds mean, but the Arabs lost. The fact that Israel agreed in 1967 to return land for peace should have been seen by the Arab parties as an opportunity and a starting point to sit down and talk. Instead Israel and the world have been subjected to nearly 40 more years of war, terrorism, kidnappings, boycotts. Justice is wonderful in theory, as is "two wrongs don't make a right." But we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one. For someone like me who believes in real facts instead of unsupportable faith, it surprises me that you talk about stuff like justice. There is no justice. There are only laws. And reality.

Palestine is like the spurned wife who wants everything her husband owns. He's offered her half, she wants it all, and she's ended up with nothing.

Finally, (sorry this is getting kes-long) I want to respond to this:

"Israel simply must leave the occupied territories or the world will suffer the consequences."

Norm, why must the world suffer the consequences? Why does what happens in Israel and Palestine a world affair? Does the world suffer the consequences to native injustice in Canada or Mexico? To Tibetan injustice in China? To the injustice in Darfur or Kurdistan or Chechnya or Burma or Cuba or North Korea or Iran? Why is the Israel problem a world problem and most people couldn't give a shit about other problems, at least to the extent they don't receive daily posts on blogs like yours? I don't deny there are injustices going on in Israel but singling it out suggests it's a bigger problem than the others or that there's something inherently illigitimate about Israel. There are two sides to every story and there is more than one story. Israel is not the alpha and omega or stories of injustice.

My personal feelings and political feelings completely conflict over this whole issue. I don't think that either side is right in this issue. Two of my bosses and one of my managers and a roomate are from Isreal, and they are great people, but politically this shouldn't even be an issue, for one reason. The Jewish state of Jerusalem should not exist on multiple levels.
Its creation in 1947 by the UN was probably one of the worst and most costly desicions that was agreed upon and then followed through by the UN. After WWII it was propositioned that Palestine would be partitioned into two parts. An Arab section and section of primarily Central and Eastern European Immigrant Jews. When this was offred the Jewish section having been given the option to reside in there holy land even though going back centuries it had been dominated by the Arabs. However the Arabs in Palestine refused the offer since they would recieve very little in exchange for there land being taken away. The UN removed the Arabs from there land and created Isreal anyways. Shortly after the US officiall recognized it as a country.
Isreal is not a self sustaining country. Without support from the UN and especially from the US there would be no Isreal. Most likely with out our support it would have collapsed as fast as it was created. They require more financial and military backing than any other country.
There economy revolves around the US and contributions that the US make. Annually more foriegn aid is given to Isreal than the rest of the world combined. Any miltiary aid that the US does give is a breech of US Arms Export Control Act. According to this act the US is not suppose to give military assistance to any country that violates internationally recognized human rights(not that we aren't also at fault for crimes against Humanity). The state departments 2001 human rights report states, "Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators including live fire ... impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians by their strict enforcement of internal closures, which reportedly contributed to at least 32 deaths. Israeli security forces harassed and abused Palestinian pedestrians and drivers who were attempting to pass through the more than 130 Israeli- controlled checkpoints ..." The US recognizes these violations and its breech of the AECA, but continues to arm Isreal without restraint. Some of these weapons we provide are used later against Palestinian civilians.

thanks for your detailed and unbiased analysis, nightwatcher. the fact that you like your bosses and manager counterbalances nicely your objections to the existance of their homeland.

Jonathon writes,

either israels attack was planned with malice aforethought or it was all about the kidnapped soldiers, make up your mind, norm

It's not an either or question Jonathon it looks likely that it was planned and that the captured soldiers were the pretext. That it was a pretext doesn't mean that Israel didn't care about the soldiers. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that. I'm pointing to the hypocrisy. I'm asking for Israel and those who supported the invasion of Lebanon to acknowledge that the soldier issue was a pretext and that the we never negotiate for prisoners is a lie.

Zak writes,

Israel has the land it has because it won two major wars against Arab neighbors that tried to destroy it and lost. Israel won. I can assure you, with 110% certainty, that if the Arabs won in 1948, there would be no Israel today and no one would be asking the Arabs to negotiate with the Jews or give them any land. I know this sounds mean, but the Arabs lost.

Ok, and international law requires that they return the occupied territories. And you should know by now that they would have done it too is a fallacious argument.

Norm, why must the world suffer the consequences? Why does what happens in Israel and Palestine a world affair?

When Israel destroys Palestinian Society they create enemies not only for themselves but for the U.S. becasue it is the U.S. that provides the billions that Israel uses in that destruction. Middle Eastern countries know where Israel gets the cluster bombs they used in the recent conflict. They know where they got the not-so-smart bombs that destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure.

A word on fallacious arguments. There may be some exceptions I haven't noticed, but in general Kes's arguments are not logically flawed, but rather the dispute is about facts. It is true that he uses Tu Quoque which I noticed someone called him on. I point out the fallacies because they detract from the conversation and they are dishonest attempts to divert the conversations away from the facts.

norm, i don't know who claimed that israel "never negotiates for prisoners" but you are right that this is a fallacious claim.(probably the israeli govt. shmuks.) in spite of what many left wing israelis claim (as well as protocalls of the elders of zion- type bigots), the israeli govt. is not run according to jewish religious principles. sometimes i wish it was. but its interesting to note that negotiating for hostages-known as "redemption of prisoners"-is actually a mitzvah( a religiously mandated commandment). what i find really sickening, though, is that in my recollection the # of israeli prisoners-who are always innocents, not accused of any crimes, or at "worst", soldiers- who are returned alive, vs. those who are murdured, often immediately after capture, while fake "negotiations" take place and no information of any kind is made available to the families, is astoundingly lopsided. indeed it seems to be an arab tactic to both torture the families of hostages with false hope and negotiate for the return of people they have killed long ago. compare this with the palestinian/lebanese "hostages" that hizzbullah wants to free. they have at least been accused,(rightly or wrongly, with a significant percentage being undeniably guilty, having been brought to trial, etc.) of a crime. they are kept in horrible conditions and denied basic rights, its true (its called prison), but there is no fear that they will be summarily murdered, and their families, while suffering in some cases severely restricted visiting rights, at least know that their loved ones are alive. discuss. :)

and kes, will you quit just making shit up and putting it in my mouth? it tastes like....shit. i didn't say that you said israel was the source of all evil, anymore than i said you said that israel was sucking cock in the security council. context, kes. i made up these hopefully ludicrous scenarios to make the logical point (whats it called in english, norm-"if he can lift 100 pounds, he can certainly lift 50"?) that, even if israels crimes were THIS horrible, its right to exist doesn't come into question, and all the more so with the ones you mention. sense of humor +logic= readable point- making. try it.

and while were on the subject, norm, you asked what i thought about israels "detention" of hamas officials. in a nutshell, i'm against it, with the caveat that i don't accept your differentiation between hamas'political and military wings. hypothetically, for the sake of negotiations and peace, i would accept it, which is why i'm against these "kidnappings".

jonathan, you FALSELY CLAIMED that I have said that "Israel is the source of all evil" in your post on August 27, 2006 10:52 PM.

Where did I say it in any of my posts?

Either point out where I said this.

Or apologise for misleading people about the facts and issues I raise.

Unlike you, zak and the pro-Israeli crowd here, I take the time to substantiate my points and claims about Israel with credible sources to avoid misleading the people here.

Kindly do the same.

Zak is flat out lying or misleading people that he had refuted my claims. And I'll prove it

Refer to his post at August 28, 2006 06:41 AM

Zak claims: " but i've already rebutted a half dozen of those as being completely out to lunch. (He's wrong on 242, he's wrong on a nation's right to self-defense, he's wrong about Jews having no historical claim whatsoever to Israel, for example)."

Zak lies as he has refuted none of my claims while I am the one who have refuted the claims that Zak has made to defend Israel as sheer propaganda with no proof or sources.

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

1] United Nation Resolutions 242 and 338 of 1967 calls on Israel to return the Arab territories Israel has occupied since the 1960s.No ceasefire between Israel and Arab countries would be possible if Israel were allowed to keep conquered Arab lands.

Even Lord Caradon, the chief author of resolution 242, makes it clear that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai that were occupied in the 1967 conflict.

“It was from occupied territories that the [r]esolution 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. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted [7].”

I have rebutted Zak's comments in detail at these 2 threads to which Zak has no response:

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

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

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

2] Article 51 does not support Israel's right to invade and occupy the territories of other countries even on claims of self defence.

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

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

======== The Jews Have no Historical Claims to Jerusalem or even Palestine outside religious sources ======

Proof:

1] There's no archeaological or historical proof that a Jewish kingdom was situated in the region of Palestine. The kingdom of David and Solomon exists purely in religious texts. Kindly refer to Time Magazine’s expose on Jerusalem:

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/juda.html

2] The Arabs in the region of Palestine have lived almost 1400 years continuously on their Arab lands as the dominant ethnic majority who owned most of the lands in the region of Palestine.

3] The Arabs in Palestine are direct descendants from the Cannaite civilisation that existed in the Middle East before the Jews came during the Biblical time of the Jewish Exodus from EGYPT.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

“The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

I have refuted Zak’s claims with more details here:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/isisraelbecom.html

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

I have proven that Zak has been misleading people about the real picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

All of us here have day jobs but most of us here take the time and effort

• to substantiate our points about issues that matter to us here.
• to read the posts of others here clearly and only then reply to the points made.
• to make comments based on facts and research to avoid misleading others here
• to focus on the issues raised and the evidence provided, rather than name-calling and smearing to avoid these issues and evidence.
• to show people the basic courtesy by not wasting their time via providing pertinent facts to support their claims.

However, people like Zak disagree. Refer to Zak's post on August 28, 2006 06:41 AM

They attack people like me on our criticisms about Israel and the sources we use, while not providing credible sources in most of their posts.

They believe in oversimplifying and distorting an Israeli-Palestinian conflict that spanned about 6 decades with historical claims that go back over 1000 years in time.

Due to a lack of facts and credible evidence to support their pro-Israeli position, Zak and the pro-Israeli crowd resort to over-simplifying the issue to make it murky and confusing.

They also use selective examples to create sympathy for Israel when Israel has killed a thousand times more Arab civilians compared to the death toll of Israeli civilians at the hands of Arab militants.

Come on, no one is asking you to post here. If you have a valid point, make it and prove it.

Name calling and personal smears against others who disagree with you on valid grounds clearly shows that you can’t handle an informed debate with your personal biases out in the open.

The pro-Israeli crowd does not address Israel’s use of weapons of mass destruction with a wide killing radius, while claiming that Israel does not kill Arab civilians discriminately with targeted bombings

Targeted bombing does not involve the use of bombs, rockets and artillery shells that kill people indiscriminately within its wide killing radius. Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction or wide killing radius include:

1] Poisonous Gas dropped on villages by Israeli military in southern Lebanon. July 21, 2006

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=2788

2] Israel Drops White Phosphorus Bombs On Children. The Associated Press, Tuesday 25 July 2006.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072506A.shtml http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15114818.htm

3] The use of chemical and biological WMDS

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAN20060809&articleId=2932

• Israel’s use of CLUSTER bombs and asking US to ship more of such bombs during its 33-day Lebanese invasion:

Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon 24 July 2006

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm

Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast 11 Aug 06 By DAVID S. CLOUD

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/world/middleeast/11military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range antipersonnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, two American officials said Thursday….

=========

Contrary to Zak’s claims, people who are genuinely interested in an issue will read about them. However, if one’s intention is just to spread misinformation and propaganda to defend Israel, one would be best served by dissuading others not to read the facts and research that point out Israel’s atrocities as a rogue state that received 22 UN resolutions against its behaviour and defied almost every one of them.