Nasrallah: We wouldn't have snatched soldiers if we thought

[spindrifter]

it would spark war

Haaretz.com
Mon., August 28, 2006 Elul 4, 5766

By Haaretz Service and Agencies

Hezbollah would not have abducted two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on July 12 had it known that the action would lead to war in Lebanon, the leader of the militant group, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, said in an interview televised Sunday.

<snip>

We did not think, even one percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he said in an interview with Lebanon's New TV station.

Nasrallah also said he did not believe there would be a second round of fighting with Israel, and that Hezbollah would adhere to the cease-fire despite what he called Israeli provocation.

<snip>

...he added: "Their displaced people are going back and they have started to rebuild the north. Someone who acts like that doesn't seem to be going to war. We are not heading to a second round."

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/755225.html

[Behind the Aegis]

1. he is so full of it!

What'd he think would happen? A tea party?

[Igel]

3. Obviously stopping the disaster in progress by

releasing them didn't occur to him.

Surprised nobody suggested it. Silly, really, such an obvious solution.

Oh. Wait.

Never mind.

[maalak]

4. exactly. Nasrualah could have ended this before it began...

... and every day it went on.

[mike_c]

6. as could Israel by releasing the Lebanese prisoners it holds....

Israel is, ironically, back to square one on that front and is apparently ready to negotiate a prisoner exchange. Had they done that in July Goldwasser and Regev would be home today and much death and suffering would have been avoided.

The truth that's emerging is that Israel jumped the gun on a war against Hiz'bollah instigated at least partly by the U.S., and that Israel both underestimated Hiz'bollah's resolve and was itself not ready for the conflict. So it took it out on Lebanon's civilian population, presumably to draw Syria into the conflict-- a development the U.S. would have greatly enjoyed. It didn't work, and now Israel has taken a pummeling, both in south Lebanon and in the eyes of the world, while still having few alternatives but to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in the long term and to negotiate a prisoner exchange in the short term. None of the violence against Lebanon was necessary.

[aquart]

11. But the violence against Israel was?

How touching.

Can't think why Israel ever wanted to do anything nasty to such sweet, loving fellas as Hezbollah. Who are they, again? The official army of Lebanon? The government of Lebanon? Elected? Appointed? Who are they again? Where is their money and equipment from? Their savings?

I love a good disingenuous response. Bad Israel. Arresting all these nice guys.

[mike_c]

13. again, there's not much to be gained by mockery...

...except shutting down further discussion. Derision isn't discussion.

[eyl]

38. Uh....

you do know who Hizbullah wanted released, I assume? Samir Kuntar ring a bell?

[Igel]

42. Admire Kuntar much, do we?

I'm keeping you away from my kid. And front door.

When your object of admiration and prime motivation is to free a kiddie-killer, no respect is merited. La Siniora may like having Nasrallah on top, but he should be scared of contracting ringworm from catering to Nasrallah's whims.

[mike_c]

45. puh-leese....

If that's the best you can do, save your breath. Admire Kuntar? I don't even know him, and unlike you, I won't judge him based on his treatment in Israeli courts. It's not ME that's seeking a prisoner exchange with Israel. You should ask the Lebanese who they admire.

Sheesh. Talk about ad hominem nonsense.

[maalak]

46. would you judge him for bashing in the head of a 4 year old girl?

[mike_c]

47. sure, and I'd like him even more if he ate live kittens every day....

Feel better now? I suck.

[maalak]

48. joking about the murder of an Israeli child...

classy. :|

[mike_c]

49. well what do you expect? Either discuss this without seeking...

...to score dings with ad hominem twists or forget it. I'm not going to waste time defending MYSELF when I'M not the issue, in this thread or any thread about I/P relations, etc.

[Igel]

50. And yet you want him free.

Or is it the idea that any court that you disapprove of can't actually reach a sound verdict?

It's ad hominem because the primary problem with discussions is the incredible amount of ill will shown one side, and the good will for the other side that goes so far as to deny what they say. At some point the bigotry and rationalization get to the point where you realize it's unreasoned and unreasonable, and all that's left is provoking some response, to see how much hubris the interlocutor can muster.

Let's explore the issue at hand, however, to see what it is I'm talking about.

Hezbollah wants Kuntar free.

Israeli courts say he killed a girl's father in front of her and then bashed in her head.

Hezbollah good --> Kuntar can't actually be what they say he is. A great suspension of judgment, because Hezb admires him and treats him as a poster boy. His web site drips with letters telling kids to get a good education. He's a hero. Because of this, we must suspend judgment. Hezb wants him free, well, they must have some justification. Good will fills in the lack of actual argumentation and ill will provides the motivation for overlooking what appear to be facts that nobody really denies.

In the civilian death count in the recent skirmish nobody knows exactly what the IDF was trying to hit in some cases when they killed civilians, and we know that we don't know the Hezb death count, but it must be innocents that the IDF was aiming at. Abductive reasoning shows that war crimes are a possible interpretation, so it must be the correct interpretation. Why? Hezb claims it's the case, true, but as important is the IDF's claiming that's *not* the case. We hear civilian/combatant kill ratios adduced as evidence, even though we know they're false ratios. But we need to have our ill will justified, so we assume they're good enough for judgment. We cannot suspend judgment, even though we know far less than in Kuntar's case, because to do so wouldn't feel as good. We like our ill will, our prejudices.

If we abandoned them, we might actually be able to talk, and possibly even think critically. Critique, not just criticize. One has merit; the other is ersatz.

[mike_c]

51. it's an ad hominem attack because...

...I noted that Israel was equally able to resolve this conflict peacefully-- and by taking the same route to a prisoner exchange that Hiz'bollah had available-- and the DUer responded by seeking to discredit the point by attacking me-- and clumsily, in the vein of "do you still beat your wife?" You did the same in your first sentence, trying to make the issue about me rather than the real matter at hand.

What *I* think about Kuntar isn't relevant. At the time I wrote that yesterday he was being mentioned as a possible principal in a prisoner exchange. As I've said in other threads, maybe even down thread in this one, Israel has every right to reject any negotiations for Goldwasser and Regev. I'm not advocating that they release Kuntar, nor am I advocating that they refuse. The Israeli gov't has choices constrained by the situation-- among those are choices that will lead to a reduction in violence in the present instance and choices which will have the opposite effect. Many of those choices are shared by Hiz'bollah. Both parties have some degree of SHARED control over the situation and responsibility for the outcome-- that bears remembering, and was the point of my first response in this thread.

As to the matter of ill will-- I am very critical of Israel's actions in this conflict and in the occupied territories, but I do my best to discuss the matter civilly-- in other words, debating ideas, not attacking individuals. I too occasionally cross the line and say something snippy-- and usually regret it when my head is cooler. I see some examples in this thread, for that matter. But I've learned that there really is little to be gained by using this forum as a bully pulpit or a soapbox-- it's far more useful as a place for honest and respectful debate.

[lapauvre]

43. Well, at least he can admit to a mistake

in judgment, which puts him a bit above our President.

[maalak]

2. maybe Hezbollah will think about other alternatives...

like actually disarming and not kidnapping people to get what it wants.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Hassan Nasrallah: Swell Fellow

“If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” - Hassan Nasrallah

[mike_c]

12. you know, the problem here is that in democratic countries...

...the right to express hateful opinions is generally protected to some degree. Only the most extreme fringes of American society would agree with Nasrallah's comment, or with similar hate speech in the Hamas charter, but Americans and other people with a progressive democratic tradition often respect the right to express even vile ideals. As has been said many times, the most repulsive speech is precisely that with the greatest need for protection.

That doesn't excuse the sentiment, but it goes a long way toward explaining why many from the progressive tradition appear to "accept" Hiz'bollah's antipathy toward Jews. I don't think very many people accept it in any real sense. However, we tend to protect speech and judge actions. In the most recent conflict Israel's actions were wildly disproportionate and-- according to our traditions-- criminal in many ways, e.g. targeting civilian populations and infrastructure, collective punishment, deliberate attacks against ambulances, journalists, and refugees, etc. That is not to say that Hiz'bollah's responses were any less criminal-- at least firing rockets indescriminantly into civilian population centers was just as improper-- but under the circumstances that same progressive tradition tends to allow some understanding for the defensive actions of an underdog against an aggressor, and bear in mind that the nature of the underdog and the aggressor are quite sensitive to the immediate context of the situation. Isreal greatly benefitted from that tendency during the late 1940s, the '50s, and the '60s, at least.

Had Israel simply negotiated a prisoner exchange it would have achieved its near term objective of securing release for Goldwasser and Regev while demonstrating restraint, at least in the conflict with Hiz'bollah. Nasrallah would have come off as a bully, attempting to exploit the situation in Gaza. End of story, and with a very different outcome in terms of public perception. Instead, Israel unleashed massive retaliation against people who were both largely defenseless and not responsible for the capture of IDF border troops in any event. A public relations disaster all around for Israel.

on edit-- all this ignores the emerging role of the U.S. in attempting to provoke war with Syria or Iran, of course. I'm not being disingenuous in doing so, simply sticking with the simpler issues for the moment.

[maalak]

14. the right to express hateful opinions?

yes...

the right act out violently on those hateful opinions, like launching rockets, smuggling arms to terrorist groups, and kidnapping citizens of another country?

no...

in NO way can i abide by your excuse that "some understanding for the defensive actions of an underdog" is allowed...

you say Israel should have just "simply negotiat4ed" a prisoner exchange... you might consider looking into some of the crimes commited by some of the people Hezbollah was demanding be released. there's nothing "simple" about it, and there's no reason to continue to invite further kidnappings by giving Hezbollah, which was supposed to have disarmed YEARS ago, any degree of tolerance.

that Israel has waited patiently as long as they had is amazing.

[mike_c]

17. of course....

the right act out violently on those hateful opinions, like launching rockets, smuggling arms to terrorist groups, and kidnapping citizens of another country?

Israel, of course, is equally guilty of similar crimes. That they are carried out by the state does not make them less criminal. I'm not interested in dueling tit-for-tat posts on this topic-- if you're not aware of Israeli oppression, assassination, terror, extra-judicial detentions, collective punishment, etc, then I'll leave you to investigate them yourself.


in NO way can i abide by your excuse that "some understanding for the defensive actions of an underdog" is allowed...

OK, that is your right, of course. But I'm not asking that you "abide" it. The truth is fairly self evident-- Israel lost a great deal of sympathy because of it's attacks against Lebanese civilians. Hiz'bollah did not, despite a tremendous amount of media pressure against it (near constant coverage of the disruption of shopping in downtown Haifa, images of the occasional rocket strike on an apt building played over and over, etc). In the region, notwithstanding anger against Hiz'bollah for stirring the hornet's nest, the militia gained tremendous popular respect for its resolve against the IDF and its aid for Lebanese civilians. Worldwide, the contrast between the empty streets of downtown Haifa and the rubble and body strewn streets of burning Beirut was not a very compelling argument that Israel was the injured party.


you say Israel should have just "simply negotiat4ed" a prisoner exchange... you might consider looking into some of the crimes commited by some of the people Hezbollah was demanding be released. there's nothing "simple" about it, and there's no reason to continue to invite further kidnappings by giving Hezbollah, which was supposed to have disarmed YEARS ago, any degree of tolerance.

I am aware of the crimes Samir Kuntar was sentenced for-- although Hiz'bollah would certainly argue that he committed those crimes as a soldier in the context of a war, an argument that has at least as much merit as the converse argument offered in defense of the IDF's crimes in the occupied territories. The charges against Nasser, Skaff, and Faratan are either somewhat nebulous, "secret," or simply not reported. Perhaps you can enlighten me about them. Nasser was charged with "spying for Hiz'bollah" if I'm not mistaken.

Israel is in fact apparently preparing to negotiate prisoner exchanges now, so IT evidently sees reason to "invite further kidnappings" if that is the natural outcome of negotiations, as you suggest.

The argument that Hiz'bollah should disarm has no credibility, especially under the current circumstances-- who in their right minds would disarm living next to a neighbor that has proven itself extremely beligerent? If I was Nasrallah I'd disarm when I was convinced of Israel's peaceful intent, and not a minute sooner. What fool would do otherwise? When you live beside a rabid militarist, expansionist society, you keep your weapons close.


that Israel has waited patiently as long as they had is amazing.

Israel was apparently not patient enough. The evidence emerging now is that this conflict was planned well in advance, with the U.S., but that Israel jumped the gun when Goldwasser and Regev were captured. I won't comment further on this until more information becomes available.

[maalak]

20. if Hezbollah doesn't disarm, they are in violation of the cease-fire.

if they refuse or worse, replenish their weapons stores... then the primary credibility lost is theirs.

[mike_c]

21. then the ceasefire doesn't have much of a chance, does it...?

You and I both know that Hiz'bollah will not disarm until Israel is no longer a threat to the Shi'a of southern Lebanon, at the very least. The only hope for that, IMO, is replacing Hiz'bollah with another force equally or more capable of curbing Israeli aggression against Lebanon-- hopefully a force with air support. But that's just me....

[maalak]

22. that's up to Hezbollah and Lebanon...

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Evidence Please

"Hiz'bollah will not disarm until Israel is no longer a threat to the Shi'a of southern Lebanon, at the very least."

Can you provide evidence that Israel ever attacked Southern Lebanon - other than when Southern Lebanon was used to attack Israel?

If Israel was anything resembling the acquisitive, civilian-slaughtering aggressor that you make it out to be, yhey could have annexed Southern Lebanon - and a lot of other territory - many years ago.

Use your head.

[mike_c]

24. ok, how's this for starters?-- does Milkhemet Levanon ring a bell...?

I've got to run some errands so I'll just get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

The Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון, Milkhemet Levanon), also known as the Operation Peace of the Galilee (מבצע שלום הגליל, Mivtsa Shalom HaGalil in Hebrew), began June 6, 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon. The Government of Israel gave a green light for the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov by Fatah - Revolutionary Council and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel. See also Operation Litani.

After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon. Surrounded in West Beirut and subject to heavy bombardment, the PLO and the Syrian forces negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of international peacekeepers.

(snip}

On 10 July 1981, after a period of peace, violence erupted in South Lebanon. According to the U.N. Secretary-General, the Israeli air force bombarded Palestinian targets in south Lebanon, and later that day Palestinian elements fired artillery and rockets into northern Israel. However, according to the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, "Israel responded to PLO rocket attacks on northern Israeli settlements by bombing PLO encampments in southern Lebanon."<1> The United Nations Secretary-General noted, "After several weeks of relative quiet in the area, a new cycle of violence has begun and has, in the past week, steadily intensified." He further stated, "There have been heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon; there have been civilian casualties in Israel as well. I deeply deplore the extensive human suffering caused by these developments." The President of the Security Council, Ide Oumarou of Niger, expressed "deep concern at the extent of the loss of life and the scale of the destruction caused by the deplorable events that have been taking place for several days in Lebanon."<2> <3> On July 24, United States envoy Philip Habib brokered a shaky ceasefire, but incidents continued. Over the next 11 months, Israel charged that the PLO committed 270 violations of the cease-fire, in which 29 Israelis were killed and more than 300 were injured. Israel is also charged with violating the cease-fire during this time, leading to many Palestinian and Lebanese deaths.<1>

(snip)

According to former chief of Israeli military intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was accompanied by deceit at the highest political levels. Harkarbi cites misleading statements to the cabinet by Ariel Sharon and Begin, inaccurate announcements by Israel's military spokesmen and the Likud government's gross exaggeration of terrorist acts conducted from Lebanon. Defence Minister Rabin admitted in the Knesset that during the eleven-month ceasefire preceding the war, Israel's northern settlements had been attacked only twice and that during this period Israel had suffered a total of two killed and six wounded from terrorist attacks. These attacks had been preceded by Israeli strikes in response to the planting of a bomb on a bus and the attack on Shlomo Argov.

much more@link

This led, of course, to the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, which in turn was the impetus for the creation of the Hiz'bollah militia. Israel has a long history of aggression against south Lebanon, and Hiz'bollah has a long history of defending against it.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Exactly My Point - Thank You

Which part of:

"The Government of Israel gave a green light for the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov by Fatah - Revolutionary Council and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel."

are you having trouble understanding?

In all cases, Israel was attacked first.

You may disagree with the proportionality of the response - as I do, in the case of the occupation in the 1980s - but there is every indication that, if Israel's neighbors stopped attacking it, Israel would stop fighting back.

Very, very simple stuff - if the genocidal Hezbollah stops threatening Israel, and Israel will leave them alone. How much simpler could it be?

[mike_c]

26. you rather conveniently didn't read the last part...

...that I went to some effort to make obvious for you, so perhaps you simply ignored it:

"According to former chief of Israeli military intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was accompanied by deceit at the highest political levels. Harkarbi cites misleading statements to the cabinet by Ariel Sharon and Begin, inaccurate announcements by Israel's military spokesmen and the Likud government's gross exaggeration of terrorist acts conducted from Lebanon. Defence Minister Rabin admitted in the Knesset that during the eleven-month ceasefire preceding the war, Israel's northern settlements had been attacked only twice and that during this period Israel had suffered a total of two killed and six wounded from terrorist attacks. These attacks had been preceded by Israeli strikes in response to the planting of a bomb on a bus and the attack on Shlomo Argov."

In other words, Israel MANUFACTURED the crisis that the invasion of Lebanon was meant to solve. In any event you asked for proof that southern Lebanon has anything to fear from Israel other than the current attacks, which would seem to be sufficient reason in themeselves-- otherwise, this is a bit off topic in this thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. No.

I read it and acknowledged it, by writing that Israel's response may have been disproportionate.

Israel may have been attacked only twice during the previous eleven months. But they were attacked - not given bouquets of flowers.

[mike_c]

30. so you justify holding the entire civilian population of south Lebanon...

...hostage against the good behavior of the PLO or Hiz'bollah (then and now)? That is the strategy of collective punishment, made famous in Europe during WWII: "Round up the mayor and 10 villagers and shoot them in the square. Shoot ten more for every act of resistance."

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Different Situation

1. In the case you describe, it was an occupied country. Israel does not wish to occupy Lebanon.
2. There is no evidence that Israel was "punishing" Lebanon; rather, it was/is seeking to disable Hezbollah. Hezbollah had more than 12,000 missiles, and has vowed to destroy Israel and murder every Jew on Earth.

Israel flew over 15,000 sorties against Lebanon during the conflict - if they'd wanted to punish Lebanon, they could have caused astonishing damage. To my eye, the evidence is quite compelling that they bent over backwards to do the minimum damage needed to degrade Hezbollah's ability to launch missiles at civilian populations.

[mike_c]

33. by destroying occupied apartment buildings in Beirut and elsewhere...?

To my eye, the evidence is quite compelling that they bent over backwards to do the minimum damage needed to degrade Hezbollah's ability to launch missiles at civilian populations.

By bombing ambulances, refugees, and funeral processions? By salting residential areas with cluster munitions? By killing over a thousand non-combatants, many of them hundreds of kilometers away from south Lebanon missile launchers? By displacing an estimated one million more civilian noncombatants and rendering 500,000 homeless? By utterly destroying Lebanon's civil transportation center? These are all Geneva Conventions violations, and all in retribution for 2 POWs? I'm sorry-- you're desperately trying to excuse atrocities that, if committed against Israel, would make you apoplectic. There is NO justification for massive retaliaton against civilian non-combatants who had no responsiblity for the capture of Israeli soldiers. None. It is odious in the extreme to hear you trying.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. It's An Awful Situation

I agree that it's an awful situation. However, Hezbollah has integrated themselves inside of the civilian population, and uses civilian vehicles to move their tens of thousands of missiles - that are launched regularly at Israeli civilian populations.

I'm not sure that there is a better way for Israel to proceed.

On the other hand, I'm fairly certain that if Hezbollah stops attacking Israel, and building up military stocpiles while simultaneously vowing to destroy Israel and murder every Jew on Earth, that Israel will not need to attack Hezbollah and cause civilian deaths. Assuming that Israel has a right to exist, it is clearly Hezbollah that determines the future here.

[pelsar]

35. so simply wrong.....

israels borders and how it interacts with its neighbors is the obvious proof of how to get peace with israel:

Jordan, Egypt, Syria have all stopped attacking and threatening to attack Israel from their borders and attempt to prevent attacks on israelis (not always suceesful). In return Israel does attack back, does not invade, etc.

Peace and/or ceasefire

its that simple.

all Lebanon has to do is to take back its border and keep Hizeballa from attacking israel, and they can join israels other border countries in full confidence that they wont be attacked.

the proof is in israelis other borders.....one would have to be willfullly blind to ignore Egypt/Jordan/Syrias borders with Israel..and Gazas as well.

[eyl]

40. I see

So you think going into an apartment in a civilian town, kidnaping a father and his four-year-old daughter, dragging them down to the beach, and killing them both, could be plausibly argued to be "as a soldier in the context of a war"? What, he though the girl was a soldier in disguise?

The charges against Nasser, Skaff, and Faratan are either somewhat nebulous, "secret," or simply not reported. Perhaps you can enlighten me about them. Nasser was charged with "spying for Hiz'bollah" if I'm not mistaken.

Nasser was convicted (in a civil court, mind you) of espionage - nothing nebulous about that (and it seems a rather drastic step atken to free him in any event, given that IIRC his sentence ends in two years). According to Israel, Skaff was never in custody in the first place - he was one of the participants of the Coastal Road Attack (or Massacre), and the sources I've seen say none of the attackers survived. As for Faratan, I don't know anything abut him, including whether or not ISrael even has him.

Israel is in fact apparently preparing to negotiate prisoner exchanges now, so IT evidently sees reason to "invite further kidnappings" if that is the natural outcome of negotiations, as you suggest.

From what I've seen so far (and I hope I'm not mistaken) the prisoners Israel might release are those taken in the recent conflict.

[mike_c]

44. I read this AM that Israel is now denying that it's negotiating...

...prisoner exchanges, so all bets are off. Who knows what the truth is.

Ya'll are being awfully hostile (you, BTA, PCI, and a few others-- you know who you are). It doesn't bother me particularly, but you might want to pay some mind to your blood pressure. We obviously approach this topic from different directions, but being angry about it serves little purpose and inhibits discussion. Just sayin'.

As for your outrage, I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion about what I think or don't think is appropriate in war-- I'm more or less a pacifist, as far as that goes. But you and I both know that BOTH sides of this conflict commit atrocities. We have discussed the atrocites committed against the Lebanese (and the Palestinians) at some length so I won't revisit that discussion except to repeat my earlier statement-- arguments about the conduct of conflict cut both ways.

[elocs]

7. Parallels to the past.

http://www.bilegrip.com/archives/2006/07/israels_terrorist_origins.html


In July 1947, the Irgun Zvei Leumi kidnapped two British Intelligence Corps sergeants as hostages to trade against the lives of three Irgun terrorists under sentence of death for an attack on Acre jail.

Here is an exact parallel to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.

But, unlike the savage reaction of Ehud Olmert's Government today, the British government in 1947 did not seek to apply pressure to the kidnappers by ordering the RAF to destroy large parts of Tel Aviv.

In the event, the three Jewish terrorists were hanged and the Irgun in turn strung up the two British sergeants from a tree in an orange grove and booby-trapped their bodies.

[Sherman A1]

9. Interesting

What was the quote "those who ignore history...."?

[azurnoir]

15. Bound to repete? What about those that can't

"get over it" either, does that mean they're bound to keep suffering from the same disease?

[Sherman A1]

41. Get over it in what sense?

The Middle East is all about history....

[pelsar]

36. ignoring facts?

its hardly an "exact parallel" by any stretch of the imagination...(but thats not hard to do here)..i cant recall which area of palestine the irgun was ruling over, nor can i recall that the irgun crossed some border to attack the Brits in their own country....

perhaps you can enlighten me on those facts (or perhaps I dont understand the word "exact" in this context?

[elocs]

37. "exact parallel" was from the website I cited, not my words

My only contribution was the title of my post "Parallels to the Past". I should have put quotes on the part I posted. I think there is a parallel even if it is not exact. Evidently exactly where the British soldiers were kidnapped from is important to you, so here is some more info to which I will add no editorial comment:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm

"On the 16th of June 1947, a sentence of death had been passed by the British courts on three Jews who had participated in the attack on Acre prison in which many Jewish prisoners had regained their freedom. Almost a month later in the early hours of the 12th of July, two British field security NCOs Sergeants Paice and Martin were on duty in Nathanya in the company of the Jewish Clerk. They were held up by five armed Jews and driven off to a secret hiding place. For the next two weeks and British security forces diligently searched for the kidnapped sergeants but no trace of them was ever found.

On the July 29th British authorities, unable to bow to the blackmail of the Irgun, even though British lives were at stake had no alternative but to allow the sentence of death on the three Jews to take it's course. Two days later, on the 31st to July, the bodies of the two British NCOs were found hanging from a eucalyptus tree one and a half miles from where they had been kidnapped. They had been dead for about two days. The area around the bodies was mined. The bodies had also been booby trapped. As the bodies were being cut down a hidden device on one body exploded. In this explosion a British officer was severely wounded. A few days later the Irgun posted notices in Hebrew on the walls around Haifa which read :

Announcement

The two British spies, Martin and Paice, who were under arrest by the underground since the July 12th have been put on trial, following the inquiry into their criminal anti Hebrew activities in. Martin and pace had been accused of the following crimes

1. Illegal entry into our home land :

2. Membership of the British criminal terrorist organize Asian known as the British army of occupation in Palestine, which is responsible:

for depriving our people of the right to live;
for cruel, oppressive acts;
for tortures;
for the murder of men, women and children;
for the murder of prisoners of war;
and deportation of Hebrew citizens from their country Homeland.

3. Illegal possession of arms intended for the enforcement of oppression and despotism :

4. Anti Jewish spying, disguised in civilian clothes :

5. Conspiracy against the Hebrew underground, it soldiers, bases and arms, the arms of freedom :

The court has found two to be guilty of all charges and sentenced them to die by hanging by their necks until their souls would leave them.

The request of the condemned man for clemency has been rejected.

The sentence has been carried out.

The hanging of the two British spies is not a retaliatory act for the murder of Hebrew prisoners-of-war, but it is an ordinary legal action of the court of the Underground which has sentenced will sentence the criminals who belong to the criminal Nazi British army of occupation.

We shall revenge the blood of the prisoners war who have been murdered by actions of war against the enemy.

The Court of Irgun Zvai Leumi
In Eretz Israel."

[eyl]

39. You might want to read up

on what the British army did after the two were hung.

Besides, to complete the analogy, you would have to add a rocket bombardment of British towns at the same time - and have that the Etzel was a significant part of the Jewish "government" at the time.

[aquart]

8. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Maybe all the blame isn't going to Israel. Maybe Hezbullah's hypocrisy and (whose?) money is beginning to grate on people who have lost everything so Hezbullah could score points in Gaza.

Who'da thunk it?

[azurnoir]

10. No matter who "won" fighting on the military front

of this conflict on the PR front Nasrallah/Hezbollah is winning. His words to those of us not in Lebanon may ring false, in Lebanon it is a different story. The Lebanese people once again are left with a choice between bad and worse do they side with those who have just bombed their country or those who are giving them the and help in rebuilding? Yes, we could and have go back and forth about what happened 10 or 50 or 2000 years ago, and analyze to death the present circumstances, we have that the Lebanese or Israeli's for that matter don't.

[Fredda Weinberg]

16. This wasn't a PR war

And it's simplistic to reduce it to those terms. Israel had to discourage such "stunts" in the future and from Nasrallah's "apology", I'd say she succeeded. Hezbollah's military has and is being disrupted and that was the stated goal of the operation.

There could be no definitive military victory - and Israel, unlike the US, recognized that fact and accepted the cease-fire on her own terms, which is holding. Under the circumstances, I'd say Israelis are doing an excellent job of reading the situation on the ground and responding inteligently.

[azurnoir]

28. No, this was not a PR war

1300-1900 dead and billions of dollars in damage prove that. However to not recognize that side of it is quite blind, Nasrallahs statement today was not subvert admission that Israel won, any "disruption" to Hezbollah's military arm is temporary, like everything else it will pass, yes I do know about the weapons bunker that Israel exploded this morning. Nasrallah's statement was an apology to the Lebanese,whether genuine or not, to forestall or dissipate any chance that the Lebanese will blame Hezbollah. That along with the aid in rebuilding will go a long way right now. Hezbollah stands to gain much politically from this episode and his statement was part of the program to consolidate that power.

[Turbineguy]

18. Adolf Hilter:

"Gee, if we had known we'd start World War II, we would not have attacked Poland."

[mike_c]

19. do you always make stuff up as a substitute for actual argument...?

I like this one-- Ariel Sharon: "Ehud, please kill all the arabs in the occupied territories before I die." I hope you get a chance to see it before the mods wisely delete this sub-thread. I mean, COME ON....

[Turbineguy]

27. Tut, tut..

I read your thoughtful posts and I'm on your side.

Nasrallah's statement is idiotic. He had to know that Israel would seize an opportunity to wipe out Hezbollah (or at least attempt to). He himself is carefully hidden from danger while his Lebanese supporters (and non-supporters) take the brunt of the violence.

Hezbollah does "good works" because they have lots of extra cash (from 70 per barrel Iranian oil, thank you Mr. Bush) and it has PR value. It certainly has worked in Lebanon and even right here on DU.

I feel Nasrallah's statement was deserving of my comment.

[mike_c]

31. LOL-- passions run high sometimes....

Perhaps we should all take a breath....