Israeli jets pound South Lebanon

[Monkie]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FE768AF5-E95A-4EFE-AAC1-37871A0CDC4F.htm
"Israeli jets pound South Lebanon

Thursday 30 June 2005, 19:44 Makka Time, 16:44 GMT

Israeli aircraft have struck Hizb Allah positions in South Lebanon, Israel's Channel Two television and Lebanese witnesses say.

The Israeli army, however, denied on Thursday that the aircraft had struck inside Lebanon, saying attack helicopters opened fire inside Israel's northern border area while searching for what it called two suspected Hizb Allah infiltrators.
Witnesses in Lebanon said Israeli helicopters fired two missiles that struck southern Lebanon, while Israeli television said air force jets bombed positions belonging to the Hizb Allah group which was active in the area.

There was no immediate word on casualties.

Israeli media said the air strike came after renewed gun battles on Thursday between Israeli soldiers and Hizb Allah fighters near the border.
~snip~
Hizb Allah was instrumental in ending Israel's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000.The two foes have clashed sporadically in the Shebaa farms, a border zone, since then.
The UN says Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon is complete and Shebaa farms is Israeli-occupied Syrian land."

edited for link..

[Daphne08]

1. Link?

[mom cat]

2. This is why it was so important for Syria to leave.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. What do mean?

The agressor here is Lebanon.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Provocation

It is Hizb'allah starting trouble. They know that the Shebaa farms are Israeli land. Even if it did belong to Syria, which it does not, why should they intervene?

[LivingInTheBubble]

4. Maybe they think taking land by force is acceptable, like the israelis...

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Maybe they are trying to start another war,

blame the Israelis, and off-set the disengagement process.

[Lilith Velkor]

36. How is that to their advantage?

[Zodiak]

6. The land is Syria's according to the article

The UN says that the land is Syria's......I will go wth the UN's interpretation. Israel seems to think it owns this disputed territory and is willing to settle these lands unlawfully to prove it.

As if that has never happened before.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Then Hizzb'allah has NO claim!

They are doing nothing but provoking a response, which they got. Israel is in compliance with the UN as for the withdrawal from Lebanon. The Shebaa area was under Syrian control and lost it when they lost the Golan Heights.

On edit: The disputed territory was not apparently mentioned by the Lebanese government after the 1967 Six Day War or the 1973 October War as an occupation issue and appears to have arisen only as a result of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. The claim on this area provides the rationale for Hezbollah's continuing hostilities towards Israel. Shebaa Farms

[Zodiak]

9. sigh

And this is why I shouldn't comment on any Israel thread. Too many people get too emotional about this and are willing to ignore international law in favor of this "favored nation". Without international law, there is nothing but anarchy and the strong over the weak. That applies to Israel the same as it applies to anyone else.

The UN says the land belongs to Syria....go talk to the UN and convince them otherwise. They certainly ive a shit about this more than I. I am staying out of this because I know what rhetorical device will be used next and I don't have the stomach for the posturing.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. sigh, indeed.

Too many people make comments about situations they no little about. And considering Israel is in compliance with international law as it applies to Lebanon, then the aggressors here are, indeed, Lebanon. If it were Syria, then there would be a whole new set of issues. However, Lebanon has no claim to the land in question and, therefore, should not be crossing into it. Unless of course, you believe they are acting under Syrian orders.

The land belongs to Syria and is occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. So, why are agents of the Lebanese government involved? It is not anti-Semitic to question Israeli policy, but it is disingenuous to disengage because you think that is what will be leveled against you. I find it interesting that we are told we play the "anti-Semitism" card too much and too fast, but no one seems to notice that some here play the "I'll be called an anti-Semite" card just as quickly.

[Zodiak]

15. It is unfortunately how this issue is handled too often.

I am sorry you feel that way, but there is a reason there is a rule on DU about raising hackles regarding Israel/Palestine. The same goes for many, many other political boards because it is poison due to entrenchment with disinterested parties having to deal with the fallout.

I have seen flame wars, bitter mass defections, bullying, gang-ups, etc. concerning the issue of Israel, and so yeah, I have been burned...over and over and over again. And no, you didn't do it, it was on another website, but I am trying to learn to keep my big mouth shut for the sake of civility.

So I'm not being disingenuous to disengage....I am being worn down, throwing my arms up, and tired of exclamation points.

I know that I do not know a lot about these particular farms, but the article says what the article says about who is supposed to own the land and what authority has said so. No one should be fighting there.....Syria should get it back and that is that. If Hezbollah gets involved in the matter, then that complicates things and is wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that it is, once again, occupied. End the occupation and give it back to Syria...if Hezbollah wants it for themsevles, they can ignore international law and try to take it from Syria (and piss everyone off and not have the cover of righteous indigantion), but I suspect the flashpoint here is simply an Israeli occupation.

But I don't CARE about all of this posturing.....just have ALL parties stop fighting, stop killing, stop ALL occupations, stop the frigging madness, fer christsakes! That is all I want, period. If the article was about Syrian planes blasting an area Israel owned, then I would make a comment on the other side.

I do not have a dog in this race, and thank the Goddess for that! It is bad enough that I am passionate about a whole lot of other issues.

[The Stranger]

10. The Golan Heights are Syrian territory that is occupied by Israel.

Are you disputing that?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. No, I am not.

The Shebaa farms were also taken at that time, and, therefore, are of no concern to the Lebanese government.

[The Stranger]

13. Maybe you should let the Lebanese government decide what is and is

not its concern (if the Lebanese government is even involved in this).

[Behind the Aegis]

14. And maybe you should let the Israeli government do the same.

It is obviously their concern. If Hizb'allah is not acting under orders from the Lebanese government, then perhaps they should reign them in before the provoke another senseless war.

[K-W]

23. Why doesnt the occupying force with an air force move out before

we figure out how to get some lebonese fighters out.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Sure

But why don't we demand that the Lebanese get out since it doesn't involve them. If they butt out, maybe there can be talks.

[K-W]

28. We dont demand anything because we are a politics forum.

I think both parties should get out but one has NOTHING to do with the other. Nobody will talk if the other butts out first. Both should leave. If the UN says it is Syria's land, it goes to Syria, case closed.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. The UN

UN does say it is Syrian land. However, until certain conditions are met, Israel is not obligated to "just turn it back over." Among those "things" is official recognition of Israel and a DMZ, both of which Syria refuses to do....However, this article is not about Syria or the Israeli Occupation of Syrian land.

[K-W]

32. Occupying a land doesnt entitle you to make demands.

under international law. And this article is very much about the occupation of Syrian land, because that explains Israel's being there in the first place.

You may think Israel has to break international law to survive, if you do, I respect that, but that doesnt make it any more legal, and if Israel wants to use rule of force to occupy land it is going to draw some ire when it defends the land it is occupying and claims riteousness.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. And attacking a land doesn't mean the current owners....

...have to sit by and be attacked. The only group that has ZERO rights here is Hizb'allah. The dispute is between Israel and Syria. However, now the rogue, terrorist group Hizb'allah has made claims to the land...and no matter if Israel has a right to be there or not, they sure do have the right to defens their borders from an invading terrorist group.

[NeoConsSuck]

16. More of * MY * tax dollars at work...

when, oh when are the sheeple going to wake up??

[bribri16]

17. OK, Syria leaves, Israel resumes attacks. Hope all are satisfied.

This shit will never end until the end of the Likud party and the terrorists running the government like Sharon.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Did you read the article?

Hizb'allah is the aggressor. Israel did not resume attacks. But, don't let your hatred of the Israeli government get in the way of the facts of the article.

[K-W]

25. Israel is also an aggressor, being the occupying force.

And even if someone did hate Israel, it wouldnt make them any less of a rogue state, so Im not so sure why you think that is a good counter argument.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Because Hizb'allah has no business there.

Also, they are claiming it is is Lebanese land, and it isn't. They are claiming that Israel is bombing Lebanese land (the land we are talking about( and it is isn't. Israel is bombing land it occupies. Why are defending the actions of one "rogue" government over another? Hizb'allah has no business there, unless they are under Syrian control.

[K-W]

29. Niether does Isreal

Lebenon can claim whatever they want, it doesnt justify Israeli occupation.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. True, but not what the article is about.

While Israel may have no business there, it doesn't justify Lebanese attacks or incursions. And, if under your assertion, that "Lebanon can claim whatever they want," doesn't it stand to reason that Israel can do the same?

[K-W]

24. And to do that, the terrorists in Washington have to go. EOM

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Andromeda]

20. Why isn't this post in the I/P forum?

Good unbiased source you have there. :sarcasm:

[drdon326]

22. I hope you saw post #19

before it was deleted.

[Andromeda]

34. I missed it!

Dang! (Lying on the floor kicking and screaming.)

[Andromeda]

35. Self deleted

[Monkie]

37. i di did, what a nut!so my topic on a international incident is now in I/P

I'm suprised a person with views like his would read or post at DU,the only comfort i can find in that i dont suppose i will be suprised or shocked at any reaction on DU for quite a while..

[Monkie]

38. As biased as any source, or do you only object to bias you disagree with

If that is your only reaction,without anything resembling a fact to back you up,it shows more about your own bias than anything else.What do you fear?
Al-jazeerah.NET is the website of arguably the most unbiased and certainly the most wellknown and respected Arab news channel in existance.As an example i would like to point out that almost ALL of American media has been shown to have a huge bias and this accepted as fact on DU and much discussed yet nobody complains when people post articles from American media,all the Israeli media is excepted as a source for news,but heaven forbid if one posts news from a Arab source.

If anyone had dared suggest that Israeli media wasnt a valid source for news and opinion i wouldnt be able to hear myself think over the howls of anti-semitism.